Talk:Deportation of the Crimean Tatars

message: What's the source of information on that newly added graph by User:Ahnoneemoos? SkywalkerPL (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population graph 

message: "Tatar people suffered from the man-made famine of Holodomor"
Holy hell. so much wrong with that already. This isn't even npov related but out right cold war era propaganda attacks. This world is getting scarier.
-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.38.213 (talk • contribs) 
I am by no means an expert in Soviet/Ukrainian/Crimean Tatar history, but that sentence comes from an academic paper presented at the Columbia University by historian Otto Pohl, and is confirmed by National Geographic. These are rather reliable sources, however, if you elaborate on what makes these resources, which were published some time after the Cold War, "propaganda attacks", and support your claim with evidence, it would be contribute to the article in a more constructive way IMHO. I have already changed the wording a bit. --GGT (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Otto Pohl does't have any published papers on Tatars history. NG is not a historical institution.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanoworld (talk • contribs) 00:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: National Geographic and a historian from Columbia University are both good WP:RS. Jeppiz (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The article says:
*(1) "A total of 238,500 people were deported"
*(2) "183,155 - 193,865 Crimean Tatars were deported"
I understand these numbers are estimates by different authors based on different sources, and it is OK. However wikipedia must present these data in a reconciled form. Whoever has access to the sources cited, please do so.Staszek Lem (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of deported 

message: *The cars were called "crematoria on wheels" by Crimean Tatars.
I believe they were called so. But I also believe that it is an anachronism: AFAIK the general knowledge about crematoria in Nazi death camps was not commonly available until the end of the war. So I doubt that such an isolated place as Crimea had this term common enough to put it into a phraseology of the time. I would suggest to clarify the issue; e.g., I would expect something like: "In their memoirs, Crimean Tatars called these cars 'crematoria on wheels". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  crematoria on wheels 

message: Dear english speaking authors. This article turned to pure propaganda. A number of rumors and lie statements are cited from Pohl, Otto J. and so called International Committee For Crimea. This source is not per-reviewed scientific source and it can contain anything. Please fix this problem. My english knowledge does not allow me to do it myself  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanoworld (talk • contribs) 15:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing concrete in your comment, just a smear of a person you don't like. Future disruptive comments of that kind will be removed, as Wikipedia is not a forum. Jeppiz (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda 

message: As a source i used The Nature of Anti-Soviet Armed Resistance, 1942-44: The North Caucasus, the Kalmyk Autonomous Republic, and Crimea, Alexander Statiev Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Volume 6, Number 2, Spring 2005 (New Series), pp. 285-318 (Article), page 315 ", but the proportion of Tatar collaborators was the greatest, about 10 percent of the population; 
if any problem exists, please inform to fix it. Please do not revert my contribution without justification, cause i used a university and reliable source--Istoria1944 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: English Wikipedia will do without your stupid propaganda. Don't worry. - Devlet Geray (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The greatest proportion of nazi collaborator

message: "Even though the Volga Tatars actually participated in collaboration in far higher proportion than the Crimean Tatars, with 35,000–40,000 volunteers fighting with the Axis, they avoided any kind of collective punishment."
This is absolutely astonishing. Whoever wrote this is lacking basic knowledge about the Soviet Union and its population. Per the 1939 census, there were about 200,000 Crimean Tatars and about 3.5 million Tatars in the rest of of Russia and including the Tatar, Chuvash, Bashkir autonomous regions.
It's estimated herethat about 300,000 Russians fought in Vlasov's ranks and other pro-German units. There were 100 million Russians in 1940. So that would mean 0.3% of Russians collaborated with the Nazis. At the same time, the lowest estimate is that 10,000 Crimean Tatars fought in Nazi Germany's ranks, but this estimate gives us a figure of about 35,000 Crimean Tatars that collaborated with the Nazis in one form or another. So between 5% to 15% of all Crimean Tatars collaborated with the Nazis. At the same time, the Nazis occupied Belarus and there were an estimated 70,000 Belarusian collaborators out of a Belarusian population of about 7 million i.e. 0.93% of Belarusians collaborated with the Nazis. 
I don't understand why the Volga Tatars have been slandered in this article? This source shows estimates of 10,000 Crimean Tatars and 12,000 Volga Tatars collaborating with the Germans. There were 200,000 Crimean Tatars and about 3.5 million Tatars in the Volga regions and elsewhere in Russia. Based on this, 5% of Crimean Tatars collaborated with the Germans and 0.3% of Volga Tatars collaborated with the Germans. It is totally unfair to slander and make falsehoods about the Volga Tatars, they served honorably in the war.
:15,000–20,000 Crimean Tatars collaborated with the Axis powers. In comparison, 35,000–40,000 Volga Tatars collaborated with the Axis powers. 35,000 or 40,000 is more than 15,000 or 20,000. What is the problem here? I don't know what "topwar.ru" is, but inserting random, obscure websites is not the right way to build a good article. See the reliable sources policy on Wikipedia. Also, this is English Wikipedia, and is under no obligation to use Russian language sources, which might be biased or unreliable with regards to its national past. People who do not speak Russian cannot verify your claims. All the claims in the text are sourced from reliable sources by scholars and historians or international and NGO sources, whereas potentially nationalistic sources are avoided. --Seiya (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then how would you define "collaboration"? Even the articles Schutzmannschaft (police battalions) and Selbstschutz state that the units were loyal to the German army. They may have been self-defense units, but they were still armed and followed instructions from the German army. I don't mind expanding the section, but there has to be a limit somewhere. --Seiya (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Your claims appear to be entirely OR and giving credence to only one claimed reason by the Soviet Union". Please, read the "Modern views and Legacy" section. You have been a rather superficial reader of this article.--Seiya (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Collaboration was not the real point, distortion of what sources said and removing reliably sourced edits of others was. All views should be presented. What other articles say or general claims is not what we have to base it on. What is collabaration: cooperation with an enemy. Saying no one collaborated is also wrong, but making general claims of all self-defense units as collaborators is also wrong especially when the scholarly source is saying something else. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

text: One of my main  problems was also giving credence to only one thing and dismissing other views from some of the sections. We shouldn't overrule others anywhere wheter in lede or other sections of the article. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading and false claim 

message: Removing any accusations of genocide from the lede is a severe violation of NPOV and LEAD. Plumber (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with NPOV. Look at this template. It's just simply too huge to fit into the article, it distorts pictures and text. Actually, any article would have problems with this wall of text. My suggestion would be: a) either modify and shrink this template b) simply remove it, since there is no clear consensus that this event was genocide. It certainly was a huge crime, but it is not accepted universally to be included into the worst crime possible. c) use this template instead:--Seiya (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide 

message: To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:
* First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js . 
* On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
*  Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */. 
When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  source review tips 

message: Crimean Tatar Genocide should be the name of this page. According to different sources up to half of Crimean Tatars were murdered while being "deported" due to horrible conditions imposed on them. These people were forced to be transported in extremely cramped up freight wagons. Thousands have died due to being unable to breathe, lack of water and food and cold. This is genocide not a "deportation" and if this isn't a genocide and just a "deportation" then Armenian Genocide was just a deportation too. But it's not. So for neutrality of wikipedia we should treat both of these horrific genocides equally. That's why the name of this page should be changed to Crimean Tatar Genocide. 31.223.26.187 (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of this page 

message: I noticed the fatality counter on the infobox stated "30,000 to 45,000" deaths in exile. Perhaps this meant 40 to 45? Since all the figures in the article body states figures north of 40k. The infobox also doesn't mention timeframe, which is something that's easily forgotten but noteworthy when discussing deaths–they were only allowed to return in 1989 afterall. Some of the timeframe included in the article are 1948 and 1951. While the one that states "40,000 to 80,000" doesn't have a timespan limit but rather overall. DA1 (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the numbers you've added to infobox do not factor in deaths during transit (8k), only deaths in destination in exile. The 34,000 figure is being misinterpreted, its only deaths 'after' transport while in exile ("deaths above expected mortality" rate). And even that source states 34,300 not "34,000". DA1 (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

text: For example: 34,300 (Ediev) + 7,889 (NKVD's official est. of deaths during transport) = 42,189. Which coincides with the other figures. This is because it's only counting mortality rates while in exile, the entire page  is discussing that, and does not factor direct deaths from transport. You can read page 207 alone, or pages 204-207. It mentions "settlers" and "special settlements" several times because its exclusively discusses deaths within the settlements/settlers and not transit. DA1 (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox fatality figure 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The lead was flagged as needing citations, i added two in.  But per MOS:LEADCITE we should figure out what citations are worth keeping in the lead—blindlynx (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 I just made the observation that the lead or introduction is still lacking in sources. This is especially pressing with the last paragraphs making multiple important claims without any stated source. This should be investigated 89.206.82.38 (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: what claims specifically?—blindlynx 15:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead citations 

message: It is the flagship journal of National Association of Scholars (NAS), an organization which opposes a perceived political correctness on college campuses and supports a return to mid-20th-century curricular and scholarship norms, and an increase in conservative representation in faculty. As Jonathan Rauch said,  
There is not a single reason to use articles from such non-academic journals on articles as controversial as these, especially to challenge views of acclaimed historians; there has not been a shortage of peer reviewed scholarship, published by academic presses, on the issue. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair it's a shit source.  That said the inclusion of the Statiev paper seems undue as well, given that it that has revived little academic attention.  Would you object to removing that whole paragraph?—blindlynx 20:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot this. Give me a day to remember what was being debated! TrangaBellam (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Statiev is a qualified academic and Journal of Genocide Research is a journal of excellent repute. So, Statiev is DUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing that just that this particular article presents a viewpoint that's clearly in the minority (see WP:DUE)—blindlynx 01:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I do feel that this is a minority view but this is far from fringe territory to attract DUEness concerns on such grounds. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is that because this particular paper hasn't had much of a reception so we can't point to other scholars objections to it. Would you be okay with adding a line in pointing out that it's a minority or not widely accepted view?—blindlynx 12:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot editorialize in wiki-voice. However, if you come across some tertiary source asserting that most scholars reject a Statiev-ian reading of the event (even without referring to Statiev or the particular article), I offer no opposition. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why i'm hesitant to include it at all.  No-one is engaging with the paper so we can't be critical of lines like  even thought any academic response to the a paper would take issue with them, but.  Let's see if we can find a recent surveys on the topic rather than the current wiki made laundry list?—blindlynx 15:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's now how we decide on content inclusion. By imposing an additional measure of "engagement" despite being peer-reviewed scholarship at an very high quality journal. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No more than we are required to include every piece of said scholarship. Are you okay with changing the first like of that paragarph to  from   and leaving the rest as is?—blindlynx 17:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry forgot to mention i took out the academic questions source because it was shit—blindlynx 17:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Academic Questions''