Talk:Turkish people

grammar check

"Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups, in addition to neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples, despite speaking a Turkic language, which was adopted by the local populations who predominantly had spoken Indo-European languages." Is the sentence properly written? Kavas (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Seems to me like maybe it is Cavann who should learn English before suggesting others to do so. --Mttll (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OOA

Reverting even the most simplest of things. I urge you here to stop this, Cavann. --Mttll (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Turkish people/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 15:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Fascinating article! Review will proceed soon. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a marvelous work. Both the images and the prose pass. I have never reviewed an article of this volume in which there are no issues to be allayed. Excellent nomination, and a congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks QatarStarsLeague! Cavann (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

POV?

I'm getting the impression that this article is trying to convince its readers that Turks are native to Asia Minor. Turks are bearers of the Turkic culture, not Anatolian. They are indeed, genetically, far from the "pure" Turkic people such as Turkems, Uzbeks and Kyrgyz, but that doesn't change the facts that Turks are Turkic people and culturally, have nothing to do with the ancient Anatolians. The sentence "Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups" isn't clear enough. One can think that the Turks are just the modern form of the ancient Anatolians, like Italians are of the ancient Romans, which isn't really the case. --Երևանցի ^talk 00:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. You can't find another source who approaches the Turkish people like the lead of this article does. This is just a one-man POV show of User:Cavann. --Mttll (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This article apishly asserts that Turkish people are native to Anatolia, and originally of ancient indigenous people of Anatolia such as Greeks and Armenians. If so, it means that Anatolia is the motherland of today's Turkish people. In my opinion, the article's intro should be changed. Turkish people is a different ethnic group descending from Turkic tribes migrating to Anatolia, but not a total mixture of Greeks, Armenians etc as it's claimed as a hypothesis in the article's intro ridiculously. In fact, it's not scientific, just includes POV of a few jagged editors. Indigenous people of Anatolia left Turkey with Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, and Tehcir Law. By making Turkish people the mixture of Armenian and Greek means nothing than asserting that Turkish people are the owner of Anatolia. 141.196.81.85 (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In the article this claim is sourced with 7 (!) academic sources. If any other claims with respectable references are available, feel free to discuss them in talk page, instead of criticizing the well-sourced information in such manner. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You can give 100 academic sources. The problem here is the tone and the POV wording. --Երևանցի ^talk 17:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I ignored this nonsensical crap, do not take that as permission to disrupt this article. Take your "concerns" to the likes of US Congress of Library sources, and Cavalli-Sforza, and journal articles. Cavann (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you to use a more appropriate language. Read my comments over. I don't dispute the reliability of the given sources. The way this article is written is what makes it biased. It is trying to convince the reader that Turks are native to Anatolia, which isn't the case. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Find reliable sources, and quote them. I am not interested in opinions or interpretations of far-right nationalistic types, such as yourself, [1] [2] or what you imagine the article is trying to "convince readers". This will be my final response to you, unless you find reliable sources to "set the tone" you want. I'm not here to waste my time. Cavann (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice research, friend! Dig deeper, I guarantee you'll find even more interesting stuff. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, don't forget to look at my achievements. I'm really sad you didn't say anything about them. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course the article should say that Turkish people at least have a huge level of descent from native peoples of Anatolia (Greeks, Armenians and the Anatolic peoples before them, Phrygians, etc) as modern science has now determined that they are indeed indigenous. If the article didn't say this, there would be a problem. I'm sorry that the scientifically proven truth is disturbing to certain nationalist viewpoints, but really, science is science. --Yalens (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody here argues the fact that the Turks are genetically not much different from neighboring ethnic groups and are largely descending from the indigenous peoples. It's not hard to see that their appearance is no much different from the Armenians or the Greeks. My point is that genetics should not be the lede. Genetics does not affect anything in reality. Turks are not bearers of the culture of those indigenous peoples, but they are bearers of the culture of the Turkic peoples who migrated from Central Asia.

Some users who are desperate to prove the nativity and the "genetic continuity" theory of the Turks are including maps of the Hittite era, which has no connection to the modern Turkish people whatsoever. Its inclusion makes me wonder who has nationalistic aspirations here. Interesting how the fact that most of eastern Turkey was inhabited by the Armenians since at least 6th century BC to 1915-1920 (for almost 2,5000 years!!!) and not even one word is written about that. No wonder why Turkey still denies the genocide. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The lead should summarize the article. We are not supposed to leave out information just because editors such as yourself do no like it. Talking about "nationalistic aspirations," you are the one who supports violence to create United Armenia.[3] Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Cavann (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL I thought you didn't have time for me? What has changed? Aren't you afraid to waste your time on me? And why did you leave out the genocide part? Or maybe that's a far-right aspiration too, huh? Oh yeah, I forgot that cherry-picking is one of your hobbies. My mistake. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum. I am not sure how Armenian Genocide relates to the lead of this article. Cavann (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yalens seems to be the one who has revived this discussion. Eastern half of Anatolia was inhabited by Armenians for 2,500 years. If you don't see how it relates to this article then I suggest you do some research instead of "wasting" your priceless time on useless forum-like discussions as you describe. Have a nice day! --Երևանցի ^talk 20:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Urartians are already mentioned in the article and there's more stuff about Armenians in genetics section. But, sorry, we cannot say "Eastern half of Anatolia was inhabited by Armenians for 2,500 years" or how millions of them died in Armenian genocide in the lead. This is not the Armenian people article. Cavann (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What do Urartians have to do with the Armenians? Why can't we? Did the Armenians appear in the Armenian Highland just now or what? Or Hittites are more relevant, because they are already gone? Ever read of thousands of Armenian orphans being taken by Turkish, Kurdish families and raised as Turks and Kurds? Armenian women taken into harems and their children raised as Turks? Crypto-Armenians? Experts, journalists, historians talking about hundreds of thousands of Turks of Armenian descend? Armenian churches being used as mosques? Oh, that's not relevant to the Turks at all. When did I say we should mention the genocide in the lede? Armenians have been a major part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries. The Armenians civilization was wiped out from Turkey in 1915, their cultural heritage largely destroyed, their properties confiscated and that's not even relevant. For example Uğur Ümit Üngör states that "the construction of an étatist Turkish 'national economy' was unthinkable without the destruction and expropriation of Armenians." That's irrelevant too. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow you fail massively. If Turks wre descended from Greeks and Armenians they would still not be indigenous to Anatolia as Greeks and Armenians have migrated to this region from their original homeland. In fact, the dissapearance and complete anihalation of Hittites and Urartians is due to Greek and Armenian colonization.

Here are some sources

• Norman M. Naimark, 2002 [4]
• Daniel Goldhagen, 2010 [5]

Moderm Turkish people aren't Ancient Anatolians.

Moderm Turkish people mostly descent: Albanian, Serb, Macedonians, Bulgarian, Crimean, Circassian, Georgian, Laz, Kurd, Zaza, Arap, Cretan and Mongol-Nogai were islamised made by Ottoman Sultan(Caliph). Now they call themselves (Pseudo)Turks.

What happened to the indigenous people of Anatolia?

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersim_Massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.169.73 (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Cavalli-Sforza book

Alexikoua removed this, [6] saying "source doesn't say this, it says only about Byzantine era population". Yet the source talks about "aborigines," ie: "indigenous groups" in the text.

“ The Turks are also defined by the country of origin. Turkey, once Asia Minor or Anatolia, has a very long and complex history. It was one of the major regions of agricultural development in the early Neolithic and may have been the place of origin and spread of lndo-European languages at that time. The Turkish language was imposed on a predominantly lndo-European-speaking population (Greek being the official language of the Byzantine empire), and genetically there is very little difference between Turkey and the neighboring countries. The number of Turkish invaders was probably rather small and was genetically diluted by the large number of aborigines. ”

L. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza; Paolo, Menozzi; Alberto, Piazza (1994). The history and geography of human genes. Princeton University Press. p. 243.

I will be adding this source back. Cavann (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cavann. Jingiby (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Its not about genetics, its about ethnicity which somebody declare, culture, language, citizenship... Genetically there is a "little difference" between all people on the world.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Read British people, another GA, where they talk about where they descend. Cavann (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I did. It says: "it is possible that future genetic studies of ancient and modern human DNA may help to inform our understanding of the subject" but "early studies have, so far, tended to produce implausible conclusions from very small numbers of people and using outdated assumptions about linguistics and archaeology." That is written in 2007. Your source is from 1994. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance. Are you going to eliminate every similar source on Wikipedia based on that sentence? Plus Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's book is a very solid source. "Cavalli-Sforza's The History and Geography of Human Genes[4] (1994 with Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza) is a standard reference on human genetic variation." Plus there are sources later than 2007 in the article. Cavann (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You yourself refulted your position when you pointed to the link which emphasize that gene studies of the past still can only produce implausible conclusions. "Critics of Cavalli-Sforza's work have increased in recent years, and critics of new gene studies of the past have always been active..." - Pamela Kyle Crossley (2008). What is Global History. Polity. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-7456-3301-5. Retrieved 2 September 2013.. I suggest you to WP:DROPTHESTICK here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That response would have been more relevant if there weren't 5 other sources. I suggest you to read WP:Reliable. Cavann (talk)`

I did. It says Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. None of the sources you presented here directly support your assertion. I suggest you to read Don't shoot yourself in the foot essay.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we are having a WP:Competence issue here.

Eg: "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." [7]

Cavann (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Antid.. A cheap attempt to support a theory of national autochthony. A have also to note there is nowhere in the article stated that pre-Turkish (11th c.) Anatolia was predominantly Greek and Armenian speaking [[8]].Alexikoua (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the article?

"After Alexander the Great's conquest, the area was Hellenized.[74]"

"Nonetheless, 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.[101]"

"Although the Ottomans were only a small principality among the numerous Turkish beyliks, and thus posed the smallest threat to the Byzantine authority, their location in north-western Anatolia, in the former Byzantine province of Bithynia, became a fortunate position for their future conquests. The Latins, who had conquered the city of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, established a Latin Empire (1204–61), divided the former Byzantine territories in the Balkans and the Aegean among themselves, and forced the Byzantine Emperors into exile at Nicaea (present-day Iznik). From 1261 onwards, the Byzantines were largely preoccupied with regaining their control in the Balkans.[109]"

And some more. Info about Greeks/Byzantines is way more than Hittites.Cavann (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

There can be a brief mention of pre-Turkish Anatolia (under the relevant title), but this should be limited to ca. a couple of centuries before 11th century, in order to describe the situation in Anatolia just when (and a little before) the first Turkish tribes arrived. In no case can this goes back to the Bronze Age... 2 or 3 millenia before...

Dont you see the incosistency? The 1st paragraph is about antiquity in Anatolia and the following one (just in the same section) mentions the first Turkic tribes in central Asia... Alexikoua (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a Good Article, it needs to be comprehensive. See: Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria

"The above quote is under "INCEPTION AS A NATION" for the chapter "Turks: nationality." Your arguments are getting even more bizarre. Cavann (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)" Cavann (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your source is little better than a travel guide. It is very generalist in nature, and it is just one source after all. The way the article received its GA status is questionable. The reviewer didn't make a single comment or suggestion. Nothing, he just passed it, just like that. Even though the article is plagued with problem with POV problems (a strong primordialist/nativist current), not to mention ridiculous number inflation using dubious sources in the infobox. When I have more time I will ask for a reassessment of the GA status, and we will see just how much of a GA the wikipedia community thinks of it. You also seem to think that the fact that the article is for now a GA means that it is not to be edited by others and that you WP:OWN it. Wrong on both counts. Athenean (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I come up with peer-reviewed journal articles and encyclopedias; you come up with imaginary "majority of literature." Do you have a review article, that goes over this literature?

Oh, and please do. The more eyes on this article, the better. Cavann (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid this is WP:IDHT case. You yourself refuted your own position when you pointed to the link which says (in 2007) that gene studies of the past still can only produce implausible conclusions. I presented 2008 work written by Pamela Kyle Crossley who clearly say "Critics of Cavalli-Sforza's work have increased in recent years, and critics of new gene studies of the past have always been active...". This author continues: "The vast majority of the genetics (including Cavalli-Sforza) have emphasized that there is no scientific basis for a concept of "race" ... and so much less a scientific basis for "national" identities. Yet in his publications he and his team normally use racial and national terms to describe their populations. This raises the question of circular reasoning...Anthropologists and historians of culture would respond that racial and national categories are obviously not objective, but are "social constructions" - controlled by general patterns of group thinking and public expressions... For population genetics such as those working in the Cavalli-Sforza mode, making a contribution beyond what anthropologists and cultural historians have already surmised would seem to require transcending the ideologically charged and a priori subjective vocabulary of race and nationality.". Please WP:DROPTHESTICK.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What link are you talking about? And what are you talking about? All these sources, including those later than 2008, do not lose legitimacy solely based on what "Pamela Kyle Crossley" "clearly say"s. You do not make any sense whatsoever.

And what "race and nationality"? I am the one who added "The Turkish people, or the Turks (Turkish: Türkler), are citizens" which is being discussed in the section below. Do you actually have any idea what is going on? Did you think I said "Turks are a race"? Your comments are bizarrely irrelevant. Cavann (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship in English. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I am aware. Bizarrely irrelevant again. Cavann (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You first bolded citizenship and now you proclaim it irrelevant. Your editing here is tendentious and disruptive. Have you considered disengaging? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I should, because I don't think you have WP:competence. You are the one who mentioned "race and nationality" and then assumed citizenship implies race, because nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship in English. You are the one who assumed quote from National Museum Wales in British people was talking about all relevant studies, instead of only about early work that Oppenheimer cited to support his opinion about British people. You are the one who assumed some quote from Pamela Kyle Crossley invalidates all research in this area. You are the one who confuses descent and background with race, or racial theories. I will not be responding to you bizarrely irrelevant comments that are completely nonsensical. And yes, your comments are irrelevant, because none of what you said is relevant to what is being discussed about the text of the article. Wikipedia is not a forum. Cavann (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

My comments present assertions supported by scholarly sources which refute your position based solely on Cavalli-Sforza source. The link you pointed to presents scholarly opinion about all "early genetic studies of the past" not Oppenheimer's work. Work of Pamela Kyle Crossley does not refer to "all research in this area" but only to "a contribution beyond what anthropologists and cultural historians have already surmised" otherwise it would be transcending the ideologically charged and a priori subjective vocabulary of race and nationality." Your claim that I "assumed citizenship implies race" after I explained that Nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship in English is just another blatant misinterpretation. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

My position is not solely based on Cavalli-Sforza. That seems to be one of your other bizarre assumptions even though I already pointed out other sources before, some of them as late as 2011. Cavann (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your position is solely based on C-S because none of the sources you brought directly support your assertion per wp:reliable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Another bizzare statement. I already a gave you a quote and link to a 2011 journal article in this discussion.[9]. There are more sources in the text of the article as well.Cavann (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion here seems to be very similar to the one I have brought up before. Like I said, this is Turkish Republican rhetoric that is highly controversial and needs to be treated as such. Turkish laws regarding citizenship are opinionated descriptions of citizenship and race but is never a fact set in stone. Neither are the authors and writers that present it as a fact. Citizenship and race in Turkey is a HUGE problem. Many politicians have tried to solve the issue through legislative reform but failed miserably (See here). Others, like Hrant Dink, have even been prosecuted and eventually assassinated in Turkey just because they said that they are "Armenian". Please, let us not present these notions as fact, but as a highly controversial and ever so problematic issue for the country. Proudbolsahye (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Mahidevran is not an ethnic Turk

...in fact her ethnic background is a matter of debate. Many argue that she is Albanian or from the Caucasus. I will remove her image without any further objections. Proudbolsahye (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Changed. The images can be exclusive, but the text needs to be inclusive, including all viewpoints. Cavann (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Turkish citizens are not Turkish "people"

This is a myth set up within the legal framework of the Turkish Republic and particularly its constitution. Unfortunately, it has now spilled into Wikipedia. Just because someone has Turkish citizenship does not make one a "Turk". In fact, some have even been prosecuted and eventually assassinated in Turkey just because they said that they are "Armenian". Please let us not have this nonsense spill into this encyclopedia. We all know that there is a stark difference between ethnicity and citizenship, which is a common understanding in the western world. I will remove without objection. Proudbolsahye (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Leave it. I'm getting sick of everyone trying to push their POV in this article. Official definition should be there. There is also further explanation.

"During Ottoman times, the millet system defined communities on a religious basis, and a residue of this remains in that Turkish villagers will commonly consider as Turks only those who profess the Sunni faith, and will consider Turkish-speaking Jews, Christians, or even Alevis to be non-Turks.[90] On the other hand, Kurdish-speaking or Arabic-speaking Sunnis of eastern Anatolia are sometimes considered to be Turks.[91] The imprecision of the appellation Türk can also be seen with other ethnic names, such as Kürt (Kurd), which is often applied by western Anatolians to anyone east of Adana, even those who speak only Turkish.[90] In recent years, centrist Turkish politicians have attempted to redefine this category in a more multi-cultural way, emphasizing that a Türk is anyone who is a citizen of the Republic of Turkey.[92] Currently, article 66 of the Turkish Constitution defines a "Turk" as anyone who is "bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship." Although, since 1960s, the Kurdish nationalism has re-emerged.[93] Currently, a new constitution is being written, which may address citizenship and ethnicity issues.[94]" Cavann (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Interpretations of Turkish citizenship, whether they be legal or historical, can go into the body of the article but not into the lead. Currently, a highly controversial and utterly non-nonsensical sentence such as "The Turkish people, or the Turks (Turkish: Türkler), are citizens or natives of Turkey, and their descendants..." ultimately presents an argument that is highly controversial in not only international law, but in Turkish society today...to say the least. This lead does not even mention a word about Turks being people that belong to a certain ethnic group. The Russian people, Greek people, Poles, and etc. articles all refer to those people as an ethnic group. A certain Turkish Republican rhetoric has engulfed this article and needs to be removed. I propose changing the first sentence back to its original language:

The Turkish people, or the Turks, (Turkish: Türkler), are an ethnic group primarily living in Turkey, and in the former lands of the Ottoman Empire where Turkish minorities have been established. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Support this wording. Excellent point. Athenean (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked at GA ethnicity articles, and then found British people. Russian people and Poles are not GA. Greek people cannot be an example to Turkish people, given that Greece is very homogenous, and I am not interested in the region, besides Turkey.Cavann (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the GA reviewer may or may not have overlooked these claims. There needs to be a further reassessment with the nomination. There are serious flaws when it comes to this article. If these problems are met, I'll be more than happy to keep the article in its current status as GA. Proudbolsahye (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this wording, if "Turkish nationality law, which regulates current Turkish citizenship and nationality, is based primarily on the principle of jus sanguinis." also stays. Cavann (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I propose...reinserting "The Turkish people, or the Turks, (Turkish: Türkler), are an ethnic group primarily living in Turkey, and in the former lands of the Ottoman Empire where Turkish minorities have been established." as the first sentence in the lead. You can discuss citizenship and race on the basis of jus sanguinis in the body of the article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What "citizenship and race"? Cavann (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Jus sanguinis or "right of blood" refers to racial or ethnic characteristics as determinants. If Turkey practices this as a form of citizenry and ethnic relations (you might call national), it must be explained in the body of the article. However, it should not the first sentence of the article. I am now changing the first sentence to its original wording. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Cavann (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there still a need for a third opinion here?

No. Issue resolved. Proudbolsahye (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will remove the article from the list then. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not resolved. See Talk:Turkish_people#2.2B_millenia_time_gap_.28Hittites_at_the_first_paragraph_of_the_history_of_Turkish_people.3F.29. Cavann (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe the is talking about this specific section. The first sentence of the lead has changed. This section ("Turkish citizens are not Turkish "people"") may be removed. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No he is not. Read the entry in third opinion page. This specific section is solved, but not the Talk:Turkish_people#2.2B_millenia_time_gap_.28Hittites_at_the_first_paragraph_of_the_history_of_Turkish_people.3F.29 one.Cavann (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion is only suitable for disputes with only two editors involved. There seems to be more than two here so I will leave you to it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

2+ millenia time gap (Hittites at the first paragraph of the history of Turkish people?)

A really wonder whats the meaning to mention the Hittites, and other Bronze age info about Anatolia, as part of the history of the Turkish people. For sure there is a huge time gap (some millenia) before the first presence of Turkish people in that region.Alexikoua (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I can only assume that this is just part of an ulranationalist autochtony theory, which has no place, for sure, in this community.Alexikoua (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Read the sources. It is interesting that you deleted an entire paragraph based only on your assumptions. Cavann (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No encyclopedia would ever have a map of the Hittite Empire in an article about the Turkish people. This is like an asylum taken over by a madman. --Mttll (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If by asylum, you mean reliable sources, sure. And by encyclopedia, you prolly mean 50-year old print ones that you got from a newspaper. Cavann (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No, by encyclopedia, I mean any kind of encyclopedia. As for reliable sources, all they say is that modern Turkish people partially descend from pre-Turkish Anatolians in terms of genetics. How do you go from that to inserting a Hittite Empire map into an article about Turkish people when there is over 2 thousand years gap between them? By being insane of course. --Mttll (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL, you learn to read first before throwing around words. Various sources start with prehistory, Hittites, etc, (books, US Library of Congress country profile, etc) when they are starting history of Turkey. Turkish people also mean citizens of Turkey. Cavann (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(ignore trolling) Exactly, not a single reference confirms that there is an ancestral link between Hittites-Bronze Age/Ancient Anatolia populations and Turkish people, especially when we have a huge time gap this is completely science fiction. This isn't the history of Turkey but of the Turkish people. So, in case no serious mainstream reference is provided to confirm it, this paragraph gets out as an extreme case of wp:synth, wp:or, wp:pov.Alexikoua (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The only relevant fact I see in mainstream bibliography, is that this was an unhistorical theory (national myth) "According to the Turkish myth, the Hittites were bonafide "Turks"!. The tiny Ottoman state was the catalyst of a titanic rebirth! it meant the reawakening of the Hittite Turk gloriously returning as the Ottoman Turk.". There is no serious argument in order to add this as real history.Alexikoua (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This gets even more problematic since the users that contributed to this article, choose specific groups of peoples that lived in the are of modern Turkey, (Hittites etc.), but on the other hand population such as the Anatolian Greeks or Armenians, who lived in the past in this region, are not even part of this strange mix of populations.Alexikoua (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that Cavann is mixing up Turkey and Turkish people, which are different topics, and hence why they have separate articles. Athenean (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Source:Stokes, Jamie; Gorman, Anthony (2010), "Turks: nationality", Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Infobase Publishing, ISBN 143812676X. Pages: 721-722

“ INCEPTION AS A NATION

Archaeologist have discovered some of the oldest known human structures, a series of ritual or temple sites, in southern Anatolia. Dating from 9000 or 8000 b.c.e., structures at Gobekli Tepe and other places are believed to have been built by preagricultural cultures and include some of the earliest representations of human and animal figures ever discovered. Bronze Age technology also came to Anatolia early, and the peninsula was one of the centers of early civilization from the fourth millennium b.c.e. In the third millennium b.c.e. Anatolia was part of the Akkadian Empire, the world’s earliest known empire, and seems to have been an important source of metals for its Mesopotamian overlords (see Akkadians). The greatest indigenous civilization to arise in Anatolia was that of the Hittites, which thrived from the 17th to the 14th centuries b.c.e. and enjoyed a revival between about 1200 and 700 b.c.e. This was supplanted by the Lydian Kingdom (see Lydians), which was then conquered by the Iranian Achaemenid Empire in the sixth century b.c.e. (see Achaemenids; Persians). Conquest by Alexander the Great in the fourth century b.c.e. was followed by rule under the Seleucids (see Greeks) and eventual incorporation into Roman territory (see Romans) in the second century b.c.e. Parts of Anatolia were ruled by the Romans and their successors, the Byzantines, for over a thousand years until the 15th century c.e. Other parts of Anatolia, especially in the south and east, were ruled by a succession of colorful and powerful kingdoms including the Armenians, the Seljuk sultans of Rum (see Seljuks; Turkic Peoples), and the Ilkhans. The movement of Turkic peoples into Anatolia began in the 11th century c.e. following the defeat of Byzantine forces by the Seljuks at Manzikert in 1071....

”

If the paragraph is not restored, I'm reporting this at ANI. Cavann (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly for that reason the paragraph has no place in this article. I don't see the word "Turkish" (or similar terms) in pre-11th century Anatolian history. Moreover, an inclusion will be also inconsistent with similar article about ethnic groups, for example Germans (pre-Germanic Germany is excluded), Serbs (pre-Slav Serbia excluded), Russians (same).Alexikoua (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

In general and since the article is about an ethnic group, not a state, bibliography focused on ethnology is helpful. For example this one The Turks in World History. No wonder, the only reference to the Hitites is in p.208, but refers to 1930s ultranationlist theories ("fantastic theories"). This isn't history as explained above.Alexikoua (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The above quote is from a chapter for Turks in an encyclopedia. It's weird you do not see the the word "Turkish". This article is about Turks/Turkish people. Cavann (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's weird you see a similar term in this text prior to 11th century Seljuk invasion. I'm sorry I can't help you much on that. Off course pre-Turkish Anatolia isn't part of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The above quote is under "INCEPTION AS A NATION" for the chapter "Turks: nationality." Your arguments are getting even more bizarre. Cavann (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The Hittitea have NOTHING to do with the inception of the Turkish nation. Stop adding irrelevant material to this article. This isn't the article on Anatolia. Athenean (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Read relevant reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place to push your POV. Cavann (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. That is just a low quality generalist source that conflates Turkey with Turkish people. The majority of the literature on the subject does not include Neolithic sites into the "inception of the Turkish nation. Gobekli Tepe? Catalhoyuk? You must be joking. Threatening other editors and repeating yourself like a broken record will get you nowhere, only to a well-deserved block (by now). Athenean (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please remain civil ("repeating yourself like a broken record"). Where's this "majority of the literature"? Here's a secondary source, that is it is peer reviewed:

“ It also offers us a most parsimonious, if not unanticipated, explanation of Turk ethnogenesis: the vast

pre-Turkic-speaking populations of Anatolia and Siberia came to be called Turkish or Turkic due to various large-scale language- and culture-shifts beginning in the European Middle Ages and not ending until the early twentieth century.

”

Source: Yardumian, A.; Schurr, T. G. (2011). "Who Are the Anatolian Turks?". Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia. 50: 6. doi:10.2753/AAE1061-1959500101 Cavann (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! ...beginning in the European Middle Ages. One more reason to exclude this bizarre Hettite claims.Alexikoua (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL. You missed the "the vast pre-Turkic-speaking populations of Anatolia" part. That's why a paragraph is appropriate.Cavann (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

So what? pre-Turkic populations from the Middle Ages. You don't believe that the Hittites were still living in a region that witnessed multiple population movements in the meantime right?Alexikoua (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess English is not your first language. That is not what the quote says. It says the cultural shifts occurred starting in middle ages.Cavann (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

At which point the "vast pre-Turkic population of Anatolia" was no longer Ancient Anatolian, but largely Greek-speaking, Armenian-speaking, Kurdish speaking, etc...Thank you for showing the wikipedia community how your point is self-defeating. Athenean (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Hellenization, Greek language, Byzantines, etc are already mentioned in this article. I'm not leaving that out. But you are trying to push your POV, by trying to exclude that paragraph about Ancient Anatolians.Cavann (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Gobekli Tepe, Catalhoyuk, the Hattians and Hittites are irrelevant to this article. What does the fact that Catalhoyk may be the "first ever city" have to do with the Turkish people? This is not a travel guide. The Hattians and Hittites were long extinct as distinct identities before the arrival of the Turks. A brief mention that Anatolia was under the rule of the Byzantine Empire and inhabited by Greek-speakers and Armenian speakers is all that is needed. By the way, most of your oh-so reliable sources for that section consist of travel guides, e.g. Lonely Planet and the The Rough Guide. So much for that argument. Athenean (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"By the way, most of your oh-so reliable sources for that section consist of travel guides" is a laughable comment, coming from someone who edit wars and removes content based on personal opinion. Those sources offered a quick summary, but I can also use "The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia." Talking about sources, you did not even bother to link the source for FreedmanMyers, be more careful when you are copy and pasting. And none of the sources talk about culture extinction.

And please do not repeat yourself, the rationale of "Gobekli Tepe, Catalhoyuk, the Hattians and Hittites" were provided by reliable sources, including a peer-reviewed journal article. Mentioning these info in few sentences is not UNDUE. Deleting all that and expanding info about Byzantine rule, when it is already mentioned so many times in the rest of history section is so ridiculously POV, I think you are trying to help me with your future Arbitration case, just like when you are warning others about "rv WP:IDONTLIKEIT removal of relevant, reliably sourced information" when you -yourself- are doing the same.[10] Cavann (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Cavann: There is no need to express extreme wp:own activity. In case of travel guides we should be very carefull. By the way why you are using Wikipedia:WIAFA as an excuse to revert (again)? The specific article isn't in fa status. Since you didn't liked the section split of two irrelevant (both geographically and chronologically) paragraphs, a more complex title is needed. Moreover, you don't believe that 6th century Gogturks were part of Bronze Age/Ancient history right?[[11]]Alexikoua (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, this turns to be quite childish: 2nd blind revert in zero time [[12]]. What's the pov? Using the term pre-Turkish for Ancient/Bronze Age Anatolia? I don't thing that this is the pov problem in this case... Alexikoua (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

How can it be FA if it doesn't comply with FA criteria? My goal here is to improve articles. Cavann (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Cavann: You need to explain why its funny when Ancient/Bronze Age Anatolia is termed "Pre-Turkish Anatolia". Moreover, why you add the Thracians again and again? They aren't mentioned at all inside +they mainly inhabited the Balkans. Also note that the way you can't explain your actions can easily mean that you just perform blind reverts as part of an extreme wp:own strategy.Alexikoua (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I gave my answer here [13]. As for Thracians, unless you noticed, Eastern Thrace is in Balkans, and many Thracians did expand into Anatolia [14] [15]. They are currently not mentioned in the article, because of Athenian's deletion of reliably sourced relevant material.

Once again, if you do not have the WP:competence, do not make edits about things you do not know. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Read the subject-matter, and then make informed edits.Cavann (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Completely unhistorical additon since according to this rational an addition of ca. 30 population groups should be added below the section title. Should I name them? (Cimmerians, Persians, Akkadians, Ancient Greeks, Arabs, Romans, etc...). By the way, what do you mean reliably sourced relevant material? Because secondary sources (contrary to travel guides and poorly cited non-academic tertiary sources) you mentioned above can't be considered as such, feel free to check wp:rs.Alexikoua (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

We have to choose most relevant links. Were they centered in today's Turkey's borders? Eg: [16] was centered around Edirne; Phrygians, who came from Balkans, had their capital in Gordium. However, you are right. Byzantines had their capital in Istanbul, so a link is warranted in that case.

As for the rest of what you wrote, read my answer to Athenian: 'Those sources offered a quick summary, but I can also use "The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia."' Cavann (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Due to the above mentioned problems, I believe a GA reassessment is necessary. Please vote for your support or disapproval along side with your reasons. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment says " it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review; it is usually simpler to renominate it. If some time has lapsed since a delisting or fail it is better to renominate.....Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered." No mention of poll or voting or community reassessment on the article's talkpage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that 3 out of the 6 gan criteria aren't ok, but this is a personal opinion. As I see the nominator was quite quick in his comments and hadn't even mentioned how it passed all criteria. Alexikoua (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way the couple of weeks period has passed, since according to this page various issues have been continuously raised since ca. 1 month.Alexikoua (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about this. Significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks so the reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Another major issue is the lack of full citations, i.e. page numbers (or quotes in case of web pages), supposed to be fundamental for a ga nomination. There are still several cited journal articles which didn't say a word about the claimed facts.Alexikoua (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Lede

There has earlier been raised questions about one sentence in the lede, but it was not followed up at the time: "Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups, in addition to neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples, despite speaking a Turkic language, which was adopted by the local populations who predominantly had spoken Indo-European languages." I see some problems here.

• primarily vs. in addition to. If we take in addition to literary, it actually says that they descend from neighboring people and turkic people and, in addition, from indigenous groups (making the indigenous groups less important or at best equally important, but not more important). Even with a weaker interpretation of "in addition to" (taking it to mean "as well as" or just "and") it highlights that they descend from various groups and does not imply that any of the groups are significantly more important. Combining this with "primarily" does not make sense. If all the sources agree that the indigenous groups are most important, it could be stated as primarily combined with but also or similar. If all the sources agree on the diversity, it could be stated with in addition to (or as well as) without the word primarily. But you cannot have them both in the same sentence.
• despite is a tricky word. It reminds me ofvanish Ripley's Believe it or not: "Contrary to popular belief..." It is rather argumentative and suggests the message: "This should come as a surprice to you". But there is nothing surpricing in the fact that a mixture of population groups end up speaking a language that is not necessarily the language of the largest group. My earlier edit was reverted without any comment, possibly "by accident" together with other reverts. I try again.

Regards! --T*U (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think primarily and in aAchaeans of the ddition to are clear, but we can change it to but also, if it is confusing to some readers. As for the second part, the change you are suggesting is making the text less coherent. "They speak a Turkic language, which was adopted by the local populations who predominantly had spoken Indo-European languages." When were they speaking Indo-European languages, 50 years ago?? Why are we mentioning Indo-European languages if we are talking about the present. The time frame is more clear as one sentence. That paragraph is also like an historical overview, so switching to present is -again- making the paragraph less coherent. Actually two sentences make it better now. Cavann (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The specific part is quite problematic. So, another question is why Turkish people descend only from these people that lived in Turkey before (Ancient Anatolians & Thracians), while they do not also descent from the rest of the people that lived before the 11th century (citations don't claim something like that).Alexikoua (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way the 'page needed' tag, is placed in order to add the precise page where the claimed fact is found. Instead of disruptively removing it, it would be more civilized to carefully check the citation journal template (This Ancient Anatolian&Thracian ancestry +exclusion of all other population groups is really childish).Alexikoua (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Cavann, in the journal template there are both "pages" & "page" options. So I'm kindly asking you to fill the page option too, per pn tag (that's supposed to be important for an article to become ga).Alexikoua (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

[17]. Cavann (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's see the very first line from Wikipedia:CITATION:

A full citation fully identifies a reliable source and, where applicable, the place in that source (such as a page number) where the information in question can be found.

Bingo. This means in case its impossible to give precise page numbers (or alternatively quotes) we have a huge wp:or concernt and all this fringe theory will soon go.Alexikoua (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"where applicable". If you are having issues, given that English is your second language, try Wikipedia:Mentorship. Cavann (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

In this case they are needed. I wish you good luck in searching (Someone can easily assume that the claimed facts are nowhere to be found, so as a desperate attempt of disruption we have the weak argument that pages and quotes are not needed... quite childish). Full citation please!Alexikoua (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You asked for page numbers for Yardumian et al, even though its abstract supports the sentence, and even though I have quoted that abstract in this talk page [18]. I think you have enough warnings now. I will be taking this to Arbitration next time.Cavann (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(ignore trolling) Actually every single citation from no. 68 to no.74, lacks precise page numbers. I have to note that the poorly established argument that "journals don't need pages" is something a serious wikipedian should avoid. In general, removing the necessary tags can be easily described as an aggresive way of vandalism.

No wonder Yardumian doesn't claim that Turkish people came only from "Ancient Anatolians and Thracians" excluding all other populations that lived in Anatolia (i.e. Greeks, Armenians, due to obvious reaons). I assume that the same way of large-scale falsification of references occurred in the rest of the sources which lack the necessary pagenumber.Alexikoua (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Verifiability, something I kindly ask to respect:

Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)... as in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You acted in a disruptive manner. The citations were perfectly fine, as other editors have pointed out here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Specific_page_numbers_for_journal_articles_needed.3F. You could have asked for it in the talk page, yet you edit-warred in the article and gave me a frivolous warning in my talk page.[19]

I see you have no experience with journal articles. Yardumian et al. does talk about Ancient Anatolians throughout his article. That is why exact page numbers for journal articles are absurd, unless there is a quote, because sometimes you use information in multiple pages.

Still, as a courtesy, the quotes and page numbers are below. I also included where Yardumian et al. talks about "Anatolia’s Iron Age populations." Once again, your disruptive behaviour, accusations of source falsification, and etc are noted.

However, I should also thank you for your intransigence. I had completely forgotten about the section “Turks HLA profile reflects that of ancient Anatolians” in Arnaiz-Villena et al. It'll be an excellent source for my planned expansion of prehistory section.

Sources, quotes, page numbers

Yardumian, A.; Schurr, T. G. (2011). "Who Are the Anatolian Turks?". Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia 50: 6. doi:10.2753/AAE1061-1959500101 Here we must mention that the incursion of Turkic peoples, and later of Turkish Muslims, was not the only wave of mass identity consolidation in Anatolia. Hellenization, between the first millennia b.c.e. and c.e., went a long way to initiating this demographic transformation. However, the scope of this paper cannot support a full discussion of this huge subject, except to say that without evidence for a large-scale eastward migration of Greek subjects from the Balkans, we are left to view this process as the gradual linguistic and cultural conversion of most of the remaining indigenous populations (e.g., Lydians, Carians), ergo the genetic continuity of Anatolia’s Iron Age populations into the Seljuk, Mamluk and Ottoman eras (see Vyronis 1986 for an extended theory of the Hellenization of Anatolia;see Langer and Blake 1932 for an opposing view, i.e., that Hellenization was superficial).(p. 18) “We may thus conclude that the profile of Anatolian populations today is the product not of mass westward migrations of Central Asians and Siberians, or of small-scale migrations into an emptied subcontinent, but instead of small-scale, irregular punctuated migration events that engendered large-scale shifts in language and culture among the diverse autochthonous inhabitants.” (p. 32) 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. “However, this analysis does not take into account the fact that two non-IE languages, Hungarian and Turkish, have been acquired recently: the PC analysis and the relative absence of Y-chromosomal genetic barriers around these populations supports the idea that elite dominance was not accompanied by extensive genetic admixture.” (p. 1539) 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. Under title “Minor genetic influence of Turkic speakers” “These new Y-chromosome data provide candidate haplogroups to differentiate lineages specific to the postulated source populations, thus overcoming potential artifacts caused by indistinguishable overlapping gene flows. The best candidates for estimations are Asian-specific haplogroups C-RPS4Y (Wells et al. 2001; Karafet et al. 2001; Zerjal et al. 2003) and O3-M122 (Su et al. 2000). These lineages occur at 1.5% in Turkey (8/523). Using Central Asian Y-chromosome data from either 13 populations and 149 samples (Underhill et al. 2000) or 49 populations and 1,935 samples (Wells et al. 2001) where these diagnostic lineages occur at 33% and 18%, respectively, their estimated contributions range from 0.0153/0.329 × 100=4.6% to 0.0153/0.180 × 100=8.5%. During the Bronze Age the population of Anatolia expanded, reaching an estimated level of 12 million during the late Roman Period (Russell 1958). Such a large pre-existing Anatolian population would have reduced the impact by the subsequent arrival of Turkic speaking Seljuk and Osmanlı groups from Central Asia. ” (p. 135) 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 Under title “Turks HLA profile reflects that of ancient Anatolians” “Anatolian development was quite distinct to Egypt and Mesopotamia. By 5400 B.C., Hacilar culture flourished in the South-eastern Anatolian Lake District. Fortified citadels were common in central and western Anatolia and also in Mycenas (nowadays Greece) by 3000 B.C. Probably, local developments (and not invasions) led to the Hittite Empire flourishing in the central Anatolian part and to the Arzawa Kingdom at the Aegean coast (1400 B.C.); others put Hittite origins (as autochthonous) back to the 3rd millennium B.C. (34). Still more scholars identify Hittites with Indo-European invaders who spoke a different language (1400–1200 B.C.). The ‘‘Sea People’’ led to the fall of both Hittite and Arzawa cultures after 1200 B.C. Later, Neo-Hittites (in northern Syria), Assyrians and Arameans held power through different times and parts of Anatolia. By 800 B.C., a new Kingdom appeared: Urartu, in the Armenian mountains. Urartu rule was destroyed by Assyrians; also, Cimmerians from southern Russia broke through the Caucasus and descended on Urartu (714 B.C.), but were withheld by an Assyrian-Anatolian coalition. Medes (from Iran) and Babylonians invaded Anatolia in the 6th century B.C.; the former entered the Armenian mountains (northwards) while the latter confronted with central Anatolian people (Lydians). Peace followed and Persians led by Cyrus defeated the Medes and overran Anatolia bringing to an end the Neo-Hittite and other so-called pre-Indo-European speaking people rule (5th century B.C.) (34). Alexander the Great expelled the Persians from Anatolia (4th century B.C.) and after his death it was inherited by his general Selyuk. Romans and to a lesser degree Muslims took over Anatolia until the Turks, coming from central Asia (Altai mountains), invaded Anatolia in 1055 A.D. and finally took Istanbul in 1453 A.D. In spite of all these varied invasions, present day Turkish HLA profiles reflect an old Mediterranean substratum, not very different from Jewish or Lebanese (see Fig. 3, Table 3). It seems that the genetic input coming from the Altai mountains regions was comparatively low. Other genetic studies using classical allozyme markers also support that Anatolians belong to the older Mediterranean substratum (35). Our results cast doubts on the ‘‘out of Anatolia’’ origin for the Hittites and related people who are considered by some on a linguistic basis as Indo-Europeans immigrants. Most of the Anatolian invasions detailed above may have been accomplished by a so-called ‘‘elite’’ dominance process (36–38).” (p. 314) 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. doi:10.1073/pnas.171305098 “The Turkish and Azeri populations are atypical among Altaic speakers (Table 1) in having low frequencies of M130, M48, M45, and M17 haplotypes. Rather, these two Turkic-speaking groups seem to be closer to populations from the Middle East and Caucasus, characterized by high frequencies of M96- and/or M89-related haplotypes. This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic languages, originating in the Altai-Sayan region of Central Asia and northwestern Mongolia (31), were imposed on the Caucasian and Anatolian peoples with relatively little genetic admixture-another possible example of elite domince-driven linguistic replacement.” (p. 10248)

Cavann (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's good you are finally convinced after you've been clearly instructed by multiple users to give the necessary information. No wonder we have the same conclusions, since you are still on wp:or territory. Characteristically, the additional info you provided doesn't even mention the word "Thracian". On the other hand what the references state is that modern Turks are not clear ancestors of the Turkic tribes moved to Anatolia, but a mix between them and all the people that lived in the region from Antiquity to medieval ages. Thus, the lead and the correspodent parts should change respectivelyAlexikoua (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yardumian et al. and Arnaiz-Villena et al. are clear. The lead is also clear, as it does not say Turks are purely Ancient Anatolian. Yardumian et al. also talks about "Anatolia’s Iron Age populations," (1200 BC – 500 BC) which would include Thracian immigrants like Phrygians, who had their capital in Gordium in the 8th century BC. Do not change the lead based on your lack of understanding of the text or issues.Cavann (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thracian immigrants like Phrygians? Well, that's another wp:or concert here. For future reference Iron Age populations in Anatolia include also Cimmerians, Ancient Greeks, Phrygians (generally accepted as non-Thracians). Not only the so-called Anatolian linguistic group.Alexikoua (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Anatolians are not just Anatolian linguistic groups. Phrygians are Thracian.[20]. Any similarity to Greeks is covered by "but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples." Greeks are a neighboring people in case you have not noticed. However, Greek presence prior to iron age was limited, since Alexander's conquest was in 334 BC. And Yardumian et al. and Arnaiz-Villena say that Hellenization was also done through elite-dominance language replacement, so their genetic influence was limited too. So we cannot put Greeks to "various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j[›][71][72][73] Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups" part.Cavann (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The link you gave above says nothing about Phrygians being Thracians [[21]], it just states that Phrygians lost much of their ancestral roots, i.e. Phrygians are not Thracians.Alexikoua (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

In fact Phrygians might share some very distant roots with Thracians, same with Greeks [[22]].Alexikoua (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph starting with "The Thracians migrated to..." is pretty clear. Again, if you are having English issues, ask someone for help. Cavann (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

...and this paragraph states that... they lost much of their ancestral roots, i.e. Phrygians are not Thracians. For future reference Thracians and Phrygians are different people (unless you still believe in Strabo or 17th century historical books). In case no serious objection is provided this part will soon go as wp:or.Alexikoua (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL. What part of this do you not understand?

"The Thracians migrated to south-eastern Europe in the 7th millennium. After the 12th century, they also settled in Asia Minor, especially in Bithynia and the Troad, with the Brygi becoming ancestors of the Phrvgians. Although the Phrygians lost much of their ancestral roots, the Bithynians retained their Thracian culture."

Do you not understand that "they" refers to "the Thracians." Btw Bithynians were also in Anatolia.Cavann (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

... to the Thracians not the Phrygians, who lost much of their ancestral roots as you noted. Seems the one with poor knowledge of English is you. Feel free to go again to the wp:rs noticeboard, if you are not convinced in this talkpage as usual.Alexikoua (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Since no single argument is presented so far (apart from the extreme or point that Phrygians are Thracians), I see no reason why this part should remain.Alexikoua (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Arguments were presented and are clear. Failure or refusal to "get the point" is not a valid reason to change the text. Cavann (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this argument is about a moot point. Whether Phrygians "are" Thracians is debated by researchers, but that debate isn't really relevant to this page. I find the sentence to be good. Phrygians, while they may or may not be "native" to the area, can be included in "Ancient Anatolian civilizations" by dint of the fact that they lived in Anatolia, while the rest of Turkey was inhabited by Thracians. We could also throw in Greeks I guess (in the case of Ionia, they'd been there for awhile). --Yalens (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, if we are to include every minor Anatolian people, we should also include Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, and others, since they have been inhabiting Anatolia for millennia and have contributed to its genetic makeup. Athenean (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Assyrians is a stretch (they inhabited only the very southeast rim), but all of the peoples except Thracians can be grouped under "Ancient Anatolians". --Yalens (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems we are all in agreement that Thracians, as a representative people that deserve to be mentioned in lede, need to be excluded. If they were connected with the Phrygians that's not part of the lede of this article. Nevertheless, based on the poor arguments presented above someone can easily conclude that they are not connected.Alexikoua (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Algerian Turks

sources refer to Algerians who may be of Turkish descent, not modern Turkish people living in Algeria (of which I would guess there are very few, not millions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.15.132 (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Repetition for effect

Enough with the "genetic continuity" stuff. Inserting it in every section is getting old, and is nothing more than POV-pushing by repetition for effect. There is a genetics section for that, repeating it in the history section is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing at this point. The history section should be a history of the Turkish people, not a repeat of the history section Turkey. It appears some users have difficulty distinguishing between the two. Athenean (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Genetic stuff is for Genetic section. Prehistory section gives background (Hittites, etc). One sentence 'Various genetic studies suggested that these indigenous populations form the basis of modern Turkish population today,[76][68] with the "genetic continuity of Anatolia’s Iron Age populations into the Seljuk, Mamluk and Ottoman eras."[68]:18' is there to explain relevance. Indeed, enough with POV-pushing, and edit-warring.Cavann (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, genetics stuff in genetics section, history stuff in history section. So no need for a genetics sentence in the history section. Athenean (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. That is why a paragraph about genetics is not in history section, only a sentence to explain relevance. Cavann (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"To explain relevance". Whatever. You just want it repeated over and over for effect, just like you want it in the lede, even though no other ethnic group articles mention "descent" in the lede. Athenean (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Very well, your continuing edit-warring and POV-pushing leave me no choice but to ask for a GA reassessment. Stability and neutrality are key characteristics of a GA. The way the article was moreover promoted to GA without a single modificiation or reviewer comment was always suspicious. Athenean (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Hopefully, we will see more neutral editors here. I have notified QatarStarsLeague that you filed this reassessment, levying serious accusations against him, calling his promotion "highly dubious." Cavann (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I have also notified users Proudbolsahye and Antidiskriminator, who had earlier expressed similar concerns regarding the article's GA status. Athenean (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Arnaiz-Villena et al.

Athenean deleted this saying, "rm Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, unreliable source." [23] Antonio Arnaiz-Villena's work could have been criticized, but it is still a peer-reviewed journal article that has not been retracted. And it is not being cited here to support any of the relevant controversies (ie, it's not being cited to say something about Greeks). I made an entry in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cavann (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And now the verdict is in. Let's hope you will respect it. Athenean (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

So what's the reason?

This chunk of text was deleted ([[24]]) because "genetic makeup doesn't mean continuation of culture and ethnic identity from "ancient civilizations". That's true, and no one disputes that, neither does the text that was deleted. If this isn't why "the text is disputed", Proudbolsahye, what is? It's actually pretty standard to talk about history of an ethnic group's territory that occurred before the modern identity emerged. For example, our page on Mexican people talks about Toltecs and Olmecs and Aztecs, Spanish people mentions Roman and pre-Roman history, and so on. --Yalens (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yalens, your argument and questions are discussed and investigated in above sections. There simply is no consensus reached on the issue and from the looks like it, I highly doubt there ever will. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing above that addresses Yalens' concerns. Only similar frivolous arguments that were used to delete reliably sourced relevant material. Athenian and Alexikoku also said Hitites had nothing to do with modern Turks, according to their POV. This is a straw man argument. This "read above" response seems part of Wikipedia:I just don't like it behaviour to circumvent WP:NPOV. Cavann (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"See above" argument has nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT. I merely pointed out to Yalens the ongoing debate about the frivolous claims that Turks are primarily descended from Ancient Anatolians and Thracians. The sources you use do not reflect this. Only one source, Yardumian, uses such terminology but is only cited ONCE. The other sources refer to Ancient Anatolians AMONG others as descendents of Turks. It is hard to even point out that modern academics have reached a consensus on the claims. You are taking a small portion of what the sources say and making highly controversial attempts of excluding these social factors. Due to your persistent WP:OWN behavior, the article is now going to lose its status as a GA and is now going to page protection. Very unfortunate. But like I said, I think a RFC would at least help this issue get solved. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

When I look above, I mainly see (when I filter out all the tangents) people protesting at the page allegedly saying that Turks "are" Ancient Anatolians, even though (1) the text never says that they are exactly Ancient Anatolians or that they have cultural/ethnic-conscience continuity, (2) the page does already say that their ancestry also includes neighboring peoples and Central Asians, (3) regardless of what certain people think scientific sources actually DO say that Turks are mostly descended from the indigenous people of the region, which include Greeks and Armenians as well as the list of Ancient peoples. While certain editors may argue that the continuity with the Ancient populations is disrupted by the former two, scientific sources have explicitly stated that the latter ("Anatolia's Iron Age populations", etc) are also included. Forgive me if I missed anything, I also have a life and I don't tend to spend hours reading wikipedia talk pages, I hope you all can understand... --Yalens (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyhow, I'd recommend that the material be placed back in, but, as a compromise, "primarily" should be replaced with "in part". I hope we can all agree that at least that can be put on the page. --Yalens (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, why is "in addition, another study looking into HLA genes allele distributions indicated that Anatolians did not significantly differ from other Mediterranean populations" deleted? --Yalens (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yalens, I agree. "In part" is what were trying to replace "primarily" here with. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Arnaiz-Villena et al. also make the same claim, and it is cited 51 times; it's a source which was also removed through frivolous reasons. Yardumian et al. is a review article and contains numerous other sources that also make the same claims with respect to Paleolithic and Neolithic populations such as Comas et al 1998. Furthermore, your reverts are wholesale reverts such as deleting info about Hittites. Is anyone disputing Hittites lived in Anatolia? Again, you are giving straw man reasons to delete relevant material. First it was "no cultural continuity." Now you are saying 'frivolous claims that Turks are primarily descended from Ancient Anatolians and Thracians.' The deleted text says 'Various genetic studies suggested that these indigenous populations form the basis of modern Turkish population today.' Word "indigenous" is also used by sources such as Cavalli-Sforza. These nonsensical reasons to delete relevant material are indeed part of a Wikipedia:I just don't like it behaviour to circumvent WP:NPOV.Cavann (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@Proud:That's great. But what about what was deleted though? It said a lot more than that. The only part of it that even refered to that is "various genetic studies suggested that these indigenous populations form the basis of modern Turkish population today", which is actually true (that they say this). If you have other sources, we can say "various genetic studies say they form the basis, while others dispute this", but the correct approach isn't simply deleting references to the what the studies say. And what about the other parts?--Yalens (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yalens, I made a quick suggestion here which would improve the sentence in lead and be perfectly in line with all sources. [25]

However, the problem remains that very brief info about Hittites, other, etc are still being tried to eliminated from the page for some reason. Cavann (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the material about the Hittites should not be removed, as it is relevant, but I hope that maybe these things can be at least partly assuaged by compromising around by not asserting "primarily" as Wikipedia's opinion, but rather the opinion of "various genetic studies" (and if the page is going to assert something, saying "in part"). Despite the fact that the page doesn't actually say it, I think some users think the page is saying that Turks are Hittites, and this might mollify that somewhat... hopefully. --Yalens (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're taking one little edit-summary and trying to justify my entire argument through it. There's no general consensus reached about including Hittites as part of the early genetic makeup of Turks. The question remains as to terminology at this point. Arnaiz-Villena got fired from his job as an editor for the bold claims he had about genetics and you are still here trying to say hes reliable. Even WP:RS finds him controversial. Changing predominately to in part wont change the worlds image of what Turks ought to appear. Instead we can reach a consensus for once and end this discussion. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you clearly state what the beef is, other than talking about "the consensus"? --Yalens (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena did not get fired for "bold claims he had about genetics." Stop straw man arguments, and outright inaccuracies. Cavann (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"in part" may not be supported by sources. For example, Cavalli-Sforza's book [26], which is an excellent secondary source source. The following text is already quoted in the article:

“ The Turks are also defined by the country of origin. Turkey, once Asia Minor or Anatolia, has a very long and complex history. It was one of the major regions of agricultural development in the early Neolithic and may have been the place of origin and spread of lndo-European languages at that time. The Turkish language was imposed on a predominantly lndo-European-speaking population (Greek being the official language of the Byzantine empire), and genetically there is very little difference between Turkey and the neighboring countries. The number of Turkish invaders was probably rather small and was genetically diluted by the large number of aborigines ”

So, I suggest, "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times, which transitioned into Roman/Byzantine rule.j[›][71][72][73] Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups."

New part in bold. Now it would be perfectly in line with all sources, including the journal articles here [27]. Cavann (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the page should say "x-source says this" or "various sources say y" rather than "y is true". That's just my general philosophy for all pages with POV disputes, because it makes Wikipedia more of a distant observer to disputes. In my mind, "predominantly" implies "in part", but I"m not sure there'll be much point since as Proud says, the dispute isn't really about that... it's a bad compromise and isn't worth trying anymore. I wish they'd say what it is about. Perhaps they don't want to?--Yalens (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yalens the dispute is something you have already highlighted. It is the terminology of the article which needs to be changed to properly reflect current academic consensus. Once that is done, the Hittite issue will be addressed according to the changes. If indeed the word "partial" is used, then a long mention of Hittites MAY be pointless. As of now, the initial argument is the correct the terminology, then we can go from there. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Academic consensus is hard to measure, but we have a lot of sources here that note Turkish descent from indigenous populations. If you have other ones saying otherwise we can mention that too. Also, looking at the page, I don't see any "long mention" of the Hittites. It's pretty terse. --Yalens (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'd like if you'd specify what this "terminology" that should be corrected is. --Yalens (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just fully protected this page for three days. Please discuss the matter instead of edit warring. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Proudbolsahye is making things up, similar to how he used frivolous straw man arguments when he was edit-warring. The sources are clear: [28] (5 of em here) and other ones like [29], [30] (book, p.243) Cavann (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

All sources say pre-Seljuk populations are the main contributors to present day population, therefore this is my suggestion:

“ Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times, which transitioned into Roman/Byzantine rule. Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups. ”

Proudbolsahye made this suggestion in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard [31]

“ Modern Turkish people partly descend from Turkic peoples and indigenous groups of people including Ancient Anatolians and Thracians ”

That sorta equivalency is not in line with ANY of the sources. Eg, Hodoğlugil et al says only 9-15% is Central Asian [32] Cavann (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes while other sources say even more than that (see: here. So I think we are clear that as Wikipedia users we are in no way responsible of coming to our own scientific conclusions as to what Turkish most genes are by picking out sources we find responsible for our personal taste. That very same study you pointed out also says that most significant overlap of genes are not European nor Central Asian but Middle Eastern. As you may know, Turkey is made of different types of people and each have their own genetic history and makeup. Its really important that we distinguish this. Also, another proposal is to add the sentence I proposed but to later separate these claims under a case-by-case basis in the genetic history section. For example, "A study conducted in 2001 claims that....", that is of course if the source is reliable. But looks like WP:RS doesn't believe so. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well duh. Did you think Ancient Anatolians were majority European? You are aware Anatolia is not in Europe, right? The text says "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area..." and Hodoğlugil et al says at least 73%-85% of Turkish ancestry is European AND Middle Eastern.

And we are not coming to our conclusions, we are paraphrasing sources, such as Cavalli-Sforza and journal articles. Suggesting some sorta 50-50 equivalency, such as your proposed text, is falsifying sources, on the other hand. Cavann (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hodoğlugil et al is 2012. What 2001 source are you talking about that "WP:RS doesn't believe so"? Cavann (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I was giving an example about a 2001 source. I pointed out to you that other studies claim that a significant portion of Turkish genes derive from their central Asian ancestors. So here's what I propose..."Studies show, modern Turkish people partly descend from Turkic peoples and indigenous groups of people including Ancient Anatolians and Thracians" (unsourced)

In the genetics section we can outline what these studies are, if of course the studies are reliable and don't serve undue weight. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Really, I've seen estimates in sources as low as 2-4% Central Asian contribution to Turks. And really, the Central Asian haplogroups Turks have aren't unique to the region (for example, Greeks have been shown to have C at 1% and Q has been found in Armenians and Levantines, Armenians have N, blablabla). I'm not saying that this is what the page should be saying (I don't think it should say that), but really. Even the high-end 30% estimate is still a minority of invader contribution. There really is a consensus I see that a lot of language replacement has happened here. As it should- a high population area invaded by a small group of nomads who impose themselves as rulers and try to spread their religion (and culture) is a recipe for elite-dominance language/culture replacement. This isn't my view or any other individuals' its what source after source I've read has been saying: Cinnioglu, Yardumian (even though he's Armenian, judging by the name? It's notable that even he says it, despite it going against the doctrine of his country's nationalism), Wells, etc...--Yalens (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree. The fact that Proudbolsahye is still suggesting a 50-50 equivalency, and emphasizing Turkic people by putting them at the beginning of that sentence, is so POV, it is actually laughable. When combined with edit warring and this users edit history, this seems like Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.Failure or refusal to "get the point" is wasting time. Cavann (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Noone here is suggesting a "50-50" resolve to this problem. Regardless of what constitutes the majority or minority of Turkish genetic makeup, we can all agree that thethese various genetic overlaps are all in part what constitute modern Turkish genes. some studies say 2% while others say 30%. So in order to further outline what these studies claim, it must be outlined in a case by case explanation of each (not all) studies regarding Turkish genes. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, its good that we agree (though I would say a listing of every study is a bit in-depth). But what about the text that was deleted? I still haven't gotten a clear explanation about what was wrong about every part that was deleted.--Yalens (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the key here is to avoid quantitative terms like "primarily" and "predominantly". The literature makes it clear that the genetic landscape of Anatolia is extraordinarily complex, hence it is impossible to determine who is "primarily" descended from whom. I would propose something along the lines of "Being a land bridge between Europe and Asia, Anatolia has been subject to numerous population movements throughout history. As a result, its genetic landscape is complex and varied. The modern Turkish population descends from indigenous Anatolian groups, neighboring peoples, and Turkic tribes from Central Asia". I would also propose that this info be in the "Genetics" section, and not repeated in the History section. Athenean (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as the text that was deleted (I guess you mean the History section), I am ok with mentioning major Anatolian peoples like the Hittites, however, not minor Neolithic stuff like Hacilar. Also, we shouldn't repeat the whole "descent" thing in the History section. In the genetics section we can of course go into more depth and mention individual studies, I don't see anything wrong with that. Athenean (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then, with regard with to the deleted text, why don't we restore everything except Hacilar, like you said? That works for me. Can we request an end to the lock at least for this?--Yalens (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, not quite the whole text except Hacilar. Also not the genetics stuff: "Various genetic studies suggested that these indigenous populations form the basis of modern Turkish population today,[76][68] with the "genetic continuity of Anatolia’s Iron Age populations into the Seljuk, Mamluk and Ottoman eras.". Not only do I disagree with the sentence because it is too strongly worded, but also it has no place in the History section, this sort of thing belongs in the Genetics section. Otherwise ok. What say you about my proposal? Athenean (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Well that actually is what the sources say. If you want, we could change "various" to "some", as that's less assertive. I'm not sure I understand what the problem with them being in the history section too is- perhaps you could explain? If there is a good reason, I could support leaving that to the genetics section. --Yalens (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Because the sentence is clearly about genetics, so it should be in the genetics section. Otherwise we are repeating the same information over and over throughout the article. But the sentence is too strongly worded as well. The "basis" of the modern Turkish population is diverse: Turkic tribes and neighboring peoples (Kurds, Greek Muslims, Armenians, Caucasian peoples that migrated to Turkey in the 19th century) are also part of the "basis" of the Turkish population. See my proposal above. And besides the only source that explicitly supports such a strong wording is Yardumian, none of the others do. Athenean (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"The modern Turkish population descends from indigenous Anatolian groups, neighboring peoples (Greeks, Armenians, others), and Turkic tribes from Central Asia" is not in line with sources as it gives a false equivalency between 3 components. Read WP:Verifiability. The literature makes it clear that the locals is the primary source. It's highly unlikely that you know the basis of the Turkish population better than Cavalli-Sforza or Yarmunian, etc. Cavann (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The sentence is factually correct. The modern Turkish population is descended from all these groups, is it not? The literature does not "make it clear" that the "locals" are the primary source. The only source that does so is "Yardumian". By the way, Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians and others are also "locals": They had been inhabiting Anatolia for thousands of years before the arrival of the Turkic tribes. Especially the Armenians and Assyrians, whose ancestral homeland is eastern and southeastern Anatolia, respectively. Your definition of "locals" is highly chauvinistic (only "Turks" are "local", everyone else is a "foreign"). Athenean (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, Greeks have some African too, everyone has at least 1+% something. Yet you do not give equivalency to these. In wiki terms, that would be WP:UNDUE. All humans also descend from Africans.

All sources quoted above (5 of em) and Cinnioglu and Cavalli-Sforza consider impact of Turkic speakers minor.

So, Besides Yardumian, few examples: Arnaiz-Villena (text above), Cavalli-Sforza ("The number of Turkish invaders was probably rather small and was genetically diluted by the large number of aborigines"), Cinnioglu ("The haplogroup-specific variances may reflect potential associations with Upper Paleolithic, Holocene and agriculturalist processes"...."Minor genetic influence of Turkic speakers"..."During the Bronze Age the population of Anatolia expanded, reaching an estimated level of 12 million during the late Roman Period (Russell 1958). Such a large pre-existing Anatolian population would have reduced the impact by the subsequent arrival of Turkic speaking Seljuk and Osmanlı groups from Central Asia."), etc.

No source says something like "The modern Turkish population descends from...neighboring peoples (Greeks, Armenians, others)". Adding "Greeks, Armenians, others" is WP:OR, and laughably POV, since you and Alexikoku are Greek, and Proud and Yarevanci are Armenian. Why not Adygean people? Those were the closest to Turks in Hodogglugil et al. This random list will not work.

So your suggestion is, as I said, not in line with sources. All sources say pre-Turkic populations are the main source. This should be clear. The rest is WP:OR, or simply made up. pre-Turkic populations mean: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times, which transitioned into Roman/Byzantine rule." Cavann (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Who ever said I was Armenian? Stop separating Wikipedia users off ethnic grounds. Consider this a warning. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to fill in the gaps and state that Turks descend from these indigenous ethnic groups. No one here denies this. But at the same time, no one here denies that fact that central Asians constitute the genetic overlap as well. History has proven this, let alone the science. Therefore, the proposal Athenean has placed forth makes the most sense. If you want to talk about all these studies case by case, it can all go in the genetic section. No problem with me and others here for that matter. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You are not filling any gaps. Cavalli-Sforza already said "aborigines" in his "History and geography of human genes" book, which is pretty much the best secondary source [33] Cavann (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and case by case studies can be outlined in the genetics section along with the various representation of their claims. It really isn't harmful towards what you want to achieve with this article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's already the case in genetics section. The lead should summarize tho. All sources say pre-turkic populations are the main source. Hence that is the summary. The sentences you or Athenian suggested are WP:OR or are simply not supported by sources. That cannot be a summary. That would be POV-pushing. Cavann (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"Summary"? According to who? You? You are in no position to make such generalizations. That is up to the reader to decide, not the Wikipedia editor. Look...just because Athenean exemplified "neighboring peoples" as Armenian or Greeks or Kurds doesn't necessarily mean his proposition should be disregarded outright. Those are just examples used to direct users as to what "neighboring peoples" actually mean or who they are. Not all the sources say "primarily" and in fact most of them say "among others" as a way to describe genetic overlap. So in order for us to be clear of generalizations made on our behalf, its best to go with saying that Ancient Anatolians, neighboring peoples, Turkic tribes, and etc. are all part of the genetic code. The extent of the overlap shall be provided in the genetic section with conclusions to each study provided and explained thoroughly. I don't mind an expansion of the genetics section as well. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary according to sources. You are in no position to make up sentences that are not supported by any source. No source gives equal weight to 3 components. Athenian or your suggestion, therefore, do not comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cavann (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have cooled down a bit, so I will risk my neck and voice my opinion. For the lede, I suggest to strike out the word "primarily" and add the word "also" to make "Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups, but their ancestry also includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples." This still gives precedence to the continuity without stressing the point unduly. For the History section I suggest to leave it mostly as it is now, only possibly adding a few more details to underline the complexity of the population development in the area, but not adding "the genetic stuff" in that section. This can be used to expand the Genetics section, where much of it already is mentioned. Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Athenean's proposal (diff). It is neutral and does not give undue weight to some contradictory genetic studies. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

At the time when the Tirkic tribes settled in Anatolia it was simply part of the Byzantine empire, an area inhabited mostly by Byzantine Christians, i.e. Greeks, Armenians, Asssyrians, Kurds etc. I suggest this fact to be taken into account. The Turkic people turkified and islamicized most of them and later mingled with them. Yes, undoubtedly the local component constructed the overwhelming majority in this ethnogenetic scenario. Jingiby (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I support TU's proposal as a great idea for a compromise that fairly represents all parts of Turkish ancestry.--Yalens (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no compromise in TU-nor's proposal. Striking out "primarly" resolves nothing because the rest of the text continues with giving undue weight to some controversial genetics interpretations which imply the same thing. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

O.o "Primarily" and "predominantly" were previously among the main complaints. And you say they're controversial, yet I haven't seen a single academic source specifically criticize any of the studies with regards to their statements on Turks.--Yalens (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• It is not constructive just to avoid terms "primarily" and "predominantly" leaving the rest of the text with exactly the same meaning.
• Diff.... gene studies of the past still can only produce implausible conclusions. "Critics of Cavalli-Sforza's work have increased in recent years, and critics of new gene studies of the past have always been active..." - Pamela Kyle Crossley (2008). What is Global History. Polity. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-7456-3301-5. Retrieved 2 September 2013..--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, again, Antidiskriminator's input is irrelevant, as there are many more sources other than Cavalli Sforza. And it's so vague. Has anyone criticized conclusions of Cavalli Sforza about Turkish people? Cavann (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

TU-nor's proposal sounds fine. Cavann (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No...Independent studies have their own independent conclusions. If we are here making conclusions by collecting these studies and drawing commentary from them, that will be OR on our part. No one here is giving equal credit to each and every variable involved in the genetic overlap of modern Turks. So in order for us to get passed the whole, "but it's is not supported by sources" dilemma, Atheneans proposal shall be considered but more importantly, left UNSOURCED. There is no harm in that. The specifications of each of the studies will be outlined in the genetics section. That simple. Like I said from the beginning, no one here is giving equal credit to each variable by using Atheneans proposal, the sentence does not come out that way anyways. It says in part but no one here is defining what that part actually is, until it is further outlined in the genetic section. Therefore, this should be explained through the case by case studies in the genetic section. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You have not showed one study that suggests pre-Turkic populations are not the main source. What independent studies? And you wanna leave the statement unsourced? LOL. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Consider this a warning. Cavann (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This study [34] for one, shows Turks clustering with Central Asian populations. I do not have time right now, but will look for more. Jingiby also makes a very important point. At the time of the Turkish conquest, anatolia was inhabited by Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, Laz, and others. This is hidden away, leading us to believe that the current Turkish population consists of Hittites that somehow "leapfrogged" all the population movements between Alexander's conquest and the Turkish conquest. As far as the lede, the only difference between my proposal and Tu-nor's is the "but also". My proposal gives more weight to the ancient Anatolians by placing mentioning them first, and the Turkic tribes last. I think that is fair. As far as the history section, I'm glad we all agree to keep the genetics stuff out of there. Athenean (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The study you linked, Mergen's, aside from being based on only 75 individuals, shows Turkish DNA in a cluster with Turkic-speaking central Asians but also British people (in the same cluster).--Yalens (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I was just gonna say that. As for Jingiby's point and your other point, I had suggested this text:

“ Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times, which transitioned into Roman/Byzantine rule. Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups. ”

We can merge this with Tu-NOR's suggestion. Ie:

“ Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times, which transitioned into Roman/Byzantine rule. Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups, but their ancestry also includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples. ”

This avoids a random WP:OR list about who the neighboring populations are, or who were the ethnicities in Byzantine Empire.Cavann (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this would be in line with wiki policies and a good compromise as it removes the "primary" which at least previously seemed to be the main point of contention. --Yalens (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look at my latest proposal, I do not mention specific peoples ("Greeks, Armenians", etc...), so as to avoid riling up Turkish nationalist sensitivities, who don't like that, even though many Turks are actually descended from Greek and Armenian converts to Islam. Athenean (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to go about WP:CHERRYPICKING a study after another and drawing my own set of conclusions from them because that's not what we should do as Wikipedia editors. You're creating your own list of studies and saying that they all say "primary" however, there is no source that places those very same studies under the very same context you propose. I have and others repeatedly said that due to the complexities of the region and observance of various social and historical events, all these variables do make up a part of the genetic overlap. There's no denying this. You can debate all you want as to the extent of each of these factors but that is something that should be highlighted in another section of the article. Some study says this is a primary variable while other studies say that it is moderate, etc. etc. These are descriptions that should be outlined further on in the article. As for sourcing, yes it needs to be left unsourced. Especially if it is in the lead since, "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." But above all, it should be unsourced because conclusions should be drawn upon the case by case examination by the reader and not by us. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, you are making up studies. Which study says contribution of pre-Turkic populations are "moderate"? Tu-NOR's suggestion dropped the word "primary." And as I said, the lead should summarize the sources. Whereas you are making up studies. We cannot include input of imaginary studies in the lead. Cavann (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Dropping the word primary and replacing it with nothing makes it even worse. It makes it seem like that's those are the ONLY variables that make up the modern Turkish genetic overlap. This study, for example, [35] provides a different story to the equation which is almost neglected in the article. Therefore, instead of searching and hunting for studies, we can have them all highlighted in the genetic section while leaving the sentence unsourced (in which case in should be under WP:MOS). Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

We've actually already talked about this 2001 paper. While 30% is indeed much higher than most of the other estimates, it remains in minority. As for putting mentioning the results of each paper on the topic, we have a separate page Genetic history of the Turkish people for that. We can't go into huge amounts of detail involving haplogroups and sequencing and genetic drift that will send the heads of people who just came for the ethnic group spinning, we just have to summarize the general idea- which all of them say is that the Turkic invaders constituted a minority (whether its 2% or 30%) of the ancestors of the modern ethnic group, and the rest were culturally and linguistically assimilated through elite dominance.--Yalens (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. That study is contradicted by newer research and other articles. It is contradicted by review articles and secondary sources. However, even if it weren't, 30% is still a minority contribution. Even that study does not justify Athenian or your wording. Cavann (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Better to exchange the "but" with "and", leaving "...descend from these indigenous groups, and their ancestry also includes ..." T*U (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, that suggests a false equivalency. In wiki terms, it's UNDUE weight. Cavann (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing undue in saying "A, and also B" when both A and B are true. T*U (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In genetics, it is A to Z. All European groups include small African mtDNA for example African_admixture_in_Europe#Haplogroup_L_lineages_frequencies, yet we do not say these groups descend from A, B, C, and Africans. And when you go back far enough, all humans descend from Africa. Both A and B are true, but all sources say A is the predominant part. This cannot be ignored. Cavann (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have requested WP:DR, since we seem to be going around in circles.Cavann (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

According to this source [36], between a third and a quarter of Turkey's population is descended from Balkan and Caucasus muslims that migrated to Turkey during the late 19th and early 20th century. Definitely not "primarily indigenous Anatolians". Athenean (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is worth mentioning, probably in the history section (genetics studies haven't really referred to this much as far as I can tell). However, we should note that "between a third and a quarter" of Turkey's population is still a minority (even if that is a really high estimate), and this probably isn't exclusive descent either as the migrants have intermarried extensively with native Thracian and Anatolian Turks. There's the case of the ultimate origin of these migrants, and the story there is mixed. The "Turks" of some regions like Crete do in fact seem to be mainly Turkified locals (or in some cases, Muslim Greeks who still spoke Greek)- for most of these, they're already covered in "neighbors". With regards to other regions like Bulgaria, I've read things telling a different story, of (with exception of Pomaks) a massive Turkish colonization from densely-populated Anatolia (i.e. making the case of migration more like, say, post-French Algeria in a certain sense), which would mean these Turkish migrants shared at least some of the ancestry of their Anatolian co-ethnics. --Yalens (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, on second inspection, it seems to already be there. --Yalens (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@Athenian: Thrace is in Balkans, in case you did not notice. The text also does not say "primarily indigenous Anatolians". Please look up Quotation mark. We do not usually misrepresent a text and put it in quotation marks in English. The current text says: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j[›][71][72][73] Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups,[68]k[›][74][75][76] but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples." And I already suggested dropping "primarily" as a part of a compromise.Cavann (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are you repeating yourself? Why so insistent on the Thracians? It is also true that Armenians, Assyrians, and various Semitic, Kartvelian and Iranic peoples "have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times." Greeks have also been inhabiting Anatolia since at least 1200 BC. Athenean (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We can't possibly mention all the groups that have inhabited Anatolia since ancient times. I am against mentioning individual groups (e.g. Thracians) in the lede, therefore I propose "The modern Turkish population descends from the various populations groups that have inhabited Anatolia throughout history, neighboring peoples, and Turkic tribes from Central Asia. And stop playing the "sources" card, will you? Cavalli-Sforza, Cinnioglu and Russell do not support your wording, only Yardumian does, and Arnaiz-Villena is unreliable. Athenean (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I think more precise is to replace the phrase neighboring peoples with Ottoman Muslim refugees and immigrants. Jingiby (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course those sources support my wording. Cavalli-Sforza says: "The number of Turkish invaders was probably rather small and was genetically diluted by the large number of aborigines." Cinnioglu references bronze age population. Your suggested wording is, again, giving a false equivalency and is not in line with sources. Cavann (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@Jingiby: "neighboring peoples" is better in my mind because there are more sources from neighboring peoples other than Ottomon Muslim refugees (and immigrants may make some people think of modern day phenomena): for example Circassians weren't ever really part of the Ottomon empire nor could their expulsion really be called "immigration", while during Ottomon times there was other ways that neighbors entered the Turkish ancestry than just the post-Ottomon migrations (interethnic marriage, devshirme, etc...).--Yalens (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the exact wording of this part, a mention to the Thracians is still unsupported, due to lack of sources. It was probably based as wp:synth.Alexikoua (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

How does talking specifically about Ancient Thracians relate to the previous discussion? Maybe you can start a separate thread about Thracians? I don't really think its really that important to the issue. --Yalens (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Do not manipulate the discussion! Thracians lived on the territory of modern Turkey, as in Balkan, as well as in Anatolian part. Where is the problem? After a migration during the second half of the second milleniun and the first centuries of the first millennium the Thracians were settled from the Black Sea to the neighbourhood of Axios, and from the Aegean Sea to the Transdanubian lands. They starddled the Sea of Marmara, and had a foodhold also in Troad and in Bithynia. The Cambridge ancient history. 3,2. “The” Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and other states of the Near East, from the eighth to the sixth centuries B.C. John Boardman, Iorwerth E. S. Edwards, N. G. L. Hammond, Cambridge University Press, 1991, ISBN 0521227178. pp. 591-622. The Thracian Chersonese is an typical example. Jingiby (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to shout. Per Wikipedia:Civility "editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." The proposed wording ("various populations groups that have inhabited Anatolia throughout history") is neutral and the best compromise which would avoid future edit wars and synthesis (like synthesis used in the article about Bulgarians).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

We are getting fed up by your POV pushing and how you ignore reliably sources to make up your own UNSOURCED statements. Cavann (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thracians

The sources are clear on this one, if one can understand basic English:

"The Thracians migrated to south-eastern Europe in the 7th millennium. After the 12th century, they also settled in Asia Minor, especially in Bithynia and the Troad, with the Brygi becoming ancestors of the Phrvgians. Although the Phrygians lost much of their ancestral roots, the Bithynians retained their Thracian culture."[37]

The source says Phrygians and Bithynians are Thracian. More sources:

"The genetic proximity with Balkan populations may probably be the result of the long-term interactions between Anatolia and Balkan regions since at the latest the Early Iron Age, as attested by linguistic, archaeological, mythological and biological studies.9, 10, 26, 32 This might be a genetic signature of the Phrygians originating from the Balkans, who filled the political hiatus in Central Anatolia left by the Hittites from the 10th century BC onwards." [38]

Alexikoua had a weird claim about Phrygians not being Thracian. It doesn't matter if they lost their ancestral culture, they originate in Thrace and sources say they are Thracian. Cavann (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You still have to prove that Phrygians were Thracians (the quote says nothing about what you want to claim). For one more time the source says the Bryges (not Thracians) were ancestors of the Phrygians. Unfortunately I can do nothing about your extreme pov in this case. It appears that you need to read about the historical background of the Bryges, who were not Thracians too (feel free to read the relevant wiki article first).Alexikoua (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I have also to note that the fact that Prygians originated from the Balkans is completely irrelevant with the extreme wp:pov that they were... Thracians. No wonder, apart from a wrong source (which points to the Bryges not Thracians) there is nothing more to present so far.Alexikoua (talk)

Again, if you do not understand what this sentence "The Thracians migrated to south-eastern Europe in the 7th millennium. After the 12th century, they also settled in Asia Minor...," means ask someone else what it means and get help with English.Cavann (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The part you provided now doesn't even mention the word "Phrygian"... I've kindly advised you to read about the background of the Bryges and Phrygians, who are of course not Thracians, as you wrongly pointed above using sarcasm.Alexikoua (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDHT and Bryges and Phrygians are not the only Thracians. Cavann (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR, about Bryges and Phrygians still no source provided about the so-called 'Thracian claim'. In fact they both are treated as different tribes than the Thracians.Alexikoua (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this wp:or concert is still active. Thracians, as pointed above were one of several tribes and their mention isn't justified in lead, next to Ancient Anatolians.Alexikoua (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Have we all forgotten that Turkey includes Southeastern Thrace? Of course part of Turkey's territory was inhabited by Thracians... regardless of whether they include Phrygians (who by the way can also count as "Ancient Anatolians" given their geographic position). --Yalens (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Alexikoua seems like he cannot comprehend basic English. Besides the sources above, this is pretty clear: "The history of Turkey encompasses, first, the history of Anatolia before the coming of the Turks and of the civilizations--Hittite, Thracian, Hellenistic, and Byzantine--of which the Turkish nation is the heir by assimilation or example."

Enough with the disruptive deletion of reliably sourced info. Cavann (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if we include Eastern Thrace the inclusion of Thracians is a non-representative one in a region in which dozens of people had a more profound cultural impact. I.e. sentence is still extreme wp:or, and no wonder the vast majority of users in this talkpage concluded that we have to get rid of that word from lead. Otherwise we should include Cimerians, Persians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Phrygians (who were not Thracians), etc, etc. Alexikoua (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Go argue with reliable sources. Cavann (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope, the present form is completely wp:or, so there is no reason to stay.Alexikoua (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Relevant policies: Failure or refusal to "get the point" and competence is required. Go argue with US Library of Congress Country Profile source as to why they have not included "Cimerians, Persians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Phrygians (who were not Thracians), etc, etc." It's also funny you want Persians mentioned in the lead since their invasion was like a blink of an eye, given the scope of history. Cavann (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

PS: Yet another source: "After the collapse in c.1200 BCE of the Hittite Empire, which dominated Anatolia in the second millennium BCE, the Thracians settled around the Sea of Marmara and further inland in Anatolia, establishing the kingdom of Phrygia with its capital at Gordion." Source: The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, Volume 1, p.100 Cavann (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems you still don't get it and yet you support just an extreme point. Another example: "Phrygia fell victim, c. 695, 695, to an invasion from the north by the Cimmerians, who occupied large areas of Anatolia," The Routledge Handbook of the Peoples and Places of Ancient Western Asia. But you still insist to include Thracian, but exclude dozens of people of an unknown reason. Guess according to your rationale I need to add Cimmerians to lead right now...Alexikoua (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Simply invading an area (with an unknown number of invaders) is different from living there for a long time and being the lay population. Thracians lived in Thrace, of which a chunk is now Turkey, regardless of whether they included Phrygians, so of course they are relevant to the lead. The rest of the list is either includable in "Ancient Anatolian civilizations" (i.e. Phrygians) or not relevant enough because they're just foreign rulers.--Yalens (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Cimmerians are Ancient Anatolians. [39] They are already covered. Cavann (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Suppose you are kidding me, the specific lists covers also Dorians, Teucrians, Paeonians, and no wonder (from your link)... "the Cimmerians, like the Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Turks, clearly originated from outside Anatolia,". Again your are still into deep wp:or territory. Either we include all or none of them.Alexikoua (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

What is this equation of Cimmerians with Thracians in importance? Cimmerians invaded in the 7th century BC, and then dissappeared, but Thracians were the lay and dominant population of Thrace until they were assimilated during the Roman Era. You can't call that the same thing. --Yalens (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, Thracians were geographically restricted to the inner regions of eastern Thrace and part of Bythinia. Cimmerians dominated a major part of Anatolia. Not to mention Romans, who dominated the entire area for centuries, Byzantine Greeks for almost a millennium and Greeks in general who made up 14% of the Anatolian population before 1921 with a historical background of ca. 3 millennia. Thus, the mention of Thracians as a representative people of the history of Turkey isn't representative one and a product of extreme wp:synth.Alexikoua (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: Are you arguing that Dorians are Ancient Anatolians? Cavann (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@Cavann, I've just refuted your argument that Cimmerians were "Ancient Anatolians", by quoting the source you mentioned... Your link containted a list of several non-indiginous people that moved and inhabited Anatolia, i.e. Cimmerians, Romans, Greeks.Alexikoua (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And now you are claiming Romans and Greeks all moved to Anatolia? There is a difference between an entire tribe migrating, and roman invasion. Cavann (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I claimed from start that the Thracian claim is simple wp:or and so far has been nothing decent presented to object this point. As I pointed above Greek and Roman impact on the region was far more significant than Thracian.Alexikoua (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Take it to dispute resolution. I do not want to repeat myself. Kevin ^(talk) 23:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A couple notes: it seems Alexikoua has conceded the Thracian presence in Bithynia. Anyhow, I suggest we replace "Thracians" with "ancient inhabitants of Thrace" or "ancient Thracian populations", such that we can avoid this pointless dispute and also treat Thrace the same as Anatolia...--Yalens (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Aren't they the same thing (Thracians = "ancient inhabitants of Thrace")? Kevin ^(talk) 01:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) The Thracians were but one of dozens of peoples that have inhabited what is now Turkey throughout the ages. I don't see why they should get special mention in the lead (article body is fine). Athenean (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Because of sources and more than a third of Thrace is in Turkey (Eastern Thrace). Kevin ^(talk) 01:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Meaningless. Eastern Thrace only makes up 3% of modern Turkey. And this article is about the Turkish ethnic group, not Thrace. 01:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

and houses 12% of current population of Turkey. Ancient Anatolians are mentioned, so should Thracians. Kevin ^(talk) 01:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the 12% of Turkey's population, there's the other parts of Thrace in Bulgaria and Greece that formerly had large Turkish populations which migrated to Turkey (although a portion still reside in these countries), some to parts outside Thrace. @Cavann: while Thracians were obviously the overwhelming majority of Thrace's population, others did exist (i.e. Greeks, especially in coastal areas, etc...). Making the wording more vague captures them too and removes at least some of Alexikoua's complaints (i.e. that Greeks who lived on Turkey's territory aren't as much included). --Yalens (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The 12% of Turkey's population residing in Thrace are not Thracians, nor can anyone claim that that 12% are the direct lineal descendants of the ancient Thracians. Most of that 12% resides in Istanbul, and most of Istanbul's population are in fact immigrants from Anatolia, not to mention one third of Istanbul are Kurds. Athenean (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Duh. Also Thracians themselves migrated into Anatolia. It's there because it is one of the main groups in "Prehistory, Ancient era and Early Middle Ages" period in what is now Turkey's history. This is relevant to Turkish people, because Turkish people descend from these groups. Eg:

The Early Iron Age in Central and West Anatolia is characterized by the kingdom of the Phrygians (10th to early 7th century BC), followed after its collapse by the Lydians....This might be a genetic signature of the Phrygians originating from the Balkans, who filled the political hiatus in Central Anatolia left by the Hittites from the 10th century BC onwards.

[40] Kevin ^(talk) 04:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thracians were one of many tribes migrated in Anatolia, and off course this doesn't justify that they need special mention in the lede. In fact there is no source to support that; either they stay together with Romans, Cimerians (who are not Ancient Anatolians [[41]]), Greeks, Phrygians (who were a distinct tribe in historical times, with distant ancestral links with Greeks and Thracians [[42]]) etc or we remove them. Morevoer, I find also Yalens' proposal ok.Alexikoua (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Great, so unless anyone objects, can we implement my proposal ("Thracians" -> "ancient populations of Thrace") and consider this dispute over? --Yalens (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Now I think we are getting somewhere. Something like "ancient populations of Thrace and Anatolia", adding neighboring people and Turkic people, with no "primarily" and preferably no "but also". --T*U (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I still suggest Ancient Anatolians since it is linkable, altho the article is really short now. "Ancient populations of Balkans" would be preferable to ancient populations of Thrace.Cavann ^(talk) 00:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, "ancient populations of Anatolia and Thrace", is ok, npov, while wp:or and synth are avoided.Alexikoua (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@Cavann: Nope, I do not think so. "Ancient Anatolians" is too narrow and excludes peoples from Alexander the Great and after (according to the definition in the lead of Ancient Anatolians). "Balkans" is in my opinion far to broad end includes peoples that have minimal relevance or none. The formula "Thrace and Anatolia" conveys the message that the people who have been living in today´s Turkey (= Anatolia and part of Thrace) through the ages are a major source for today´s Turkish people. Isn't that exactly the point you want to make? Regards! --T*U (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You have stated too many personal opinions. In Wikipedia, we are interested with reliable sources, not personal opinions of editors. Read the sources first and then come up with suggestions for wording.

1) Various sources mentions Balkans specifically. Eg:

More particularly, a genetic affinity of Sagalassos with Anatolian and Balkan populations has been revealed by our study (Figure 2, Figure 3, Supplementary Tables 8 and 10), suggesting a relatively similar background of the maternal gene pool in these populations. The affinity with current Anatolian populations, suggests that the same historic and demographic events that shaped the mtDNA pool of Sagalassos, might have left a genetic signature in the modern Turkish populations.

[43]. Mentioning Balkans would also be more in line with historical events, such as when millions of refugees settled into Turkey during the collapse of Ottoman Empire.

2) It is weird you think Ancient Antolians is too narrow. As for the period after Alexander the Great, this was my suggestion: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times, which transitioned into Roman/Byzantine rule.j[›][71][72][73] Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups." "Ancient populations of Anatolia" is too vague, and it might suggest that the period after Alexander the Great has the same impact on Turkish population today with the period before him. Various sources such as Yardumian et al is specifically against this notion (and it is a review article). Therefore you should describe what happened, a transition into Roman/Byzantine rule, rather than WP:OR synthesis.

3) So, this is my suggestion: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and ancient Balkan peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times, which transitioned into Roman/Byzantine rule. Modern Turkish people descend from these indigenous groups, but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples."

Cavann ^(talk) 20:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is under a section titled "Thracians" (I'm not reprimanding anyone, I'm just trying to keep this on topic so we can get at least somewhere, even if only incremental). Cavann, do you specifically object to referring to "ancient populations (or etc) of Thrace" rather than "Thracian peoples"? Personally, I'd like to say the "ancient populations of Anatolia and Thrace" formula works pretty well for me. As for Balkan, I don't really think this applies as that would potentially include peoples like Illyrians and Dacians who didn't touch Turkey. How about "Various peoples including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and peoples of Thrace have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times, which transitioned into Roman/Byzantine rule. Modern Turkish people descend from these indigenous groups, but their ancestry also includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples." --Yalens (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Cavann ^(talk) 18:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-starter. It's really the same thing as the current wording. Athenean (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again, a good secondary source is Cavalli-Sforza, which Athenean uses as well (User_talk:Cavann#Spiteful_revert), and is backed by newer research and primary sources in this case:

The Turks are also defined by the country of origin. Turkey, once Asia Minor or Anatolia, has a very long and complex history. It was one of the major regions of agricultural development in the early Neolithic and may have been the place of origin and spread of lndo-European languages at that time. The Turkish language was imposed on a predominantly lndo-European-speaking population (Greek being the official language of the Byzantine empire), and genetically there is very little difference between Turkey and the neighboring countries. The number of Turkish invaders was probably rather small and was genetically diluted by the large number of aborigines.

p.243

migrations front the Anatolian region are more likely to be responsible for the genetic gradient observed in the first synthetic map (sec. 5.1 I). In particular, he cited the expansion of the Turkish people during the growth of the Ottoman Empire. But more reccnt migrations are less likely to have a detectable genetic impact, because the local population density of the earlier inhabitants is very high in recent times compared with most situations of immigration. Moreover, armies of invaders are usu ally relatively small minorities, who rarely settle in conquered country. Evcn in the case of the invasion of Hungary by the Magyars. which was certainly of greater relative demographic weight than the Turkish expansion and was certainly followed by settlement (sec. 5.6), it has been laborious to find specific genetic traces, which turn out to be at the limit of detectability (Guglielmino Matessi et al. 1990). On the basis of present knowledge, Turks seem to have been relatively unsuccessful in making their genetic presence fell, even when they occupied modem Turkey, coming from the East. By contrast, the genetic gradient in Europe of people originating from the Middle East is of dramatic magnitude and regularity across the whole continent. It is not just limited to the Balkans. The consideration of demographic quantities suggests that the present genetic picture of the aboriginal world is determined largely by the history of Paleolithic and Neolithic people, when the greatest relative changes in population numbers took place.

p. 299 Source: The History and Geography of Human Genes

So I suggest something like this: "The area now called Turkey has been inhabited since the Paleolithic, including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations and peoples of Thrace, which transitioned into Roman/Byzantine rule starting in Late Antiquity. Modern Turkish people descend from these indigenous groups, but their ancestry also includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples." Cavann ^(talk) 22:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Cavalli-Sforza is of course a reliable source, but he is almost 20 years old. I just had a look at Hodoglugil 2012, perhaps the latest study on the subject. They do not give the ancient Anatolians preferential treatment, rather, they state that Turks are genetically closest to Middle Eastern and European populations rather than Central Asians, which makes sense.

Turkey has experienced major population movements. Population structure and genetic relatedness of samples from three regions of Turkey, using over 500,000 SNP genotypes, were compared together with Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP) data. To obtain a more representative sampling from Central Asia, Kyrgyz samples (Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan) were genotyped and analysed. Principal component (PC) analysis reveals a significant overlap between Turks and Middle Easterners and a relationship with Europeans and South and Central Asians; however, the Turkish genetic structure is unique. FRAPPE, STRUCTURE, and phylogenetic analyses support the PC analysis depending upon the number of parental ancestry components chosen. For example, supervised STRUCTURE K equals 3 illustrates a genetic ancestry for the Turks of 45% Middle Eastern (95% CI, 4249), 40% European (95% CI, 3644) and 15% Central Asian (95% CI, 1316), whereas at K equals 4 the genetic ancestry of the Turks was 38% European (95% CI, 3542), 35% Middle Eastern (95% CI, 3338), 18% South Asian (95% CI, 1619) and 9% Central Asian (95% CI, 711). PC analysis and FRAPPE/STRUCTURE results from three regions in Turkey (Aydin, Istanbul and Kayseri) were superimposed, without clear subpopulation structure, suggesting sample homogeneity. Thus, this study demonstrates admixture of Turkish people reflecting the population migration patterns.

Bottom line, the current population is very mixed, the result of numerous population movements through the ages. I thus propose The area now called Turkey has been inhabited since the Paleolithic, including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations and peoples of Thrace, and has been subject to numerous population movements throughout the ages. Modern Turkish people descend from indigenous groups, neighboring peoples, and Turkic peoples. I have place indigenous groups first, and Turkic peoples last. I don't see the point of mentioning the transition to Roman/Byzantine rule at this point, it is unclear what demographic impact it had. It did have a major cultural impact, in that Anatolia was fully Hellenized by the late Roman period. That should of course be mentioned, though not necessarily here. Athenean (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The population movements Hodoglugil 2012 talks about are Turkic population movements. p. 128:

The Anatolian peninsula (present-day Turkey) connects the Middle East, Europe and Asia, and thus has been subject to major population movements (Grousset, 1970; Guvenc, 1993; Findley, 2005b).

Grousset, R. (1970) The Turks and Islam to the thirteenth century. pp. 141–170. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press

Guvenc, B. (1993) Turklerin Kimligi: Kim Bu Turkler? (Identity of Turks: Who are the Turks?). pp. 19–52. Ankara: Kultur Bakanlıgı.

Findley, C. V. (2005b) Islam and empire from the Seljuks through the Mongols. pp. 56–92. New York: Oxford University Press.

Given that we already added Turkic people into the sentence, it is redundant.Cavann ^(talk) 02:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@Athenean: Saying Hodoglugil disputes a relationship with "Ancient Anatolians" isn't really correct because he doesn't even discuss that (he mainly discusses the relationship to Central Asians, which he represents with Kyrgyz). I think Cavann's compromise is good for the lede. --Yalens (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I never said Hodoglugil "disputes a relationship with "Ancient Anatolians"". Where did I say that? All I said was that they do not give the Anatolians preferential treatment, in fact they do not even mention the ancient Anatolians, rather, they state that Turks are closest to Middle Eastern and European populations, which makes sense. I think the fact that they ignore the ancient Anatolians is significant. Which compromise wording are you talking about? "The Anatolian peninsula (present-day Turkey) connects the Middle East, Europe and Asia, and thus has been subject to major population movements"? I don't think anyone in their right mind would dispute that Anatolia has seen major population movements throughout the ages. That doesn't resolve the issue of the descent sentence. Athenean (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If this article is to be a GA, the various population movements that have contributed to the moderrn Turkish population should be mentioned. We have Phrygians, Cimmerians, and Greeks in early antiquity, Galatians in later antiquity, forcibly resettled Slavs in the early Medieval Period, Turkic tribes in the 10th and 11th century, Balkan and Caucasus muslims in the 20th century. And these are just off the top of my head, I am probably missing many others. All of which can easily be sourced btw. Athenean (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we can draw anything from his lack of talking about Ancient Anatolians because his job was to determine the contribution of Central Asians. Claiming that the omission is significant for me is a step too far, because it would've been off-topic for him to mention it in a paper that mainly dealt with the effects of a population movement millenia after they were historically relevant. Yes, we all agree that Turks being closest their Mid-Eastern and European neighbors makes the most sense. I'm sorry, I suppose I should've specified that I was talking about this one (Cavann's most recent):

“ The area now called Turkey has been inhabited since the Paleolithic, including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations and peoples of Thrace, which transitioned into Roman/Byzantine rule starting in Late Antiquity. Modern Turkish people descend from these indigenous groups, but their ancestry also includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples. ”

As for all these other migrations, in fact a lot of them are already covered: Phrygians and Greeks are covered in the term "Ancient Anatolians", while post-Ottomon Muslim migrations are explicitly mentioned. As for Cimmerians and Galatians, and I suppose Kaskas and so on, I don't think we should detail all of them, unless you want to seriously change that part of the page. The ancient history section is pretty short right now, and if you were to fill it doing that (in so-and-so BCE the Cimmerians migrated, then the Galatians came blablabla), to be fair we'd have to talk about all the other things that went on (Hittite Empire, for one) besides than people playing musical territories.--Yalens (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Athenean:There needs to be a conjunctive (", but"), instead of a list, given what secondary sources like Cavalli-Sforza says, which are not disputed by newer research (I would say Hodoglugil supports it, but it doesn't spell it out). A list is misleading, because it may give false equivalency (ie: unnecessarily vague despite the sources), whereas the primary component is "aborigines." No source disputes this.

So my suggestion: The area now called Turkey has been inhabited since the paleolithic, including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations and peoples of Thrace. Modern Turkish people descend from these indigenous groups, but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples (Balkans and Caucasus), and Turkic peoples.

This covers almost everything, with exceptions like Galatians. We cannot cover every single thing in the lead. And I'm against open-ended and undefined "major population movements." What is major? I may not consider Galatians major. Also people have no idea what Anatolia is (at least in North America), so readers may get confused about what these "major population movements" are. In the source where it comes from, it is the Turkic people, which is covered. Cavann ^(talk) 02:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem I have is that "ancient Anatolian civilizations and peoples of Thrace does not cover other indigenous groups that have significantly contributed to the modern Turkish population, e.g. Turkified Kurds [44] and Armenian converts to Islam. Remove "these" before "indigenous groups", and throw in "Middle East" along with Balkans and Caucasus and we may have a deal. Fine regarding the Galatians, though they should be mentioned in the body text. Athenean (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Those are covered by "neighboring people." Urartu could also be considered Ancient Anatolian. Kurds might have Ancient Anatolian too since they did not magically appear. If there are no "these", what are the indigenous groups? And again what Middle East? It is a big place, I don't think Turkish people have that much Egyptian or Saudi in them. Ancient Anatolians themselves include West Asian background. And while millions of Muslim refugees arrived from Balkans and Caucasus, there was no mass migration from Middle East. We can change "neighboring peoples (Balkans and Caucasus)" to "neighboring peoples (e.g., Balkans and Caucasus)." Cavann ^(talk) 03:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Are Armenians in the "neighboring people" category? I provided two sources that talk about at least a few hundred thousand Armenians being Turkified during and after the genocide. It is yet to be revealed how much Armenians contributed to the formation of the Turkish people.
What is the connection of Urartu (and its people) with the Turks? Urartians were long gone before the first Turkic tribes invaded Anatolia. Eastern Anatolia was mostly Armenian by the 1st century BC. I smell original research here. --Երևանցի ^talk 04:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Armenians are obviously a neighboring people and they are also part of the Caucasus (South Caucasus in this case) region. One could also argue that they also constitute part of the ancient category, as it's pretty clear they've lived in Eastern Anatolia for at least two millenia. They're covered. Also, try to assume good faith regarding Urartians. Don't assume someone's saying something they aren't necessarily.--Yalens (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Armenians lived in Eastern Turkey (Western Armenia) until 1915 when they were forcefully removed from their ancestral homeland and murdered en masse. I don't think anyone here believes that a date as recent as 1915 is by any means 'ancient'. Armenians have roots in Anatolia all the way back to the days of Urartu. Yet, they have continued living on their lands until 1915, which doesn't make them 'Ancient' anymore. Hence, they are as indigenous to Anatolia as the Euphrates river. Same goes for the Kurds as well. Armenians were forcefully Turkified as early as 1915 and during the early days of the Republic. Which reminds me...why are we neglecting Turkification here? Turkification is a very important part of the formation of the Turkish identity and its modern genetic components. So I suggest we get our categorizations correct before we proceed with these amendments. I also suggest we add more context as to how and why a modern Turkish man has Armenian/Greek DNA in him/her. After all, is not so that his "ancestry" includes that of Turkic peoples? Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

So is Van in Anatolia? What about Erzurum? If yes, then Armenians are not a neighboring people, but an indigenous people of Anatolia (and the Caucasus). Which of my statements was not in good faith? Try not to make unnecessary accusations in an already heated discussion, please and thank you. I still need Cavann's reply. --Երևանցի ^talk 04:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in forum-like discussions. If "ancient Anatolian civilizations and peoples of Thrace does not cover other indigenous groups that have significantly contributed to the modern Turkish population, e.g. Turkified Kurds", then "neighboring people" does. That doesn't mean they are not indigenous, just that they are not ancient Anatolian civilizations or peoples of Thrace. The lead doesn't specify if Armenians are indigenous to the area or not, nor it should. This is not the Armenian people article. You can go ahead and specify Armenians are indigenous to the area in Armenian people.Cavann ^(talk) 05:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

"Neighboring peoples" does not adequately describe who the Armenians and Kurds are in relation to proposed sentence. Armenians and Kurds are indigenous and therefore NOT neighboring peoples. You cannot brush aside this fact. Anyhow, the way of solving this problem is simple. Removing "these" from the sentence will greatly lead to less misunderstanding and lead to a general consensus we all have been looking for. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do we care "Armenians and Kurds are in relation to proposed sentence" in this article? The primary component of Turkish people is paleolithic and neolithic per Cavalli-Sforza, which predate modern Armenian and modern Kurdish ethnicites. Also there is a "including" there. This discussion is getting funny. Cavann ^(talk) 05:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Cavalli-Sforza is not the only person that does research into Turkish genes. Other scientists do so as well. As far as I can tell, this isn't Cavalli-Sforza's article, but that of Turkish people. Simply neglecting the fact that indigenous Armenians and Kurds don't constitute a significant part of the genetic overlap among Turkish people is by far what makes this discussion "funny". Serious findings support the fact that there are "high genetic matchings" between Armenians and Turks and NOT Urartians and Turks. Separating the Turkish genetic code by including that of only ancient Anatolians neglects this fact. Nevertheless, I don't mind whether such findings should be mentioned in the article, but the wording of this sentence is simply wrong. Armenians are not neighbors just because Armenia is a neighboring country of Turkey since 1991 or something of that sort. They are a indigenous people that are very much tied to Anatolia. In fact, by the time Turks arrived into Anatolia, most of those "Ancient civilizations" did not even exist. Armenians and Kurds inhabited eastern Anatolia. Turkification took place and modern Turkish DNA has thus been transformed and became as such. To reiterate: removing "these" when it comes to Turks being descendants of ancient Anatolians will solve this matter. I agree with Atheneans proposal which best suits my position. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

"share similar genes" does not necessarily mean Turks descend from those group, it may mean mutual interaction, or some shared similar ancestry, or both. And I fail to see how the wording suggests that they are not "a indigenous people that are very much tied to Anatolia." "these" refer to paleolithic and neolithic. Ancient Anatolians include all neolithic, and then some till Hellenization.

Finally, it is UNSOURCED that indigenous Kurds and Armenians have as much impact on Turks today with paleolithic and neolithic. Therefore, getting rid of "these" suggests false equivalency.Cavann ^(talk) 06:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

By all means, I am not saying Armenians should be added to the sentence. But if Turks are magically descendants of Ancient Anatolian genes through Turkification in the aftermath of the Seljuk invasion of the 11th century, they can also magically be descendants of Armenians who are not only an ancient civilization, but an indigenous one as well. So when you mean Hellenization, do you mean under Alexander the Great and the Seleucids? Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's more like Armenians are "magically descendants" of whomever it was there in paleolithic and neolithic, some of which is shared with Turks.Cavann ^(talk) 07:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I asked a sincere question, when you mean Hellenization, do you mean under Alexander the Great and the Seleucids? Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are not interested in forum-like discussions, then why reply? Don't you contradict yourself? You said Those are covered by "neighboring people." and then you said Urartu could also be considered Ancient Anatolian. What's the connection here? Armenians are clearly an indigenous people of Anatolia, (which you don't seem to acknowledge), thus they don't fall under "neighboring people" category. Again, I'd like to hear your explanation on Urartu. What do they have to do with anything? --Երևանցի ^talk 05:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a big problem here with the definition of "Ancient Anatolian" civilizations. We are using the definition of the Oxford Handbook of Anatolia ("Everything from the Neolithic to 323 BC"), and then using Cavalli-Sforza to claim that the modern Turkish population descends from the Neolithic inhabitants, therefore Turks descend from ancient Anatolians. This is WP:SYNTH. Using one source's definition to interpret the findings of another. If you want to stick with Cavalli-Sforza, you have to state that they descend from Neolithic populations, as he does, not ancient Anatolians. There are studies that show that the Indo-European speaking ancient Anatolians themselves were post-Neolithic invaders who imposed their language on non-Indo European speaking populations, much like the Turks did several thousand years later [45] [46]. According to academic consensus, Indo-European languages originated north of the Black Sea in the Neolithic. Therefore, calling "ancient Anatolians" "these indigenous groups" is problematic. Athenean (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no such consensus actually, and some theories suggest it was actually Anatolia. Plus various Ancient Anatolian civilizations, such as Hittites, may have their roots in Neolithic, such as the proto-Hitite language. Nevertheless, I like more precise statements. So:

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, but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples (e.g., Balkans and Caucasus), and Turkic peoples.

So, various Ancient Anatolian civilizations starting during the neolithic period, but not all.Cavann ^(talk) 01:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course Hittites and others are "Ancient Anatolians", as they were established in Anatolia in the Ancient era. It doesn't matter where they came from before that. After all, that is when Anatolia built up the population density that permitted later migrations to be only dent its existing structure (as for to what degree Hittites intermixed with the pre-Hittite, Hattic, population, we don't know, but even if this were the case, who then would the Hittites be but assimilated natives?). Anyhow, I support the new wording.--Yalens (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

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 [47], 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.

“ A clear case for genetic distinction ultimately depends on whether it is possible to identify common forms of admixture in the autochthonous peoples of Anatolia, Central Asia, and Siberia. If the Paleolithic and Neolithic populations of these areas are indistinguishable from each other, genetically and culturally, then it may be impossible to make this distinction. However, we will demonstrate that there are long-term and continuing genetic signatures in both Anatolia and Siberia, and that these regional patterns of variation provide important information about the process by which the turkification of Anatolia took place....They interpreted their data (limited to HVS1 sequences) as confirming earlier conclusions (Calafell et al. 1996; Comas et al. 1996) that considered the population of Turkey to be the result of Upper Paleolithic and/or Neolithic expansions from/into the Middle East and/or Europe....Likewise, they interpreted their data as reaffirming Anatolia as being an intermediate location between Europe and Asia, and as representing essentially a Paleolithic (and/or Neolithic) population.....These data further solidify our case for a paternal G/J substratum in Anatolian populations, and for continuity between the Paleolithic/Neolithic and the current populations of Anatolia....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)....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) 20:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Turkification is neglected

I do not see a single description of Turkification in the article. All genetic studies which make it appear as though Turks magically descended from Ancient Anatolians needs to be placed under the context of Turkification and especially in respects to genes. There are many sources that talk about this. This is an enormous part of the history of the Turkish/Turkic people that has largely been neglected in the article. Omer Gokcumen states this here:

In addition, the Turkification of Anatolia, i.e., the establishment of Turkic languages as lingua franca, occurred in different intensities and in different contexts, since the cultural interaction between different indigenous peoples and Turkic speakers were non-uniform. Thus, it is highly probable that the Turkic genetic contribution is much higher in certain localities of Anatolia than others. These complex dynamics of political, cultural and genetic interaction cannot be possibly revealed through studies without historical depth.

This article has major problems indeed. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This 2008 source has been cited only 1. You were against Yardumian et al source, because of low citation number, even though it is a 2011 source.[48] Cavann (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I never said that we were to use this as a source. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Then do not clutter the talk page with quotes from sources you do not intend to use. There are already lots of issues. Cavann (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I see no turkification description too. However, we should focus on this part in order to keep the article in ga state.Alexikoua (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think this is a topic of debate? If you want sources, here they are...

The “Turkification” of Anatolia took centuries. Turkish nomads from Central Asia and the Steppe migrated to the Near East over a period of centuries.

[49] *2013* publication

The same processes appeared during the Turkification of Anatolia and the Balkans. The Anatolian territories, which the Seljuk sultans had appropriated by jihad, formed ghazi states which attracted an influx of semi-nomad Turkoman tribes. The society of these "frontier states" was dominated by the Islamic concept of holy war and the prescriptions of the shari'a concerning infidels and their property. The ghazi spirit and the demographic impact of Turkish immigration in Anatolia and the Ballkans sustained the expansion of the Muslim population. Consequently, the demographic map of the provinces of Thrace and Aydin was totally changed in the fifteenth century by the massive immigration of Muslims who, by then, formed eighty percent of the population.

[50] (cited 5 times)

"A very interesting phenomenon of nationalism was the Turkification of Anatolia, which occurred in the eleventh to fifteenth centuries during the conquest of Anatolia by the Turks."

[51] (cited 36 times)

"It opened the Anatolian pasturelands to the Turkic nomads and led to the Turkification of Anatolia, the establishment of the Ottoman Empire..."

[52] (cited 158 times)

By these migrations, the Turcomans contributed to the Turkification of Anatolia.

[53]

The Turkification of Anatolia and the corresponding decline of Hellenism was one of the most important demographic and cultural changes to take place in the Middle Ages.

[54] (cited 56 times)

The process of Islamization, which implied Turkification over the long run in Anatolia and, to a lesser extent, in the Balkans, must naturally be studied against the background of migrations and conversions.

[55] (cited 248 times)

Turkification of Anatolia is the positive result of Turkish emigration movement through "conquest" and "leakage into".

[56]

This excludes the Turkification of non-Turkish minorities in the late Ottoman Empire (i.e. Armenian Genocide and Greek Genocide). Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I only checked the first source in google scholar, and it wasn't even cited by anyone. Again, please do not clutter the talk page. Turkification can be in the article with good sources. Cavann (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If you refuse to check the rest, I can do it for you.

Note: the first source is a 2013 publication. Nevertheless, its information is verifiable with other RS sources such as those above. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you checked, but I note you pretty much copy and pasted the sentence in Turkey article, without attributing it in the edit summary. Your edit is also sloppy. In the same paragraph, there is this: "The Seljuk Turks began migrating into the area in the 11th century, starting the process of Turkification of these indigenous groups, which was greatly accelerated by the Seljuk victory over the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071....... However, it was the Seljuk Turks who brought Turkish language and Islam into Anatolia in the 11th century." Turkification should have been added after the second sentence. Cavann (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not "plagiarism" when you copy-paste from one article to another. See here. As for the edit, it needs to be done. No where in the article does it mention Turkification. I'm planning to add much information Turkification once the protection is over. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Yes, you can copy parts of one Wikipedia article into another, but you must link to the source article in your edit summary"

You pretty much copy and pasted the sentence "The Seljuk Turks began migrating into the area in the 11th century, starting the process of Turkification of these indigenous groups, which was greatly accelerated by the Seljuk victory over the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071.[74]" in Turkey without linking in edit summary.

As for the info, as I said, I'm not against it, but you put it in the wrong place.Cavann (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

First you complain about "plagiarism" now you're complaing that I didn't have an edit-summary. Make up your mind please. Clearly, you read the rules after I pointed them out to you. Yes, I will add information on Turkification once the protection is over.Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism includes copy and pasting material without attributing. You should have attributed in your edit summary. That is what I said the first time. Cavann (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it's from the Turkey article...no doubt about that. If any issue arises in terms of the edit-summary, I'll provide information accordingly and be more than happy to direct anyone who wants to learn where its been attributed from. However, there's even bigger problems with this article that needs to be addressed. Poking my edit-summary with a stick isn't going to fix them. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If your aim is to improve the article, do not copy and paste and "dump" content. The copy and paste you added makes the paragraph less coherent. Another issue is the next time you copy and paste within Wikipedia, link it in edit summary Cavann (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No one here is "dumping" content. I think I made a pretty legitimate effort in placing some sort of context to an otherwise unexplained background about how indigenous Anatolians "magically" became Turks. If you think repositioning the sentence will thereby improve the contextual basis of the sentence, by all means do it. But this information must be expanded once the protection is over. In fact, a whole new section may have to be added to the article as well. Turkification is a significant part of the history of the Turkish people. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Where did you get "the genocidal campaigns against both minorities" [57] in Bjornlund, M. (January 01, 2008). The 1914 cleansing of Aegean Greeks as a case of violent Turkification. Journal of Genocide Research, 10, 1, 41-58. The source is clear:

Seen from the vantage point of observers in the major harbour city of Smyrna (Izmir), and in Constantinople (Istanbul), the Ottoman capital, CUP policies of group persecution began in earnest with the attempted ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Greeks living along the Aegean littoral..........In 1914, the aim of Turkification was not to exterminate but to expel as many Greeks of the Aegean region as possible as not only a “security measure,” but as an extension of the policy of economic and cultural boycott, while at the same time creating living space for the muhadjirs that had been driven out of their homes under equally brutal circumstances.

Cavann ^(talk) 16:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's good that you made the necessary changes with respect to Greeks, but you have falsified yet another source in this edit. Your edit read: "Non-Turkish minorities, such as the Armenians during the Armenian Genocide, and the Greeks during various campaigns of ethnic cleansing and expulsion, experienced policies of Turkification" [58]. Your source [59] says:

The two main pillars of this policy,which can be characterized as the government’s “population and resettlement policy,” were as follows: the first entailed the “cleansing” of Anatolia’s non-Muslim (which basically meant Christian) population, who were considered a mortal threat to the state and even described as a “cancer” in the body of the empire; the second was the assimilation (read: Turkification) of all of Anatolia’s non-Turkish Muslim communities.

So Turkification does not refer to Armenian Genocide, it refers to attempts at assimilation, which failed according to your other source [60]

The fact that Turkification may be neglected does not excuse you from falsifying sources. I do not have to engage with you in talk pages of corresponding articles so that you wouldn't falsify sources. I gave you the relevant policies and ARBCOM warnings. Please review your behaviour and make adjustments if necessary. Cavann ^(talk) 21:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not "falsified" any sources. I suggest you reread the quote from Akcam's book. If you want a more detailed explanation as to how and where Taner Akcam supports the fact in the book that one of the key intentions of the Armenian Genocide was to Turkify or homogenize the Empire of non-Turkish elements, please refer to the talk page of Turkish people under the section "Turkification is neglected" section. That way we can have a broader discussion. My talk page isn't a place to dispute content. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Armenians were not Turkified since they resisted assimilation. They did not become Turks. Yet the current text makes it sound they were Turkified ("During this period, a policy of Turkification of non-Turkish minorities took place under the government of the Committee of Union and Progress"). That is absurd. And I have to fix every single thing, because apparently you cannot read the sources you are putting. And you have falsified Bjornlund 2008 and Akcam 2012. Cavann ^(talk) 02:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No, Armenians suffered from forceful assimilation under the overall goal of Turkification during and after the Armenian Genocide. Akcam supports this fact as do many other writers and researchers. There are many cases in which Armenians did in fact become Turkified. And regardless of that fact, the intentions of the Young Turk government were clear, as Akcam states in the preface of the book you accuse me of "falsifying", "Taken in their entirety, Ottoman and Western archives jointly confirm that the ruling part CUP did deliberately implement a policy of ethnoreligious homogenization of Anatolia that aimed to destroy the Armenian population." These aren't my words, they are the words of a Turkish historian. If you continue to have issues with the content, as I have already said, refer to the talk page of the article. I will help address your concerns. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed CUP had that policy, but that was a policy of cleansing, not a policy of Turkification (defined as assimilation in p.29). That is what you are falsifying. Akcak 2012 does not define Turkification as destruction of a population in that source, where as you cited it to support that contention. Cavann ^(talk) 05:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[[Wiki

I'll remove the page number since the entire contextual basis of the book attests to the fact that one of the main goals of the Armenian Genocide was to homogenize the Empire under Turkification. This contextual basis is supported by peer-reviewed sources such as:

Other works about the end of the empire that have opened up previously unexplored topics include Fuat Dündar's study of the use of statistics in Young Turk demographic engineering, Ryan Gingeras's social and political history of the ethnic violence that riddled the southern Marmara region of western Anatolia in the first two decades of the twentieth century, and Taner Akçam's fine-grained empirical account of the genocidal consequences of late-Ottoman Turkification policies on the empire's Armenian and Greek populations.73
Mikhail, A., & Philliou, C. M. (2012). The ottoman empire and the imperial turn. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 54(4), 721-745.

The source references the same book I have used as a source under its own ref #73: Fuat Dündar , Crime of Numbers: The Role of Statistics in the Armenian Question (1878-1918) (New Brunswick : Transaction Publishers , 2010); Ryan Gingeras , Sorrowful Shores: Violence, Ethnicity, and the End of the Ottoman Empire (Oxford : Oxford University Press , 2009); Taner Akçam , The Young Turks' Crime against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire (Princeton : Princeton University Press , 2012).

Also, newspaper sources such as:

Mr. Akcam, who holds an endowed chair at Clark's Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, has written another book that provides additional evidence that Turkish leaders at the time pursued a policy of "Turkification" and "demographic engineering" to cleanse their nation of Armenian Christians. Mr. Akcam, however, isn't betting that the new book, "The Young Turks' Crime Against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire," is going to change the position of the Turkish regime, even though it culls information from 600 Ottoman documents that have been, until recently, restrictively archived in Istanbul.
Kush, B. B. (2012, Sep 05). Making a case. Telegram & Gazette.

And of course, Taner Akcam himself in the preface of the very source:

Taken in their entirety, Ottoman and Western archives jointly confirm that the ruling part CUP did deliberately implement a policy of ethnoreligious homogenization of Anatolia that aimed to destroy the Armenian population.

So in order to not limit the source to just one page, I will remove the page number so that Akcam's work in its entirety shall be respected under the contextual basis that not only Akcam supports, but other sources as well. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the wording issues. If you want to add Turkification to this part "During World War I, the government of the Committee of Union and Progress continued with population policies to homogenize the population of Anatolia, which effected non-Turkish minorities, such as the Armenians during the Armenian Genocide and the Greeks during various campaigns of ethnic cleansing and expulsion" you have to take out Akcak 2012 and 2005 as sources, since his definition is different. You may also wanna add a qualifier since definition of Turkification is different in Akcak, Jwaideh, and Samuel than Rummel's. Cavann ^(talk) 23:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

İhsan Doğramacı

His article says that he's an Iraqi Turkmen. Here's a source from a Turkish govt agency. [61] Should he stay in the infobox? --Երևանցի ^talk 04:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

His image was deleted. Problem solved! --Երևանցի ^talk 05:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

He is Turkish.

“ BIOGRAPHY

Ihsan Dogramaci: A Remarkable Turk, by Sir Horace Phillips. Bishop Wilton, York, England: Wilton 65, 1997. xiv + 106 pages. Index to p. 108. ?12. Reviewed by Howard A. Reed ... Dogramaci was born into an affluent Ottoman Turkish landowning family in 1915. His father, 'Ali Dogramaci Pasha, was mayor of Erbil. 'Ali Pasha later represented his Turkmen constituency in the Iraqi Senate under the British mandate in Baghdad

”

[62] Cavann (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This debate shouldn't matter. The photograph was a copyright violation. Which begs me to ask...how did this article ever become a GA?! There were texts and photographs which were all copyrighted material. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The pic was not here until recently, but the text in architecture is a big problem. Cavann (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Turkish people are a nation and an ethnic group

What do some have against this opening statement? --Mttll (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Turkish people constitutes an separate ethnic group and forms the largest part of the Turkish nation, but it (the nation) consists also from other ethnic and linguistic groups as Kurds, Pomaks, Greek Muslims, Arabs, Circassians, Albanians etc. The last ones are not a Turkish people, but are part from the Turkish nation. Jingiby (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The current article, as the introductory part explains, is about the ethnic group, not the state and the people that have Turkish citizenship. The above mentioned linguistic & ethnic groups do not belong to the Turkish ethnic group, as pointed in several sections above.Alexikoua (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

GA assessment

Why is this listed in GA articles when its clear it did not get a proper review Talk:Turkish people/GA1? It should be delsited ASAP to not confuse our readers. Will let others comment before delisting. -- Moxy (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought that was a proper review? Cavann (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A normal review address the problems from the past and current problems including format, sources, images etc.... as seen at Talk:Canadians/GA1 it takes lots of work and time usually. I see this is a bigger problem - moving the topic to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#User:QatarStarsLeague -- Moxy (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact it was nominated for community reassessment back on 22 September, and that review is still open. I've transcluded the review below. Pyrotec (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. However, note that the reassessment was filed during an edit war, and some issues are under dispute resolution (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Turkish_people) Cavann (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Turkish people

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted per consensus and the neutrality warning banner the article has carried since September, indicating serious instability. Khazar2 (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)}

• The article was promoted to GA status without a single reviewer comment or modification. Just like *that*. This is highly dubious, I have never seen an article be promoted to GA in this fashion.

• For many sources ([63] [64], and many others), no page numbers are provided. When this is brought up in the talkpage, it is met with belligerence, contempt, and hostility [65].

• The article is plagued by a very persistent and ubiquitous Anatolianist/indigenist POV. Sources are misquoted/misused to push the POV that the modern Turkish people are the direct, lineal descendants of the heterogeneous collection of peoples known as the Ancient Anatolians. Unreliable sources such as Antonio Arnaiz-Villena are used throughout. The same info is repeated over and over for effect (e.g. the lede, then the history section, then the genetics section, for good measure). The editor responsible for this POV pushing is extremely belligerent, arrogant, incivil, and obdurate, it is impossible to reach an agreement with him in the talkpage. He only makes tactical withdrawals to return later with full force. This has been going on for several weeks and shows no sign of abating.

• • The "Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups" claim uses as a source the controversial work of Antonio Arnaiz-Villena which has been the recipient of severe criticism by the academic community [66].

• • Of the sources used to claim "Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups" in the lede, only the Yardumian source explicitly does so. The others do not. Roseer et al. only states that Turks "are between the Armenians and Greeks", Cinnioglu et al. only state that "The variety of Turkish haplotypes is witness to Turkey being both an important source and recipient of gene flow." Wells et al. state that "This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic languages, originating in the Altai-Sayan region of Central Asia and northwestern Mongolia (31), were imposed on the Caucasian and Anatolian peoples with relatively little genetic admixture—another possible example of elite dominance-driven linguistic replacement. ", but in this context it means all the inhabitants of Anatolia (Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, in addition to Ancient Anatolians, not the ancient Anatolians per se. To infer that"Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups" using these sources is source manipulation on a major scale.

• • The genetic impact of the settlement of millions of Balkan Muslims and Caucasus Muslims is ignored, we are led to believe that modern Turks are the direct lineal descendants of the Bronze Age populations, even though the statement most strongly supported by the literature is simply that "The genetic composition of Anatolia is extraordinarily varied and complex" (e.g. Cinnioglu et al.).

• Population number inflation in the infobox. Sources are misquoted/misused, for example regarding the number of Turkish people in North Africa (Egypt, Tunisia , Algeria). For other countries, (USA, Australia), reliable sources such as national censi are relegated to a footnote or removed entirely, replaced by wild overestimates from Turkish newspapers and advocacy groups. Athenean (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• The use of non-neutral words like "However" and "Furthermore" is widespread throughout the article when demographics or genetics are concerned.

• Several other users have asked for a GA reassessment [67]. Athenean (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• The controversy regarding genetics has been going on for weeks now, and shows no sign of abating. The article has been subject to edit-warring for well over the past month, a POV tag has been in place for quite some time now, in summary the article fails both the "neutrality" and "stability" criteria. Athenean (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Cinnioglu et al. also talk about Bronze Age Population, which supports the statement. Arnaiz-Villena et al. also supported the statement, which you randomly took out,[68] even though it is a peer reviewed journal article that has not been retracted. And controversy about Arnaiz-Villena was not relevant to any of the statements in this article. And even tho Arnaiz-Villena is the principal author in the first study in question, there are like 10 more other authors. Yardumian et al. is a review study and includes numerous studies. Other studies like Rosser et al. and Wells et al. are being cited in conjunction with other sources, since they say Turkic people did not replace locals. Cavann (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"Locals" means anyone who was inhabiting Anatolia prior to the Turkic conquest. This includes Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Arabs, Laz, Assyrians. You can't take a statement to the effect of "The conquering Turkic tribes did not replace the local population" to mean "Modern Turks are descended from ancient Anatolians". As far as I can tell, the only source that explicitly backs that claim is Yardumian, which, even though a review, has been cited only once. As far as Arnaiz-Villena, I hope that the case is closed following the result of your post to RSN. Athenean (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: It is quite weird that Athenean are calling these sources [69] (e.g., Arnaiz-Villena et al., Yardumian et al.) [70] ( "Turks: nationality", Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East) "unreliable." Genetics section talks about ancestry in greater detail. Prehistory section is about relevant historic info, such as Hittites etc. The part of it in question is only one paragraph.[71] One sentence, 'Various genetic studies suggested that these indigenous populations form the basis of modern Turkish population today,[76][68] with the "genetic continuity of Anatolia’s Iron Age populations into the Seljuk, Mamluk and Ottoman eras."[68]:18', is there to explain relevance, about why we are talking about Ancient Anatolians, etc. I had looked at various GA ethnicity articles, and kinda emulated British people (e.g., British_people#Ancestral_roots) before I improved Turkish people article.

Frankly, this looks likes an abuse of GA reassessment process. Besides his various personal attacks against me here, Athenean is bringing this assessment during an edit war.Cavann (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Stability and Neutrality are key elements of a GA. Currently this article has neither. There has been a POV template there for a while now, and you have been edit-warring ad behaving in WP:OWN fashion for several weeks now. Athenean (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You have got to be joking. This looks like a personal attack page ("The editor responsible for this POV pushing is extremely belligerent, arrogant, incivil, and obdurate, it is impossible to reach an agreement with him in the talkpage. He only makes tactical withdrawals to return later with full force. This has been going on for several weeks and shows no sign of abating.") in addition to moving a content dispute here, rather than any serious attempt to improve Wikipedia. I will ignore the discussion here until neutral third party editors get involved. Cavann (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I welcome that this review request may bring neutral editors to Turkish people article, so they can have a look at the issues and sources. However, your reassessment request is still appropriate, as you filed it during edit warring [72], even though you were warned in the article talk page that "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate." [73] Cavann (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Per reassessment criteria this is appropriate since "If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.". Actually per talkpage discussion the article was never close to stability the last 3 months.Alexikoua (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I knew this was coming. The article has a lot of problems that must be sorted out before being accepted as a GA status article. The nominator and the reviewer made almost no note of this. The Talk Page highlights much of these problems in addition to Athenean's concerns outlined here. First and foremost, claims from sources written by controversial academics who have rarely been referred to and are almost unheard of in today's academia were used to make bold and controversial claims. These claims and sources are already being examined by the WP:RS community so I am not going to lay them out here. Continuous edit-warring and problematic edits have severely tarnished this articles stance as being a GA article. If the article needs reassessment, I believe all editors involved with the concerns raised in the talk page of the article to reach a consensus or to somehow involve non-involved editors/admins to help them do so. We can't have this going on forever. As for my opinion, I support a reassessment of the article as a GA. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the article in and of itself, I should note that many diffs from 2009 were plagiarism additions by User:thetruthonly. I'm not sure how much of his revisions remain in the article, since there has been a very large number of edits since, but they will have to be reviewed on google books for this to remain a GA. His diffs are here: (+6070)(+975)(+747)(+1322)(+1761)(+794)(+6800). Wizardman 18:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Only material in diff 794 remain (in architecture). I'll fix it once the article gets out of page protection.Cavann (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Went ahead and rewrote. It's unsourced unfortunately since I found an old clean revision, so that will have to be fixed once the article is unprotected. Thanks for looking them over. Wizardman 19:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It does look as though there are some real problems here. Looking back over how some of the sources and stats have been used raises some real questions for me, and the sources I'm able to easily check aren't backing up the cited claims being made. I'd support a reassessment. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Some issues are in dispute resolution Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Turkish_people. I would welcome a reassessment after this. Cavann (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Original research, as concluded above, and falsification of the given sources are noticeable, even from the lede. I've initially asked for full citations (quotes/pages), since I couldn't find where was that written in the references. No wonder, I can conclude with certainty now (after full citations have been provided) that the problematic issues are too obvious, so a delisting will be unavoidable, in case no major rewording and restructuring takes place soon.Alexikoua (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple copyright violations concerning the status of images as pointed here [[74]]. This leaves me no doubt to ask for speedy delisting.Alexikoua (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - This article has serious issue with NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE because of undue weight given to some interpretations of the genetic researches. That is why it also does not meet (at least) fifth GA criteria because it is not stable due to ongoing dispute about this issue. Note: I am one of involved editors who expressed more than once my, I believe, valid concerns about this issues and supported my position with scholarly secondary sources clearly presented at article's talkpage. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - There's more copyright violations. A photograph from the main body of the article has recently been removed due to copyright violations (see here). Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

And? Where is the copyright violation now if that image has been deleted? The image used to have "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" licence in Commons btw. Kevin ^(talk) 01:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations were there when the GA review was conducted. This means that the review did not take into consideration the copyright status of photographs and texts along with other issues that have been aforementioned. That's why we are here for a reassessment. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• De-list - ASAP its clear a proper assessment was not done to begin with. Also clear that the article is not even close to stable. -- Moxy (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Too many citations in the lead

“ While adding footnotes is helpful, adding too many can cause citation clutter, which can make articles look untidy in read mode, and unreadable in edit mode. If a page has extra citations that are either mirror pages or just parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to its reliability while acting as a detriment to its readability. ”

“ The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. ”

There is no reason why there should be 8 citations in just two sentences, especially in the lead. The same sentences are in 'Prehistory, Ancient era and Early Middle Ages' and 'Genetics' sections. --Երևանցի ^talk 14:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Notable Turks

Can anyone make a collage in a single picture including notable people, like in the other nationality articles. The current one looks too basic. By the way, I will gladly help to any request. User:KazekageTR —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we put Cahit Arf in the people box

There is already a wiki article on him and he seams much more relevant than some of the artists in the box — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.166.56 (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)