|WikiProject Russia / Demographics & ethnography||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Ethnic groups|
|This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in 18 November 2006. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.|
Hi! I just remade the headings to look more logical, further remade sentence setup of Mişär text to make sense. If I got some facts wrong in the process, please correct me! :-)--Paracel63 (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Recent additions by 188.8.131.52, consist of questionable sources(non-neutral, unpublished, nationalistic sites) that make no direct mention of the Volga Tatars. This is original research. Until such time as these "sources" are addressed the section in question will be tagged as original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- First of all they do not need to mention the Tatars, since Tatars are largely descended from Bulgars, so mentioning the Bulgars is just fine. Second, those sources are not from nationalistic sites. There is nothing wrong with the sources, so they dont need to be adressed. Clearly you have some sort of an agenda it seems, in my view, (and also judging from your involment in previous similar matters), against any information that suggests another origin other than Turkic for a particular people - that bias, it seems, is influencing your editting in an unproductive manner. All in all, this has nothing to do with original research as it is well sourced, saying so shows your dislike to anyone who proposes any other origin than Turkic for groups of people (this is clearly evident from you involvement in previous such matters). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- First of all they(the "sources" in question) do have to mention Volga Tatars or it is original research. Removal of references and referenced information is disruptive editing. Your continued removal of information that you find unpalatable is also disruptive editing. This is your only warning.
- This statement by you, "..shows your dislike to anyone who proposes any other origin than Turkic..", is a battleground mentality and is not conducive to the creation of an encyclopedia. Whereas your deletion of references stating Turkic origin would make you appear to be the one with the phobia. I will notify an Admin since you can not comprehend these issues. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
By deleting my post on your wall clearly shows (and I am sure everyone will agree) that you only strongly abide to your viewpoint and nothing else and that you are not willing to discuss the issue and to reach understanding and common ground, that to me, if anything, shows the actual battle ground mentality. And like I say again, there is even nothing hard to understand - the Bulgars ethnicity is heavily disputed and the Mari (another of the Tatars ancestors) were not Turkic, so how can you with certainty call them Turkic. I simply cannot fathom what is so very hard to understand?? I have provided clear explanations for my argument that anyone should undertstand. It is fair and NPOV to just simply right, at least for the case of the Volga Tatars, that they were Turkicspeaking, not Turkic by genes etc (as the Bulgars were probably not Turkic or not fully Turkic etc and the MAri were not Turkic. I can only undertsand why you are so strongly oppsed in this if say, you are against tem being non Turkic, but then I cant imagine why you will be against them being non Turkic - what is wrong with them being non Turkic, why do you so strongly oppose this even after I explained to you that there is complications with calling them Turkic with certainty. By the way, on the Tatars' talk page, other people also agree that they should be called Turkic speaking. And remember - I have nothing against Turkic people at all, I am arguing here purely for wikipedia article accuracy, for accuracy of information in general, I have no bias to cloud my views or anything like that.
So all in all the fair route is to just say they were Turkic speaking, that way it accommodates other views as well and is NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
There is also another crucial point I want to make - this is what I wrote in another place, in reply to someone: And why do you want to follow the sources, in this particular case, so much - they repeat ideas, old ideas, from previous researcher, who repeat it from previous researchers and so on until you get to some person in the late 1800's and early 1900's who first said the Tatars were Turkic - but the thing is - that was said long before the other theories of the ethnicity of the Bulgars appeared - so what - are we all supposed to now trust and assert a source with these "facts" with absolute certainty - "facts" that was carried over and over from previous researchers and so on - where deductions were made without taking the other theories of the origins of the Bulgars (as these theories only appeared much later) into account and also probably not taking the ethnicity of the Mari into account either (who are not Turkic) - clearly as you can see - the "sources" in this particular case are not very helpful. And anyway how can it be asserted as fact what the genetics of the Tatars are, when there havent been proper, if any, genetic studies on them? Until such a time where there is genetic studies done, all other theories should be equally mentioned, without resistance (and labeling them as original research - which shows prejudice to that those other theories).
- Since your "message" started off, "Never ever give me warning again, who do you think you are?? A warning for what, huh?". I saw no reason to respond to any childish demands made by you. Your continued removal of referenced information, regardless of your opinion, is disruptive editing. This along with your battleground mentality, is not conducive to creating an encyclopedia.
- Nothing you have used for "sources"(which are clearly unpublished opinion) states anything about the Volga Tatars. In comparison, one source that states they are Turkic is from Harvard University. It would appear you are more interested in promoting your own opinion, whereas I am only intersted in information from peer-reviewed published sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your original research has been removed and replaced with 2 references stating the Volga Bulgars are Turkic. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
You are just a really weird, confused man - after I explain everything clearly you still have confusion about the whole matter - I will involve others in this, I will not leave this as it is, as that would be bad for wikipedia. How on Earth can they be Turkic if the MAri people are non Turks and if there exists clear strong dispute on the Bulgars ethnicity This source that you show me from Harvard is done before the Tangra expedition to Iranic land from the Bulgaria academy of scinces, in other words before it was shown that genetically, Bulgarians (modern) and Iranic people are very close, which means that the Bulgars and Iranic people were very close - this research and expedition was done in 2010 - before the Harvard source, in other words that source and any other source that does not take this new research into account is irrelevant to this article as it is wrongly to add an old source that has not based its research around the latest findings. You can read the sources and thus read about the expedition in the "complaints of racism" section in the Bulgars' talk page(their most recent talk page). You adding these old sources does not help the article at all. And by the way - this HArvars source does not take the other, non Turkic ancestors of the Tatars into account either - the Mari people - so what just because you (mindlessly, without thinking and doing research of your own) added a source from Harvard (that is irrelevant as I explained) you now think you have done this page a good service? And why do you still continue to bring down my source - I have already explained to you that since the Tatars are descended from Bulgars - then you can use information and history about the Bulgars, that does not need to mention the Tatars as Bulgars are Tatars' ancesotrs (its logical, I really cant see what you dont understand) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Original research includes "basic observation and examination of history" by any editor. Wikipedia just summarizes what's in reliable sources. It does not take part of one source, and part of another, to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in either. It does not exclude a reliable source because of newer research, but documents the differences between the two sources. Newer research would be incorporated like this: "Mainstream scholarship says this is true, but newer research indicates that that is true instead."
- You are completely wrong for accusing Kansas Bear of original research when he just cited what Harvard has put out. You do not know how things work around here, and I recommend you stop editing until you have a better understanding of the guidelines. In particular, your edits on this site you need to read WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:GEVAL, WP:DUE, and ESPECIALLY WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I do know how these things work, I have read on wiki policy etc. I did not accuse of Bear using original research (because he didnt) I just said his source does not include newer information.
- Apparently you do not know how these thing work. Your addition to the referenced sentence(in an attempt to subvert what it says) also blatantly ignores this quote from one of the references, "The Volga Tatars are the westernmost of all Turkic ethnic groups...". Not Turkic "speaking", Turkic ethnic groups. Weird, odd, how you continue to ignore published information. Thus the reason for the original research tag you continue to remove(ie. disruptive editing). --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
>>> Well, it seems that you just don't want to understand (I'm sure you can understand but you just dont want to). There is a rule called "ignore all rules" which is used when rules get in the way of improving articles. You must understand - and it is logical - a group cannot be considered Turkic ethnically if they also incorporate other ethnic elements - such as Mari etc. Now, if you are not aware of the whole Bulgar issue, then you should read the whole latest discussion on the Bulgar discussion page and also check out each link that was posted there. After reading that, anyone with reasonable intelligence can then see that things are not as clear cut as simply reading sources and reading recycled theories that are used over and over again without much thought by the so called scholars. There is a lot of evidence, including new genetic evidence, to suggest that the main ancestors of the Volga Tatars - the Bulgars - were not Turkic but either mixed (Turkic/Asian and Iranic) or entirely Iranic - even if they are mixed it is wrong to call them Turkic, because the Turkic element will then only be a part of their ethnicity, amopng other ethnic parts. That is why encyclopedias such as Britannica uses terms such as Turkic speaking, so that it is more correct - Britannica uses that term for the Tatars, so I really don't see what is so har to understand - it is very logical and straight forward - if an ethnic group has other elements other than Turkic, or as the case may be - if they dont have any Turkic elements (if they are entirely descended from the Bulgars - and there is evidence to suggest that the Bulgars were Iranic), then it is not correct to call them Turkic, but rather they should be called Turkic speaking, because their language is Turkic. Also, we have the best, most obvious evidence on their ethnicity - their appearance - a lot of them have green and blue eyes and light hair - these features don't occur in Turkic people, unless they are mixed. A lot of the Volga Tatars' features dont look Turkic. If you still don't understand what I explained here, then don't bother to edit this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The important thing is that you do not let this political bickering about "Bulgarism" interfere with the discussion of Tatar history. It needs to be contained in its own section about current-day politics and ethnic nationalism. --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The Volga Tatars account for about 6 out of 6.7 million Tatars (90%). In other words, the Tatars article has a 90% scope overlap with this one. Perhaps a merge would be appropriate.
This article does not appear to cover any information not already covered in greater detail at Tatars. The main article should be organized along the lines of
- Volga Tatars
- Minor groups
with subsections detailing the half million or so non-Volga Tatars.
For exactly the same reason we do not have a Kazan Tatars page separate from Volga Tatars -- the scope overlap would be simply too great to warrant separate standalone articles. --dab (𒁳) 09:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Merge per the nominator's reasoning. Just a redirect would suffice. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)