Talk:Tatar confederation

Is this the same as Khanate?
I think the word usually used in this case is "Khanate", not confederation (as in, for example, the Astrakhan Khanate). I can find very little reference to "Tatar Confederation" in google scholar or books.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2013

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved by Crisco 1492. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Tatar tribe → Tatar confederation – That was the original title until it was moved here with the explanation that the title was too long. I'd have simply moved it back and started a discussion on the talk page, but an edit after the move that was intended to remove a category from the moved page instead resulted in there being a duplication of the article under the old name. I dispute that the old name was too long, nor do I find any other reason for the move, tho I am not an expert in this area of history. Based on the information in the article itself, the old name of the article would appear to be superior. However, regardless of which name is used, there needs to be but one article. Carolina wren (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.



Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * I've speedily moved the page owing to a lack of consensus and policy basis behind the original move. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:OR

 * Osamaorf, don't delete information from reliable sources. Use only reliable secondary sources for edit this article. Follow the WP:OR rules please.--KoizumiBS (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Osamaorf, Kashgari didn't write that tatar's own language was Turkic. Orkhon inscriptions say nothing about their language. They just mention names of tribes. Mehmet Fuat Köprülü и Peter Benjamin Golden are famous Turkologists, not conspiracy theorists. Articles should rely on secondary sources. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If the war of edits continues, an appeal to the administrators will follow.--KoizumiBS (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The Kultegin's Inscription South Side clearly specifies that Otuz Tatars are part of Turkic people when he addresses his words to all Turkic people the full text below with reference:-

"I, Tengri-like and Tengri-born Turkish Bilge Kagan, succeeded to the throne at this time. Hear my words, all of you, my younger brothers and my sons, and my nation and relatives, my people! You, Šad-apit lords in south, tarkans and buyruq lords in north, Otuz (Tatar?),

Tokuz-Oguz lords and people! Hear these words of mine well, and listen hard! All people following me eastwards to sunrise, southwards to midday, westwards to sunset, and northwards to midnight (listen this)!

I made you more. There is no false in these words. If the Turkish kagan rules from the Otukan mountains, then there will be no trouble in country. I went on campaigns eastwards up to the Shantung plain. I almost reached the sea. I went on campaigns southwards up to Tokuz-Arsin. I almost reached Tibet. Westwards beyond the Pearl River

I went on campaigns up to the Iron Gate. Northwards I went on campaigns up to Bayirqu land. I went on campaigns up to all these places. There was no good ruler in the Otukan mountain. The place from which the country can be controlled is the Otukan mountain. Having stayed in this place, I ruled

the Chinese people. The words of Chinese people, who give us gold, silver, alcohol and treasures in abundance, have always been sweet and silks have always been soft. Deceiving by their sweet words and soft silks, they attract people to come from remote places. After people have settled close to them, they made people be addicted to them even more.

They do not let wise men and brave men come close. They corrupt beginning from a single man up to his whole family and clan. Having been deceived by their sweet words and soft silk, you Turkish people, died! In order to survive Turkish people intended to settle at the Čuγay mountains in south on Тügeltin

plain. They deceived so much, that led Turkish common people to death. They lied that they would give bad silk if be afar, and would give good silk if they would be close to them. Unwise people followed that words, went close and all died.

If you go toward those places, О Turkish people, you will die! If you stay in the land of Otukan, and send caravans from there, you will have no trouble. If you stay at the Otukan mountains, you will live forever dominating the countries! О Turkish people, you always regard yourselves as satiated. You do not think of being hungry or satiated. Once satiated, you forget of being hungry. On account of your being so,

you didn't listen to the words of your kagan, who had nourished you. You went away in all directions. You completely tired and become weak. Those who survived where utterly exhausted. But Tengri was gracious, and since I was granted with fortune, I succeeded to the throne. Having succeeded to the throne,

I changed all poor and destitute people. I made poor people wealthy and few people numerous. This word of mine is blessed! О Turkish lords and people, hear this! In order to join together all Turkish people and direct our country, I have inscribed here: Being deceived you will die.

All words which I wanted to say I have inscribed on this eternal stone. Read these inscriptions! You, Turkish people now and lords! With the lords who had already been deceived there I had inscribed. I get painters from the Chinese emperor, and ordered them to inscribe. They put all my words on the stone.

The court painters of the Chinese emperor took part. I got them to build an extraordinary mausoleum. They decorated the inside and outside with wonderful paintings and sculptures. They inscribed all my word on the stone, I had all the words in my mind recorded. See these inscriptions and get lessons, all of you from my On-Ok descendants to slaves. I had the memorial stone inscribed.

This is plain place to live. I had the memorial stone erected for the brave man in this country and inscribed on this place. See this memorial and learn its contents. … The one who inscribed these inscriptions is nephew (Prince) Yolluγtegin.

In order to take care of Kultegin's gold and silver, his treasures and possessions, his four (thousand?) horses…. Tengri … I inscribed the stone. (Prince) Yolluγtegin…" https://bitig.kz/?lang=e&mod=1&tid=1&oid=15&m=1

This is your proof that here saying O Turkish people refers to Turkic speaking Kokturks Otuz Tatars. Now add this since I cant write anymore as you have locked the page.


 * See Reference 144: "“Otuz Tatar - Thirty Tatars”. Mongol homogenous nomad tribes. In the Chinese sources, they are pointed as “tatan, dadan”. They inhabited the territory between Baikal and Manchuria".--KoizumiBS (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC) "Also all Turkic people came from Manchuria, you cant prove that 100% check Turkic people page and references there, there are many".

Now listen to these words carefully:-

"Possible Proto-Turkic ancestry, at least partial, has been posited for Xiongnu, Huns and Pannonian Avars, as well as Tuoba and Rouran (later Tatars), who were of Proto-Mongolic Donghu ancestry." Turkic peoples page, go check references there.

If you respect science and evidence, please add these possibilities in Donghu and Rouran pages, and Tatar confederation page. Stop trying to delete every evidence about the possibility of Turkic people ancestry from Donghu, Rouran, Xiongnu, or the fact that they share possibly same origins as Proto-Mongols. There are so many facts and evidence that suggests their origins from Northeastern China same as Proto-Mongols. Xiongnu, Donghu, Rouran. Million references are out there about this, but you keep pushing these facts away because of your agenda and maybe your hate towards Turkic people which is not right, you should respect truth and history and science. Please be fair and add those references and findings otherwise you are just a bully and you try to change history as you please. Which is a crime against humanity.


 * You did not follow the rules, and now you accuse me of crimes that I did not commit. I have written to you more than once about the need to use secondary sources and not engage in original research. And now you also violated the WP: CIVIL rules.--KoizumiBS (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this a case of WP:NOTHERE?

 * Here Volgabulgari changed the wording
 * to:
 * The reason why the original wording had been:
 * was because in the original Chinese wording in Songshu, vol. 95 is:
 * , which, when translated to English, is:
 * Songshu, vol. 95 did not claim that 大檀 Dàtán and Tántán 又號檀檀 were "also used as another name for the Rourans"
 * It's very apparent that Volgabulgari cannot read Classical Chinese. From the article's edit history, Volgabulgari wrote these:
 * Here Volgabulgari asserted that: "He [i.e. me, Erminwin] is using a Britannica source where it says Tatars originated between Lake Balkai and Manchuria. Same source also says Original Tatars (Nine Tatars) are a Turkic-speakers unlike Mongols." when in fact the source I cited for that is "Note 144 on "The Kultegin inscription" in Türik Bitig. Russian original: " Otuz Tatar – кочевые племена монгольского типа. В китайских источниках их называли «татань, дадань». Проживали на Байкале и маньчжурии." rough translation: "Nomadic tribes of the Mongolic sort. In Chinese sources they were called 'Tatan, Dadan'. They lived between Baikal and Manchuria."
 * Volgabulgari also asserted: "When I added "Original Tatars associated with Turkic peoples" he keeps deleting without saying anything most of the time." I did delete "Actual Tatars, the Nine Tatars are associated with Turkic peoples. They might be related to Kipchak and/or Cuman peoples." from the section "Name and origin" because it is a repetition of "they [Tatars] were proposed to be Turkic speakers (e.g. by Encyclopedia Britannica or Kyzlasov apud Sadur 2012) related to Cumans and Kipchaks." in the very next section "Ethnic and linguistic affiliations", where the Nine Tatars' ethnic and linguistic affiliation/association would be relevant. I even wrote here "No need to repeat same claims by same sources too many times." to explain why I deleted "Actual Tatars, the Nine Tatars are associated with Turkic peoples. They might be related to Kipchak and/or Cuman peoples."
 * Volgabulghari themself edited then deleted one whole section [EDIT: "Legacy"], even though the claim "Turkic-speaking peoples of Cumania, as a sign of political allegiance, adopted the endonym of their Mongolic-speaking conquerors, before ultimately subsuming the latter culturally and linguistically." in that section is sourced.
 * The source is Pow (2019). On page 563, Pow clearly wrote:
 * On their talk page Volgabulgari even told Nishidani "Kys (very likely standing for Kill yourself, 1, 2)" when critiqued by Nishidani for "editing a top class 4 article with virtually no prior experience as an editor" and "ignoring standard rules."
 * EDIT: and many more actions...
 * KoizumiBS, Kansas Bear, etc. What do you think? Erminwin (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you should notify an Admin of these issues. This has all the makings of disruptive editing.--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just changed it as a Mongolic confederation then? Dada (Rouran) in Chinese sources may not be Tatars in the Orkhon inscriptions and even they are it would be absurd for you to use only one part of Britannica. Volgabulgari (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * lol Volgabulgari (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Having had a look at the Song Shu source, I agree that the wording "as another name for the Rourans" reflects the source, whereas "also used as another name..." misrepresents it, since this is the only context in which the term appears in the source. It looks like the very next sentence establishes lack of consensus on identifying 檀檀/大檀 with other epigraphic evidence I'm not familiar with, so it seems like all interpretations are addressed? Folly Mox (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. Still, I'm still hesitant about reverting "also used as another name..." back to "as another name..." as well as many other disruptive editings by Volgabulgari for fear of violating the three-revert rule.  Call me paranoid, yet I'm thinking Volgabulgari is gaming the system. Erminwin (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The term "Tatar" has been used in different contexts throughout history and can refer to various people. In some cases, it has been used to refer to Turkic groups, while in other cases, it has been used to refer to Mongolic groups. If you have any strong evidence Tatar confederation is pure Mongolic groups and Rourans themselves you can change this page as a Mongolic confederation. It makes you look less unfortunate than to say "What's the problem with modern Tatars having Mongolic-speaking ancestors" in a subject that highly controversional. No, I won't call you paranoid. You can believe that I'm getting paid for Tatarstan governnent. Wish success you in your personal life. I've been avoiding to talk you in the administrator page. Volgabulgari (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Early and mediaeval Chinese sources were extremely liberal in overgeneralising with their ethnonyms – which is touched on in the second paragraph of the first level 2 subheading in the article – and I'm not understanding how the minor change of also used as is eliciting such pushback. As a subject matter novice, coming to this topic for the first time yesterday in the capacity of a bored person who can read classical Chinese texts, at the risk of making myself look unfortunate, User:Volgabulgari can you point me to a page where I can learn why it's so controversial to describe the earliest attestation of the term "Tatar" in a way that more closely reflects the cited source? Is there a clarifying sentence you'd like to include regarding lack of positive identification of the Chinese term with the whole of the Tatar confederation that will satisfy your sensibilities on this matter? Folly Mox (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reason for the lack of clarity regarding the identity of the Tatars, including their origins and language, is due to the ambiguous nature of historical sources. Although some scholars have posited a possible link between the Tatars and Mongolic-speaking groups such as the Rourans or the Mongols, this remains a topic of scholarly debate and has not been universally accepted. Similarly, the theory that the Tatars may have been related to Turkic-speaking peoples is also contested. I was edited as another name for Rourans because we don't know if Dada and Tatar are same thing as a next sentence also suggesting the same thing.
 * If it's true Tatar confederation and Rouran is the same thing, we're not just enlighted a long-going historical debate but also we can change this confederation as a Mongolic confederation. it is important to avoid drawing overly simplistic or reductionist conclusions from such evidence. In light of these uncertainties, it is important to exercise caution when making claims about the identity of the Tatars. While it is possible that the Dada/Tatar were another name for the Mongolic Rourans, it is not necessarily accurate to describe them as a "Mongolic confederation" without further corroborating evidence. Indeed, the notion that the Tatars may have been a Turkic-speaking group distinct from the Mongols is supported by some historical sources.
 * The source cited by user Ermenwin, which suggests that the Tatars historically resided in some regions, but also suggests that Tatars were a Turkic-speaking people distinct from Mongols. When I added "Original Tatars (ToquzTatars) may related to Turkic peoples" which same source also suggesting this he keeps deleted. The suggestion that the Tatars may have had Mongolic ancestors or affiliations is not necessarily problematic, but it is important to approach such claims with an open-minded and critical perspective. He also vandalized the page by deleting Shatuo Turks joined the Tatar confederation and becoming known as White Tatars.
 * Best regards @Folly Mox Volgabulgari (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "You [Erminwin] can believe that I[Volgabulgari]'m getting paid for Tatarstan governnent". There's this Vietnamese idiom: chưa đánh đã khai "already confessing before getting beaten".
 * "The source cited by user Ermenwin, which suggests that the Tatars historically resided in some regions, but also suggests that Tatars were a Turkic-speaking people distinct from Mongols" When reading this assertion of yours
 * here, I charitably thought that you had been mistaken, so I pointed out that:
 * That note is readable here by hovering the mouse over the number 144 on the upper-right corner of the word "Otuz Tatar" (in the Latin transcription of line 4), causing a box to appear containing the Russian original:
 * So when you again re-asserted "The source ["Note 144 on "The Kultegin inscription" in Türik Bitig."] cited by user Ermenwin, which suggests that the Tatars historically resided in some regions, but also suggests that Tatars were a Turkic-speaking people distinct from Mongols", you just lied bald-facedly.Erminwin (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Flatheartism is better for you. Volgabulgari (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Flatheartism is better for you." Typed you, that also had the temerity to type this false accusation:
 * When in fact:
 * I did not delete "From the 10th to 13th centuries, Shatuo Turks joined Tatar confederation in the territory of the modern Mongolia, and became known as Ongud or White Tatars branch of the Tatars"; in fact, I moved it from "Name and origin" to "History" as part of this edit. As of this version, the sentence "From the 10th to 13th centuries, Shatuo Turks joined Tatar confederation in the territory of the modern Mongolia, and became known as Ongud or White Tatars branch of the Tatars" is still present in this paragraph:
 * You edited then deleted one whole section [EDIT: "Legacy"], even though the claim "Turkic-speaking peoples of Cumania, as a sign of political allegiance, adopted the endonym of their Mongolic-speaking conquerors, before ultimately subsuming the latter culturally and linguistically." in that section is sourced.
 * The source is Pow (2019). On page 563, Pow clearly wrote:
 * Your reason was: "Turkic peoples of Cumania still speaking their own Kipchak-Turkic languages. 'subsuming language of their Mongolic-speaking conquerors')" For a self-proclaimed "native speaker of the English language" according to your profile page, your English is not good enough for you to understand the meaning of the verb subsume "to include something or someone as part of a larger group" (source: Cambridge Dictionary's entry ), and also bad enough for you produce such grammatically incorrect expressions like "I was edited as another name for Rourans" here in this talk page as well as "You are cited my source" in your reason for this edit Erminwin (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The topic of the identification of 大檀/檀檀 with the Ruorans in mediaeval Chinese sources doesn't seem to have been significantly studied in the literature available on the Wikipedia library or google books.I did find an earlier reference to 大壇 (note the variant character form) in the Song Shu (same chapter), preserved in the memorial of submission of Gai Wu (zh:蓋吳) to Emperor Taiwu of Northern Wei, dated roughly CE 445. The context was the plight of Pingcheng, modern Datong, Shanxi. The Northern Wei court was in conflict with the Ruoran people at this time, but it's not clear by what means the compilers of the Song Shu attached the two terms.Furthermore, later literature treats 大壇 as a personal name rather than an ethnonym. Zh-wiki even has an article about him: zh:大檀 (using the other variant of the second graph). I was able to find one self-styled "opinion" piece about the Ruorans, which both posits a Turkic etymology for the demonym and treats 大檀 as an ethnonym rather than a personal name:
 * Kürşat Yıldırım. (2013). An Opinion on the Meaning of the Name ‘Ruanruan.’ Central Asiatic Journal, 56, 35–40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13173/centasiaj.56.2013.0035
 * The second-oldest source that treats the topic in Chinese historical literature is the Wei Shu, but the section in question was lost and replaced with a later interpolation based on the Bei Shu, over a hundred years removed from the events in question.In short, it's now pretty unclear to me whether the association of 大檀 and 芮芮 is legitimate or spurious, where the term 檀檀 might have arisen, what linguistic family the Ruoran people belonged, to say nothing of the relationship between the Tatars and the Ruorans (subunit, descendant, affinal, etc). Folly Mox (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If they Volga Tatars took their name from Mongolic-speaking conquerors "Tatars" as you claimed why don't you change page as a whole. Isn't that mean Tatars themselves just a "Mongolic-speaking" conquerors. And everything we talk and we cite here is for nothing. Volgabulgari (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "If they Volga Tatars took their name from Mongolic-speaking conquerors "Tatars" as you claimed why don't you change page as a whole. Isn't that mean Tatars themselves just a "Mongolic-speaking" conquerors. And everything we talk and we cite here is for nothing." Because unlike YOU, who POV-pushed that "the Tatars may have been a Turkic-speaking group distinct from the Mongols" and, quite apparently, only deal in Black and White, I think the Tatar confederation might have been multi-linguistic and might comprise Mongolic (Black Tatars), Turkic (White Tatars), and possibly even Tungusic speakers (Raw Tatars) (following Kyzlasov, apud Sadur 2010, p. 250); yet I also defer to the expert opinion of Stephen Pow (who is in fact an expert), that among those Tatars, the Tatars - who conquered Cumans & Kipchaks, whose name the Cumans & Kipchaks adopted, and whom the Kipchak-Turkic-speakers still successfully subsumed/absorbed linguistically and culturally - were Mongolic-speakers.
 * Erminwin (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * then no need to push "Mongolic-speaking" ancestors. Volgabulgari (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Tell that to Ochir, who wrote:
 * in Очир А. (2016). Монгольские этнонимы: вопросы происхождения и этнического состава монгольских народов. Элиста: КИГИ РАН. д.и.н. Э. П. Бакаева, д.и.н. К. В. Орлова.
 * Erminwin (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's awesome. Now, we solved a 300 years of controversy among various scholars. We can just changed this page as a Mongolic federation and delete all other origin theories, speculations from various scholars. Good job. Volgabulgari (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I guess en-wiki has an article about 大檀 too: Yujiulü Datan. Maybe the Song Shu compilers used his name eponymously in the association with his Ruoran people. If they have conflated a personal name with an ethnonym I'm not sure how appropriate it is to identify the term Tatar with 檀檀. Maybe associated with is as strong as we should go. Folly Mox (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On pages 179-180 of her 2005 dissertation, Xu wrote:
 * On pages 54-55 of his 2013 paper, "Some notes on the Avars and Rouran" Peter B. Golden wrote:
 * Golden additionally wrote in footnote 62 on page 55:
 * Using those sources, I would conclude that
 * Chinese 大檀 ᷄ Datan / Tantan 檀檀 possibly represent(s) underlying *Tatar/*Dadar, 1st the personal name of a Rouran chief then the new ethnonym of the Rouran remnants who renamed themselves in his honor;
 * the Thirty/Otuz-Tatars might have descended from those formerly-Rouran Tatars.
 * That would leave the origin of the Nine/Toquz-Tatars to be unknown; however, I'll refuse to POV-push that they were exclusively Mongolic-speaking (e.g. as Rybatzki) or exclusively Turkic-speaking (e.g. as Kyzlasov & Britannica thought). My view is mostly similar to Ochir (2016) that both Mongolic- and Turkic-speakers contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Nine/Toquz-Tatars.
 * All that said, I think your proposal associated with is acceptable.Erminwin (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this edit adequately characterizes the contents of the Song Shu source, and I appreciate the link to Xu 2005 pp 179–180 above, which I does a fairly careful job in its description.The reason I've popped back in here is because it looks like this conversation is still ongoing through edit summaries and discussion whereby I got here originally, and I wanted to bring up "one appellation" (一號) in the footnote. First, this is the only instance of this phrase in the Song Shu. Second, in my experience, the legend 一 + "Verb of information transmission" (usually 一作 or 一云 or 一曰 or 一謂; I seem to remember 傳 and 書 and 有 as the verb as well, without certainty; can't remember if I've seen 一號 before) is typically used to introduce hapax graphomena, variants which occur only in a single instance in the available corpora. 或Verb and 又Verb ("sometimes" and "also" Verbed; we have the second version here in the same sentence) are much more common, and reflect usages with some degree of currency in the field.My own personal translation would probably be "in one instance called Datan, also called Tantan", but I'm not going to alter the translation as it currently stands. Also my own personal translation would probably get caught up in whether or not I should provide the reconstructed Middle Chinese readings for the graphs in question, and if so how to represent them. Also I recognize this is probably irrelevant to the main thrust of the disagreement. Folly Mox (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not delete "From the 10th to 13th centuries, Shatuo Turks joined Tatar confederation in the territory of the modern Mongolia, and became known as Ongud or White Tatars branch of the Tatars"; in fact, I moved it from "Name and origin" to "History" as part of this edit. As of this version, the sentence "From the 10th to 13th centuries, Shatuo Turks joined Tatar confederation in the territory of the modern Mongolia, and became known as Ongud or White Tatars branch of the Tatars" is still present in this paragraph:
 * I didn't realize that.
 * Volgabulgari (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link. Folly Mox (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On pages 179-180 of her 2005 dissertation, Xu wrote:
 * On pages 54-55 of his 2013 paper, "Some notes on the Avars and Rouran" Peter B. Golden wrote:
 * Golden additionally wrote in footnote 62 on page 55:
 * Using those sources, I would conclude that
 * Chinese 大檀 ᷄ Datan / Tantan 檀檀 possibly represent(s) underlying *Tatar/*Dadar, 1st the personal name of a Rouran chief then the new ethnonym of the Rouran remnants who renamed themselves in his honor;
 * the Thirty/Otuz-Tatars might have descended from those formerly-Rouran Tatars.
 * That would leave the origin of the Nine/Toquz-Tatars to be unknown; however, I'll refuse to POV-push that they were exclusively Mongolic-speaking (e.g. as Rybatzki) or exclusively Turkic-speaking (e.g. as Kyzlasov & Britannica thought). My view is mostly similar to Ochir (2016) that both Mongolic- and Turkic-speakers contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Nine/Toquz-Tatars.
 * All that said, I think your proposal associated with is acceptable.Erminwin (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this edit adequately characterizes the contents of the Song Shu source, and I appreciate the link to Xu 2005 pp 179–180 above, which I does a fairly careful job in its description.The reason I've popped back in here is because it looks like this conversation is still ongoing through edit summaries and discussion whereby I got here originally, and I wanted to bring up "one appellation" (一號) in the footnote. First, this is the only instance of this phrase in the Song Shu. Second, in my experience, the legend 一 + "Verb of information transmission" (usually 一作 or 一云 or 一曰 or 一謂; I seem to remember 傳 and 書 and 有 as the verb as well, without certainty; can't remember if I've seen 一號 before) is typically used to introduce hapax graphomena, variants which occur only in a single instance in the available corpora. 或Verb and 又Verb ("sometimes" and "also" Verbed; we have the second version here in the same sentence) are much more common, and reflect usages with some degree of currency in the field.My own personal translation would probably be "in one instance called Datan, also called Tantan", but I'm not going to alter the translation as it currently stands. Also my own personal translation would probably get caught up in whether or not I should provide the reconstructed Middle Chinese readings for the graphs in question, and if so how to represent them. Also I recognize this is probably irrelevant to the main thrust of the disagreement. Folly Mox (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not delete "From the 10th to 13th centuries, Shatuo Turks joined Tatar confederation in the territory of the modern Mongolia, and became known as Ongud or White Tatars branch of the Tatars"; in fact, I moved it from "Name and origin" to "History" as part of this edit. As of this version, the sentence "From the 10th to 13th centuries, Shatuo Turks joined Tatar confederation in the territory of the modern Mongolia, and became known as Ongud or White Tatars branch of the Tatars" is still present in this paragraph:
 * I didn't realize that.
 * Volgabulgari (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link. Folly Mox (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that.
 * Volgabulgari (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link. Folly Mox (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"actual Tatars"
This sentence:

Its source [19] is Очир А[юудайн]. (2016). Монгольские этнонимы: вопросы происхождения и этнического состава монгольских народов (Mongolic Ethnonyms: Issues on the Origin and Ethnic Composition Mongolic peoples). Элиста: КИГИ РАН. д.и.н. Э. П. Бакаева, д.и.н. К. В. Орлова.

Which is readable & downloadable here

However, upon examining the source (relevant entry ТАТАР(Ы); relevant pages 159 - 161), I do not think that Ochir, A[yuudain] (2016) may be used to claim that "the sources often refer to the actual Tatars as Nine Tatars" (the corollary being that the Proto-Mongolic Shiwei / Dada / Thirty Tatars were 'not' "actual Tatars").

Here is my very rough English translation of Ochir (2016)'s Russian original (which I won't copy-paste lest I'll commit copyright violation):

"Tatar(s): One of the ancient Mongolic tribes. The name Tatar was recorded as early as 732 on the stele of the ancient Turks (i.e. Göktürks) as [Otuz] [Russian original mistakenly has окуз] Tatar and in 735 as Toquz Tatar (Old Turkic Dictionary 1969: 374, 578). In Chinese sources, starting from the 9th century, the name Datan ~ Dadan, Dada began to show up, which denotes Tatars, whom Chinese named Rourans (Sukhbataar 1992: 181-182). And the Rourans are a tribe of Mongolic origin. In the 2nd half of the 12th century, the Tatars lived and the basin of the Khalkhyn Gol river and consisted of nine clans: Tutukliud (Tutagud), Alchi, Kujn, Birkuj, Terat, Tamashi, Niuchi, Buyragud, & Ajragud (Rashid-ad-Din 1952: 103, 105, 107, 111, 129; Word and Suffix - Index 2001: § 15; Perlee 1967: 111). Since the formation of the Great Mongol State (i.e. Mongol Empire) in the 13th century, one section of the the 'Nine Tatars' was included as a part of the Central Mingghan, passed on to Börte Khatun, while another [section] went to the Western Tümen, falling under the authority of the Tatar Noyon Khutagt. In the 14th - 15th centuries, a large section of the Tatars was situated in Eastern Mongolia under the authority of Batumöngke Dayan Khan and his descendants. Dayan Khan's grandsons - Tögs Taiji and Tseeley - ruled the Tatar tribes; Bayandara, Barsbold's son, ruled the White Tatars (Darm-a 1987: 215, 217). The majority of them settled down in Southern (Inner) Mongolia. Now in Mongolia Tatars (Tatari) were registered in the Matad Somon of the Eastern Aimag and the Asgat Somon of the Sukhbataar Aimag (Ochir, Serzhee 1998: 20-24). As it is known, Tatars were a numerous and great tribe. Still, during their struggle against Genghis Khan, they lost their power and were scattered over different regions. Now, ethnic groups of Mongolic or Turkic origins are called Tatars. Of these, the so-called 'Nine Tatars' participated in the ethno-cultural development of the Mongols. These Tatars, as a tribe, were apparently formed while the Turkic Khaganate were still in existence on the territory of Mongolia (6th–8th centuries); in addition to the Mongolic component, Turkic peoples participated in the ethnogenetic process, as evidenced by the ethnic composition of the Tatars. During this period, the Mongols were ruled by the Turks, who over time became Mongolized. The name Tatars spread everywhere during the 13th- 14th centuries, during the period of Mongol conquests of Europe and Central Asia. Moreover, it [the name] was being used in the same semmantic sense which Europeans were using. Among European peoples, the word 'Tartar' was being used in the pagan sense of an underground abyss, a terrible word, and the name 'Tatar' of foreign conquerors, which was similar in pronunciation, was being taken by them in a distorted sense; therefore it spread pretty widely. Regarding the Siberian Tatars and the Tatars living in the territories between Asia and Europe, they are of Turkic origin. They received the name Tatar later and do not possess [any] ancestral connection to Mongolic Tatars ('Nine Tatars', A[yuudain] O[chir]). This word [Tatar] is possibly of Iranian origin. It is noted in written European sources in the 10th century (Shpilevsky, 1877: 110). The word Tatar consists of two components: tat + ar: the first of them tat is an ancient Iranian word, signifying 'not one's own, foreign, exotic'; and the second -ar denotes 'man, guy'; i.e. 'foreign man, exotic guy'."

Let me be clear, I do not accuse the editor using Ochir (2016: 159-161) to claim whereas the sources often refer to the actual Tatars as Nine Tatars, which nine large clans are traditionally distinguished of purposefully misrepresenting Ochir. They were probably just tired and made a mistake while editing in good faith.

Even so, in light of this, how should we rewite

so that it shall better reflect Ochir (2016)?

Needs help from people who can read Russian like, who often contributed to this article.

21:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)