Jump to content

Talk:Dobrujan Tatar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 23 June 2023

[edit]
CLOSED
Discussion is closed with agreement to the addition of 'dialect' and the removal of 'language.' GenQuest "scribble" 06:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dobrujan Tatar language → Dobrujan Tatar – Given that article creator Zolgoyo simply does not wish to agree no matter how many times I explain to them, I request a move to formalize the removal of the word "language" from the title. Dobrujan Tatar is a dialect of the Crimean Tatar language. No sources treat Dobrujan Tatar as a separate language. This is in fact stated on the article itself.

Dobrujan Tatar does not have an ISO 639 code nor a Linguasphere one, and its code of Glottolog lists it as a subdivision of Crimean Tatar [1]. There currently are two sources on the article allegedly treating Dobrujan Tatar as its own language yet the first one [2] continuously connects the Tatars on Romanian Dobruja with the ones at Crimea and does not explicitly differentiate between Dobrujan Tatar and Crimean Tatar. The second source pretty much doesn't even mention "Crimean Tatar" or "Dobrujan Tatar" but only "Tatar language". Again there is no explicit differentiation between the two made by the author. Super Ψ Dro 12:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Just the name "Dobrujan Tatar" is not enough for the article name.
My suggestion: "Dobrujan Tatar dialect" Zolgoyo (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with that. As long as we remove "language". Super Ψ Dro 20:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Zolgoyo (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...that discussion was supposed to be open for one week, Zolgoyo. I wanted it to be a formal Wikipedia process so that you would not move it again into a "language" article. Can I get some assurances at least that you will not attempt this again? Super Ψ Dro 21:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The name has been glued... Zolgoyo (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I hope this is the last of our disagreements. Super Ψ Dro 22:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 10 September 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Participants were unconvinced that Dobrujan Tatar has been described as a language in reliable sources. An alternate proposal for "Dobrujan Tatar dialects", plural, did not achieve consensus in either direction. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dobrujan Tatar dialect → Dobrujan Tatar language – It includes Crimean Tatar and Nogai dialects which are now the Dobrujan Tatar language. Here is a reference. Zolgoyo (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, oppose at the moment, unless and until a stable, independent ISO 639-3 identifier can be gained, otherwise several reliable source websites will still consider it "just a dialect of Crimean Tatar". academia.edu looks like somewhat UGC. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are Crimean Tatar dialects and Nogai dialects, which do represent the Dobrujan Tatar language. It alone can not be a just dialect. Zolgoyo (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zolgoyo: Do you have any sources on the subject written by accredited subject-matter experts within the field of Turkology? While Taner Murat certainly seems well-versed in the Dobrujan Tatar dialects, he doesn't appear to be a linguist. I would like to see what linguists have to say on the subject. I'm hesitant to support changing the name to "Dobrujan Tatar language" without more sources written by Turkologists backing it up. I wouldn't say that the lack of an independent ISO 639-3 code is necessarily a disqualifying factor though. My current vote is to provisionally oppose the move in favor of moving it to Dobrujan Tatar dialects for now. It's more accurate than referring to it as one dialect, and it's fairly neutral. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, didn't you propose moving the article to Dobrujan Tatar dialect in the last discussion about this article's title? Why are you trying to move it back again? ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do speak Dobrujan Tatar and I can say that Dobrujan Tatar is Kipchak-Nogai, even we have in some dialects the ş→s change (which also exist in other Kipchak-Nogai languages; Nogai, Kazakh, Karakalpak), were this doesn't exist in Crimean Tatar because it's Kipchak-Cuman. We also have influences from Romanian and Rumelian Turkish. However to call it "Dobrujan Tatar dialect(s)" it's not clever, to use "language" instead of "dialect(s)" will be more understandable. I am contacting with SIL International about the language code for Dobrujan Tatar, because we try to safe Dobrujan Tatar and to create a literature in Romania, but it's not supported in internet. Zolgoyo (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be clever, and I am aware that Dobrujan Tatar is, according to most classifications, a Kipchak-Nogai dialect group (though some dispute this apparently, placing it in Rumelian Turkish, but I haven't checked the sources for that yet). The point is for it to be a neutral provisional name until the matter can be settled more definitively. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need to wait until we get an answer (from SIL International, Glottolog etc.). But Dobrujan Tatar can't be Rumelian Turkish, because Rumelian Turkish is Oghuz. Dobrujan Tatar is Kipchak, this is also possible to see in most of the sources. Zolgoyo (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 14 February 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. It was shown in the discussion that removing the word "dialect" would be WP:CONSISTENT with other articles on dialects; removing "dialect" from the title was also seen as favorable due to the uncertainty over whether Dobrujan Tatar should be considered a dialect or a language. Article is move-protected, so I'll be taking the RM to WP:RM/TR for implementation. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dobrujan Tatar dialect → Dobrujan Tatar – It's on discussion about the situation of Dobrujan Tatar (Dialect(s)? Language?), so is better just to rename it as "Dobrujan Tatar", to be neutral. Zolgoyo (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. asilvering (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As sais many times before, just renaming here doesn't really benefit from any benefited parties, the only way to legally rename it would be upstream efforts. I would instead propose a moratorium for such unfair, unnecessary and un-actionable repeating of "just a renaming request" Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to rename it to "Dobrujan Tatar" will be the best solution. Glottolog and SIL is in discussion about the situation of the language, this year (?) they should to announce it actually. And until than, to be neutral in Wikipedia is important. Zolgoyo (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "legally rename it"? Which laws of which countries do you think Wikipedia's naming conventions have to abide by? Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Languages has been notified of this discussion. asilvering (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Bulgaria has been notified of this discussion. asilvering (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Romania has been notified of this discussion. asilvering (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisting following wikiproject notifications. asilvering (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The argument is two-fold. Suppose you consider Dobruja Tatar a language, not a dialect. Then, clearly, it should not have "dialect" in the title. Suppose instead that you do consider it a dialect. But the Wikipedia naming policies for other dialects is clearly not to have "dialect" in the title- see, for example, Rioplatense Spanish or Egyptian Arabic (the "dialect" status of the latter is debated amongst non-professionals, of course, but that just makes it an even better example). And as a final argument, this is simply more consistent with a WP:NPOV.
The reasoning given by @Liuxinyu970226 to not move is fundamentally incoherent. First, this is not a legal procedure, so this has nothing to do with legality or illegality. Second, the purpose of this request has nothing to do with "benefit[ing] parties," so I have no idea what they are going on about with that. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brusquedandelion The question is that whether the proposer Zolgoyo indeed "submitted an ISO 639 change request" or not? By checking [3], although there are some 2023 requests shown, non of them are about Dobrujan Tatar, so I'd love to know what's the actual situation here: Zolgoyo really submitted a request in the last year, but the request is dropped by SIL due to revision of ISO 639 in last year? Or Zolgoyo didn't submit it, and make a lie to claim "It's on discussion about the situation of Dobrujan Tatar (Dialect(s)?" Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what's that got to do with the price of tea in China? I don't see how that's relevant to what the name of this article should be on Wikipedia. You haven't addressed my points above. The fact is that even for linguistic varieties that can be uncontroversially labelled dialects, the titles of their Wikipedia articles do not contain the word "dialect". Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226 I don't have reason to lie. You maybe also know that not all "Change Requests" are posted now. Zolgoyo (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About the existence of Dobrujan Tatar in Moldova/Ukraine

[edit]

Here some good links:

The important part > „...Практически все национальности Молдавии (от молдаван, румын и гагаузов до русских, украинцев и болгар) почти в полном составе принадлежат к православной конфессии, лишь немногочисленные дунайские татары традиционно исповедуют ислам...“

Zolgoyo (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Joshua Project is not a reliable source. It has countless errors. They are just Christian missionaries rather than ethnographers or academics [4]. demoscope.ru makes a claim about the 2004 Moldovan census which is not present in the census itself. It seems to assume Tatars in Moldova are related to those in Dobruja rather than those in Tatarstan. To declare oneself as a "Danubian Tatar" was not possible. The Russian Wikipedia article is based on this unreliable source.
The article at cyberleninka.ru seems more reliable. What does it say that may be relevant to the discussion? I note that I have never seen academics claim these Tatars still live in Moldova or Ukraine. They migrated from Budjak to Dobruja. I haven't looked in depth but I couldn't find anything about remaining Tatars in Google Scholar. Super Ψ Dro 15:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the article by Tahsin Gemil (who even has a Wikipedia page!) at cyberleninka.ru, he says in pages 170 and 171 that the Tatars in Budjak were given 18 months to leave by the Russian Empire after the annexation of Budjak, that most settled in Dobruja from which some emigrated to Turkey and that others were settled by Russian imperial authorities in the provinces of Yekaterinoslav (modern Dnipro) and Kherson, in Crimea and in the northern Caucasus. Second sentence on page 171: "After 1812, no Tatars were left in Budjak". He also states that some Crimean Tatars were settled in Dobruja, for which the Ottoman Sultan founded Medgidia. Super Ψ Dro 16:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you read the text I wrote from the source above? ([5]: „...Практически все национальности Молдавии (от молдаван, румын и гагаузов до русских, украинцев и болгар) почти в полном составе принадлежат к православной конфессии, лишь немногочисленные дунайские татары традиционно исповедуют ислам...“) The Joshua Project may be exaggerating with numbers, but it is stated that Tatars are there. You are welcome to contact Dobrujan Tatar organizations and ask, you can call the Ukrainian/Moldovan government and ask for demographics of the region. But you have to remember one thing: the Dobruja (Budjak) Tatars only call themselves "Tatar" or "Nogai". You no longer want to accept the existence of the Tatars in this regions, due to your discrimination and ignorance. You also know that there is little information about this "existence of Tatars in the Budjak". I spent years researching the subject. Even there are relatives of Dobruja Tatars in Moldova or Ukraine. These attitudes of yours are just "questioning". You ignore the sources that you have not found or seen as real. I saw Dobrujan (Budjak) Tatars in Moldova and Ukraine. Have you seen it? I don't think so. Because of people like you, the minorities have been considered non-existent for years. I'm sorry, but it is a great stupidity not to accept that there are Tatars there. Zolgoyo (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, all throughout you've been constantly doing problematic edits such as creating pages for things that shouldn't have pages. You claim to have researched Tatars for years, but Dobruja Horde that you just created is underwhelming and one of the source is a YouTube video, which seriously makes me doubt your claim. I've been cleaning up after your blatant inexperience for a long while now, all for you to come and tell me I am ignorant and discriminatory or whatever you're spouting.
See WP:JOSHUAPROJECT, there have been countless discussions on their reliability and they are today not considered reliable. The demoscope.ru is as I said assuming the Tatars in Moldova are "Danubian Tatars" (no such option was given in the census) rather than Volga Tatars who lived in the same country as Moldovans for decades. Can you provide me a figure with how many Tatars lived in Moldova according to the census? I am trying to look for information to see if any author could defend this "Danubian Tatar" thing: I can't see anything. There's nothing about Tatars in Budjak today either by the way [6]. Though I could find this [7], by a Turkish, I believe, author: "Russia expelled out the entire Muslim community when it first entered Budjak at the outbreak of war to Crimea" (page 77); "the Muslim people were deprived from the right of living in their own homesteads and had heir lands forfeited by the Russian Government" (page 78); "The Ottoman State closely traced and tried to enforce the rights of the Muslim community left in the territory in the aftermath, arising out of the Treaty of Bucharest and tried to bring them to Ottoman soil" (page 86). What community did you see in Moldova and Ukraine? Which are these associations? Why am I only finding sources saying they all left? Are you able to provide any reliable sources, that aren't YouTube videos? Gemil's article that you had linked, turns out it said nothing about Tatars staying but the opposite. You didn't even read the article did you? This is not the first time it happens. Super Ψ Dro 19:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the source and understand it as you please, the blame is not mine. The problem is that you also block the whole thing. I don't want to argue with you about it anymore, you don't want to admit it yourself, there is enough evidence. Zolgoyo (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh... what is there to read as I please in "After 1812, no Tatars were left in Budjak"? Super Ψ Dro 21:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dobrujan_Tatar&oldid=1233396899"