Talk:Crimean Tatars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crimean Tatars article.
Article policies
Ukraine Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Russia Portal
Crimean Tatars is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Crimean Tatars:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

Contents

[edit] Tatars must be responsible, as a nation !

Very interesting article, but you are not emhasising the negative role of the Crimean state on the history of Russia, Poland, Ukraine and Romania. The repeted slaughter of abb. 2 million civilian population; the taking of abb. 3 million slaves; the burning of 5000 Ukrainian, 3000 Russian, 2000 Romanian, 2000 Polish villages over abbout 500 years of invasions practically halted the development of the rural and urban areas of these countries, for centuries. But even today, the Tatar people did not came in face of the International Community to apologise. Why? Because they still consider, like them ancestors in the Middle Age, that "non-Muslims are a little bit more than cattle"?

Why the article is insisting on the sufferences of the colaborationist Tatar but not on the sufferences of the milions of Europeans, killed, tortured or put on slavery for life, only because the Tatars considered them "a little bit more than cattle"? The article is biased and definitely pro-Tatarian, anti-democratic and EXTREMELY RACIST ! Change it or ERASE IT !

Aha... And Russians "must be responsible as a nation" for the burning of Kazan, Spaniards and Englishmen "as a nation" for the colonization of the Americas, Italians "as a nation" for the conquests of the Roman Empire, Persians for their attacking Greece in th 4th century BC, Egyptians for the slavery of the Jewish people... =) Don Alessandro 15:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not speaking of wars. Russians, Spaniards, Englishmen, Persians and Egyptians did not perpetrated an RACIST AND SADISTIC ATITUDE on a PERMANENT BASIS, against the neighbouring peoples, as the Tatars did ! The Tatars repeated the killing raids in a sadistic manner for 500 years. This is not a matter of war, it's a matter of Tatar national ethics and "normal Tatar behaviour", regarding the Europeans as cattle. Why should other nations be sympathetic with the grievances of a people who killed, tortured and enslaved abb. 5 milions and now they are posing as "victims of Salinism"? Good joke ! The killers playng as victims :)) And another thing: The Germans, the Hungarians and other nations apologized for the Holocaust. It's a matter of democratic behaviour and civilized European manner to assume the mistakes of the ancestors. Without that APOLOGY, the Tatars will NEVER BE ACCEPTED AS AN CIVILIZED EUROPEAN NATION ! ... of course, maybe they don't want to be considered as European and civilized... who knows?!?

[edit] NPOV violation

Today, more than 250,000 Crimean Tatars have returned to their homeland, struggling to re-establish their lives and reclaim their national and cultural rights against many social and economic obstacles. - This is wishful thinking. Anybody who knows the history knows that Tatars are genocidal occupiers of Slav territories. They were also avid nazi collaborators during WWII, and were righftully punished. One can only ignore these facts on purpose in a bias towards the Tatars.

Huh... A portion of nationalist propaganda... :(
Anybody who knows the history...
Anybody who knows soviet "history", which was written by soviet "historians" after WW II to acquit the Stalin's act of genocide.
Crimean Tatar collaborationism is a very controversial topic. According to different researchers there were about 10,000 Crimean Tatar collaborators (while the total number of the Crimean Tatars was approximately 200,000, and the total number of the collaborators in Crimea was about 40,000). So, Crimean Tatar collaborators comprised about 5% of all Crimean Tatars and about 25% of all collaborators.
And for medieval history of Crimean Tatars... If you understand Russian, you'd better read Валерий Возгрин "Историческтие судьбы крымских татар". The best book ever written on the Crimean Tatar history.
Don Alessandro 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Like a Crimean Tatar i want to say that yeah between us were collaborators -5%. And what about russians or frenchs or english or even jewish?My grandpa was fighting on the WW2 for you, for your life.He was fighting for you now to seet in internet and write all those thing you wrote.Is he rightfully punished?I think no. It just seems like you are skin or smth else in that way.

[edit] To those who seem to be reverting the page

If you read a book on crimean tatars in any history section of your library or even better yet, go online and look up the history of crimean tatars on their own web pages, then you will discover that crimean tatars are believed to be a fusion of peoples from the Mongolian horde and the resident people there in the crimea. Go to any website and you will discover that the crimean tatars are a blend of ethnicities - some look caucasian and some look mongoloid (oriental). Hence the turkic-mongoloid designation. Most authorities agree that a large part of their ancestry derives from the Tatars who followed the Mongols from Mongolia. I had an image of a bunch of crimean tatars on the site but it was unfortunately removed.Kennethtennyson 19:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible to understand your position. You say that some look caucasian and some look mongoloid (whatever that means), yet you choose to define the entire population as mongoloid (whatever that means). Are you going to arbitrarily assign an alleged race to every nation and ethnic group in the Wikipedia? Please provide concrete evidence and references, clarify what you mean by "a book" or "most authorities" 141.154.252.174 06:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
"Mongoloid" is the definition from the race theory, which is controversial and is no longer applicable to many ethnicities, although the concept is useful for describing of traits of human appearance. mikka (t) 17:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You're taking things out of context

Mongoloid is a descriptive term. If you were to use the current term - turkic - it is a very misleading term to describe ethnicities as it is not an ethnicity but a linguistic group. It's similar to describing french speaking citizens (afro caribeans and people from quebec as a "Franco" ethnic group when they are very different.) Most historians have been trying to shy away from the term Turkic because it is so confusing. The average reader who is unfamiliar with this term will refer to it as Turkish (which relates to the people from Turkey). Most of my history students have been confused by it. Have you actually ever met any Crimean tatars? There ethnic group is a mixture of caucasian traits with mongoloid - Hence, turkic-mongoloid. Mongoloid -as opposed to negroid and caucasoid- does not mean they are mongolian - just meaning anyone with East asian characteristics). IF you go to any crimean tatar website and look at the pictures they will show you a mixture of peoples - some looking "oriental" others looking "turkish/mediteranean" and others looking "slavic." Have you read any books on the history of the crimean tatars? Most would say that a large part of their history hails from the Golden Horde's movement out of Mongolia into the crimean area and the resulting admixture with other peoples. If you want to make it easy instead of going to your local library, just go to any central websites run by crimean tatars online.

Mikka, it's true that some people are shying away from racial terms; however, mikka, it is pretty obvious that racial terms if not just for descriptive terms is an important distinction continuing for the last millenia until today. Remember, the civil rights movement was only 40 years ago. If you look at the crimean tatar history, their ethnicity lead to some degree to their persecution by Stalin. Today, if you are of the wrong ethnic/racial group you can get killed in some areas of the US, Europe, Japan, or Russia. Look at what's happening in Africa. Kennethtennyson 23:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Long history of enslavement and robbery of northern neighbors by Crimean Tatars

The knowledge about those facts belongs to regular education and doesn't require special proofs, since we could start fierce discussions on every historical fact in Wikipedia. Therefore I don't see why some very political correct users (you hardly will find such political correctness towards Russia) constantly think they have a right to remove the mentioning of those crimes. This is an important part of Crimean Tatar history, since it formed their life basis and was one of their main income sources for centuries.

If somebody nevertheless needs sources, here is one: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17747

Fisher 24 has analyzed the slave razzias conducted by the Muslim Crimean Tatars against the Christian populations of southern Poland and Muscovite Russia during the mid-15th through late 17th century (1463-1794). Relying upon admittedly incomplete sources (“…no doubt there are many more slave raids that the author has not uncovered” 25), his conservative tabulations 26 indicate that at least 3 million (3,000,000) persons- men, women, and children- were captured and enslaved during this so-called “harvesting of the steppe”. Fisher describes the plight of those enslaved: 27

…the first ordeal [of the captive] was the long march to the Crimea. Often in chains and always on foot, many of the captives died en route. Since on many occasions the Tatar raiding party feared reprisals or, in the seventeenth century, attempts by Cossack bands to free the captives, the marches were hurried. Ill or wounded captives were usually killed rather than be allowed to slow the procession. Heberstein wrote… “the old and infirm men who will not fetch much as a sale, are given up to the Tatar youths either to be stoned, or thrown into the sea, or to be killed by any sort of death they might please.” An Ottoman traveler in the mid-sixteenth century who witnessed one such march of captives from Galicia marveled that any would reach their destination- the slave markets of Kefe. He complained that their treatment was so bad that the mortality rate would unnecessarily drive their price up beyond the reach of potential buyers such as himself. A Polish proverb stated: “Oh how much better to lie on one’s bier, than to be a captive on the way to Tartary”

Actually, there are many more sources, Google helps. Voyevoda 16:22, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Although the statement about slave capture/trading is correct, I would agree with anon 18.97.5.179, that it rather belong to Crimean Khanate article. This article should be about ethnic rather than about political history.--AndriyK 18:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
In the most cases slave hunting was not state policy but private actions of different warrior groups. Therefore the mentioning of it belongs in this article and not to Crimean Khanate. It was their very lifestyle, not policy. Voyevoda 18:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, it does not belong to the history of tatarian ethnicity. This characterize the situation in the Khanate. In fact, the state was supporting the slave trading, otherwise "actions of different warrior groups" would be senseless.
You version does not look neutral. Where is the tatarian POV?--AndriyK 19:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
What is neutral? Something that doesn't let a nation appear in a too bad light? Sorry, this is not neutral, this is a sort of lie, if it conceals historical facts out of political correctness or current geopolitical conjuncture.
What then belongs to the history of an ethnicity? In my opinion, its historical lifestyle and occupations belong to the history of the people, not of the state.Voyevoda 18:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I mean one should be very carefull when writing about ethnicities who are not so multiple as Russians or even Ukrainians or even Belarusian. There cannot be so many Tatarian editors on WP as, for instance, Russians. Therefore there could be a tendency that tatarians will look in Wikipedia articles much worse than they deserve. I do not think it will improve the quality of the resourse.
I'd not continue the edit war with you, but I'd ask you to think about what I wrote.--AndriyK 20:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
That's a good point, but I wonder, whether you have told the same to a Pole, for example. Considering their number in Wikipedia one could think they are as numberous on Earth as Chinese or Indians, with all the consequences for the historical views in Wikipedia articles. I think an article on history should not be a matter of how much representatives a certain historical version is lobbied by on each side but of historical facts. Moreover, you can look back how one-sided anti-Russian the Crimean Tatars article was before I came. I contributed some more historical facts (an action that can't be wrong). And I think that it is also worth to think about why turning an article from sharp anti-Russian into a balanced one, at once attracts outraged critics and edit wars. Voyevoda
If you start a subject such as ``Long history of enslavement and robbery of northern neighbors by Crimean Tatars``, you can not claim you are balanced. Nobody will buy it. BlackSea 08:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Please be sure, I'd tell you the same even if you were a Pole, a Chinese or an Indian.
It's nice that you corrected an anti-Russian article, but please keep in mind that there could be not enough users correcting anti-Tatarian articles. Therefore we have to take care of it, if we want to have an Encyclopedia instead of a xenophobic propaganda machine.--AndriyK 10:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Right said, AndriyK! BlackSea 08:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Voyevoda, are you one of those awful skinhead?

[edit] Scythians

"The earliest non-Turkic nomad population (Scythians etc.) was assimilated to Turkic."

A little far fetched isn't it? According to whom? Unless someone can show some credible sources backing up such a theory this line needs to be removed.--Eupator 04:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

we are "turkic" we are NOT "TURKS" CRIMEAN TATARS will never be CRIMEAN TURKS

[edit] Giving One Hundred and Ten Percent ...

"The Crimean Tatars are subdivided into three sub-ethnic groups: the Tats (not to be confused with the Tat people) who inhabited the mountainous Crimea before 1944 (about 60%), the Yalıboylus who lived on the southern coast of the peninsula (about 35%), and the Noğays (not to be confused with the Nogai people) - former inhabitants of the Crimean steppe (about 15%). The Tats and Yalıboylus have a Caucasian physical appearance, while the Noğays retain Central Asian characteristics."

The math doesn't really add up there. 60+35+15=110%. Could someone research and amend this to add up to 100%?

[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tatars in Finland

Tatars in Finland are not Crimean Tatars. They are Mishär Tatars, i.e. belong to a subdivision of the Kazan Tatars, or Tatars proper. See: Finnish Tatars.

[edit] Concerns about sourcing of diaspora article

I'm somewhat concerned that the lack of sourcing at Crimean_Tatar_diaspora. While I know next to nothing about this subject, I do know that wherever there is political persecution, there are people who do not want that story told. The lack of proper sourcing leaves the article open to bad faith edits by people who would prefer history forget any of this ever happened.