Talk:De-Tatarization of Crimea

Rationale: this is the form that allows capitalizing the name of a nation that forms this compound. It is also the only form of the name, British or North American, found in all two Google Books results. —Michael Z. 2020-03-12 19:10 z

: Hey, user:PlanespotterA320, why are you reverting my work without comment, discussion, or even entering an edit summary? —Michael Z. 2020-03-15 16:09 z

::{{ping|Mzajac}}It is the proper translation. See the hypen is not in the Crimean Tatar or Russian form of the word which it originated from. "Tatarization" should not be separated from "De-" because it changes the implication of the work. The page was moved without consulting or consensus, hence I reverted it without consulting you. I am not under the impression you know much about the subject, so please refrain from calling the shots. I rarely use edit summaries since they do not add anything to Wikipedia and the diferences can be viewed in the page history anyway.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

::: user:PlanespotterA320, it’s a direct anglicization disregarding the conventions of English. It’s also an unfamiliar little-used term, and the lack of clarifying hyphen makes it confusing, making it look like the root is detatar. Names of peoples, alone, in compounds, in other derived terms, and used as adjectives, are properly capitalized. We don’t “translate” крымские татары as krymskiye tatars, for example, we translate it as Crimean Tatars, with capital initials and all the other normal English-language conventions. I gave editors the courtesy of leaving a note to explain my edit, which I didn’t expect to be controversial. You could have done the same instead of just reverting when there’s obviously a disagreement. This is not a good way to start off a conversation per WP:CIVIL. —Michael Z. 2020-03-15 18:35 z

::::{{ping|Mzajac}} It is not disregarding the conventions of English at all. Removing the hypen would change the meaning of the word. "Detatarization" is an appropriate english word and used in academic literature in the exact form. While some may use the form "De-Tatarization", such form is not desirable in this cirumstance given that it could be perceived as "fixing" previous "Tatarization" in the eyes of Russian nationalists (Tatarization should not be separate!) If you didn't expect or want your edit(s) to be controversial, you shouldn't be editing Crimea articles.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

::::: Which academic literature, specifically? Please look at English usage, which is captured in Google Books results for [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22detatarization%22+OR+%22detatarisation%22&tbm=bks&ei=FnduXt7BMOPs_QaZibGgBA&start=0&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwjepJ6FkZ3oAhVjdt8KHZlEDEQ4UBDy0wMIPA detatarization] and [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22de-tatarization%22+OR+%22de-tatarisation%22&tbm=bks&ei=CnluXviHFYuzggev7ZfoCQ&start=0&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwj4tLjzkp3oAhWLmeAKHa_2BZ04ChDy0wMIiAE de-Tatarization] and in [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_vis=1&q=%22de-tatarization%22+OR+%22detatarization%22+OR+%22de-tatarisation%22+OR+%22detatarisation%22&hl=en&as_sdt=1,5 Google Scholar]. WP:COMMONNAME says we should use the most commonly used name.

::::: Are those just your personal opinions about “desirability” and “Russian nationalists,” or are they backed by some academic literature? —Michael Z. 2020-03-15 18:57 z

::::::Detatarization is improper usage in English, as it strips the Tatars of their identity as a people by not capitalizing the first T. As normal English usage does not include camel caps, this necessitates the usage of the hyphenated form. Leaving it as "detatarization" makes it seem like some sort of chemical reaction. While Google searches are not definitive, the fact that "detatarization" returns 143 results while "de-Tatarization" returns 20.300 is highly indicative of what the usual form is. --Khajidha (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

:::::::"Detatarization is improper usage in English, as it strips the Tatars of their identity as a people by not capitalizing the first T". Why don't you tell that to users of the Crimean Tatar language, who use the original form of the term, detatarizatsiya? De-Tatarization is improper because it puts the issue of Detatarization on par with legitimate projects such as De-Russification (reverting to the original pre-imperialist ways). Detatarization should not be in any way resembled to such thing. The De- prefix with the hypen wrongly implies that the ethnic cleansing is reverting to original status (as in the cases of De-Russification or De-Stalinization). We should not butcher loanwords or words derived from loanwords.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC

::::::::I would tell them that trying to read English using the standards of another language is entirely inappropriate and that translations need to follow the standards of the language they are being used in. There is no implication of appropriateness or inappropriateness or implications of original states in either de-Stalinization or de-Tatarization, they are simply English words for "removing Stalinistic influences" and "removing Tatar influences". --Khajidha (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

::::::"See the hypen is not in the Crimean Tatar or Russian form of the word which it originated from. " So what. Those are different languages. As a comparison, "aircraft carrier" originated as an English term, so the two words are separated. However, the German translation follows German conventions by making it all one word (Flugzeugträger). --Khajidha (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

:::::::Flugzeugträger bears no resemblance to aircraft carrier and is completely irrelevant here. On the other hand, "detatarizatsiyası" is a far clearer case (si and yası being Turkic suffixes). Aircraftcarrier is not an acceptable method of usage. But the word "detatarization" can be found in English academic literature without the hyphen and is prevelent in such form. The people who are coming here to bicker are not those concerned about improving Crimea coverage on Wikipedia, but rather applying certain English conventions (that are not always applied) without understanding the real-life implications of what they are demanding.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

::::::::In regards to my comments about Russian nationalists - just any basic yandex search in Russian will yeild you plenty of results from Russian nationalists bitching about perceived "Tatarization" of Crimea. To quell such impulses, it is best that "Tatarization" not be a separate word hypenated.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::I would like to point out that none of the people insisting on the move have made any positive contribution to the content itself whatsover.--21:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::: User:PlanespotterA320, I’ve already provided links to evidence that contradicts you about “academic literature.” As to “quelling the impulses of Russian nationalists,” I don’t think any of Wikipedia’s guidelines encourage this approach. And please stop it with the attacks against other editors. —Michael Z. 2020-03-15 22:09 z

::::::::::::: It's fair to assess that you don't seem to understand the issue at hand here. The fact that two books use the hypenated form is no slam dunk. This is a word rarely used in the English language, practically a "loanword". Just because some translators used the hypenated form in contrast to the correct, unhypenated for does not mean the hypenated for should be used. It's not hyphenated in Crimean Tatar. It's not hyphenated in Russian. It's not hyphenated in Ukrainian. It's not hypenated in French, or any other European language for that matter. It is best to stick with the standard form instead of creating new words.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: It’s probably a loanword or calque, but that doesn’t matter. It is formed in a standard way in English, from English words and fragments de-, Tatar, and -ize + -ation = -ization. Thousands of words are formed this way. The Chicago Manual of Style says:

:::::::::::::: {{quote|Compounds formed with prefixes are normally closed, whether they are nouns, verbs, adjec- tives, or adverbs. A hyphen should appear, however, (1) before a capitalized word or a numeral, such as sub-Saharan, pre-1950; (2) before a compound term, such as non-self-sustaining, pre–Vietnam War (before an open compound, an en dash is used; see 6.80); (3) to separate two i’s, two a’s, and other combinations of letters or syllables that might cause misreading, such as anti-intellectual, extra-alkaline, pro-life; (4) to separate the repeated terms in a double prefix, such as sub-subentry; (5) when a prefix or combining form stands alone, such as over- and underused, macro- and microeconomics. The spellings shown below conform largely to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Compounds formed with combining forms not listed here, such as auto, tri, and para, follow the same pattern.}}

:::::::::::::: It also gives the examples “de / decompress, deconstruct, deontological, but de-emphasize, de-stress.” —Michael Z. 2020-03-15 23:27 z

::::::::::::::Whether it is hyphenated in Tatar, Russian, Ukrainian, French, or any other language is irrelevant. They aren't English. Just as in my above example German fuses phrases into single words while English usually doesn't. We can't force Germans to put a space in their word for "aircraft carrier" because the English term has a space and we shouldn't be forced to decapitalize something that would normally be capitalized in English. We aren't "making new words" we are using standard English formulations. --Khajidha (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::What you are saying is not nessesarily true given precedent. Words like dehumanize (a very comparable word in this instance) are not hypenated and should not be. The root of the word of "Detatarization" should be "Detatarize", not De-Tatarization with emphasis on "Tatarization".--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Also, I have better things to do than argue with someone people who understand next to nothing about Crimea yet want to make big changes to Crimea articles. Please don't bother me until the morning. If you feel such a strong urge to move the article immediatly, then please seek Wikipedia addiction counsiling.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::: User:PlanespotterA320, your repeated belittling comments are WP:UNCIVIL. Please try to think before you post. —Michael Z. 2020-03-15 23:54 z

:::::::::::::::::It was not meant to be uncivil. Wikipedia has a variety of humor pages about the treatment of Wikipediaholism. (Wikipedia:Clinic for Wikipediholics, [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipatch Wikipatch], Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test). And it is not unreasonable to ask for an argument to be postponed for a little while. (While you have been responding promptly, not everyone has the time or desire to spend hours focused on that). I am sorry if my comments made you feel belittled. Now, I would like to watch a movie and do some low-intensity editing and copyright checking. Please don't ping me on this page until it is 2:00 PM UTC.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi {{reply to|PlanespotterA320}} as per the revert section of WP:BRD, the guidance is: "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun." Would you provide the specific reasons for reversion? My reasons under the two edits are based on the fact that the sources don't assert that the Crimean Tartars are indigenous to the Crimea, nor do they define what the requirements are to be considered indigenous are. Given the fact that the origins of the Tartars originated with the arrival of the Mongols (specifically the Golden Horde) in the region, it seems strange to declare them an indigenous group without sources to justify it, or any explanation beyond that. My other edit is linked to this one. Alssa1 (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

:{{ping|Alssa1}} There is extensive sourcing about the status of Crimean Tatars as indigenous in the article about Crimean Tatars. Also, your removal of relevent and comparable items from the "see also" section was unreasonable.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

::{{ping|PlanespotterA320}} there are four sources cited in this article; none of them assert that the Crimean Tartars are indigenous to peninsula nor do they give the justification. Would you kindly specifically to where the sources say that the Crimean Tatars are indigenous to the peninsula and the justification for it too? If the Crimean Tatars are not indigenous to the region, things like Settler colonialism, Hebraization of Palestine and Colonization of the Americas are not relevant in my view, hence the removal. Alssa1 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Alssa1}} This is not the place to debate the fact that Crimean Tatars are indigenous to Crimea. That statement does not need sourcing because it is a simple fact already established by the rest of Wikipedia articles. I've already told you that the sourcing for that is in the article Crimean Tatars. Because you insist, here are a few, but I'm not going to spam the heading of the article with these citations for such a basic fact:

• Dahl, J. (2012). [https://books.google.com/books?id=5VrfrQqQn_sC&pg=PT240 The Indigenous Space and Marginalized Peoples in the United Nations]. Springer. pp. 240–241. ISBN 978-1-137-28054-1.
• Vozgrin, Valery "Historical fate of the Crimean Tatars"
• Sasse, Gwendolyn (2007). The Crimea Question: Identity, Transition, and Conflict. Harvard University Press. p. 93. ISBN 978-1-932650-01-3.
• Uehling, Greta Lynn (2000). Having a Homeland: Recalling the Deportation, Exile, and Repatriation of Crimean Tatars. University of Michigan. pp. 420–424. ISBN 978-0-599-98653-4.
• Williams, Brian Glyn (2001). The Crimean Tatars: The Diaspora Experience and the Forging of a Nation. BRILL. p. 37. ISBN 978-90-04-12122-5.

--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

::::{{ping|PlanespotterA320}} this is not a debate over whether they are or aren't indigenous to Crimea. This is a discussion of whether you have the sources to justify such a claim. I cannot read your other sources, but Dahl writes "The question about their indigenousness is, nevertheless, contentious although they are considered as such by many indigenous peoples in the international indigenous community.", this suggests that there is an ongoing controversy/debate which may be worth mentioning rather than just asserting across the board that they are indigenous. Alssa1 (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Alssa1}} There is a debate about their indigenousness among Russian settler-colonalists, who do not have the right to decide who they control is and isn't indigenous (only indigenous peoples get to decide that). There is strong consensus among other indigenous peoples that Crimean Tatars are indigenous too. Indigenousness is not dependent on recognition or acknowledgement by the occupying force - if there is a consensus among indigenous peoples of the world and everywhere outside of occupation about the indigenous status, then there is no point in debate. It is not worth mentioning that there is a debate about the status because occupiers trying to legitimize their occupation does not render people less indigenous and we should not cater to such interests that have repeatedly spread falsehoods on the issue. DNA evidence has debunked the only-mongol-invaders talking point repeatedly. Given that it really seems like Crimea is not your area of expertise, I highly reccomend editing other articles in your purveiw.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|PlanespotterA320}} it appears that you have 'skin in the game' as it were, please familiarise yourself with WP:NOTHERE (and specifically WP:NOTADVOCACY). Though you are free to edit these pages (just as anyone else is), they are not your property (and treating them as such is breach of WP:OWN) , I highly recommend you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies in this regard. On the topic of your expertise and knowledge, this is irrelevant because of WP:NOR. Finally, your use of the terms "Russian settler-colonalists", "occupying force" and "occupation" (as well as other terminology you've placed into other edits) you need to make consideration of Wikipedia's policies on netural points of view, see: WP:NPOV. If you don't do this, you could find yourself censored and unable to make further edits. Alssa1 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Alssa1}} Please refrain from making unsubstantiated accusations or threatening censorship grounds of what you perceive to be "advocacy". My use of the word "occupation" is not a reflection of advocacy or bias but merely an acknowledgement of the current situation. I allowed to use such terminology on a talkpage to demonstrate the need to doubt of one party's (Russia's) claims given their "skin in the game". I find it patronizing that you linked to WP:NOTHERE given that there is no doubt that I am here to build an encyclopedia given the hundreds of articles I've created and stubs I've expanded. I maintain that the article has a neutral point of view for a reasonable overtun window. Of course, it is to be expected that those living in extremely anti-Tatar political bubble would consider it biased, (and anything less racist than dribble copied from novoross will always be seen as "biased" by the), but by no reasonable standard is the article not neutral or biased. We should not give equal weight to the opinions of the world indigenous community and the anti-tatar lobby, just like we should not give equal weight/consideration to scientists on global warming as the fossil fuel lobby or give equal consideration to sane people and flat earthers.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

{{od}} {{ping|PlanespotterA320}} what I have said is not unsubstantiated, it's based upon your statements & actions here and elsewhere. The terminology of "occupation" among other things is not neutral by any stretch of the imagination, and its usage suggests advocacy (which is part of WP:NOTHERE). Whether you find the criticism "patronizing" or not is irrelevant to the issue. One of your own sources states that the question of the "indigenousness" of the Tartars to Crimea is controversial, you don't get to cut out sections of your own source simply because it doesn't correspond with your own viewpoint towards the issue; doing so is in breach of at least the spirit of WP:NOTADVOCACY. The comparison between this issue and flat earthers, or the global warming debate is false one. You are yet to establish why questions and academic debate over the "indigenousness" of the Tatars to Crimea is an act of "Tatarophobia", you also need to explain why the opinions of "the world indigenous community" is somehow comparable to the opinion of scientists on the global warming debate. "The world indigenous community" would fundamentally be political organisations and therefore constitute WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Alssa1 (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

:{{ping|PlanespotterA320}} you kind of prove my point when you make [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PlanespotterA320&diff=974615054&oldid=974213082| this edit] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PlanespotterA320&diff=974615082&oldid=974615054| this edit] to your page shortly after you're being criticised for advocacy. Alssa1 (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

::Nope. I previously wanted to show that I was not part of the pro-Tatarophobia crowd (comes with the territory for the Russian history section of Wikipedia, the main area I edit) and served as a warning to other editors that just because I write biographies of HSUs doesn't mean I am willing to side with them against a marginalized people. Now, drop the ad hominem, stop pinging me, and find something else to do besides ranting at me. This is the place to argue about this.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

:::So I'll assume we've come to a consensus that we should mention that there is a debate over the "indigenousness" of Tatars to Crimea? Excellent. Alssa1 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

::::Nope. The overwhelming consensus of the many indigenous peoples of the world does is not overridden or worth questioning based on the opinions of fringe Russian nationalists (especially considering that Russia PREVIOUSLY considered them indigenous). It is unacceptable to cave in to those interests by conceeding that such "debate" is legitimate. That would be on par with saying that there is a "debate" about climate change because some people deny it or debate about the shape of the earth because some people think it's flat. The two parties involved in the so-called debate are by no means on equal footing or worthy of equal consideration of the issue, and it is ESPECIALLY not worth noting that there is some stupid "debate" in this page of all places. Giving equal thought to one openly anti-Tatar government with a vested interest in not recognizing such status to maintain hegemony as much as the opinion of many indigenous communities of the world (as if they had anywhere near a conflict of interest as Moscow) is absolutely inaproppriate. I will not argue this with you anymore - this is as stupid as having to argue that there is no real debate about climate change . Do not change the page to claim that indigenous status is legitimatly debated, because I and many other editors WILL revert you. This is my final word. I stand by the terms of WP:Fringe which outlaw attempting to legitimize the "debate". All the major sources that outright deny indigenousness (russian nationalist newspapers) are not considered to be acceptable sources for wikipedia (such as RT, RIA Novosti, and novoross.info website, which just happens to run by Yevgeny Popov, an open white supremacist). For the record - there are fringe white supremacists who deny that Native Americans/Amerindians/First Nations people are indigenous to North America. Doesn't mean that it is worth acting like there is a legitimate debate about their indigenous status in every Wikipedia article that mentions them.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

:::::As I pointed out in my previous comment, the opinions of "many indigenous peoples of the world", do not override the reliable source that you cited that said there is actually an academic debate; furthermore those "many indigenous peoples of the world" could constitute WP:BIASEDSOURCES under the principle of political and philosophical opinion. Dismissing the debate as "the opinions of fringe Russian nationalists" not only undermines your credibility, but as I've said already suggests an act of advocacy which you are not allowed to do. You are yet to prove a single shred of your statements here. Alssa1 (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Obviously this isn't clear to those with minimal to non-existant knowledge of qirimtatarlar, but in the context of Crimea, tatar is an adjective, Crimean is the noun. The use of the adjective tatar itself is very controversial within the qirimtatar community, and sadly (as demonstrated by comments by some of the less-informed users around here), prone to continued abuse, misunderstanding, etc. Those familiar with the origin of the word know that Russians used to call various unrelated Muslim peoples "Tatars" as an insult, and while many eventually were no longer burdened with the name (as in the case of Azerbaijanis, who are no longer called Tatars except by some fringe Armenian nationalists) for some unlucky peoples the name stuck and continues to generate confusion (as in the case of Tatars, who, if we used the word in the context of removing reminders of their existance in Tatarstan, de-Tatarization would be the proper way to write it). In the Crimean context, detatarization (or Detatarization if at the start of a sentence), not de-tatarization is the proper way to describe what happened in the 1940's (the cleansing of traces of things dubbed "tatar"/viewed as "tatar"/relating to qirimtatar heritage, but were not actually Tatar.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

: User:PlanespotterA320, in English, all “proper adjectives,” that is, adjectives derived from proper names, are normally capitalized. When a prefix is applied, a hyphen is used to allow the capitalization. When we translate foreign terms to English, we don’t borrow their foreign capitalization and other orthographic conventions, but use native English ones.

: And it’s not just a convention, but also a matter of obligatory respect. Lowercasing an ethnic or national name can be perceived as representing colonial biases from another century, when some peoples were denigrated, either intentionally or as a result of WP:systemic bias. So, for example, some modern style guides and dictionaries recommend always capitalizing certain terms when they are used to refer to peoples, for example, Aboriginal, Indigenous, Nordic, Black, etcetera. (I can find references, if you like.)

: There are exceptions, so if you can find a reference like a dictionary or encyclopedia that supports your spelling, please bring it here. So, for example, my dictionary gives the headword “anti-Semitism (also antisemitism),” because the lowercased spelling is used enough, but the hyphenated and capped spelling is more common and/or preferable (so that’s what I use).

: In the meantime, let’s use normal English conventions. No, we should not refer to Crimean Tatars as “Tatars” or with the adjective “Tatar,” (which is always capitalized). But the phenomenon is called de-Tatarization, presumably by calquing from Russian or Crimean Tatar, and properly capitalized thus. —Michael Z. 17:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

:: See also MOS:PEOPLANG. —Michael Z. 16:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)