Jump to content

Talk:Turkish people/Archive 16

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Turkish people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Simple but people are stupid.

hi, Why is there a genetic section on this article? why is it unfound in other ethnic groups articles knowing that many ethnic groups are a merging between two races (and they don't have the same haplogroups). ? Central Asians are different? that is purely racist. 41.248.145.56 (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Last sentence added to lead.

The following has been added to the lead of this page;

"It has been discovered through the Turkish genealogy database that at least 2 million of those who identify as Turks are in reality ethnically Armenian, most of whom were survivors of the Armenian Genocide"

The actual article it's taken from states the following;

"Perhaps two million Turks have Armenian grandmothers. But they are supposed to believe that the genocide never happened."

Which has nothing to do with what is written in the lead. The writer of the article does not explain how he arrived at this number. The claim is also not backed by any data. The database is accessed using your citizenship ID card and only allows you to view your own family tree. There is no way of taking a collective look at everyone's ancestry to be able to determine what percentage of people have Armenian descent let alone being able to identify specifically that 2 million people have armenian gradmothers as the journalist claims.

Also, of the three sources that are given, two are actually the same article (the Independent article) and the other is an al-monitor article.

I agree but then again, I don't think its misleading information, it would be better to have better sources backing the claims up. Being Turkish is a national identity. Not such thing as a pure Turk. We Turks are bound through the bond of the Turkish language, culture and citizenship. There are racists in Turkey who are of mixed origins too, like in other countries around the world Turkey also has a racism problem. Redman19 (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Redman19 (talk) as the quoted piece is not scientific or based on any actual data, and also the fact that what's written in the article is not what is stated in the lead, it should be removed.

Massive POV changes

I have undone a series of massive, extremely POV edits by user O.celebi. For those not familiar, this user has a history of number inflation and POV-pushing on articles related to Turkish population groups. Tactics include using unreliable sources to push highly inflated claims, removal of sources using dishonest claims (e.g. [3]), extravagant claims without giving page numbers, and many others. Many articles such as Syrian Turkmen and Iraqi Turkmen have been extremely damaged. It seems the disruption is spreading here as well. This needs to stop. Khirurg (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not Celebi but you also undid my edits in the genetics part. But I re-added it. I used legit studies so no need to worry about damaging.Buhedyar (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the paper you added is reliable. Sorry it got removed by accident. Khirurg (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
It is high time wikipedians got together to improve this article. The nationalism has to stop. Please, is anyone willing to work with me to objectively fix this article? If not we need to take this to dispute resolution. O.celebi (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, please do. You made enormous changes, some very controversial, without so much as en edit-summary. It doesn't work that way. Read WP:BRD. That's how it works. You are the one making changes, the onus is on you to explain them in the talkpage. Instead of empty posturing about "let's get together". Khirurg (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I have made a lot of corrections; for a very long time now, you are deleting reliable sources. I am very shocked. I really want us all to create an objective article here. This is a genuine request. Are you completely rejecting working together then? O.celebi (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I reject your extreme POV-pushing. You are using the same tactics as at Syrian Turkmen, using junk sources to add disinformation to the article while at the same time sneakily removing reliable sources. And doing this in a series of massive changes without so much as an edit summary. It doesn't work like that. Please discuss your proposed edits here, one by one. That's how it works. You talk and talk about "working together" but all the while all you are doing is edit-warring and trying to ram your changes through by force. Is that your idea of "working together". Khirurg (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
This article has been a total mess for years now, wouldn't you agree? If you are willing to have a civilized conversation with me, then I'm happy to do so. Perhaps you will even see that my intentions are good (I hardly ever "edit-war"). I try my best to remain objective. And I am more than willing to work together, that is, if you also have good intentions to re-write an objective article. Please, tell me exactly which sources you have a problem with. O.celebi (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Instead talking about how you want to "work together" (but really just edit-warring), how about you propose the changes you want to make here one by one? That's how it works. As a show of good faith, are you willing self-revert to the original version of the article and then discuss the changes you want to make? If not, then so much for "willing to work together". Khirurg (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
If you are an objective editor then you will surely recognise that this article has a lot of problems - especially on the "original version". I am inviting all objective wiki users to help out here. This article has remained a joke for far too long now. O.celebi (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Empty platitudes? Is this your idea of "working together"? For one thing, the numbers you have added to the infobox are highly inflated and are based on unreliable sources (Akkar, Khalifa, others). You also added the sentence "Ethnic Turks continue to inhabit certain regions of Greece, Macedonia, Kosovo, Romania, and Bulgaria since late antiquity, when Turkic peoples such as the Cumans and Bulgars settled in the region" but you did not give page numbers for the sources cited. This is highly problematic as it makes it impossible to verify your claim. We both know that Balkan Turks are descended from Ottoman settlers, not Cumans from "late antiquity". Khirurg (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I never wrote "since late antiquity, when Turkic peoples such as the Cumans and Bulgars settled in the region...". That would have already been in the article, you know, the one you reverted it to. And I actually want to start cleaning all this up. We actually agree on something. When it comes to Akar, again, in "your" version of this article Akar is still being used. So why is Akar unreliable when I use it but ok in the other version? O.celebi (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I do have a proposal though, would you (as well as other users) agree to removing the info box completely. This way, we would all focus solely on the article itself. It seems that on Wikipedia people care more about populations and info boxes. I believe that this entire article needs to be rewritten. Perhaps removing the info box will encourage editors to focus on the quality of the entire content. O.celebi (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Removing the infobox is non-starter I'm afraid. Now, you keep saying the article is a "complete mess", a "total joke", etc...It would be very helpful if instead of such generalizations, you listed below the specific issues you have identified with the article. As for Akar, if he was in there already, it just means it escaped my notice. Khirurg (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
To mention all the problems will take a lot of time: I guess first thing is the dreaded info box (which I personally see to be bulky, but anyway). Here are the problems with that:
  • The Total population section: there is no source for "c. 72–77 million" so it should be removed (I see this as OR)
  • The numbers for Turkey are inflated. CIA states 70-75% of 80,845,215
  • Overall, I believe we should indicate which sources are from official censuses (i.e. the Balkan, former USSR, American, Canadian, and Australian figures) and which ones are not, by writing either ("xyear census" or "est." alongside the figure).
  • Census figures also need to be updated
  • There is a heading for the minorities in the Balkans but all the other headings have been removed.
  • For countries that do not allow citizens to declare their ethnicity (i.e almost every Western European and Arab country) it is best to use academic sources where available; this is because government sources group people according to country of birth; consequently, such sources includes all ethnic group from the country - in fact this is a problem in most ethnicity pages on wikipedia.
  • Sources using Akar include: Libya, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. The 1936 census for Libya is the last one that I have seen published; even if we decide not to use this old source, it should still be mentioned in the article that the Turkish minority formed almost 5% of the country's population. Turkish estimates suggest over a million - but none of these sources can be considered reliable. O.celebi (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The biggest problem, however, is the fact that the article is written like it is about people from Turkey only (regardless of ethnicity). For example, Turkish Cypriots or Balkan Turks, even self-identifying Turks in Western Turkey, would not call themselves "Anadolu Turkler" (as the first sentence in this article claims).
One only needs to look at the "Religion" section to see that it's all about the people of Turkey rather than ethnic Turkish people: " Christians in Turkey include Assyrians/Syriacs,[197] Armenians, and Greeks.[198]". The entire article is written in this way. It makes no sense. If the article is about the "people of Turkey" rather than the ethnic group "Turks" then why should we include any Turkish minorities in the info box. Basically, there is no consistency here. O.celebi (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I will look into this tonight and get back to you. Khirurg (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I look forward to your reply. I have many more concerns, but, to avoid confusing ourselves with a long thread here, it seems best to try resolve one mess at a time. O.celebi (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at the two versions of the article closely, and here's what I think about your points: 1) Agree 2) Agree 3) Sure 4) Sure 5) Ok 6) Sure - But the devil is in the details. We have to be careful about what is an "academic" source. Sources you have claimed are "academic" at Syrian Turkmen are anything but. 7) Akar is unreliable and should not be used. His figures are wildly extravagant. Extraordinary claims require high quality sources. This is not the case here, in fact the opposite

I have two big issues with your edits: You use questionable sources to add huge population numbers for Turks in Middle Eastern countries in the infobox (Syria, Egypt, Iraq, etc..). And you state that Koloughlis and other Arab-speaking Maghrebis with partial Turkish ancestry are "Turks", and "Turkish Minority". They are not. Sure, many people in the Maghreb and the Middle East may have full or partial Anatolian/Turkish ancestry, but a "Turkish Minority" they are definitely not. This is a red line. I looked at the rest of your edits to the body of the article, and except the Maghreb and Middle East stuff, they are fine with me. Khirurg (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a page about the ethnic group "Turkish people", please can editors refrain from writing solely on the people of Turkey. Such information should be on another page (e.g. "People of Turkey" or a page entitled "Turkish citizens"). O.celebi (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious why you think this article should not be about 'the people of Turkey' as well? I'm no expert, but to me 'Turkish people' can plausibly mean either 'ethnically Turkish' (for lack of a better expression) or 'living in Turkey', or perhaps best of all both (and possibly including some other definitions also). I see nothing in the article title that expressly defines the scope in ethnic terms only, as you suggest. Happy to be proven wrong, though... DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018

Removal request. In the focus of 79,51 million turkish people, the following part is irrelevant. It describes a uncomplete listing:

It has been discovered through the Turkish genealogy database that at least 2 million of those who identify as Turks are in reality ethnically Armenian, most of whom were survivors of the Armenian Genocide.[1][2][1] 87.140.21.225 (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Erdogan has released the genealogy of thousands of Turks – but what is his motive?". Independent. 1 March 2018.
  2. ^ "Turkish genealogy database fascinates, frightens Turks". Al-Monitor. 21 February 2018.
 Not done I don't see why the fact that 2 million Turks are of Armenian descent is irrelevant to the article on Turkish people - if you can explain this further, please do so. Fish+Karate 12:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Fish and karate I moved this further down. This belongs on this page. It does not belong in the lede, where the most important facts about the Turkish people are summarized. That 2 million of them (according to Al-Monitor that is) are Crypto-Armenians (or some variant of Turkified Armenian) is relevant but it really isn't a thing that goes in the lede of articles as it is problematic on a number of levels (a big one is the implication in the way it was worded that it's impossible to be both Turkish and Armenian...false...).Calthinus (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@ Fish+Karate "It has been discovered through the Turkish genealogy database that at least 2 million of those who identify as Turks are in reality ethnically Armenian, most of whom were survivors of the Armenian Genocide" neither of those sources claim this. The closest is from the independent article saying "Perhaps two million Turks have Armenian grandmothers" at the very end. The quote in this article implies that a study has been carried out based on the genealogy database. It should be changed to "Robert Fisk claims that as many as 2 million Turks have Armenian grandmothers" Bertan92 (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

"Article 66 of the Turkish Constitution defines a "Turk" as "anyone who is bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship"; therefore, the legal use of the term "Turkish" as a citizen of Turkey is different from the ethnic definition.[82][83] However, the majority of the Turkish population are of Turkish ethnicity and are estimated at 70–75 percent.[84]"

I get that everyone is a Turkish citizen, identify as Turkish both culturally and identity wise. But isn't the statement above

"However, the majority of the Turkish population are of Turkish ethnicity and are estimated at 70–75 percent.[84]"

Somewhat wrong? It's proven again and again that Turkish people ethnically are descendants of Anatolian people?

Seljuk Turks arrived to an peninsula already inhabited with approx 12 million people, these soldiers were tops 100-200 000 in numbers. Fast forward 900 years to Greeces independence and the Greek population is around 5million together with all the Anatolian Greeks sent there to mainland greece.

Meaning, there was a HUGE turkification spanning almost 900 years in Anatolia. Can't believe people are writing wishful thinking...

Anatolia has been inhabited for many thousands of years, Turks came and Turkified, this doesn't change the peoples ethnic makeup. They're still very distinct from their Central Asian so called "cousins" and more closely related to groups around them such as Armenians and Greeks. 



* "An admixture analysis determined that the Anatolian Turks share most of their genetic ancestry with non-Turkic populations in the region and the 12th century is set as an admixture date"

(Bayazit Yunusbayev, Mait Metspalu, Ene Metspalu, Albert Valeev, Sergei Litvinov, Ruslan Valiev, Vita Akhmetova, Elena Balanovska, Oleg Balanovsky, and Shahlo Turdikulova.

[12]"The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads across Eurasia." PLoS Genetics 11:4 (April 21, 2015): e1005068)


  • "The largest autosomal study on Turkish genetics concluded the weight of East Asian (presumably Central Asian) migration legacy of the Turkish people is estimated at 21.7%."

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

  • Several studies have concluded that the genetic haplogroups indigenous to Western Asia have the largest share in the gene pool of the present-day Turkish population.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

5 Cinnioglu, Cengiz; King, Roy; Kivisild, Toomas; Kalfoglu, Ersi; Atasoy, Sevil; Cavalleri, Gianpiero L.; Lillie, Anita S.; Roseman, Charles C.; Lin, Alice A.; Prince, Kristina; Oefner, Peter J.; Shen, Peidong; Semino, Ornella; Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca; Underhill, Peter A. (2004). "Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia". Human Genetics. 114 (2): 127–48. doi:10.1007/s00439-003-1031-4. PMID 14586639.

6 Rosser, Z; Zerjal, T; Hurles, M; Adojaan, M; Alavantic, D; Amorim, A; Amos, W; Armenteros, M; Arroyo, E; Barbujani, G (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): 1526–43. doi:10.1086/316890. PMC 1287948 Freely accessible. PMID 11078479.

7 Nasidze, I; Sarkisian, T; Kerimov, A; Stoneking, M (2003). "Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus: Evidence from the Y-chromosome". Human Genetics. 112 (3): 255–61. doi:10.1007/s00439-002-0874-4 (inactive 2017-01-16). PMID 12596050.

8 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): 308–17. doi:10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057004308.x. PMID 11380939.

9 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): 10244–9.

10 Schurr, Theodore G.; Yardumian, Aram (2011). "Who Are the Anatolian Turks?". Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia. 50 (1): 6–42. doi:10.2753/AAE1061-1959500101.

11 Comas, D.; Schmid, H.; Braeuer, S.; Flaiz, C.; Busquets, A.; Calafell, F.; Bertranpetit, J.; Scheil, H.-G.; Huckenbeck, W.; Efremovska, L.; Schmidt, H. (2004). "Alu insertion polymorphisms in the Balkans and the origins of the Aromuns". Annals of Human Genetics. 68 (2): 120–7. doi:10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.00080.x. PMID 15008791.


That's 9 academic sources proving they are decendants of native anatolians, whils the article atm states with 1 source they're 80% central asian. Which is just plain wrong, both academically and logically. Where did the 12million anatolians dissapear when Turks arrived? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oturner91 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the following:

  • However, the majority of the Turkish population are of Turkish ethnicity and are estimated at 70–75 percent.[84]


And adjust it to this:

  • Furthermore, the majority of the Turkish population share the largest gene pool related to the indigenous West Asian population of the Anatolian peninsula as proved by several genetic studies focus around haplogroups.[Sources 6,7,8,9,10,11 from above]. The majority of the population share a large considerable amount of their admixture dna composition with non-Turk populations in the region.[Source 12] However 70-75% of the Turkish population identify themselves as ethnic Turks. [13]


13 "Turkey". The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency]]. Retrieved 13 October 2016.


I think that would, 1.Tell the truth that thousands of years of history didn't just vanish 2.It's backed with respectable academia 3.Still retains the fact that the majority of the people have a strong affiliation with being Turk/Turkish. This version is more elaborate and less confusing. Can we please have a change for truths sake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oturner91 (talk • contribs)


Oturner, Turks being Anatolians is a debunked claim. Recent studies do not mention anything about Turks being assimilated Anatolians. Here's what respectable academia says.

http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/18/015396.full.pdf

Previous genetic studies have generally used Turks as representatives of ancient Anatolians. Our results show that Turks are genetically shifted towards Central Asians, a pattern consistent with a history of mixture with populations from this region

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236450/

The weight for the migration event predicted to originate from the branch ancestral to East Asia (presumably Central Asia) into current-day Turkey was 0.217

http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12607764/index.pdf

Moreover, results pointed out that language (Turkish) in Anatolia might not have been replaced by the elites, but by a large group of people. Therefore, it can be concluded that the observations do not support the elite dominance model of Renfrew (1987 ; 1991).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179474

it should be noted that modern Turks are a hybrid population, comprising of the original Anatolian stock, Turkic people (i.e. of Central Asian ancestry), as well as other ethnicities from regions comprising the former Ottoman Empire

Also the 21.7% study you posted mentions explicitly that the Turks have Central Asian/East Asian heritage. Yes the Turks are mixed, but they still have Central Asian heritage. I'm not sure what you meant by posting it. And, the Turks are genetically and culturally distinct from their neighbours.

By the way can you back that "number of Seljuks" up with legit sources? I have one source that completely debunks your claim. But i'd like to see yours.

Alright let me check,

First off your study reinforces my theory that Turkish people are closer to Balkan people than Central asians. Which was my point all along. "Our analyses show that genetic variation of the contemporary Turkish population is best described within the context of the Southern European/Mediterranean gene pool. However, we predict notable genetic sharing between Turkey’s population and East Asian and African populations." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236450/

What does history tell us?

The Byzantine empire at the time of Battle of Manzikert(+/-30years) had a population of 12 million people, before losing territory to them to be on point. - Treadgold, Warren T. (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford

Their levy size could be around 20-25k at any given time. Big population but 25k military personel, because well, fedual lifestyle didn't allow many to serve as military personel. Birkenmeier, John W. (2002). The Development of the Komnenian Army: 1081–1180. Brill. ISBN 90-04-11710-5.

The Seljuks however were nomads, in nomad lifestyle practically all males could serve as military personnel. Hence why a greater % of their total population could be raised as military personnel. During Alp Arslans most important campaign against the Byzantines his levies were approx 20-30k and the Byzantines had around 40-20k. - Haldon 2001, p. 172-173. Markham, Paul. and "Battle of Manzikert: Military Disaster or Political Failure?". - I can't find my 200k source, you can disregard this part until I'v found it.


Additionally, why I think it's impossible modern Turkish people can have as much as 80% Central Asian heritage because. Turkeys 1923 demographics tells us there lived 12million people. We also know from history, Mucahirs, muslims from the balkans(primarily?) emigrated to Anatolia. 10 million according to these sources. Then we also know an estimated 1.5 million Circassians settled in Anatolia after the Circassian genocide(If you want to call it that) /depopulaiton. It's mentioned people died and, one can assume the numbers might be the maximum estimates. But even if they were halfed down, it would drag down the little central asian the pre-1923/1880 Turkey had by a significant amount. And finally not to mentioned a good portion of Turkeys 12 million population has to be a great deal from the Byzantines 12 million population, Greece when it got it's independence had 5 million in population, including all the Christians sent off to Greece. Where did the rest of all the millions of people dissapear? Turkification. - Population Statistics And Projections". Turkstat.gov.tr. Retrieved 2014-06-17. "Census of Population ; Social and Economic Characteristics of Population, Turkey" - Bosma, Ulbe; Lucassen, Jan; Oostindie, Gert (2012), "Introduction. Postcolonial Migrations and Identity Politics: Towards a Comparative Perspective", Postcolonial Migrants and Identity Politics: Europe, Russia, Japan and the United States in Comparison, Berghahn Books, ISBN 0857453270. ( There are more sources if needed, but I think it's already a historical fact these people emigrated from the balkans. ) - Coverage of The tragedy public Thought (later half of the 19th century), Niko Javakhishvili, Tbilisi State University, 20 December 2012, retrieved 1 June 2015. Natho, Kadir I. Circassian History. Page 380 - Greece population (http://www.statistics.gr/el/home). - "Turkic pastoralists remained only a small minority, however, and the gradual Turkification of Anatolia was due less to in-migration than to the conversion of many Christians to Islam, and their adoption of the Turkish language. The reasons for this conversion were first, the weak hold Greek culture had on much of the population, and second, the desire by the conquered population to "retain its property or else to avoid being at a disadvantage in other ways." " (Langer and Blake 1932: 481-483)


Does genetic research support this? "Principal component (PC) analysis reveals a significant overlap between Turks and Middle Easterners and a relationship with Europeans and South and Central Asians" , "supervised STRUCTURE (K= 3) illustrates a genetic ancestry for the Turks of 45% Middle Eastern (95% CI, 42-49), 40% European (95% CI, 36-44) and 15% Central Asian (95% CI, 13-16), whereas at K= 4 the genetic ancestry of the Turks was 38% European (95% CI, 35-42), 35% Middle Eastern (95% CI, 33-38), 18% South Asian (95% CI, 16-19) and 9% Central Asian (95% CI, 7-11)." - Uğur Hodoğlugil and Robert W. Mahley. "Turkish Population Structure and Genetic Ancestry Reveal Relatedness among Eurasian Populations." Annals of Human Genetics 76:2 (March 2012): pages 128-141

"The major components (haplogroups E3b, G, J, I, L, N, K2, and R1; 94.1%) are shared with European and neighboring Near Eastern populations and contrast with only a minor share of haplogroups related to Central Asian (C, Q and O; 3.4%), Indian (H, R2; 1.5%) and African (A, E3*, E3a; 1%) affinity. [...] high resolution SNP analysis provides evidence of a detectable yet weak signal (<9%) of recent paternal gene flow from Central Asia. The variety of Turkish haplotypes is witness to Turkey being both an important source and recipient of gene flow." - Cengiz Cinnioğlu, R. King, Toomas Kivisild, E. Kalfoğlu, S. Atasoy, G. L. Cavalleri, A. S. Lillie, C. C. Roseman, A. A. Lin, K. Prince, P. J. Oefner, P. Shen, Ornella Semino, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, and Peter A. Underhill. "Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia." Human Genetics 114:2

"...genetically, Anatolia is more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations." , "In the present study, the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia was estimated as 13%" - Ceren Caner Berkman, Havva Dinc, Ceran Sekeryapan, and İnci Togan. "Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 136:1

"This paper repeated their finding that about 13% of the lineages stemmed from Central Asia" , "They go on to say "Based on the population size estimation for Anatolia in 12th century, it can be calculated that at least 1.5 million nomads might have arrived to Anatolia. History tells us that they have arrived to Central and Eastern Anatolia first and only 150 years later they invaded Western Anatolia." - İnci Togan and her team presented the paper "An Anatolian Trilogy: Arrival of nomadic Turks with their sheep and shepherd dogs" at the 4th International Symposium on Biomolecular Archaeology, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 7-11, 2010


  • So tell me, is it really a chock that Turkish people are closer to balkan people, when their population was 12 million, and the refugees were 10+1.5 million(maximum, but lets find a happy medium of 5) ?
  • Is it just a coincidence the majority of genetic research, autosomal and haplogroup research support and synergies with the estimates so perfectly?
  • What happened to the Byzantine population after Seljuks Conquered Anatolia? I don't recall reading millions of anatolians replaced or ethnically cleansed by Seljuks, or even millions of Turks settling in Anatolia.
  • Genghis Khan raised ancient cities and conquered several civilizations with 100-150k army size during 1 lifetime, Hungary pillaged,raided and raised decisive wars for one century with 25 000 soldiers.

If Seljuks even had 200k military personnel and around 800k-1m in total population, how did it take them 300 years of war with the 20k Byzantines. They would've conquered the known world with such an raised levy. I think the ottomans had 100k at their prime, but don't quote me on that. However my point being that in order for Anatolia to be 80% Central Asian an unrealistic amount of Central Asian must've invaded it. - Sverdrup, Carl. "Numbers in Mongol Warfare." Journal of Medieval Military History 2010 (8). Lane, George. Daily Life in the Mongol Empire. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006.

In conclusion, I'm not denying the Central asian influence, it's definitely there but I don't see how 80% is a realistic estimation.

Ops you know what, I missread "Turkish ethnicity" as "Turkic ethnicity", however, another issue is that, what is Turkish ethnicity? A composition of Central asian, native anatolian(Greek/Armenian/Kurdish/Levant/Whateverelse), laz, circassian, balkan admixtture? My discovery here does not make some of my questions right, just disregard the ones that doesn't belong to the topic. I just realized I actually agree on pretty much everything you said, I really thought it said "80% Turkic". Cheers.


Buhedyar (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Buhedyar

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  Talk 12:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh so you're the obsessed guy that I called a troll on Quora. You came here now?

Quoting outdated studies won't make you right. Like that old "13% Central Asian" study which is singlehandedly debunked by the East Eurasian study that found the Turks are 21.7% East Eurasian. If your mongoloid dna is higher than your central asian heritage, then it means you did something wrong. The most recent studies all reject the Turks being Ancient Anatolians. They all say the Turks are mixed with Central Asian groups that migrated to Anatolia.

As for haplogroup studies, they don't really prove anything. Haplogroups are a small part of your genetics and you should look at autosomal DNA only. Also Cinnioğlu's study is outdated and it's not reliable anymore. It counts mongoloid haplogroups as Central Asian and completely ignores haplogroups such as J2, R1b, R1a which can be found in Central Asia in great amounts.


And for Hodoğlu's study. As I mentioned before on Quora, it's not a bad study. But the problem is its proxy populations. It uses people like Sardinians, Druze and Kyrgyzes instead of Ancient Anatolians, modern Greeks, Seljuk/Ottoman samples, Turkmens and Armenians/Assyrians.


And you're for some reasons obsessed with the fact that Seljuks were nomadic and that a nomadic population would somewhat obliterate the entire world. Before you make hilarious claims like these you should open a history book.


Also "Langer and Blake" does not mention anything about Greeks having a weak culture and Turks being a small minority. Thank you for posting that. I'll delete that part.

https://archive.org/details/LangerBlake1932AHROttomans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buhedyar (talk • contribs) 02:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Time to change paradigm

For 12 years since this entry was created there has not been a serious attempt to dig down into the reasons why this article cannot deliver what is potentially possible. It is virtually impossible to define what "Turk" is without covering how "Turk" was perceived in the middle ages in Europe: "Great Schism" cannot be explained without references to the Turks. "Christendom" cannot be explained without the Turks. Genealogy is an interesting topic but it did not play any role in solidifying the notion of the "Turk." Before Turks were known in Europe, they were known in Persia as the antithesis of Persia long before Alexander the Great. Then Constantinople (the Roman Capitol) saw the Turks as the inverted mirror image of themselves. Then Western Rome did the same. Let's sit back and feel and maybe submit to the weight of history and understand the futility in revert wars and tit for tat. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Bizarre Map

Why does the provided map include not only the distribution of the Anatolian Turks (i.e., the subject of the article) but also other Turkic-speaking ethnic groups, most of whom have little in common, apart from language similarity and religion, with modern Turkish society? The map can also easily give the glancing viewer the deceptive impression that the light-green areas are also part of the territory of Anatolian Turks. In short, this seems to me a deliberate attempt to introduce nationalistic/pan-Turkic/otherwise highly biased elements into an encyclopedia which seeks to provide exactly the opposite. There are copious maps available which restrict themselves only to Anatolians (might I suggest http://www.geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Turkey-Language-Map-2.png?). There is an article on Turkic people as a whole, and any maps detailing the entire range of the Turkic-speaking people belong there.Micah von stauffenberg (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Numbers contradiction

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

Use of "native to" in lead sentence

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

It was changed from "living mainly in" to "native to" in this edit by 70.71.241.6 (talk), without an edit summary. Numerous reverts and restores, and a change to "native to Anatolia", quickly followed over the last two months: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].

The only edit summary comments were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see any arguments above that Turks should not be described as native to Anatolia because others were there first. That would seem to be a straw-man. There was some discussion about the meaning of the phrase "native to" - if its use here is not meant to imply an indigenous people, then it is too ambiguous to use, as many or most readers would interpret it that way. Better phrasing would be needed to convey what is actually meant - whatever that is. The current wording, which has been in place for several years, seems sufficient. If it is meant to imply a people (language, culture, etc.) indigenous or native to Anatolia, then citations would be needed to show that this is the viewpoint of the majority of reliable sources on the subject. As far as I can tell, it is not.
Please see WP:WEIGHT. If it's true that Turks are considered to be native to Anatolia by the majority of reliable sources (a requirement in order to make a statement as a fact in Wikipedia's voice), it should be easy to cite numerous commonly accepted reference texts that say so. If it is a viewpoint held by a significant minority, it should be easy to cite prominent adherents, and the information can be included with appropriate explanations. The viewpoints or personal analysis of Wikipedia editors are not relevant. As a counter-example, the Routledge encyclopedia "Native Peoples of the World" has entries for Albanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, and Serbs, as well as for Turkmen and Kurds, but not for Turkish people. I can't explain exactly why that is, but we go with what reliable sources say, not our own explanations or analysis. --IamNotU (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The straw-man arguement was used by Anatoly00000000, whose stance you are supporting, to remove the context. The excuse given to remove the context was "Turks migrated to Turkey in 11th century" which is doesn't support the arguement since all others which are already considered native originally settled in the Middle Ages as well. You frequently demand sources for the leading section but please refer to WP:WHENNOTCITE. For the most part, the article already supports the statement in the genetics section and the sources you are looking for is already given there. As far as I read the discussion, you were already asked to refer to the section but you dismissed it because it is not analogous to Native Americans. Again, if we're going by this definition it should be removed from many other pages, not just Turks. Once again taking all other pages using "native to" into account, genetic connection to the land is sufficient to be considered native to the land, rather than the prehistoric identity as whole. You see, while it's used to describe the most ethniticies in their own pages, for example how Bengalis are native to Bengal or Finns are native to Finland, they're not among indigenous peoples and in fact only few suit the definition. Perhaps this is where your confusion is arising from, but I don't think it's appropriate to remove it just because you somehow personally find the term "ambiguous" despite it is used in the leading section of most of ethnicities. Your "counter-example" is also a rather poor comparison; just because all others have entries in the encyclopedia doesn't really explain anything. In fact, it doesn't have other major ethnic groups like Arabs and Persians either. While Turkish people may not an entry; Azeris, the Gagauz, Crimean Tatars, Volga Tatars, and as you said (Iraqi & Syrian) Turkmens still all have entries in Routledge encyclopedia. Does this mean you agree all of them are natives to their land, unlike Turkish people, because they all have entries? Nozdref (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. What other Wikipedia articles say about other ethnic groups is WP:OTHERCONTENT that doesn't determine what happens in this article. If they have statements that are unclear, misleading, or not verifiable in reliable, published sources, then they should be fixed. You do realize that the change to "native to Turkey" was made by an anonymous IP editor in April, that multiple editors reverted it, and consensus was never established to add it? We're not talking about removing content from the article that had previously been accepted.
What constitutes an ethnic group is not determined solely or even chiefly by genetics, so the statement can't be extrapolated from genetics studies. Can you point to even one reliable source that unambiguously states that Turkish people, as an ethnic group, are native or indigenous to Anatolia? The one other person who has participated in this discussion has claimed that Turks are in fact an indigenous native people of Anatolia, analogous to Native Americans, supposedly supported by genetics studies. If you are arguing on the other hand that "native to Turkey" does not mean "indigenous to Turkey", can you explain what you think it does mean then, so that we can find clearer wording? I'm sorry, but genetic connection to the land is sufficient to be considered native to the land just doesn't make sense to me (what does "genetic connection to the land" mean?) and again, I would ask for sources for that statement. Why use wording that could be ambiguous (indigenous? Not indigenous?) when more straightforward wording can be easily composed? --IamNotU (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure, there you go: https://minorityrights.org/country/turkey/ Unambiguous statement? ✓ Reliable source? ✓ Yes, he did and it is indeed supported by genetic studies, all cited in the section. By genetic connection I meant the common genetic ancestry modern Turkish people have with the pre-11th century inhabitants as well as the ancient Anatolian peoples. However, if you still find the wording ambiguous, I suggest "originating from" instead to reach a consensus. Nozdref (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, no. That's a list of "minorities and indigenous people", some of whom, like the Caferis, are Turks. I don't believe for a moment that Minority Rights Group International intends to classify the dominant Turkish culture as an indigenous people. Do I understand correctly then, that your position is that Turkish people, as an ethnic group, are considered by most sources to be an indigenous native people of Anatolia, which is proved by the genetic studies cited in the article, and you wish to state this as a simple fact in the lead sentence? Then again, sorry, no.
PS, you wrote: Anatoly00000000, whose stance you are supporting... Please stop putting words in my mouth. In fact, what I said was: "The actual situation is complex, and the ideas that the Turkish people "migrated there in the 11th century" or that they are "native to these lands" are both oversimplifications." It's best to leave such statements out of the lead, and allow the full story to be explained in the article. --IamNotU (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Are you for real? It's very clearly stated and explained that Caferis are included as a religious minority!!! Main ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples are listed at the very top. MRGI clearly classifies Turks as an indigenous ethnic group of Turkey and you see this for yourself, how you "don't believe" it does after this is your personal problem. It seems we won't reach a consensus, not because it's impossible but because you prefer remaining being difficult and uncooperative. Whatever you say, let's keep it as it currently is for now. Nozdref (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I wrote to the Minority Rights Group International, and received a reply from Carl Söderbergh, Director of Policy & Communications. It reads, in part:
"I'm going to ask my colleagues to amend that and state more clearly that we mean the Caferis. ... And yes, you are absolutely right. We would not term the Turkish majority in Turkey an indigenous people."
The organization uses the term, as I expected, in the sense defined by the UN.
I would ask that the aspersions against me above be struck, in accordance with Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. --IamNotU (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
IamNotU, we had discussion on this before, and you had a rather uncivil tone. I suggest you also follow Wikipedia:Civility, especially before reminding others various personal conduct policies. While IamNotU seems to be a minority of one in this issue, with uninvolved editors such as Maproom making comments contrary to IamNotU's position, I actually prefer the lead to be unambiguous and have high-quality secondary sources. I didn't have a lot of time for this article lately, but will get back to it. Bogazicili (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anywhere that I was uncivil. If you believe I was, you can bring it up on my talk page rather than casting vague aspersions here. On the other hand, I recall that you accused me of making "racist" comments for not agreeing that Turks are considered by reliable sources to be a native indigenous people - though you did remove one of those accusations after I asked you to, which I appreciate. I'm asking the same for the statements above, which I find to be very unfair, considering the message I quoted. Yes, the lead should "be unambiguous and have high-quality secondary sources", and I would like to be able to discuss it rationally without receiving stressful personal insults and unfounded accusations of misbehavior. PS, I don't agree that Maproom's one-sentence comment was "contrary to my position". --IamNotU (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Genetics

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

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

References

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

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

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

References

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

I agree it's relevant and should be included, not neccesarily by removing any of the current content. I've checked the archives and I'm yet to find a "consensus" to remove all this information. Nozdref (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The Population

The population of Turkey is misspelled. It is very wrong to give people false information on Wikipedia. I updated the information but it was all deleted by another user. Bora Kaptan (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Introduction

I have rewritten the introduction to provide clarity to readers regarding traditional areas of settlement. The term "Anatolian Turks" is not commonly used in Prizren, Mosul, Aleppo, Nicosia, Kardzhali etc etc. It is important that we provide an inclusive representation of the ethnic Turks. If this is an article solely for Anatolian Turks then we would have to remove many countries from the infobox. Everything is now cited with authors who illustrate that there is indeed the sub-groups Anatolian Turks, Rumelian Turks, Cypriot Turks etc. who collectively identify as Turkish. I'm happy to discuss further improvements but please do not revert to a Turkey-only focused article. Thanks, Sseevv (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Notes section

If there are no objections, I would like to condense the notes section for the infobox and place these in the infobox footnotes. These sentences can be much shorter and clearer. It will also be easier for readers to navigate (especially on mobile apps). Sseevv (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Religion

The religion section needs to be rewritten completely. At the moment, it is written in the tone of the religions of all Turkish citizens of Turkey (regardless of ethnicity) and thus mentions Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians and Jewish people. But this is irrelevant here. Surely such sentences are best fit for the article on Turkey. On this article we should be writing about what the ethnic Turkish practice - and not just in the Republic of Turkey, but also in the Balkans, Cyprus and the Levant. Sseevv (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Why was Twelver Shia removed in this edit? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Alevi and Bektashi are the main sects of Shia Islam practiced by the Turks. Sseevv (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Turks in France

By 2020 estimates have continued to suggest more than 1 million to as much as 2 million French Turks according to this Turkish source in 2020

https://www.haber7.com/yazarlar/akif-bedir/3009653-kirli-hesaplar

quote=Fransa’da yaşayan 2 milyon dokuz yüz bin Türk... Alanldn21 (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Genetic Argument

Developments in Ancient DNA Studies has changed the terrain in the last couple of years; this article started with a genetic argument in 2006 and now the whole thing is crumbling down before our eyes: In 2006 we did not know about the Ancient North Eurasians. It turns out the whole genetic structure of Europe changed 4K years ago and and the Ancient North Eurasians had a big part in it. Tarim Basin mummies had no contact with Yamnaya etc. and they had all technologies that were known at that time, farming, pastoralism, weaving, bronze technology etc. We survived 20th century with 19th century ideas and it spilled over to 21st century so far. It is about time we move on.2601:243:300:32B0:0:0:0:3F95 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)averageturkishjoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:300:32B0:0:0:0:44B2 (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC) AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022

The quote for linked item 248 is misinterpreted. Thus the focus on Berlin stating it's the 3rd largest Turkish city after Istanbul and Ankara is probably wrong. 2 Millions Turkish people may have arrived in Berlin but it does not mean they reside in Berlin. The community is actually fairly small compared to other cities in western Germany and resides mostly in a couple of neighborhoods. Berlin's population (Greater Berlin) is only of 3.6 million people, so I doubt that the population originating from Turkey represents more than half of the city's total population. Please find a stronger source for this. Greham7777 (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done removed the obsolete sentence. Beshogur (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

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

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrong country attribution

"Northern Cyprus" should be changed to "Cyprus" and the accompanying illegal emblem to the Cypriot flag, because the territory it is referring to legally and officially belongs to the Republic of Cyprus, globally recognised as the Government representing all Cypriots and the entire island of Cyprus (it is not recognised by Turkey alone, because Turkey illegally occupies that part of the Republic of Cyprus). ΑνδρέαςΚ (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Number of Turks in Berlin

Hello, I am referring to the caption of an image from Berlin in this article, which says there are around 2 million Turks in Berlin; that would make them a vast majority of the inhabitants, Berlin having about 3.7 million people. In a Wikipedia article on Berlin, the relevant section states that "Berlin is home to at least 180,000 Turkish and Turkish German residents, making it the largest Turkish community outside of Turkey." supported with a reference to the Statistical Report. The figure is one tenth of that stated in this article. These two figures should be harmonized to provide correct information. 31.30.70.42 (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Thrace

@Mypthegoat: so they are not native to western thrace, or rest of Balkans? Beshogur (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Turkey is a part of both Anatolia and East Thrace. That's why I wrote East Thrace. If you want to correct that as writing "Balkans" then you should write "Western Asia (Middle East), North Africa etc.) too. Mypthegoat (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
It's not about Turkey. Bulgarian Turks do not live in thrace for example. Otherwise the sentence is misleading and should be removed. Beshogur (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Which part of Thrace?
Bulgarian Turks live in North Thrace in Bulgaria. Öztürküm (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Deliorman is not Thrace. Beshogur (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
yes, deliorman is not in thrace, but in deliorman that's where the gacallar live there, who are also turkish
Turks live in Northern Thrace in Bulgaria, in citys like kardzhali, haskovo Öztürküm (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@Beshogur, could you possibly help the article Manavlar https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manavlar translate for english wikipedia? Öztürküm (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have much knowledge about Manavlar. Beshogur (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
the landscape of thrace is integrated into three countries.
Bulgaria (North Thrace), Turkey (East Thrace), Greece (West Thrace). Öztürküm (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

"Turks in Luxembourg" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Turks in Luxembourg has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 6 § Turks in Luxembourg until a consensus is reached. Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_people/Archive_16&oldid=1255196913"