Talk:Lipka Tatars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name[edit]

I took the liberty to move this article back to Lipka Tatars. These were and are associated not only with Lithuania, but also with Poland, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and even Russia. Instead of calling them Polish Tatars or Lithuanian Tatars let's stick to the universal name, shall we? Halibutt 12:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, And whoever moved it without discussing, pls do not do it again. No one insists on cumbersome WP:RM every time. But to float the proposed moves at talks for a couple of days and give the interested parties to react is a common courtesy we are used to be expecting. --Irpen 20:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this three years later, apparently there's a similar problem with the article right now. The Lipkas inhabit the lands of the former PLC, not just GDL as the article clearly states. Furthermore, they were a military caste in both PLC and GDL, not just PLC. Replacing PLC with GDL is just historical revisionism. I have no idea what the origin of the name has to do with where they reside today or which states they formed a military caste in. Or are they supposedly just "Tatarized Lithuanians"?radek (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin[edit]

In the article (2008-03-15) is written: their origins can be traced back to the descendant states of the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan - the White Horde, the Golden Horde, the Crimean Khanate and Kazan Khanate.

Article readers may be missinformed if Kipchaks / Cumans, Cumania and even Khazaria is not mentioned. --Тимур (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of cited info[edit]

An anonymous user keeps removing the information on the Abakanowicz family. The inclusion of these individuals is cited. If there are conflicting sources they need to be cited and discussed here on the talk page. The material should not be removed. Additionally the user keeps removing the photo of the Tatar Uhlans for unknown reasons. As a result I've requested protection for this article.radek (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my previous edid I didn't remove the picture. And as far as is publicly known, his family was also abdank which is jewish of course. It should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.193.36 (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's pretty obvious, as they all have non-Tatar names and surnames. and after all, they don't look Tatar to me.

Their supposed Tatar roots aren't well known. As opposed to well known Tatar origin of Charles Bronson's father.

You keep using words like "obvious" and "of course"and asserting that they have "non-Tatar names" and "they don't look Tatar to me" and their roots aren't well known. That's not how you write an encyclopedia. Provide sources. Cite'em. There already are cited sources which reference their Tatar roots. More over, as the page (weak as it is) abdank points out, it was actually a fairly common coat of arms among noble families. I don't know where you get that it was Jewish and in fact that seems highly improbable (though possible for SOME noble family). Furthermore "Abakanowicz" is actually a Tatar sounding name. Maybe the -owicz is throwing you off - often times Jewish names were Polonized in that way but so were Muslim ones. Again, I have no idea where you're getting your notions from. Finally, Bruno Abakanowicz was a close friend of Sienkiewicz, who was also of Tatar descent though that's not what matters here. I don't have the sources with me, so I haven't included it, but Sienkiewicz actually based one of the Tatar characters in one of his stories (Hania) on Bruno. The overall point is that there seems to be a good bit of evidence for their Tatar roots. Again, if you have sources which state otherwise please list them here on the talk page. Otherwise, please do not remove the info. BTW, Bohdan Khmelnytsky was probably an "Abdank" (at least according to Sienkiewicz) - somehow I doubt he was Jewish.radek (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected[edit]

I semi-protected the article for a week. Please discuss what you disagree about here. Thanks Renata (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by tagging[edit]

Some of this is spurious although in other instances inline citations are indeed needed. In reference to the inserted tag, the source quotes a 16th century letter from Khan Mehmed I Giray to Zygmunt Stary in which he writes:

Żądamy od krajów lipkowskiego i polskiego 15.000 florenów polskich. Kraj lipkowski i polski obydwa znaczą dla nas to samo, a ich wrogowie są i naszymi wrogami..

Translation: We demand from the country of Poles and Lipkas 15,000 Polish florens. The country of the Lipkas and that of Poles are the same to us and their enemies our enemies.

So there you go. Also removing some of the more spurious tags.radek (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some serious questons[edit]

It'll but it numbered to be easy to distinguish between answers and allegations. 1. Does the user who on several days did put unreferenced information know when Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was founded.? 2. Was Grand Duchy of Lithuania ruled by the Grand Duke of Lithuania Vytautas the Great at the time when Lipka Tatars/Lithuanian Tatars were invited to Grand Duchy? Thank you for your answers.--Lokyz (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these questions matter. The point is that they live TODAY in the former lands of the PLC. I.e., some in Poland, some in Lithuanian and some in Belarus. Also I'm having trouble understanding what "It'll but it numbered to be easy" means.radek (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments do lack WP:RS, so please stop removing the tags directed to improving the article, unless you can provide WP:RS.--Lokyz (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't. My arguments are supported by other info provided in the article which talk about Lipkas living in Poland today, referenced to several sources provided. Now, obviously Poland is not a former part of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but a former part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, hence the Lipkas today live in the former lands of the PLC not GDL. The tags were placed there not to improve the article - as sometimes their placement didn't even make sense - but rather as a form of drive-by-tagging.radek (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Lokyz refers to a series of errors in the article - for example, the PLC was reffered to in a period before the Union of Lublin, an obvious error. I've tried to correct such errors in my copyedit. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, though I can't understand the "It'll but it numbered to be easy" part so I don't know what his intentions are. Anyway, what he's changing is the info on where the Lipkas live today. And today, they are not confined to the lands of the former GDL, but they live in lands of the former PLC.radek (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Living on the lands of the former..."[edit]

Lokyz, I really don't understand your thinking here. The sentence "living on the lands of the former..." refers to where the Lipkas live today. And today they live in Belarus, Lithuania, and Poland (btw, my ordering here was simply alphabetical which I though would be uncontroversial) - hence today they live in the lands of the former Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. Now, when the Lipkas first settled in their original areas, in the 14th century, they settled in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. But that's a different fact and a different sentence - and that's what the source you added supports, but this is not now nor ever was under dispute. I'm not sure if this isn't just a grammar/English misunderstanding.radek (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provide your sources, that PLC did exist in the 14th century. Thank you.
Tatars first were settled around Lithuanian capital Vilnius encircling it as personal bodyguards of Grand Duke, they were an nddition to the already existing circular castle system (or rather double castle system) protecting Vilnius, and they subordinated only to the Grand Duke, because of personal oath (until now Lithuanian lipkas kind of worship Vytautas). Only much later they expanded into wider area. Also, until 16th century they did preserve their language.--Lokyz (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Radeksz, a short question - do you red Lithuanian?--Lokyz (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this relevant?radek (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't we say exactly that in the article? I'm under impression than anything "Polish" has to be gone.--Jacurek (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you start shuffling references n the language you did not acknowledge reading in, it is.--Lokyz (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat my question: could you provide any reliable sources, that there was PLC in 14th 13th century? (1569 is definitely not 14th century)
P.S. Assuming good faith is the basic principle of Wikipedia Jacurek. And reverts without any edit summary and later insinuations are not in accordance with this policy.--Lokyz (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A question and ridiculous suggestions that my edits are not in good faith are not what I was looking are from you Lokyz? Let me ask you again. Why don't we say exactly that in the article?--Jacurek (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the rather not AGF comment of yours just above. Also I do miss an answer about sources regarding PLC in 14th century.--Lokyz (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lokyz, one more time, the existence or non existence of the PLC in the 14th century is irrelevant here. What is relevant is where the Lipkas live today.radek (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is - since there was no PLC for Lipkas to live in "since 14th century" in the mentioned 14th century. There was GDL, and there was Kindom of Poland. And it's a fact. As a matter of fact PLC was composed of GDL and Crown - rather loose confederation than unitary state. And it's a fact. And trying to put PLC in 14t century is a-historical. I would not mind if you'd put PLC after GDL - per proper logic and timeline. Those attempts to find Poland where it was not present is really disturbing (not much less than Jacurek comment up above).--Lokyz (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Lokyz AGF is a basic principle here. So why not do what Jacurek says and put the above information in the article as it is. Again, no one is disputing that the Lipkas originally settled in Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In fact, that's already in the article: "Towards the end of the 14th century, these Tatars were granted asylum and given noble status and land in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania by Vytautas the Great". But you keep missing the point - perhaps because you're assuming that these edits are made in bad faith or because of English grammar - for the particular sentence under dispute the question is not where they settled first, but where they reside NOW. And now they reside in some areas that were not parts of GDL.radek (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not refer to edits, just to the comment by Jacurek. Hope this will clarify the matter.--Lokyz (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- And btw - and this should show that I'm operating in good faith here - I'm the one who actually added the info on the fact that "Lipkas kind of worship Vytautas": At the same time the Tatars held the Lithuanian Grand Duke Vytautas (Wattad, in Tatar or "defender of Muslims in non Muslim lands"), who encouraged and supported their settlement during the 15th century in great esteem, including him in many legends, prayers and their folklore.[3]. Note that I also took care to spell his name Vytautas rather than Witold.radek (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is highly based on Christian POV![edit]

This article seems to say that most muslim communities do not treat women as liberated because of islam but lipka tatars do because of the influence of Christianity!It is attack　on Islam and against neutrality policy of Wikipedia!114.158.78.167 (talk)

so please fix it in the article rather than scream.Iulius (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of an uncited sentence, so it's completely unclear what the original source (if any) was trying to communicate. Should the sentence just be removed? 2601:244:82:4E90:59FA:600F:4774:F8CF (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lipka Tatars. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lipka Tatars. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, Turkics and Mongols are not the same when you finally understand. Little assimilation Mongols does not mean they're related. Calling Turkics as Mongols in past isn't smart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.0.248.253 (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lithuania Tatars which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Split?[edit]

Should this article be split into the historical Polish-Lithuania Tatars and the contemporary Polish Tatars/Tatars in Poland? Right now the lead is all about history but we have the Lipka_Tatars#Present_status section. This is also related to the recent creation and ongoing renaming discussion of the Tatars in modern Lithuania article (now under the grammatically incorrect name Lithuania Tatars). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lipka_Tatars&oldid=1208193119"