Jump to content

Talk:Turkish people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nozdref (talk | contribs) at 22:31, 18 February 2021 (→‎Use of "native to" in lead sentence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleTurkish people was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 28, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 19, 2013Good article nomineeListed
November 11, 2013Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Genetics

This information has been removed, with the following edit summary: "Exits were already discussed, user Tobby has a history of reverting deleted genetics material that was removed via consensus and consistent with WP:SCIRS." I think it is relevant and should be included.

The extent to which gene flow from Central Asia's original Turkic peoples has contributed to the current gene pool of the Turkish people of Turkey, and the question regarding the role of the 11th century settlements by Turkic people in Anatolia, has been the subject of various studies. Previous studies concluded that pre-Turkified, pre-Islamized groups are the primary genetic source of the present-day Turks of Turkey (i.e. Turkish people).[1][2][k][3][4][5][6] A study in 2003 looking into allele frequencies suggested that there was a lack of genetic relationship between the Mongols and modern Anatolian Turks, despite the historical relationship of their languages (The Turks and Germans were equally distant to all three Mongolian populations).[7] According to American Journal of Physical Anthropology (2008), today's Turkish people are more closely related with Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations.[8]

References

  1. ^ Arnaiz-Villena, A; Gomez-Casado, E; Martinez-Laso, J (2002). "Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective". Tissue Antigens. 60 (2): 111–21. doi:10.1034/j.1399-0039.2002.600201.x. PMID 12392505.
  2. ^ Yardumian, Aram; Schurr, Theodore G (2014). "Who Are the Anatolian Turks?". Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia. 50: 6–42. doi:10.2753/AAE1061-1959500101.
  3. ^ Rosser, Z.; Zerjal, T.; Hurles, M.; Adojaan, M.; Alavantic, D.; Amorim, A.; Amos, W.; Armenteros, M.; Arroyo, E.; Barbujani, G.; Beckman, G.; Beckman, L.; Bertranpetit, J.; Bosch, E.; Bradley, D. G.; Brede, G.; Cooper, G.; Côrte-Real, H. B.; De Knijff, P.; Decorte, R.; Dubrova, Y. E.; Evgrafov, O.; Gilissen, A.; Glisic, S.; Gölge, M.; Hill, E. W.; Jeziorowska, A.; Kalaydjieva, L.; Kayser, M.; Kivisild, T. (2000). "Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language". The American Journal of Human Genetics. 67 (6): 1526–1543. doi:10.1086/316890. PMC 1287948. PMID 11078479.[1]
  4. ^ Cinnioglu, C.; King, R.; Kivisild, T.; Kalfoğlu, E.; Atasoy, S.; Cavalleri, G. L.; Lillie, A. S.; Roseman, C. C.; Lin, A. A.; Prince, K.; Oefner, P. J.; Shen, P.; Semino, O.; Cavalli-Sforza, L. L.; Underhill, P. A. (2004). "Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia". Human Genetics. 114 (2): 127–148. doi:10.1007/s00439-003-1031-4. PMID 14586639.[2]
  5. ^ Arnaiz-Villena, A.; Karin, M.; Bendikuze, N.; Gomez-Casado, E.; Moscoso, J.; Silvera, C.; Oguz, F. S.; Sarper Diler, A.; De Pacho, A.; Allende, L.; Guillen, J.; Martinez Laso, J. (2001). "HLA alleles and haplotypes in the Turkish population: Relatedness to Kurds, Armenians and other Mediterraneans". Tissue Antigens. 57 (4): 308–317. doi:10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057004308.x. PMID 11380939.
  6. ^ Wells, R. S.; Yuldasheva, N.; Ruzibakiev, R.; Underhill, P. A.; Evseeva, I.; Blue-Smith, J.; Jin, L.; Su, B.; Pitchappan, R.; Shanmugalakshmi, S.; Balakrishnan, K.; Read, M.; Pearson, N. M.; Zerjal, T.; Webster, M. T.; Zholoshvili, I.; Jamarjashvili, E.; Gambarov, S.; Nikbin, B.; Dostiev, A.; Aknazarov, O.; Zalloua, P.; Tsoy, I.; Kitaev, M.; Mirrakhimov, M.; Chariev, A.; Bodmer, W. F. (2001). "The Eurasian Heartland: A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 98 (18): 10244–10249. Bibcode:2001PNAS...9810244W. doi:10.1073/pnas.171305098. PMC 56946. PMID 11526236.
  7. ^ Machulla, H. K. G.; Batnasan, D.; Steinborn, F.; Uyar, F. A.; Saruhan-Direskeneli, G.; Oguz, F. S.; Carin, M. N.; Dorak, M. T. (2003). "Genetic affinities among Mongol ethnic groups and their relationship to Turks". Tissue Antigens. 61 (4): 292–299. doi:10.1034/j.1399-0039.2003.00043.x. PMID 12753667.
  8. ^ Berkman, C. C.; Dinc, H.; Sekeryapan, C.; Togan, I. (2008). "Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 136 (1): 11–18. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20772. PMID 18161848.

Thoughts? -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian comparison is absurd in my opinion. Why compared with Mongolians? Also the last sentence, "today's Turkish people are more closely related with Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations" based on what? Elaborate please. Beshogur (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on American Journal of Physical Anthropology. I don't know, but there have been close historical ties between proto-Turkic and Mongolian people. Turkic and Mongolian languages belong to the same Altaic language family. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't your source conflicting with what's already written "An autosomal DNA study of Turks in 2014 by Can Alkan found that the Turkic East Asian impact on modern Turkey was 21.7%[1]" Beshogur (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Alkan et al. (2014), BMC Genomics 2014, 15:963, Whole genome sequencing of Turkish genomes reveals functional private alleles and impact of genetic interactions with Europe, Asia and Africa

Use of "native to" in lead sentence

The use of "native to" in the lead sentence is proving contentious and has led to numerous back-and-forth reverts. I've restored the last stable version pending consensus to change it. It was stable and unchanged from 10 December 2017 to 4 April 2020 (wikiblame), and little changed before that since April 2016, as: Turkish people or the Turks (Turkish: Türkler), also known as Anatolian Turks (Turkish: Anadolu Türkleri), are a Turkic ethnic group and nation living mainly in Turkey and speaking Turkish, the most widely spoken Turkic language.

It was changed from "living mainly in" to "native to" in this edit by 70.71.241.6 (talk), without an edit summary. Numerous reverts and restores, and a change to "native to Anatolia", quickly followed over the last two months: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12].

The only edit summary comments were:

  • Anatoly00000000: The word 'Native' is a synonym to the words 'Indigenous' and 'Autochthonous'. The Turkish people are not native or indigenous to Turkey (Anatolia). They migrated there in 11th century
  • El C: I think it means "native" in the modern sense of the timeline
  • Anatoly00000000: There is no such 'modern sense' of the word Native. If you think there is please i provide me your source and your definition of "modern native". The Turks came to Anatolia recently in the history of the region, thus, they are no native they are a migrated population like the British colonials in America. Native in Anatolia where the Hittites, Armenians and Ancient Greeks.
  • Beshogur: native =/= autochthonous, Turks are pretty much native to these lands

My perspective is that while being a native of a place means you were born there, to many or most people (including me), native to does mean indigenous, endemic, aboriginal, or autochthonous. For example, an American of African or European descent might say they are a "native of New York", or that the US is their "native land", but it would be incorrect to say that they are "native to North America" - that phrase is reserved for Native Americans. I would tend to agree that the use of it is too ambiguous in the lead sentence here, given the information in the article. The actual situation is complex, and the ideas that the Turkish people "migrated there in the 11th century" or that they are "native to these lands" are both oversimplifications. --IamNotU (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In English, it should be native:
Oxford dictionary: "A native or inhabitant of Turkey; (formerly) a member of the dominant race of the Ottoman empire; sometimes extended to any subject of the Grand Turk or Turkish Sultan, but usually restricted to Muslim people; (in earlier times) a Seljúk; (from 1300) an Osmanli or Ottoman; a person who was, or considered himself, a descendant of the Osmanlis or other Turks. In plural the Turks, the Turkish people; (also) the Ottomans (now historical)."
Merriam Webster: "a native or inhabitant of Turkey"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Turk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.236.242.120 (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Native of" and "native to" have distinctly different meanings in English, as described above. --IamNotU (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Native of" is for people, "native to" is for categories. There is no such distinction as you suggest:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/native-of-vs-native-to-2858.html
Also, Turkish people are analogous to Native Americans
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5069350/
So I do not understand your objections, they do not make sense. Maybe we can say "Turks are natives of Turkey." Maybe we should also ask an admin for help. I felt like you reverted me based on your personal opinion. Since above you say "My perspective" without showing any links to back you up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.236.242.120 (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The advice in the GMAT Forum (hardly a reliable source but anyway...) to which you refer says:

Use "a native of" when you're talking about where a person was born, for example: I am a native of Detroit.
Use "native to" when you're talking about a category, characteristic, or species, for example: Tigers are native to India. (I have no idea if that is factually correct, btw. :) )

That's more or less correct, and agrees with what I've said already. Native of means a person born in a place, and native to means a category of animals/plants/people indigenous to a place, which is a completely different meaning. For example, Afrikaners (South African people of mainly Dutch descent) are natives of South Africa because they were born there. But white people are not usually considered native to South Africa, even after being there several centuries. Conceivably it could be argued that the Afrikaner ethnic group formed in South Africa, and in that sense is "native to" it. But I think you wouldn't find any reliable sources that describe it using those words.
Similarly, it could be argued that the ethnicity of the people of Turkey is something unique that arose in Anatolia when the language and religion changed from Greek/Christian to Turkish/Muslim after the Seljuk Turks arrived in the 11th century, and in that sense it is "native to" Anatolia. But the phrase is far too ambiguous to use, because it's most often associated with "native people" (or plants and animals) who are indigenous/aboriginal/autochthonous to a place. It's better to just avoid it, and it's easy enough to use another wording that is more clear, accurate, and uncontroversial.
Turkish people are analogous to Native Americans - sorry, I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I don't see anything like that in that paper. Certainly there may be DNA from the Paleolithic/Neolithic indigenous Anatolians found in the population of Turkey. But if you are actually trying to argue that modern Anatolian Turks, or Turkish people as an ethnic group, are indigenous/aboriginal/autochthonous to Anatolia, I'm afraid you won't find any reliable source that says so. --IamNotU (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the other article actually, with bunch of reliable sources: "An admixture analysis determined that the Anatolian Turks share most of their genetic ancestry with non-Turkic populations resident in the region, and the 12th century is set as an admixture date" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people, linking to this: "Our ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig 2) revealed that Turkic-speaking populations scattered across Eurasia tend to share most of their genetic ancestry with their current geographic non-Turkic neighbors. This is particularly obvious for Turkic peoples in Anatolia, Iran, the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe, but more difficult to determine for northeastern Siberian Turkic speakers, Yakuts and Dolgans, for which non-Turkic reference populations are absent. We also found that a higher proportion of Asian genetic components distinguishes the Turkic speakers all over West Eurasia from their immediate non-Turkic neighbors. These results support the model that expansion of the Turkic language family outside its presumed East Eurasian core area occurred primarily through language replacement, perhaps by the elite dominance scenario, that is, intrusive Turkic nomads imposed their language on indigenous peoples due to advantages in military and/or social organization." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4405460/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.71.17 (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, you wish to make a statement in Wikipedia's voice, in the lead sentence or section, that says or implies that the ethnic Turkish people of Turkey are without qualification commonly considered by reliable published sources to be an aboriginal, indigenous native people, analogous to Native Americans. If this was true, it should be easy to find multiple high-quality mainstream sources, representative of the prevailing view within the entire relevant body of literature on the subject, that make this statement directly. (If that's not what you mean, then my original criticism stands - using the word "native" without sufficient context is too ambiguous and may be misleading, especially to speakers of American English).
So far I see only a paper discussing the situation of various historical indigenous peoples, and evidence of a predominant genetic admixture in contemporary ethnic Turks that is similar to that in other contemporary inhabitants of the region. It doesn't make any statement remotely resembling the above. Arriving at that conclusion based on that paper would be original research that does not adhere to the neutral point of view policy that requires such claims to be explicitly verified in published sources.
I don't think I have anything more to add about the subject, sorry. I don't think anyone else in this discussion has advanced that point of view. If you wish to pursue it further, I suppose you can try one of the methods of dispute resolution. --IamNotU (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you against adding "native of" per dictionary definitions? Bogazicili (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Example? --IamNotU (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, are you not reading what you are deleting or what you respond to? It was in the sources in the part that you deleted and also mentioned above. Here:
Turk: "a native or inhabitant of Turkey" [13]
Turk: "A native or inhabitant of Turkey, or a person of Turkish descent." [14]
So are you against "native of" which is per Oxford and Merriam dictionaries? Bogazicili (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, can you give me an example of how you propose to use it in the article? Are you the same person that I've been discussing this with? --IamNotU (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change. Since we were discussing the definition of the term, it's best to stick to dictionary sources. Oxford represents UK English and Merriam represents US English. I used "of" instead of "to" Bogazicili (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also may I enquire why you do not apply the same standard to other Wikipedia articles? In English people, it says English are "native to" England, without any sources, for example, even though Anglo Saxons migrated from Germany and Denmark. Bogazicili (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Angles and Saxons migrated to Britain in around the fifth century. But most of the ancestry of the current English people is those who were already living in Britain then. The Turks arrived in Anatolia in the eleventh century — and again, it seems likely that most of the ancestry of the current Anatolian Turks is the people (mostly Greek-speaking) who were already living in Anatolia at that date. Maproom (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Maproom, thanks for the input. So do you agree with my latest edit using dictionary sources that IamNotU undid? Bogazicili (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the change. Fyi, usually people will propose an example on the talk page when there's an active discussion, in order to work towards consensus, rather than going ahead with disputed changes to the established status quo without consensus.
There are numerous meanings and senses of the word "Turk". One sense is as it is defined in the constitution of Turkey: "anyone who is bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship", i.e. who is "a native or inhabitant of Turkey" (a citizen by birth or naturalization). But "citizens of Turkey" is clearly not the primary subject of this article, which is ethnic Turks, living mainly but not exclusively in Turkey. The people of Northern Cyprus are not natives of Turkey, but this article includes them in its scope. Ethnic Kurds born there are natives of Turkey, but the word "Kurd" does not appear in the article. Unlike, for example, the Lebanese people article, which includes all ethnic groups, this article for whatever reason is not about "the people of Turkey". The third paragraph specifically notes that "the legal use of the term "Turkish" as it pertains to a citizen of Turkey is different from the term's ethnic definition", the latter being the subject of the article. Hypothetically, that could read instead: "the term "Turkish" as it pertains to a native of Turkey", but I don't see a need to change it, and "citizen" is more clear. If you want to talk about someone born in Turkey, just say "born in Turkey", and avoid any ambiguity or misunderstanding about the word "native". My impression is that the insistence on inserting the word "native" into the first sentence is to advance the point of view that ethnic Turkish people are universally described as being the indigenous native people of Anatolia, analogous to Native Americans as stated above. But still no evidence of this, in the form of a predominance of reliable sources directly stating it, has been provided. Instead of doing so, simply changing "native to" to "native of" would seem to be a misleading ploy.
It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to debate and judge whether an ethnic group are an indigenous, native people or not, based on our own personal analysis. It's our job to summarize and relay in proportion what the body of reliable sources say, and to cite said sources. Regarding why you do not apply the same standard to other Wikipedia articles, the standard I am applying here is WP:V / WP:NOR / WP:NPOV. I have never edited the "English people" article and I'm not obligated to start now. Turkish people are not English people, and whatever consensus may have been reached there doesn't apply here. If you have a reasonable belief that the statement in that article is unverifiable, original research, and/or does not neutrally represent accepted viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in published, reliable sources, then by all means fix it yourself. --IamNotU (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to debate and judge whether an ethnic group are an indigenous, native people or not, based on our own personal analysis". Indeed. Please do as you say. You are the one deleting dictionary sources and wording in line with those sources, based solely on your personal opinions. Ethnic Turk is a native of Turkey. Turkish citizens born in Turkey are also natives of Turkey. These are the primary definitions of the word "Turk". Cypriot Turks are also ethnic Turks, since they come from Turkey. The secondary meaning of Turk is related to Turkic, which is not within the scope of this article. Bogazicili (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Turk is a native of Turkey. / a Turkic ethnic group and nation that are natives of Turkey are not in line with or verified by the dictionary sources. The idiom "a native of Turkey" can mean nothing other than a person born in Turkey. It is not "my personal opinion". I won't respond to further ad nauseum nonsense that it means anything else; I'm not here to give free English lessons.

According to the dictionary citations, the category "natives of Turkey", i.e. "people born in Turkey", is just one of the categories of people who may be called Turks. Other categories which are not "natives of Turkey" are listed e.g. by Oxford/Lexico as "inhabitants of Turkey" and "people of Turkish descent". If all people born in Turkey may call themselves Turks, the converse does not follow, that all people who call themselves Turks were born in Turkey. The Turkish Cypriot community was founded centuries before Turkey was. Except for recent Turkish-born immigrants, they are in no sense whatsoever "natives of Turkey". Anyone born and raised outside of Turkey is not a native of Turkey.

The majority of ethnic Turkish people were born in Turkey, and this is already clearly and adequately explained in the first sentence with "a Turkic ethnic group and nation living mainly in Turkey". I see no reason to change that. --IamNotU (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not here to give free history lessons. Turkey also referred to Ottoman Empire (also called Turkish Empire), so your response about Turkish Cypriots is nonsensical. They clearly came from Ottoman Empire as ethnic Turks. There are also multiple other nonsense that you wrote. For example, in Kurds, which you gave as an example of natives of Turkey, it already states they are natives to the area.
Turk refers to natives of Turkey per dictionary definition, and the sub categories of Turk are all Turkish citizens and people of Turkish descent (these subsets also overlap). You are the one that assumes quality of superset does not extend to the subset. I guess the dictionary definition would have been more clear if they used "and/or" but this is not usually used in normal written language.
But this discussion has become extremely long already and I can't spend so much time over a single word. I guess we need opinions of others. I should already point out that several people in this section already supported or seemed to support the word "native" or a similar concept such as El C, Beshogur, and Maproom. It seems to be just you and Anatoly00000000 who seem firmly against the idea.Bogazicili (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turks are native to Turkey. The reasons given to claim otherwise is utterly flawed. Illyrians are the early settlers in Albania, does this mean Albanians are not native to Albania? Are Bulgarians not native to Bulgaria because Thracians was originally there before them? You can't be natives to the land because you have ancient predecessors? There are many ethnicities who migrated to their home region in 8th (such as Serbs to Serbia or Bulgarians to Bulgaria) or 10th century (such as Hungarians to Carpathian Basin) and they're all considered native to their respective regions (rightfully so). 11th century is not any different and falls under the same historical period. With all these in consideration, it should be reverted back to "native to". Nozdref (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers contradiction

Article says there are 2,7 millions Turks in Germany but other article Turks in Germany says there are between 3 and 4 millions Turks what's the real number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.196.188.16 (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC) (I moved this out of an unrelated discussion to a new section, hope that's ok --IamNotU (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_people&oldid=1007586300"