Talk:Crimean Tatars

Indigenous?

Hello all! Crimean Tatars are very interesting for a multitude of reasons, however I am wondering about the "indigenous" label for them. For example we don't call Irish people indigenous to Ireland, or Albanian people indigenous to Albania, or Hungarian people indigenous to Hungary; we label them as "native to". Following the History of Crimea, it outlines how Crimean Tatars as a group, formed in the 13th century during the advent of the Crimean Khanate. However before that, existed the Principality of Theodoro, and before that the Empire of Trebizond, and before that? The Byzantine Empire. These states all existed before the Crimean Khanate and controlled the Crimean peninsula. I believe there are restrictions on topics relating to Greek/Turkish history, and I am neither Greek nor Turkish, so I am not forming sides and taking one, but my concern is if groups existed before the Crimean Tatars in Crimea, and today still exists, as there are both Greek, and even Roman descendents in Crimea today as outlined in the article "Demographics of Crimea", can this label also not apply to other groups who arrived sooner and still exists, albeit in smaller minorities? Or do we have a special reason for labeling Crimean Tatars as indigenous? According to the Wikipage Indigenous peoples, people are considered indigenous if they are the first known settlers of a land or region, and according to what we know of Crimean Tatars and there origination in the 13th century, they would actually be considered less indigenous than the groups who came before them. Therefore we should change the labeling of "indigenous" to that of "native to" as a more accurate representation of the groups current status, if we have to use a label at all. Completely Random Guy (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"Native" and "indigenous" are generally synonymous in most cases, unless a settler colonial population starts calling itself "native," as the Russian settler colonists have in Crimea. When it becomes necessary to differentiate a displaced native population from a settler colonial population that's made itself sufficiently at home to consider itself to be "native," the word "indigenous" is generally employed. 69.124.11.92 (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Very interesting! I agree! However my concern is the groups that preceded the Crimean Tatars that remain in Crimea today. Completely Random Guy (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

We need to get our facts right first. Crimean Tatars did not just come to Crimea in the 13th century, they are the direct descendants of the original tribes of Crimea not just people that came in the 13th century. I have to say I was absolutely shocked and appalled of Crimean Tatars being listed as the especially related ethnic group of Kazakhs in the side box before I fixed it because that is absolutely not true (Karakalpaks and Kyrgyz are close to Kazakhs but Crimean Tatars are quite distant; the closest peoples to Crimean Tatars are Krymchaks and Urum not Kazakhs either). As far as indigenous status goes, Crimean Tatars probably qualify as indigenous for two reasons: one because the general notion of indigenous requires some aboriginal ancestry, not full, many indigenous peoples of America require relatively low (often 1/4, 1/8, or even 1/32) to be member of their indigenous nation, and two, because the USSR first recognized Crimean Tatars as an indigenous people, and indigenous status does not disappear just because a government decides to revoke it. https://books.google.com/books?id=fZFFEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA174 https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/azov-greeks/about https://www.mdpi.com/2226-471X/7/3/174 "As a result, urban Greeks switched from their native language to Crimean Tatar and their ethnonym changed to Urum" (and then the Urum became Crimean Tatars).QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that's interesting! Thanks for sharing, I'll read up on it! Completely Random Guy (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way the shade of blue in the flag is wrong. The previous version of the flag color is correct but I don't know how to change it. The shade of blue is supposed to be similar to (but not the same as) the color of blue in the Kazakhstan flag, not the shade of blue in the Micronesia flag.QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not good with the graphics, I don't know how to change it, there might be a wikipage where we can appeal for it to be changed. Completely Random Guy (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there some sort of teahouse on Commons to request the change in? I posted on the talkpage of the file but I don't expect anyone to respond since there was no talkpage until now.QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry for the late reply, have been busy. My apologies. If I am correct, there is a way to ping editors who may be interested in a specific topic, but like a general teahouse? I am not too sure, I haven't seen one. I'll also respond to your posts on my talk page as soon as I can! Completely Random Guy (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not really important anymore, now that we have all agreed that Crimean Tatars and Kazakhs aren't "especially related".QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Great! Glad it got sorted out. Completely Random Guy (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

When you look at the facial features of the Crimean Tatars you can easily see that they are not similar to the Slavic peoples that have lived north of the Black Sea for millennia. The Slavic people are indigenous to the lands west of the Urals to the lands north of the Black Sea. Invasions from Asia by Mongolic and Turkic tribes pushed the Slavs westward. The ancestors of the Crimean Tatars are the descendants of nomadic conquerors and therefore not an "indigenous" population. ZidarZ (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

Beshogur without discussion here on the talkpage removed mention of the Crimean Tatar related ethnic groups like Urum, Krymchak, Karaite and claimed they were "definitely not related" which is absolutely false. The Urum language of Crimea is often considered a dialect of Crimean Tatar, the languages of the Krymchaks, Karaites and Çingene are very close to Crimean Tatar if not already just dialects of Crimean Tatar itself. Lipka Tatars are more distantly related but Nogays are only related to a tiny portion of the Crimean Tatar people (the north) and have no connection with the majority of Crimean Tatar people and culture. Azerbaijani and Turks were included in the list because their languages are somewhat mutually intelligible. We need to stop basing the notion of "related" solely on the mere 10% of the North because they are so radically different from the rest of Crimean Tatars. I just can't emphasize enough how absolutely outrageous it was that Kazaks were at one point in the related ethnic groups box! It's insane. Crimean Tatars are genetically, culturally, and linguistically closer to many peoples, from the Urum to the Turks, and out analysis of them should not ignore the factually obvious relations of the vast majority of the Crimean Tatar people or try to bring down other. Urum are far more related to Crimean Tatars than Kazakhs will ever be. "The Urum variety of Crimean Tatar is spoken north of Azov Sea" https://books.google.com/books?id=huk9EAAAQBAJ. "a new ethnie was formed on the soil of the Crimea when the older Greek, Gothic, Armenian and Italian Christian populations converted to Islam and turned Tatar." https://books.google.com/books?id=oBlREAAAQBAJ&pg=PA27 Do not make more changes without discussion because I don't want to see anyone ever add Kazakh to that list again.QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Anatolian Greeks being absorbed by Turkish people doesn't make Greeks a related ethnic group. Similarly French aren't Germans related ethnic group because they absorbed Frank and other Germanic ethnic groups. This is simply wrong. A language spoken by another ethnic group doesn't make them related as well. Urums are a Hellenic people, not Turkic. Beshogur (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

But French and Germans are very different in culture, diet, and language. Crimean Tatars very similar in language, diet, culture and blood to Urum, certianly far closer than the Nogays. Can you show one source that says that Crimean Tatars and Urum, or Crimean Tatars and Karaites, or Crimean Tatars and Krymchaks are not related? And yes, Greeks are a related ethnic group to Turks, just not close enough to be worth mentioning as most related. But Crimean Tatar and Urum similarities in every way are absolutely undeniable. The idea that Crimean Tatars bear no relation or similarities with other peoples of Crimea is a very fringe far-right theory.QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you show one source that says that Crimean Tatars and Urum, or Crimean Tatars and Karaites, or Crimean Tatars and Krymchaks are not related? How am I supposed to show it? You must show they're closely related. Wikipedia isn't based on "trust me bro". You bring up random ethnic groups speaking similar languages with different religions being related, especially bringing up Gypsies of Crimea being related to Tatars is something I heard for the first time. The idea that Crimean Tatars bear no relation or similarities with other peoples of Crimea is a very fringe far-right theory. lol what do you even mean? In the lead, it is mentioned that various ethnic group formed Crimean Tatar ethnogenesis. Now bringing up some of those as related ethnic groups is ridiculous. Crimean Italians/Greeks/Gypsy/or whatever aren't "related" in modern sense. Beshogur (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The Chigene are literally called "Tatar gypsies" and were so often mistaken for Crimean Tatars that most were deported despite Gypsies not being ordered for deportation. If people are so close that they are literally impossible for outsiders to tell apart and even call themselves part of the group, then there's relation, even if not by blood. "In 1944 Crimean Tatar speaking Gypsies were also deported.". The Crimean Roma wholly adopted the customs of Crimean Tatars, from language to dress, so that demonstrate relation. "В 1944 году крымские цыгане, также как и крымские татары, подверглись депортации в Среднюю Азию, что было связано с тем, что большинство крымов в советских паспортах были записаны как татары.". And as a general rule, if people have a language so close that it is mutually intelligible, then they're not "unrelated" since two separate languages don't become nearly identical by chance. (В. В. Баранова. Тюркоязычные греки Приазовья Э О, 2007 г.) You don't need a 100% match in language to blood to be related, large similarities in language and custom are sufficient. Saying that Crimean Tatar and Urum are unrelated is like saying that Russians and Belorussians are unrelated. Urum language "The language is very similar to Crimean Tatar (Crimean Turkish) and has almost no links at all with Greek." In other words, related.QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian and your arguments is still a wp:or and wp:synth. Beshogur (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Also your source "Jews from Khazaria" is related to pseudoscientific website "khazaria.com". Beshogur (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Rowman & Littlefield is a legitimate academic publisher and the fact remains that Krymchak and Crimean Tatars are similar in the ways described by the quote. To say that Crimean Tatars and Krymchaks just became similar in culture by chance is absurd.QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

A publisher doesn't make a source reliable. Beshogur (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Anyways I appreciate you trying to add citations. Beshogur (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how Krymchaks or other listed peoples can somehow have so many identical traditions and customs to their Crimean Tatar neighbors by pure coincidence. (by the way, the article about Bukhari Jews lists Tajiks as related. It doesn't mean that Bukhari Jews are Tajiks pretending to be Jewish or anything nefarious, it just means that over time Bukhari Jews adopted so many Tajik customs that they are sufficiently similar in culture to be considered similar or related in culture) Also the only sources I could find outright saying Crimean Tatars aren't related to the early peoples of Crimea are far-right basically Nazi Russian websites that are full of theories not accepted by Wikipedia. If you want to add Romanian Tatar and Nogays to the list of related ethnic groups go ahead, but I will be really realld mad if I see Kazakhs in that list ever again, that was unexcusable.QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Tatars and the Slave Trade

The Tatar economy appears to have had a foundation on capturing people during slave raids and selling them in the Ottoman Empire and further east. These slave raids have gone back to the 15th century - if not the 14th. The Tatars were regularly called by the Ottoman Sultans to join on campaigns during which they were not used for any disciplined warfare but used as raiders to create havoc and spread fear. They truly were vicious in their raiding.

Reports from the 16th century tell that the Tatars had more slaves than they had cattle.

One of the most famous slaves taken by the Crimean Tatars was Roxelana.

The Crimean Tatars and their Russian-Captive Slaves https://www6.econ.hit-u.ac.jp/areastd/mediterranean/mw/pdf/18/10.pdf

How Captives Were Taken: The Making of Tatar Slaving Raids in the Early Modern Period https://brill.com/display/book/9789004470897/BP000018.xml

The Ottoman Crimea in the Sixteenth Century https://www.jstor.org/stable/41035903

Slavery in the Black Sea Region https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-13260-5_9

ZidarZ (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That was the Nogays. The other Tatars, not even considered Tatars at the time, were the Tats who are now called Tatars, who had nothing to do with raids on Russia. Their economy was based on agriculture and crafts. Stop making these Tats sound like fierce Nogays because at the end of the day they only became Muslim reluctantly and when the Khanate fell greeted Catherine the Great with joy when she came to Crimea. We need to stop pretending these guys are all Nogays, frankly it is an open question if they are even Turkic at all. The "father of the nation" didn't hide his strong preference for Russian rule and was probably the most Russophile "Turk" ever. ("Ismail Gasprinsky 'Russian collaborator' or ' Father of a Nation?" the answer is "both"). It wasn't long ago I had to explain that these guys are not "especially related" to Kazakhs (the implication that Kazakhs are the most like Tats is very, very, insulting)

"While the Crimean Tatars as a whole are generally portrayed as ‘wolves of the steppe’ it would seem that it was actually the nomdic Nogai Tatar element that continued to raid the neighboring lands and provide hardy cavalry for the Crimean Khan [a Nogay] during his increasingly limited forays into the heavily defended lands of the Russians and Poles." [1]

So these are not Tatar raids. They are Nogay raids. The meaning of the word Tatar has changed so drastically over time that it is best to avoid using it if there is a better clearer word available. It's like using the word "Spanish" when talking about a specifically Morisco topic. --QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

English Tatars?

Good evening. What's the matter with Crimean Tatars adding English as one of their ancestors? It's true that during the Byzantine era, there were some group of Anglo-Saxons who settled in Crimea. However, these people only established one city, and it was way before any Turkic invasion. He called this "properly cited." The source is from a news page, and it doesn't mention anything about the Tatar origin of English; it mentions how Crimean Tatars ransacked this city and slaughtered its inhabitants. I will simply delete the English from the summary 2A02:FF0:3316:CDA2:4013:EF94:A332:1E77 (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Medieval sources of the time state that more than 200 ships left England & sailed to the Byzantine Empire, settling in Crimea primarily. Linguistic evidence is present in Italian map names. The exact details are sketchy but they likely eventually assimilated with the Crimean population. See the page on New England (Medieval) for more info. 2603:8000:CF01:6AAD:4C65:6909:C831:26CF (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Source doesn't say anything about English origin of Crimean Tatars. There were Swedish and German colonies in Crimea during Crimean Khanate as well. See Gammalsvenskby and Crimean Germans. But there is no any census to prove they are assimilated into modern Crimean Tatars. And there is no evidence in the source to support your claim. If you want to add people lived in there, we can also add multiple nations such as Poles-Lithuanians, Ukrainians and Russians. But living in that area does not always mean they are melted into general population of Crimean Tatars. There were many Slavs, Greeks, and Armenians lived in Crimea during Byzantine. However, we also don't have any source to prove these nations are indirect descendants of "200 ships of English settlers." of thousand years ago. Auzandil (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)