Talk:Turkish people

Recent developments

I have recently started to re-write this article as it needs a lot of TLC. Would appreciate any help/advice/suggestions from other users who can help improve the article. Many thanks in advance. Turco85 (Talk) 13:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Populations

The populations should change to give more accurate and correct data please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.172.59 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific please? If you can provide sources it would help. Thanks. Turco85 (Talk) 10:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Atrocious introduction

Is there really a need to list all those countries? How redundant. --Mttll (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is a need, they all form what is today considered the "Turkish ethnicity". You can help improve the introduction if you wish, but you are not actually making it any better by removing the fact that Turkish minorties exist in say Western Thrace, Kosovo, etc. These are important Turkish minorites, and are discussed within the article. Hence, they need to be part of the summary too. Turco85 (Talk) 22:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Does the word, introduction, mean anything to you? When it's expressed that there are Turkish minorities in the former lands of the Ottoman Empire, there is no need to list countries that were formerly part of the Ottoman Empire, it's redundant. --Mttll (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

But there is not a Turkish community living in every single country which was once part of the Ottoman Empire (e.g. Albania). In my view it's better to be specific. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section "the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." Hence, if we do not show all the Turkish communities in the lead, the reader would not be able to have a concise overview... they would have to go to the section "Traditional areas of Turkish settlement".Turco85 (Talk) 10:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

So, how would it be a summary if you would mention every ex-Ottoman country with a Turkish minority? Can't you see listing some 18 countries, which greatly vary between themeselves in terms of the significance of Turks living there, is detrimental to the readability of the article? I only edited out the redundant parts without sacrificing informativeness. --Mttll (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand the point you are making. But there is significant communities in say Kosovo, Macedonia, and Greece... I don't think they should be removed from the introduction just because they don't form the second largest group in the country. The introduction needs to be improved regardless of this minor disagreement, as there is no mention of language/relgion/culture there either. Right now I'm occupied with trying to improve the history section. I would appreciate any suggestions you have for improving the intro though... but in my opinion you havn't actually made the intro better, nor worse, just by removing those minorities.Turco85 (Talk) 12:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"Being second largest ethnic group" is just a practical measure to cut the redundancy in the intro. Otherwise, Turkish population in different countries are well covered in the article as well as in various other articles. I also agree with you the intro is rather bare, but I don't think there is a lot of creativity needed here, following the example of similar articles to this one should do it. --Mttll (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

what happened to the genetics of Turks? why is there so much information on ottoman empire ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.172.59 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Genetics has been merged into the "origins" section. I'll shorten the Ottoman era section tomorrow. I first needed to write-up all the important information. The entire article will take a few weeks of hardwork and research before it can be of good quality. Please be patient. Turco85 (Talk) 22:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Crazy estimates

A million Turks in France, 100,000 in Egypt, 50,000 in Kosovo, 2 million in Algeria........

is anyone supposed to actually take any of this seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.146.35.112 (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What exactly makes these estimates crazy? They are all sourced; in fact, many of these estimates have been double/triple sourced.Turco85 (Talk) 19:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

most of them aren't even proper sources.

well i just looked at Kosovo, for example, and the source is talking about 50,000 Mesketian Turks in Kyrgyzstan, not Kosovo! HA HA. And the other link is broken. So, are you going to correct your mistake? Seeing as you claim to have written this whole article, you must have put that info in to? Gonna own up?

I think you are getting yourself confused. Kosovo's sources are footnote 60 & 59 not 60 & 61. The sources for Kyrgyzstan are footnotes 44 & 61. Hence, no mistakes have been made, it seems as though you have misunderstood the citation process. Turco85 (Talk) 09:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent conflict

Can contributor 31.146.35.112 please stop reverting my edits. I am in the process of trying to improve this article by using wiki's guidelines. Please read the following:

• Wikipedia:Article size
• Wikipedia:Writing better articles

Have a look at other ethnic articles such as Greeks (which actually has good article status, unlike here) to see the size of the paragraphs. Turco85 (Talk) 09:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I simply restored information you deleted (which contradicted information you inserted) on etymology - and YOU reverted ME. Now, how does that make sense? 31.146.35.112 (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have removed some of the information I had prevously written because the article was getting far too long. Nonetheless, you are not actually "restoring" the information I removed to exact past... especially since you are removing any mention of "Seljuk Turks" and replacing it with "Seljuk-Persian". Yes the Seljuk Turks were influenced by the Persian culture, but this article is about the Turks; hence, removing the term "Seljuk Turks" seems politically motivated. One must remember that this article is about an ethnicity not empires. This article should only be dealing with Turks who lived in the Seljuk, Beylik, Otttoman periods rather than being about the empires itself which had many ethnic groups within its borders. Do you understand where you seem to be going beyond the scope of this articles purpose? Turco85 (Talk) 22:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, your edits are not supported by what the citations actually say whereas the version of the article I have written actually does correspond with the sources.Turco85 (Talk) 22:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You're confusing the reader by your omissions. First, your putting forward your preferred etymology of the word "Turk", despite there being numerous theories as to its origin. Second, your version of the article implies that the "Turks" of the Seljuq Empire are synonymous with the Turks of today's Republic of Turkey - which of course is not true. Third, your version has inserted a politicized paragraph that argues that the native Anatolians somehow preferred the Seljuq rulers to the Byzantines - maybe that's true, maybe it isn't, but that's a argument not suited to such an article.

More importantly, you position here seems to be "Only I am allowed to edit this article, and I am just going to automatically revert anyone else who attempts to contribute". I'm sorry, but that's just bollocks. 31.146.35.112 (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edits conflict with what the sources actually say; simple as that. You have in no way justified your edits nor have you shown any citations to support your arguments. Until you actually follow the wiki policies and learn to work together, you wont be taken seriously by me.Turco85 (Talk) 22:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That's because you have deleted all the other sources in your version; simple as that. 31.146.35.112 (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

My "position" is to only illustrate what the sources say. Here is a wide range of citations for you to read:

Stavrianos, Leften Stavros (2000), The Balkans Since 1453, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, p. 34, ISBN 1850655510.

The Seljuk Turks…above all…broke the traditional frontier of Asia Minor along the Taurus Mountains. They accomplished this when they defeated the Byzantine army in the fateful battle of Manzikert in 1071. This victory proved a turning point in the history of Asia Minor. Large numbers of Turkish settlers migrated northward in the wake of their victorious soldiers, and the native Anatolian population gradually lost its thin veneer of Greek culture. Between the eleventh and thirteen centuries the larger part of Anatolia was transformed from a Greek and Christian to a Turkish and Moslem region, and it remains to the present.

Federal Research Division (2004), Turkey: A Country Study, Kessinger Publishing, p. 27, ISBN 1419191268.

…to exert its authority directly in Anatolia. The gazis carved out a number of states there, under the nominal suzerainty of Baghdad, states that were continually reinforced by further Turkish immigration. The strongest of these states to emerge was the Seljuk sultanate of Rum which had its capital at Konya… The society and economy of the Anatolia countryside were unchanged by the Seljuks, who had simply replaced Byzantine officials with a new elite that was Turkish and Muslim. Conversion to Islam and the imposition of the language, mores, and customs of the Turks progressed steadily in the countryside, facilitated by intermarriage.

Masters, Bruce (2010), "Turkey", in Ágoston, Gábor; Masters, Bruce Alan (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Infobase Publishing, p. 574, ISBN 1438110251.

With the victory of the Seljuk Turks over the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert in 1089, Turkish-speaking tribal peoples increasingly settled the region that had formerly been inhabited by Greek-speaking and Armenian-speaking Christians.

Darke, Diana (2011), Eastern Turkey, Bradt Travel Guides, p. 16, ISBN 1841623393.

The Turkish language and Islam were introduced and gradually spread over the region and the slow transition from a predominantly Christian and Greek-speaking Anatolia to a predominantly Muslim and Turkish-speaking one was underway.

Duiker, William J.; Spielvogel, Jackson J. (2012), World History, Cengage Learning, p. 192, ISBN 1111831653.

The Seljuk Turks were a nomadic people from Central Asia who had converted to Islam and flourished as military mercenaries for the Abbasid caliphate, where they were known for their ability as mounted archers. Moving gradually into Persia and Armenia as the Abbasids wakened, the Seljuk Turks grew in number until by the eleventh century, they were able to occupy the eastern provinces of the Abbasid Empire.

Campbell, Verity (2007), Turkey, Lonely Planet, p. 47, ISBN 1741045568.

…the Turks are the descendants of the assorted Central Asian tribal groupings, including the Seljuks, Huns, and the nomadic Oguz. Although academics believe the Turkic languages may have been spoken as early as 600 BC, the Turks definitively first appeared in medieval Chinese sources as the Tujue (or Turks) in the 6th-century Mongolia and Siberia. As they moved westwards they encountered the Arabs and converted to Islam. The Seljuks became Anatolia’s first Turkic empire. It’s believed that as news of Seljuk conquests and expansions spread, other nomadic Turkic people moved into Anatolia.

Waldman, Carl; Mason, Catherine (2006), Encyclopedia of European Peoples, Infobase Publishing, p. 806, ISBN 1438129181.

At the beginning of the 11th century the Seljuk Turks began consolidating their power. The Seljuk’s were Oguz Turks, related to the Turkic peoples known as Torks who has migrated to eastern Europe. The Seljuk’s had been employed as mercenaries by the Abbasids, and Arabic dynasty, but eventually rebelled. They conquered both present-day Iran and Iraq, entering Bagdad in 1055, and overran Syria. In 1071 the Seljuks defeated the Byzantines of the Eastern Roman Empire at the Battle of Manzikert, after which waves of Oguz tribesmen settled in Asia Minor; they eventually occupied most of it and conquered surrounding areas as well.

Baker, Mona; Saldanha, Gabriela (2008), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, Routledge, p. 550, ISBN 0415369304.

The Turkish language was introduced into Asia Minor/Anatolia by the Seljuk Turks in the eleventh century…

Bainbridge, James (2009), Turkey, Lonely Planet, p. 33, ISBN 174104927X.

During centuries of Byzantine waxing and waning, a nomadic people, the Turks, had moved ever-westward out of Central Asia. En route the Turks encountered the Arabs and converted to Islam. Vigorous and martial by nature, the Turks assumed control of parts of the moribund Abbasid Empire, and built an empire of their own centred on Persia. Tugrul, of the Turkish Seljuk clan, took the title of sultan in Baghdad, and from there the Seljuks began raiding Byzantine territory… the Seljuk legacy persisted in Anatolia in the Sultante of Rum, centred on Konya. Although ethnically Turkish, the Seljuks were purveyors of Persian culture and art.

Kia, Mehrdad (2011), Daily Life in the Ottoman Empire, ABC-CLIO, p. 1, ISBN 0313064024.

Turcoman tribes had been settling in Anatolia since 1071, when the Seljuk Turks defeated the Greek Byzantine Empire at the battle of Manzikert. The victory at Manzikert destroyed Byzantine defences and allowed Turcoman tribesmen from Central Asia and Iran to push westward and settle in Anatolia.

Turco85 (Talk) 11:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And could you please tell me where any of those sources contradicts any of the edits I have made? 31.146.35.112 (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You are removing all the mentions of Seljuk Turks (e.g. removing Seljuk Turks from the "see also" template) and replacing it with Turco-Persian. The sources do not say anything about the Seljuk Turks being Turco-Persians. This article is not about the Seljuk Empire, it is about the Turks and hence would include the Turks who were within the Seljuk empire. If you have no objections to the sources above, why an earth are you changing the article to this? Turco85 (Talk) 12:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you've stated that before, and I've stated my disagreement. Unfortunately for you, I am supported by reliable scholarship - you are not. Just look at what the Encyclopedia Britannica has to say (that's an encylopedia, not Lonely Planet or whatever other stuff you've found on Google):

Seljuq, also spelled Seljuk, ruling military family of the Oğuz (Ghuzz) Turkmen tribes that invaded southwestern Asia in the 11th century and eventually founded an empire that included Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and most of Iran. Their advance marked the beginning of Turkish power in the Middle East.

Persian cultural autonomy flourished in the Seljuq empire. Because the Turkish Seljuqs had no Islamic tradition or strong literary heritage of their own, they adopted the cultural language of their Persian instructors in Islam.

- http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/533602/Seljuq

You can also look to the numerous references provided in the main Seljuq dynasty article on Wikipedia:

Hottinger, Arnold, The Arabs, (University of California Press, 1963), 90; "..and for these Turko-persian Seljuks who now ruled the largest Islamic state..."

Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes, (Rutgers University Press, 1991), 161,164; "..renewed the Seljuk attempt to found a great Turko-Persian empire in eastern Iran..", "It is to be noted that the Seljuks, those Turkomans who became sultans of Persia, did not Turkify Persia-no doubt because they did not wish to do so. On the contrary, it was they who voluntarily became Persians and who, in the manner of the great old Sassanid kings, strove to protect the Iranian populations from the plundering of Ghuzz bands and save Iranian culture from the Turkoman menace."

Nishapuri, Zahir al-Din Nishapuri (2001), “The History of the Seljuq Turks from the Jami’ al-Tawarikh: An Ilkhanid Adaptation of the Saljuq-nama of Zahir al-Din Nishapuri,” Partial tr. K.A. Luther, ed. C.E. Bosworth, Richmond, UK. K.A. Luther: "... the Turks were illiteratre and uncultivated when they arrived in Khurasan and had to depend on Iranian scribes, poets, jurists and theologians to man the institution of the Empire”(pg 9)

Jackson, P. (2002). "Review: The History of the Seljuq Turks: The History of the Seljuq Turks". Journal of Islamic Studies 2002 13(1):75–76; doi:10.1093/jis/13.1.75.Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies.

Bosworth, C. E. (2001). "Notes on Some Turkish Names" in Abu 'l-Fadl Bayhaqi's Tarikh-i Mas'udi. Oriens, Vol. 36, 2001 (2001), pp. 299–313.

Dani, A. H., Masson, V. M. (Eds), Asimova, M. S. (Eds), Litvinsky, B. A. (Eds), Boaworth, C. E. (Eds). (1999). History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers (Pvt. Ltd).

Hancock, I. (2006). On Romani Origins and Identity. The Romani Archives and Documentation Center. The University of Texas at Austin.

Asimov, M. S., Bosworth, C. E. (eds.). (1998). History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. IV: The Age of Achievement: AD 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, Part One: The Historical, Social and Economic Setting. Multiple History Series. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

Thanks for playing. - 31.146.35.112 (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for playing what? Is this a game to you? Because some of us take editing articles on wikipedia very seriously. All you have done is listed a bibliography here, no quotations with that list, nor any page numbers...

Ummm..... trying reading again... 31.146.35.112 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you find Britanica so reliable compared to all the other sources, here is what it says:

Britannica (2012), Anatolia, Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, p. 17.

By diverting their aggressions into Anatolia, the sultans prevented depredations in Muslim territories, increased their own power against the Byzantine Empire, and provided land and livelihood for the Turkmen warriors... Anatolia was subjected to periodic Turkmen raids for nearly 30 years, some reaching as far west as Sivas (Sebastea) and Konya (Iconium). These offensives culminated in the decisive Battle of Manzikert north of Lake Van on Aug. 26, 1071, in which the Turkmen forces under Alp-Arslan vanquished the Byzantine army and captured the emperor Romanus IV Diogenes. With the frontier completely shattered, the Turkmens were able to range over most of Anatolia virtually at will.

Unless you actually come up with a valid reason as well as sources to back up your views, your argument is not proving to be valid. I have no problem with the paragraph mentioning that the Seljuk Turks' culture was influenced by the Persian, because that is a fact. But the idea of removing the term "Seljuk Turks" in an article about the Turks seems utterly absurd. Furthermore, I should point out, we should be focusing on the Seljuk Turks who actually arrived in Anatolia rather than, what you seem to be doing, focusing on the ones in which stayed in Persia. The paragraph cannot be talking about the period of Khurasan after we have mentioned the Battle of Mazikert because it would not make sense chronologically. Turco85 (Talk) 13:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, how does any of that contradict my edits????? I didn't delete any use of the "Seljuk Turks" term, I simply removed that terminology from the opening two paragraphs, because it's outdated. Nowadays we use "Seljuqs" or "Saljuq Dynasty".

And so now you admit they were a Turco-Persian dynasty, that used the Persian language.... so what specific problems do you actually have with my edits? Other than the fact that I had the temerity to tamper with your pet, and improve on your rather clumsy English? 31.146.35.112 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you are genuinely misunderstanding me or not. This article is not about the dynasty. i.e. the paragraph is not meant to be an explanation of the Seljuk Empire, it is meant to be a paragraph about the Turks who lived within it. I have not got any objections in stating that they were influenced by the Persians. But saying Turco-Persians is not correct at all. They were not Turco-Persians, they were merely Turks who had been influenced by the Persians. There is a big difference between what you have been writing and the actual reality. And like I said before, within the Seljuks ear section, we are focusing on the Turks after the Battle of Manzikert because that is when the Turkish-speaking migration to Anatolia really began, as the overwhelming sources above illustrate. Turco85 (Talk) 14:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If you don't personally believe they were Turco-Persian, take it up with the academics I listed above (and the authors of the Wiki article on the Seljuqs) - they are precisely the type of Persianate (read: Central Asian Islamic) people for which the term "Turco-Persian" was invented. But please, don't try and alter history for your own narrative purposes. 31.146.35.112 (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that you are just trying to take the piss here! I am going by what the sources say, and it is you who keeps on making up your own views about so many articles relating to the Turks. Gosh, it's so obvious that you are yet another sockpuppet of User:Ledenierhomme and I've had enough. Let me direct you to a book which is probably suited to someone like yourself:

Davis, Craig S. (2011), The Middle East For Dummies, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 1118053931.

Whatever you say kid. Here's some more reading material for you, that talks about Turco-Persian societies:

Josef W. Meri, Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, Routledge, 2005, p. 399

Michael Mandelbaum, Central Asia and the World, Council on Foreign Relations (May 1994), p. 79

Jonathan Dewald, Europe 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World, Charles Scribner's Sons, 2004, p. 24: "Turcoman armies coming from the East had driven the Byzantines out of much of Asia Minor and established the Persianized sultanate of the Seljuks."

Ram Rahul. March of Central Asia, Indus Publishing, page 124.

C.E. Bosworth, "Turkish expansion towards the west", in UNESCO History of Humanity, Volume IV, 2000.

Mehmed Fuad Koprulu, Early Mystics in Turkish Literature, Translated by Gary Leiser and Robert Dankoff, Routledge, 2006, pg 149.

O.Özgündenli, "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish Libraries", Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition, (LINK)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turco-Persian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persianate_society

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.146.35.112 (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I just checked Jonathan Dewald (2004) and did not find such a quote on page 24. Moreover, trying to direct me to other wiki articles means nothing. In fact, it seems that all you have done is copy-pasted the references and notes from those articles. Why don't you try and find citations with the quotation and page number yourself and place them on this talk page? Turco85 (Talk) 14:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't difficult. http://books.google.ge/books?id=CIYYAAAAIAAJ&q=%22Turcoman+armies+coming+from+the+East+had+driven+the+Byzantines+out+of+much+of+Asia+Minor+and+established+the+Persianized+sultanate+of+the+Seljuks.%22&dq=%22Turcoman+armies+coming+from+the+East+had+driven+the+Byzantines+out+of+much+of+Asia+Minor+and+established+the+Persianized+sultanate+of+the+Seljuks.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M2rPT-CMKo3O4QTi6OWIDA&redir_esc=y 31.146.35.112 (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well that's page 80, not page 24, so you can't expect me to find the quotations if you are giving me wrong page numbers. Would you be willing to compromise if we place the article back to the version which I have previously reverted it to, but including in the first sentence that it was "Persianized"? Because so far our discussion has not resolved anything. You seem to still be arguing about an entire empire whilst I'm trying to write an article about the Turkish people, because if you have not realised that is what this article is called. Turco85 (Talk) 15:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I though I was a "sockpuppet" Ledenierhomme? Why would you want to compromise with a sockpuppet?

In all this huff and puff, you've yet to point out, specifically, what is wrong with my edits. What specific changes, specifically, are problematic for you? Can you quote something from the article that I inserted, that you believe to be factually incorrect? 31.146.35.112 (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do believe that you are a sockpuppet of User:Ledenierhomme, and if not of that user, or some of user who has been at wikipedia for a while. I doubt very much that these last few days have been your first here. Nonetheless, I'll compromise not because I want to "get on with you" but because you actually provided a source (shocking right!, well that's how wikipedia actually works...). What is incorrect is the simple fact that you have removed "Seljuk Turks" from the template above the heading, where it currently says "Main article: Great Seljuq Empire", and have removed the word "Turks" in the majority of sentences. For example, "The Seljuks were originally a nomadic people from Central Asia" whilst the sources actually say "The Seljuks Turks were originally a nomadic people from Central Asia". Turco85 (Talk) 18:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There, I have clarified in the opening that the Seljuqs were originally a Turkic nomadic people from Central Asia. It should be abundantly clear now to any reader. If you have any other objections to my edits, please raise them here before deleting them for the 10th time. Thanks. Whatisgeorgianwhatisgood (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There are almost a dozen sources listed above, many with page numbers. The fact that you are unable to verify them immediately via Google (although I did with the one you contested) is irrelevant. Wikipedia, I gather, is not deisnged to be a repository of information that is already online - but a repository of encylopedic information full-stop. A "temple of knowledge" I believe I've seen the founder on TV say.

And yes, this is me the IP, I am back. You got me blocked because I was apparently on an "open proxy" (which I wasn't, but I realize now why the User:Alison may have thought so, and I have made the necessary changes to my dial-up settings). Whatisgeorgianwhatisgood (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You were not blocked for simply being an "open proxy" you were blocked for your continuous disruption to this article. Rather than actually helping to improve this article you have tried to take control of its entire content by adding words/sentences which the citations do not support and removing words/sentences which are actually supported by the references.Turco85 (Talk) 23:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any controversy in saying that Anatolian Seljuks being Turko-Persians. I would think that a middle ground could have been found. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Haplogroup of Oğuzhan

Because so many people today claim to be a Prince of the Ottoman Dynasty, and were therefore entitled to inherit, The true male members of the House of Osman, currently twenty-four Princes now in the Line of succession to the former Ottoman throne, and their cousin, the Amuca Kabilesi who are descendants of Gündüz Bey the older brother of Osman I, tested their Y-DNA.

Genetic history of the Turkish people, shows that the common ancestor Ertuğrul of the Kayı tribe, belonged to haplogroup: R1a=6.9% - Typical of Central Asian, Caucasus, Eastern Europeans and Indo-Aryan people.

Dilek2 (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you got any sources to back this opinion of yours? Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Turks in Anatolia

The Turks came to Anatolia (where they still live) much before Xth Century. The first Turkish peoples (or tribes) to form part of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine if you wish) Empire and to fight in its armies mostly turned to Christianity and after the islamisation of the bulk of the Turkish immigration into Anatolia, either disappeared within the Christian society (some of them) or were converted to islam (most of them) and their previous existence in Rome (Anatolia) mostly forgotten.

One reason the Turks won the Manzikert War easily is the fact that many Turkish tribes, who were within the Byzantine army ranks, changed sides when they realized that the "enemy" they were fighting against was their own kins. (Some of those Christian Turks survive in Moldovia, the Balkans end elsewhere under the name of Gagauz.

I wish to attract attention to the article Bardanis o Toupkos or "Bardanes the Turk", about an Armenian general of the Byzantine army who served between 895-903 as Commander of the Anatolian Army for the Empire. In other words, even by then (as early as the end of IXth Century) the so-called Armenian plateau (today part of Eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey) was known as a place associated with the Turkish people, who dwelled in that area, and had such a strong presence to outname the Armenians who claim to be contemporaries of Noah at times...

I hope this information may be useful to develop the contents of the Turkish people article. --E4024 (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide some sources to support your theory? Turco85 (Talk) 12:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no theories of my own but many Turkish history books (not the textbooks you read at school that make us hate history) confirm the presence of Turks in Anatolia before Manzikert. Manzikert is only a milestone in the changing of the political geography of Turkey. If you are interested in the presence of Turkish soldiers (therefore their families, in short Turkish colonies) in Rome (or Byzantium if you like) at the time of Manzikert and before, begin by reading the first sentence of the article Turcopole in this WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E4024 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well would you be able to help by listing some of these sources please? I'll try look into it in more depth as well. Turco85 (Talk) 14:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Genetics

Please anonimous streaming IP-s, avoiding 3RR-ban, stop pushing here info that was deleted as unreliable on the talk-page of the article Genetic origins of the Turkish people. Your sources are older then 10 years and out of date or absolutely unreliable as Eupedia. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing the genetic-related paragraphs; Contribute to the Genetic history of the Turkish people

I'm going to remove the two genetic-related paragraphs in the origin section of Turkish people because there is already a page called Genetic history of the Turkish people which is about the genetic studies of Turkish related people, and there is no need to mention the same or similar contributions repetitively in both of the articles. You can go on genetic-related contributions on the Genetic history of the Turkish people. BozokluAdam (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

RE : Between 300,000 to 400,000 have immigrated to Turkey since 1923

Because that comment follows a statement of Greek government policy, it implies to the reader that Greek government policies are the reason these Turks have immigrated. The statistics that reveal the true picture is what percentage of Greece's population was Turkish in 1923 and what is that percentage now. I will replace that statement with these statistics unless editors give me good reasons not to. I would also like to contrast these statistics with the equivalent ones for Greeks in Turkey since 1923. HelenOfOz (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed POV as your edit does not comply with the what the source actually says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.216.86 (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've also removed HelenOfOz's edit. This source [1] HelenOfOz has provided mentions nothing about the Western Thrace Turks. Moreover, the Cyprus issue is dealt with within the "Cyprus" heading.Turco85 (Talk) 11:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I didn't copy my text correctly. Here are some sources [[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]] HelenOfOz (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Collage request

1. If you cannot find an illustration (not the miniature in his article) about Alp Arslan please remove him from the collage. 2. Same for C. Sonku. 3. Mesut Özil, playing for the German national team is not the most representative Turkish footballer, change with someone else please. 4. Elif Safak is not such an important writer. Replace with Yaşar Kemal (I am ashamed of pronouncing these two names together: A master and a newby!) 5. Mehmed II is not less important than Süleyman, add him also. 6. Add (or replace with the first Turkish beauty queen) Keriman Halis (later Ece), the first Turkish woman to win an international beauty contest. Thanks.

Acquisition ????

The map mentions acquisitions? Those were ocupations and in no way acqusitions. Please fix the map accordingly. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.75.124 (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Origins of Turkish people in the article is wrong

The origins, in its current version, looks like "Turkic" nationalistic propaganda devoid of any objectivity or modern science. Turkish people from Turkey are not primarily from Central Asia as the article suggests, but seem to be native to Anatolia. "Turkish populations are atypical among Altaic speakers in having low frequencies of Asiatic haplotypes. Rather, these two Turkic-speaking groups seem to be closer to populations from the Middle East, Caucasus and the Balkans. This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic languages, originating in the Altai-Sayan region of Central Asia and northwestern Mongolia, were imposed on the indigenous peoples without significant genetic admixture, possible example of elite cultural dominance - driven linguistic replacement" [6] Therefore, I'll be adding some of the results of the modern genetic studies in the history section. Cavann89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

And I will be asking a checkuser's help to show you are not new here as you pretend and will be reverting your edits per WP:SOCK and WP:DUCK. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. Cavann89 (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Culture

Although I am not against having a heading entitled "Culture", I have removed the current version of the section as those topics (i.e. Architecture and Calligraphy) are not refering to the Turkish culture but rather Turkey itself. Turkish culture would be more about foods, dances, beliefs, etc. which would be common, in someway, amongst the Turkish people regardless of whether they live in Turkey, Cyprus, or the UK.Turco85 (Talk) 12:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Genetics (again) and recent edits by User:Cavann

I've recently removed Cavann's edit; I assume it's a good faith edit but we've debated about genetics in the talk page numerous times and it seems that most agree that we shouldn't mix ethnicity with genetics especially since these studies are based on people of Turkey rather than Turks as a whole (i.e. including Bulgarian Turks, Turkish Cypriots etc.). Furthermore, Cavann's sub-headings in the history section are confusing; I don't understand how we can have a "Anatolians" section when a) not all of today's Turkish people are in Anatolia; b) the sections after it talk about the ancient Turks who were in Central Asia before even stepping foot in Anatolia; hence, it's not chronological! I've already added the following sentences in the origins section: "In 1071, the Seljuk Turks defeated the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert; the Turkish language and Islam were introduced to Anatolia (present day Turkey) and gradually spread over the region and the slow transition from a predominantly Christian and Greek-speaking Anatolia to a predominantly Muslim and Turkish-speaking one was underway.[89][90] In the time of the Ottoman Empire, the Turkish-speaking Anatolian population had spread throughout the Balkans, Cyprus, North Africa, and the Middle East, and remnants of these Turkish minorities still exists. Today the ethnic Turks have a mixed heritage; they are the descendents of not only Turkic migrants from Central Asia but also descendants of peoples whose ancestors were the Hittites, Phrygians, Lydians or other early peoples of Anatolia." Surely that's sufficent enough? Turco85 (Talk) 21:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. Read the sources before you delete them, otherwise you are just deleting cited information, which is against Wikipedia policies and makes this article worse. The studies I cited are NOT based on people of Turkey as a whole, it is based on ethnic Turks from Turkey (eg., it would exclude Kurds). Here's the abstract of one of the articles ("Who Are the Anatolian Turks?"):

“ Due to its long-term geographic position as gateway between Europe and

Asia, the genetic constitution of Anatolia is highly complex. In spite of its overwhelming diversity, most citizens of the Republic of Turkey are firstlanguage Turkish-speakers and consider themselves ethnic Turks. This was not the case during the early Middle Ages and the time of the Byzantine Empire. Although we are able to identify four successive Turkic empires, Islamicization, and post–World War I nationalization as the essential steps toward ethnic homogenization, from historical texts alone we cannot determine to what extent mass migration from Central Asia and Siberia is responsible for Turkish dominance in Anatolia today. To assess the extent of gene flow from lands east of the Caspian, we examined the patterns of genetic variation in Turkic-speaking populations from Anatolia to Siberia. This analysis allows us to build the case for incommensurable, long-term, and continuing genetic signatures in both Anatolia and Siberia, and for significant mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome divergence between the regions, with minimal admixture. We supplement the case against mass migration with correlative archeological, historical, and linguistic data, and suggest that it was irregular punctuated migration events that engendered large-scale shifts in language and culture among Anatolia’s diverse autochthonous inhabitants.

”