Talk:Tatars

Typological "classifications"

I have raised the matter here, here, here, and here in the hopes of generating more knowledgeable discussion on the matter. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• I would encourage very strongly not to use the racial typological classification such as "caucasoid" "lappoid" etc. as they are now only in use within Forensic anthropology (and other branches of American law enforcement) - but not in physical nor cultural anthropology - and because they index a pre-scientific understanding of human biological variation. If you need to refer specifically to physical traits characteristic of European (or other) populations I'd use that wording (physical traits = populations). Or if it is a question of origin you may be able to find population genetic studies that mention the prevalent haplogroups. These would be the contemporary ways of describing genetic ancestry - the -oid suffixes went out around 1950.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Digging through the article history, I found that this use of archaic terminology has been around for quite a while. It was first added to the lead section on 8 July 2005 by User:Kennethtennyson, who has not edited since 2007. On 6 July 2006, User:Der Ritter added the information regarding so-called "facial types", albeit with different terminology; he announced that he was leaving the project in June 2009 due to apparent ideological differences. The information was changed to the most recent wording on 20 April 2008 by IP 193.77.231.230, who geolocates to Slovenia, just like the user currently pushing to retain the wording; they are almost certainly the same individual. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The suffixWiktionary:-oid simply means "form or likeness". It is not the suffix itself that is objectionable, rather it is the pseudo-science used to "class" peoples on the basis of superficial likeness or form. If no other compromise can be reached, perhaps attach a note regarding the usage of such terms with a link to Scientific racism. Meclee (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the suffix itself may be so simple by definition, but the terms using the suffix carry a lot more baggage. You will certainly get raised eyebrows if you start throwing the term "Mongoloid" around, and looks of confusion when you start bringing in the really obscure terms like "Lapponoid" (note the redlink). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if my comment offended you. Merely trying to suggest possible resolution to edit conflict. Meclee (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries; I took no offence. But to be quite honest, I'm beginning to doubt that the other party in the dispute will ever show up to argue his case here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Lots of problems in the first paragraph. Yes, the classification as Turks is a technically difficult one, especially now with all the DNA studies. Tatars are *not* the earliest people in the Crimea (H. sapiens bearing mtDNA that isn't commonly found in Tatars were the first - their descendants are now scattered throughout Europe, but highly concentrated in particular places - not Crimea - that are outside the scope of this article and themselves deserve analysis). This is distinct from the situation, say, in the United States where many Native Americans share both the mtDNA and y-chromosome patterns of the earliest known and studied inhabitants - making them clearly "native" or "indigeneous." Tatars came in WAY later than not just the first wave of inhabitants in Crimea (one of the earliest inhabited places in Europe, btw - at 40-45,000BP), but after the second and third waves of Crimean migrants. Any proof that the Tatars are direct descendants of those people at 40,000BP. No, and to the contrary, genetic and linguistic evidence would show that the Tatars (like the ethnic Japanese) only came to what is considered by many to be their "native" land within the last 2,000 years - displacing people who were there before.76.172.3.233 (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Tatars should not be labelled as Turkic in the front row

Tatars have been influenced by various groups, including (arguably) Turkic. As of language, an overwhelming majority of Tatars speak Russian as their first and native language. Tatar language is spoken as well. By any means, it is factually incorrect to put this label in the front row. In other words, "Turkic" does not define the contemporary Tatars correctly.JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your logic. Kurds in Turkey speak Turkish as their first and native language, but they are considered to be an ETHNIC Iranian people. Tatars are an ETHNIC Turkic people. What kind of pseudo-science are you talking about? --Kurdale (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JackofDiamonds, and am highly skeptical that Tatars today harbor some pan-Turkic ethnic identity. I am confused by Kurdale's assertion that there is some inherent "ETHNIC" identity, which is solely described by ancestral language family, but which nonetheless persists through language loss. Are you referring to the "kind of pseudo-science" in Turkish textbooks which pretends that the people in modern-day Anatolia are descended from ancient Central Asian nomads just because they speak a descendant of their language? Also, quack quack. Shrigley (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Tatars are an ethnic Turkic people, their language is part of Kipchak group of Turkic language family. Fullstop. Every book, every Encyclopaedia is listing them as an ethnic Turkic people. We don't need Russian propaganda sympathizer, we are living in the 21st century. End with this anti-Turkic behavior. I can't believe that we are caused to talk about such a superfluously topic. --Greczia (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Turkic influence is indeed present but it is not the only one. The question is - should this be in in the front row, as something defining the modern-day tatars? Clearly not - that would be a misrepresentation, "selective reporting". I have heard these contradictory arguments: 1) They are Turkic by language, not by ethnicity. 2) They are Turkic by ethnicity not by language. In fact, none of these is entirely true and therefore should not be used as a definition. We need to hear more voices and raise this question further. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

One might argue Russians have been influenced by tons of different groups throughout the history, yet they are defined as an East Slavic ethnic group in the opening sentence of the Wikipedia article on them.

Similarly, Tatars are uniformly described as a Turkic people by encyclopedias:

Tatar, also spelled Tartar, any member of several Turkic-speaking peoples (Encyclopedia Brittanica)

Tatars (tä´tərz) or Tartars (tär´tərz), Turkic-speaking peoples living primarily in Russia, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. (The Columbia Encyclopedia)

Wikipedia is no place for original POVs. --Mttll (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Both sources describe Tatars as Turkic-speaking, not Turkic, to start with. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Same thing.

Turkic peoples, any of various peoples whose members speak languages belonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages. (Encyclopedia Brittanica)

Mttll (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Tatars are so recognizable Turkic that the term, Turko-Tatar, was used in reference to Turkic peoples.

Definition of TURKO-TATAR: turkic (Merriam-Webster)

Definition of TATAR: 1. a member of any of a group of Turkic peoples found mainly in the Tatar Republic of Russia and parts of Siberia and central Asia 2. any of the Turkic languages spoken by the Tatar peoples (Merriam-Webster)

There is really no contest here.--Mttll (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there was a similar discussion on Talk:Swedes#The Swedish people are a germanic ethnic group, where the consensus was not to describe Swedes in linguistic terms. Here's a choice quote: "Speaking a Germanic language does not mean that an ethno-national group can be defined unproblematically as "a germanic ethnic group["]. Ethnicity just doesn't work like that. That would make [for example] African-Americans classifiable as Germanic. To classify a group as Germanic it must be shown that the group identifies with that Germanic linguistic heritage to a considerable extent."The reason that "Russians" are classified on Wikipedia as a "Slavic" group is because the Russians are and were the biggest proponents of pan-Slavism, while the peoples who had historically resisted pan-Slavism, such as Poles, deemphasize the Slavic connection on their Wikipedia article. You can see examples of the inverse, such as when anti-Chinese users attempt to deny the fact that Bhutanese speak a language genetically related to Chinese.[1]

Anyway, this looks like part of a pan-Wikipedia pissing match between pan-Turkists and pan-Iranists to turn pure linguistic concepts into ethnic concepts. Aside from the obvious empire-building motivations, there is also the sinister effect of masking e.g. Persian discrimination against Kurds, because they're both, according to Wikipedia, "Iranic peoples". The reason that Tatars are associated with Turks is because of historical error; because "Tatar" was used as a term for all Turkic-speaking peoples until recently (another proof that the "Turkic people" concept is ahistorical). I guess we'll have to wait until all the Tatar-speakers die out for nationalists to stop insisting that they are "Turkic"; with only 20 speakers of Manchu (out of 10 million ethnics), Wikipedians still try to apply absurd, outdated classifications. Shrigley (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't see much to discuss here, since the academic community seem to be in uniform agreement on the matter of this discussion. And a point you might find interesting is that if there is any dispute about Tatars, it's whether they should be called Tatars at all, not whether they are Turkic. Because the term, Tatar, is originally a Mongolic tribal ethnonym that was applied to Kypcak Turks who became modern Tatars. But then, it's not for Wikipedia to "correct" the established things. --Mttll (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree Tatar's speak a Turkic language but Y-haplogroups of various Tatar group's seem to dispel Turkic ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.85.229 (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Photos in the infobox

There ought to be a fine balance between historically important and modern-day Tatars in the infobox. As of now, the balance is skewed to the former. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, User:Гропспонт has been warring to include a load of dead people in the image. I'm just going to change it back to the one he keeps removing. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Lenin be removed? As far as I am aware he was not really a Tatar. Only his father may have been of Tatar descentTaran0 (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Famous Tatars

How many of the "famous tatars" are really famous? I think we should include the names based on the amount of people who are aware of a particular person. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Could anyone please find the free pictures of Marat Basharov and Roustam Tariko? Thanks. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Elsewhere in the land of pedantic spelling, someone might want to fix "footbaler". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cxed (talk • contribs) 16:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

To JackofDiamonds1

I have written this in his talk page, but received no response. So dropping it here as well.

Sources describe Tatars like this:

Definition of TATAR: 1. a member of any of a group of Turkic peoples found mainly in the Tatar Republic of Russia and parts of Siberia and central Asia 2. any of the Turkic languages spoken by the Tatar peoples (Merriam-Webster)

Definition of Tatar 1. a member of a Turkic people living in Tatarstan and various other parts of Russia and Ukraine. They are the descendants of the Tartars who ruled central Asia in the 14th century. 2. the Turkic language of the Tatars, with about 6 million speakers. (Oxford Dictionaries)

I suggest you stop your attempt at WP:OR against the uniform position of perfectly reliable sources on this matter.

If I don't receive a response here in a few days (let's say a week at most), I'm going to restore the earlier version of the opening sentence. --Mttll (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Classification

I suggest that we establish and develop 3 large groups, namely Volga Tatars, Crimean Tatars and Lipka Tatars, who have developed separately from each other. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Copied Request

Dear Sir,

Please add to the list of world famous Tatar people following individuals as their ethnic nationalities is Tatar: 1) Rudolf_Nureyev (ballet dancer) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Nureyev 2) Alina Maratovna Kabaeva (gymnastic) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alina_Kabaeva 3) Gata Kamsky (Chess champion) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gata_Kamsky 4) Alsu Safina/Abramova ( singer)

It is very simple 

The Tartars are Turkic language tribes ,living nearby historic Mongols . They killed Chengis'father and later have been forced to vassalisation by Mongols . Tatarstan in Russia has nothing to do with them . The place was Finnic-Ugric and called Volga-Bulgaria . So General population was Finnic , In the early times of Mongol invasion they together with some Turkic tribes defeated Mongols at river Belaya(river Belaya has Indo- Iranic-Aryan name Kama means the god of sensitivity in Indo-Aryan sanskrit from where Kama-sutra.) in 1240 . The Mongols genosided 4/5 population in Volga-Bulgaria and granted the territory to some of their allied Turkic tribes. The remaining Finno-Ugric took Islam and accepted Turkic tongue ,though there are lot of blonde Finnic people in that region . Edelfred (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

no significant population in Turkey?

How come there is no significant pop. in Turkey? Crimean tatars are a subgroup of Tatars, how come they list 150 000 - 6 000 000 tatars in Turkey? and none is listed here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars

Ethnic group

Hello,
In fact we can not consider all Tatars as a single ethnic group, as they are a group of ethnic groups which are related to each other somehow. For example, Volga Tatars and Astrakhan Tatars are forming one ethnic group; Lipka Tatars are their descendants and are undergone some cultural assimilation in Europe; Siberian Tatars and Baraba Tatars are different group which are related to above mentioned Tatars, but more close to Kazakhs or Altai people; Crimean Tatars are completely different from all above mentioned with different history and language, which is not mutual intelligible with other Tatar languages, than can be seen in the articles dedicated to the topic (and the most important they don't consider themselves to be a part of the whole Tatar nation). And finally, Dobruja Tatars are the descendants of Crimean Tatars with some admixtures. Russian were calling almost all Turkic people with the word "Tatar": Azerbaijani people - Transcaucasian Tatars, Karachay and Balkars - Mountain Tatars, Altai people - Altai tatars, Kumyk people - Daghestan Tatars, etc. That's the source of the common name for a bit different groups. Any offers for changes in the heading?
Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I think it is silly for the name "Tatar" to refer to a single subgroup (Kazan/Volga Tatars). I think it is more appropriate that this Wikipedia page named "Tatars" should synthesize information from all ethnic groups still (erroneously) called "Tatars" and that should include the Muslims of Crimea & Ukraine, Lithuania & Poland, and the lower & upper Volga and Siberia in Russia. In fact, I believe that the article "Tatar language" should be renamed Volga Tatar language. It would get confusing if Belorussian was called "White Russian" or if Portuguese was called "Portuguese Spanish/Iberian" or even if all Romance languages were named with "Latin" in the end, like "Portuguese/Lusitanian Latin", "French/Gaulic Latin", "Castillian/Spanish Latin", "Italian Latin", "Romanian/Dacian Latin", etc.

Regards, --Fernirm (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

what does "erroneously" mean in this context? "Tatars" or "Tartars" is a term for all Turkic speaking groups in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. Since the 19th century, these groups have fragmented into various minor groups, except for the Volga Tatars, which make up the bulk (six sevenths) of the descendants of the early modern "Tartars". For this reason the Volga Tatars are often just called "Tatars". Now this article is in danger of becoming just a duplicate of the Volga Tatars one, unless' its scope is made perfectly clear. The "Tatar language" is the modern language of the Volga Tatars. The languages of the historical Tatars are mostly equivalent to the Kipchak branch of Turkic. The historical Tartary is covered under Tartary. It isn't clear what this article is about other than accumulating loosely related but misplaced material that would be more at home in either a specialized article, or an article that is explicitly historical in scope.

There is no contemporary ethnic group called "Tatars" other than the group which we have already covered under Volga Tatars. --dab (𒁳) 11:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree mostly. But we need a page where something about Tatars in general is written; OK, not this much and detailed. Just the name of the Tatar group can be given (as a list) and explained in 1-2 sentences and then the link to the specified article. Or in the Languages sector which languages exist can be shown and, if there is one, the link of the appropriate article can be added. No need to add all the info that exists here under each section. I am for keeping (after slightly simplifying) History section; only to keep the history of the name but not the ethnic groups. Traditional culture section is completely about Volga Tatars; no need to show it here, as the other Tatar groups don't share all of these. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

thank you Ali-al-Bakuvi. I am sure we can find a satisfactory solution. I see that while we are having this conversation, my edits to the page were undone by logged-out users. I am reverting this. If this devolves into anonymous edit-warring we may need to semi-protect the page.

I agree that this page could be about the general "history of Tatars" 1300 to 1900 or so. Of course this will overlap with Tartary, but as with Scythians vs. Scythia it is possible to do one page about the territory and the other about the population if you are careful with maintaining clean article scopes. --dab (𒁳) 05:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Corrections

Qasim Khanate has slightly different history. It existed since 1452. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I added one information based on sources; it is one of the main theories where "Tatar" words comes from. In Orkhon inscriptions the name of "Thirty Tatar" confederation is stated a lot of times. We have to take this fact into consideration. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

And one more point: During Russian Empire the Central Asian Turkic people were not called "Tatars". There is no source for it. Kazakhs, Karakalpaks (who considered to be a part of Kazakhs then) and Kyrgyz people were called "Kirgiz-Kaysak", and the others as they are called now. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Based on this, it is fair to say that the name is recorded as an endonym in Old Turkic. You are also right in your objection to equating "Tatar" with "Kipchak Turkic". "Tatar" as a Russian exonym refers to those Turkic peoples that the East Slavs were in conflict with, and de facto it was not applied to remote Central Asian peoples. So I admit that my presentation of "all Kipchak speaking peoples" was probably misplaced on this page.

The problem here is the overlap of Tatar as endonym and as exonym. As exonym, we need to focus on the Russian perspective (whom did they call Tatar), and as an endonym, we need to rely on scant historical Turkic records. And at the same time we need to take care not to mix up the two perspectives, and the page always needs to remain aware at any given point whether it is discussing a modern self-designation, a historical self-designation, a modern exonym or a historical exonym. --dab (𒁳) 15:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, it may not make sense to keep trying to stuff the disparate meanings of the term into a single article that will keep confusing the issue no matter what.

• Tatar as an exonym is the Turco-Mongol topic, i.e. the term referred to the invading Turkic and Mongol peoples. It did not distinguish between Turkic and Mongol, of course, it's not a linguistic term.
• the Tatar confederation
• early modern Tartary as historical nemesis of the East Slavs
• the modern Volga Tatars
• Crimean Tatars, etc. (which do not form a single group with the Volga Tatars. Crimean Tatars are not "Tatars" with a modifying adjective saying they live in the Crimea, they are "Crimean Tatars" as opposed to "Tatars proper").
• there may be some modern concept of a greater Tatar nation. This is ethnic/political ideology, and not an objective category, so it cannot objectively be described as a "group" with a total population etc. Within the same group, some may be "Tatarist"(?) others "Bulgarist", yet others Pan-Turkic, or what have you. If there is such a "greater Tatar" nationalist movement, it should be covered, but obviously it must be covered as yet another "-ism", and not camouflaged as an "ethnic group" article.

--dab (𒁳) 16:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We have a category Category:Tatar nationalism, but apparently this is just about secession of Tatarstan and as such concerns Volga Tatars, and does not refer to a "greater Tatarstan" ideology. (Wäisi movement, Ittifaq party). Even the All-Tatar Public Center in spite of its name (All-Tatar, Всетатарский) apparently just focusses on Tatarstan. It appears that in Tatarstan, "Tatar" equates "Volga Tatar". So perhaps the confusion on Wikipedia is purely terminological. --dab (𒁳) 16:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree; the reason that I mentioned the Tatar confederation in the article to show it was endonym before Mongol invasion and before the West and East Slavs started to name all Turkic peoples with whom they contacted as Tatars. Actually, I am also for transferring most of the detailed info about current groups to the specified articles and leave here only short introductions. Most of the groups are already so. But Volga, Crimea, etc. Tatars still have large info here, whereas special articles exist. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Actually I don't find correct comparing Tatars with Americans. Because various Tatar groups - Crimean Tatars, Volga Tatars and Siberian Tatars are different people, with different traditions, different language, different history and different self-consciousness as ethnic groups (no one refuses that they are related).
OK, in official Volga Tatar historiography Siberian Tatars are considered as a sub-group of them, although their language is not mutually intelligible and they have different ethnogenesis history. Crimean Tatars are related to both groups very distantly. They are not even related with common geography or a country (if we do not take into consideration the latest crisis). It is like to collect Turkmen people, Iraqi Turkmens, Syrian Turkmens, Terekeme and Yörüks under one article and try to introduce an infobox for them. These peoples are more related to each other than different Tatar groups.
We intend to transfer all detailed info to appropriate specific articles and leave here only common information, which can give general idea about the origins and current usage of the term "Tatar".
So I would want to come for a consensus in order to prevent an edit war. Your offers, ideas, opinion? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Article continues to be problematic

I am uncertain whether or not this is the result of having been edited by a number of non-native English speakers with various political/ethnic agendas, or if it is only because it has suffered from a stream of drive-by edits, but the fact that this article's lead paragraph began with the sentence "Mishary were dominant in the Tatar state and originate from the Golden Horde" ([in]complete with no wikilinks to anything, see here) strikes me as evidence that this article is floundering. More evidence of this: "The largest group by far that the Russians have called 'Tatars' are the Volga Tatars" (what is this "by far" supposed to mean??), This whole paragraph:

"the Russo-Kazan Wars lasted for the best part of a century" (which should have been written "...better part of a century" if it is going to be written so vaguely at all, which I think is a bad idea), "The Persian word is first recorded in the 13th century in reference to the hordes of Genghis Khan and is of unknown origin, according to OED 'said to be' ultimately from tata, a name of the Mongols for themselves. The Arabic word for Tatars is تتار. Tatars themselves wrote their name as تاتار or طاطار. The Chinese term for Tatars was dada 韃靼, especially after the end of the Yuan period (14th century), but also recorded as a term for Mongolian-speaking peoples of the northern steppes during the Tang period (8th century)"

(which really seems like a stream of borderline useless info for most Wikipedia readers), the list of various "Tatar" ethnic groups (which is given in the article with no context for the reader), the weird attempt to group the language families (which loses me utterly and doesn't even seem to include consistent links to other relevant Wikipedia articles, e.g., Kipchak-Cuman language families), and the strange and vague references to slavery and things like "The raids were an important drain of the human and economic resources of both countries" (really? the raids were an important drain? And if they had not happened then other important things would not have happened??) which just begins to scratch the surface of what is wrong with this article. I don't want to sound like I am just being a dick, but this article reads like it has gone pretty far off kilter, to the point that I don't even feel motivated to try to fix it (at least, not beyond what I have just done to the lead paragraph, which I am pretty sure someone is going to come along and casually undo soon, restoring the sentence about someone named "Mishary" to the introductory sentence, which will be idiotic, but there you have it). If every attempt to make this article read like a real encyclopedia article is going to be reverted and re-edited by editors with non-encyclopedia agendas who aren't paying attention to what they are doing, then the "Tatars" are going to remain one of Wikipedia's stagnant informational backwaters. Which is a shame. As someone with absolutely no political agenda on this point, I shake my head and walk away. Let me know when the swamp is finally drained (...sorry for being a dick, though). KDS4444^Talk 14:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with your assessment. I read the lede twice and it makes my head swim. I have no idea what it is trying to say. The main problem seems to be that it is not clear whether it is talking about the various definitions/uses of "Tartar" as a word, or talking about any one of those definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This means that if a word has multiple meanings, we create an article for each definition and add a disambiguation page to send the user to the definition they are interested in. Ashmoo (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tatars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029035259/http://www.galve.lt/lt/numeriai/2007062225/Trakai%20ir%20pasaulio%20paveldas/koranas to http://www.galve.lt/lt/numeriai/2007062225/Trakai%20ir%20pasaulio%20paveldas/koranas

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tatars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020227012304/http://newasp.omskreg.ru/hist/fotatlas/rezumeen.htm to http://newasp.omskreg.ru/hist/fotatlas/rezumeen.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit war in progress

There is an edit war brewing in the Infobox over the religions practiced by Tatars. Apparently, a Russian source does not recognize certain religions, while everyculture.com recognizes more religions. A brand new IP editor is relentlessly pushing the material from the Russian source, to which I strongly object. Please keep an eye on this.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yet another partisan edit war in progress (new IP SPA)

This edit has been reverted three times by two editors, and unreverted three times by the "new" IP SPA editor. No cogent edit summary, many changes, and no sources cited, yet this editor persists and, I believe, is headed for a block. Would anyone like to revert the edit cited above? This editor has requested Talk page discussion, but, given the facts above, what can be discussed? Thanks to all interested editors.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Uncitated racism

"Current day Tatars comprise a range of physical appearances, from Mongoloid to Caucasoid." from the last paragraph of the first section.

From Wikipedia; "[Mongoloid] is one of the outdated three races proposed by Georges Cuvier in the 18th century, the other two groups being Caucasoid and Negroid. ... It is today not widely used by anthropologists as its validity and usefulness in classification is considered highly questionable."

Why would this be included? JobAur (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I've warned the user that keeps re-adding it a couple of times, and they came back with a source that's literally from the year 1852 to claim that the Tatar people are biologically Mongoloids. I've since issued a final warning and if they ignore it again I'll have to see if we can protect the article from this absurdly outdated vandalism. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Genetics

Between three different editors, we removed the whole genetics section from this article. I started it by removing the completely meaningless dump of Y-DNA haplotype frequency tables. Editor @Vaultralph: has put it all back without explanation or edit summary. Vaultralph, please follow WP:BRD and discuss before re-inserting challenged material in future. Rather than delete the whole lot again, I have removed the most clearly meaningless section and put a cleanup tag on the section. Other editors may wish to remove the whole lot though.

The question is this: what do you want readers of this article to learn from this genetics section? Any genetics section needs completely rewriting with that in mind. We should not dump tables of information from primary research. It is also worth noting that Y DNA and mtDNA studies are now looking quite dated. The science and understanding has moved on considerably. Anything we put here must summarise current research and not just give a snapshot of an old paper or two. I think the mtDNA section should definitely go too for that reason, and I doubt the veracity of the first paragraph as an up to date summary. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more constructive to improve the article by altering a section rather than removing a sourced information?Vaultralph (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to altering and updating the section, but this genetics section has multiple issues as follows:

1. The information does not tell the reader anything because it is a dump of gene frequencies without any explanatory prose. Readers of an article on the Tartar people should not need to know what haplogroups and subclades are.
2. The section has six sources, four in the tables I removed. The referencing has issues, but even taking on face value, these are all primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and for a subject such as this a secondary source is required. If we are attempting to tell anyone anything about genetics, the primary sources must be curated either through systematic reviews or at least through secondary sources written by subject specialists who have attempted to summarise the state of play.
3. The information relates to Y-DNA and mtDNA studies, which were as good as things got some 10 years ago, but the science has moved on. The information would need an update.

Information doesn't stand just because it is sourced. Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, so information contained in it should be tertiary information about the subject, presented to the reader in a manner that a general reader can understand. It is specifically not a place to republish uncurated tables of information lifted out of context from primary sources. Any new genetics section must be written as prose to explain to the reader in plain English what the science tells us about the population. Either that or it should be removed in total. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You say science has moved on since the referenced Y-DNA and mtDNA studies were released. And if that is indeed the case, would you mind shering the links of more recent studies regarding the updated information that you may know of, please? I would really appriciate that, as it would help me a lot in trying to improve the section. Vaultralph (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but be aware that for the same reasons as above we cannot just use the detail of this paper either as it is a primary source, but here is a 2017 full genome study that is relevant. "Between Lake Baikal and the Baltic Sea: genomic history of the gateway to Europe."[2] The paper is not specifically about the Tatars but the conclusions reached definitely include them. For instance, they found that samples relating to the Tatars "exhibit substantial admixture of European and Asian components." The general observations about the mixtures of populations also apply. For a readable and interesting introduction to what the full genome studies are and how they are overturning our understanding of Y-DNA and mtDNA studies, you might want to read David Reich's "Who we are and how we got here: Ancient DNA and the new science of the human past". -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I should add that this paragraph, that I left in, is not obviously at odds with the above paper:

Comparison of the proportions of Caucasoid and Mongoloid characteristics in the gene pools of ethnic groups in the Volga-Ural region revealed a heterogenous pattern. Data on the proportions of major racial components in the nuclear genome indicated that the Mongoloid characters were most prevalent in Bashkirs, Maris, Volga Tatars, and Chuvashes, while the Caucasoid component was maximum in Mordovians, Komis, and Udmurts. Data on restriction-deletion polymorphism of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) also indicated an increased Caucasoid contribution to Mordovian, Udmurt, and Komi gene pools and an increased Mongoloid component in Chuvashes and Volga Tatars. In general, the results obtained agree with ethnic anthropological data indicating the greatest Caucasoid contribution to the Mordovian and Komi gene pools and an increased Mongoloid component in Turkic populations of the Volga-Ural region (Volga Tatars, Bashkirs and Chuvashes).

The problem here is that the above is way too specific as it is based only on primary sources. It is also written in a way that is very hard for a reader to understand, and it is again not clear what we are trying to tell the reader. It looks like a simple comparison between related peoples showing how they differ slightly from each other but does not really tell us anything useful about Tatar genetics. It looks like detail cribbed from a primary source and inserted into the article just for the sake of it. We need to step back and think what the reader needs to know here and then find a way to present that. We should not simply dump data here in an uncurated fashion. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Kazan Khanate.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The modern Tatars are not descended from the ancient Tatars

The modern Tatars are not descended from the ancient Tatars, according to "The Secret Mongolian History", the ancient Tatars exposed to total annihilation by the Mongols in the beginnings of Genghis Khan's campaigns, the ancient Tatars were not a Turkic people unlike the modern Tatars.

Qipchaq Turks

The modern Tatars are mix of Qipchaq Turks and Mongols. 2A00:C281:4E8:A800:E5A1:EF30:33E8:4A40 (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Source? Beshogur (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

@Devlet Geray: please, explain your revert here - diff. I recommend to your read this - Help:Reverting, before making such reverts. "Reverting good-faith actions of other editors can also be disruptive and may lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing. Consider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing?"
I added missing sources, and you just one-click reverted everything with no proper explanation. You are not alone here. Learn to work respecting the work of others. You replaced my sources with your sources and changed numbers. Why?--Renat (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• See this article Volga Tatars. There are already given sources for Volga Tatars population. So don't just project the statistics of the Volga Tatars onto all Tatars. Volga Tatars did not privatize the name "Tatars". And don't delete Crimean Tatar population as you did --Devlet Geray (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Devlet Geray: Let's try again. Can you explain why you reverted ALL my edits? Do you see that I provided sources? Sources does not specify whether the information is about Volga Tatars or Crimean Tatars. So I don't understand why you are repeating yourself, because your explanation explains nothing. I never said that Volga Tatars "privatize the name "Tatars".--Renat (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    • For instance, you deleted sources about Crimean Tatars in Turkey and added source about Volga Tatars in Turkey, removing the statistics about Crimean Tatars. Is it an appropriate action? You also removed statistics about Crimean Tatars+Volga Tatars in Uzbekistan, adding statistics about only Volga Tatars in Uzbekistan. And you wanted to do the same about Ukraine --Devlet Geray (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
      • @Devlet Geray: I replaced old sources with new RS. And new RS are about Tatars in general. 6 mln Tatars in Turkey is just a made up number. No reliable source says that. 12.8 mil Tatars worldwide is also a made up number based on 6 mln (6.8 mln from RS + 6 mln made up = 12.8). Here - Britannica says there are >5 million Tatars worldwide. I've seen RS say 7 mln, 8 mln. worldwide, but there are just no RS that says there are 12.8 mln Tatars worldwide. According to the source, made up "6 mln" was calculated in 1996 by taking one million immigrants as a starting point and multiplying this number by the birth rate in the span of the last hundred years. This is not even close to scientific way of counting. By the way, this is your account, right? Link to RuWiki. Making the same mistakes again? But now its EnWiki?--Renat (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
        • my contributions to Ruwiki are unrelated to this wiki, and this does not give you any permission to break the rules here. Since you have gone on a non-constructive track, I no longer have the desire to discuss anything with you. If necessary, contact the administrators (one has already tried to appeal to my blocking on Russian Wikipedia - a pitiful sight, to be honest). Until then, the article will be in a consensus state. Devlet Geray (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC) PS. and stop pinging me, this page is on my watchlist Devlet Geray (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Turkish magazine article

The Servet-i Funun had an article:

• "Turcs ou Tatares?". Servet-i Funoun Partie Français (in French) (1387). 1918-04-04. {{cite journal}}: External link in |issue= (help)

I wonder if it can be helpful for this topic WhisperToMe (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Closest languages to Tatar language

Uygur and Uzbek languages are closest languages to Tatar language: https://mytashkent.uz/2020/12/17/rodstvennye-yazyki-uzbekskomu/. Tatars in Uzbekistan have no any problems with Uzbeks in understanding each other when they speak in their native languages in conversations. Genetic proximities of Tatar language with Uzbek and Uygur languages are 13.4 and 9.7, respectively. These results can be found from this link: http://elinguistics.net/Compare_Languages.aspx. Generation Stream (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Kazan Khanate.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Page protected

@Vaultralph, Beshogur, and Tolmanke: I have locked the page for a few days to get you people to stop edit warring. Remember that edit warring can get you blocked from editing! Disagreements need to be worked out here on the talk page, by discussion, with citation of sources to prove your points. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Fake

Unknown card without data - " " Contemporary distribution of Kipchak languages:  Kipchak–Bolgar " "

P.S. - Please explain where this nonsense comes from? What else is Kipchak-Bolgarian? More than one world-renowned scientist does not describe such a phenomenon. This is pure fiction. If we are talking about the Volga Bulgars, then they spoke the Oghur R-language (rhotacism) instead of the Kipchak Z-language, which is recognized by all scientists of the world. I see this as a forgery and distortion of facts. Volga Bulgar language and Chuvash language they clarify the situation more clearly. We are witnessing pure forgery and falsification here.

The author of this fairy tale does not know the elementary basics of how Oghures, Oghuzes and Kipchaks differ. Nogai Kazanlary (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The policy of the KGB of the USSR and the rewriting of history

The history of Tatar Bulgarism is the basis of the ideology of the KGB of the USSR according to the political program.

the political machine of the USSR, in order to take away the merits of the Tatar (Kipchak) conquerors, broke history and rewrote the era of the Golden Horde, creating a newly minted Tatar "Bulgarism", which was approved in Kazan at the behest of the Soviet Kremlin from Moscow for political purposes. It was necessary to make the Tatars historically friendly to Russians and Russia, and not alien conquerors collecting tribute for 300 years, and it was also impossible to make them the ancestors of the Cumans, Polovtsians and Pechenegs, who often fought with Russia. The oil was added by the fact that the eviction of the Crimean Tatars began, a good political reason was needed to explain why the Volga Tatars were not being evicted, but only the Crimean Ones, and here the trick about the census of history was born.

A particularly active attempt to rethink Tatar history and through this to split the unity of the Tatars as a nation was made in the 1940s under Stalin, when after the infamous resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) of August 9, 1944, and especially after the scientific session on the origin of the Tatar people (April 25-26, 1946), when this concept was thoroughly edited and scientifically developed. The Bulgar period was recognized as the most important period of Tatar history, and the history of the Golden Horde began to be regarded as insignificant and "external" to Tatar history, in most Soviet historical works direct and immediate continuity between Bulgars and Tatars began to be established. However, the main problem was not in the fact of such identification, but in the violent party-administrative methods of its approval. Later, from the period of the "thaw" (late 1950s) to the "perestroika" (late 1980s), the Bulgarian concept, which enjoyed official support and was actively developed in Soviet historiography, acquired the form of a scientific concept and became the basis for writing history textbooks for schools and universities, basic scientific works.

Let's pay attention to the statement of V.D. Dimitriev (Honorary director of the historical and Cultural Foundation "Volga Bulgaria". In the article "Historiography of the ethnogenesis of the Chuvash people", the professor wrote: "In the post-war years, two scientific sessions considered the question of the origin of the Chuvash people. At the scientific session on the origin of the Kazan Tatars (April 25-26, 1946), held by the Department of History and Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Kazan Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, the speakers made biased reports in order to "prove" the decision taken in advance by the leadership of the Institute of Language, Literature and History Kazan branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences "decision" on the origin of Tatars from Volga Bulgarians. In published back in 1945 the brief prospectus of "Essays on the History of Tatarstan" indicated that the authors sought to proceed from the instructions made in the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) "On the state and measures to improve mass-political and ideological work in the Tatar Party organization"

There is not a single fact up to the 20th century where it would be said about the Bulgarian origin of the modern Kazan Tatars.

The movement arose immediately after the infamous "Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) "On the state and measures to improve mass-political and ideological work in the Tatar and Bashkir Party organizations" of August 9, 1944. After which it was decided to share the history of the Volga Bulgars jointly with the Kazan Tatars, where the concept was imposed that the ancestors of the Chuvash are the Suvar, and the ancestors of the Tatars are the Bulgars.

In the USSR, the study of the history of the Golden Horde became a “nationalist mistake.” In order to prevent the processes of national revival in Tatarstan from unfolding, the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) began to prepare materials for a pogrom resolution. Even before the war, it was decided to create a research institute in Kazan for a comprehensive study of the problems of the history and culture of the Tatar people. In 1939, the Tatar Research Institute of Language, Literature and History was established, there was not a single candidate of sciences for it. Taking advantage of this, historians and literary critics are actively starting to create new works. Despite the war and the lack of personnel, historians of Kazan (N.F.Kalinin, H.G. Gimadi) together with scientists evacuated from Moscow (B.D. Grekov, S.V. Bakhrushin, L.V. Cherepnin) prepared "Essays on the history of the TASSR", which emphasized the local Bulgar basis of the Tatar people, criticized the aggressive policy of the Mongols and khans of the Golden Horde.

It all started with the folklorist N. Isanbet who published a summary text of the Tatar epic about "Idegey" with his comments, which gave a vivid characterization of the personality of Idegey and noted the huge contribution of the Ulus of Jochi (Golden Horde) to the history and culture of the Tatar people. They believed that measures to rewrite history were the best way to nurture and strengthen the friendship of peoples, and the dastan about the Idea was a kind of manifesto of nationalist agents in Tatarstan that should be banned. The plays "Zhiran-Chichen", "Alchynchech", "Chur Zagitov" were sharply criticized... The programs of universities and secondary schools in history and literature have also been revised, from which references to the epic and the Golden Horde have been removed. The epic "Idegey" is generally permeated with "ideas of pan-Turkism and nationalism."

They sharply oppose "the popularization of Idegey as a hero of the Tatar people and gives a whole history, noting in conclusion that he "like Mamai, like Toktamysh, sought to restore the former power of the Golden Horde by raids on the Russian land." 1945, where the preparation of a university history textbook is highlighted among the main problems. The main guidelines and targets of this "history" were defined quite clearly in the resolutions: a ban on studying the Ulus of Jochi in Tatarstan (and in general on mentioning this state and its cultural achievements in a positive sense).

At the special bureau of the regional Committee of the CPSU (b), after a long and thorough investigation of the causes that led to the appearance of such "ideological sabotage", on September 6, 1944, a resolution was adopted "On the work and mistakes of the Tatar Research Institute of Language, Literature and History". The document itself is so eloquent and odious that it was, until recently, top secret and, despite constant mentions, was never quoted. And only recently it became possible to look into its secrets. It explicitly and unambiguously states that "the grossest mistake of the institute is the complete identification of the history of the Golden Horde with the history of the modern Tatar people."

The aim of this frenzied campaign was to overthrow Idegey from the "pedestal of history", and after him a whole layer of Tatar history. Overnight, the Jochi Ulus, its population, culture and statesmen sank into oblivion, and the Tatars became Bulgars. At the same time, a new reality of history like Tatar Bulgarism and Chuvash Suvarism is taking root in newspapers, magazines and books.

Historians understood the essence and depth of the problem, if you give the history of the Bulgars to the Tatars, then where to put the Chuvash side by side? Here it was decided to make the Chuvash descendants of the Suvar who are described in the "Notes of Ibn Fadlan".

It was decided to fill the gaping gap formed after the ban on the history of the Jochi Ulus with "local Bulgarian roots". This provision was consolidated by the so-called "scientific session on the origin of the Kazan Tatars" (April 25-26, 1946), held jointly by the Department of History and Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Kazan Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. It heard reports and speeches by experts in history, archeology, Turkology and anthropology, who unanimously proposed that modern Tatars should henceforth be considered descendants of the Volga Bulgars, and the Jochi Ulus should be considered as a purely external phenomenon for the ethnic history of the Tatar people.it was not a line of science, but was a conjunctural and definite line of party ideology, slightly covered with a scientific flair. Nogai Kazanlary (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

A lot of lies and separatism.

During the collapse of the USSR, there were people who wanted to separate Tatarstan from Russia, in that era, Islamist sentiments in society began to flourish, after a long Soviet atheism.  The authors and ideologists had to politically unite all Tatars under a single political and religious community. They started by rewriting history, since according to Ahmad Ibn Fadlan, Volga Bulgaria was one of the first to officially adopt Islam, so this is a good reason for ideological inspiration. To make the remains of the Bulgarian settlement a spiritual mecca of Islam in the Volga-Ural region.  They say that we Tatars were the first to convert to Islam in Russia. Although in fact the remains of buildings in Bolgar are 14th century and were built by the Nogai Horde and Bashkirs and the city was then called Ibrahim (Bryakhim). Now Kazan propaganda is still rocking the theme of the center of Islam in Russia, this city.

Jagfar Tarikhy (rus. Джагфар Тарикы)

"Jagfar Tarikhy" ("The History of Jagfar") is a fake or fictitious historical source, introduced into circulation as a set of Bulgarian chronicles in the 1990s by a history teacher, an active participant in the Bulgarian club "Bulgar—al-Jadid" F. G.-H. Nurutdinov. The entire background of the text is known only from his words. The text exists only in Russian as a "translation from the lost original" in the form of lists made by Nurutdinov. There is no historical information about the presence of original texts. Historians assess the vault as a modern forgery.

One of the main works of Tatar Bulgarism "Jagfar Tarikhy" by almost all academic researchers (Y. Shamiloglu, S. Tsviklinski, V. Shnirelman, Turkologists A. Rona-Tash and O. Pritsak, literary critics N. Yuzeev and M. Akhmetzyanov, archaeologist A. Khalikov, source scientists M. Usmanov and ethnologists D. Iskhakov and I. Izmailov) is recognized as a fake, is not translations from the "Bulgarian" language, but written by a not very competent Russian-speaking author at the end of the XXI century. It has blatant contradictions with the facts of history and even common sense.

Jagfar Tarikhy", "Shan kyzy dastany" and "Baraj dastany" - At the next round table held in February 2011, it was reported that the answers of specialists received to the request confirm that they are fake and its text cannot be used. Issued for a lost set of Bulgarian chronicles of the XVII century (claimed as a translation from the lost original).

Since the originals of the chronicles and their lists made in the XIX century are missing, and the location of the original translation and presentation of the lists into Russian made in the 1920s and 1930s is unknown, many academic researchers (Y. Shamiloglu, O. Pritsak, S. Tsviklinski, V. Shnirelman, D. Iskhakov, I. Izmailov) currently recognize this work is a forgery of the 2nd half of the XX century[9].

Opinion of Professor-Turkologist Yulai Shamiloglu:

"After a brief analysis of the main problems of the presented text, without any doubt, we can say that this work is a fictional document of the XX century, "the invention of tradition." A complete refutation of it will require a comment equal in size to the original. But I can't even imagine that any of the historians or Turkologists will spend their time on this. Nevertheless, I found an interesting parallel between the earlier "Bulgarian" sources of the XVIII—XIX centuries and this work of the XX century"

Supporters of the authenticity of "Jagfar Tarikhy" are only ethnic Tatars:

Academician M. A. Usmanov

Professor I. A. Gilyazov; Nogai Kazanlary (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Kazan historian: "The 1000th anniversary of Kazan" has nothing to do with historical reality"

Moscow, June 1, 2012, 20:34 — IA Regnum. The millennial anniversary of Kazan, celebrated with great fanfare in 2005, became the most successful "historical and economic project" of the Tatarstan authorities - more than 80 billion rubles were spent during its preparation. However, some Kazan residents are sure that apart from the development of huge amounts of money, there is no historical basis for the anniversary. This point of view is shared by Alexander Ovchinnikov, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Humanities of Kazan National Research Technological University.

IA REGNUM: As you know, Tatarstan tried to celebrate the round date until 2005. Many Kazan residents still have badges at home, issued for the 800th anniversary of the city.

Yes, indeed, in 1977, in the then Tatar ASSR, they tried to celebrate the 800th anniversary of Kazan. The occurrence of this date has its own background. First of all, already in the 1960s there was a confrontation between Kazan researchers and Moscow scientists; until that time there was a practice of curating Kazan colleagues by Moscow historians. However, since the 1960s, the Tatar historian Alfred Khalikov (1929-1994), who was supported by local party bodies in the person of the first secretary of the Tatar Regional Committee of the CPSU Fikrat Tabeev, entered into a discussion with the Moscow scientist Alexei Smirnov (1899-1974) on the issue of determining the pre-Mongolian capital of Volga Bulgaria.

Khalikov proved to Smirnov that the main city was Bilyar with its area of about 800 hectares, and not the small port of Bolgar. In the central publications, Khalikov was very much criticized, pointing to stretch marks, dubious comparisons. The party officials of Soviet Tatarstan, on the contrary, supported him, since Khalikov was "his own", Kazan, and Smirnov was from Moscow (he worked at the Institute of Archaeology of the USSR Academy of Sciences). However, the authority and knowledge of the Moscow scientist, independent of the local, by that time already emerging ethnocratic elite, restrained the Kazan archaeologist.

In March, the elderly Smirnov died in 1974, and in April of the same year, Khalikov, speaking at Kazan University, said that Kazan was probably 800 years old: "The excavations carried out show this!". Previously, this point of view has not even been discussed anywhere. The fact is that the year 1177, as the date of the foundation of Kazan, is mentioned in the "Kazan Chronicler". Researchers who analyzed this work of art (written in 1564-1566 by a former Russian prisoner who was in Khan's captivity until 1552) noted that this date was inserted much later.

In the central scientific publications, Khalikov was criticized for the idea of the 800th anniversary of Kazan, one of the leading experts on the historical geography of the Golden Horde, the Moscow historian Vadim Egorov, spoke out against him. In 1975, in the scientific journal "Soviet Archeology", he wrote an article "On the time of the emergence of Kazan", in which he convincingly refuted Khalikov's version. Vadim Leonidovich was inclined to believe that Kazan was founded at the end of the 14th century (the materials of the Russian chronicles confirmed this).

In Kazan, everyone immediately began to condemn the "Moscow" Vadim Egorov and support "their" Khalikov. In the "Scientific Notes of the Kazan Pedagogical Institute" eight (!) articles appeared at once, proving the groundlessness of Egorov's conclusions. These articles were written by people who were generally far from archaeology. Khalikov, on the other hand, counted on the fact that he would not meet resistance in this matter, since the main opponent, Alexey Smirnov, whose professionalism and scientific competence did not cause anyone doubts, was no longer alive. He also enlisted the support of his good friend, the first secretary of the Tatar Regional Committee of the CPSU, Fikrat Tabeev.

IA REGNUM: Didn't Moscow agree?

Absolutely not. Moscow researchers at a meeting at the USSR Academy of Sciences proved that the 800th anniversary of Kazan is impossible. Facts began to emerge that students of Kazan universities, used as interns at archaeological excavations, were forced to throw pieces of ceramics of the 12th century into the excavations. Because of this, a big scandal broke out, and one of the participants of the meeting said that the 800th anniversary of Kazan has nothing to do with science, and it's best not to talk about it.

IA REGNUM: The idea failed?

It was a big blow to Khalikov. Tabeev, in turn, decided not to quarrel with Moscow, and as a result, the point of view that Kazan is 800 years old was buried. No one even shook hands with Alfred Khalikov after this scandal at the Institute of Archaeology of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In 1986, Khalikov again raised the question of resuming research that would confirm the 800th anniversary of the city, but this point of view was unpopular at that time. In 1993-1995, when the situation in Russia was far from stable, and sovereignty "flourished" in Tatarstan, the question of the age of Kazan was raised again. Many of the Tatar historians began to say that it would be possible to celebrate the 825th anniversary of the city in 2002.

IA REGNUM: Where did the idea of the millennium of Kazan come from?

After Khalikov's death in 1994, excavations in the Kazan Kremlin resumed, new material appeared. In one of his publications in 1995, Kazan archaeologist Fayaz Khuzin stated that an early pre-Mongol layer was found on the territory of the Kremlin, which dates back to the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th centuries. Khuzin made an assumption that it was some small Bulgarian settlement that was destroyed. And all archaeologists all over the world know that the main criterion for determining the age of any city is the continuity of its development.

On the territory of the Kremlin and nearby you can find finds of the Mesolithic era, but no one will claim that the city is 10,000 years old. In any case, I hope that none of the local historians will think of it... Then an unexpected event occurs: the leadership of the Institute of Language and Literature and History of the Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan (at that time, the Institute of History - the center for inventing local history - had not yet been allocated from its composition) in the person of its director, academician Mirfatikh Zakiyev and the head of the Department of Archeology of Kazan University Azgar Mukhamadiev declare that Kazan may be 1000 years old. However, academician Zakiyev immediately said that the city was founded by some Turkic tribe Kashans, but no one listened to him.

But the point of view of Azgar Mukhamadiev, who relied on the results of the excavations of Fayaz Khuzin, gave rise to the appeal of Kazan historians to the authorities with the version of the 1000th anniversary of Kazan, which found full support there. The first to support this idea was the Mayor of Kazan, Kamil Iskhakov, who instructed local historians to prove or refute this point of view. Having felt the opportunity to get good bonuses on this, the latter, of course, did not refute anything.

Immediately, a command was given to all "their" archaeologists to prove the 1000th anniversary. Following Kamil Iskhakov, Mintimer Shaimiev learned about the "discovery", who liked this idea very much, especially against the background of the celebration of the 850th anniversary of Moscow in 1998. Here you are not some eight centuries old, but as many as 1000 years, which is especially nice: It turns out that we are older than Moscow...

IA REGNUM: What about the "destroyed Bulgarian settlement"?

If at first Fayaz Khuzin claimed that the Bulgarian settlement arose and was destroyed, now he began to prove the exact opposite: it was not destroyed. On the contrary, it gradually developed, then it was proved that the settlement was a city, and not some kind of village. And suddenly, finds began to appear in the excavations, saying that the city is 1000 years old: beads, ceramics, buckles, and finally coins, among which Czech, dated 1005 (made of lead - approx. IA REGNUM).

By the way, the name of Ayrat Sitdikov almost does not appear in public discourse. But it was on his shoulders that the "technical side" of the millennium justification lay. Now he is the chief archaeologist in Tatarstan, holds several major administrative posts at the same time, it is he who organizes the "archaeological component" of the Vozrozhdenie Foundation (head of the Alfred Khalikov National Center for Archaeological Research of the ANT Institute of History and at the same time head of the Department of Archaeology of Kazan Federal University - approx. IA REGNUM). Unlike Fayaz Khuzin, he does not "work for the public" much, but archaeological works in Kazan, Bolgar and Sviyazhsk and the consequences of them should be associated with his name.

IA REGNUM: Do you think that the artifacts could have been planted in the excavation?

It is impossible to answer this unequivocally, but given the experience of the evidence base of the 800th anniversary of Kazan, and the eagerness with which local archaeologists began to look for confirmation of the millennial date, it cannot be denied. If we carefully analyze the officially found things, it turns out that Kazan is not 1000 years old, but 1100 or 1200. However, it is known that in the 8-9 centuries the Bulgars did not have permanent settlements at all, especially cities.

The laws of logic force us to assume that someone who does not know the archaeological material very well used the early Bulgarian things found in other places to "antiquate" Kazan, but, to put it mildly, overdid it. The main argument against the millennial history of the city is the presence of Iske-Kazan (Old Kazan), a settlement of the 13th-16th centuries, located 45 km from Kazan near the village of Kamaevo in the Vysokogorsky district of Tatarstan. If what we call the Old Kazan appeared in the 13th century, then how could the New Kazan (Kazan Kremlin) appear in the 11th century?

IA REGNUM: Was one of the local historians outraged?

To the credit of the Tatar historical science, such people were and are, even in the minority. Ravil Fakhrutdinov at the Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan is perhaps the only Tatar historian who denies the 1000th anniversary of Kazan (the scientist supports the version about Iska-Kazan as an earlier settlement than New Kazan). But as soon as he doubted this date, a real harassment began against him. In 2007, there was even an attempt to institute a criminal case on the charge fashionable among today's archaeological authorities of Kazan - "black archeology". Nogai Kazanlary (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The "War of the Kazan Kremlin" against Russia: Tatar philology was used

EAdaily - EurAsia Daily

13 октября 2019 14:19

In December 2019, it will be two years since the Kazan online publication "Business Online" ("BO") from TatMedia declared a "hybrid war" against Russia. Now a kind of "wunderwaffe" is being distributed among the resources of Tatar nationalists — an interview for the same "BO" "outstanding Tatar philologist" Marcel Akhmetzyanov, head of the Department of ancient Manuscripts of the Institute of Language, Literature and History (IYALI) of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan (AS RT).

The title of the interview is also given in a completely extremist way: "After the capture of Kazan, Ivan the Terrible baptized the Tatars by force, before that there were no kryashens." With a match for this type of weapon ... sorry, the interviewee, as usual, is not good.

Marcel Ibrahimovich Akhmetzyanov, "the chief philologist of the Tatar language of the republic" and a double Russophobe in combination, is 81 years old. The phrases in the interview are just a collection of notes from the Soviet humorous column "You can't think of it on purpose."

"Our heritage has been destroyed. Up to the XIX century, Tatars were forbidden to print books, the go-ahead for the publication of newspapers was given only at the beginning of the XX century, after the 1905 revolution. Everything was controlled by censorship and the gendarmerie," Akhmetzyanov told BO.

Let it be known to the aksakal that the first printed books in the Tatar language, typed in Arabic script, appeared in Russia in the first quarter of the XVIII century. The initiative belonged... to the tsarist authorities. During the Persian campaign, Emperor Peter I designated the Muslim-populated Caspian coast of the North Caucasus as a sphere of Russia's geopolitical influence. St. Petersburg chose the Muslim clergy from the Volga Tatars — the "old-timers of the empire" - as the conductors of Russia's influence. Tatar printing, which briefly subsided during the palace coups, flourished in the reign of Catherine II. In 1778, a textbook of the Tatar language by Sagid Khalafin, a full-time translator from the Eastern languages of the Kazan Admiralty, was published in the printing house of Moscow University. Russian publishers coordinated the textbook with Tatar imams. The Tatar ulem (Muslim scholar) Mullah Ibrahim Usman edited the first edition of the Koran in Russia, printed in 1787 in the St. Petersburg printing house of Schnorr. Several copies of this edition were purchased by Catherine II. In 1800, Emperor Paul I granted the request of the Tatars from the Volga provinces, who asked to help them with the supply of books, and transferred the printing house of Schnorr to the ownership of the Kazan Gymnasium.

The works of very many Tatar theologians of the XVIII—XIX centuries have been preserved to this day in handwritten lists, and not in printed form. But the reason for this is not the cultural genocide of the Tatars in tsarist Russia, as Akhmetzyanov claims, but the socio—cultural atmosphere in the Tatar environment. Tatar theologians seriously argued whether it was possible for a Muslim to sew and wear clothes made of leather, made according to the Russian custom, according to the canons of Islam. A book is a much more important thing for the salvation of a Muslim's soul than clothes. There was no consensus among Tatar Muslim scholars at that time about whether it was possible to give books on Islam to the Russian press. For this reason, theological treatises were created and copied, as in the Middle Ages, on long handwritten scrolls. It should also be taken into account: not all the leading Tatar theologians were loyal to the vertical of Islam created under Catherine II with centralized muftiats, created according to the Ottoman type. For example, the theologian Abdurahim Bulgari, who died in the early XIX century, a native of the village of Old Utyamysh, who forbade Tatars to drink tea and adopt Russian customs, was a participant in the Muslim rebellion against the tsarist authorities in his youth and even sat in prison. It should be recalled how the rebel imams ended up in tsarist prisons. The tsarist gendarmes and judges could not deprive such an imam of freedom by their own power alone. Evidence was needed from the accused's tribesmen.

Bulgari, a rebel by nature, did not find a place for himself in the corridor of opportunities created by the tsarist authorities for Tatar Muslims, where the imam of a mosque in a city or a large village had the right to hereditary nobility, and the rest of the imams and muezzins had the right to personal. This "genocidal" and "Tatarophobic" policy of St. Petersburg also consisted in the fact that the imams of the North Caucasus were not granted this right. The tsarist administration, which did not trust Muslims from the Caucasus, deliberately inspired the Tatars that they, as "old—timers of the empire", were elder brothers for co-religionists from the Caucasus, as well as the steppes of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

Printed books and newspapers (as well as the theater) appeared among the Tatars at the end of the XIX century ... not by royal grace. And as a result of the spread of Jadidism (renovationism) — the educational ideas of the Crimean Tatar educator Ismail Gasprinsky and his students, among whom was the great Tatar poet Gabdulla Tukai. Conservative Tatars, accustomed to living according to the precepts of their ancestors, did not like Jadidism until 1917. Which is generally fine. Not all Russian Orthodox subjects at that time considered it a godly thing to go to the theater and read newspapers. The intervention or non-interference of the tsarist administration played no role here.

The spread of Jadidism among the Turkic peoples of the Russian Empire occurred during the period when Europe entered the era of the "awakening of nations". The Tatars of the Volga region began to realize themselves as a secular political nation in the same era when the Young Turks movement gained popularity in the Ottoman Empire. In the wake of the construction of Tatar identity among the Muslims of the Kazan province in the Volga region, the process of spontaneous forced Tatarization through Islam of the historically non—Muslim peoples of the region - Votyaks (Udmurts), Cheremis (Mari), Chuvash began… And especially kryashen. The most intensive "recruitment" of Kryashens into Tatars through the adoption of Islam took place in places where Kryashen villages were surrounded by Tatar settlements.

As the enlightener Kryashen orientalist Nikolai Ilminsky wrote to the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the role of conductors of forced Tatarization was assumed by the "pillar of the empire" - the Tatar nobility, the eminent merchants, the Tatar intelligentsia who studied at Russian universities. In this regard, the nobility and merchants influenced the Muslim clergy of the Volga region through bribes, intrigues, family ties, etc., and intellectuals created a certain social background.

Imams and muftis, in turn, "gently pressed" on the tsarist administration. And she often gave up. It is also important that by the middle — end of the XIX century in the Volga region, nationally oriented Tatars were part of the administrative vertical and crushed all those who disagreed with the administrative resource.

Let's add to this that by the end of the XIX — beginning of the XX century, the liberal Russian press branded all Orthodox conservative priests and bishops as "obscurantists", and the entire Russian-speaking "progressive" public in Moscow and St. Petersburg joined the opinion of the newspaper. The Orthodox clergy of the Volga region, who tried to stop the expansion of the violent Islamization of non-Muslim peoples of the region, got especially from the newspapermen. "Free-thinking" liberals equally mocked both Orthodoxy and Islam; as Ilminsky wrote, "they are like Christ, like Muhammad, everything is one." But for the agents of Islamization, which would later develop into pan—Turkism, the liberal media were allies — from the series "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

And what does the "great Tatar scientist" Marcel Ibrahimovich Akhmetzyanov tell us about this?

"After the capture of Kazan, Ivan the Terrible baptized the Tatars by force, before that there were no kryashens. This process was especially intensified in the XVII—XVIII centuries, but the Tatars put up a strong resistance. In the XIX century, the process began to decline, missionaries with excellent knowledge of Tatar, Arabic, and the Koran joined. They tried to influence with words, persuasion, unobtrusive criticism of the basic tenets of Islam, but all this was unsuccessful. Goals and objectives have changed. A massive process of conversion to Islam began, it was necessary to preserve at least some of the baptized Tatars. Ilminsky and other missionaries realized that it was best to do this through their native language, so they began to translate Christian religious literature into Tatar, and developed a special alphabet based on the Russian Cyrillic alphabet. It was necessary to break the connection with the Muslim world," Akhmetzyanov told Business Online.

What are you saying, Marcel Ibrahimovic! Ilminsky, studying the life of ordinary Tatars in the outback, finds in their views more pagan prejudices than Islamic customs. Studying the history of the Kazan Khanate, Ilminsky concludes: the Islamization of Tatar society began just after the capture of Kazan by Ivan the Terrible, and before that only the local nobility followed Islam, and even then superficially. Many leading Tatar theologians of the XVIII—XIX centuries complained about the superficial, pagan attitude of their fellow tribesmen to Islam. In the XIX century, the Kryashens did not expel Tatars from their homes in the Volga region with the help of gendarmes, but just the Kryashen Tatars. The ringleaders of the pogroms, as a rule, were kryashen, who, under the influence of some reasons, converted to Islam. A very familiar picture for modern Tatarstan…

Since Akhmetzyanov is such a leading expert on the Kryashen language, let him compare the Kryashen language in the XIX century and the Old Tatar language. Kryashen of that time would have understood Christian literature in Tatar from the fifth to the tenth and would not have read it. In the modern Tatar language, which was formed already during the Soviet era, there are Farsiisms and Arabisms, which are not present in the Kryashen language. And there were much more Arabisms and Farsiisms in the Old Tatar language. The difference between Kryashens and Tatars is even more pronounced in everyday life. By the end of the XIX century, the Kryashens wore clothes different from the Tatars, close to Russian, there were no male and female halves in their houses, like the Tatars, there were poles in the huts, which the Tatars never had. These everyday facts speak most eloquently about the Kryashens as an original and distinct ethnic group from the Tatars. Nogai Kazanlary (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The more Marcel Akhmetzyanov confides in "BO", the more incredible things are revealed. For example, that the thirteenth-century Turkic poet Kul Gali, it turns out, "was a Tatar and wrote in the Tatar language, since he lived in Volga Bulgaria." Perhaps scientists in the Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan do not know, but the version with the Bulgarian origin of Kul Gali was questioned by the great Tatar theologian of the XIX century Shihabutdin Marjani. To be more precise, the Tatar historian Tajutdin Yalchygulov (1767-1838) attributed Kul Gali to the Bulgars — even more precisely, to the Aile family. Why? Yalchygulov considered Kul Gali to be his close ancestor, and Socrates and Alexander the Great to be his distant ancestors. It's funny, but Yalchygulov really thought so. In addition, Kul Gali could not write in Tatar — such a literary language did not exist in nature in those years. By the way, modern Bashkirs refer to the same rhode Island. If Kul Gali's relationship with Aile is still true, then Kul Gali is not a Tatar, but a Bashkir. Does Marcel Akhmetzyanov think to classify Bashkirs as Tatars, besides Kryashens?

The "great scientist" has already recorded modern Nogais in the Tatars:

"The Tatars never separated themselves from the Nogai Horde, which consisted of the same Tatars. Nogais are the same Tatars. At their head was a man named Nogai. Until the beginning of the XX century, Kazakhs called Tatars Nogai. The Nogai Horde itself occupied the southern and southeastern regions of modern Tatarstan." By language, modern Nogais are related not to Volga Tatars, but to Kazakhs and Karakalpaks, together with whom they are part of the Kipchak-Nogai group of Turkic languages. Nogai, who lived in the late XIII — early XIV centuries, about whom Akhmetzyanov speaks, was the grandson of the seventh son of Khan Jochi, the great-great-grandson of Genghis Khan. It turns out that Khan Nogai is not a Tatar, but the most Mongol. The rulers of the Nogai Horde really fought for the right to rule over the Golden Horde, but they never identified themselves and their nomads with the main population of the Horde. Even more precisely, the main nomads of the Nogais from the XIV to the XVI century were located on the Yaik, the current Ural River. Where does the Ural River flow through Tatarstan, dear Marcel Ibrahimovich?

During the Kazan campaigns of Ivan the Terrible, which ended with the surrender of the Kazan Khanate, the Nogai Horde was an ally of the Russian tsar. Unlike the Tatars, the Nogais up to the XVIII—XIX centuries were not nomads, their accounting was carried out by "yurts", that is, families. The ethnogenesis of the Nogai people in the XVIII—XIX centuries was influenced by the presence of Nogais among the peoples of the Western, North-Eastern Caucasus, Crimea and north-western vilayets of the Ottoman Empire. It seems that only Marcel Akhmetzyanov knows how the Tatars of the Volga region could turn out to be here.

The "Luminary of Tatar Philology" is proud that his sons bear Tatar names. It is surprising that the father of worthy sons, since he is such a patriot of the Tatar people, for some reason is called by the name of a port city in France. And to be even more precise — the French version of the name of one of the Roman first martyrs-Christians. A Tatar patriot, a Muslim to the core — and such an incident... funny. In contrast to what the Muslim Marcel Akhmetzyanov broadcasts in his interview with "BO" about Tatar Islam:

"Traditional Tatar Islam is some kind of fictional thing. The Tatar people have been in Islam for centuries. What other traditional Islam? This is some kind of incomprehensible fiction." To the patriot of Tatarstan Akhmetzyanov, that the Wahhabis, that the Muslim Brotherhood* and ISIS* banned in Russia are all one. Let them preach in Tatarstan, if only Orthodox crosses did not bother his "patriotic" gaze and the ringing of bells did not torment his Tatar ear… What to say… A position "worthy" of a true son of his people.

"There is no wasteland for a ghoul, there is no den for a demon/ There is no virgin forest for the nedotep shurale. So try, my friend, to study all the sciences. And soon you will be able to distinguish the truth from the lie," Gabdulla Tukai bequeathed to all young Tatars in 1909.

And the doctor of philology, Marcel Akhmetzyanov, instead of the true history of his native people, with the help of national propagandists from "BO", pushes pseudo-scientific propaganda fairy tales into the brains of Tatar youth, where there is a place for shurale (goblins) and other devils in stupas and without stupas…

As Shota Rustaveli wrote, "what is in the jug pours out of it." The scientific and archival fund of the Institute of Language, Literature and History of the Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan has been led for more than 20 years by a semi-literate stubborn man who replaces science with his ignorance. Marcel Ibragimov himself admits that he is a Tatar from the hinterland, for whom the Tatar language was his native language, and even a native of a family of party workers — after graduation, he was not accepted to the Tatar department of the Kazan State University Faculty of History. What Akhmetzyanov was aiming at was clearly not MGIMO, which means that Akhmetzyanov was to blame for the failure in the exams. Akhmetzyanov still received the diploma of a historian at the age of 30. He, a carpenter of the Kazan Compressor Plant, was able to overcome the course of the evening department of the Faculty of History and Philology of the main university of Kazan. From the factory entrance, the former carpenter Akhmetzyanov immediately got a scientific job at the IYALI of the Academy of Sciences of the Tatar ASSR.

And judging by the line that Akhmetzyanov oppresses in IYALI, it would be better if he continued to work at the factory. A good carpenter is much more useful than a bad historian. And even if the carpenter is bad, he, at least, does not spiritually corrupt the Tatar youth, setting it up for Russophobia. A bad carpenter has no opportunities for this, unlike a professor, an official or a State Duma deputy.

By the way, it has become a good tradition in modern Tatarstan that "cobbler bakes pies". Marcel Akhmetzyanov is "perfectly complemented" by the Minister of Education of Tatarstan Rafis Burganov, a mechanical engineer by education, State Duma deputy Fatih Sibagatullin, a collective farm veterinarian who publishes books on the history of Tatarstan, where he got into the Tatars, among others… Mao Zedong. Rafael Khakimov, director of the Marjani Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan, a transport engineer who got into the historians' circle only because he was a responsible party worker in the Soviet years, fits well into this company. The PhD thesis of the "great Tatar historian" Khakimov is on dialectical materialism. He defended his doctoral dissertation (the topic is the development of federalism in the Russian Federation) only in 2009, already being the director of the leading historical institute of the republic and the gray cardinal of the Kazan Kremlin. In this regard, there are suspicions that a "literary negro" wrote his doctoral thesis for Khakimov. Khakimov's "historical knowledge" does not stand up to any criticism.

The replacement of actual humanities scientists in the supposedly "super-poor republic" by semi-educated "right people" takes place with the tacit sanction of federal authorities. And federal officials, together with leading experts from Moscow, have been allowing Marcel Akhmetzyanov, Rafael Khakimov and the like to sow ignorance and Russophobia in Tatarstan for about 30 years, thus undermining Russia's security. However, Moscow in this respect is stepping on the rake left by the tsarist administration and the Soviet government. And it would have been time to end it long ago.

The author of the article is Musa Ibragimbekov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogai Kazanlary (talk • contribs) 23:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Link from here to the Baraba Tatar page?

Should there be a link on this page that links to the baraba tatar page found here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraba_Tatars 106.70.219.32 (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Tatars 2A02:3037:30E:7ADE:E196:D354:D85C:440 (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tatar (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)