Talk:Turks in Algeria

estimates by the Turkish embassy

Here is a weblink of the article: [1], just in case an error occurs in the url provided in the bibliography.Turco85 (Talk) 02:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Pure invention

"Algerian Turks", or "Turks in Algeria" is simply a category that doesn't exist. I have attempted to contact the user who created this article (Turco85) with this problem, but he has refused to accept any kind of constructive criticism.

The Kouloughlis/Cologlis were a group of people of mixed Ottoman/Berbo-Arab descent, but they ceased to exist sometime in the 19th century. The only source for the incredible 600,000 - 2,000,000 figure is the website of the Turkish Embassy in Algeria, where it is doubtlessly referring to "descent" (I don't read Istanbul Turkish, so I can't be sure). I found a reliable source stating that perhaps 5% of modern Algerians possess some Ottoman Turkish ancestry, which seems plausible.

Scour the internet as much as you like, but you will not find any such people as the "Algerian Turks" in existence.

One will notice that in the French, German, or Spanish language versions of Wikipedia don't possess this article. And the French[2] and Spanish[3] articles of the Demography of Algeria don't even mention any Turkish admixture at all.

This article, this concept, is entirely the creation of one user - Turco85.

I shudder to think what other damage has been done to the project.

Sincerely,

GAYousefSaanei (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have had enough of you User:Ledenierhomme you are clearly a sockpuppet and the only reason why I am not going to revert your edit again is because I do not want to be blocked. I am not willing to talk with you anymore, I have tried too many times and you still contiune to do the same things.Turco85 (Talk) 01:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Note:User:GAYousefSaanei has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of User:Ledenierhomme.Turco85 (Talk) 13:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Population

According to the Oxford Business Group, which the sockpuppet above insists on using, the Turkish minority make up 5% of Algeria's population; the current population of Algeria is 37,100,000 which would suggest that the people of Turkish origin make up 1,855,000 of Algeria's total population. Hence, I find it strange how this user saw the Turkish Embassy's estimate to be an exaggerated estimate. Turco85 (Talk) 13:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

made up from scratch

There is no turks in Algeria! At least never met some one who claims it. There have been some turks before the french colonization, but since french settled down turks fled massively away to there country. True story. The article should be deleted as poorly referenced, or must focus on the Barbary corsairs era where Algeria was a new home for every muslim. To be continued. - Dzlinker (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a range of sources here which state otherwise.Turco85 (Talk) 16:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, it appears you've cherry-picked a bunch of random quotes from a Google search, to create a completely false article. Well done. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

most of this article is bogus. sources do not say what article quotes them as saying. or else the sources are not reliable/scholarly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.15.132 (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Give an example where "the sources do not say what article quotes"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.18.116 (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ottomans didn't colonise Algeria

It's written in this article that Ottoman State colonized Algeria, but it didn't. If so, Algerians must have spoken also Turkish.

June 2017

O.celebi Can you explain why you replaced these sources with WP:SYNTH ? M.Bitton (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Because it falls under Wikipedia:Citation overkill "If a page features citations that are mirror pages of others, or which simply parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to the article's reliability and are detrimental to its readability." There is no need for dozens of sources which parrot the same thing. The information is still in the article. Are you also using the user name "LuzLuz31"? O.celebi (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

O.celebi Why did you replace it with your WP:SYNTH ? M.Bitton (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Initially, I did not write the "99% Arab-Berber" in the summary. To me, it actually seems unnecessary to even have this in a summary of this article. I was merely seeking a compromise with LuzLuz31 who was insistent on having this in the article. I'm happy to remove it if you also think it is unnecessary. O.celebi (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

O.celebi It's your misrepresentation of the sources that I'm highlighting. Why did you replace the sources with your WP:SYNTH ? M.Bitton (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, it was not me who wants to even use the CIA... I am merely trying to compromise. I am happy to remove it if you are... O.celebi (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

If I am misunderstanding you, please be more specific on what exactly is being misrepresented. O.celebi (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The whole article needs to be cleaned. Here's a the latest nonsene:

Hence, consecutive CIA reports on Algeria have placed the ethnic population as "99% Arab-Berber"; however, the CIA reports have also stated that most of the population are Berber (15% self-identifying) and not Arab in origin.[24] Moreover, the U.S. Department of State has also stated that "Algeria's population, [is] a mixture of Arab, Berber, and Turkish in origin".

Do you know what cherry picking is ? M.Bitton (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I was trying to reach a compromise with LuzLuz31. Since this is a summary of the Turks in Algeria, I think that the CIA source is unnecessary. I am happy with leaving it as:

The U.S. Department of State has stated that "Algeria's population, [is] a mixture of Arab, Berber, and Turkish in origin".

O.celebi (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

O.celebi Reaching a compromise with someone does not give you the right to cherry pick and misrepresent a source. M.Bitton (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am only one person and trying to do my best to work with everyone as well as to avoid edit wars. Are you happy with the suggestion above (i.e. to remove the CIA report)? O.celebi (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

And again, I was not "cherry picking"; LuzLuz31 was using 25 different sources for one statement - all echoing the CIA. O.celebi (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

O.celebi Don't worry about it. I'll go through the article and remove the problematic content. M.Bitton (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

M.Bitton, Let's go through it together. You previously removed all the sourced content on the Ottoman era in the article Islam in Algeria; if this will be the case again, we should consider a mediator. O.celebi (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You have removed 4,851 bytes without discussing any of it. We really should be working together. I will not be dragged into edit wars. O.celebi (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

O.celebi Did you add that nonsense ? Are you willing to take responsibility for it ? M.Bitton (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

M.Bitton Please start communicating in a respectful manner. If your responses are going to continue in this negative manner it is a sign that you have no intention of working together. If this is the case, we must seek an admin asap. Calling cited information "nonsense" is not enough for deleting anything. You need to say why you think it should be removed. O.celebi (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

O.celebi Getting an admin involved is not a bad idea. I have no time to waste explaining every source misrepresentation that has been added. Someone needs to take responsibility for it. M.Bitton (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@LuzLuz31: Since you've asked, I'll explain the problematic edit here to keep the discussion in one place:

• Here's your version and here's theirs (prior to my intervention). The section that I'm referring to starts with "In the late nineteenth century the French colonisers" until "to promote their culture".
• You added 25 sources describing Algeria's ethnic groups as Arab-Berber 99%: while one might not agree with the way you did it, what is amply clear is that you were trying to prove that such a viewpoint is held by the majority, and indeed, secondary and tertiary sources holding such a view can be added ad nauseam.
• They removed all the sources you've added (claiming excessive use of past editions of World Fact Book, while obliterating unrelated reliable secondadry and tertiary sources): This is akin to a Flat-Earther giving equal validity to his fringe view by reducing all commonly accepted sources into a single one. See WP:UNDUE for more info on why that's not the way we do things around here.
• They combined material from multiple sources (mostly fringe and unrelated ones) to imply various conclusions not explicitly stated by any of them. Please read WP:SYNTH to understand why this is not acceptable.

Sadly, my attempt at nudging them in the right direction had the opposite effect. They removed the last source. M.Bitton (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Turkish-Algerian women in traditional wear.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

March 2021

With regard to this revert:

1. Vandalism has a very specific meaning. Please do not use it frivolously.
2. The Oxford Business Group is not a reliable source. Furthermore, its 2008 edition is contradicted by its later editions which state that "99% of the population is considered to be of Arab or Berber descent".[4][5]
3. The Turkish embassy which starts by stating that Algeria's population is composed of 78% Arabs and 22% Berbers before making an extraordinary claim about some people's descent is not a reliable source.
4. Reliable sources describing Algeria's ethnic makeup as "99% Arab-Berber; less than 1 % European" can be cited ad nauseam.
5. The notable people section has been removed because none of the cited people in it are described by reliable sources as either Turks, Turkish-Algerian, Algerian-Turkish or Algero-Turkish. I don't need to remind you that original research is prohibited on this project. M.Bitton (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

M.Bitton, I have just looked at the history of this article and noticed that you have edited here for some time but never deleted those sources before, so why now? I've also noticed that you have deleted paragraphs full of cited information, including a publication by the Oxford University Press which raises questions on how you view a reliable source. To remove cited sources that shows that there are notable Algerians with full or partial Turkish descent is very concerning. With your reasoning, we should remove all notable people lists on Wikipedia - which would never happen. Sseevv (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, writing on the talk page does not give you an automatic right to remove so much information without discussion. I'd appreciate it if you revert yourself and have a proper talk on this. Sseevv (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Why not now? 1) The Oxford Business Group has nothing to do with Oxford university. 2) Original research is prohibited on this project. This policy is not negotiable. M.Bitton (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I am well aware of the differences between Oxford University Press and Oxford Business Group. I refer to Professor Martin Evans' book [6] (published by Oxford University Press), but another interesting source removed is Professor Mohamed Benrabah's book [7]. What was the reasons for this? I am not against following Wikipedia policy, but so far you have not provided any real arguments for the excessive removal of the list which is mostly cited. What is the difference between having this list and, for example, Arabs_in_France#Notable_people; Arabs_in_Turkey#Notable_people, Berbers_in_France#Notable_people; Berbers_in_Belgium#Notable_people; Berbers_in_the_Netherlands#Notable_people; Berber_Americans#Notable_people etc. etc. etc.? Sseevv (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I have by saying that none of those cited is described by RS as a Turk or Turko-whatever. This is a fact. This is not a list, this is an article about the Turks who lived in Algeria during the Ottoman period, an article that is full of POV pushing, using a combination of sources about the Ottoman period and WP:SYNTH to make it look as though there are some modern-day Algerians who are Turks (which is nonsense). If you somehow manage to prove that person A has a remote ancestor who happens to be a Turk, then that information may or may not belong in the person's biography, but you cannot call that person a Turk or Algerian-Turk or any other variation of the Turk word unless the reliable sources do so.

The books that you cited talk about the baseless declarations of some people, something that is irrelevant to the acknowledged ethnic groups of the country (Arabs, Berber and less than 1% Europeans). Claims that deviate from this are considered exceptional and require multiple high-quality sources. M.Bitton (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

−

Just so you know, I am not the IP and have no desire to constantly revert everyone; my past experiences have been more productive by discussion or mediation. A compromise can be to do the list accordingly with the sources (which is actually what I would prefer). E.g. Wassyla Tamzali's father is of Turkish origin so we could specify this. etc. We should be cautious of all forms of POV pushing; for one, you have removed Professor Roger Benjamin's book published by Yale University Press which states that Mohammed Racim was from an "Algerine family of artisans of Turkish origin". What is unreliable about that? Sseevv (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you please expand what you mean exactly by "baseless declarations of some people"? Does your word have more weight than academics?Sseevv (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I said previously: If you somehow manage to prove that person A has a remote ancestor who happens to be a Turk, then that information may or may not belong in the person's biography, but you cannot call that person a Turk or Algerian-Turk or any other variation of the Turk word unless the reliable sources do so. In other words, having a remote ancestor who happens to be a Turk does not make one a Turk. I was talking about the political declarations made some 80 years ago and that are obviously taken out of context (which is what happens when people use targetted searches). M.Bitton (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

And where do the sources say that these are simply "remote ancestors". This appears to be your own interpretation. If a source says that someone comes from a family of Turkish origin there is nothing wrong with us placing this in the list which expresses it so. I really don't see why you object to this. And, also, you really should not be breaking the 3RR. Could you please revert yourself until we come to a resolution? Sseevv (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The key word here is "origin" and this article is about the Turks who lived in Algeria during the Ottoman period (check the cited sources in the lead). Don't talk to me about 3rr when you have clearly been canvassed to revert my edit. M.Bitton (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Then would you be ok with a list article. e.g. List of Algerians of Turkish origin or List of Algerians of Turkish descent? Rather than names being left open to interpretation, we can write exactly what the connection is. So Wassyla Tamzali (family of Turkish and Spanish origin); Mohammed Racim (family of Turkish origin); Salim Hilali (father of Turkish origin and mother of Judeo-Berber origin) etc.

Regarding your previous comment, someone writing on my talk page does not excuse breaking a 3RR or removing so many citations. Disputes should be resolved productively. And it won't go away with stubborn edits. Sseevv (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

someone writing on my talk page does not excuse breaking a 3RR Nobody broke 3RR and WP:CANVASSING is highly frowned upon.

Lists are fine, so long as they are properly sourced. 19:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the user had bad intentions. And there is a legitimate reason to discuss the deletion of so many sources - this is the sole reason why I am using my personal time here. Since you are ok with a list article being created, I assume this should resolve the bulk of the dispute. Sseevv (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, this badly written article is in need of a major overhaul. Hopefully, I will find time to clean it up and add interesting facts about that period. M.Bitton (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have created List of Algerians of Turkish origin. Hopefully, that is ok for both of you. I removed names that were not supported by citations. It is a very interesting topic indeed. From my understanding, the article goes beyond the Ottoman period, which makes sense considering there is a dual identity of being Algerian and having Turkish roots. Sseevv (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

approved from me Loveisthebest1 (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Surnames with "ben"

Isn't it more likely that surnames that have the component "ben" mean "son of"? Names like "Benchauch" or "Ben Turki" would then more likely mean "son of Çavuş" or "son of the Turk" instead of "I am Çavuş" or "I am Turk". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.243.23.190 (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Shuval point of view Article ?

This article is based almost entirely on Shuval, there are a lot of mistakes, there needs to be some corrections. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)