Talk:Turkish people/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

comment

Hi everybody! I recently discovered that there was no entry for ethnic Turks (as opposed to citizens of Republic of Turkey or speakers of the Turkish language or of all the Turkic languages combined), so I created one along the lines of the other ethnic group articles. But it needs a lot of help to conform the the standard of the other articles. //Big Adamsky 05:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, what a total difference since yesterday - looks really thorough and professional, User:70.122.73.105! 8-] //Big Adamsky 19:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi I would like the anti-Turkish bias removed from this article

What do the harems have to do with the Turkish people? It is not as if a significant part of the Turkish population is descended from the harems. It just sounds like people who have a dislike for Turks are posting irrevelent information just to remind people of the negative aspects of Ottoman Turkey.DivineIntervention 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It might help with the Demographics 'war' if dissenters gave their sources

When I made the edits and put in the data on the Turkish population, I listed what sources I used. I used German census information, the article on Bulgarian Turks, Ethnologue, etc. Obviously,the number greatly varied and the information at Ethnologue was very dated, but it did point me in the right direction as to which countries have large Turkish populations. If whoever wants to make changes and make them stick, it might help to say where you are getting your figures. The Bulgarian numbers might be low given the nature of Turkish-Bulgarian ethnic relations in the country since the attempts at Slavicizing the Turks is still a bitter memory in recent times, but whatever other information is attained has to explained I'd say. Tombseye 19:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Just noted the edits by 85.97.17.88 and have to comment. The information doesn't discern the Kurdish and Turkish populations it seems. It simply relates Turkish citizens which can mean that they are either Kurds or Turks. I know for a fact, that a high percentage of 'Turks' in Germany for example are actually of Kurdish background as I lived there for 7 years. At any rate, the sources isn't all that great, but some of the information might be useful and could be incorporated to some extent as in some cases it might be accurate. Although, the numbers state that over 3.5 million live abroad, while the number in Turkey is well below 60, so where does the 67 million figure come from? Tombseye 00:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Tombseye, the author needs to give the proof and the source for the sentence "While perhaps less than one-third of those who self-identify as ethnic Turks." Who originally claimed this and what methods were used to come up with this number? The burden of proof is not on the dissenters it is on who claims this.AverageTurkishJoe 17:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Identy

Well then "To be Turk" doesnt mean you have to %100 pure Turkish race.There are more than 30 nations in Turkey and most of them have been melting between eachother."Obedience to Turkish Replublic" couchs to be a Turk...

Turks in Bulgaria

Bulgarians oppressed more than 3 million turks in Bulgaria and forecefully bulgarized them, now the number of turks in Bulgaria is 12% from 50%

http://www.ingilish.com/turksofbulgaria.htm

Most of the Turks weren't Bulgarized, they were forced to emigrate back to Turkey according to the link you posted. It doesn't say anywhere in the article that half the population of Bulgaria was Turkish at any point. In fact, the article says that the majority of "turks" in Bulgaria were in fact "turkified Bulgarians", including the majority of those who emigrated to Turkey after the first world war. Epf 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Could the significant populations be split out of the infobox into a separate table like Kurdish people? Or could the language etc. be put above the significant populations bit? - FrancisTyers 01:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, most ethnic groups follow the format that the Turks article does, such as Russians, French people, and Romanians. --Khoikhoi 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you are right, perhaps the Kurdish people article should be adjusted accordingly. I still think that significant populations should be at the bottom of the infobox though... Perhaps I'll bring it up on the template talk page. - FrancisTyers 01:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorting issue on balkan and anatolian Turks over immigrant turks

When it comes to the population stats of Turks in various countries, I would suggest a emphasis on Turks who have been living in countries for several centuries(Bulgaria, greece, macedonia, serbia), over recent immigrant communities(Germany, netherlands, france). I think we should move those countries up the list to highlight the difference.

Otherwise it might give the impression that Turks are native to Germany or the lands around Germany, rather than Anatolia and the Balkans.

Who's with me here ?

Explain your identy at first...

Germany offered workers to Turkey in 50's and 60's.Besides nobody can move Turks anywhere...

New image

Hey, nice job! It looks like the Tatars page has some competition... :-P --Khoikhoi 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The new image has some problems. Roxelana, according to most accounts, never saw herself as a Turk, but Ukrainian which she was. Also Barbarosa was a Greek convert to Islam. I realize that since Turks are themselves related to these people (moreso Greeks than Ukrainians) this can be quite confusing, but we should at least stick to the point where when people identify themselves as Turks, they qualify and those that do not shouldn't be lumped in. Otherwise, the picture seemed okay. I still prefer the 4 people format myself. Tombseye 04:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Barbaros Hayrettin was Greek!!??? Hürrem was Ukrainian!!???

Barbaros was a Turkish pirate who lived in Algeria.Hürrem was a crimean Tatar(or Turk).Sinan was greek,right?(!)

I didnt understand why all Turks try to seen diffrent here(!)

"Roxelana, according to most accounts, never saw herself as a Turk"

Has anybody talked with her? If it was so,she could kill all the Turks...

So both of you(tombseye and khoikhoi) are not Americans...

I'm an American... Californian actually. --Khoikhoi 06:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks it is better not to make any effort about something here...

Okay, no big argument here, but the 4 people page looks better than the 20 Turks stacked up. The 4 people picture resembles the other pages like the Russians, Greeks, etc. Roxelana's father was an Orthdox priest and she spoke Ukrainian. Maybe her mother was a Tatar, I don't know. The Barbarosa brothers were born on the Greek island of Lesbos to a Greek father. They converted to Islam to get ahead in the Ottoman Empire and became pirates and then Khair ud Din became the admiral of the Ottoman fleet. Perhaps Barbarosa could be considered a 'Turk' or not. Me, I think of him as a Greek convert and Roxelana as a Ukrainian sold into slavery who rose to become something more. My passport begs to differ, but I'm not sure what my nationality has to do with this. Ciao. Tombseye 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems ok in my book. After all the article mentions that turks are an amalgation of different ethnic groups. Many people adapted Turkish ethnicity over the years. Ive met many Greeks who tell me that most Turks are in fact turkified Greeks. Maybe we could replace Barbarossa or Hurrem with Sezen Aksu. Come on, surely there must be a place for the most prominent Turkish singer in the past 30 years or so. Also, i prefer the 4 people version of Orhan Pamuk over the new one. But for the most part, good job on inanna's partEnter sandman

Hey Inanna did a good job, no question. I just think it'd be cool if we kept the 4 people format as it reflects some continuity. I don't mean to be rigid, but encyclopedias are meant to be informative and not platforms for national pride or whatever. The 4 people collage reflects as many different aspects of the population as possible, preferably with some creative/scientific achievement, political figures, and hopefully one woman as well. Tombseye 18:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree one woman would be better.

Tombseye:

How do you know that she spoke ukrainian? Everybody speaks the language of their own country's majority language.She was crimean tatar.You can see that in your web-site as well.Barbaros was Turkish.Even your web-site says that also.The things what you say has no prove...Dont forget to chage them!

I mean all the minorities call themselves Turks as you do it for yoursleves.US and EU want to seperate them by provacations but it will be a flop...

I dont make any national pride.You gave permission that alexander's or aristotele's pictures about greeks.Alexander was albanian(illyrian) as his most army.Aristotele was macedonian(slav).Trojans were luvis(hittites)...What is mean than double-standard?

Doesn't anybody want to sign their username? Geez. She said who her father was. A Ukrainian Orthodox priest. What website are you talking about? Like this one that says she was a Russian (Ukrainian subtype): http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/empires/ottoman/roxelana.html

That's from the university of Calgary so if they're wrong, you should let them know I guess. Her birthname was Aleksandra Lisowska. It's in history books. Read them. She was absolutely NOT a Crimean Tatar. As for the Barbarosa brothers, actually, the wikipedia doesn't say much at all and it's not my article. If you check actual sources such as an encyclopedia, you will see that the Barbarosa brothers were born Greek on the island of Lesbos and converted to Islam. Check the Encyclopedia Brittanica or Encyclopedia Americana and then tell me I'm wrong because I'm really not. Tombseye 10:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Enter Sandman:

Your greek friends are just history thieves and this web-site supports them.If you ask them,they will say everybody is greek.Hollywood try to show them as heros.I cant understand why the masters(!) of american media loves greeks so much although they hate them and i cant understand why they try to show Turks terrible although we have always helped them...

Who are you talking to?Tombseye 10:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

1) It is such a stupid idea that when you search Turks, your are redicting to this page. This page is full of info for Turks who live in Turkey. IT IS NOT FAIR... Because there are approximately 250 million people whose ethnicity is called Turk.

You must realize the difference between ethnic Turks and the larger group of Turkic peoples which includes ethnic Azeris, Turkmen, Uyghurs, etc.Epf 09:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Turk was firstly used by Persian (please search name 'Firdavsi', 'Türa'), to identify people who maintained their culture in Central Asia. After solving conflicts among 25 families, they were 25 tribes which was called Turk, because in Orkhun Scripts vizier Nizamül-mülk said that " They are 25, and they all are my sons. I fought 12 times in a year aganist all of them ", Teoman, great king of the huns achieved to take over the control of all families with the idea of a Great Türa Kingdom.

Turks who live in Turkey are mostly Oghuz Turks. There are another 24 tribes which also called Turks. Tatarstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan are also Turkic countries.

2) There are some pictures of well-known Turkey Turks. It is such a shame that Nazım Hikmet is not on the picture, as another well-known Turkey Turks, such as Mevlana, Kemal Dervis. BUT, writer put Orhan Pamuk's picture on the page. Orhan Pamuk is well-known, because of his trail. Many of people know him, NOT BECUASE OF HIS BOOKS. As a reader, I did read some of his books. Personally, his style is not extraordinary and interesting. As consumerism goes its perfect, people are consuming without thinking, or comparing.

I am definetly sure of that some will say " But he was chosen by Nobel Committee ". My answer is " I am not those of man. " A committee cannot decide what is the best and what is the worst for me. Besides, the committe is not unquestionable.

Consequently, Please let the article, Turks, to have its own page with description for all Turkic people.

History is not a fucking best time activity

I would agree that a disambiguation page would be useful for the term Turk so that people could choose different categories including Turkic peoples, Turks in Turkey etc. Orhan was included because he's a modern Turk and he's well known world-wide. This page isn't just for people from Turkey who want or don't want something on this page, but for people world-wide and Orhan's well known and a lot of people happen to like his books, including me. This page reflects having a wide range of people as representing Turks in Turkey from historical figures to creative types and at least one female if possible and a politician. This article accomplished that. Mevlana Rumi was an Afghan Tajik, not a Turk. He was born in what is today Afghanistan and his mother tongue was Persian and he later moved to Anatolia. We can't just include everyone because they at some point moved to Turkey as that's not really fair to the other groups here. These pages should not serve as some nationalist platform for people to crow about their people, but an encylopedic rendition of said group. Tombseye 20:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't care which Turks is most populer on your side. This page is not for someone to describe Turkey's Turks. This page was opened to serve for presenting Turkey' Turks. I am a Turkey Turks and I think I have a right to present my people.

Secondly, I was born in Grece, but may parents are Turks. It doesn't make a Greek, as it doesn't make Mevlana to be an Afghan. Mevlana, firstly moved to Baghdad from Nisabur. It doesn't make him an Iraqi.

If the case about my country, history and culture, be sure I am a nationalist.--hybrid lily 22:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So basically, you don't want Orhan Pamuk to be on this page because you don't like him? --Khoikhoi 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that there are many of Turks who deserve to be on this picture more than him. For ins. NAZIM HİKMET RAN, KEMAL DEVIS, MEVLANA, YUNUS EMRE, BEKTASI. En önemlisi, Istanbul'u alan padişah burda yok, kıçı kırık Orhan Pamuk burda bu ülkenin ünlü insanları arasında yer buluyor. Tamamen saçmalık. Tamamen saçmalık

Çok haklısın.Bana yardımcı olduğun için de çok teşekkür ederim.Çünkü burada tek başıma mücadele etmek gerçekten çok zor ama sonuna kadar gideceğim.Bunlarım amacı bizi kötü göstermek ve ben buna asla izin vermeyeceğim.Orhan Pamuk'un resmini koymamdaki neden de(kendi hazırladığım resimde) bunlara bunu kabul ettirmekti.Bir süre sonra da silecektim.Gördüğün gibi bizi medya araçlarıyla yok etme peşindeler.O adamı desteklemerinin nedeni de,ödül alabilmek için söylediği yalanlar yüzünden.Onu büyük gösterip başkalarını da özendirmeye çalışıyorlar...

And I was born in Cyprus, my parents are Turkish-Cypriots and that doesn't make a Greek as all they want...-Inanna-

The picture

Well democracy rules here so one person's views, even if they are Turkish, doesn't change anything. You can't unilaterally decide who should be on the peoples page. How about we vote on it then? And Rumi is absolutely NOT a Turk. Next thing you'll tell me is that the Kurds are Turks. What we're doing with the 4 people picture is not promoting whom some people think 'deserve' to be on there, but a cross-section of people. That means people different time periods, representing different aspects of life. What's the point of putting up a bunch of classical writers? This isn't a feel good to be Turkish page you know. Encyclopedias need to present all aspects of a society. Now if there's a shortage of well known people or pictures that's another thing, but the choices made by Khoikhoi were frankly excellent. Tombseye 02:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Folks, let's leave the mosaic of prominent Turks intact for the time being, it won't be the end of the world if this temporary version happens to be "wrong". Post your suggestions and objections here below. I'll start:

• There are far too many small portraits depicted. Other ethnic group boxes have just 3-5 pictures. //Big Adamsky 21:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that both should both need changing. I agree that there are far too many people on the picture. However I think that the one has been put up needs to be changed. It should have at least one woman. I think the problem stems from the fact that this picture of 4 Turks did not take into regard the opinions of the Turks on wikipedia concerning whom should be on the picture. The Turks might feel that they were not consulted on who should be on in the picture. Orhan Pamuk is not so popular with the Turks which is why I think all this arguement is all about. Maybe Orhan Pamuk could be replaced by someone else - someone that everyone can agree on. Is it neccessary for Orhan Pamuk to be in the picture paticularly when there are countless other Turks that could be in that picture, especially one female.

Khoikhoi why did you decide Orhan Pamuk? Dont you know that he isn't really popular in Turkey (He mentioned the Armenian Genocide, everytime someone sees him they will remember the Armenian genocide or by clicking his name they will get redirected to the Armenian Genocide page is this why you did it? Hows California I hear the Armenian population is pretty numerous over there) - if I am wrong you will have absolutely no objection to remove Orhan Pamuk from the picture and replace him with someone else. You got one Sultan (a legacy of Turkeys past, you have Ataturk(the founder of modern Turkey) - then you have a author who is controversial in Turkey and a Singer. I think the last two should be changed why dont you have someone loved by Turks like Kemal Sunal(actor), or the first female prime minister of Turkey Tansu Ciller, or any sports star like Hakan Sukur. DivineIntervention 05:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi DivineIntervention, I am aware that Orhan Pamuk is not very popular with the Turks. However, there's no rule (correct me if I'm wrong) that states that these pictures in the ethnic group infoboxes have to be national heroes. Doing that only supports nationalism on Wikipeida, and that's not how it is meant to be - Wikipedia is supposed to present facts in a Neutral Point of View. --Khoikhoi 00:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that Wikipedia is suppost to present facts from a neutral point of view but I am still questioning you insistance out of the 100s if not 1000s of Turks you could have put you chose him? and your insistance to keep him? English People The people on the English Peoples page are all great and highly regarded people by the English. The people on the Spanish Peoples page are all great and highly the Spanish Spanish People, etc..... However Orhan Pamuk is not regarded highly by Turkish people. For this reason alone this picture doesn't present a neutral point of view and therefore does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. I dont think this is about nationalism, in anycase isn't having Ataturk's in the picture "nationalism" in the first place?? DivineIntervention 02:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because a lot of Turks don't like him, doesn't mean that he is not famous. I mean, as Tombseye pointed out on another talk page, "Wikipedia is not a feel-good encyclopedia". I agree with that. I don't get what you're saying - how is it that having a picture of a person that some people don't like POV? Having a huge page about the Armenian Genocide isn't necessarily going to please Turks, but we have it. The picture of Turks on the page are just 4 famous Turks - not necessarily people that everyone's going to like. --Khoikhoi 04:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well...first off, this page is a mess. I'm not Turkish, I live in America, and I have no stake in this article. Ok, the 4 pic collage should be kept(looks like ya'll decided on that), I would like to see captions so I tell who they are without going to the image page. But, I do believe that as a source of a "nationalistic" page, the standard has been set by English People , Spanish People, Kurdish People. I see no need to antagonize Turkish peoples without neccisity. This is not neccasary. Orhan Pamuk is definatly not popluar enough to guarantee a picture such as Ataturk is. It seems that maybe we could use a scientific person, any suggestions? Or, maybe even another women, I do know Turks love thier women :). Anyways, best solution, find someone else. Joe I 03:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that there is no need to have Pamuk in the portraits section. Let's just find someone else to visually represent this particluar people. //Big Adamsky 02:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. He's still famous. --Khoikhoi 04:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone wants this picture to be changed, so there we have it the picture must be changed. There are 100's if not 1000's of other famous Turkish People that can be used, yet Khoikhoi you are still, still, still being insistant on this one guy. I have to ask myself why is it that you are not willing to compromise on this (despite of everyone elses opinion)? This is not a personal attack but I have to question your motives. DivineIntervention 18:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Khoikhoi's simply making the point that Pamuk is a well known Turk worldwide, but if he's creating that much of a stir, I don't think it's imperative to have him. However, Roxelana and the Barbarosa brothers should not be included here. A 4 people picture with a substitute for Pamuk isn't going to kill us so I have no objections to replacing him though. But it's POV to include Roxelana et. al. and all I ask is that they need be included. Thanks. Tombseye 19:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My Answers for those VandalPedia writers

Democracy is not an issue here. The issue is who would be the best representative of Turkey's Turk. I don't know what type of link you have with Turkey's Turk, but we Turkey's Turks, possess many renwoned people. Actually, I think you don't know most of them. Of course this page cannot be a toy of a couple of individual. Unfortunately, you also should obey this rule.

You will give me such a happiness if you answer this question;

When you buy a book, and if you don't like some part of it, or you don't like one its picture, Do you persist to change the part through your own idea ?

Secondly, I like those of people when a Turkey's Turk start to speak, the issue of Kurds come alive in discussion. I can understand your democracy. Democracy of all, except Turks. An comlaining starts as beause they..., beause they ...

In real life, Kurds and Turks sharing the same religion, the same land, and some piont the same history. Both group of people estalih families, and they have a lot of respect for each other.

The important thing is that the issue cannot be a tool to oppose. It makes both them angry. You cannot make fun on someone's problems. Perhaps problems can be solved, but funny stories on it mostly turns such a revenge. So please change your mind about this conflict.

Which book did you read about Mevlana ? 'read' beause you are not a researcher. I took a close look on self-page. As a SUFI and a historian, so I can be sure about his origin. His father wasn't an Afghan, but his mother was an Afghan. Without a doubt he had link with Afghan, and Muslim Perian culture. Otherwise, he definetely wasn't be a Sufi.

Ok, let's change the idea, most of the American people came from Europe, mostly from England. But they don't say that ' I am a British ', or ' I am a Frank '. They all say that ' I am an American '. ;)

Consequently, by reading papers, books you just learn theories. I spent time in his old Dergah, in Konya. I won't let you to present Turkey's Turks on your point of view. Orhan Pamuk cannot be a good representative among another historic characters.

MEVLANA, OSMAN BEY, FATIH SULTAN MEHMET, YAVUZ SULTAN SELIM, YUNUS EMRE, HACI BEKTASI VELI, NAZIM HIKMET RAN, and a lot of whom I don't remember their names.

Several books, including translations from the original Persian by Barks discuss Rumi's early life. His mother AND father were Tajiks from Afghanistan. He was born there and raised there. It's not really fair to other peoples to just claim anyone you like as a Turk. He's a Persian regardless of where you place him. Do a google search and then look up his work on Amazon.com. His biographic information defines him as a Persian. Why are you arguing over something that academics all agree upon here? Including Turks I might add. Visiting where Rumi lived sounds great, but that's hardly going to give you insights into his nationality.

Interesting analogy about Americans, but Rumi's still an Afghan immigrant and not a Turk. Usually new immigrants to America from say England are called English-Americans or French-Americans or Chinese Americans. Then after a generation sometimes their children still use those terms and others don't. But when you first come to the US, you usually do identify your country of birth most of the time. You can't really not let me do anything. We can get an administrator and/or vote on it, but you also cannot decide by yourself what you want to see here. Tombseye 21:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Below for people who knows Turkish;

Arkadaşlar, eğer bu safya Turkiye de yaşayan Türkleri tanıtmak için varsa, Orhan Pamuk belki sonda bile olamaz. Konu Orhan Pamuk'un siyasi kişiligi yada onun kitaplarını tarzını begenmeme degil. Kişisel fikrim, Orhan Pamuk bir yazardan cok, bir pazarlamacıdır. Bir kitap yazar o günün akşamı bütün televizyon kanallarında gülümseyerek kitabı anlatır. Orhan Pamuk sittin sene bir ' Ince Mehmet ' yazamaz.

Benim bu sayfayla ilgili iki noktada kızgınlıgım var.

Birincisi; bütün Türk medeniyetini Türkiye olarak gösteremeyiz. Asyadaki bircok soydaşımızın Türk medeniyeti üzerindeki emeklerini katletmiş oluruz. Ben buna kesinlikle müsade etmem.

İkincisi; Orhan Pamuk'un bir tanıtıcı olarak resme edilmesi ve bu sayfada yer almasıdır.

--hybrid lily 08:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye:

"That's from the university of Calgary so if they're wrong, you should let them know I guess."

Where is calgary? In canada? I didnt suprised.Canada is one of the biggest enemies of Turkey.You can see that they have kept ASALA terrorists and recogized so-called armenian genocide...Anyway,a university which is miles of far away form these lands cant have so clear information...Hürrem was a Crimean Tatar and Barbaros was a Turkish Pirate.Full stop!

Lol, a Canadian university is now an enemy of Turkey and that's why they are discussing Hurrem's background?! That's ridiculous. Have you ever been to a university in North America or Europe? Academics can't lie these days because their peers will catch them and discredit them. What are they going to gain by talking about her background and what her name was before she was taken as a slave? So basically, you believe only what you want to believe rather than what any evidence points to. Just saying she was a Crimean Tatar doesn't change her original name or the fact that her father was a Ukrainian Orthodox priest. I say we get an administrator because no way am I going to agree that Hurrem or the Barbarosa brothers were born Turkish without evidence and references from universities or something academic. Full stop! Tombseye 21:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You already dont have evidences especially about BARBAROS...

II.Mehmet is serbian,Süleyman was greek,Mehmet Ali was albanian,Atatürk was jewish,Mevlana was afghan...Your aim is very avaible.Well then,i am really sure about something...

Tombseye,have you gone to church today?

I presented evidence from a professor at a university. So far you haven't shown anything other than opinion. Okay, see a book called The Sultan's Admiral: the Life of Barbarossa which discusses his life. I'm not saying Mehmet, Suleyman, or Ataturk were not Turks, but I am saying that Mehmet Ali was Albanian and Mevlana was Afghan yes. These people were born with different mother tongues and outside of Turkey and remember that Ottoman used to mean anyone from the empire so perhaps you'd like to convince the Serbs that they can be considered Turks then? I'm an atheist so church doesn't usually fall into my list of extracurricular activities. Are you trying to conduct some sort of personal attack just because you can't prove anything other than by making assertations? I haven't gotten personal with you so I'd appreciate it if you'd just discuss whatever references you have and stop acting like I'm trying to denegrate the Turks which I am not. Like I said, we should get an administrator to deal with this then and see who is being biased here. Tombseye 22:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh and have the decency to sign your username so that there's accountability here. Tombseye 22:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hımmmm. Talks turn on Barbarossa. Actually, the history is full of Barbarosas. The word of Barbarosa is an Italian word which means ' red beard '. He was a pirate at once, some says that he was a Cizvit, some says he was an Algerian. Soryy, I am about to forget his real name, Hayrettin.

Tombseye, on your side, all Turkish heros are converts, devsirme. puhahahahahha. As all the other propagandas againist Turkish culture possess this idea.

There are enourmous numbers of books which are ill of Turkish culture. I was an exchange student in POrtugal, at those days I had a change to read some of them. the funniest of them was about the Inquisition. 'Yavuz took all the jews to Anatolia, because he wanted more slaves 'ahhhhhhhhhhh fucking liesssssssss.

Consequently, personally I believe that the West never accepts the fact which come from the East. For instance in your case, if a Canadian proffesor says that Ottoman Empire came from another universe, they had a link with whom built the Pyramids, and they were all E.Ts, I am sure about that you and your friends will accept it without thinking.

The authority of Turkish history is Turkic History and Language Association based in Turkey, in Ankara. Turkish government spends much of its budget for their research. I think you should read it sometimes.. Ohhhhh yeahhhhh, I am about to forget it again, THEY AREN'T CANADIAN :))

--hybrid lily 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but authority really does vary and no one organization can claim ultimate authority, although I do like the link you provided as it in turn archives many links to academic journals and books regarding the Turks of Turkey. Good stuff. I don't believe Jews went to Turkey as slaves and I do agree that people have many false notions about the Turks. I'm not supporting anything about heroes or villains here. I'm just saying that within the Ottoman Empire there were various other peoples. My main criteria here is that if you're born with Turkish as your mother tongue, then we'll include that person as a Turk as most reference books do. We can't include Bosniaks as Turks for this reason even though some Bosniaks became Jannisaries. I'm the one who wrote about the diversity of Turkey in this article and how their origins are varied, but more closely linked to the Balkans and the Caucasus than anywhere else. Overall, I wanted to convey that point, but not include everyone who ever went to or lived in Turkey as a Turk. I'm only following what other reference books and general academic practice denote. Ethnic groups are tricky and opinions vary, but the examples of Roxelana, Rumi, and the Barbarosa brothers are documented and their lives discussed by academics of many countries including Turks. There are many Turkish professors in the US and Europe who also discuss the history and particular points. I'm not trying to be unfair about the Turks at all, but I do believe that we have to set some sort of criteria or just remove these articles on various peoples. My Canadian example was the first in a long list of pages that can be googled. Tombseye 23:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My resources are in Turkish.If you speak Turkis,sure! I am an atheist as well and i have just tried to understand something about what i heard.Both of you(tombseye and khoikhoi) always try to change things about Turkey and Turks to negative ways by a big passion.Most of the information about us is wrong in here...

-Inanna- the Goddess of Uruk city,lady of heaven...

There are a lot books written by Turks in English too and journal articles as well so I don't see how that makes a difference at all. What have Khoikhoi and I done to present the Turks in a negative light exactly? We're trying to keep a neat article and keep a 4 people picture spread like all the other peoples articles (see English people or Persian people for examples) and include a wide range of people and not just those some users may prefer, but well known figures worldwide. What information in the article is wrong exactly? Obviously, you have problems with the picture, which I really don't understand as the picture is quite good and inclusive, but I want to know specifically what is wrong with the article which we wrote to be as neutral as possible with numerous references? Tombseye 23:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean not only this article.About Turks in Kosova,so-called armenian genocide,battle of gallipoli...Most of them were written by far away from neutrality...

-Inanna- the Goddess of Uruk city,lady of heaven...

I didn't edit those articles and belittling the Armenians killed doesn't sound very neutral either. Whether you call it a genocide or not inserting 'so-called' makes a mockery of the people killed. It's like saying the so-called deaths of Turks during World War I. If you don't agree that it was a genocide that's fine, but you need to present evidence that supports your claim that it was not systematic and that Armenian people weren't deliberately targeted and killed. Otherwise, no one will believe you. Tombseye 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your all answers about armenian issue are there...

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr

-Inanna- the Goddess of Uruk city,lady of heaven...

That page doesn't seem to be opening. I'm already aware of the Turkish position that Armenians were not targeted and that many people from all sides were killed during World War I. I get the feeling that the problem you guys have with Orhan is not that he's not a good 'representative' of Turkey, but that he's critical of the view that Turkey has continued to argue that there was no Armenian genocide. Okay, here's the thing, in my country for many years the government said that Native Americans were not killed systematically and that they voluntarily moved etc. these were lies that our govt. told us. They lied recently about the reasons for the Iraq War and they've lied throughout history as with the USS Maine to start the war with Spain. Andrew Jackson for example appears to have supported the murder of Native Americans to push them out. He's on the 20 dollar bill so some consider him a 'hero' of sorts. The point is that countries do a lot of horrible things. The US govt. committed genocide against Filopinos during and after the Spanish-American War and killed untold thousands of civilians. Most people prefer not to think or talk about it, but some us do want it out in the open. Before you accuse me of being biased you need to understand that I'm skeptical of a lot things that governments claim. Now the Turkish govt. claimed back when the Armenians died or were killed that there was no genocide or systemtic killing. Maybe that's true, but did you ever stop to think that maybe your govt. lied to the Turkish masses back then and has continued to maintain that line ever since? I mean we know the US govt. has lied countless times and lots of Americans believed them and still do. Now we know that some Armenians rebelled and aligned themselves with the Russians during this time-period. You don't think it's possible that Turkish forces at the time may have decided that it would be okay to kill the Armenians in revenge? It wouldn't be the first a people were targeted for the acts of the few. The Israelis blame the Palestinians for the acts of the few all the time. The US govt. blamed Cochise for what other Apache did and killed his relatives. I think you need to keep an open mind and entertain the possibility that your government has lied to you in order to cover its own acts. It doesn't make the Turkish people as a whole responsible. Nor does it make Turks 'evil' or bad people, but simply dismissing the possibility sounds like nationalism to me. There are no perfect countries in the world. Anyone pretending that their countries have never done anything that was violent or highly questionable is really kidding themselves. Tombseye 07:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, hey ... Take it easy ! The Claims of Genocide is another conflict that has no link with this talk. Please talk it another time. But Tombseye, numbers of historians claim that there is no Genocide, not Turkish government.

Secondly, Barbaros Hayrettin is a different than you think. His real name was ' Hızır '. He captured by ' Temple Knights ' and taken to Malta. Somehow he achieved to escape from Malta and decided to be a pirate as his big brother, ' Oruç Reis'. His another brothers name was ' Ishak Bey '. Barborassa was a given name for only ' Hızır Reis '. Besides, he changed his name as ' Hayrettin. '. At his time, he was a bloody pirate, he never forgive any ship in Mediterranean Sea. Turkish Pirates. He was a Turk.

Thirdly, in Ottaman Empire, the language wasn't Turkish. The language was a meltin pot which contains Persian, Arrabic and Turkish. All states was used to speak Ottaman Languages. This point makes your opinion about who speaks Turkish is accepted as a Turk. Turkish was found by Turkic History] after Mustafa Kemal's order. Now, it has a Latin alphabet. I am sure of that you will still claim that Mustafa Kemal wasn't a Turk, he just spoke Turkish. Please read sometimes. However, in some part I totally agree with you. The main idea of Ottaman Empire didn't serve for Turks, it served to Islam. Thats why, it was multinational.

If we can come back to our conflict which is about your persisting for Orhan Pamuk and Turkish DNA map, I followed the link which has a reseacrh about DNA works of an Italian University. In this work, the secientist never compares Armenian DNA and Anatolian Turks's DNA. Additionally, at the page of result, he/she draw his/her conclusion as The work satisfactorily proves that Anatolian Turks immigrated from Central Asia He/she doesn't say that They are convert of Armenian or Kurds. So, PLEASE CHANGE IT WITH FACTS...

In my opinion, both of you (Tombseye and Kho.. whatever) are working on Turkish History to present it as Mogoloid Islamis Terrorist, please look history of the article. I don't accuse you as you made it. But I hate the statement. That's why, I have written it.

Tombseye has many conflict not only in this article, but also with all articles which relate with Turkish History. You are changing the facts according to your facts. YOU ARE ALWAYS PERSISTING FOR YOUR FACTS. I will never allow you to change my thousand years old history.

Tombseye mentioned about a conference. I attanded a conference about Islam, in Portugal. They were discussing ' The Challange of Islam '. In this conference, there wasn't a single Muslim. They wrote a script and played it by themselves. I just watched them with a smile on my face.

No genocide? So all those thousands of people who disappeared and were reported killed went where? You're just being a nationalist and I doubt you can criticize your govt. over anything let alone it's desire to ignore history.

You're not talking about the Barbarosa brothers early life and just moving right into their adult years. Come on.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding language usage. Nor have I contested Ataturk being a Turk and yet you keep bringing it up. Look, the people in the Ottoman Empire still included Turks, Serbs, Arabs, Albanians etc. These people had nationalities as they do today. Simply lumping them all together for the purposes of claiming prominent historical figures is absurd. Is this what they're teaching you in history? That everyone who lived in the Ottoman Empire and was a Muslim was a Turk? Sure looks that way.

Lol, you didn't understand the study then. It denotes that the Turks are genetically between, to varying degrees European populations and Central Asian Turks (similar results were found with the Azeris). It doesn't say that they are largely or even entirely of Central Asian origin. When they say Europeans who do you think they mean exactly? There are other studies as well that do compare Mediterranean populations in general: http://phoenicia.org/genetics.html. The clustering seems to indicate that the Turks are indigenous to the area moreso than to Central Asia. Who do you think lived in Anatolia exactly when the Turkic tribes arrived? And I wrote the general position at the beginning as to whether or not Turks genetically cluster with Greeks and Armenians, their immediate neighbors, but did not claim that they clustered with Armenians exclusively. There is nothing wrong with how its written. Other studies also show some Turkish-Armenian relationships such as common genetic diseases as well: http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/39/1/67

And we all know that many Armenians converted to Islam so I'm not really sure where I was wrong here. The genetic testing done in the Caucasus showed a relationship between the Azeris and Armenians as well. You really think there was no interaction in-spite of being neighbors? I'm not saying Turks are entirely or even mostly Armenian. But there is a relationship. Inevitably every country has ties to all of its neighbors.

You must have read a different article. We wrote a neutral assessment of the Turks and their varied origins. We didn't write anything negative that I can discern and your complaints are so vague and bizarre that frankly I have no idea what your problem is other than wanting to promote a Turkish nationalist view of everything. Yeah, big surprise I edit a lot of articles and a lot of people think like you do. They want their groups to be depicted in the most positive light possible. Nationalists want their population statistics to be higher. They want to claim everyone possible as one of their own. They want to promote some idea of a contiguous history that stretches as far back as possible and they want to blame everyone else around them for any problems. None of that is done in this article. The Turkic tribes arrived to a region that was largely Greek, Armenian and Kurdish. In fact, there isn't even a promotion of forced conversion as evidence indicates that most people were voluntary converts for a variety of reasons, especially due to sufi involvement.

Your last tirade doesn't make any sense. I'm asking for evidence and you keep clinging to 'your' thousand year old history. It's not yours to claim. You live in the present and I've been never been a big fan of ancestor worship frankly. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and that's all we can deal with here are facts. Neither Khoikhoi nor I have called anyone Islamic terrorists either. Tombseye 17:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

1)Let's continue armenian issue in my talk page.It's place is not here...

2)Degenrate our historical characters are division plans of EU and USA about Turkey...

-Inanna- the Goddess of Uruk city,lady of heaven...

Let's cool down, eh?

Well, frankly I think that a good starting point towards resolution here is to try not to assume conspiratorial ill will. I started this article because I had noticed that the understanding of who is a "Turk" had some residual meanings inherited from the legal codes of the old Ottoman Millet system. Those laws gave limited internal autonomy to confessional groups, irrespective of ethnicity or geographic distribution. And so, as a consequence what is commonly understood by "ethnic group" in a modern scientific ethnological sense differs quite a bit from the view inherent in the constitution of the nascent Republic of Turkey, resulting in the acknowledgement of only three or four non-Muslim groups within the Turkish society. There were "Turks" in the west who might informally be labelled "Balkan Turks" and "Aegean Turks" whose family origins where in Romani, Bulgarian, Western Armenian, Bosnian, Greek, Spanyol, Albanian or Italian-speaking circles and who probably spoke Turkish (or its predecessor) only as a second language. In the east, there were the "Mountain Turks" whose families spoke Laz, Eastern Greek, Georgian, Armenian, Kurmanji or Levantine Arabic. My point and opinion is that language shift and religious conversion were important factors in the shaping of the modern Turkish identity, and also that ethnic identity is based on group inclusion as well as mainstream exclusion. Cheers & semi seviyorum! =] //Big Adamsky 20:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody denied it.However,Turkey's public administration and administrative law is same with French; a citizenship policy with ideally no ethnic consideration.We were so toleranced to everybody in all history.However,there is no nation in the world who is pure.Besides,if you would like to make a ethnic division in Turkey,let's start from USA at first.So Washington was not American,Lincoln was not American,Bush is not american...right?

-Inanna- the Goddess of Uruk city,lady of heaven...

But this article is explicitly not about citizenship. For the dynamics of the concept of ethnicity in the United States, see ethnic origin, one drop rule and melting pot. See also Talk:Georgian people, Talk:Azerbaijani people or Talk:Tajiks for related discussions. :~] //Big Adamsky 21:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop reverting the page to one that throws in non-Turks. You're misleading people and excluding someone you personally don't like for being critical of the status-quo. American is not an ethnicity. And you're not even trying to read what Adamsky is talking about. You don't become a Turk just by walking into Anatolia. That's ridiculous. If there are no ethnic considerations, then I guess there are no Turks at all then. You can't have it both ways. This article reflects what encyclopedias denote and what most academics agree upon and common usage. Including Roxelana (who was CAPTURED by Crimean Tatars and sold as a slave), the Barbarosa brothers, and Rumi as an ethnic Turks is just plain inaccurate because it assumes, as Adamsky explained, that they were ethnic Turks because they were Ottoman citizens rather than explaining their background. Tombseye 21:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What can i say if you are man of armenian and greek lobby?

-Inanna- the Goddess of Uruk city,lady of heaven...

Inanna, please assume good faith or else take a vacation from this page. Come back when you have cooled down and feel ready to contribute constructively so we can work toward a consensus, inch by inch. //Big Adamsky 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I am so cooled down honey.You should say that to tombseye and kokikoki.They become as furious as a bull which saw red when they heard the "Turk" word...

-Inanna- the Goddess of Uruk city,lady of heaven...

Why do all you love Othan Pamuk so much? Answer is too easy.Because he is making Anti-Turkish propaganda so that hold a noble prize. The target is encourage more people to be like him.Right?

-Inanna- the Goddess of Uruk city,lady of heaven...

What a Mess! Perfect candidate for a Speedy deletion

I have three quotes here from the article, which is choke full similar nonsensical stuff.

“While perhaps less than one-third of those who self-identify as ethnic Turks in Turkey today are predominantly of Altaic origin”

“Ultimately, it is absurd to speak of any ‘Turkish race’ in the tangled ethnic web of Anatolia.”

“As a matter of fact, most present-day Turks are the offspring of all sorts of populations whose original languages have sometimes been extinct several centuries ago.”

What is being Altaic origin? Do you mean ancestors of the rest did not speak an Altaic language? Since this seems to be the main message of the article I assume this is what is meant with this sentence. The crux of the matter is that if the author(s) think(s) that these people were not “Turkish people” then they certainly do not belong to this article, the article is about “Turkish people” remember? Start an article called “Asia Minor” and write all you know about it (Just out of curiosity why were Pelasgians excluded from this article?)

So what “race” makes the ultimate sense in a phrase like “X race”? Aryan Race? Any choice would sound equally absurd to me. There seems to be hidden message along the lines that people of Turkey is not a homogeneous society unlike that of Japan or something. Even if this was the fact, this does not seem to be big deal since only a few nations are homogeneous societies and it is considered an anomaly to be so (an island nation etc.)

“Turks are the offspring of all sorts of populations” as opposed to what? Being a thoroughbred like a racehorse?

There are articles about Turkey and Turkic peoples there seems to be no need for this article and IMHO there seems to be no salvageable info in this one. I make a move for speedy deletion of this article. AverageTurkishJoe

The Turks of Turkey are being defined the best way possible. I'm not in favor of a speedy or long deletion. Nor are we making a stance on race so much as background. The Altaic peoples originated in the steppes of eastern Eurasia near Mongolia. The modern Turks of Turkey do not bear any genetic relationship to them, thus showing us an example of language transference. Japan's not a homogenous country either. that's not the point of this article. It's to discuss the Turkish speaking population of Turkey and dispel some incorrect rumors about them and clarify their origins and history. If you want to remove this article, better do that for all the ethnic group articles too because we can make the same argument for all of them. Tombseye 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I see this article is largely copied and pasted from Demographics of Turkey which has the same hodge-podge style. The article starts with a premise of answering the question of what is "Turkish ethnicity" and "and how much of a relationship "Turks of Turkey" have with other Turkic peoples". And the article ends with the conclusion that "very little". Gold standard of Turkish Ethnicity is assumed to be the Central Asian Turkic groups and the adopted method of measuring the relatedness is the DNA analysis. If this "debate" is taken away from this article, the rest could easily merge with the Demographics of Turkey (Since it is mostly copy paste from that article, large portions will be deleted during this merge.) In the referenced article 'DNA Diversity and Population Admixture in Anatolia', Giulietta Di Benedetto et. al. find 30% gene flow (in both males and females) from Central Asia. In that article this is given as "a substantial" gene flow as opposed to "elite domination" (therefore language replacement by elite domination). In this article this translates to "perhaps less than one-third of those who self-identify as ethnic Turks in Turkey today". I wonder if the observation of 30% being less than 1/3 is the origin of the phrase "perhaps less than one-third" in the article. Isn't this a blatant POV? While Giulietta Di Benedetto et. al. are speculating about a continuous gene flow of 1% for 40 generations to find a solution in their article to the question why this gene flow is very high and howcome people of Turkey started speaking Turkish so fast an so completely and why there is no genetic boundary between the Turks and the Europeans (as opposed to the one they found between the Turks and the Arabs), in this article it is given as a historical fact with no corroboration with the historical records. The other DNA related article in the reference section is about the relatedness of population of Modern turkey to other populations in terms of mitochondrial dna (tracing the female ancestry) and it finds that the British are much closer to Turks than Greeks, a result which is conveniently ignored in this article. I suspect it is because It would sound very weird to say "Turks are an amalgam of the British, Greeks, etc".

It is not about "defining the Turks of Turkey in the best way possible way" it is about *not* making stuff up. AverageTurkishJoe 08:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, part of it was taken off of Demographics of Turkey, but not largely as this new version expands upon some issues brought up considerably and adds population figures. If that's a problem I can edit it further, but you're the first to complain about it. Your questions regarding genetic testing entail Central Asian Turkic geneflow stemming from the Y-chromosome as mostly males came from that region, while the vast majority of females were not of Central Asian origin and thus the similarity with British and other European populations who may simply be more native to Europe than previously believed. In fact, British similarity with other populations stems from the Y-chromosome that links them to Germans and Scandanavians. There are no surprises here and the estimates are just that estimates. No one is saying this is concrete and unalterable. As for the historical record, there were no censuses taken in the 11th century. Look, Turkey may have received upwards of 30% geneflow from Central Asia, but this just means that people have SOME Central Asian ancestry within this grouping at varying degrees. That's how you read the data. If how I wrote it is not clear, then say so. Also, if some of the information is repetitive or could be better explained or appears contradictory, then that too can be worked on. I fail to see how deletion will solve anything. What's more genetic testing as used to explain historical events is becoming quite common. For example, the majority of Uzbeks show a relationship with Genghis Khan and the Mongols whereas the Azeris don't. Also, Rumi and other sufis are known to have proselytized amongst the Greeks and Armenians in Anatolia and converted many. Population replacement requires wholesale slaughter such as that which took place in Central Asia where there was population replacement. There is no historical evidence that the people of the Caucasus (in Azerbaijan) or in Anatolia who were around before the Turkic tribes arrived were killed. This would mean that they survived and were probably the majority as they were slowly assimilated. Genetic testing isn't an exact science, but most of the tests show that the Turks cluster with other Mediterranean peoples moreso than with Central Asian Turks, although of these groups, the Turkmen are the closest. At any rate, I believe this article can changed through constructive criticism and have no problem with changes that could be made as a result. Tombseye 23:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion notice removed

I added a speedy deletion notice to this article ( { Db-nonsense } ) it was removed by User:Longhair. I am not going to add another one lest I might anger the administrators. So If you guys agree with me that this article needs to be deleted give a holler on this page. AverageTurkishJoe

Tombseye, you can't use the research as a clear proof to say that Anatolian Turks were convert. As you said they just compared all kind of DNA's and eventually they found that they aren't convert. Besides, my answer for your missing thousands is WAR. I totally agree with one who said that there is no pure blood nation. But, people should have respect for them, I don't understand your attitude towards Turkish history. Wikipedia is not a place for you to practice your HEGEMONY. Perhaps you know something about Turkish history. However your attitude damage Turkish History. As a historian, I can absolutely say that you are just a fanatic student. You should make a deep research on Turkish history. There were no Barbarossa brother. It was given to only one person whose name was Hızır Reis. In your point of view, all Ottamans were coverts. It is an absolute lie.

There is a biography of Barbarossa Hayreddin written by Seyyid Muradi. The name of book is Gazavât-ı Hayreddin Paşa. The book was written by the order of Barbaross Hayraddin himself. Because, he thought that there would be many questions about his life. Most of the historian accept this book as an authority of his life, BUT YOU AND YOUR UNIVERSTIES.

The other boy, only think that this discussion is only a competition. Well, I haven't seen any single word from him/her at this talk. He/she just try to change the article. Please a little bit respect. I want to see an administrator who can stop him.

--hybrid lily 10:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Because you're full of shit. --Khoikhoi 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, first of all, calling me a fanatic student is really doesn't help your argument. If you want to debate as an adult, start typing like one. Second, I'm not practicing any hegemony at all. I'm open to suggestions and changes as long as you explain them. My attitude towards Turkish history is the same as with all the others. Just the facts please and a preponderance of evidence. So you're contending that the Greeks and Armenians were killed by invading hordes from Central Asia then? Aside from cultural differences, and I've visited Turkey, why Central Asian Turks look so different from Anatolian Turks in general? Population replacement usually requires the type of massacres that took place under Genghis Khan or hell Stalin (although no one replaced the dead Soviets). What your suggesting though is a possibility, but one that is contrary to most historians, including Turkish historians, who believe that most Turks were culturally assimilated by invading Turkic tribes who, by the time they reached Anatolia, were quite varied themselves. I'm only relating what encyclopedias (Brittanica, Americana) relate about the Barbarosa brothers. Sorry if I don't your word for it that there were no brothers. He's reported to have been of Greek descent, although there is speculation that his father had converted to Islam (from his original Greek Orthodox religion). At any rate, the administrators aren't going to just stop someone. They require reason and a valid argument. So far you're not offering any compromises either. Tombseye 23:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It was only Armenians above, you added Greeks. What's next ? Kurds. Please stop!

If we are talking about Anatolian Turks, we should consider Oghuz Turks as their grandfathers. The first immigration of Oghuz was led by Alparslan, after Battle of Malazgirit. It has passed thousand of years after the battle. Oghuz adopted themselves to Anatolia. The reason of the differences between appearance of Central Asians and Anatolians is probably as above. You can't say that there is a keen differences, so it proves my suggestion that they were all convert of Armenians.

Secondly, I must tell you that Anatolians Turks also seems like Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian people. So you should add those nations to your list. :)

For Barbarossa, if he had a biography, I don't care what Brittanica says. Please take a close look to his biography. He doesn't describe himself as a convert of Greek Orthadox. As you said they are all speculations.

Khoi.. 's attittude toward this talk can be a good reason for an administrator to stop him. He has no idea what we are talking about.

--hybrid lily 08:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually do, but I see know reason why you think it's right to bring your Pan-Turkish ideas to a neutral encyclopedia. Please read over WP:NPOV about 3 times and come back here. --Khoikhoi 08:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The reference with Greeks and Armenians and Kurds is about the Byzantine period and then the transitional period as the Ottoman state expanded in Anatolia. During this period, untold thousands if not millions of native Anatolians were converted to Islam and adopted Turkish as their language. By our modern period these people are 'Turks' of Turkey. That's what this reference is about. It is NOT about the modern issues dealing with Turks and Greeks, Armenians, and Kurds. I agree that the Oghuz are important to consider here as their language is the main influence upon modern Turkish, while saying Turkic refers to minor Turkic tribes usually. I'm not saying the Turks of Turkey are only of Armenian extraction, but that's one part though. Genetically and physically the Turks of Turkey are more like Mediterrean peoples rather than the Central Asian Turks who show clear Mongol traces. It's not my opinion, but that of most academics. I'm not doing original research here, but relating what's been written. I do contend that most Turks of Turkey are derived from cultural assimilation of previously Byzantine Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, and others. The Greek-speakers of Anatolia, in turn had pre-Greek ancestry derived from Hittites, Galatians etc. who mixed with Greek Ionian settlers along the western coast of Turkey. This is all found in the historical record and is supported by the genetic evidence too. I don't think I'm making any huge leaps of logic here. When Turks are defined as Mediterranean it includes their similarity with Italians and Spaniards and other groups of the region. The references to Barbarosa rely upon autobiographical info. as well and this since this is not a place for original research I am merely writing what is found in encyclopedias. If I'm wrong, I'll freely admit it. The Barbarosa brothers' father is related as a Greek from the island of Lesbos where the brothers were born. Not my words, but that of encyclopedias. Khoikhoi's frustrated because it seems that some of you guys are viewing this page as a nationalistic front. We have NOT written anything negative about the Turkish people. Read the article. It talks about common human experiences as people change in various ways through history and actually explains how interesting the diversity of modern Turks is. Orhan's inclusion is not based upon his views on Armenians, but regarding his worldwide fame from his award winning work. Tombseye 18:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixing wrongs by talking is not Pan.... Perhaps we have some conflicts, but I have respect for Tombseye. However, you are acting as a stupid kid. If you have idea what we are talking, why didn't you write your opinion ?

Tombseye:

"Indigenous people of Anatolia includes Greeks, Armenians and Kurds. Not at all inconsistent."

All the greeks were sent to greece in 1923 by population exchange.Most armenians have already left Turkey.You can see them in california,france,...etc.Kurds are already screaming everywhere that they are kurds under seperatist propagandas of somebody(!)...I hope these are enough for you(I never suppose but anyway...)

-Inanna-

Actually, the reference is regarding BEFORE the Turkic invasion by Alp Arslan. By 1923 it had been centuries since most of the Greeks, Armenians, and Kurds had adopted a Turkish identity through cultural assimilation. You're not understanding what I'm saying here. This is not a reference to modern times or context. Listen to me for a second. I'm talking about the people of Anatolia who lived during the Byzantine and then Ottoman periods who were over the centuries converted to Islam and adopted Turkish as their language. That's what that reference is talking about. Do you understand? Tombseye 18:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has converted to something.If we really did that,there would be no christians or jews in balkans,anatolia and caucassia.No nations are pure.You are showing alexander and aristotele as greeks.Greeks try to show themselves same with ancient greeks but they are not.Ancient greeks were compeletly deleted on earth by roman invasion.They dont speak ancient greek.Russians gave them so-called "greek" name to be able to divide ottoman empire.Modern greeks are actually albanians,slavs,turks,ulahs,gyspies...etc.Kurds are already not a pure nation.First kurdish tribes were Turks.But they have mixed with persians(indo).Armenians are already degenerate people.Nobody knows what they are.So you cant talk about a pure nation...

-Inanna-

You seem quite certain that there was no conversion, but let's look at the facts. What were the sufis doing in Turkey then? Their attempts to convert the local Greek-speaking people are documented. Also, you're not understanding the context here. You keep thinking in terms of modern people and the political issues with Greeks and Armenians, Kurds etc. I'm talking about MILLIONS of people in the Byzantine Emipre and only thousands of Turkic warriors. How do explain a population replacement like that? Obviously people were converted to Islam and adopted Turkish over the CENTURIES slowly. We're starting this discussion from the Byzantine period to the present. The origins of the Greeks can be understood at the Greek people page. Here the point is that the people who lived in Anatolia when the Turkic tribes arrived spoke Greek, Armenian, and Kurdish. Do you agree that that was the case as this is also historical record? Next, the Turks over a period of centuries converted people to Islam and most of these people began to speak Turkish. this same thing happened in Moorish Spain where local Iberian Muslims outnumbered the Arab-Berbers over the centuries. Most Egyptians are not Arabs from Arabia either. It's a cultural assimilation and adoption process. Think about it for a second and read the historical events and you may start to understand what we're talking about here. Tombseye 19:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh and namecalling directed at the Armenians is a really not called for. Kindly keep such comments to yourself. Tombseye 19:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I will reply this later.Did you look at my discussion page? There is something for you...

-Inanna-

How about some research

How about some research on the history of the Turkish conquest rather than endless revert wars. Fred Bauder 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What is your point ?--hybrid lily 08:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Why Orhan Pamuk's picture is wanted to shown so much?

Answer: Because Orhan Pamuk is lying about his nation to be able to win noble prize.He is not a famous writer.This anti-Turkist admins want to show him becase the main aim is encourage more people to be like him by media.Although Nazim Hikmet is too much more famous than Orhan Pamuk,he is definitely not shown.Because he was a nationalist,realist and against imperialism.

Although we are showing resources,Turkish population try to shown less.Turks are try to explained "Turkified greeks,armenians,kurds...etc." to be able to destroy the "Turkish National Consciousness".

Kurds are try to shown 3 times higher in Turkey to be able to encourage Kurds agaisnt division of Turkey.

I can count a lot of intrugues of USA on Turkey...However,our subject is about media and that discussion has not over yet...

-Inanna-

Inanna, here's the thing. You perhaps don't understand what we're doing and maybe it's partially because English is not your first language. Pamuk's well known world-wide including the US because of his literary work. He's also grabbed headlines for his trial, although we are wondering what kind of freedom of speech you have in Turkey when you can't even have different opinions? How do you know he's lying? Were you alive in 1915? None of us know for sure what happened. Orhan's a Turk himself and frankly being a nationalist and a realist sounds contradictory as does your notion of imperialism.

I thought your national consciousness was more robust. You all speak the same language and have the same culture basically. How's learning about the origins of the Turks change that? You seem very insecure if you actually think we in the US care about that.

As for the Kurdish question, some of us believe in self-determination of peoples IF that's what they want. For example, Puerto Rico is a US commonwealth which voted on whether to leave the US, stay a commonwealth, or become a US state. They chose commonwealth. Most of us in the US would not fight to keep people in the country. It's supposed to be voluntary. We're not trying to separate the Kurds as you guys have done a good job of that already. I think you're being paranoid if you actually think this is about some sort of intrigues. Like I said, it seems we have a language barrier here as you're not comprehending what is being conveyed and misinterpreting things. Tombseye 21:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are Turks ?

Hi !

I was reading the article. I am confused of who the Turks are. Author said that Aremians, Greeks, and Kurds live in Turkey. Hımmm, If there would be no Turks living in Turkey, why would we call Turkey for the country ? Should we call something else for it ?

No, the article states that before Turkic tribes arrived there were Greeks, Armenians, and Kurds in Anatolia. This is historically accurate. Genetic tests have shown that most Turks are related to the people around them and the PRELIMINARY conclusion would be that most Turks are descendents of converts to Islam who adopted the Turkish language from a group that was quite mixed when it arrived anyway. This does not mean there are no Turks. Turks are a people today and well defined. This is only an explanation of their ancestry as a whole. Hope this helps to clarify things. Tombseye 18:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is all dreamed up product of Megalomania.

Anti-Turkish Prejudice

I am afraid this article serves as a platform for the bigots to bolster their hate mongering against the Turks. I would like to give the author the benefit of the doubt that this was not his intention but he cannot escape the blame for this shoddy article where the references do not support the claims made therein which renders the article a pure speculation and not fit for an encyclopedia. The article itself claims that it is a "debate" and therefore not an encyclopedic item.

Defining the Turkish ethnicity as a mixture of Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, etc. ethnicities begs the question whether these ethnicities are distinct and pure. For example Herodotus thinks that Hellenes are the descendants of Pelasgians a Pre-Indo European people Pelasgians which separated from the main body and increased to a multitude of nations by the voluntary entrance into its ranks of numerous tribes of barbarians.) It is known that the first indo-european elements in Asia Minor dates back to1900-1700 BC in the western Asia Minor and 1300-700BC in the east. Before that aboriginal peoples of Asia Minor spoke a non IE language. Michael E. Weale · Levon Yepiskoposyan et al. In their article named "Armenian Y chromosome haplotypes reveal strong regional structure within a single ethno-national group" find that not only different Armenian populations are different from each other but also there is a high degree of gene import into the Armenian populations. (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Weale-HG-01-Armenia.pdf) The Wikipedia article Genetic insights into the background of the Kurds describes the genetic contribution of different peoples in the Kurdish populations.

What makes the Turkish case in the authors view different is that supposedly there was no Turkish element in Asia Minor prior to 1071 and the Central Asian Turkic groups could be used as a test group to prove the non-Turkishness of the Turkey's population. Since it is not possible to find pure Greek, Armenian and Kurdish test groups to test the Turkey's populations against, the main premise of the article is un-testable and unscientific.

This kind of fallacy is called “non-sequitur” that is conclusion does not follow the argument. (That is according to your argument Turks might as well be the descendants of Zulus and not Greeks as claimed; you need to test your argument not some other argument.) Besides Wikipedia is not supposed to be the place for sophomoric debates. I repeat my request for speedy deletion of this article. AverageTurkishJoe 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no intent to promote hate mongering against the Turks. What genetic testing HAS found is that most people cluster with their neighbors. That's all this is. We know from the historical record that Anatolia was inhabited by Greeks, Armenians, and Kurds when Turkic tribes arrived. The contention is that the majority of Turks are descendents of converts to Islam who adopted the Turkish language and in addition groups from the Balkans, Russia, Arab countries, and Jews also arrived, most of whom adopted a Turkish identity over time as they mostly intermarried with locals. This is just a historical overview. In turn, one can read about the background of the various peoples and come to the realization that they are varied too. The point though is that language-wise and culturally there were people in Anatolia and a cultural shift took place. Yes, I'm the one who added the article on the Kurdish genetic background. We can actually remove the genetic question and even focus on the linguistic one, but the point is that there is strong evidence that the Turks of Turkey are not, for the most part, descendents of Central Asian Turks. I don't see what is wrong with pointing that out for people who otherwise think the Turks are all invaders when in fact most are native to Anatolia and simply changed their language and religion (as no doubt their forebears did when Greek colonists took-over and Armenians moved into the east and Kurds lived in the southeast etc. I don't agree that deletion is the answer. We can do a re-write and explain things better. What I've just explained is NOT a non sequitur as the historical background and genetic testing show that most Turks are native to Anatolia. There are no records of massive genocide by invading Turks and there are records of conversions that took place thanks in part to the efforts of the sufis. Couple this with the majority of Turkish genes that do not cluster with Central Asian Turks and you have solid evidence. Tombseye 19:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"Turkish people" as an article title is a rather ambitious and misleading if the intention to express continuity of the gene pool of autochthonous populations in Asia Minor. Especially when the Turks article redirects to this (Turkish people) article one thinks that there is a special political agenda here. I would expect and article titled "Turkish people" or "Turkish Ethnicity" would concentrate the cultural and linguistic elements of ethnicity (folk music, fables, legends, genesis legends, beliefs, superstitions etc.) While there is a wealth of material to talk about in the subject of "elements of Turkish Ethnicity"; this article seems to be only concerned about a single issue: "people of Asia Minor did not speak Turkish before 1071", a statement of which the burden of proof is strictly on you. We are just going to have live with the fact that there is no genetically distinct IE population and the distribution of the human genes display a continuous variance all the way from Europe to Asia.

Just to destroy a myth please see the Turkish Kipchak soldiers In Western Asia minor in 838 CE in the following links.

The siege of Amorium, miniature from the Madrid Skylitzes

(just added this picture since the URL below no longer works AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

(http://www.amoriumexcavations.org/siege.jpg , http://www.amoriumexcavations.org/Site.htm)AverageTurkishJoe 17:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently an important part of the Bizantian army was composed of ethnic Turks and they were figting the Muslims Mamluk army which was dominated by Kipchak Turks. Also the Kipchaks were employed as the police force all the from Constantinople to Jarulsalem. No wonder why so called "Turkification" of Asia Minor was so fast and so complete.(Also note that even the name of the "Thema" system is itself a loanword from turkish "Tumen", a military unit of 10,000 soldiers)

The Roman army of this period(800s) was characterised by the numerous mercenaries who served both the Emperor and the several thematic strategoi. The Turkic peoples of the Eurasian steppe, like the Khazars, the Patzinak (Pechenegs) and the Cumans (Kipchak), were included in the army under the status of foederati and employed mainly as mounted archers. Russ (Scandinavians), Slavs, Normans, Italians, Germans and even Arabs and Seljuk Turks, among many others, were employed either singly or in ready-to-hire units.

The Themes system was developed under Constans II and Constantine IV (although some attribute it to Heraclius) in order to face the constant threat of the Muslim Arabs who had taken Syria, Egypt and Mesopotamia in the 7th century. Thus, the first themes appeared in the Eastern provinces, which were both the richest and most emperiled.

The Hetaereia ("Companions") regiments, although including Greeks, were mainly composed of Khazars and Pharganos (from the Fergana Valey, in Central Asia), all of them of Turkic stock, and also Maghlavitae, which were probably Muslims from the Maghrib.

Sources:

• http://www.imperobizantino.it/content/view/168/2/
• Translations and Reprints from Original Sources of European History, Vol. VI:4, Willian Fairley, University of Pennsylvania Press, n.d.
• Comnena, Anna; translated by Dawes, Elizabeth A.. The Alexiad; London: Routledge, Kegan, Paul, 1928
• Dennis, George T. Byzantine Heavy Artillery: The Helepolis; Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 39, pp. 99-115; De Re Militari online, 1998
• Dennis, George T. The Byzantines in Battle; Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 39, pp. 165-178, De Re Militari online, 1998
• Heath, Ian, McBride, Angus (ill.). Byzantine Armies 886-1118; Osprey Publishing (Men-at-Arms 89), 1979
• Nicolle, David, McBride, Angus (ill.). Romano-Byzantine Armies 4th - 9th Centuries; Osprey Publishing (Men-at-Arms 247), 1992
• Nicille, David, McBride, Angus (ill.). Attila and the Nomad Hordes; Osprey Publishing (Elite 30), 1995
• Treadgold, Warren T. Notes on the Numbers and Organizations of the Ninth-Century Byzantine Army; De Re Militari online, 1980

AverageTurkishJoe 19:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have adjusted the terminology to reflect that Anatolians when the Turks arrived were Greek-speaking due to a Hellenization process as well. I think that's a valid point. The overall impact of mercenaries though is misleading as it's difficult to determine how much of an impact thousands of people would have on a population of millions. This same is true with Turkic warriors. Obviously, small groups came, mostly males who married local females, over a period of centuries etc. There are often two histories to understand though. One is about military events, rulers, and other prominent peoples and then there are the masses who aren't written about. Since many believe that Anatolians were only part Greek, while most were Hellenized following Alexander's conquest, it is important to note that this is rarely mentioned as the history of the region is related through the rulers. Thus, my point is that military events do not equal population replacement unless coupled with mass genocide of local populations as took place in Central Asia when the Mongols arrived there. Tombseye 20:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Turks are herdsmen-pastoral warriors which is likely to have Demographic impact unlike the all male soldiers in barracks. Please see the "Yuruks before Seljuks in Asia Minor" section I just added. AverageTurkishJoe 03:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Inanna wrote:

Yes,my english is not well(cause of many reasons as way of thinking and very diffrent language classes).However i can understand what's going on.If you make his advertisement so much,he will become very famous for sure.Although he degraded the Turkish identy,he is still free.Dont talk about freedom of speech if you want.Because i know how these things go in europe and america...

Were you alive in 1915? Anyway,i trust my state's history foundation.We have offered armenia to set up a common commission about this issue.But armenians who were spoiled by someone refused that immediatley.Besides,i use my brain to think what happened.I have posted something for you in my discussion page.You still couldnt reply it...

Armenians are running riot by provacation jewish lobby in USA.Let me tell you an explainition of jews in canada:

"We have provoked armenians in many periods of history, We spread this issue by our strong media in the world, We have trained the young armenians in our camps in palestine by the help of CIA, We named this organisation ASALA and we have sophisticated them about guns and explosives, We sold weapons to this organisation which we produced and earned money, We made problem that to Turkey to divert and keep it our control, ... We have created a vengance sense at all armenians in the world against Turks, We have showed what armenians had done to Turks as Turks have done to armenians and made bleed that bruise again, We recommended armenians to offer lands and indemnity money from Turkey, Our target was not to give lands to armenians, They had already their own state and lands, Even they didnt know how to use their lands, The lands where we offered the name of armenians from Turks,were the lands of great israel state's in future,actually..."

That's the reality.My aim is not making anti-semitism.I am just trying to show the truth.

24 april of each year,Turkey says USA not to recognize the so-called genocide.Then you say that's a work of lobby and offer us to make happy the jewish lobby in USA.By this way they can offer something from Turkey about israel...

Let's come to nations in Turkey.They have always kept their language and religions.We have only assimilated them for military and they died in wars.If we would like to destroy them,we could do this in our best period easily.

Kurdish issue:

Nobody has asked what the americans think about politics of Turkey.You are one of the last state who should talk about this.I mean it doesnt interest you.For puerto rico; what changes if they stay there or not? America(continental) is new world.No history,no spiritual importance,not a home of a nation.Even you are not a nation(racially)...

So why did you found a kurdish government in north iraq and terrorist PKK's flags are everywhere? Answer: USA wants to set up a second israel against Turkey.However we took precautions about this.You are not the only clever in this arena...

All we know USA thinks to occupation of Turkey.You try to collect all neighbours of Turkey(iraq,syria,iran and founding bases in armenia...).After all,we are a nation who is 11,000 years old.We are the only nation who were never ruled by others in all history.We have too much experience.I mean nothing happens to Turkey...

Well i am not paranoid.You government try to make you paranoid against muslims by el-kaide.Do you really believe that 3-5 men in mountains could explode a bomb in the middle of istanbul or new york.Of course not.El-kaide is only a name.I really wonder why all terrorist are from Pakistan.May the reason Pakistan is one of the best allies of USA? So what happened el-kaide? You occupied afghanistan.Couldnt you find usame bin ladin yet? Too strange...

-Inanna-

Inanna, you say your aim is not to make "anti-semitism" but what you wrote here can be interpreted as anti-semitism. Your mention of non existence of "el-keide" damages your credibility a great deal. Let's keep on the topic and stop the "hate talk". AverageTurkishJoe 13:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am saying what i think and this is the discussion page.Everybody should share their opinions and everybody should respect this.It is not "hate talk",it is opinions and reality for me.If i will be banned,doesnt matter.I never impressed myself.Besides,they are doing Anti-Turkish propagandas and force us to accept that.Is this justice then?

-Inanna-

I think it's extremely naive to believe that the Turkish government has never lied or done anything wrong. There are no governments or people on earth who can claim that. I would also add that Armenians tend to overlook the role of Armenian rebels which may have prompted harsh Turkish reprisals though. As for Kurdish separatists, well we can agree to disagree on that one as I still support the self-determination of peoples. You do realize that not all Jews work together or think the same way. A professor at UCLA who happens to be of Jewish religion (by birth anyway) named Stanford Shaw has written a number of books about Turkey and is married to a Turkish woman and I actually knew his daughter at UCLA and he was actually one of the staunch defenders of Turkey against Armenian claims that it was genocide rather than reprisals. Frankly, lumping any group together in terms of how they think does constitute a form of prejudice. All Jews don't even support Israel or US foreign policy (see Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Howard Zinn etc.), so your whole point about some collusion sounds a bit bizarre frankly. Well, if Turkey is a nation that is 11,000 years old then you must support the idea that most Turks are not from Central Asia as well. As for the US wanting to occupy Turkey, I'm really not sure why the US would want to since Turkey does whatever the US govt. asks anyway. The US tends to go for military occupation when its policies are challenged. You're just kind of making things up with that don't you think? You really missed the point I was making. Americans fought a Civil War to keep the country together once. That will not happen again. Most of us don't want to force people to remain a part of our nation. And for the record the former Czechoslovakia broke up and they have quite a bit of culture and common history. The Israeli issue is not really related to the Kurdistan issue. The US backed Israel in part due to the pro-Israel lobby and in part due to Cold War dynamics as well as what some people perceive as US 'interests'. What that has to do with the Kurds I don't quite know. I back the efforts of the Palestinians to have a state and apply the same to any other peoples. Not really sure what you're getting at here. I don't support the war on terror and don't believe all Muslims are the same. You really don't know very much about the US actually. We have a large population that is against the war in Iraq, does not believe everything our government tells us (unlike yourself as it seems that you believe everything your government tells you without question), and the Al Qaeda tangent is strange on your part. Al Qaeda is, supposedly, a loose group of independent cells with some connections that, I admit, the US govt. tries really hard to establish (as they tried with Iraq even though the evidence was really flimsy) ties that don't exist for their own purposes though. And that's a really absurd thing to say that all terrorists come from Pakistan. Perhaps you didn't notice that most of the terrorists from 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and that the bombings in Spain were by North Africans or that the people involved in the London bombings and attempts were Pakistani-British and Somalis. That doesn't sound like they're all coming from Pakistan. You could have made a better case by alluding the US-Saudi alliance, especially in terms of the 9/11 aftermath.

Here's the other difference. I don't relate everything Turkey or the govt. of Turkey has done to all Turks. Meanwhile, you seem to be laboring under the illusion that all Americans are responsible or support what our govt. does and says. You seem okay with criticizing others, but don't seem to take anything criticism back. That how it is then? The Turkish govt. does no wrong and everyone else is out to get them? Sounds pretty paranoid to me. Tombseye 19:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article comes close to saying "Turks are rootless bastards" without actually saying it. Anti-Turkish prejudices go back a millenia it is nothing new. Turks were instrumental in creating the European (Western) identity; Europe created its self identity as the antithesis of the Turks. So I don't think this is a recent secret conspiracy against the Turks. It is pretty much socially accepted and practiced out in the open. Nobody is shunned for saying bad things about the Turks. History books are full of this prejudice. This article is just one of them. AverageTurkishJoe 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The intent is not to say that Turks are rootless anything though. The article makes it a point that the Turks of Turkey are largely a product of cultural assimilation. This can also be applied to Algeria where most Arabs are Berbers who adopted the language and switched their religion from Christianity to Islam. This does not imply anything prejudicial. I do agree that Turks are often demonized unfairly though. And I also agree that the Armenian genocide requires more context in terms of what may have prompted Turkish actions. Also, read Stanford Shaw's work History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey and you'll find that not everyone in the West seeks to depict Turks in only a negative light. Academic views tend to be more nuanced and debate is welcomed, not excluded. Popular opinion though is shaped by political interests though yes. America has a lot of Armenians and Greeks who aren't fond of Turkey and do try to promote an unrealistic portrayal of Turks, but this can only change if everyone tries to better understand matters, both historical and otherwise. Tombseye 19:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course jews will support Turkey.We are training israeli army and pilots under difficult weather conditions.We are one of the first states who recognized israel state.We aren't doing these due to we love jews so much.Let me tell you darling;

Israel is a small state but like an american state.Their enemies arabs are millions of.Israel is in fight with syria(especially),iraq and iran(who are our enemies).Our ones of the worst enemies syria is spending all her money to military against israel and cant develop as economic.Israel spends too much money for arms also.They were sucessful in past against arabs.Because arabs had just saved from colonization and their population was not so much.Now they are 150 millions.Israel will never be able to grow anymore.Let we say if they did that.They can never take over control on arabs.We really support them because until a small american state israel lives,there will never be stableness in middle east and there will be under our control.

Do jews love Turkey?So how will you explain israel is training kurdish terrorist in north iraq? Besides,i have read talmud.I know their (dream)state's boerders and i have information about their tactiques...

Almost all jews in Turkey marry with Turks as well.I can understand their cooperation with Turkey against armenians because armenians hate jews more than everything as greeks.

You cant deny that USA doesnt have eye on Turkey.We have the %70 of bor minerals in the world what is future's energy resource.We live on oil and natural gas ocean as Shell's CEO's said.However,problems never end in the eastern Turkey.At first armenian and now kurdish.Our lovely allies never gave us technology while USSR was helping us.These are not coincidences.Besides,Turkey is based on the world's most important geo-politic area.

Let's come to muslim terrorist issue.When ETA or IRA does terror,you dont call them catholic terror.US try to show muslims as terrorists because after Soviets has demolished,a big threat was ended.USA couldnt find anybody to sell weapons.She needed a new big threat for the world."Muslim"(as you call) were good for this job.I am not saying these dut to most of my people are muslims.I am saying what i see.

Terrorism could never win anything at Turkey in all history.If who(europe,america or anybody) supports terror or train terrorist,she will pay this too difficult.Look at france! They were the center of ASALA terrorists.However,Turkey sent her secret nationalist men to paris and cleaned all these scums.Nobody could understand that it was done by Turkey.France is the biggest supporter of armenians at the moment.Even they declared this year as "armenian year".They will pay what they all did to us.We found the victims of France in history.They have killed about 1,5-2 million arabs in algeria.They already didnt like them.Now,they will hate french people more than everything.There are millions of arabs in france.Only 2-3 blacks ravaged there.We have 400,000 Turks in france.Can you image what will happen when we provoke algerians against france.This will be end of her.Eeehh...they shouldnt have played with Turks.I am sorry but they will burn...

I reccomend you stop keeping PKK terrorists and set up kurdish government in north iraq.We dont have any other 300 billion dollars to spend and loose 70,000 women and children again.We can do everything against that.Our plan is already going very well,actually...

-Inanna-

I really can't comprehend where your going with the Israel thing, but I was trying to relate to you to not link all Jews to Israel and not that I am fond of Israeli policies or actions. Many people argue that rather than Israel being a US 'state' that it is the US that does what Israel wants, but that's not really the point here. As for all the people who hate other people etc., I'm again at a loss as to how to respond to that. I'm going to guess that Armenians don't all think the same either and saying who they all hate and don't hate is a bit of a stretch.

Turkey's the world's most important geopolitical what? Come on. A bit full of ourselves aren't we? There is no single most important area in the world really. It's all a case by case basis. The US looks to safeguard its interests everywhere in the world, including Turkey, but frankly I don't know where that line of thinking is headed either.

They will pay for what they did to you? Scums? They will burn? What are you talking about? Can you try to make sense and discuss the issues of this page. Your other views are frankly strange and do not translate well into English.

You do realize that terrorism can be state sponsored and conducted by nation-states as well as organizations right? No of course not. I don't understand your PKK reference either. I'm NOT supporting terrorism, but the right to self-determination of all peoples. Clearly, we aren't understanding each other as this language and cultural barrier is bigger than I initially thought. Tombseye 20:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi I would like the anti-Turkish bias removed from this article

What do the harems have to do with the Turkish people? It is not as if a significant part of the Turkish population is descended from the harems.It just sounds like people who have a dislike for Turks are posting irrevelent information just to remind people of the negative aspects of Ottoman Turkey. DivineIntervention 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just editted some of the article with more relevent and useful information. DivineIntervention 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Your edits are mainly good ones. I made some minor adjustments and it is actually correct to state that when we say Greek it should be clear that these were mainly Hellenized Anatolian peoples such as remnants of Hittites, Phrygians etc. The Armenian and Kurdish groups were probably small regional peoples in the east as well when the Turks arrived. Overall, I saw nothing wrong with your edits and I think this kind of collective working together helps the article. Thanks. Tombseye 20:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi the so called neutral

Khoikhoi you dont trick anyone. You are definantly someone who dislikes Turkey. I spent some time changing some pretty un-wikipedic statements in the article. You then go ahead and revert back. DivineIntervention 22:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I meant to revert someone else's edits but I accidentally reverted yours. I have changed it back. Sorry again. --Khoikhoi 23:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi's only aim is showing Turks and Turkey terrible...

Judging from Khoikhoi's other contributions, I do not think that his main objective is to villify the Turkish people or the citizens or institutions of Turkey. I would strongly advise against further accusations (unless you can provide some indication that suggests or proves that his contributions should in fact be considered tantamount to ethnic hatred).

You might eventually be blocked if it is determined that you are engaging in continued personal attacks, and as a consequence WP would then lose a (potentially) valuable source of information or perspectives. So take a deeeeeep breath and try to be more factual and specific in your accusations in future and let's work out a good article that is deemed factual and correct. //Big Adamsky 01:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for jumping the gun, in future I will not take things like this personally. I apologize Khoikhoi but the main reason I lashed out at you is because I have encountered people that do habour hatred for the Turks, the Turks dont deserve this constant negative portrayal as neither does Iran which is like Turkey an enthnic mosaic of different peoples, the Turks are one of a variety of peoples and faiths I want to stand up for and try and eliminate the baises - (e.g. midnight express).

Does the word "turkified" which in my opinion is not very un-encyclopedic. This word is used by Greeks and Armenians to spread anti-Turkish propaganda have to remain right on the top of this artile?? Cant the whole issue be moved somewhere into the main part of the text (such as the section entitled "The Modern Turks). As for "turkified" this is in itself a harsh term which could be better rewritten/reworded. It ignores the fact that alot of the native population voluntary converted to Islam (in Islam the word revert is used instead of convert) and that alot of people adopted Turkish culture freely. Alot of the Greek speaking population of Asia minor were Hellenized minorities - a case in point is Paul the apostle (a Hellenized Jew). To be quite frank to say that most Turks were people who were forced to become Turks which is basically what Turkified means is derogative. DivineIntervention 02:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

stop redicting the page

TUrks and Turks of Turkey should be different article. PLease, stop redicting the page. I am sure, Khoi.. did it.

User:DivineIntervention, thank you for your addings.

It's not a matter of what you think is right, it's because most articles that link to Turks refer to the Turks of Turkey. --Khoikhoi 08:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter what your purpose is. Turks and Turks of Turkey have many common points. HOwever, Oghuzs are only one of the Turkic tribes.

According to your opinion. It is NOT a matter of what you think is right for the page. You are a REVERT-FETISH. No more than that.

Also, i saw you can spell Turkish. Don't tell me that you are an American. You are a Kurdish.

Lol, your English is so bad I can't even understand what you're saying. How am I Kurdish? Why don't you go outside and play with your little friends. --Khoikhoi 08:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If you dont understand my english, why don't we speak Turkish ? :),

Because I'm not Turkish. --Khoikhoi 08:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Puhahaha, you are so funny, ı didn't call you, Turk. You are a Kurdish. Well, without a doubt, you don't know that Kurds also can speak Turkish.

If we come back to redicting issue, There is a general page which has all information about Turks. Additionally, there is a page for Turkey too. The answer of the question why my browser is redicting to this page is because you want people to know what you wrote.

I am thinking of redicting the page to your userpage, so everybody can have knowledge what are your beliefs, values. --hybrid lily 08:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

For the last time, I'm not Kurdish. Ok, fine, let's play your little game. You're Chinese.

I already explained to you why the Turks page should redirect here. You obviously didn't read my comment. --Khoikhoi 09:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I explained to you what my opinion is. These pages should be seperated. Besides, I am telling you again, it's your opinion that Turks should be redicted to this page. Did you try to someone explain his/her opinion about it ? NOOOOOOOOOOOO, because you are so selfish.

Well, why not Chiniese, or Mongoloid Islamis terrorist. That is what you want people to know Turkey. Dont you ?

Also, If all Turks were converts of Armenians, Kurds and Greek, Why wouldn't you give me a chance to be convert of Chinese. --85.99.202.76 09:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Kokikoki is not kurdish but he loves kurds so much and training those terrorists in north iraq against Turkey.

-Inanna-

Wow, how stupid are you guys? Speaking of selfish people Hybridlily, isn't changing the picture to someone that you personally perfer considered selfish, last time I checked it was.

Another thing I just discovered is that you can't read. Where does this article fucking say taht ALL Turks are Armenian, Kurd, and Greek converts? --Khoikhoi 17:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's know why you want to see Orhan Pamuk. Have you ever read one of his book ? Let's discuss about his style.

Hahahahha, why don't you read the article ? The first paragraph...

Lastly, KEEP YOUR WATCH DOGS AWAY ! I know you have many of them who can do favor for you when you are blocked.

Puahahahha, Khoi.. you don't know any shit about Turkey. Istanbul is not the biggest city of Turkey. It has only the biggest part of the population. Hava a look at the map of Turkey.

The biggest city of Turkey is Konya.

I never thought I'd meet anyone that's never gone to school. -- Khoikhoi 17:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Konya = 40 824 m2

Istanbul = 5 170 m2

Sources Cities of Turkey

Without a doubt, you dont know any shit about math. If I were you, I would spend my time to study on Math.

Okay, this argument is going nowhere and serves no purpose. Rather than throwing insults around, we need to discuss things. Clearly, there is a language barrier here though and a misinterpretation of a lot things said. By the way 'biggest city' in its connotation in English usually means population and not actual size. Thus, New York City is the biggest city in the US and not Los Angeles. I've adjusted the beginning paragraph to reflect the variety of Anatolians and as Big Adamsky tried to get through, let's assume good faith and stop making wild assertions here okay people? Tombseye 20:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't ' the biggest ', it was ' the largest ' before I changed. No matter if you changed it as ' the biggest '. --85.99.147.107 22:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an example of a language barrier. You don't understand English vernacular usage. Largest, when referring to cities, is still synonymous with biggest. Usually, people specify land area when talking about city size as most of the time the usage is a reference to population. Tombseye 22:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You are saying that both ' the biggest ' and ' the largest ' have the same meaning vernacular usage. I am asking because you answered either with the same answer.

List of Kokikoki's Watchdogs

• Eliezer
• Pgk
• Sam_Korn
• Mrent
• Can't sleep, clown will eat me

When Khoi is blocked by admins, he writes messages to his friends. If you look at these users pages, you will see that

Do me a favor and change the article. If I do it, I will be probably blocked.

--hybrid lily 18:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually have never left any comments on any of those users talk page's. See for yourself. --Khoikhoi 21:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

of course you deleted all the evidences. I saw it with my own eyes. --85.99.147.107 22:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The last is much more better than the previous one. Now, I want to add more pictures which contains more than 4 pictures and Orhan Pamuk' on the page. If is it OK, I will do it

--85.99.147.107 23:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You forgot Tombseye in "List of Kokikoki's Watchdogs"

-Inanna-

Thank you for expanding the picture, -Inanna-. It looks better now. --hybrid lily 23:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have worked so much on it.It had taken more than 4 hours of mine.Even i put traitor Orhan Pamuk but they still try to errase it(!)

-Inanna-

I have reaserached new things about Hürrem Sultan.She was not daughter of an orthodox family.She was jewish origin.Jews of russia,ukraine(and this area) are Turkic origin(Khazarian,Krymchak...).She was probably a "Krymchak".Besides,she had grown in Turkey since she was 10 years old and had Ottoman Culture...

-Inanna-

That makes even less sense. Russian Jews are not all Khazars first of all and secondly, what research are you talking about? Her name and her father's profession are mentioned in various books about her and I'm the only one referencing any of it. Tombseye 00:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Everybody knows her as jewish in here.Because she was so...and Tombseye,are you girl?

-Inanna-

Who is this everybody? I'd like to know. What's your source? Your contentions contradict everything about her including her Ukrainian origins. Aside from the Bulgarians reference you have yet to offer up any reliable references to anything except your own opinion, which given your track record, hasn't been all that reliable. Getting personal again are we? You realize you broke the 3 revert rule? How unfortunate for you. Tombseye 00:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)