Talk:Tatars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

1911 Britannica data

1911 data on tatars are outdated, especially population and other numeric data. Anybody has newer sources?

Kazafi Tatars - I believe this name is not used anymore, Kazan Tatars is more common.

Kalmucks - Kalmyk is more common spelling.

• Erivan - modern spelling Yerevan
• Tiflis - modern spelling Tbilisi
• Kutais - modern spelling Kutaisi

QUOTE They are Mahommedans /QUOTE - means Muslims

--Vassili Nikolaev

Dear Vassili

Why is it so difficult for the Russians (and in some extend to Aglo Saxons) to adopt the method to shown at first the name in original language and then provide the Anglicanized version in brancets ? As far I can read there is no place called Yerevan only Erivan, Jerevan in latinized form of Armenian and Russian languages. English Y / y is made after spelling from J / j. In some cases, as far as regarding Finno Ugrian and Turcic language names this creates name monsters. Common Ä /ä and Ö / ö are totally missing from English language as well as from Russian language.

The best transliteration of the Finnish town name Jyväskylä (Grain / Granary Village) was in 1912 transliteration of Russian language Cyrillic version to Juviaskylia. And I am sure there are many such the similar errors even today presented in English Wikipedia.

JN

---

Criticisms to article

Very far from scientific. Mixes Russian popular designations with proper group identification. Laden with crypto Eurocentrism. Arbitrarily disowning Mongol heritage and propagating baseless pan-Turkism. Lacking actual references of personalities, events and very subjective.

Answer

What I need to do if I know truth? Mongols really was not so strong and powerfull, as Turkic nations. All information about Qazan Tatars is true. You can't believe it? Visit Kazan! No Mongols! No pan-Turkism! West have to know more about Tatars and first of all about Kazan Tatars. Tatarstan was an independent state de jure in 1990-2000.

Our great Sälâm from Qazan! --Untifler

---

Turkish -> Turkic

I agree with that. Also, the word "Turkish" gets used all over the place, when the writer surely means "Turkic"

---

Tatar vs. Tatars

Why singular title, not plural? --Shallot 11:59, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By a misunderstanding. "Tatar" is a representative of the "Tatars" nation, and there is nothing more to write about the term "Tatar". The original article was about the nation. Wikipedia:Naming convention specifically speak about usi singular an plural in the title. Specifically, plural is used when the name is used only in the plural. The name of the nation is "Tatars", not "Tatar". Hence I am moving the article back. Mikkalai 20:45, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On the second thought, 90% of cases of mentioning a nationality is an adjective, and it creates inconveniences when creatig references: It is an easy way to refer "tatars" to "tatar" by the bracket trick: [tatar]s, but not vice versa. An additional confusion is that tatar may refer to language as well. So I see a grain of wisdom in Shallot's decision now. In any case, before any further article renaming I am putting the issue for discussion at the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Mikkalai 21:05, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What decision? :) I am (still) not convinced that any of these other versions are particularly better than "Tatars". (Making Tatar a disambiguation page was the right thing to do.) --Shallot 23:01, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For what its worth I am working on disambiguation link repair of this disambiguation page. My first inclination was to create Tatar (disambiguation) and then redirect Tatar here. However, after seeing this discussion I decided to proceed with disambiguating the page. My work on that so far had only made me feel that my initial impulse was in fact correct. Here is a breakdown of the first 20 of 146 links to Tatar based on where I redirected them.

• Redirected to Tatars: 18
  • Of which some—in the original—had written [[Tatar]]s or [[Tatar|Tatars]]: 8
• Links changed from Crimean [[Tatar]]s to [[Crimean Tatars]]: 1
• Redirected to Tatar language: 1

From the fact that it seems about half the editors who want to link here think that it is not the correct place and specifically changed the link to the DAB page even thought they want this article name displayed should give up a little pause, and consider if changing it to a dab page was the right thing to do. Dalf | Talk 05:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It's been a while and no one has objected here so I am going to go ahead and make this change. Dalf | Talk 21:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Tartars (hist) VS Tatars (nowedays)

I think will be better to separate historical information about Mongols and truth information about nowday Tatars and their non-Mongol decenders.

Oka?

In the section, Mişär Tatars, a sentence reads:

They are descendants of Kipchaks in the Middle Oka and Meschiora where they mixed with the local Finno-Ugric tribes and Russians.

The word Oka links to a disambigation page. Is the Oka being referred to here the Oka River? Or something else?

Kevyn 10:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd say so, yes. --Shallot 11:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

moved pictures

Moved picture of the girl downwards. Too pretty and sort of distracting.Kennethtennyson 03:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Famous Tatars image

(This request/question was posted on the reference desk - Akamad 19:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)):

Hi -

Your page on Tatars contains an image depicting the faces of many "famous tatars" but no reference to their names or who they were or are. I searched, but could not find any identifying information, which was frustrating. If such information exists somewhere in the vicinity of that page, perhaps it could be made easier to find. If such information does not exist, I am sure the problem can easily be remedied by one of your extremely knowledgeable writers.

A wonderful source of information otherwise. -- L. LaFay ---141.152.11.56 (talk · contribs) 14:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The collage is too confusing with all those tiny bits of mosaic. I think that 3-5 portraits of well-known Tatars will suffice. It works for all the other ethnic group Infoboxes (e.g. Bulgarians). //Big Adamsky 14:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Kuzma Minin

Kuzma Minin is Tatar ? Since when ? Fisenko 20:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

the name

According to the German Wikipedia, the name "Tatar" is taken from Greek Tartaros, "from hell" - a reference to the brutality of Turco-Mongol hordes in Europe. Has anyone any sources about the name?! Tājik 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please correct the German wikipedia. It is repeating an error from old obsolete encyclopedias. We now know that the Tatars called themselves by this name and it was recorded in Old Turkic inscriptions in the Orkhon valley around 700 AD.

--Wavetossed 13:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to correct it? Maybe it could be improved somehow to make it clearer. It was a misunterstanding by User Tajik. Not the word 'Tatar' but the word 'Tartar' is taken from 'Tartaros'. I have read about that in several articles, whose location I don't remember anymore, but I am sure I have read it also somewhere in english and/or german Wikipedia. It might have been changed meanwhile. As I have understood so far, the term 'Tatar' became known in Europe very well through the Tatars themselves with the mongol expansion. But the word was unknown. 'Tartaros' on the other hand was very well known. And people tend to corrupt unknown words into similar sounding words they know, thus 'Tatar' was corrupted to 'Tartar'. Thus that the Tatars called themselves by the name 'Tatar' is not a contradiction to the word 'Tartar' being taken from 'Tartarus'. And it is not meant that 'Tatar' derives from 'Tartar', but very well the other way around, by mutation under influence of the word and concept of 'Tartaros'. I question if just removing this information from the german Wikipedia is enough or accurate. The term appears on many maps, and the occurance in old encyclopedias as mentioned in the argument above may have some more reason than just wrongness. Maybe it's not just a misspelling of the last decades, and the story of the origin from 'Tartaros' is not just fictional, but instead perhaps the term 'Tartar' was really derived from 'Tartaros' and widely used in medival and pre-industrial times. If that's the case as I think, then it should not just be dropped, but remain and be explained in the matter concerning Tatars. Truchses 21:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The origin of Name Tartar or Tatar

I am suprised that the most common version is missing from this page. The origin of the name Tartar or Tatar used in Russia and later in countries in Middle Eastern Europe originates from name "tattari" grain (Fagopyrum sagittatum or Polygonum fagopyrum) which was originated in Eastern Asia and commonly used in Central Asia. Main food for the steppe peoples.

Name Tartar and Tatar was given to people by the conquered Russians who disliked the tatar porrige as a symbol of their living as vassals under Mongols and later Mirza of Qazan. From Russia the name spread to Poland and Hungary and even farther west.

The Russians tended to call the Tatars by "secret names" Kniaz, Bussurman, Nehrist, and Gololobyi.

How to tell of Tartar descent

I am caucasian, but was recently told on a trip to Central Asia that I look "Tartar". How could I find this out and should any information about this be included in the page? I looked at the list of famous Tartars and share similar characteristics i.e. black hair, darker skin, etc.

Anthropological aspects

Some anthropological aspects were reworked by me, if anyone wanna discuss it - wellcome.

Der_Ritter 16:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this section of the article is due for an update. Recent genetic studies have suggested that the Kazan Tatars might be the Asian population most closely related to the distant ancestors of most European populations; i.e., Europeans are mainly derived from a subset of the prehistoric ancestors of the Tatars. Thus, the fact that many Tatars have so-called "European faces" might not be due only to assimilation of non-Turkic peoples, but also to a residual genetic relationship to the early progenitors of Europeans. Ebizur 00:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of Tatars are also known for their red hair. Tatars don't necessary have black hair.

Red hair might, or might not, be as a result with mixture with Ud-murt people who have also common red hairs. It is known that many intermarriages happened or Ar women were taken by Tatar men as their second wife or simply just as bed mates or mistresses. Peharps the origin of the "Caucasian" (European) face outlook can also be explaned with this simple natural thing.

JN

population estimate

A recent edit stated there were approx 20 million Tatars, but this seems like being an extreme upper limit. It does bring up the interesting issue of how many Tatars there actually are, though? A reference would be very useful, but it may be asking for too much to have one, given that the Tatars are so scattered. From reading the article, the largest populations appear to be:

• 7 million Kazan Tatars in the Former Soviet Union
• Several milllion Crimean Tatars. Dubious estimates say 4-6 in Turkey but this is said to be an overestimate, so maybe 3 million? Plus, maybe 0.5 million back in Crimea in recent times when they have been returning.
• Caucasian Tatars, of who there were apparently 1.35 million in the 19th century. That's a long time ago. Given Russia's history their population could be anywhere from zero to several million, if they still consider themselves Tatars.

All in all looks like 10-15 million is a more reasonable number. Anyone know more? Deuar 15:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

Quote: Those of the south coast, mixed with Scyth, Greeks and Italians, were well known for their skill in gardening, their honesty, and their work habits, as well as for their fine features, presenting the Tatar type at its best. What is this type of text doing in wikipedia? Please tone it down. Cema 03:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Tatar ethnonym origins

I tried to reword the text indicating the most likely origin of the ethnonym "tatar" as a self-ethnonym first recorded in the Orkhon inscriptions. The article had a reference to an incorrect entry from the 1911 britannica which I left in but marked as being obsolete/incorrect. The fact is that the Britannica article is a borderline racial slur from people who felt that the Tatar Golden Horde was pure evil.

In fact, the name Tatar comes from the people themselves, has a recorded history, and likely came to the west by way of the Persian language, not the Greeks. Therefore an etymology related to a Greek term is most unlikely.

I've dug up a more detailed reference with book citation that dates the Orkhon inscription of the Tokuz Tatars to 732 AD. http://www.uoregon.edu/~sshoemak/407/texts/ps_philoxenos_notes.htm

In addition, the spelling Tartar is a misspelling and I marked it as such. This likely originates because in the 18th and 19th century a substance known as "cream of tartar" was taken from wine barrels and used to leaven baked good. Or because a sauce known as "sauce tartare" in French was popular to eat with fish. In any case, both words are unrelated to "Tatar".

---

The above text is not signed. The contents is similar to the contents of the remark of user Wavetossed from the subject "the name" above. From the above text I get the impression, the author thinks that in the western perception the term 'Tatar' derives only from the greek word 'Tartaros' and that it has no roots in Tatar native language. And he also seems to think that 'Tartar' is just a misspelling and should be deletetd.

Also he states that the wrong word 'Tartar' originates from from a food cream. But he uses the words "likely originates" and "or because". So he is only guessing in this point. I don't believe that the name for this people would be taken from a food cream. Maybe it's true but that remains to be proven. Until that I would more likely believe that it was the other way around, and that the people have been called 'Tartars', and thus food attained in later times from them would be assigned this term, like 'sauce tartare'. And the point is 'later times'. The author states the cream or sauce has come up in "18th and 19th century", but the Tatars harassed Europe centuries earlier, but in the 18th and 19th century they were hardly perceived as a thread anymore. So it's more likely the term 'Tartar' was applied to them before, and later to the food that might originate from their region or for other reason be named after the 'Tartars'. So the question should be examined, if the word 'Tartar' existed befor this the 18th century, or if it otherwise really ethymologically derives from the cream/sauce; and that would leave the question of the origin of the name of the food.

Also the author states that an article in an "entry from the 1911 britannica" is "obsolete/incorrect". I think he means a description of the etymology of the word 'Tartar' as deriving from 'Tartaros' and thus the Tatar being interpreted as some kind of 'Hell Horde'. This term might not be the exact wording, but at least should be something similar in the sense. From this statement it looks like the concept of 'Tatar' originating from 'Tartaros' and interpreted as 'hell horde' is only a mistake in the 1911 Britannica. I don't know but is this the case? I would guess that the term 'Tartar' was used before, and also that the scripters of Britannica just noted what was the concept at that time, instead of inventing something new.

Also the author states that "the Britannica article is a borderline racial slur from people who felt that the Tatar Golden Horde was pure evil". Now would the scripters of Britannica have been driven by such emotion? The Golden Horde didn't even exist anymore at this time. I would also in this case guess, that the concept has not just been invented at a later time, but existed already before and that the scriptors just noted. And I think the term 'Tatar' or 'Tartar' was not only attributed to the Golden Horde; I heard it also in relation to Krim, Kazan and other mongol/turkic groups. I think therefore it's very unlikely that this article is just "a borderline racial slur" in the later centuries. Instead it seems more likely to be "a borderline racial slur" from people of earlier centuries, who not just "felt that the Tatar Golden Horde was pure evil" but who experienced that the Tatar Golden Horde 'is' pure evil. people who experinced this might take up such 'borderline racial slur', but can they be criticized? It was the Hordes of Ghengis Khan who exterminated other people cruelly. What could be more racist than that? So they themselves initiated this "racial slur", and it seems wrong to me to accuse the victims of racialism. Am I wrong? I want to be cautious, but in all, even in pro-mongol texts is stated that the mongol hordes extinguished entire populations everywhere, not only in Europe. So I think the overall conception of their behaviour is not contested. And that's what could have brought up in Europe in the middle ages this perception of the Tatars being a hell horde like from 'Tartaros'.

That's why I guess the article of Britannica is not just a mistake from the 20th or 19th or even 18th century, but more likely from about the 14th or 13th century. This is just a believe of course, until something can prove it right or wrong. But until that, I wouldn't just drop this matter as mistake. Also in this sense the use of the word 'Tartar' would also not be just a misspelling of the word 'Tatar' but in fact derive correctly from 'Tartaros'. Of course this doesn't deny the possibility that the word 'Tatar' was heard before and some writers of the middle ages recognised the similarity with 'Tartaros' and thus spread the knowledge of this people under the name 'Tartar'.

I found on many maps the lands of the mongol hordes being referred to as 'Tartary'. Maybe somebody can find older texts and maps from before the 18th century, even medieval ones, where the word 'Tartar' is used, so that would prove that the word and concept is much older and not just a misspelling and invention of modern times. In this case it should not just be dropped in the article but mentioned explicitely. As is in the german article. I don't know if it's true and what's the source, but I would wait until somebody can confirm it or prove it wrong.

The german text: "Tataren (Eigenbezeichnung: Tatar oder Törk-Tatar, Pl. Tatarlar oder Törk-Tatarları) oder - älter - Tartaren ist seit dem Mittelalter eine Bezeichnung für verschiedene Völker und Bevölkerungsgruppen. So wurden in Europa die brandschatzenden und plündernden Sturmtruppen des Dschingis Khan als Tartaren - die aus der Hölle kommen (von griech. Tartaros) - bezeichnet. Heute wird dieser Name vor allem für ein Turkvolk gebraucht, das in vielen Teilen Europas und Russlands, insbesondere in der Republik Tatarstan lebt."

It states that the older term is 'Tartar', and that it is known since the middle ages, though it is not explicitely stated, if 'Tatar' or 'Tartar' or both are meant to be known since the middle ages. Further it is stated that the pillaging and plundering stormtroopers of Ghengis Khan have been called 'Tartaros' - comming from hell (of greek Tartaros). (Though I think 'pillaging' and 'plundering' are the lesser atrocities.) It is stated that the name is used for a turkic people that lives in wide areas in Europe and Russia, especially in the Republic of Tatarstan.

This could be interpreted that the terms 'Tatar' and 'Tartar' can be used equivalently and that both designate the same people, while 'Tartar' is mentioned as an older term. From what I read so far, I agree that 'Tatar' should be noted as the correct term with it's etymology as a term from Mongolia in the early middle ages. But I think that the other term 'Tartar' should not just be omitted as error, but also described and differentiated with the given etymology from the european high or late middle ages. Truchses 00:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Location at time of Ghengis Khan

4th paragraph 'Tatars': "The original Ta-ta Mongols inhabited the north-eastern Gobi in the 5th century and, after subjugation in the 9th century by the Khitans, migrated southward, there founding the Mongol empire under Genghis Khan."

Section 'Name' 1st paragraph: "The name "Tatar" initially appeared amongst the nomadic Turkic-speaking peoples of northeastern Mongolia in the region around Lake Baikal in the beginning of the 5th century.[1] These people may have been related to the Cumans or the Kipchaks."

This is a contradiction. On a map I found them marked west of lake Baikal. And on most maps they are south of the Mongols and the Kerulen or east of the Mongols between Onon and Kerulen. So what's true? And were they mongol or turkic? Or were there in fact 2 different people? 1) The north-western group, west of Baikal, being Tatar Turks, described in the scripts of the Orkhon valley, spreading over the western steps and becoming famous/infamous in Europe. 2) The southeastern group, of the Kerulen, being Ta-ta Mongols, described in chinese sources, extinguished by Ghengis Khan. Truchses 00:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

İQTElif

The article İQTElif seems like original research. I tried contacting its main editor, User:Ultranet, but he didn't reply.

I'm thinking of proposing it for deletion, because i couldn't find any actual use for this orthography - most supporters of Latin Tatar seem to use Zamanalif (please, correct me if i'm wrong!). However that seems to have some useful linguistic information. Can anyone extract the useful information from it? I am not an expert in Turkic languages.

Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"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 17:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Religion

As far as I know, Polish tatars have adopted the Polish language, as well as Roman-catholicism. In the article is said that they are muslim. Is known that the Polish tatars are the only Christian tatars. So? --Mocu 19:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

why does it refer to populations as having accepted Christianity? that seems overly biased towards Christianity

Polish tatars are not christian, or at least a significant and visible proportion of people of tatar descent in Poland remain muslims. Have a look at Islam in Poland. Deuar 10:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiptär Tatars

Hei Qazan. Can anyone there or elsewhere provide more information of Tiptär Tatars? Where do they live today, their estimated total number, their ethnic origin, etc.

How does Keräsen Tatars differ from Itil (Qazan) Tatars? Different dialect or what?

Kerä (Ball) is a typical Finno Ugrian word and many Finns have Keränen as their surename.

In 1221 after the fall of Obranjosh (which was renamed by the Russians Nizhnij Novgorod) more than half of the Inäzör (Grand Prince) Purgaz Mordvian population escaped to the east of Rava (Itil) to the Tatar lands and beyond. Many were mixed with Qazan (Itil) Tatars and become subjects of Mirza of Qazan. Their number was estimated to be at least quarter of the million.

After 1237 the Mordvas,(Erzäs and Mokshas), Maris, Ud-murts and Metseräs become vassals of Mirza of Qazan and fought in his army against the Muscovite Vojevod at least up to 1552.

Some Mordvians even moved behind of Urals to the banks of River Tobol and lived there with Komi-murts under the protection of Mirza of Sibir on the area between Tobol and Vagaj Rivers.

Mountain Tatars

I've removed the section called Mountain Tatars, and for many reasons. To begin with, it dealt with peoples that aren't Tatars or even Turkic, including Indo-Europeans like the Ossetians or Caucasians like the Circassians. Secondly, the population figure for them was given based on source from 1911(!), that almost 100 years ago. The reason is that nobody has been using the term for the past 100 years as it's not accurate. Lastly, the paragraph contained not only original research but downright racial slurs, calling these groups of people "at bit behind". As the rest of this article is of very good quality, I don't think we should keep a paragraph that is full of errors and has got no relevance to the Tatars. JdeJ 19:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Atheism

I've removed the atheism since its not a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barakus (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)