Talk:Tartary

Untitled

Isn't this article a duplicate of Tatary? olivier 01:05, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This article consists of outdated information

Ignoring conspiracies like the above, the scholarly consensus today is that Tartary was a historical region and not the name of a unified polity; the Mongol Empire is not referred to as Tartary today. Even our articles on places like the Khanate of Sibir, the Timurid Empire, the Khanate of Khiva and many other Central Asian polities that occupied the space Tartary allegedly ruled makes this obvious. The article relies mainly on primary sources, such as 18th century atlases, for its information in an uncritical manner, violating WIKIPEDIA:PRIMARY. The extreme number of images per content also violates WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we do not base one article off of another on Wikipedia. Now on to the sources. The sources given for the article have been cited from antique books including maps and dictionaries. To compare the existence of Tartary to the existence of "Prester John" like you did here[[1]] is not at all neutral.Mountain157 (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Just because something is cited doesn't mean it's automatically valid. You routinely and uncritically cited centuries-old sources. These are primary sources, and excessive use violates WP:Primary. The current scholarly opinion on the term is that Tartary was an obsolete term for a geographical region, and not a single country, for which the term Mongol Empire is used. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Not all of the sources I cited were "primary sources". For example dictionaries and maps do not have a direct relationship with the specific topic/country so it DOES NOT classify as a Primary source. And which "scholars" are you talking about? We do not declare one source as "valid" and the other as "invalid" based on how "old it is". Vandalizing an article based on your opinion that these are "early modern rumors" is not at all acceptable.Mountain157 (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

None of my edits are vandalism. They are all made in good faith on the assumption that your edits were inaccurate and I kindly ask that you retract these statement. Furthermore, these atlases, encyclopedias and dictionaries are primary sources by virtue of being historical documents that discuss the existence of "Tartary" in the period and region (i.e. Western Europe, which had no direct contact with "Tartary") that it was believed to exist. Let's take a look at your logic: should I add content insisting that geographical features called Terra Australis or the Northwest Passage exist because they are constantly referred to in atlases, dictionaries and encyclopedias between the 16th century and 18th century? It should be noted that not all the sources from the place and time in question even agree on whether Tartary was one country or not: for example, Jacob Abbot Cummings' 1815 Introduction to Ancient and Modern Geography implicitly refers to Tartary as a geographical region, and includes areas ruled by several countries and only one small part of it being independent. As for "what scholars", I have yet to find any non-conspiratorial, academic article from the 20th or 21st century or a reprint of an earlier source that mentions a unified country called Tartary-- you may not be able to prove a negative, but there is absolutely no evidence that any reputable scholar today believes in a historical country called Tartary, which leaves me to dismiss the notion. It is mutually incompatible with the thesis that numerous independent states, like the Timurid Empire, the Khanate of Khiva, the Khazakh Khanate or the Khanate of Sibir existed in the region after the fall of the Mongol Empire. Even if these sources are not primary sources, these are extremely outdated and should not be used uncritically. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Primary sources cannot be considered "outdated" or "unreliable". All of the information that you deleted was sourced properly whether or not it was a primary source or not and you brought it back to a version with NO SOURCING! As for "assume good faith" let's look at your edit. You gave poor reasoning claiming "these edits seem to be made off of early modern rumours that claimed "Tartary" was a country rather than a region"[[2]]. In addition to Vandalism, you blatantly violated WP:NPOV by making an obvious opinionated statement. Lastly you need to read WP:WINARS. We do not use other Wikipedia articles for a Wikipedia article.Mountain157 (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Also you need to re-read the source that you gave Jacob Abbot Cummings' 1815 Introduction to Ancient and Modern Geography. It did NOT say that Tartary was a "region". If you read the source it mentions Independent Tartary as including "all the country between Chinese Tartary and the Caspian." Also before that there is a paragraph that says that "Asia comprehends Great Tartary, Turkey in Asia, Arabia, Persia, Indostan or India within the Ganges, British India, India beyond the Ganges, the Birman empire, China and the Japan islands". A few times Tartary is CLEARLY referred to as a country. So you actually provided evidence to support my argument.Mountain157 (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I did read the source. The book does not describe "Tartary" as being one country, dividing it into Russian Tartary, Chinese Tartary, independent Tartary, and so forth. If your sources are NOT primary sources, as you claim, then they are out of date: as pointed above, it is the equivalent of the article on Terra Australis insisting that it is a real landmass because it is constantly attested to in numerous atlases, dictionaries and encyclopedias in the early modern period. None of my reversions, while probably being poor editing etiquette, actually. In addition, I did justify my changes on the talk page here, and NPOV only applies to article content. Because it is clear that neither of us are willing to come to terms on our own, I have opened a content dispute resolution request (however, please continue any discussion here until it is formally approved, but adding a summary of your point of view in the above resolution is welcome). Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Terra Australis is a hypothethical continent not a country. The sources that are in the Tartary article describe it as a vast country within Asia itself NOT as a separate landmass. Anyways you just based your argument again on another Wikipedia article which violates WP:WINARS. Independent Tartary was described as a country, and I'll quote, "Independent Tartary includes all the country between Chinese Tartary and the Caspian".Mountain157 (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Please, stop POV-pushing. Jingiby (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I also wish to add that the WP:WINARS article explicitly states "Do not use a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article" (emphasis mine). This is a private discussion. If you really don't want me using other Wikipedia articles, Encyclopedia Britannica states Kazakhstan, an area historically considered to be part of Tartary, was an independent Khanate between the collapse of the Mongol Empire and its conquest by Russia, the Cambridge University Press book "The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane" contains literally zero mention of Tartary despite your claim that Tamerlane was an "Emperor of Tartary", Oxford Islamic Studies Online's article on the Khiva Khanate states that it was an independent state before the conquest by Russia in the 19th century, as opposed to the region being a part of the country of Tartary, and the 2016 The Encyclopedia of Empire, though admitting the evidence for the Khanate of Sibir is scant, makes mention of the area being ruled at least partially in its history by the Golden Horde, and not Tartary. Why should late 20th and 21st century scholarship on the history of Central Asia be ignored in favour of literally centuries-old sources? WP:AGE MATTERS Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not denying that there are sources that do not mention Tartary but to say that we should discredit something based on it being "outdated by centuries" is not a neutral statement. Let me ask you this. If you are discrediting the existence Tartary based on the sources being "outdated by centuries" then other countries mentioned in those sources such as Persia, China and India "did not exist", based upon your logic. Mountain157 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The difference between Tartary and the other states you mentioned is that modern scholarship and research corroborates the existence of the countries Persia, China and India during the time your sources were written from other sources besides Western documents from the Early Modern period, and were indeed mentioned in your documents, but have failed to verify the existence of a country called Tartary. Also, from WP:AGE MATTERS: "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years", and no modern academic source verifies the existence of a country called Tartary, as opposed to Persia, China or India. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's an outdated source, but I found it interesting that it describes Tartary for its readers: Foremost in the train of the champions of order, liberty, peace and religion are the immense hordes inhabiting the regions which are known under the general denomination of Tartary, and constitute a portion of the immense Empire of Russia. (Source: Daily National Intelligencer (Washington, District Of Columbia), Monday, July 31, 1815; Issue 799) (It then goes on to give descriptions of each tribe in that region.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, you want to talk about new sources? There is a CIA declassified document from 1957 [[3]] which says on page 12 that, "On August 9, 1944, the Central Committee of the Communist Party, sitting in Moscow, issued a directive ordering the party's Tartar Provincial Committee "to proceed to a scientific revision of the history of Tartaria, to liquidate serious shortcomings and mistakes of a nationalistic character committed by individual writers and historians in dealing with Tartar history." In other words, Tartar history was to be re-written --let us be frank, was to be falsified== in order to eliminate references to Great Russian aggressions and to hide the facts of the real course of Tatar-Russian relations." So yes there is a modern source for Tartaria.Mountain157 (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

That CIA document is citing a 1953 book by Walter Kolarz, titled "Russia and Her Colonies." That book, as I have checked, is largely in reference to the ASSR, and discusses the Tartars as an ethnic group (or series of ethnic groups) rather than a nation-state, and is discussing their treatment by the Soviet Union in the context of Russian imperialism.24.152.167.11 (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is clearly referring to the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, an existing part of the Soviet Union that was indeed referred to as Tataria. The fact that you have outright accused the historiography of Tartary to be the result of a conspiracy theory takes your position into fringe theory territory, and thus must be rejected outright by Wikipedia as per site policy.Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't make baseless accusation of it being a "Fringe Theory". I quoted an actual Document by the CIA talking about a particular subject. My main point was that your position can be just as questioned in the same way that you questioned mine. You tried to refute mine by using a source from the Embassy of the USSR. So for all practical purposes how can you claim it is "better than mine"? I believe this is applying a double standard because in saying that "The article is clearly referring to the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic", you just violated WP:Original Research.Mountain157 (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a SINGLE article, which you are interpreting through the lens of an existing fringe theory, promoted by, among others, by noted conspiracy theorist Anatoly Fomenko. Even if it was true that this refered to a vast conspiracy, WP:FLAT states 'It is the stated goal of Wikipedia to mirror the current consensus of mainstream scholarship – in the words of WP:NOT, "accepted knowledge"', and WP:FRINGE states 'Wikipedia is not a forum for original research', which your claim is even if it was true. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoah, now you just compared me to conspiracy/fringe theorist. Where is the WP:AGF shown on your part? Not to mention that additionally this is a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PERSONAL on your part.Mountain157 (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It is a fringe theory. It is a theory of historiography not accepted by most historians. I would also like to add that an administrator has already ruled that "many of Mountain157's accusations are unsupported and constitute personal attacks" and I politely request that you cease. You are using these accusations, which the administration agrees are unsubstantiated, of me failing to adhere to site standards as ad-hominem attacks to dismiss my argument as a whole. In contrast, I have been very careful to refute your points while separating them from my own accusations of misconduct. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you lot may think about the topic. You are edit warring, and you need to stop and properly discuss this NOW before further actions are taken. Please, both of you, read WP:3RR and WP:FORUMSHOP. Thunderchunder (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"History and Geography" cleanup

My apologies for not putting this in the edit reasons properly, but I have completely cleaned up the "History and Geography" sections of the article, re-writing it based off academic sources I've discovered about the use of this term. I have added citations for all claims and a bibliography with contemporary articles and books on this historical reasons. They are not to be construed as vandalism, if the lack of an edit reason (which was mistaken) causes them to be reverted. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy section?

I understand there is a conspiracy section but to say it’s similar to Qanon and anti semitic is a real stretch. 2603:8001:B73F:8527:795D:55C6:FD1F:7E0B (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

That's what a reliable source says and I've no reason to doubt the source. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

???

“…The theory reflects a cultural discontent with modernism, and a supposition that traditional styles are inherently good and modern styles are bad.“

This statement makes no rational sense given the context, and has no citation(s). 96.248.57.55 (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that would be because someone removed the source. I have replaced it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: I declined a request for protection of the article at RFPP, because a) it looked to me as if this was a valid content dispute and b) the disagreements were not frequent enough to require protection. At the time I looked at the article, the entire second paragraph about the conspiracy lacked any source at all, making the challenges seem justified. But I now see that there was originally a source which had been removed. CaptainEek, apparently you restored it but it was removed again. Go ahead and put it back. If the source gets removed again, ping me and I will install semi-protection for disruption.

But in the meanwhile, and taking off my administrator hat: in my opinion a single source for that very large paragraph is weak. I would suggest that either additional sources be sought, or the paragraph be trimmed. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Please

Changed the improperly used word "conspiracy", termed "conspiracy theory", to the word "fantastic" in its placement as "fantastic theory". Both the common definition and the legal definition of the word "conspiracy" refers to a crime conspired by two or more conspiring (ie. "plotting") conspirators. (18 U.S. CODE § 371*)

The improper use of the word (regardless of it's dramatized movie dismissal in it's improper form through Hollywood media) can in many instances be a crime itself — as to claim a "conspiracy" exists is to claim a crime having been committed in the plotting of a crime, as it is a crime to plot a crime, and/or as well as to claim a crime fulfilled or still under-way.

Given how the misuses of it is pointless in all effect and too often may be self incriminating if slander is in effect or other special instances, and as well as given how typically in it's misuse it acts as a form of Orwellian "double-think" as is a grammatical fallacy, the grammatical correction of it's misuse in professional format by editorial standards. 2604:CA00:11A:C00:0:0:261:92A (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That is an outlandish claim. Do you have any source to back that up besides your interpretation of a statute? Any court cases that have found that to be true? Just because you can read a statute a particular way does not mean a court would agree with you. Regardless of any possible legal implications, "conspiracy theories" is a common English phrase of well known meaning. It's like the fruit and vegetable distinction. A tomato is botanically speaking a fruit, but a wise man knows not to put it in a fruit salad. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

I suggest that the conspiracy theory be split out, either to a new article, or possibly to New chronology (Fomenko).--Pharos (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pharos I disagree. There aren't enough sources to split it out into its own article. And as evidenced by the 40k views a month this gets (which has more than doubled in the last year) as opposed to the 9k a month Fomenko gets, the Tartaria conspiracy theory is much more useful here than elsewhere. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, the follow-the-readers argument is a compelling one. For what it's worth, on closer reading the architectural conspiracy seems to owe more directly to Levashov than to Fomenko. Pharos (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Levashov sources

Earliest I could find was a 2007 interview in Krasnaya Zvezda. A 2011 video from one of his followers also seems to have spread around.--Pharos (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The interview was a preview of his 2007 book Russian History Viewed through Distorted Mirrors (Россия в Кривых Зеркалах), which was afterward banned in Russia for antisemitism. He more often calls it the "Slavonic-Aryan Empire", and goes into most detail on pp. 234-235.--Pharos (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tartarian Empire (conspiracy theory) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory discussion in lead

It looks like, somebody recently tried to remove the large section about the conspiracy theory from the lead on the grounds that it was undue in the lead, and somebody reverted it saying that they should try to establish consensus first - I think removing it (or maybe moving it to the 'Conspiracy theory' section) would be a good idea too. What do people think? Wombat140 (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wombat140 It's definitely not undue as it is a very prevalent conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 07:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, I’m only too well aware of that, that’s why I was looking at this page, in fact, to see whether what comes up when you look up ‘Tartaria’ on Wikipedia explains itself properly (I was talking to somebody who seemed to think that just finding references to ‘Tartary’ in old books was proof of a cover-up, apparently thinking that mainstream sources claimed there was no such place as anyway) - the way the Tartaria theory is put about gives me the creeps, to be honest, the videos usually have no evidence but loads of mind games, they’ll say things like ‘it’s impossible that such-and-such a building could have been built in the space of time they said it was’, of course you wouldn’t know whether that’s true or not off-hand, and then say ‘Only an idiot would believe that, we’re not idiots, are we?’, and if somebody in the comments is brave enough to say that they don’t know if that’s true, rather than attempting to present evidence (because they haven’t got any) they’ll go for ‘I know it’s hard to accept that everything you thought you knew is a lie, but work on opening your mind and overcoming the brainwashing’ - I’ve heard it suggested that the Tartaria theory is a Russian psyop and I can believe that.

Possibly, I was thinking of rewriting the whole article, and then posting the possible rewritten sandbox version for people to see what they think of before posting it - I don’t know a lot about the history of the area, mind you, but I could rearrange it a bit so that it’s plainer what it’s saying, at present it comes across rather as if it is saying what the conspiracy theorists accuse mainstream historians of saying, that ‘Tartaria’ was never anything but an empty wasteland inhabited by a rabble of nomadic herders, which doesn’t survive contact with old books and for that matter doesn’t survive contact with Wikipedia’s own detailed pages about the Mongol Empire and the various smaller states that it broke up into. Is the usual way of doing that just to rewrite it in the sandbox and then post a link on the talk page? Is it usual to ping the various projects that the page belongs to? Wombat140 (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)