This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tartary 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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() |
|
![]() | It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Russia may be able to help! |
Isn't this article a duplicate of Tatary? olivier 01:05, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“…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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tartary 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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() |
|
![]() | It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Russia may be able to help! |
Isn't this article a duplicate of Tatary? olivier 01:05, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“…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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)