Talk:Tatars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Russia / Demographics & ethnography (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force.
 
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Typological "classifications"[edit]

I have raised the matter here, here, here, and here in the hopes of generating more knowledgeable discussion on the matter. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I would encourage very strongly not to use the racial typological classification such as "caucasoid" "lappoid" etc. as they are now only in use within Forensic anthropology (and other branches of American law enforcement) - but not in physical nor cultural anthropology - and because they index a pre-scientific understanding of human biological variation. If you need to refer specifically to physical traits characteristic of European (or other) populations I'd use that wording (physical traits = populations). Or if it is a question of origin you may be able to find population genetic studies that mention the prevalent haplogroups. These would be the contemporary ways of describing genetic ancestry - the -oid suffixes went out around 1950.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Digging through the article history, I found that this use of archaic terminology has been around for quite a while. It was first added to the lead section on 8 July 2005 by User:Kennethtennyson, who has not edited since 2007. On 6 July 2006, User:Der Ritter added the information regarding so-called "facial types", albeit with different terminology; he announced that he was leaving the project in June 2009 due to apparent ideological differences. The information was changed to the most recent wording on 20 April 2008 by IP 193.77.231.230, who geolocates to Slovenia, just like the user currently pushing to retain the wording; they are almost certainly the same individual. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The suffixWiktionary:-oid simply means "form or likeness". It is not the suffix itself that is objectionable, rather it is the pseudo-science used to "class" peoples on the basis of superficial likeness or form. If no other compromise can be reached, perhaps attach a note regarding the usage of such terms with a link to Scientific racism. Meclee (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, the suffix itself may be so simple by definition, but the terms using the suffix carry a lot more baggage. You will certainly get raised eyebrows if you start throwing the term "Mongoloid" around, and looks of confusion when you start bringing in the really obscure terms like "Lapponoid" (note the redlink). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Apologies if my comment offended you. Merely trying to suggest possible resolution to edit conflict. Meclee (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
No worries; I took no offence. But to be quite honest, I'm beginning to doubt that the other party in the dispute will ever show up to argue his case here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


Lots of problems in the first paragraph. Yes, the classification as Turks is a technically difficult one, especially now with all the DNA studies. Tatars are *not* the earliest people in the Crimea (H. sapiens bearing mtDNA that isn't commonly found in Tatars were the first - their descendants are now scattered throughout Europe, but highly concentrated in particular places - not Crimea - that are outside the scope of this article and themselves deserve analysis). This is distinct from the situation, say, in the United States where many Native Americans share both the mtDNA and y-chromosome patterns of the earliest known and studied inhabitants - making them clearly "native" or "indigeneous." Tatars came in WAY later than not just the first wave of inhabitants in Crimea (one of the earliest inhabited places in Europe, btw - at 40-45,000BP), but after the second and third waves of Crimean migrants. Any proof that the Tatars are direct descendants of those people at 40,000BP. No, and to the contrary, genetic and linguistic evidence would show that the Tatars (like the ethnic Japanese) only came to what is considered by many to be their "native" land within the last 2,000 years - displacing people who were there before.76.172.3.233 (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Tatars should not be labelled as Turkic in the front row[edit]

Tatars have been influenced by various groups, including (arguably) Turkic. As of language, an overwhelming majority of Tatars speak Russian as their first and native language. Tatar language is spoken as well. By any means, it is factually incorrect to put this label in the front row. In other words, "Turkic" does not define the contemporary Tatars correctly.JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your logic. Kurds in Turkey speak Turkish as their first and native language, but they are considered to be an ETHNIC Iranian people. Tatars are an ETHNIC Turkic people. What kind of pseudo-science are you talking about? --Kurdale (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with JackofDiamonds, and am highly skeptical that Tatars today harbor some pan-Turkic ethnic identity. I am confused by Kurdale's assertion that there is some inherent "ETHNIC" identity, which is solely described by ancestral language family, but which nonetheless persists through language loss. Are you referring to the "kind of pseudo-science" in Turkish textbooks which pretends that the people in modern-day Anatolia are descended from ancient Central Asian nomads just because they speak a descendant of their language? Also, quack quack. Shrigley (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Tatars are an ethnic Turkic people, their language is part of Kipchak group of Turkic language family. Fullstop. Every book, every Encyclopaedia is listing them as an ethnic Turkic people. We don't need Russian propaganda sympathizer, we are living in the 21st century. End with this anti-Turkic behavior. I can't believe that we are caused to talk about such a superfluously topic. --Greczia (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Turkic influence is indeed present but it is not the only one. The question is - should this be in in the front row, as something defining the modern-day tatars? Clearly not - that would be a misrepresentation, "selective reporting". I have heard these contradictory arguments: 1) They are Turkic by language, not by ethnicity. 2) They are Turkic by ethnicity not by language. In fact, none of these is entirely true and therefore should not be used as a definition. We need to hear more voices and raise this question further. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

One might argue Russians have been influenced by tons of different groups throughout the history, yet they are defined as an East Slavic ethnic group in the opening sentence of the Wikipedia article on them.
Similarly, Tatars are uniformly described as a Turkic people by encyclopedias:

Tatar, also spelled Tartar, any member of several Turkic-speaking peoples (Encyclopedia Brittanica)

Tatars (tä´tərz) or Tartars (tär´tərz), Turkic-speaking peoples living primarily in Russia, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. (The Columbia Encyclopedia)

Wikipedia is no place for original POVs. --Mttll (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Both sources describe Tatars as Turkic-speaking, not Turkic, to start with. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Same thing.

Turkic peoples, any of various peoples whose members speak languages belonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages. (Encyclopedia Brittanica)

Mttll (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, Tatars are so recognizable Turkic that the term, Turko-Tatar, was used in reference to Turkic peoples.

Definition of TURKO-TATAR: turkic (Merriam-Webster)

Definition of TATAR: 1. a member of any of a group of Turkic peoples found mainly in the Tatar Republic of Russia and parts of Siberia and central Asia 2. any of the Turkic languages spoken by the Tatar peoples (Merriam-Webster)

There is really no contest here.--Mttll (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there was a similar discussion on Talk:Swedes#The Swedish people are a germanic ethnic group, where the consensus was not to describe Swedes in linguistic terms. Here's a choice quote: "Speaking a Germanic language does not mean that an ethno-national group can be defined unproblematically as "a germanic ethnic group["]. Ethnicity just doesn't work like that. That would make [for example] African-Americans classifiable as Germanic. To classify a group as Germanic it must be shown that the group identifies with that Germanic linguistic heritage to a considerable extent."The reason that "Russians" are classified on Wikipedia as a "Slavic" group is because the Russians are and were the biggest proponents of pan-Slavism, while the peoples who had historically resisted pan-Slavism, such as Poles, deemphasize the Slavic connection on their Wikipedia article. You can see examples of the inverse, such as when anti-Chinese users attempt to deny the fact that Bhutanese speak a language genetically related to Chinese.[1]
Anyway, this looks like part of a pan-Wikipedia pissing match between pan-Turkists and pan-Iranists to turn pure linguistic concepts into ethnic concepts. Aside from the obvious empire-building motivations, there is also the sinister effect of masking e.g. Persian discrimination against Kurds, because they're both, according to Wikipedia, "Iranic peoples". The reason that Tatars are associated with Turks is because of historical error; because "Tatar" was used as a term for all Turkic-speaking peoples until recently (another proof that the "Turkic people" concept is ahistorical). I guess we'll have to wait until all the Tatar-speakers die out for nationalists to stop insisting that they are "Turkic"; with only 20 speakers of Manchu (out of 10 million ethnics), Wikipedians still try to apply absurd, outdated classifications. Shrigley (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't see much to discuss here, since the academic community seem to be in uniform agreement on the matter of this discussion. And a point you might find interesting is that if there is any dispute about Tatars, it's whether they should be called Tatars at all, not whether they are Turkic. Because the term, Tatar, is originally a Mongolic tribal ethnonym that was applied to Kypcak Turks who became modern Tatars. But then, it's not for Wikipedia to "correct" the established things. --Mttll (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree Tatar's speak a Turkic language but Y-haplogroups of various Tatar group's seem to dispel Turkic ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.85.229 (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Photos in the infobox[edit]

There ought to be a fine balance between historically important and modern-day Tatars in the infobox. As of now, the balance is skewed to the former. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, User:Гропспонт has been warring to include a load of dead people in the image. I'm just going to change it back to the one he keeps removing. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Lenin be removed? As far as I am aware he was not really a Tatar. Only his father may have been of Tatar descentTaran0 (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Famous Tatars[edit]

How many of the "famous tatars" are really famous? I think we should include the names based on the amount of people who are aware of a particular person. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Could anyone please find the free pictures of Marat Basharov and Roustam Tariko? Thanks. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Elsewhere in the land of pedantic spelling, someone might want to fix "footbaler". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cxed (talkcontribs) 16:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

To JackofDiamonds1[edit]

I have written this in his talk page, but received no response. So dropping it here as well.

Sources describe Tatars like this:

Definition of TATAR: 1. a member of any of a group of Turkic peoples found mainly in the Tatar Republic of Russia and parts of Siberia and central Asia 2. any of the Turkic languages spoken by the Tatar peoples (Merriam-Webster)

Definition of Tatar 1. a member of a Turkic people living in Tatarstan and various other parts of Russia and Ukraine. They are the descendants of the Tartars who ruled central Asia in the 14th century. 2. the Turkic language of the Tatars, with about 6 million speakers. (Oxford Dictionaries)

I suggest you stop your attempt at WP:OR against the uniform position of perfectly reliable sources on this matter.

If I don't receive a response here in a few days (let's say a week at most), I'm going to restore the earlier version of the opening sentence. --Mttll (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Classification[edit]

I suggest that we establish and develop 3 large groups, namely Volga Tatars, Crimean Tatars and Lipka Tatars, who have developed separately from each other. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Copied Request[edit]

Dear Sir,

Please add to the list of world famous Tatar people following individuals as their ethnic nationalities is Tatar: 1) Rudolf_Nureyev (ballet dancer) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Nureyev 2) Alina Maratovna Kabaeva (gymnastic) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alina_Kabaeva 3) Gata Kamsky (Chess champion) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gata_Kamsky 4) Alsu Safina/Abramova ( singer)

It is very simple 

The Tartars are Turkic language tribes ,living nearby historic Mongols . They killed Chengis'father and later have been forced to vassalisation by Mongols . Tatarstan in Russia has nothing to do with them . The place was Finnic-Ugric and called Volga-Bulgaria . So General population was Finnic , In the early times of Mongol invasion they together with some Turkic tribes defeated Mongols at river Belaya(river Belaya has Indo- Iranic-Aryan name Kama means the god of sensitivity in Indo-Aryan sanskrit from where Kama-sutra.) in 1240 . The Mongols genosided 4/5 population in Volga-Bulgaria and granted the territory to some of their allied Turkic tribes. The remaining Finno-Ugric took Islam and accepted Turkic tongue ,though there are lot of blonde Finnic people in that region . Edelfred (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

no significant population in Turkey?[edit]

How come there is no significant pop. in Turkey? Crimean tatars are a subgroup of Tatars, how come they list 150 000 - 6 000 000 tatars in Turkey? and none is listed here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars

Ethnic group[edit]

Hello,
In fact we can not consider all Tatars as a single ethnic group, as they are a group of ethnic groups which are related to each other somehow. For example, Volga Tatars and Astrakhan Tatars are forming one ethnic group; Lipka Tatars are their descendants and are undergone some cultural assimilation in Europe; Siberian Tatars and Baraba Tatars are different group which are related to above mentioned Tatars, but more close to Kazakhs or Altai people; Crimean Tatars are completely different from all above mentioned with different history and language, which is not mutual intelligible with other Tatar languages, than can be seen in the articles dedicated to the topic (and the most important they don't consider themselves to be a part of the whole Tatar nation). And finally, Dobruja Tatars are the descendants of Crimean Tatars with some admixtures. Russian were calling almost all Turkic people with the word "Tatar": Azerbaijani people - Transcaucasian Tatars, Karachay and Balkars - Mountain Tatars, Altai people - Altai tatars, Kumyk people - Daghestan Tatars, etc. That's the source of the common name for a bit different groups. Any offers for changes in the heading?
Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I think it is silly for the name "Tatar" to refer to a single subgroup (Kazan/Volga Tatars). I think it is more appropriate that this Wikipedia page named "Tatars" should synthesize information from all ethnic groups still (erroneously) called "Tatars" and that should include the Muslims of Crimea & Ukraine, Lithuania & Poland, and the lower & upper Volga and Siberia in Russia. In fact, I believe that the article "Tatar language" should be renamed Volga Tatar language. It would get confusing if Belorussian was called "White Russian" or if Portuguese was called "Portuguese Spanish/Iberian" or even if all Romance languages were named with "Latin" in the end, like "Portuguese/Lusitanian Latin", "French/Gaulic Latin", "Castillian/Spanish Latin", "Italian Latin", "Romanian/Dacian Latin", etc.
Regards, --Fernirm (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

what does "erroneously" mean in this context? "Tatars" or "Tartars" is a term for all Turkic speaking groups in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. Since the 19th century, these groups have fragmented into various minor groups, except for the Volga Tatars, which make up the bulk (six sevenths) of the descendants of the early modern "Tartars". For this reason the Volga Tatars are often just called "Tatars". Now this article is in danger of becoming just a duplicate of the Volga Tatars one, unless' its scope is made perfectly clear. The "Tatar language" is the modern language of the Volga Tatars. The languages of the historical Tatars are mostly equivalent to the Kipchak branch of Turkic. The historical Tartary is covered under Tartary. It isn't clear what this article is about other than accumulating loosely related but misplaced material that would be more at home in either a specialized article, or an article that is explicitly historical in scope.

There is no contemporary ethnic group called "Tatars" other than the group which we have already covered under Volga Tatars. --dab (𒁳) 11:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree mostly. But we need a page where something about Tatars in general is written; OK, not this much and detailed. Just the name of the Tatar group can be given (as a list) and explained in 1-2 sentences and then the link to the specified article. Or in the Languages sector which languages exist can be shown and, if there is one, the link of the appropriate article can be added. No need to add all the info that exists here under each section. I am for keeping (after slightly simplifying) History section; only to keep the history of the name but not the ethnic groups. Traditional culture section is completely about Volga Tatars; no need to show it here, as the other Tatar groups don't share all of these. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thank you Ali-al-Bakuvi. I am sure we can find a satisfactory solution. I see that while we are having this conversation, my edits to the page were undone by logged-out users. I am reverting this. If this devolves into anonymous edit-warring we may need to semi-protect the page.
I agree that this page could be about the general "history of Tatars" 1300 to 1900 or so. Of course this will overlap with Tartary, but as with Scythians vs. Scythia it is possible to do one page about the territory and the other about the population if you are careful with maintaining clean article scopes. --dab (𒁳) 05:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Corrections[edit]

Qasim Khanate has slightly different history. It existed since 1452. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I added one information based on sources; it is one of the main theories where "Tatar" words comes from. In Orkhon inscriptions the name of "Thirty Tatar" confederation is stated a lot of times. We have to take this fact into consideration. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
And one more point: During Russian Empire the Central Asian Turkic people were not called "Tatars". There is no source for it. Kazakhs, Karakalpaks (who considered to be a part of Kazakhs then) and Kyrgyz people were called "Kirgiz-Kaysak", and the others as they are called now. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Based on this, it is fair to say that the name is recorded as an endonym in Old Turkic. You are also right in your objection to equating "Tatar" with "Kipchak Turkic". "Tatar" as a Russian exonym refers to those Turkic peoples that the East Slavs were in conflict with, and de facto it was not applied to remote Central Asian peoples. So I admit that my presentation of "all Kipchak speaking peoples" was probably misplaced on this page.

The problem here is the overlap of Tatar as endonym and as exonym. As exonym, we need to focus on the Russian perspective (whom did they call Tatar), and as an endonym, we need to rely on scant historical Turkic records. And at the same time we need to take care not to mix up the two perspectives, and the page always needs to remain aware at any given point whether it is discussing a modern self-designation, a historical self-designation, a modern exonym or a historical exonym. --dab (𒁳) 15:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, it may not make sense to keep trying to stuff the disparate meanings of the term into a single article that will keep confusing the issue no matter what.

  • Tatar as an exonym is the Turco-Mongol topic, i.e. the term referred to the invading Turkic and Mongol peoples. It did not distinguish between Turkic and Mongol, of course, it's not a linguistic term.
  • the Tatar confederation
  • early modern Tartary as historical nemesis of the East Slavs
  • the modern Volga Tatars
  • Crimean Tatars, etc. (which do not form a single group with the Volga Tatars. Crimean Tatars are not "Tatars" with a modifying adjective saying they live in the Crimea, they are "Crimean Tatars" as opposed to "Tatars proper").
  • there may be some modern concept of a greater Tatar nation. This is ethnic/political ideology, and not an objective category, so it cannot objectively be described as a "group" with a total population etc. Within the same group, some may be "Tatarist"(?) others "Bulgarist", yet others Pan-Turkic, or what have you. If there is such a "greater Tatar" nationalist movement, it should be covered, but obviously it must be covered as yet another "-ism", and not camouflaged as an "ethnic group" article.

--dab (𒁳) 16:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We have a category Category:Tatar nationalism, but apparently this is just about secession of Tatarstan and as such concerns Volga Tatars, and does not refer to a "greater Tatarstan" ideology. (Wäisi movement, Ittifaq party). Even the All-Tatar Public Center in spite of its name (All-Tatar, Всетатарский) apparently just focusses on Tatarstan. It appears that in Tatarstan, "Tatar" equates "Volga Tatar". So perhaps the confusion on Wikipedia is purely terminological. --dab (𒁳) 16:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree; the reason that I mentioned the Tatar confederation in the article to show it was endonym before Mongol invasion and before the West and East Slavs started to name all Turkic peoples with whom they contacted as Tatars. Actually, I am also for transferring most of the detailed info about current groups to the specified articles and leave here only short introductions. Most of the groups are already so. But Volga, Crimea, etc. Tatars still have large info here, whereas special articles exist. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

Actually I don't find correct comparing Tatars with Americans. Because various Tatar groups - Crimean Tatars, Volga Tatars and Siberian Tatars are different people, with different traditions, different language, different history and different self-consciousness as ethnic groups (no one refuses that they are related).
OK, in official Volga Tatar historiography Siberian Tatars are considered as a sub-group of them, although their language is not mutually intelligible and they have different ethnogenesis history. Crimean Tatars are related to both groups very distantly. They are not even related with common geography or a country (if we do not take into consideration the latest crisis). It is like to collect Turkmen people, Iraqi Turkmens, Syrian Turkmens, Terekeme and Yörüks under one article and try to introduce an infobox for them. These peoples are more related to each other than different Tatar groups.
We intend to transfer all detailed info to appropriate specific articles and leave here only common information, which can give general idea about the origins and current usage of the term "Tatar".
So I would want to come for a consensus in order to prevent an edit war. Your offers, ideas, opinion? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)