Talk:Tatars
|
|
| Contents |
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1911 data on tatars are outdated, especially population and other numeric data.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
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)
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)