This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Крымско-ногайские набеги на Русь from the Russian Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
Is this not a too large number it is probably not demographically possible. It would make
3,000,000 slaves : 300 years = an average 10,000 slaves/ prisoners every year. 3,000,000 slaves : 400 years = an average 7,500 slaves/ prisoners every year.
According to this source 1 Population of European Russia increased from 12 million in 1500 to 20 million in 1700. It is very unlikely that the Russian population increased while according to the article they were being captured on a massive scale. But the slave trading nomads are so few 1 million? and they did not increase but decrease in numbers during these centuries.
The reality probably is that the Russians killed and enslaved the nomads on a massive scale and so colonised their lands, that is why there are so few of them left. While the nomads probably could do very little damage in return. Because during these centuries the Russian state population grows and becomes stronger while the Nomads, lose their lands and populations.
How many Crimeans and Nogais did the Russians kill or enslave?
Crimean Tatar population was 300,000 in 1783. most of them were not nomads. Nogais were some 100,000 in the same time and most of them were nomads.
On the other hand it is also very illogical that there would be so many slaves. There is no need to have so much slaves. The Crimean and Nogais did not use much slaves, their total population was also very small compared to Russia, they had no sugar plantations where they needed large amounts of slaves.
The story is the same for the Ottoman Empire, there was no need for so much, Ottoman navy used galley slaves but they were some several thousands from entire Europe and Balkan and did not die in 1 year. There are no other places where the Ottomans should use slaves. Mostly Harems were used by the rich they were few and had few slaves.
So probably there was a slave trade but not massive nor was it several million, total was probably 300,000 during these centuries. The Crimean and Nogais casualties were probably the same, maybe more. DragonTiger23 ( talk) 15:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I dont think Atlantic or Roman slave trade are comparable to the Ottoman. Because Roman Empire was a slave society, this is based on the historical documents, the Ottoman documents show that in the Ottoman lands slaves were a minority used by the rich while most of the population was free villagers or townsmen. It seems that the number of slaves exported to the Ottoman empire varied greatly during the years, some years it was probably only hundreds, other years thousands.
Atlantic slave trade was very different, there was a constant need for slaves to work in the plantations such a reason does not seem to exist for the Ottomans. The result of the Atlantic slave trade was that there were 4 million African slaves in the US in 1860 and some 3 million in South America [The Atlantic slave trade was first to Brazil and then to the Carribean, so there would have been far more slaves here before the invention of the cotton gin, and far higher imports given the tropical death rate. -b.t.], so a large community of slaves was founded. I have not seen any source which documents large amount of slave population in Ottoman lands in the 1700s when the slave trade mostly ended. So if there were every year 10,000 imported it would make in 10 years a population of 100,000 but this is not the case.[74,145 with a 5% death rate- b.t.]
Or we can imagine that all imported slaves died in a very short time but this is also not very probable so probably fewer slaves than the Atlantic slave trade.
Nomadic societies always had less people than sedentary because the nomadic lifestyle supports only a limited amount of people, they need large areas to support their herds. When nomads are overpopulated they migrated to other areas or became sedentary. So the Mongol conquest has nothing to do with the sparse population of the steppe, it was always sparsely populated. [There was a large belt of forest-steppe that has now been plowed up. There seem to have been many people here during the Kievan Rus, as the name indicates. Documents from the Mongol period say little about population east of Lvov and south of the Oka, but we have no proper numbers. All over the world there has been fighting between peasants and nomads on the forest-steppe boundry, with the border shifting back and forth, as in Darfur recently.b.t] The nomads migrated every summer and winter to different grazing lands so that is why the land can be one time a year empty and the other season crowded.
Two Ottoman cities in the 16th century had large amount of slaves, Istanbul and Bursa. But the majority of both cities were still free persons. Bursa had 60,000 inhabitants in the 16th century and was some 20%(12,000) of total population were slave or formerly slave because many of them were freed after some years.
I have no number for the slaves of Istanbul, total city population was 500,000 in 1600s. Majority of population was free. Ottoman navy used some 10,000-20,000 galley rowers, if half of them were slaves it becomes some 5,000-10,000. Only the rich had some slaves and harems, so I dont know how high this number can be maybe 20,000 slaves.
And all the other areas of the Ottoman empire had less slaves then these two cities combined so if calculated Istanbul 30,000 slaves + Bursa 12,000 + 18,000 other Ottoman areas = 60,000 slaves for the total Ottoman empire in the 16th century at the height of the slave trade. Total population of the Ottoman Empire was some 12 million in 1600s.
Most of these slaves did not die in one year they had probably average life time as slave at least 5 years. If we calculate further we can divide the number of slaves 60,000 by 5 years it becomes 12,000 in one year Ottoman Empire needed slaves.But these slaves came from very different regions, border regions in Central Europe, by Barbary corsairs in the Mediterranean Sea and from the Caucasus and areas north of the Black Sea. Not all of those slaves from Crimea imported to Ottoman empire were Russians, a great part of them were Caucasian people, like the Circassians.
There are limited documents on the slave imports to the Ottoman Empire I will list here some. DragonTiger23 ( talk) 11:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The numbers above are based on this source DragonTiger23 ( talk) 11:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
More information of slaves to the Ottoman empire based on Ottoman tax records. Kaffa was probably the biggest slave trading center. The numbers varied yearly. Total slaves were 57,388 between 1520-1581 but there is not information for every year. There is only information for 13 years, 57,388/13 = 4,414 slaves yearly. The documents show that there was a peak during 1577-1580 (maybe there was a war?) all the other years number was lower. In those three years 37,286 slaves were exported (yearly average 12,429), in the remaining 10 years 20,102 slaves were exported (yearly average 2,010).
Source DragonTiger23 ( talk) 20:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Not all of the slaves were taken in raids. Russia permitted Russian and European Christian slaves to be sold in its own cities to Muslims.
Page 16
Rajmaan ( talk) 03:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It is not clear the purpose of the article. Crimean-Nogai raids??? Into East Slavic lands??? In which exactly East Slavic lands. There is no such a political polity neither today or in the history. Why does the article talk about Crimean-Nogai raids and does not cover Muscovite, Polish, Ottoman raids or Golden Horde raids? The whole article is dubious? Were those raids of Crimean-Nogai conducted exclusively for the purpose of slave trade or is it an opinion of historians? Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 19:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Crimean–Nogai raids into East Slavic lands. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Srnec's alternative proposal. It seems to satisfy all the questions and objections raised (other than the argument against the nominator based solely on the fact they do not have a user page, which isn't valid objection): firstly, the nominator argues Tatar is simpler and is closer to the source material and secondly also offers precision to distinguish it from other historical events. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Crimean–Nogai raids into East Slavic lands →
Tatar slave raids – per
WP:PRECISION Using the word Tatar is simpler and indicates the exact same source, slave raids indicates their purpose and the subject of those raids in a simpler fashion.
Periander6 (
talk) 07:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.
Dreamy Jazz 🎷
talk to me |
my contributions 12:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
My main issue with the title of this page is that its specificity and unwieldiness will make it hard for people looking for information on the subject to find this article. Lots of alternatives would be better. Also I have a talk page, isn't it showing up? Periander6 ( talk) 07:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
01may19 deletion proposal: Where is the deletion discussion page? I can't find it. Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 03:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
What is the main purpose of this article translated from RUwiki? - Devlet Geray ( talk) 13:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
To deal with the apparent objections: 1) I have read many books on Central Asia and have found that the Russian Wiki often has more detailed information than anything in English. It has Russian-language sources that are not available outside of large libraries. 2) The original article has no footnotes, but I have not yet found anything that was incorrect. Review of View History shows few examples of editors correcting anything in the raid-list. 3) As noted, numbers are clearly guesses from the chronicles, but we have nothing better and a wise reader should be able to figure this out. 4) It is clearly POV, but the Russian folk memory of these raids has a major impact on their current treatment of the Crimean Tatars. 5) The long year-by-year list of raids is unorthodox, but is the best way to show how frequent and massive these things were. It is also a useful reference.
In short, the Crimean raids were a major influence on European history. With the partial exception of Brian Davies, there is no good account in English. The raid list is valuable and should be made available to those who read English. Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 23:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@ PlanespotterA320 and Devlet Geray: Since this seems to be a sensitive issue for both of you, please discuss any edits you wish to make here and come to some sort of consensus. I have no stake in this article, but as you can see above it has gone through an RM discussion once already and you seem to be trying to change the focus of the article, which is why I reverted to the previous version. Please both try to stop reverting each other (and me!). -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
1. Title - Not everyone involved in the raids and slave trade was Tatar. There were also Turks, Greeks, Jews, and Armenians among others involved. Also, "East Slavic lands" is a vague and inaccurate label too - the was never a political entity or even a generally recognized term by the name of "East Slavic Lands" and the definition of what is "east slavic land" will vary by how nationalist the person you ask is.
2. Sources - the paper by Eizo Matsuki has some VERY questionable footnotes, including S.K. Bogoiavlenskii, Prikaznye sud’i XVII v., Moscow-Leningrad from 1946 and A. A. Novosel’skii, Bor’ba moskovskogo gosudarstva s Tatarami v pervoi polovine XVII veka. Moscow-Leningrad, 1948 - published less than 5 years after the deportation of the Crimean tatars, when Soviet propaganda offices were tasked with publishing materials that depicting Crimean Tatars in as negative light as possible. It is well known that Soviet anti-tatar propaganda contained major errors, like the magazines that falsely labeled Hero of the Soviet Union Uzeir Abduramanov as and Azeri, or newspapers that labeled Amet-khan Sultan as a pure Lak. It is best that anything that cites 1940's Soviet sources about Crimean Tatars be taken with a grain of salt and not be treated as scholarly work.
3. Basic english conventions and translation mistakes are present. Wikipedia standards are not held.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 14:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe then do not make huge wall of text edits. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
IS the lede biased? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The reasons for removing the raid list seem to be that it is copied from the Russian Wikipedia and the Russian wiki does not have a proper list of sources or footnotes. The reasons for restoring are that it has been there for oven four years and there have been very few corrections. This implies that there are few mistakes. This being Wikipedia, anyone with a good source can correct a problem or add a footnote. The raid list is a valuable reference and is not available anywhere else. Since it is harmless, removing it would be a pure loss without any compensating gain. Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 03:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The above creates the suspicion that you are using citation requests to suppress something that you do not want people to see. The suspicion is probably wrong but its possibility weakens your case. Instead of doubts, I would like to see a published work that shows that the raid list is wrong. Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 01:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Stop, now for gods sake. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Page moves should not be made without discussion. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the article should change name to Crimean slave trade? It would be in line with the similar article Barbary slave trade: the tatar slave raids by land is after all similar to the Barbary pirates slave trade on sea.-- 92.35.237.251 ( talk) 22:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Now lets actually discus it. Make a case for the page move. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The current title is inaccurate (includes raids on Circassians and other people from the Caucasus region as well as on Moldavia (which includes Romanians) and Hungary (which includes Hungarians and Germans); and there wasn't really an "East Slavic" land, just land where East Slavs as well as many other ethnicities (including Tatars) lived; plus, Cossacks have Tatar ancestry, too, and they were raided) and possibly in violation of WP:NPOV. The article has significant issues, too, but this one is a quick and easy fix. I'm not opposed to this being reworked into an article about the Crimean slave trade.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 11 November 2019. The result of the move review was endorsed. |
The result of the move request was: Moved to "Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe". There was consensus that the article should be moved, and if a better title is agreed upon in the future, the article can be moved again. ( non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Tatar slave raids in East Slavic lands →
Crimean-Nogai raids in Eastern and Central Europe – The current title is inaccurate. "Tatar" isn't well defined, and it was two specific political entities, not Tatars in general, who were conducting the raids. Lithuania also isn't even East Slavic but Baltic. This emphasizes Russia and Poland, when Lithuania was a major player. The raids were conducted on Circassians and other people from the Caucasus region as well as on Moldavia (which includes Romanians) and Hungary (which includes Hungarians and Germans). There wasn't really an "East Slavic" land, just land where East Slavs as well as many other ethnicities (including Tatars) lived, plus Cossacks have Tatar ancestry, too, possibly (although they are primarily of East Slavic origin). Yes, the proposed title does ignore the Caucasus, but I think you could reasonably argue that this region can fall under Eastern Europe for sake of brevity in the title. I'm not opposed to this being reworked into an article about the Crimean slave trade and the content reworked accordingly.
3family6 (
Talk to me |
See what I have done) 16:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. comrade
waddie96 ★ (
talk) 19:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The accuracy of the claims on Russian Wikipedia are questionable to say the least. Lots of stuff on this subject was cooked up in the 1940's, plagerized from questionable Soviet sources, and written up by "patriotic education" commissars instead of actual academics. So lots of bullshit made its way into this kind of topic. Some of the major editors of the Russian version of this page are banned from English Wikipedia for very unethical behavior. To ensure each claim is supported by a referece, each paragraph should have at least one referece. If you are citing, books, use the sfn template, don't put a dozen books in a ref template inline citation and call it a day when you know that only of the the books has in info. Don't be sloppy. The entire read list seems to be google-translated as well, I was shocked at the abysmal quality of the language and frequent patent nonsense. Wikipedia is not for patent nonsense, unsupported claims, questionable information, and barfing up google translated crap from Russian Wikipedia. Don't restore it without completely fixing it. IMHO the information in the list is questionable itself, Russian Wikipedia ought to be taken with a grain of salt on these matters. In my experience the vetniks responsible for creating the Russian version of the page, and some of the sources they used, about as trustworthy as flint tap water and elevator rides with ray rice.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 13:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Seriously. A bunch of books listed at the bottom of the page is not sufficient. Use IN-LINE citations to support EACH paragraph. And there shouldn't be so many question marks in your text. And keep it proper! Don't write stuff like "we could only find" and "from Russian Wikipedia". This isn't a 2nd grade powerpoint. Don't publish your incredibly sloppy rough draft in an article. A preschooler could write a better list than that.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 22:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The statements about the "cruelty" of the Crimean Tatars were greatly exaggerated by the Russian tsarist racist regime in order to justify its imperial ambitions on the Crimean peninsula and to expose the Crimean Tatars as subhumans. This is the same technique used by modern Putin propaganda. I don't want Wikipedia to refer to outdated racist myths.-- Temir Oguz ( talk) 02:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The dates 1441-1774 in the infobox are not supported by the article. The dates 1468-1769 that I proposed were reverted b/c the article only says these were the first and last major raids. But where is the evidence for raids as early as 1441 or after 1769? Not in the article. 216.252.210.88 ( talk) 15:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Крымско-ногайские набеги на Русь from the Russian Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
Is this not a too large number it is probably not demographically possible. It would make
3,000,000 slaves : 300 years = an average 10,000 slaves/ prisoners every year. 3,000,000 slaves : 400 years = an average 7,500 slaves/ prisoners every year.
According to this source 1 Population of European Russia increased from 12 million in 1500 to 20 million in 1700. It is very unlikely that the Russian population increased while according to the article they were being captured on a massive scale. But the slave trading nomads are so few 1 million? and they did not increase but decrease in numbers during these centuries.
The reality probably is that the Russians killed and enslaved the nomads on a massive scale and so colonised their lands, that is why there are so few of them left. While the nomads probably could do very little damage in return. Because during these centuries the Russian state population grows and becomes stronger while the Nomads, lose their lands and populations.
How many Crimeans and Nogais did the Russians kill or enslave?
Crimean Tatar population was 300,000 in 1783. most of them were not nomads. Nogais were some 100,000 in the same time and most of them were nomads.
On the other hand it is also very illogical that there would be so many slaves. There is no need to have so much slaves. The Crimean and Nogais did not use much slaves, their total population was also very small compared to Russia, they had no sugar plantations where they needed large amounts of slaves.
The story is the same for the Ottoman Empire, there was no need for so much, Ottoman navy used galley slaves but they were some several thousands from entire Europe and Balkan and did not die in 1 year. There are no other places where the Ottomans should use slaves. Mostly Harems were used by the rich they were few and had few slaves.
So probably there was a slave trade but not massive nor was it several million, total was probably 300,000 during these centuries. The Crimean and Nogais casualties were probably the same, maybe more. DragonTiger23 ( talk) 15:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I dont think Atlantic or Roman slave trade are comparable to the Ottoman. Because Roman Empire was a slave society, this is based on the historical documents, the Ottoman documents show that in the Ottoman lands slaves were a minority used by the rich while most of the population was free villagers or townsmen. It seems that the number of slaves exported to the Ottoman empire varied greatly during the years, some years it was probably only hundreds, other years thousands.
Atlantic slave trade was very different, there was a constant need for slaves to work in the plantations such a reason does not seem to exist for the Ottomans. The result of the Atlantic slave trade was that there were 4 million African slaves in the US in 1860 and some 3 million in South America [The Atlantic slave trade was first to Brazil and then to the Carribean, so there would have been far more slaves here before the invention of the cotton gin, and far higher imports given the tropical death rate. -b.t.], so a large community of slaves was founded. I have not seen any source which documents large amount of slave population in Ottoman lands in the 1700s when the slave trade mostly ended. So if there were every year 10,000 imported it would make in 10 years a population of 100,000 but this is not the case.[74,145 with a 5% death rate- b.t.]
Or we can imagine that all imported slaves died in a very short time but this is also not very probable so probably fewer slaves than the Atlantic slave trade.
Nomadic societies always had less people than sedentary because the nomadic lifestyle supports only a limited amount of people, they need large areas to support their herds. When nomads are overpopulated they migrated to other areas or became sedentary. So the Mongol conquest has nothing to do with the sparse population of the steppe, it was always sparsely populated. [There was a large belt of forest-steppe that has now been plowed up. There seem to have been many people here during the Kievan Rus, as the name indicates. Documents from the Mongol period say little about population east of Lvov and south of the Oka, but we have no proper numbers. All over the world there has been fighting between peasants and nomads on the forest-steppe boundry, with the border shifting back and forth, as in Darfur recently.b.t] The nomads migrated every summer and winter to different grazing lands so that is why the land can be one time a year empty and the other season crowded.
Two Ottoman cities in the 16th century had large amount of slaves, Istanbul and Bursa. But the majority of both cities were still free persons. Bursa had 60,000 inhabitants in the 16th century and was some 20%(12,000) of total population were slave or formerly slave because many of them were freed after some years.
I have no number for the slaves of Istanbul, total city population was 500,000 in 1600s. Majority of population was free. Ottoman navy used some 10,000-20,000 galley rowers, if half of them were slaves it becomes some 5,000-10,000. Only the rich had some slaves and harems, so I dont know how high this number can be maybe 20,000 slaves.
And all the other areas of the Ottoman empire had less slaves then these two cities combined so if calculated Istanbul 30,000 slaves + Bursa 12,000 + 18,000 other Ottoman areas = 60,000 slaves for the total Ottoman empire in the 16th century at the height of the slave trade. Total population of the Ottoman Empire was some 12 million in 1600s.
Most of these slaves did not die in one year they had probably average life time as slave at least 5 years. If we calculate further we can divide the number of slaves 60,000 by 5 years it becomes 12,000 in one year Ottoman Empire needed slaves.But these slaves came from very different regions, border regions in Central Europe, by Barbary corsairs in the Mediterranean Sea and from the Caucasus and areas north of the Black Sea. Not all of those slaves from Crimea imported to Ottoman empire were Russians, a great part of them were Caucasian people, like the Circassians.
There are limited documents on the slave imports to the Ottoman Empire I will list here some. DragonTiger23 ( talk) 11:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The numbers above are based on this source DragonTiger23 ( talk) 11:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
More information of slaves to the Ottoman empire based on Ottoman tax records. Kaffa was probably the biggest slave trading center. The numbers varied yearly. Total slaves were 57,388 between 1520-1581 but there is not information for every year. There is only information for 13 years, 57,388/13 = 4,414 slaves yearly. The documents show that there was a peak during 1577-1580 (maybe there was a war?) all the other years number was lower. In those three years 37,286 slaves were exported (yearly average 12,429), in the remaining 10 years 20,102 slaves were exported (yearly average 2,010).
Source DragonTiger23 ( talk) 20:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Not all of the slaves were taken in raids. Russia permitted Russian and European Christian slaves to be sold in its own cities to Muslims.
Page 16
Rajmaan ( talk) 03:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It is not clear the purpose of the article. Crimean-Nogai raids??? Into East Slavic lands??? In which exactly East Slavic lands. There is no such a political polity neither today or in the history. Why does the article talk about Crimean-Nogai raids and does not cover Muscovite, Polish, Ottoman raids or Golden Horde raids? The whole article is dubious? Were those raids of Crimean-Nogai conducted exclusively for the purpose of slave trade or is it an opinion of historians? Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 19:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Crimean–Nogai raids into East Slavic lands. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Srnec's alternative proposal. It seems to satisfy all the questions and objections raised (other than the argument against the nominator based solely on the fact they do not have a user page, which isn't valid objection): firstly, the nominator argues Tatar is simpler and is closer to the source material and secondly also offers precision to distinguish it from other historical events. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Crimean–Nogai raids into East Slavic lands →
Tatar slave raids – per
WP:PRECISION Using the word Tatar is simpler and indicates the exact same source, slave raids indicates their purpose and the subject of those raids in a simpler fashion.
Periander6 (
talk) 07:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.
Dreamy Jazz 🎷
talk to me |
my contributions 12:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
My main issue with the title of this page is that its specificity and unwieldiness will make it hard for people looking for information on the subject to find this article. Lots of alternatives would be better. Also I have a talk page, isn't it showing up? Periander6 ( talk) 07:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
01may19 deletion proposal: Where is the deletion discussion page? I can't find it. Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 03:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
What is the main purpose of this article translated from RUwiki? - Devlet Geray ( talk) 13:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
To deal with the apparent objections: 1) I have read many books on Central Asia and have found that the Russian Wiki often has more detailed information than anything in English. It has Russian-language sources that are not available outside of large libraries. 2) The original article has no footnotes, but I have not yet found anything that was incorrect. Review of View History shows few examples of editors correcting anything in the raid-list. 3) As noted, numbers are clearly guesses from the chronicles, but we have nothing better and a wise reader should be able to figure this out. 4) It is clearly POV, but the Russian folk memory of these raids has a major impact on their current treatment of the Crimean Tatars. 5) The long year-by-year list of raids is unorthodox, but is the best way to show how frequent and massive these things were. It is also a useful reference.
In short, the Crimean raids were a major influence on European history. With the partial exception of Brian Davies, there is no good account in English. The raid list is valuable and should be made available to those who read English. Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 23:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@ PlanespotterA320 and Devlet Geray: Since this seems to be a sensitive issue for both of you, please discuss any edits you wish to make here and come to some sort of consensus. I have no stake in this article, but as you can see above it has gone through an RM discussion once already and you seem to be trying to change the focus of the article, which is why I reverted to the previous version. Please both try to stop reverting each other (and me!). -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
1. Title - Not everyone involved in the raids and slave trade was Tatar. There were also Turks, Greeks, Jews, and Armenians among others involved. Also, "East Slavic lands" is a vague and inaccurate label too - the was never a political entity or even a generally recognized term by the name of "East Slavic Lands" and the definition of what is "east slavic land" will vary by how nationalist the person you ask is.
2. Sources - the paper by Eizo Matsuki has some VERY questionable footnotes, including S.K. Bogoiavlenskii, Prikaznye sud’i XVII v., Moscow-Leningrad from 1946 and A. A. Novosel’skii, Bor’ba moskovskogo gosudarstva s Tatarami v pervoi polovine XVII veka. Moscow-Leningrad, 1948 - published less than 5 years after the deportation of the Crimean tatars, when Soviet propaganda offices were tasked with publishing materials that depicting Crimean Tatars in as negative light as possible. It is well known that Soviet anti-tatar propaganda contained major errors, like the magazines that falsely labeled Hero of the Soviet Union Uzeir Abduramanov as and Azeri, or newspapers that labeled Amet-khan Sultan as a pure Lak. It is best that anything that cites 1940's Soviet sources about Crimean Tatars be taken with a grain of salt and not be treated as scholarly work.
3. Basic english conventions and translation mistakes are present. Wikipedia standards are not held.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 14:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe then do not make huge wall of text edits. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
IS the lede biased? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The reasons for removing the raid list seem to be that it is copied from the Russian Wikipedia and the Russian wiki does not have a proper list of sources or footnotes. The reasons for restoring are that it has been there for oven four years and there have been very few corrections. This implies that there are few mistakes. This being Wikipedia, anyone with a good source can correct a problem or add a footnote. The raid list is a valuable reference and is not available anywhere else. Since it is harmless, removing it would be a pure loss without any compensating gain. Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 03:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The above creates the suspicion that you are using citation requests to suppress something that you do not want people to see. The suspicion is probably wrong but its possibility weakens your case. Instead of doubts, I would like to see a published work that shows that the raid list is wrong. Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 01:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Stop, now for gods sake. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Page moves should not be made without discussion. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the article should change name to Crimean slave trade? It would be in line with the similar article Barbary slave trade: the tatar slave raids by land is after all similar to the Barbary pirates slave trade on sea.-- 92.35.237.251 ( talk) 22:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Now lets actually discus it. Make a case for the page move. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The current title is inaccurate (includes raids on Circassians and other people from the Caucasus region as well as on Moldavia (which includes Romanians) and Hungary (which includes Hungarians and Germans); and there wasn't really an "East Slavic" land, just land where East Slavs as well as many other ethnicities (including Tatars) lived; plus, Cossacks have Tatar ancestry, too, and they were raided) and possibly in violation of WP:NPOV. The article has significant issues, too, but this one is a quick and easy fix. I'm not opposed to this being reworked into an article about the Crimean slave trade.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 11 November 2019. The result of the move review was endorsed. |
The result of the move request was: Moved to "Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe". There was consensus that the article should be moved, and if a better title is agreed upon in the future, the article can be moved again. ( non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Tatar slave raids in East Slavic lands →
Crimean-Nogai raids in Eastern and Central Europe – The current title is inaccurate. "Tatar" isn't well defined, and it was two specific political entities, not Tatars in general, who were conducting the raids. Lithuania also isn't even East Slavic but Baltic. This emphasizes Russia and Poland, when Lithuania was a major player. The raids were conducted on Circassians and other people from the Caucasus region as well as on Moldavia (which includes Romanians) and Hungary (which includes Hungarians and Germans). There wasn't really an "East Slavic" land, just land where East Slavs as well as many other ethnicities (including Tatars) lived, plus Cossacks have Tatar ancestry, too, possibly (although they are primarily of East Slavic origin). Yes, the proposed title does ignore the Caucasus, but I think you could reasonably argue that this region can fall under Eastern Europe for sake of brevity in the title. I'm not opposed to this being reworked into an article about the Crimean slave trade and the content reworked accordingly.
3family6 (
Talk to me |
See what I have done) 16:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. comrade
waddie96 ★ (
talk) 19:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The accuracy of the claims on Russian Wikipedia are questionable to say the least. Lots of stuff on this subject was cooked up in the 1940's, plagerized from questionable Soviet sources, and written up by "patriotic education" commissars instead of actual academics. So lots of bullshit made its way into this kind of topic. Some of the major editors of the Russian version of this page are banned from English Wikipedia for very unethical behavior. To ensure each claim is supported by a referece, each paragraph should have at least one referece. If you are citing, books, use the sfn template, don't put a dozen books in a ref template inline citation and call it a day when you know that only of the the books has in info. Don't be sloppy. The entire read list seems to be google-translated as well, I was shocked at the abysmal quality of the language and frequent patent nonsense. Wikipedia is not for patent nonsense, unsupported claims, questionable information, and barfing up google translated crap from Russian Wikipedia. Don't restore it without completely fixing it. IMHO the information in the list is questionable itself, Russian Wikipedia ought to be taken with a grain of salt on these matters. In my experience the vetniks responsible for creating the Russian version of the page, and some of the sources they used, about as trustworthy as flint tap water and elevator rides with ray rice.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 13:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Seriously. A bunch of books listed at the bottom of the page is not sufficient. Use IN-LINE citations to support EACH paragraph. And there shouldn't be so many question marks in your text. And keep it proper! Don't write stuff like "we could only find" and "from Russian Wikipedia". This isn't a 2nd grade powerpoint. Don't publish your incredibly sloppy rough draft in an article. A preschooler could write a better list than that.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 22:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The statements about the "cruelty" of the Crimean Tatars were greatly exaggerated by the Russian tsarist racist regime in order to justify its imperial ambitions on the Crimean peninsula and to expose the Crimean Tatars as subhumans. This is the same technique used by modern Putin propaganda. I don't want Wikipedia to refer to outdated racist myths.-- Temir Oguz ( talk) 02:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The dates 1441-1774 in the infobox are not supported by the article. The dates 1468-1769 that I proposed were reverted b/c the article only says these were the first and last major raids. But where is the evidence for raids as early as 1441 or after 1769? Not in the article. 216.252.210.88 ( talk) 15:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)