Jump to content

Talk:Turkish people/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

Modern Turkish people descend from these indigenous -paleo/neolithic groups?

Although we fixed the issue about the weird mention of Thracians as a representative people at least, the current version is far more povish written... since we have now paleolithic and neolithic populations (i.e. pre-Indoeuropean, even before the arrival of most Ancient Anatolians in the region) as ancestors of Turkish people. For certain there isn't a single modern ethnic group to claim direct ancestry directly from neo/paleolithic populations...Alexikoua (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Do not make unsubstantiated claims. Eg: in British people, paleolithic people are cited as their origin. Paleolithic/neolithic origin comes from Cavalli-Sforza source, and is not contradicted by newer sources. Ancient Anatolians covers neolithic (10k BC to 2000BC), and then some. Cavann (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Seems you need to read the article carefull, I just remind you that the British 'paleolithic'? claim isn't mentioned in lead, only as one of many theories in the relevant section. By the way, Hittites and the other Ancient Anatolian speakers were Indoeuropeans, i.e. they were not present in the region prior to the Bronze Age. Feel free to read Bronze Age Anatolia.Alexikoua (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
"Prehistoric" is indeed in the lead of British people. Proto-Anatolian dates back to 5th or 4th millennium BC [1], well within neolithic.
It would be easier if you read more about the topic, rather than making false claims here. Cavann (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems you are too confused about the basic historical divisions: "Prehistoric" is something diferrent than "Paleolithic" & "Neolithic". For example the Bronze Age, is prehistory, but is located after the neolithic, not to mention that the British article doesn't support a direct link from that era exclusively.... ( Prehistoric, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended in Britain under the Normans, descended from Scandinavian settlers in northern France.... that's completely different from the pov/or Modern Turkish people descend from these -paleo/neolithic- indigenous groups...).
By the way, even the supposed reference (Yardumian, Schurr) doesn't support this extraordinary neo/paleolithic claim... Not to mention it's not full cited.Alexikoua (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
If we take into account that British prehistory last until Roman era, the comparison with this article doesn't make sense. Claiming a direct ancestry from 5th/4th millenium BC people is a childish claim and off course it lacks a decent source.Alexikoua (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Prehistoric does include paleolithic and neolithic. And thanks for making me smile...Yardumian & Schurr does support it. Again, I suggest you to read more sources before making inaccurate claims.

Cavann (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Bingo, as I've guessed... yet another falsification of a source. By picking only one part at random ("ignored" part in bold): By Paleolithic and Neolithic populations, we refer here both to autochthonous populations in Anatolia, about whom we know very little, and to the intrusion of Indo-European-speaking peoples.

Indoeuropeans were not present in what is now Turkey in the neo/paleolithic. The first of them arrived in the 3rd/early 2nd millenium BC Anatolia, this means Bronze Age, not to mention Phrygians, Thracians and other IE people that arrived during the Iron Age.Alexikoua (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to not understand Indo-europeans come from Proto-Indo-Europeans. Cavann (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Huh? "Actually, for the purposes of this paper, whether proto-Indo-European peoples entered Anatolia during the late Paleolithic or early Neolithic"
So proto-Indo-European peoples were present from either late Paleolithic or early Neolithic. Cavann (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Various Indoeuropean people (not only Proto-IE) entered the region in various historical eras, for example Hittites "are supposed (speakers of Hittite) to have migrated from the turn of 3rd to 2nd millennium B.C.".
IE are also Greeks, Romans, Galatians etc, we are not limited to Proto-IE.Alexikoua (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Primary component per Cavalli-Sforza and Yardumian is paleolithic and neolithic. Indo-Europeans who entered during this period is covered by the sentence "The area now called Turkey has been inhabited since the paleolithic, including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations during the neolithic period and peoples of Thrace."
So your addition "in addition to Indo-European populations that entered the area in various periods" is either replicating the previous sentence or falsifying the source if it means primary component include greeks, romans, galatians, etc. Cavann (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The Kurgan hypothesis is the most widely accepted hypothesis on the diffusion of Indo-European languages, which includes Anatolian languages. According to this hypothesis, the Indo-European languages originated north of the Black Sea and arrived to Anatolia sometime in the late Neolithic. Therefore the Paleolithic inhabitants of Anatolia couldn't have been Indo-European speaking according to this hypothesis, and Alexikoua's addition makes perfect sense. And it makes even more sense if we throw in all the various historical Indo-European speaking groups that settled in Anatolia in the historical period (Thracians, Greeks, Romans, Galatians, Slavs, Balkan Muslims). Athenean (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Anyone who arrived in Anatolia in the neolithic including Indo-Europeans is Ancient Anatolians, and is -therefore- covered by "including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations during the neolithic period." Alexikoua's addition is not even a full sentence, as there is a ", but" now after a period. Again Greeks, Romans, etc is not part of the primary component of Turkish people.Cavann (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The area now called Turkey has been inhabited since the paleolithic, including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations during the neolithic period and peoples of Thrace. Modern Turkish people descend from these indigenous groups, in addition to Indo-European populations that entered the area in various periods. This makes sound as if those people were existing when the Turkic migration to the region started. But they didn't. Area of modern Turkey at this time was inhabited by Greeks, Armenians, Assyryans, Georgians, Kurds and Arabs. It's another question weather or not the Hittits or Luwians have contributed to the ethnogenesis of those people, they could no way contribute to the ethnogenesis of Turks directly. Хаченци (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
You're reframing the argument to something it isn't. The argument is that the Greeks of Anatolia at the time of Turkish conquests were mostly descended from Hellenized natives (and in certain places, i.e. Ionia, the relative natives may have indeed been Hellenic), and thus their ancestry contribution was pretty significant. Most readers understand this; I really don't think anyone who reads "Modern Turkish people descend from these indigenous groups, in addition to Indo-European populations that entered the area in various periods.[70]k[›] but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples (e.g., Balkans and Caucasus) and Turkic peoples.[71" would seriously think that this means that Hittites were around when the Seljuks came in... And btw territories in Turkey that were inhabited primarily by Georgians, Assyrians or Arabs at the time were mostly limited to marginal border regions...--Yalens (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not reframing anything, one should clarify the sentence. And I am pretty sure almost everyone would understand it in the way I explained. Which nations contributed to Turkish nation - this is the question which needs to be answered and thracians, phrygians, hittites, luwians, urartians, etc, are not the nations who have anything to do with Turkic people. Only few nations could have contibuted to Turkic genetics and those are Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians and Georgians. The question is how, when, and what is the portion of contribution, this is what similar sections are for. Otherwise it makes no sense, every nation is in some sense the descendant of other nations, who lived in the area before him. Хаченци (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Read the sources. We do not add content to Wikipedia according to your opinions.Cavann (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Give a source where it is clearly written, that modern Turkish people descend from these indigenous people pf Anatolia. The only source in the artilcle does not say something like that, and for such a speculative claim more than one or two sources are required. Хаченци (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I got rid of the "in addition to Indo-European populations that entered the area in various periods" part since it implied none of "from these indigenous groups" part from the text were Indo-European.Cavann (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@Cavann: Let me remind you the quote you gave above: and to the intrusion of Indo-European-speaking peoples, i.e. non paleolithic/neolithic. Someone can easilty conclude that you are deep into wp:or teritorry, by falsifying multiple references, like this one.Alexikoua (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Alternate proposal: simply get rid of "neolithic" as actually we don't really know much about "civilizations" of Anatolia way back then anyways so its a stretch. Simply stick with the "Ancient Anatolian" formula. --Yalens (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
On second inspection, looking at Alexikoua's intext comment, the whole thing seemed funny to me. Pretty much all the Ancient Anatolian civilizations we know of were in the Bronze Age (practically by definition), so why would we say they're during the neolithic? I changed it.--Yalens (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, Ancient Anatolians were mostly IE people that entered the region at that time. Although this is supported by mainstream bibliography, some weird & yet unsourced fringe proto-IE-Anatolian theories mentioned by Cavann need a decent explanation.Alexikoua (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
If no one has objections to the change, I suggest we consider the neolithic/Bronze-Age issue resolved. --Yalens (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
@Alexikoua: proto-Anatolian is certainly not "weird & yet unsourced fringe." Please do not make unsubstantiated accusations. Eg: p. 709. [2]
And it is certainly incorrect to say that "Ancient Anatolians were mostly IE people that entered the region at that time". Ancient Anatolians range from 10,200 BC to 334 BC. Neolithic ranges from 10,200 BC to 2,000 BC. Newer theories suggest that IE Ancient Anatolians were also in Anatolia well before Bronze age. p. 704 [3]:
Alexikou's sources such as Mellaart 1958 are seriously dated. Cavann (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
(ignore trolling). To sum up, since a number of empty accusations and unsubstantial claims are again recycled:
  • Mellaart isn't mine source, in fact the first that proposed to removal of Mellaart's map theory in 'Perhistoric Anatolia' article was me and Cavann finally agreed after weird edit-warring about its caption.
  • Anatolian Bronze Age starts (and neolithic era end) at 3300 BC, not 2000 BC. Thanks to Yalens the 'neolithic' childish wp:oring is removed. Thus, most of the 'Ancient Anatolians' arrived in Anatolia at the Bronze Age not the neolithic.Alexikoua (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
7000 B.C.E or fifth or fourth millennium B.C.E are before 3300 BC. Cavann (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Proto-Anatolian theory isn't accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, as per Mellaart isn't too. If you have serious disagreements you should focus your effort in Kurgan Hypothesis. But what's important is that the one and only source that is supposed to claim that the people in Turkey descent from neolithic population is Yardumian, who as pointed doesn't say only that. Let me give the quote presented above:

...By Paleolithic and Neolithic populations, we refer here both to autochthonous populations in Anatolia, about whom we know very little, and to the intrusion of Indo-European-speaking peoples

So, for an unexplained reason the last part should vanish. By the way if the specific source claimed that I-E were in Anatolia during the paleo/neolithic, it wouldn't make sense to mention the I-E intrusion since that way they would be already included in the first mentioned populations.Alexikoua (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What? According to Kurgan Hypothesis, Pre-Proto-Anatolian is ca 4000-3500 BC. [4] (p.44). Proto-Anatolian does not mean IE languages evolved in Anatolia. Review Proto-language.
And yes, the quote that you put once again says intrusion of Indo-European-speaking peoples was within Paleolithic and Neolithic, as is also clear from this sentence:

Actually, for the purposes of this paper, whether proto-Indo-European peoples entered Anatolia during the late Paleolithic or early Neolithic or spread into it from the north or both at different times, is immaterial

Cavann (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
No wonder all the presented links refute the weird theory of neolithic-time authocthony, for example the last one confirms that IE dialects was spread to Anatolia in 3000-2500 BC[[5]], i.e. the Bronze Age .Alexikoua (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
You do not understand the concept of language development. The linked source does not say "spread." It says "PAn, spoken in Asia Minor, evolves into Common Anatolian." It evolved from Pre-Proto-Anatolian. There is no mass migration of IE speakers in the Bronze Age. Rather the language evolved from earlier forms such as Pre-Proto-Anatolian. Cavann (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
There isn't any mention to Anatolia prior to that period. There is also a nice map about the spread of IE dialects in 3000 BC in page 31. Unfortunately Anatolia isn't included...Alexikoua (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean "There isn't any mention to Anatolia prior to that period"? The source I just linked and you just linked mentions it. Pre-Proto-Anatolian is ca 4000-3500 BC, according to Kurgan Hypothesis. And read the above quote from Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia again. Cavann (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
...If a Pre-Proto-Anatolian branch was spoken that time it doesn't mean that the populations that spoke it were already in Anatolia, but moved there latter. Look at the map in p.31, not even a tiny part of Anatolia is included as IE speaking in 3000 BC. Can't be more clear than that.Alexikoua (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Map in p. 31 in that book shows Yamma culture. And if proto-anatolians weren't in Anatolia, then they would not have separated. Another book, p.128-129 [6]


btw in p. 129 there is the Hitite map that we couldn't find the source for. Cavann (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The above quote doesn't answer how early Anatolian speaker reached Anatolia. As for the map, it still needs a source, considering that this book cites wikipedia [[7]].Alexikoua (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Proto-Anatolian speakers were definitely in Anatolia.

Contrary to earlier views, there has now developed a consensus among linguists that entry of Indo-European speakers into Asia Minor was much earlier than previously assumed. See Melchert (2003a: 23-6) with references to Carruba

(1995), Oettinger (2002a) and others, and also Lehrman (2001: 116-7) and Yakubovich (2010: 6-7). The gist of the argument is that the attested degree of differentiation of the IE Anatolian languages such as Hittite and Luvian already by the beginning of the second millennium requires at a minimum that their divergence from Proto-Anatolian began by the middle of the third millennium. It may easily have begun as early as the end of the fourth. The further inference of “early entry” into Anatolian rests on the premise that dialectal differentiation typically results from relative geographic separation of subsets of speakers of an original (putatively) unitary language (contact effects from different sub-or adstrate languages may play an important role). The default assumption in the present case is that this separation corresponds to the scattering

of Proto-Anatolian speakers across Anatolia,..

[8]. Cavann (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Still no entry period has been presented. But, yet another source contradicts this weird neolithic claim The Hittites and the Aegean World - University of Pennsylvania p. 2[[9]] :

It is now believed that the Hittites came into Anatolia sometime in the latter part of the third millennium B.C., though exactly when and from where are questions we still cannot answer. Presumably the arrival of the Hittites is related to that general migration now dated to the years around 2200 BC

.

For future reference, when someone speaks an proto-X dialect, this doesn't mean he lives in X region, for example this also happens with Proto-Greek.Alexikoua (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your source is from 1974. The source above clearly says this: "Contrary to earlier views, there has now developed a consensus among linguists that entry of Indo-European speakers into Asia Minor was much earlier than previously assumed," with sources from 2000's. The source above also talks about scattering of Proto-Anatolian speakers across Anatolia, and the divergence of Hittite, Luwian, etc possibly "as early as the end of the fourth." Not to mention there is no consensus on Kurgan hypothesis [10]
Not that any of this matters, the lead said "various Ancient Anatolian civilizations during the neolithic period", so there was a clear qualifier there. The rest can be discussed during mediation. Cavann (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
This all very interesting, but really the topic matter is way too indepth to matter much for this page (as opposed to Indo-European topic pages). All we need to say is that x peoples lived their in/since antiquity. Exactly how many millenia back is beyond the level of caring for 99% of the people who will be visiting this page...--Yalens (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, but Turkish people descend primarily from paleolithic and neolithic populations per sources. So that is why there was a "various Ancient Anatolian civilizations during the neolithic period" qualifier, to exclude later Ancient Anatolians from the sentence before ",but their ancestry" part. Various theories about when IE speakers entered Anatolia could be discussed inside the body of the article. First paragraph in "Prehistory, Ancient era and Early Middle Ages" subsection still needs an expansion.Cavann (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Off course it will be an extreme wp:fringe to included this neolithic theory in the lead of the article, which is widely refuted by mainstream bibliography and 'if mentioned' treated with heavy caution. Lets see a source which Cavann used several times in the recent past (i.e. it was supposed to be the source for an overextended Hittite Empire [[11]], but unfortunately for the editor there isn't such map on this book) The Kingdom of the Hittites, Trevor Bryce, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 12: [[12]]

The origins of the Indo-Europeans are disputed. Homelands in the east (eastern Anatolia, southern Caucasus, northern Mesopotamia), the north (southern Russia, north of the Black Sea), and the west (central Europe, the Balkans) have all been proposed, but no consensus has been reached.12 Opinions also differ widely on when they came. Most scholars believe that they arrived in Anatolia some time during the third millennium. Some argue that the Luwians were the first, entering Anatolia early in the third millennium, with the Nesites arriving towards the end of the millennium. Others believe that the order should be reversed, with the Nesites (and Palaians) representing the first phase of Indo-European migration, and the Luwians arriving towards the end of the millennium.14 Another view is that the Indo-Europeans arrived in a single mass, subsequently dispersing within Anatolia some time after their arrival.

Alexikoua (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: 3rd Millennium BC (this means 3000-2001 BC, since there is a confusion on chronology as concluded above) in Anatolia is entirely part of the Bronze Age, i.e. after the neolithic. Alexikoua (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's easy to conclude that quotes also presented by Cavan [[13]] also refute this weird neolithic claim.Alexikoua (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This is debatable but irrelevant. If IE came in Bronze age, then they are not part of the "main descent" of Turkish people, and should be included in the later sentence (ie: ",but their ancestry also includes"). Main descent is paleolithic and neolithic per Cavalli-Sforza and Yardumian. If IE came during the time, they are included. If not, they are not. The lead did not claim that all Ancient Anatolians came in Neolithic. By saying "ancient Anatolians during the neolithic" it excluded those that came after. It could be reworded to clarify, it clearly confused you. Cavann (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Correction, Yardumian seems to include Bronze Age:
"By Paleolithic and Neolithic populations, we refer here both to autochthonous populations in Anatolia, about whom we know very little, and to the intrusion of Indo-European-speaking peoples (probably nomadic), which is thought to have occurred at the end of the Early Bronze Age II (c. 2700–2600 b.c.e.), with some evidence for both population movement and destruction/abandonment (Mallory 1989, p. 28). Others (Mellaart 1981; Yakar 1981) suggest dates as early as 3500 b.c.e. for this intrusion."
Then, ok, I'm mostly fine with the current wording. It's just confusing that he included Bronze age in neolithic, altho they are separate (he also says "...whether proto-Indo-European peoples entered Anatolia during the late Paleolithic or early Neolithic...") I would be fine with "Ancient Anatolian civilizations during the Neolithic and Bronze Age", since some Ancient Anatolians (like Çatalhöyük people) are in Neolithic.
We can talk about different theories about when they entered anatolia briefly in the body of article, in "Prehistory, Ancient era and Early Middle Ages" subsection. Does this sound good? Cavann (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
This works for me, though personally I prefer "Ancient Anatolian civilizations during Antiquity (or "Ancient times" or whatever)", because it dodges the whole issue, which really isn't super-relevant to the page at all. While who Turks descend from is indeed interesting and important, different theories about when Anatolic language speakers or whoever entered (or matured in) Anatolia shouldn't really be discussed in length here. That being said, I would vote for this as a step forward. --Yalens (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Yalens' proposal is ok to me, however, Cavann's is even more pov than the current version (neolithic & bronze age? you still need to refute a mountain of mainstream bibliography & we definitely need to get rid of the neolithic thing from lead). We also need a source to make the necessary additions in 'ancient history section', all we have is about mytochondrial dna genetics research which is ok for the genetics section.Alexikoua (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove sentence on descent from the lede

After months of discussion (literally), we are no closer to resolving the wording in the lede regarding the question of the descent of the Turkish people. I thus propose that this entire issue be resolved in Gordian-knot fashion, by removing the issue from the lede altogether. After all, almost all ethnic group article do not discuss the issue of ancestral descent in the lede, precisely because it is so complicated. Athenean (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from unilateral actions. The issue will go to formal mediation in the future, based on a time frame after Arbitration Enforcement makes a decision. I hope we can reach an agreement during the formal mediation.Cavann (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Cavann you need to clarify the above for all. Are you telling everyone they cant move forward or discus a solution because in the future you may request formal mediation? I would agree with Athenean proposal that we should cover the topic in the main body of the article, thus we could outline the situation in much more detail. -- Moxy (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying he shouldn't make unilateral deletions. Go ahead and discuss, and it is already covered in the body of the article. Cavann (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Cavann, clearly Athenean did not and will not make a "unilateral action". He merely proposed an idea which he believes may solve the entire issue at hand. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:AGF, please. No "unilateral actions" on my part, only a proposal to see where the community stands. If a strong consensus forms around my proposal, it will spare us having to resort to mediation. Athenean (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Contrary to some claims made above, its actually not that rare for ethnic group pages to have ancestry and/or geographic origin in the lead. The pages for English people, Koreans, Arabs, French people and Italians all do. The page for Greeks also mentions geographical origin in the lead (which in this case more or less implies ancestral origin): "Greek colonies and communities have been historically established in most corners of the Mediterranean, but Greeks have always been centered around the Aegean Sea, where the Greek language has been spoken since antiquity". It's not so weird. Anyhow... as for how I feel about it being in the lead on this page, I really don't see why its such a big issue...--Yalens (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
You mean to tell me the last two months of constant wrangling are not "such a big issue"? And the fact remains that most ethnic group articles do not discuss ancestry in the lede, certainly not to the extent done here ("primarily descend from group X, Y, Z"). Of the articles you mention, only French people and English people do so. Koreans, Arabs, Italians, Greeks do not, and there are many others as well ([[Germans, Russians, Bulgarians, Albanians, Poles, Serbs, Kurds, I could go on and on). Athenean (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't think whether ancestry appears in the lead is "such a big issue", but of course this isn't what we've been wrangling over for two months. As for Arabs and whatnot, I think you may have missed the second sentence on the page: "Most however have direct or partial ancestral relation to the nomadic indigenous inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula and the Syrian desert"... though to be fair I think I hastily misread the Italians page. The point, however, is that its not so clear cut. The Bulgarian, Russian, and Albanian pages don't, but the French, English, Arab, and Irish pages do. Another group of pages mention geographic origin which is more or less asserting the same thing (i.e. saying Greeks have lived in Greece "always" asserts an indigenous ancestry). It's hard to say which is more prevalent (indeed pages wiht longer leads seem to be more likely to include ancestry, for obvious reasons) and really looks more like a layout style choice than anything else...--Yalens (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually no, it really is obvious which is more prevalent. I gave plenty of xamples above, and I can come up with lots more. Pages that discuss ancestry in detail in the lede are a small minority. Geographic origin is a completely different thing, the page on Greeks would sound a lot different if one were to write "primarily descend from ancient Hellenes" as is done here. Athenean (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Lets look at some good articles and FA: Taiwanese aborigines, Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Jews, Greeks ("an ethnic group native to Greece, Cyprus, Anatolia and other regions"), British people, Chinese_Indonesians, Icelanders, Cornish people all mention ancestry in the lead. And I did not look at all good articles and FA. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead should offer a summary of the article's "most important aspects." So suggesting deletion of this part is unreasonable. And "two months of constant wrangling" is also not a good enough reason. However, it is a good enough reason to request formal mediation, which I intend to do after Arbitration makes a decision. Cavann (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
We should also take into account that the specific 'origins' are based solely on genetic studies, mitochondrial analysis etc. If a decent non-genetics bibliography is presented it will be ok, but I doubt about it.Alexikoua (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, as I think about this more, I think it might actually be a good idea. One of the reasons that negotiation here has been so slow (aside from many others) is the heavy focus on the lead. Editing the lead neutrally is hard, because you have to squeeze everything into a couple sentences, meaning that many things must be omitted, and the choice of what to state becomes very significant. The mere some facts before others can be significant to disputes and every word is scrutinized ad nauseam. I also suspect both sides may be more picky about the lead, because it's, you know, the lead. Leaving the disputed matter out of there so we can solve it in the body might be a good move. --Yalens (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of it that way, but all right. Unless there are objections I will remove it until such a time as the genetics section is improved and we can agree on a wording. Athenean (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's remove the genetics. Please read old archives. This genetic issue has created an abomination of a WP article for seven years; Isn't this long enough for an argument? AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

We're only talking about the lead here, and unless I'm not understanding you properly, the proposal to simply remove it from all of the page would create quite an abominable controversy in and of itself. --Yalens (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I have read what you are talking about. This argument has been going on from day one of this article whether in the lead or elsewhere. It is exactly the same vicious circle you are cycling. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and this proposal, controversial as it is, would easily become an integral part of the cycle. It doesn't end any fighting. --Yalens (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
It is time to sit back and reflect then: Is this article about an ethnicity, or a nation, or citizens of a state, or current inhabitants of a geography, or a people speaking the same language? Do any of these terms have anything to do with genes? Or do we think that we can answer the first question only after the finding the answer to the second question? AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
In English, "Turkish" can refer to any of those five things depending on the context. Do genes have anything to do with those? Well they represent the group's societal history. But of course they aren't of primary importance. They shouldn't dominate the page, but they are indeed relevant in my view for their historical value. --Yalens (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly my point can we define this specific "group" to everyone's satisfaction? Are we all talking about the same group of people? If not, disagreements do not mean anything. Agreement does not mean anything either if we are not talking about the same thing. Is the "object" in this discussion the article (the web page) itself? Or is the term "turkish people" object of this discussion? I don't think the editors are getting the same mental image when they hear 'turkish people' but I suspect there has been a lot of effort invested in making this article signify a personal mental image. Genetic argument in my opinion has been the bane of this article. I think in none of the categories that "turkish people article" would be a member of genetics plays a significant role. I would think sticking to a category for this article and dropping the genetic argument would be way out of this dilemma. We should be ok with the idea that this could be a boring article: Since 2005 all we have put together is a schizophrenic text. That is the reality we have to face. Encyclopedias are not respected for being exciting or shocking. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason the genetics section is included isn't because it is perceived to be "exciting or shocking," it's because it is relevant to the study of the group's history, and because readers (at least ones who don't have a nationalist bias that prefers not to see it) often find it interesting. I personally agree that the genetics should be removed from the lede, but keeping the tiny, two paragraph section in the body is hardly dominating the page in any way. --Yalens (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, I will be observing your progress. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Moena

I see that someone deleted the part regarding the Turks in Moena. The deletion is totally correct. You can read about the origin of this legend the article of Cesare Poppi, one of the most important Italian anthropologists "I turchi nelle dolomiti". Alex2006 (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sabiha Gokcen's identity as an ethnic Turk is highly questionable

Sabiha Gokcen's identity as an ethnic Turk is highly questionable. As we already know, recent research into her ethnic background has shown that she is likely an Armenian, not a Turk. Consequently, Sabiha Gokcen may might as well belong in the Armenian people article. Therefore, in order to reduce a rather unnecessary dispute over this matter (disputes in the past similar to this resulted in a delisting of this article's GA status), I propose we swap Sabiha Gokcen picture with that of Mimar Kemaleddin or another ethnic Turk. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The ibox isn't about people that have the Turkish cizizenship, but about the ethnic group, like the rest of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
As ı said earlier, it's just a claim. There is no concrete evidence in this regard,except for a few newspaper headlines. See: WP:SOURCE. In 2004, armenian citizen Hripsime Gazalyan claimed that Gökçen her own aunt and the real name was Hatun Sebilciyan. Her sister Ülkü Adatepe has denied these claims. She said tahat: The claims are baseless and had no basis.[14] Also, Turkish Armed Forces and THK have made ​​an official statement and reacted to the this theory. [15]. Currently, Rumi and Al-Farabi disputed between Turkey and Iran but they are located in Iranian people. Another example; Ismail I, is in Iranian and Azerbaijani people articles?? Maurice07 (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
It's a legitimate claim adopted by Western and Turkish sources alike. There has been a long standing consensus regarding this issue on this and of Sabiha Gokcen's article. The source's you provide aren't even academic and are seemingly guided by nationalist sympathies of the Turkish Republic, its government, and its cohorts. The Turkish government may say a lot of things, that doesn't mean it should be accepted outright. Therefore, to avoid continuing this endless debate and discussion, I think swapping Sabiha Gokcen for another ethnic Turk is a good proposal. What's so wrong about that? Mimar Kemaleddin's picture is nice as well. There are dozens of other ethnic Turks that deserve to be up there. Do you really want to continue arguing this for ages? Besides, as far as I can see from Rumi's article, there's a consensus on his article that he is Persian. Al-Farabi doesn't appear in the Iranian peoples article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


Étienne Dolet, i agree that she is not Turkish origin, but these sources are not solid enough, not facts just claims though. The 'offical' sources indicates that she is a Turks (like TSK, THK etc.) Our point is to put Turkish women mainly to this infobox. Cause as you can notice there are not that much important Turkish women in our history. But if you find reliable sources like her own statements or DNA results etc. we will remove her from infobox, until then i insist for her presence. KazekageTR (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no "official" discourse on her identity. We go by what the research says. Just because the Turkish government says that she's Turkish doesn't mean she is one. If the German government says the Holocaust didn't happen, should we abide by those rules here as well? No. It doesn't work that way. Her Armenian racial identity is a major controversy in Turkey but it's an accepted fact under western scholarship and we have more than enough sources to attest to this. So instead of arguing and bickering, I suggest a simple swap of people. If not, I will take this to WP:DR for more community involvement. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


Well then why don we just go to WP:DR for all those people. As you know except Osman and Orhan, mothers of the Ottoman emperors are devşirme, as you know there are claims that Atatürk's father is Albanian not Turk. The fact is Turkey was a melting pot for cultures, ethnical groups and there are no definite ancestral background scheme for anyone(well even i don't surely know my origin, my grandfather says that we hailed from Caucasus like Chveneburi or Meskhetian Turks) . By the way i am a strict follower of Hrant Dink's wiews(i miss his presence in this country), he published several notes on that issue, that's why i believe that Gökçen is not Turkish. But further than that, i have nothing to say or show as a solid source. I'm passing the ball to Maurcie07. If he pleases to take this to WP:DR, i will be in that article too.KazekageTR (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your sincere response. Unlike Ataturk and the Devsirme's, the issue is that she is considered 100% Armenian by numerous sources as opposed to 100% Turkish by others. So her ethnicity is either black or white, there's no gray areas like Ataturk. So, if this continues, I will take this to DR if there is no third-party involvement here on this talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
As long as there is no certainty on this issue, Gökçen's photo should stay there. WP:DR an option, no obstacle for me, unless there is an imposition, on the article of Sabiha Gökçen before WP:DR! Resources consist of newspaper clippings, not reliable WP:RS. I don't agree KazekageTR, no any definite and clear decision that she is an Armenian. Another important point, the person who defend this claim, does not have any concrete evidence. Maurice07 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Maurice07 i was saying that too, we are on the same page mate. Like i said no definite evidence. Just thoughts, claims.KazekageTR (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear, KazekageTR, I propose to swap Tevfik Fikret with Abdul Hamid II. Because, currently there are five novelist on the box. Also, Fikret is not a very popular author like Nazım Hikmet,Halide Edip, Pamuk and Şafak. However, no any last term Ottoman Sultans..Abdülaziz, Mehmed V, Mehmed VI etc. I think that is the most important sultan Abdul Hamid II with 31 March incident, İkinci Meşrutiyet.. Aslında önemi bu kolaj ile daha iyi anlaşılıyor. See:[16] Maurice07 (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
There are lots of Ottoman sultans already, instead of replacing it with another sultan, i think we should upload images for older Turkish rulers like Tughril and Kilij Arslan I. Nasıl? KazekageTR (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The fact that Sabiha Gokcen's ethnicity is uncertain is a strong argument to remove her picture, not to keep her. This is definitely the infobox about ethnic Turks, not Turkish citizens of uncertain ethnicity.Alexikoua (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


As Maurice07 said; "Rumi and Al-Farabi disputed between Turkey and Iran but they are located in Iranian people." So can we remove them too then ? KazekageTR (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Each case offers a diferrent background, but I'm generally against adding personalities of complex or unclear ethnic background. As for Rumi, things seem to be clear: he was termed 'Persian' by Western sources, and of Persian family background too.Alexikoua (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Alex, What do you think about Ismail I ?? Currently, He is located in Iranian peoples, Kurdish people and Azerbaijani people infoboxes! Another exp, Saladin which nationality? Kurdish people or Iranian peoples? Arsen Kotsoyev's nationality Ossetian but he is take place Iranian peoples article together Ossetians. Besides, Carlos Slim, (richest person in the world) is Lebanese origin he has been included among Mexican people!! And Vladimir the Great, Russian or Ukrainian? and more..Sabiha Gökçen even can not subject of dispute between Armenians and Turks, while there are so many controversial figures. Maurice07 (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. It may be a complicated issue, but I'm in general against using people of multinational background as representatives of one ethnic group. I'm not going into further detail with this, per Wikipedia:OTHERCRAP, but maybe a general discussion is needed in the case of such iboxes.Alexikoua (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

But we in general against taking steps such as these before other issues(those Maurice07 mentioned) are solved. And you cannot remove anyone before we all settle on a decision by the way. Regards. KazekageTR (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

wp:OTHERCRAP per definition isn't a convicing argument. Alexikoua (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but it is not a convincing explanation. I will not let in any "fait accompli" about Sabiha Gökçen like your vandalic edit [17].Gökçen's photo [18] uploaded 3 November 2006 but "for some reason", it has been nominated for deletion. And other sabotage effort, [19]. I have to report this situation to the administrator. Maurice07 (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Removing non-free images can't be termed vandalistic edit. As for the arguments about keeping the person in the infobox, I would suggest to follow instructions per wp:OTHERCAP: we are discussing about the infobox of this article and so please focus on the specific discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well thats the point mate. You could just replace her image with antoher image of hers, but you completely replaced her with another person. Thats we're saying not right and its considered to be vandalistic.06:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)KazekageTR (talk)

I'm against the use of fictious protraits, as the first 2 examples: 20th century oil paintings to depict medieval 11th century personalities is something that should be avoided in such infoboxes (might be a good idea for a children's book but not for an encyclopedia).Alexikoua (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As you know well, all of the paintings of the kings, old noblemen, old important persons' portaits are fictious. For example

  • Archimedes
    Archimedes
  • Hypatia
    Hypatia
  • Peter I of Russia
    Peter I of Russia
  • Joan of Arc
    Joan of Arc
  • Moliere
    Moliere
  • Voltaire
    Voltaire

These paintings are fictious after all, if you take a look at another portrait of those people, you'll see different faces. And there are no wikipedia rules to not to use them by the way.KazekageTR (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems that not all of the above examples are exactly fictious. The portraits of Moliere & Voltaire were painted the time they lived, Peter's was based on earlier portraits, Joan of Arc's was at least painted the century she lived.

On the other hand, based on the the low quality of the unknown oil paintings in this article (A.& K. Arslan, not to mention they both lack the necessary references: author, year etc.) someone can easily assume that they were just painted for a modern children's book. Off course they have nothing to do, in terms of quality, with some other famous portraits of the infobox, like that of Suleiman and MehmetII,

A better alternative of Arl Arslan will be this one [[20]], in case we can find the appropriate reference here too.Alexikoua (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you get my point mate. What i'm saying is the definition of 'fictious'. It's up to painter's talent to reflect or not to reflect the reality of someones face appearances. We can assume that all of the paintings are fictious unless we got a photographic evidence. It doesnt matter whether they were painted the time they lived. It doesnt mean it reflects %100 reality. KazekageTR (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fact is that one cannot exclude pivotal exponents of an ethnic group (like Alp Aslan) just because there is no known faithful representation of them. Talking about my people, Marco Polo and Christopher Columbus are two examples of famous Italians who never were portrayed during their life, but they are present on the collage indeed. Of course, if there are no descriptive elements apt to represent faithfully someone, one is entitled to choose the best representation: in that case, I would choose the portrait which is temporally closer to the lifetime of the person in discussion. Alex2006 (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

What is a Turkified Armenian, but a Turk? Ethnicity isn't about blood. You know how many Turks would be "Armenians" if we were to do it by blood? A whole ton of them... Of course she's a Turk, regardless of her ancestry, because she behaves as one. --Yalens (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well fate's twist, I've removed or had to remove Sabiha Gökçen from infobox because of the copyright issues with her images. So can we remove the dispute template now? It looks bad at the top of that page. KazekageTR (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The dispute tag was placed long before the ibox issues and was placed due to serious issues raised about genetics and if they deserve to be mentioned in lead (...largely descend from these ancient indigenous Anatolian groups) and history section. Discussion link [[21]].Alexikoua (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong person in the infobox: Al-Farabi

Most sources say he was a Persian (or from another Iranic ethnic group). Some sources debate that and say he was a Central Asian Turk. Everything about him is clear on his wiki article. He was not an Anatolian Turk. He is unrelated to Turkey and Turkey's Turkish people. Why you added his pic?! Completely wrong addition and just nationalistic. His pic should be removed from the infobox. Zyma (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's change him with Arf invariant, I mean Cahit Arf. --144.122.250.188 (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphanage

Dear User:EtienneDolet,

In the photo there is only one prominent Ottoman politician - Djemal Pasha, the others are just ordinary clerks according to their uniforms. If they were prominent officials it would be given in the source. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ali-al-Bakuvi: Okay, we can just remove the word 'prominent' and just say "Djemal Pasha and other Turkish officials inspecting Armenian orphans..." Let's not forget that Nusret Bey, Mutasarrıf of Urfa, is in this photo as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree, as he cannot be considered as a "prominent" official in any way. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Genetics

The "genetics" subhead has mostly very weak and old informations. Firstly: "the population of Anatolia had reached an estimated level of over 12 million people." The number is not certain and most of references belong to 60 or 70 years ago. Some sources say 12, some sources 8, another "sources" said 6 or 3 times more than Turks ( S. Vryonis) after that Second and biggest wrong: "Today's Turkish people are more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations,[143][149] and a study looking into allele frequencies suggested that there was a lack of genetic relationship between the Mongols and the Turks, despite the historical relationship of their languages" Turkish people are totally different from balkan peoples racially (Alpinid-Dinarid brachycephalic see: Afet İnan's and E.Pittard's anthropological tests) and Turkish-Turkic people have nothing to do with mongols.(Etnicly) It's a old hypothessis too. These senteces are should be remove. The İnformations about Turkish peoples' genetics are very weak and obviously has lot of wrong parts. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hence the reason why there's a "factual accuracy is disputed" tag on the top of the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I missed. Sorry. but still it's not enough. It doesn't give a spesific idea for which part is "wrong". I'am adding same tag on "genetics" subhead. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You criticize the section for relying on old informations, and then seek to replace it with a racialist/racist POV from scientific racist writings of the 19th and early 20th centuries? This isn't ironic at all...--Yalens (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

İnfobox pictures

Merhaba, KazekageTR

I think the info box should be expanded. You are right, Princess Fawzia more infulentual like Nazli Sabri. Already, she is daughter of Nazli Sabri and also, she is more important person and "Queen" of Egypt. Number of women is not enough on the box. It may be extended for an series like Greeks, Georgians and Iranian people. My choices,
  1. Mihrimah Sultan
  2. Nazli Sabri
  3. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
  4. Kıvanç Tatlıtuğ
  5. Fatih Akın Maurice07 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Merhabalar, Maurice07

That is a great idea. By the way thank you for your edits. My propositions are;
  1. Fatih Akın
  2. Nuri Bilge Ceylan
  3. Fazıl Say
  4. Ferzan Özpetek
  5. Arif Mardin
  6. Nasuh Mahruki
  7. Kenan Sofuoğlu


Edit:also Ahmed Adnan Saygun

KazekageTR (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

In a joint decision, Fatih Akın should be included in the box. I heard for the first time Ahmed Adnan Saygun, I have no knowledge, he may be one important. Kenan sofuoğlu, i have no objection in this regard but I am not in favor of adding new generation of people, entirely. Mihrimah Sultan and Prime Minister more well-known and famous people by the World. Erdogan was selected 6th The 500 Most Influential Muslims in 2013 and chosen as the cover TIME [22] continue to negotiate ... Maurice07 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Arif Mardin, Fatih Akın, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Ferzan Özpetek got prestigious awards and i think they must be represented in infobox(and they do not belong to this new generation as you know).

But I really think that we shouldn't put any political leader to infobox, and it is not a step against Erdoğan, older politicians like Özal, Ecevit etc. shouldnt be on that infobox too, cause politics are highly controversial issues as you know(and direct target to vandalism).

So how about removing Saygun, Mahruki and Sofuoğlu from my list, adding Mihrimah Sultan and other historical person(other than Sabri cause she wasnt that influential) that you suggest, maybe Turkish rulers like Kılıç Arslan, Babür etc.. KazekageTR (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Or we can choose among those people instead of rulers;

  1. Al-Farabi
  2. Piri Reis
  3. Ali Qushji
I look at other articles of nations and more than half the historical figures,Spanish people, Germans, Ukrainians.. Piri reis is a good option but no any pictures belong to him! Al-Farabi is disputed between Iranian or Turkish ? →See. Maybe Bâkî may be an option. Already, five people will take place. Fatih Akın ve Mihrimah Sultan üzerinde ortak bir karar almış olduk mu Kazekage? Maurice07 (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

O zaman şöyle yapalım. Lets add two more rows with following people; Nasreddin Hoca, Mihrimah Sultan, Fuzûlî, Bâkî, Ali Qushji, Arif Mardin, Fatih Akın, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Ferzan Özpetek

And the last person to add, is yours to choose.(Namık Kemal, Yunus Emre etc. still available)

Olur mu ? KazekageTR (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Two rows, too much for the info box. I'd like to all of them in the box, but even if we did an edit likely to be reverted by other users. We have to select among these five names. Maurice07 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

How about Fatih Akın, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Nasreddin Hoca, Mihrimah Sultan, Fuzûlî ? KazekageTR (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuzuli used in Azerbaijani People. Instead, Piri Reis would be better. I will upload his miniature or image on the Wikipedia Commons. Maurice07 (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
That would be great mate, sağolasın... By the way, Princess Durru Shehvar, is she that important? Cause i've never heard of it in the terms of history. And since there are not that 'old' Turks in infobox, we could replace her with someone like Ali Kuşçu etc.
And we could replace Tarkan with Barış Manço ? KazekageTR (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Durru Shehvar is important figure for Turks and Indians, just like Princies Fevziye. She is daughter of last caliph Abdulmecid II and princess of Berar Sultanate. Ali Kuşçu could replace with Tevfik Fikret, Currently, five novelist here, i think it's unnecessary. I love Baris Manco but Tarkan is now known by the whole world. See: Other wiki languges Manço has 17 and Tarkan 42 wiki article. Also, I have uploaded Piri's image. My top five: Maurice07 (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand Tarkan but Durru Shehvar, i really dont know. Türkiye'de pek ünlü bir tarih figürü değil anlaşılan.

My top five is: Piri Reis → Nasreddin Hoca → Mihrimah Sultan → Nuri Bilge Ceylan → Fatih Akın KazekageTR (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no a objection for me, sizin seçimleriniz iyi. Princess Durru Shehvar should stay there.Because Turkish women not sufficient, together with additional 7/23. Değişikliği size bırakıyorum. Best regards... Maurice07 (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Teşekkürler Maurice. Yes mate on a second thought, you are definitely right, we dont have important women in our history that much. KazekageTR (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Maurice07 I've uploaded a pic for Kilij Arslan I. But as Tevfik Fikret considered to be the founder of modern Turkish poetry, we should choose someone else to replace. Less important person.KazekageTR (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Also i've added Al-Farabi's picture, if we able to settle those copyright issues with Sabiha Gökçen, we will ad her picture again.KazekageTR (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


Yunus Emre,Mevlana,Pir Sultan Abdal,Aşık Veysel,Hacivat-Karagöz,Ahi Evran,İbni Sina

Naim Süleymanoğlu Turkish World and Olympic Champion in weightlifting. He won three Olympic Championships, seven World Championships and six European Championships and earned 46 world records.

Hamza Yerlikaya World Champion (1993, 1995, and 2005), and the only Turkish wrestler to ever become European champion eight times. He was named The Wrestler of the century in 1996 by the International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles (FILA)

Sabiha Gökçen Turkish aviator. According to the Air University, she was the world's first female fighter pilot,[1] and the first Turkish female combat pilot, aged 23

Semih Saygıner nicknamed Mr. Magic and the Turkish Prince, is a Turkish professional carom billiards player.

Azra Akın,Miss World 2002 and Miss Turkey 2002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.37.5 (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This infobox is just fine mate. Sabiha Gökçen, Mevlana, Ibn-i Sina and Naim Süleymanoğlu's identities are vay too controversial and there was a section about Sabiha Gökçen you should check the archives.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 08:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Turkish minority in Greece

I just wanted to add here the reasons why I removed the section about Turks in Greece. It was done based on the absolutely irrelevant references it was accompanied with. First reference was this: http://www.eurfedling.org/Greece.htm Although I tried, I couldnt find any mention of "turkish people" in that page, other than this: "The Muslim minority in Thrace, which amounts to approximately 0.95% of the total population, consists of speakers of Turkish, Bulgarian....etc". This does not mean in any possible way that those people are of turkish stock. A second reference was of a book of a turkish writer, which we all know that it can only be considered biased, especially when Turkey and even more, its officials, wish to create a "turkish minority" in western Thrace. The muslim minority of the region is recognised as such and Greek authorities even tolerate illegal actions by the Turkish consulate in order to not disrupt the life of the community, but to claim that there is a "turkish minority" in western Thrace is besides anything else, illegal based also on international treaties, such as the Lausanne treaty. Even more, further down the article, in the section "Balkans", there is a very disturbing wording such as "The Greek government mistakenly but deliberately refers to the community as "Greek Muslims"". This is a very biased wording. Mistakenly? Based on what exactly? The international treaties? Deliberately? Of course, since this is the one and only recognised and official way to refer to this minority. Please do not be the playground of nationalistic propaganda. Be more careful. Thousands of people read these articles and you are deiberately misinforming them. Thank you. ~~nik_ethel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.182.40 (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

First let's start from the watch report by HRW, which is based on the information gathered by Lois Whitman, which is absolutely relevant and reliable source. And it affirms that there is problems with the recognition of the Turks in Western Thrace. There is also a lot of information in Turks of Western Thrace page. So, taking number of Turkish-speaking people from the website is quite normal, as the Turks are not considered as ethnic minority in Greece. And the paper by a Turkish author was used to take the latest estimations about the number of the Turks in Western Thrace, not for the affirmation of their existence. Besides, if an author is a Turk, it doesn't make the paper biased by default. You should have clues to claim the author and paper in NPOV. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"...as the Turks are not considered as ethnic minority in Greece." Exactly my point! Since they are not considered as such, who are you to establish them as an ethnic minority, contrary to the treaties that both Greece and Turkey have signed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.251.32.43 (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that the HRW source is good and valid, I would suggest that the use of Ergener&Ergener 2002 for the number 150,000 is problematic. Close reading of the text reveals that the Ergeners include 40,000 Pomaks in their number for ethnic Turks. (This is in line with the official Turkish POV, as can be seen in the web cite of the Turkish foreign Office.) Other sources actually suggest that the number of Turks in Greece has declined somewhat since the 1990s. I suggest to remove the number 150,000 from the table and use the HRW number instead. Regards! --T*U (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what officials say; the fact is there are Turks there and the point-of-view of the Greek officials can be added in a way like "Greece doesn't consider them as Turks according to the Treaty of Lausanne". But you can not change the fact. According to the logic; if there would be a treaty saying there are no Greeks in Albania, but rather "Albanians who are Greek Orthodox, and speak Greek language", will it eliminate the Greek presence in southern Albania?
@TU-nor: I am not familiar with Ergener's works in general, but the paper seems to be quite accurate; we can leave the number while excluding the number of Pomaks that included in that number or leave it is as a second claim as it is written in other articles. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not happy with doing calculations and presenting the calculated numbers. It tastes a bit of original research to me, especially since the source itself does not differensiate between the groups. Furthermore, there are nowadays quite a number of Pomaks outside the original Pomak area, especially in the cities of Xanthi and Komotini, and they will not be included in the 40,000. On the other hand, quite a few Pomaks self-identify as Turks. To quote any number for Turks based on Ergener&Ergener will therefore be difficult. Of the three sources in the infobox, only HRW is really giving a number for Turks (as opposed to Muslims). My suggestion is to quote only HRW in the infobox, and then slightly rewrite the entry in the "Balkan" table to present numbers from all three sources there. At the same time, I think it is wise to remove the "mistakenly but deliberately" formula, which is not exactly neutral. I will try to have a go at this later today. Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A WWI-era Armenian orphanage in Damascus

What does that have to do with Turkish people again? --Mttll (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Turkification. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
You will notice that Damascus was/is a city in Syria with no Turkish population. --Mttll (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
You will notice that Salonica is a city in Greece with no Turkish population but Atatürk is from here. People from former Ottoman lands exist today too, or their families. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 09:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Salonica/Thessaloniki had a large Turkish population until the 20th century and I would be against a WWI-era Thessaloniki orphanage picture in this article too, as it would be completely irrelevant. Very flawed analogy. --Mttll (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hahah very flawed according to who? Damascus still has Ottoman buildings, and there were sizeable Turkish community in there. They still exist though. And my point is absolutely parallel with Etienne's. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 20:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Etienne has a point. There were academic researches about those orphans. They have a sizable number in the modern Turkish people. For example, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu's wife is one of them. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 07:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If Turkification were to take place in the middle of Wyoming, it'll still be related to this article. Remember that this article is about Turkish people both in Turkey and beyond. It does not necessarily have to deal with the people found within the boundaries of today's Republic of Turkey. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Who says a Turkification took place in Damascus though? Some WWI-era sources might have speculated that there were attempts at Turkification there, but we know in hindsight that the Ottoman Empire broke apart, making Damascus a city hundreds of kilometers away from Turkey and rendering any Armenian orphans there irrelevant to the Turkish people in terms of Turkification. --Mttll (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
There's more than enough sources to show that Turkification took place not only in Damascus, but in Aintoura as well. Both orphanages were founded by Cemal Pasha along with his aide, Halide Edip. Turkification and Islamification in fact are noted in Edip's memoirs (pp. 238-40). There's eye-witness accounts of orphaned Christian Armenian boys being circumcised en masse (pg. 165). Contemporaneous reports echo the same information as well (pg. 324). These are primary sources. Of course, they can be easily verified through secondary contemporary sources as well. Also, the Ottoman Empire did not break up in 1917 just yet. Cemal Pasha was in the vicinity up until the end of the Empire in 1918, when he and other top Young Turk politicians escaped the country in November of that year under charged with committing the very same crimes we're discussing here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Aintoura was/is a city in Lebanon, againt hundreds of kilometers away from Turkey, and again with no Turkish population. Those Armenian orphans might have becomed Muslims, but it is clear in hindsight that they didn't become Turks. If we are to invoke Halide Edip in this matter, she actually had some interesting things to say on orphanages in places that are now modern-day Turkey (e.g. Istanbul). Let's take a look: --Mttll (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

An international committee for the separation of the Armenian children was formed under the patronage of Colonel Heathcote Smythe. It rented a house in Shishli, and the central committee which had to separate the children were mostly Armenians. Nezihe Hanum, the general secretary of the women’s section of the Red Crescent, was asked to represent the Turks. She went three times a week for nearly two months, but resigned afterward. She used to say that her presence did not in any way help the Turkish children, who were being Armenianized daily. The children who were brought to the association were left in the care of the Armenian women, and these Armenian women, either by persuasion or threats or hypnotism, forced the Turkish children to learn by heart the name of an Armenian woman for their mother and the name of an Armenian man for their father. All this I heard from Nezihe Hanum, who is still the general secretary of the Turkish Women’s Red Crescent and a very well-known woman both in Turkish and European circles in Istamboul. So much for individual cases. When the children were brought in large numbers from the orphanages of Anatolia they were sent to the Armenian church in Koum Kapou, a hotpot which boiled the Turkish children and dished them out as Armenians. Some children tried to run away but were always brought back.

It happened at that time that I was visiting Nezihe Hanum in the Red Crescent office, when two frightened boys, one limping and the other wounded on head, which was tied up with a dirty white ray, broke into her room. They wore the khaki uniform of the orphanages; their clothes were torn, and they looked miserable and frightened beyond description. And they told their story. They came from an orphanage recently brought to the church. They had fiercely objected to being made into Armenians; Armenians had massacred their parents. They had been badly beaten but they had managed to run away. The first member of the police they met had brought them up to the Red Crescent office. They begged in tears to be protected and not sent back. Nezihe Hanum telephoned to a few Turkish press representatives and asked them to take the children to the British embassy and make them say what they had to say to Mr. Ryan, the first dragoman, the man who had been directing the British policy in Turkey for years and who spoke good Turkish. Although well known for his intense hatred of the Turks, still, the sight of two innocent children in this helpless condition might make him look at their case favorably, thought Nezihe Hanum. Two young journalists went with them to the embassy. It was quite dramatic. I heard that as the children were speaking, an Armenian employee entered the room to say something to Mr. Ryan, whereupon one of the children turned and exclaimed, “this is the man who has kicked us and beaten us.” Apparently the man was a member of the council in the church of Koum Kapou.

In the meantime these public scandals led the British to ask the American Near East Relief to open a center in Bebek to take care of the children and to give judgment, among other things, as to which was which. The center was opened – it has the advantage of being clean – and the children were well looked after. It was run on more equitable lines; but there also the Armenians go the benefit of the doubt. As Nezihe Hanum had retired, it was Nakie Hanum this time who represented the Turks. She also could not bear it for more than a few weeks. The difficulty was the impossibility of producing official papers. Any child who could not produce identification papers, which many could to, was taken as an Armenian. The last case had been too much for Nakie Hanum. A Turkish boy called Kiazim, from Adana, had been taken as an Armenian but did not submit easily. The boy was the son of a Turkish official in Adana. His father had died. As he had no mother either, the neighbors had given him to the orphanage to get something of an education. The boy remembered his father and his former life very clearly. But when the commission wrote to Adana and asked for a copy of his birth certificate, it was found that the government house, together with the desired papers, had been burned during the riots. The boy was pronounced Armenian. He had stuck to Nakie Hanum, crying and begging to be saved. But the commission was obdurate. Then the boy had stood up and said, “Kiazim is small, Kiazim is weak, his fists cannot protect him, but the time will come when Kiazim will be strong: then he will show the world that he is a Turk.”

Nakie Hanum left the Bebek center and never returned, nor could the Bebek center itself keep going. For the Armenians were not content with occasionally wresting a Turkish child from its nationality; they wanted every child brought there to be pronounced an Armenian without exception. So far even the American missionaries could not go in their Christian zeal.

Turkish Ordeal, pp. 13-14

The orphanages in Constantinople have nothing to do with the orphanages run by the top ranking members of the CUP in regions affected by the Armenian Genocide. Firstly, the orphanage activities in Constantinople were conducted when the Genocide largely subsided and the leadership involved with the systematic deportations/massacres were ultimately disbanded and went on their self-imposed exile in Europe. Second, these orphanages weren't run by the Turkish government, they were run by relief societies, both international and Armenian alike. The orphanages in Constantinople were established in 1919 ([23]), when the war was over for the Ottoman Empire and when the Empire, including its capital Constantinople, was occupied by its former enemies, the Allied powers. The way these orphanages were run are in stark contrast to the overall aim and objective of Cemal Pasha in Aintoura and Damascus during the height of the Armenian Genocide.

"it is clear in hindsight that they didn't become Turks" - The orphanages did not have to succeed in their objective in order for it to become relevant to this article. Turkification in itself is a significant event in the history of Turkish people that dates back to the 12th century. Just because this specific orphanage in Damascus may or may not have succeeded, doesn't mean that their objective wasn't to Turkify them. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what are you even talking about? We are not discussing the phenomenon of Turkification in general here. I just showed you that a source you brought up (Halide Edip) tells us how it was the Turkish orphans who were being Armenianized in occupied post-WWI Turkey and not the other way around. And unlike with Aintoura and Damascus with their non-existent Turkish population, Istanbul did/does have a community of Armenians to assimilate/Armenianize orphans among them. Insisting on using those irrelevant pictures in the light of that is nothing less than barefaced hypocrisy. --Mttll (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Please (re)read her original memoirs. Edip was against Turkification throughout the War and especially during the time when she was stationed in Syria/Lebanon. She exclaimed to Cemal Pasha that she "will never have anything to do with such an orphanage" after seeing the practice of Turkification taking place in the Aintoura orphanage. Though she was brought to Aintoura and Damascus to take care of the orphans, after seeing what was actually happening to them, she condemned those involved and went about to work with orphanages run by various relief societies in the capital. Now if indeed "Armenianization" took place in these orphanages, I don't blame her for her condemnation. Being the open-minded intellectual that she was, she probably condemned both Turkification and Armenianization in the same fashion and with the same vigor. But that's irrelevant. What happened in Aintoura and Damascus is relevant to Turkish people and especially to this article whether they actually succeeded in Turkifying these orphans or not. As I've already mentioned, Turkification took place as early as the 12th century under the Seljuks ([24]). Turkifying a group of non-Turks has been a reoccurring theme in the history of Turkish people. So a photograph of Turkification taking place is a very important addition which would effectively provide a visual detail that the text of the article couldn't possibly convey.
Also, if you want to talk about Armenianization of non-Armenians, I suggest you resort to the talk page of the Armenian people article. If you indeed believe that Armenianization is a notable phenomenon among Armenians. But that's a discussion in and of itself. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't suppose we will persuade each other. We will need a third opinion here. --Mttll (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Haji Bektash Veli

May I ask why Haji Bektash Veli is added to the list of pics? As the article says, it's generally assumed he's of Iranian origin, while a few other sources mention he might be Turkish; in other words, you can't add a person who's ancestry is disputed. I'm sure there are other notable Turks to be found who's ancestry is certain and who we can add instead of him.

Regards - LouisAragon (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

We had the same problem with Sabiha Gokcen (see above). It appears that noone is taking into consideration the disputedness of those placed in the infobox. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well he was an Iranian-sockpuppet so it is normal that he was calling Bektaş-ı Veli Iranian, and the most of the claims are Turkish by the way. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 21:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

6 sources versus 8 sources? That's enough for you to say that most of the claims are Turkish? The way you portray it's as if there's something like 10 Turkish sources and 1 Iranian background source given. If it was 10vs1 then I'd say, sure he's Turkish beyond reasonable doubt and most of the claims are per definition Turkish as it's the most logical conclusion that can be made. But, as it is, his origins are disputed in every sense of the words due to the abundance of background sources given for both sides, and therefore Bektaş-ı Veli is just not suitable for an infobox (which should use only peoples who are to be known for definite to which ethnicity they belong to), both for an Iranian one as well as for a Turkish one. PS: What about adding Kıvanç Tatlıtuğ, or do we need definetely need to readd another historical figure here? (I haven't read the rest of the opinions of the users on the talkpage regarding the infobox) Regards. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Terekemes

Could the users interested in Turkish and Azerbaijani people show some interest in Terekeme people also? Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_people/Archive_13&oldid=1136226793"