Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:03, 24 April 2023

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mongols Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mongols, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mongol culture, history, language, and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MongolsWikipedia:WikiProject MongolsTemplate:WikiProject MongolsMongols Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Central Asia Mid‑importance Tatar confederation is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Chinese / Medieval This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Chinese military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Is this the same as Khanate?

I think the word usually used in this case is "Khanate", not confederation (as in, for example, the Astrakhan Khanate). I can find very little reference to "Tatar Confederation" in google scholar or books.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved by Crisco 1492. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Tatar tribe → Tatar confederation – That was the original title until it was moved here with the explanation that the title was too long. I'd have simply moved it back and started a discussion on the talk page, but an edit after the move that was intended to remove a category from the moved page instead resulted in there being a duplication of the article under the old name. I dispute that the old name was too long, nor do I find any other reason for the move, tho I am not an expert in this area of history. Based on the information in the article itself, the old name of the article would appear to be superior. However, regardless of which name is used, there needs to be but one article. Carolina wren (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I've speedily moved the page owing to a lack of consensus and policy basis behind the original move. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:OR

• Osamaorf, don't delete information from reliable sources. Use only reliable secondary sources for edit this article. Follow the WP:OR rules please.--KoizumiBS (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Osamaorf, Kashgari didn't write that tatar's own language was Turkic. Orkhon inscriptions say nothing about their language. They just mention names of tribes. Mehmet Fuat Köprülü и Peter Benjamin Golden are famous Turkologists, not conspiracy theorists. Articles should rely on secondary sources. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If the war of edits continues, an appeal to the administrators will follow.--KoizumiBS (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• • The Kultegin's Inscription South Side clearly specifies that Otuz Tatars are part of Turkic people when he addresses his words to all Turkic people the full text below with reference:-

"I, Tengri-like and Tengri-born Turkish Bilge Kagan, succeeded to the throne at this time. Hear my words, all of you, my younger brothers and my sons, and my nation and relatives, my people! You, Šad-apit lords in south, tarkans and buyruq lords in north, Otuz (Tatar?),

Tokuz-Oguz lords and people! Hear these words of mine well, and listen hard! All people following me eastwards to sunrise, southwards to midday, westwards to sunset, and northwards to midnight (listen this)!

I made you more. There is no false in these words. If the Turkish kagan rules from the Otukan mountains, then there will be no trouble in country. I went on campaigns eastwards up to the Shantung plain. I almost reached the sea. I went on campaigns southwards up to Tokuz-Arsin. I almost reached Tibet. Westwards beyond the Pearl River

I went on campaigns up to the Iron Gate. Northwards I went on campaigns up to Bayirqu land. I went on campaigns up to all these places. There was no good ruler in the Otukan mountain. The place from which the country can be controlled is the Otukan mountain. Having stayed in this place, I ruled

the Chinese people. The words of Chinese people, who give us gold, silver, alcohol and treasures in abundance, have always been sweet and silks have always been soft. Deceiving by their sweet words and soft silks, they attract people to come from remote places. After people have settled close to them, they made people be addicted to them even more.

They do not let wise men and brave men come close. They corrupt beginning from a single man up to his whole family and clan. Having been deceived by their sweet words and soft silk, you Turkish people, died! In order to survive Turkish people intended to settle at the Čuγay mountains in south on Тügeltin

plain. They deceived so much, that led Turkish common people to death. They lied that they would give bad silk if be afar, and would give good silk if they would be close to them. Unwise people followed that words, went close and all died.

If you go toward those places, О Turkish people, you will die! If you stay in the land of Otukan, and send caravans from there, you will have no trouble. If you stay at the Otukan mountains, you will live forever dominating the countries! О Turkish people, you always regard yourselves as satiated. You do not think of being hungry or satiated. Once satiated, you forget of being hungry. On account of your being so,

you didn't listen to the words of your kagan, who had nourished you. You went away in all directions. You completely tired and become weak. Those who survived where utterly exhausted. But Tengri was gracious, and since I was granted with fortune, I succeeded to the throne. Having succeeded to the throne,

I changed all poor and destitute people. I made poor people wealthy and few people numerous. This word of mine is blessed! О Turkish lords and people, hear this! In order to join together all Turkish people and direct our country, I have inscribed here: Being deceived you will die.

All words which I wanted to say I have inscribed on this eternal stone. Read these inscriptions! You, Turkish people now and lords! With the lords who had already been deceived there I had inscribed. I get painters from the Chinese emperor, and ordered them to inscribe. They put all my words on the stone.

The court painters of the Chinese emperor took part. I got them to build an extraordinary mausoleum. They decorated the inside and outside with wonderful paintings and sculptures. They inscribed all my word on the stone, I had all the words in my mind recorded. See these inscriptions and get lessons, all of you from my On-Ok descendants to slaves. I had the memorial stone inscribed.

This is plain place to live. I had the memorial stone erected for the brave man in this country and inscribed on this place. See this memorial and learn its contents. … The one who inscribed these inscriptions is nephew (Prince) Yolluγtegin.

In order to take care of Kultegin's gold and silver, his treasures and possessions, his four (thousand?) horses…. Tengri … I inscribed the stone. (Prince) Yolluγtegin…" https://bitig.kz/?lang=e&mod=1&tid=1&oid=15&m=1

This is your proof that here saying O Turkish people refers to Turkic speaking Kokturks Otuz Tatars. Now add this since I cant write anymore as you have locked the page.

See Reference 144: "“Otuz Tatar - Thirty Tatars”. Mongol homogenous nomad tribes. In the Chinese sources, they are pointed as “tatan, dadan”. They inhabited the territory between Baikal and Manchuria".--KoizumiBS (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC) "Also all Turkic people came from Manchuria, you cant prove that 100% check Turkic people page and references there, there are many".

Now listen to these words carefully:-

"Possible Proto-Turkic ancestry, at least partial, has been posited for Xiongnu, Huns and Pannonian Avars, as well as Tuoba and Rouran (later Tatars), who were of Proto-Mongolic Donghu ancestry." Turkic peoples page, go check references there.

If you respect science and evidence, please add these possibilities in Donghu and Rouran pages, and Tatar confederation page. Stop trying to delete every evidence about the possibility of Turkic people ancestry from Donghu, Rouran, Xiongnu, or the fact that they share possibly same origins as Proto-Mongols. There are so many facts and evidence that suggests their origins from Northeastern China same as Proto-Mongols. Xiongnu, Donghu, Rouran. Million references are out there about this, but you keep pushing these facts away because of your agenda and maybe your hate towards Turkic people which is not right, you should respect truth and history and science. Please be fair and add those references and findings otherwise you are just a bully and you try to change history as you please. Which is a crime against humanity.

You did not follow the rules, and now you accuse me of crimes that I did not commit. I have written to you more than once about the need to use secondary sources and not engage in original research. And now you also violated the WP: CIVIL rules.--KoizumiBS (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this a case of WP:NOTHERE?

• Here Volgabulgari changed the wording

  • The name "Tatar" was first transliterated in the Book of Song as 大檀 Dàtán (MC: *da-dan) and 檀檀 Tántán (MC: *dan-dan) as another name for the Rourans.

    to:

  • The name "Tatar" was first transliterated in the Book of Song as 大檀 Dàtán (MC: *da-dan) and 檀檀 Tántán (MC: *dan-dan) also used as another name for the Rourans who were of Proto-Mongolic Donghu origin.

  • The reason why the original wording had been:

  • The name "Tatar" was first transliterated in the Book of Song as 大檀 Dàtán (MC: *da-dan) and 檀檀 Tántán (MC: *dan-dan) as another name for the Rourans.

  • was because in the original Chinese wording in Songshu, vol. 95 is:

    • 芮芮一號大檀，又號檀檀

      , which, when translated to English, is:

    • Ruìruì , one appellation is Dàtán, also called Tántán

  • Songshu, vol. 95 did not claim that 大檀 Dàtán and Tántán 又號檀檀 were "also used as another name for the Rourans"
  • It's very apparent that Volgabulgari cannot read Classical Chinese. From the article's edit history, Volgabulgari wrote these:

    • Tatar name also used for Rourans but it's not necessary to add Proto-Mongolic. Because "Tatar" here are not the Rourans.

    • atar confederation here is not same with Rourans. Not the same people.

• Here Volgabulgari asserted that: "He is using a Britannica source where it says Tatars originated between Lake Balkai and Manchuria. Same source also says Original Tatars (Nine Tatars) are a Turkic-speakers unlike Mongols." when in fact the source I cited for that is "Note 144 on "The Kultegin inscription" in Türik Bitig. Russian original: " Otuz Tatar – кочевые племена монгольского типа. В китайских источниках их называли «татань, дадань». Проживали на Байкале и маньчжурии." rough translation: "Nomadic tribes of the Mongolic sort. In Chinese sources they were called 'Tatan, Dadan'. They lived between Baikal and Manchuria."
• Volgabulgari also asserted: "When I added "Original Tatars associated with Turkic peoples" he keeps deleting without saying anything most of the time." I did delete "Actual Tatars, the Nine Tatars are associated with Turkic peoples. They might be related to Kipchak and/or Cuman peoples." from the section "Name and origin" because it is a repetition of "they were proposed to be Turkic speakers (e.g. by Encyclopedia Britannica or Kyzlasov apud Sadur 2012) related to Cumans and Kipchaks." in the very next section "Ethnic and linguistic affiliations", where the Nine Tatars' ethnic and linguistic affiliation/association would be relevant. I even wrote here "No need to repeat same claims by same sources too many times." to explain why I deleted "Actual Tatars, the Nine Tatars are associated with Turkic peoples. They might be related to Kipchak and/or Cuman peoples."
• Volgabulghari themself edited then deleted one whole section , even though the claim "Turkic-speaking peoples of Cumania, as a sign of political allegiance, adopted the endonym of their Mongolic-speaking conquerors, before ultimately subsuming the latter culturally and linguistically." in that section is sourced.
  • The source is Pow (2019). On page 563, Pow clearly wrote:

    • If we accept this statement regarding self-identification within the military-tribal confederation that arose in the steppe, then Mongol ethnic identity was at least partly a creation of Chinggis Khan and his immediate successors. Carpini’s “Mongols whom we call Tartars” had once been Tatars – whom we now call Mon-gols. A Mongolian linguistic and cultural identity existed before Chinggis Khan but the specifically “Mongol” national identity and predominant ethnonym must be products of Chinggis Khan’s empire-building project. If so, this only confirms what has long been said: Chinggis Khan is the father of the Mongolian people. Regarding the Volga Tatar people of today, it appears they took on the endonym of their Mongol conquerors when they overran the Dasht-i-Kipchak. It was preserved as the prevailing ethnonym in the subsequent synthesis of the Mongols and their more numerous Turkic subjects who ultimately subsumed their conquerors cultu-rally and linguistically as al-Umari noted by the fourteenth century . I argue that the name “Tatar” was adopted by the Turkic peoples in the region as a sign of having joined the Tatar conquerors – a practice which Friar Julian reported in the 1230s as the conquest unfolded. The name stands as a testament to the sur-vivability and adaptability of both peoples and ethnonyms. It became, as Sh. Marjani stated, their “proud Tatar name.”

• On their talk page Volgabulgari even told Nishidani "Kys (very likely standing for Kill yourself, 1, 2)" when critiqued by Nishidani for "editing a top class 4 article with virtually no prior experience as an editor" and "ignoring standard rules."
• EDIT: and many more actions...
• KoizumiBS, Kansas Bear, etc. What do you think? Erminwin (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you should notify an Admin of these issues. This has all the makings of disruptive editing.--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you just changed it as a Mongolic confederation then? Dada (Rouran) in Chinese sources may not be Tatars in the Orkhon inscriptions and even they are it would be absurd for you to use only one part of Britannica. Volgabulgari (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

lol Volgabulgari (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Having had a look at the Song Shu source, I agree that the wording "as another name for the Rourans" reflects the source, whereas "also used as another name..." misrepresents it, since this is the only context in which the term appears in the source. It looks like the very next sentence establishes lack of consensus on identifying 檀檀/大檀 with other epigraphic evidence I'm not familiar with, so it seems like all interpretations are addressed? Folly Mox (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Still, I'm still hesitant about reverting "also used as another name..." back to "as another name..." as well as many other disruptive editings by Volgabulgari for fear of violating the three-revert rule. Call me paranoid, yet I'm thinking Volgabulgari is gaming the system. Erminwin (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The term "Tatar" has been used in different contexts throughout history and can refer to various people. In some cases, it has been used to refer to Turkic groups, while in other cases, it has been used to refer to Mongolic groups. If you have any strong evidence Tatar confederation is pure Mongolic groups and Rourans themselves you can change this page as a Mongolic confederation. It makes you look less unfortunate than to say "What's the problem with modern Tatars having Mongolic-speaking ancestors" in a subject that highly controversional. No, I won't call you paranoid. You can believe that I'm getting paid for Tatarstan governnent. Wish success you in your personal life. I've been avoiding to talk you in the administrator page. Volgabulgari (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Early and mediaeval Chinese sources were extremely liberal in overgeneralising with their ethnonyms – which is touched on in the second paragraph of the first level 2 subheading in the article – and I'm not understanding how the minor change of also used as is eliciting such pushback. As a subject matter novice, coming to this topic for the first time yesterday in the capacity of a bored person who can read classical Chinese texts, at the risk of making myself look unfortunate, User:Volgabulgari can you point me to a page where I can learn why it's so controversial to describe the earliest attestation of the term "Tatar" in a way that more closely reflects the cited source? Is there a clarifying sentence you'd like to include regarding lack of positive identification of the Chinese term with the whole of the Tatar confederation that will satisfy your sensibilities on this matter? Folly Mox (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Reason for the lack of clarity regarding the identity of the Tatars, including their origins and language, is due to the ambiguous nature of historical sources. Although some scholars have posited a possible link between the Tatars and Mongolic-speaking groups such as the Rourans or the Mongols, this remains a topic of scholarly debate and has not been universally accepted. Similarly, the theory that the Tatars may have been related to Turkic-speaking peoples is also contested. I was edited as another name for Rourans because we don't know if Dada and Tatar are same thing as a next sentence also suggesting the same thing.

If it's true Tatar confederation and Rouran is the same thing, we're not just enlighted a long-going historical debate but also we can change this confederation as a Mongolic confederation. it is important to avoid drawing overly simplistic or reductionist conclusions from such evidence. In light of these uncertainties, it is important to exercise caution when making claims about the identity of the Tatars. While it is possible that the Dada/Tatar were another name for the Mongolic Rourans, it is not necessarily accurate to describe them as a "Mongolic confederation" without further corroborating evidence. Indeed, the notion that the Tatars may have been a Turkic-speaking group distinct from the Mongols is supported by some historical sources.

The source cited by user Ermenwin, which suggests that the Tatars historically resided in some regions, but also suggests that Tatars were a Turkic-speaking people distinct from Mongols. When I added "Original Tatars (ToquzTatars) may related to Turkic peoples" which same source also suggesting this he keeps deleted. The suggestion that the Tatars may have had Mongolic ancestors or affiliations is not necessarily problematic, but it is important to approach such claims with an open-minded and critical perspective. He also vandalized the page by deleting Shatuo Turks joined the Tatar confederation and becoming known as White Tatars.

Best regards @Folly Mox Volgabulgari (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Volgabulgari: "You can believe that I'm getting paid for Tatarstan governnent". There's this Vietnamese idiom: chưa đánh đã khai "already confessing before getting beaten".

"The source cited by user Ermenwin, which suggests that the Tatars historically resided in some regions, but also suggests that Tatars were a Turkic-speaking people distinct from Mongols" When reading this assertion of yours

He is using a Britannica source where it says Tatars originated between Lake Balkai and Manchuria. Same source also says Original Tatars (Nine Tatars) are a Turkic-speakers unlike Mongols.

here, I charitably thought that you had been mistaken, so I pointed out that:

in fact the source I cited for that is "Note 144 on "The Kultegin inscription" in Türik Bitig. Russian original: "Otuz Tatar – кочевые племена монгольского типа. В китайских источниках их называли «татань, дадань». Проживали на Байкале и маньчжурии." rough translation: "Nomadic tribes of the Mongolic sort. In Chinese sources they were called 'Tatan, Dadan'. They lived between Baikal and Manchuria."

That note is readable here by hovering the mouse over the number 144 on the upper-right corner of the word "Otuz Tatar" (in the Latin transcription of line 4), causing a box to appear containing the Russian original:

Otuz Tatar – кочевые племена монгольского типа. В китайских источниках их называли «татань, дадань». Проживали на Байкале и маньчжурии.

So when you again re-asserted "The source cited by user Ermenwin, which suggests that the Tatars historically resided in some regions, but also suggests that Tatars were a Turkic-speaking people distinct from Mongols", you just lied bald-facedly.Erminwin (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Flatheartism is better for you. Volgabulgari (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

1. Golden, Peter B. "Some Notes on the Avars and Rouran", in The Steppe Lands and the World beyond Them. Ed. Curta, Maleon. Iași (2013). pp. 54-56.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Mongols articles
• Mid-importance Mongols articles
• WikiProject Mongols articles
• Stub-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance Stub-Class Russia articles
• Stub-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Stub-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• Stub-Class Central Asia articles
• Mid-importance Central Asia articles
• WikiProject Central Asia articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class Chinese military history articles
• Chinese military history task force articles
• Start-Class Medieval warfare articles
• Medieval warfare task force articles