Talk:Turkish people/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The picture debate

There I dont really see anything wrong with either picture. However maybe a picture with at least 1 Turkish women might be better? (just a suggestion) DivineIntervention 00:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

See this section for discussion about why the image is inaccurate. --Khoikhoi 01:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yuruk in Asia Minor before Seljuks

Oh, you guys need to read this...

...the Yuruks. These Anatolian shepherds, nominally Moslems, grazed their flocks in the hinterland of Asia Minor for centuries before the Seldjuks came; they even paid return migrations, now and then as far as Macedonia. No wonder, then, that some of the aura of a fable hangs about the Sarakatsans.."

...The Greek historiography usually encourages the stereotype according to which the Ottomans are presented as conquering Greece from the "Greeks". It has to be understood -to refer only to the Mainland Greece- that neither the major -at that time- city of Salonica (which was a Venetian possession seven years prior to the final Ottoman conquest) nor Athens, which was in the hands of the Florentines, and previously in those of the Catalan Company of Pedro when the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet finally entered it (and has been continuously held by the Catholic ‘Franks’ since 1204) were "Greek" at the time of their sacking by the Turk. The native population, though partly -at surface- Greek speaking, was a complex motley of ethnicities lacking unity or homogeneity despite the attempt of the central Byzantine government to subdue them through taxation, recruitment in the armies, relegating them to the status of parikoi, or dilute their specificity by ascribing (or converting) them to the Greek language officiating Orthodox Church. This heterogeneity rendering the locals passive made even easier for the incisive nomads who were the Yuruk to deeply penetrate Greece and the Balkans.


  • Brian de Jongh - "The Companion Guide to Mainland Greece" (revised by John Gandon), Collins, London 1985 (Balkan Borderlands and endless paths: Vlach-Yuruk-Sarakatsani confluences in Rhodope and Macedonia)

People with prior knowledge of Sarikechili, Karakechili, Karakoyunlu will immediately recognize these people. AverageTurkishJoe 02:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To my friends:

I think we should remove the "smyrna" page.There is only one İzmir.We should hinder these seperatist and unfair propagandas of someones(!) -Inanna-

Also see: Yoruk

This unequivocally destroys the idea that there were no Turks in Asia Minor before the Seljuk invasion. Apparently Turks were living there both Asia Minor and Balkans before 1071 as this fact makes it abundantly clear.
What is interesting that "Yoruk"s are touted as the truest of the Greeks in Greece where in fact they are the truest of the Turks. They kept their pastoral lifestyles and they did not mingle with the city folk. Roman Empire(East and West) was not able to assimilate them.
They do not have any Mongol traits and they always spoke Turkish. My great-grandma used to say, "Yes, I am yoruk but I am yoruk from Istanbul" it makes perfect sense.
The current location of the Yoruks in Turkey is also the land of Isaurans. A "semi-barbaric" people that were never conquered or assimilated by the Byzantine empire. These people also produced two Iconoclastic Emperors. They were not conquered until the Seljuks.(Maybe they were just brethren and this was just a re-union rather than a conquest?) There are references that suggest they were "asiatics".
Byzantine emperor Leo III the Isaurian marries his son Constantine (later Constantine V Kopronymous) to the Khazar princess Tzitzak (Çiçek in Turkish) (daughter of the Khagan Bihar) c. 750. Their son Leo (Leo IV) would be better known as "Leo the Khazar". There are some Turkish connections there.

AverageTurkishJoe 12:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Turkification Followed a Depopulation of Asia Minor

I am writing a draft for the opening paragraphs of this article. Please respond by your comments and concerns since this draft is drastically changing the content by removing the "debate" about "how Turkish the Turks of Turkey are".

Turkish people are the current inhabitants of Asia Minor. Conquest of Asia Minor by the Turks and its transformation into the "Home of the Turks" has always been a contentious issue for the Europeans. In some circles it still is incomprehensible and sometimes intolerable. It is customarily assumed that Asia Minor of the eleventh century must still have been highly urbanized cultivated and Hellenized Asia Minor of the Roman times. However even in the antiquity geographical conditions did not allow the same level of development in the central and eastern Anatolia as the Aegean costs. Even today, western provinces of Turkey in general are remakably more developed compared to the eastern ones. We do not have accurate knowledge of conditions of the central and eastern provinces in the antiquity, whatever they might have been the continued wars against the Arabs and the Persians had profoundly changed Anatolia and the eastern parts were impacted the most. For generations, vast areas, particularly on both sides of the Taurus and Cappadocia, had suffered from retaliatory raids, plundering and devastation. Depopulation of the areas and the creation of no man's land had been employed as a method of defense by all parties. Massacre of the Paulician heretics in Tephrike region (modern Divrigi) is such an example.

There were attempts to repopulate certain zones by the Byzantine Empire. These re-population attempts had a military character. The numerous mercenaries who served both the Emperor and the several thematic strategoi characterized Byzantine army in c. 800. The Turkic peoples of the Eurasian steppe, like the Khazars, the Pechenegs and the Cumans (Kipchak), were included in the army under the status of foederati and employed mainly as mounted archers. Russ (Scandinavians), Slavs, Normans, Italians, Germans and even Arabs and Seljuk Turks, among many others, were employed either singly or in ready-to-hire units.

The Themata system was developed under Constans II (630 -668))(Constans Heraclius) and Constantine IV (649-685) in order to face the constant threat of the Muslim Arabs who had taken Syria, Egypt and Mesopotamia in the 7th century. Thus, the first Thema appeared in the Eastern provinces, which were both the highest paid and the most endangered. Under this system a plot of land was given to the soldiers to farm. The soldiers were still technically a military unit, under the command of a strategos. (Both Seljuks and Ottomans employed the same system later.)

These frontier-dwellers -Byzantine akritai and Muslim ghazis- though fighting against each other were alike in their physical and spiritual isolation from the governments, which took almost no part in their activity, and as a result they sometimes almost fraternized. Evidence of this is provided in the chivalrous romances or poems, which recount the exploits of both sides.

Turkification of Asia Minor thus followed first a depopulation and later a repopulation of the lands with Turkic elements.

In the 9th century Turkification reached the capital: the Hetaereia regiments (elite cavalrymen imperial guards) although including Greeks, were mainly composed of Khazars and Pharganos (from the Fergana Valley, in Central Asia).

There is also evidence that the Yoruk Turkish tribes were populating both the Balkans and Western Anatolia all the way to Cappadocia centuries before the first Seljuks arrived. Sarakatsani and Karakatsani, (Sarikeçilia and Karakeçili) Turkish nomadic tribes who were trapped in Greece proper and Bulgaria and who still live there attest to the Turkification of Asia Minor and the Balkans long before Battle of Manzikert in 1071.

AverageTurkishJoe 05:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Not sure why the Europeans would be contentious on the issue of the turkification of Asia Minor though. Mostly, many Greeks and Armenians resent it as they believe that their own ethno-linguistic and former territories were reduced by the coming of the Turks. Aside from these two, French people or the English don't particularly care. Also, this new beginning page doesn't really say anything about the Turks. The specific questions surrounding the Turks, including myths etc., is that many people believe the Turks simply invaded and displaced the local Anatolian population. Genetic testing has proven that to be largely false. In addition, we have historical records and the work of people like Rumi to attest that many local non-Muslims were converted to Islam over the centuries. These are really the main issues about the Turks that define who they are today. Also, sporadic depopulation doesn't appear to have drastically altered the region either. Mainly, in the historical record, we have writings pertaining to changes that largely reflect what happened to ruling elites. Occassionally, this is extended to the masses, but the reality is that if an elite ruling class was destroyed or forced out, that's what we read. The other people aren't mentioned. This sort of hermeneutic reading is required in almost all histories these days. American history is a good example as well since most history is sanitized, glorified, and related as events that effect the elites. The masses are forgotten and the substantial socialist movement of the 19th century forgotten for example and re-written as some 'labor strikes'. Also, the usage of military elite troops have rarely drastically altered a population. I've read about the Byzantine (and Sassinian) reliance upon mercenaries, but these are thousands of people at the most in comparison to millions of settled peoples. It barely makes a dent. The depopulation theory doesn't wash as the genetic evidence supports the more autochthonous origins of most Anatolians, including the Turks. What's more viable is that most Anatolians, under Greek and Byzantine rule, adopted Greek as the elites were hellenized, while Ionian settlers were probably a minority. This theory has more credibility amongst academics as well (see the references section for the page), rather than a highly unlikely depopulation and repopulation theory that took place in Central Asia during the Mongol invasions. Tombseye 22:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the Plague and Byzantine-Persian & Byzantine-Arab wars were responsible for depopulation
The Justinianic plague, apart from its devastating immediate impact, is generally viewed as undermining the late Roman empire, politically and economically, creating conditions ripe for disaster. Coupled with the other disasters of the reign of Justinian, the plague may have reduced the population of the Mediterranean world by the year 600 to no more than 60 percent of its count a century earlier. Such a massive mortality rate would naturally lead to social and economic ruin. Also, the depopulation of the urban centers might have created a structural imbalance in favor of the desert Arabs.
Plague in the Ancient World: A Study from Thucydides to Justinian by Christine A. Smith
Towns and villages were abandoned and food production plunged because of manpower shortages. The marginal regions could sustain only small populations and previously densely settled areas turned into wastelands that were open to invasion by nomads. The more distant parts of the empire, such as Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, were seriously weakened, making them vulnerable to Persian and Arab incursions.

Clive Foss, Byzantine Symposium, Urban and Rural Settlement in Anatolia and the Levant, 500-1000 AD: New Evidence from Archaeology

Simultaneously with the loss of the Balkans the Empire suffered a more serious amputation by being deprived of its eastern and southern provinces. This happened in two stages. First, between the years 609 and 619, the Persians conquered all of Syria, Palestine and Egypt. They were then defeated by the emperor Heraclius and withdrew to their own country; but a few years later the same provinces were overrun by the Arabs and, this time, lost for good. The whole of the north African coast also succumbed to the invader. The Mediterranean empire of Rome simply ceased to exist, while the Byzantine State found itself limited to Asia Minor, the Aegean islands, a bit of the Crimea and Sicily.
The Persians also initiated another development that was to have important demographic consequences by striking at Constantinople through Asia Minor. In so doing they caused immense havoc. When the Arabs had succeeded to the Persians and made themselves masters of all the territories up to the Taurus mountains, they, too, struck into Asia Minor- not once or twice, but practically every year- and this went on for nearly two centuries. Many of the raids did not penetratc far from the frontier, but several of them extended as far as the Black Sea and the Aegean, and a few reached Constantinople itself. As it turned out, the Arabs never managed to gain a foothold on the Anatolian plateau. What happened instead was that every time they marched in the local population would take refuge in the inaccessible forts with which Asia Minor is so liberally proviced. The Arabs would pass between the forts, taking prisoners and booty, while the Byzantines would burn the crops to deprive the enemy of supplies and keep him on the move. The consequences of this prolonged process are easy to imagine: much of Asia Minor was devastated and depopulated almost beyond repair.

Cyril Mango. Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome. Scribner's, 1980.

last article is very resourceful for the demographic data. AverageTurkishJoe 04:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly Byzantine Empire article does not mention this plague at all. AverageTurkishJoe 05:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
That's good stuff actually. I read some accounts about the Arab invasions of Asia Minor and there are even accounts of Christian Arabs moving to Anatolia when they refused to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax (see Al Baladhuri). This information would be an interesting addition to the Byznatine Empire page, but I think the other point here would be that while the Arabs depopulated some parts of Asia Minor, the main areas of concentration, namely the center and northwestern sections were spared from most Arab incursions. The areas hardest hit by the Arabs may have been Kurdish and Armenian areas. Ultimately though, a lot of this is speculative and the other issue is that populations do recover through natural increase. And since we can obviously see that most Turks live not in the east of Turkey, but the west that it's difficult to determine the level of devastation. Still though you make a good case for some levels of depopulation and this could account for a higher level of Central Asian ancestry (up to 30%) than say Azerbaijan. I like how this is going with this page actually. This kind of information exchange helps these articles. Perhaps we can put in some of this information with the caveat that the level of devastation is not entirely known and you might want to put in some of this information on the Byzantine Empire page (or any pages that relate to the Arab conflicts). All in all though, good historical information. Tombseye 19:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit the article, not the picture!

I noticed that the so hotly debated picture in the infobox is being removed by changing the image file. I think this is misleading, since the changes cannot be found on the history page, and do not appear on the watchlist.

The fact that Orhan Pamuk is currently criticised in his own country, doesn't mean that he isn't a prominent Turkish author. He is throughout the world acclaimed as a distinguished writer.

In Turkish, there's a proverb that says: Kimse kendi memleketinde peygamber olmaz. (No one becomes a prophet in their own country.) --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sexist are you? There is not one female in the picture! DivineIntervention 14:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should look more closely, and not judge so easily. Isn't Sezen Aksu a woman?
By the way, I think it would be better to include two women in the infoboxes. My suggestion for Turkey: Halide Edib Adivar. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sezen Aksu is a woman. Sezen is a female Turkish name ! I think we should do a Tatar-esque collage. That way we can all get our preferred prominent individuals in there. 4 simply isnt enough. There will always be someone nitpicking about the exclusion of his/her preferred personality(ies) Enter sandman 15:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Most ethnic group articles have 4 pictures. --Khoikhoi 18:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah most ethnic groups have 4 pictures. Not all of them have 4 pictures doesn't do the Turkish People justice. DivineIntervention 16:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Who says it has to do the Turks justice? Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View policy and can't get caught up political stuff. --Khoikhoi 19:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we can do a compromise here. We can not include Pamuk in the 4 people picture, but also stick to the format of the 4 people picture and just replace him with another person. This picture should not include people like Roxelana who is not an ethnic Turk is all I ask though. It's stupid ultranationalism and revisionism to promote this national mythology stuff. I would have thought that Pamuk's views could be a point in which more public debate would take place and not this keen interest in defending the metanarrative that the Turkish govt. has handed down to the masses. Nationalism is a curse that distorts peoples' thinking and makes them blind to any faults in their own country. I ought to know, the US is filled with delusional politicians and their followers. Tombseye 19:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Benne,Thank you for remind me.How did i forget?!


I still don't see what wrong with Orhan Pamuk just because he doesn't reflect some nationalistic hero. --Khoikhoi 03:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

He degraded the Turkish identy.He said "If nationalism rises in Turkey,i will move to France".What is he waiting for? He makes us so happy by getting lost...


Ok, well all you said is that you and your people don't like him - well what about are the other 6 billion people in the world?? --Khoikhoi 03:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever count how many of them like Orhan Pamuk or how many of them has any idea about Orhan Pamuk ? He is on the picture, because you and your pretty watchdogs want to see him. Why don't you buy a poster of him ? It would be better for all of us.
In Turkish, çeteresini mi tuttun kaç kişi seviyor kaç kişi sevmiyor diye.
I gotta say, if this is the prevalent attitude of many Turks towards differing viewpoints and opposition to the bane of nationalism, then, if I were the Europeans, I wouldn't allow Turkey into the EU. Europeans debate and often increasingly dismiss nationalism and allow for a great deal of dissenting views on their countries and their histories. The French have admitted to many massacres in Algeria during the 1950s and 60s for example as well as in Vietnam. I'm not necessarily backing keeping Pamuk or not, but he is a well known figure all over the world today and he's a very brave man to stand up to so many people who think national pride is more important than any introspective rethinking. Regardless, any new picture should stick to the 4 people format AND not include Roxelana and the Barbarosa brothers. Other than that, if Pamuk is that divisive I'm not against replacing him. Tombseye 19:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogiehogie, only enemies of Turkey(as you) love him.They are very small population... Let's describe hogiehogie:

  • Anti-Turkist,
  • Anti-Feminist,
  • Sided and unfair,
  • Very ill-mannered,

...Do you want more? I think you should be banned but we cant expect something diffrent form sided web-site.If i were you, i would stop complaining as primary school boys and begging help from others.You really become ridiculous...

TombofTurks, who wants EU? EU needs us, we dont need them.I think you should continue to support of Turkey's membership or our new friends will be russia and iran.We have proved everything.He is a liar and will be punished(by indirect ways).He is hero for you.You declared apo hero before...

We havent forgotten that you got through sack on Turkish soliders yet and we wont.Please dont put your nose everywhere.You dont know anything about Turkish history.I know how americans are unsuccessful at history.Moreover, some of you suppose Turkey is closer to Japan.So stop bullshits about our history.You cant know better than us.You are already sided.I have changed the Tatar Hürrem's picture.This picture will stay.Barbaros was Turkish!!!

For all of you, dont test my patience anymore...

Arkadaşlar bildiğiniz iyi bir "H....r" var mı? Şunlara arık hadlerini bildirmenin zamanı çoktan geldi...


Actually, you should be banned. You violate the protocol all the time, cannot admit when you are wrong (as with Roxelana), break the 3rr rule on numerous occassions, resort to personal attacks like a child, and haven't really contributed much of anything except a lot of blank space. The EU lives by certain standards that I frankly don't think should be reduced for anyone, least of all someone like yourself who is clearly an ultranationalist posing as someone rational. You keep talking in circles and can't produce any constructive arguments or sources. I don't care about your patience as frankly mine is at an end with your ridiculous and simplistic so-called contributions. Hah, now she's a Tatar again after you claimed she was maybe a Jew. How many times do you have to be caught in a lie before you stop vandalizing? No, this picture will not stay. Tough break 'goddess'. Tombseye 21:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have never attacked anybody.You should tell this to your impolite and sexist best friend khoikhoi.Judaism is a religion.Jews of imperial russia are Turkic origin.Your all informations are smelling hatred propagandas.Even i am showing resources.Both of you are only trouble makers.You dont have any interest about my country.You always violate the rules but nothing happens to you(!) You should learn stay far from brainwashing and control your senses.Besides, you should learn to think logical and be fair...


I did not want to partake in the picture debate but here I am. What I see as the main issue is that Turkish wikipedians are not happy with the fact that their identity is being defined for them and the picture debate is part and parcel of this. What is more interesting is that how the non-Turkish wikipedians who showed a great zeal about this article (and the picture) could have such strong opinions about it. It is easily discernible from the state of the article that its contributors are clearly not experts in this topic . Thus the source of this devotion escapes me. Still this does not hold them back from being equally fiery with the group that sees this article as an attack on their identity. AverageTurkishJoe 02:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with the article exactly? I keep hearing that it has problems, but what problems? The main debate does involve whether the Turks are native to the region or not. Most academics believe they are native to the region and mainly not Central Asian. I've studied the history quite a bit and brought in various other aspects that I thought would help with the debate. I'm against ultranationalism as is Khoikhoi and a lot of others. We tend to respond to people who wave their flags as if they are the center of the world with some occassional zeal, but more like an attempt to convey the simple fact that this article is not meant to be a feel good about yourself by claiming the collective accomplishments of others who share your national identity. I mean come on, every Ottoman citizen is now a Turk? These guys are claiming everyone from Rumi to Roxelana is a Turk which is ridiculous. And the Barbarosa brothers were born to a Greek father on the island of Lesbos. It's in any encyclopedia. Putting up pictures of people who aren't Turks seems really misleading and is part of the bane of nationalism which I ardently oppose. Hope that clears things up. And for the record, I personally like Pamuk as well. He's a brave guy for going up against what so many people believe and his opposition to nationalism is something I admire. The fact that people like the so-called goddess Inanna don't like him makes him all the more appealing. Tombseye 06:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


At least, i have a nation which i can be a nationalist of it.You cant know this sense.That's why it's very easy to destroy you... -Inanna-

Yeah, my country has done a lot of horrible things that we at least admit to, but let's face it, as far as accomplishments are concerned the US has put people in space, dominated science and technology, and reshaped the planet. I could be a nationalist drone like you, but I choose not to. You believe in fairy tales and hey that's fine. Tombseye 06:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Im adding "-ian" to my last name

Thats what you all want us to do right ? After all according to this article, we turks are descended from greeks, slavs, kurds and armos who were invaded by "savage mongol barbarians" and brainwashed. I wonder where georgians and albanians went. Looks like the albanian and georgian nationalists havent found this page yet. Sarcasm over - Raki-holic 09:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S - AverageTurkishJoe, I agree with you. Some people in here have an agenda to undermine Turkish identity and promote their own hegemony.This article is a farce. Has anyone noticed that there are double entries for Iraq on the significant populations bit ? - Raki-holic 10:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article has been changed to reflect an indigenous origin for most Turks. That means Anatolian and not necessarily Greek, Slavic, Kurdish, etc. One does have to understand though that when delving into the past, that Turks did not arrive until the 2nd millenium, at least not in large numbers. I thought Turkish identity was based upon a common language and culture. Is it that easily undermined by an inquiry into the past? And, for the record, Central Asians aren't all Mongols. Mainly they are a fusion of Iranian tribes and Turkic-Mongols from the steppes. By the time they reached Turkey they were most likely even more diluted by mingling with peoples along the way. Regardless, genetic tests don't lie. Tombseye 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Genetics tests says kurds and jews are the closest people(!) Turks are neither mongoloid nor persian.Azeris have persian blood in their veins.But we are not.Sumers were the fathers of early Turks and the first inhabitants of anatolia.It was proved that Hittites were Turkic tribe.They came from back of caucaussia(central asia) and adopted the language of indo-europeans(Hattis).

Central asian Turks are really mongloid because mongolians killed millions of Turks and raped the women.They had razed all the cities and then rebuild again.That's rest of the Turks emigrated to Anatolia.


Last Picture

I really want to end this picture fight.I have shown 3 men and 3 women from diffrent categories.All of them are very famous characters and i suppose someones wont be able to find any reason to errase it at his time.


I'm okay with this picture. It's accurate and I like the inclusion of more women. See now was that so hard? Compromise is good. Tombseye 23:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I always try to compromise but khoikhoi breaks it all time and provoking.Dont worry! He will errase this one soon...


The problem with your picture is that many of the people in it aren't Turkish. Stop trying to claim people are and just let the current picture be - at least everyone in it is Turkish. --Khoikhoi 01:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

All of them are Turkish.You have no information about anything.You are only problem in here. Senin bilgin ne gerizekalı?!


Ah, I see you changed it. It's still not 4 pictures though. --Khoikhoi 01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

and it wont be...


...yes it will. --Khoikhoi 01:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

We shall see...


...yes we will. --Khoikhoi 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's quite telling that the article consists of a little more than some claims on turks'

supposed origins, Turkish phenotypes etc. What happened to the everything else - culture, religion, population distribution ?

How about the persecution of Bulgarian Turks and Turkish Cypriots ? Why isnt that in the article ?

Of course it isnt in. It doesnt fit your agenda as far as hegemonial claims are concerned !: - Raki-holic 23:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raki-holic,
Ok, first off, I didn't write the article. Tombseye wrote a lot of it. You are welcome to add all that info that you mentioned - the culture, religion, etc. After all, Be Bold is one of Wikipedia's mottos.
I don't have a political agenda on Wikipedia. Please don't accuse me of anything without evidence. --Khoikhoi 05:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with this article.

What is wrong with this article

The title of the article does not match the content. Content sounds like Calvin’s (of Calvin and Hobbes) homework where the bulk of the work is the product of over-active imagination and some facts heard through the grapevine sprinkled in. Ignoring the content’s fable-like style, it belongs more to Demographics of Turkey. Also the article is too weak to be titled “Turkish Ethnology” since it is basically some bizarre jumble of hearsay put together for some unknown reason. It manufactures facts with the “probably” disclaimer like “one third of the Turks identifying themselves as ethnic Turks” or “most historians believe”. And for all the claims mentioned there is no analysis supplied, no numbers were given. It clearly does not fit into an encyclopedic mold.

1. Modern Turkey started with 10 million people with more than 3/4th of the population being rural. This is after 150 year old process of losing of the European lands and ethnic minorities separating from the Ottoman empire. And after the population exchange between Greece of Turkey following the WWI and Turkish War independence. The population of Ottoman Empire at its highest was 90 millions. That is one out of every nine Ottoman subject was deemed a “Turkish person” in 1923. Peoples who fought the Imperial powers in WWI and the Turkish war of Independence were entitled to be owners of the new Turkish Republic. The new Turkish identity was based on the Turkish war of Independence. The founding treaty “Lausanne” specifically prescribed the exchange of the Christian and Muslim populations. Greek and Armenian contribution to Turkish population that the article puts forth is merely a “guess”. Population influx from the lost Balkan lands on the other hand was substantial. The article omits this fact but mentions for example “Balkan people were brought to Turkey as Slaves in the Ottoman times .”

2. There is assumption that Central Asian Turks are more Turkish then western Turks. To back this argument the article claims without evidence is that there were no Turks in the in the west before 1071 c.e. Which is demonstrably wrong.

3. The article claims that “Turks *must* be an amalgamation of Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, etc” as if these ethnicities are monolithic homogeneous entities. There is evidence the said ethnicities absorbed large Turkic contributions even in the late antiquity.

4. Genetic argument totally ignores the Turkic genetic contribution to Balkans and Greece. The fact that Turks are similar to Europeans can also be explained by Turkic contributions to European and especially southeastern European populations. Examples of this are many: Bulgarians are Slavicised Turks and the Balkans were an Avar land for a very long time. Romanians are also very close genetically to Turks. The ethnicities of the nations around the Black Sea were established around 1000 c.e. after their Christening. The Turkic roots and elements in todays “Christian” nations are purposefully ignored and forgotten.

5. Depopulation of Asia Minor in Justinian years is glossed over. This had tremendous demographic effects to the point that the ethnic composition of Eastern Roman Empire changed and Asia Minor was populated with Slavs and Turks by Constantinople itself. Most of the Roman cities in Asia Minor abandoned during this time and archeological evidence backs this. Depopulated lands were filled with imported people from the Balkans. Seljuk invasion of Asia Minor followed this depopulation. Kipchaks (Cumans), Pechenegs, Khazars and Seljuk Turks were in enlisted in the Eastern Roman army some under the Themata system a plot of land was given to the soldiers to farm. Constantinople itself (the Palace) was Turkified during the Iconoclastic rulers. The Khazar royal guards attest to it. Stating that Turkic contribution as being small before the Seljuk’s arrival is just a mere guess. The fact that Avars captured all the lands of todays Greece (Thessaly, Old Epirus, Attica, Euboea, Peloponnese) in 587 attests to the Turkification of Greece itself. The great multitude of so called Slavs of that was transferred to Asia Minor (in Bythnia which is also the birthplace of the Ottoman Empire ) in Justininan II’s reign were most likely Avars which explains why thirty thousand soldiers raised from this group defected to the Mameluke army in their first encounter -an episode repeated in exactly the same manner in Mazikert in 1071 where the Kipchak soldiers defected to Seljuk army - their brethren. History books calls the imported populations Slavs ignoring the fact that Avars were the overlords of the Slavs.

6. Asia Minor has never been totally “Romanized”. Substantial populations in Asia Minor were Turkified before ever being Romanized (which can be explained by their Turkic affiliations in the first place.) The contribution of the Nomadic Turks (Yoruks) were totally ignored while we have evidence that they were in Asia Minor hundreds of years before the arrival of Seljuks and they probably had been there since the Avar times.

7. The “millet” system of Ottomans kept peoples separate. Until the 20th century Turks were farmers and herdsman and lived in segregated villages. Kurds and Turks lived in similar conditions albeit in separate villages. So the melting-pot analogy is fundamentally wrong for the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish Republic started with a huge demographic catastrophe that made almost all the previous demographic structure obsolete. The article is totally devoid of the analysis of how the different ethnicities lived in the Ottoman centuries. It drops in inconspicuous references about people converting to Islam without referencing any numbers or without any indication of their impact on the demographics and it ignores demographically significant data.

AverageTurkishJoe 05:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You could edit the article to improver rather than simply say that it's a deficient article as well. Well, I mostly agree on the historical background, but with some problems. The Balkan contribution can be easily fixed and the article was written with succinctness in mind. Actually, the article is not making the Armenian and Greek claims as I edited it to say Anatolian peoples. And the guesses are based upon what we know from the historical record. This would constitute an educated guess. The Yoruk and other Turkic tribes were most likely quite small. Inevitably, people misunderstand the migration of tribes as if they represent some massive demographic shift. Generally, nomads travel in small band and even large armies constitute at the most thousands of people and NOT millions. The Arabs during their early conquest of Syria put in the field a few thousand troops who were successful through guerrila tactics against the Byzantines. This should not be lost in this assumption that there was a large Turkish presence in Anatolia because one has to ask what do you mean by large? Actually, you very much wrong on the Turks' genetics. The Turks of the west are a result of assimilation and intermingling. The Turks did originate from northern Eurasia and their language is a testament to their original links to the Mongols. These Turkic tribes moved to Central Asia and mingled with Iranian peoples and then moved on to other places where there was further intermingling. Most of these early Turks still bore some Turkic-Mongol ancestry however and so are easily distinguishable from other groups. You are confusing modern Turks with the Turks of the past. In addition, the Bulgarians are not Slavicized Turks, but mainly Slavs who were conquered by a small Turkich ruling caste that lent their name and not their language to the modern Bulgarians. Avars as well as Ugric peoples like Magyars etc. do bear a distant relationship with Turks, but aren't necessarily close relatives and, at some point, these groups most likely also go back to northern Eurasia and are believed to have changed through a process of moving to other territories. Thus, Ashkenazi Jews tend to be roughly half European and half Middle Eastern, Gypsies also bear roughly half their genetic makeup to the Europeans etc. To act as if these groups are simply homogenous is absurd. I'm not ignoring any Turkish contribution at all, but it's not a major contribution. Even in Hungary and Finland the Ugric elements (some believe there is a Ural-Altaic connection for example) appear to have been superimposed upon an extant population. You can't simply present small groups as indicative of a larger mass population as there is no evidence and the genetics show which people cluster where. If the Turks are as similar in general to Europeans then why do the Kazakhs and Uzbeks bear substantial similarity to the Mongols? You keep talking about military groups as if they can replace millions of people. Unless there is also a massive genocide, military invaders generally do not replace local populations. The groups you mention constitute thousands of people in a sea of millions. Depopulated or not, populations recover and it's highly unlikely that the densely populated regions of Anatolia were depopulate to the extent that the entire population would be outnumbered by Turkic migrants. I'm not saying these groups don't deserve mention, but to elevate them to majority status is highly speculative and you aren't going to find many takers in universities (and I'm including Turkish professors). I never said Anatolia was Romanized, but it was largely Byzantine. Why are looking for small exceptions to the rule here? I mean they bear mention and feel free to do so, but putting this scant evidence of small Turkic groups as indications of a larger change is absurd. How do these small groups impact a region of millions? I agree that the millet system deserves mention, but let's face it, people don't remain separate just because someone sets up laws that are meant to do so. You really think Jim Crow laws kept whites and blacks completely separate? Human nature doesn't allow it. I think that a lot of what you mention makes good sense to include in the article, but probably in a capacity that is as short as possible as we don't want to repeat what the history section writes. Otherwise, there is still no massive proof that most Turks aren't native Anatolians who were turkified over time. Tombseye 17:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

All of us are confused of genetic origin of teh Turks, but you. Sound stupid. Because, I checked the sources, however it doesn't prove that modern Turks, 'according to you' that their root comes from eastern europe.Neither western historians, nor you and your lovers never accepted Turks as the owner of Anatolia and Istanbul. That's why, you, your universities, ' also some Turkish professors ' are thrying to rewrite the history of Turks. --hybrid lily 19:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Tombseye, I am saying that WWI and Turkish War of Indepence and the following population exchanges made Ottoman demographics irrelevant. What is your take on that? AverageTurkishJoe 01:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
A Note on Jim Crow analogy: Millet system protected the minorities rights it has nothing to do with the Jim Crow laws where the aim was to keep the African Americans in slavery conditions after the abolution of slavery (please see Millet (Ottoman Empire) and Jim Crow law ) AverageTurkishJoe 01:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I happen to agree on the demographic changes of modern Turkey that you put forth completely. I'm not disputing that aspect of modern Turkey's formation after World War I at all. I am merely saying that the history situation of the Turks as non-Anatolian doesn't bear up to scrutiny.
My crude analogy was meant to specify not to discrimination, although some people would view any separation as leading inevitably to discrimination, but to point out that laws that attempt to separate people usually don't end up working. I'll gladly take the analogy back as my intent was not to make a comparison that could be deemed as derogatory. Look Joe, contrary to what you might think, I believe you are pretty reasonable and I like most of the points you've brought as I've read about them myself and I think it's more constructive to mention MORE things in regards to the history of the Turks than to view this article as completely deficient. No one's going to protest the reasonable and valid points you are raising at all. As to their impact upon the Anatolian population (not the modern demographic shifts, but the early history during Alp Arslan's time), different viewpoints can be put into the article. My intent is not to put the Turks in a bad light or a good light. Perhaps you've noticed that nearly all of the peoples pages have nationalist tendencies with people wanting to claim all sorts of things. those of us who aren't fond of nationalism and prefer an academic view are just doing the best we can. If we make mistakes along the way, then hey not a problem if it can be explained and corrected. Tombseye 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


User:AverageTurkishJoe requested unprotection on WP:RFP. Are we ready to go here? howcheng {chat} 21:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This article should be put up for deletion. It's pretty much insalvageable as I see it. The whole objective of it seems to be to enforce the idea that we should throw "Ne metlu turkum diyenne" into the trash bin, stop being ("fake") turks, and reclaim our "lost" greek/slavic/kurdish/armenian identities. - Raki-holic 01:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
As I said, you are welcome to edit the article. But what's the point of deleting an article about the Turks if when we have articles about all the other ethnic groups in the world? --Khoikhoi 05:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree that the article deserves deletion. Nor is it saying that the ethnic groups you mention are themselves somehow 'pure' or anything. Language assimilation and cultural shift take place quite often and the article tries to explain the many aspects of the modern Turk. Native Anatolians does not necessarily translate to Greeks, Armenians, or Kurds. We all know though that these were the predominant groups before the Oghuz arrived though. It's not even my POV, but the contention of a great many academics. Tombseye 00:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

raki(theTurk), we never throw anything of our greatest leader.We are original.Stop trying to show yourselves similar with us.There are 3,5 million Turks who mixed with Kurds in the east.Their population number includes all the kurdish number of Turkey.There are muslim armenians as well and we know who are them(hemshenis).Greeks were sent to greece by poulation exchange in 1923.Muslim greeks live in blcksea and aegean region and they are not more than 10,000.Already, greeks have Turkish genes because the Turks in anatolia converted to christinaty by pressions of byzantine empire or how could greeks spread in whole anatolia? I didnt know that slavs emigrated to anatolia...

So stop try to have our nation,history and culture...


Khoikhoi, I shouldnt have typed in "deleted". Must have put it in over the top of my head.I actually meant that the article needed a complete rewrite from scratch. My bad.

Inanna, I dont quite get what you are trying to say to me. I never advocated throwing it in the thrash. I just said that the article advocates that Turks should do it, with stuff like Ultimately, it is absurd to speak of any ‘Turkish race. Im Turkish myself, and am very disenchanted with the article, as it seems to imply that real turks are a tiny minority or do not even exist within Turkey. The whole tone of the article seems very wrong to me . :- Raki-holic 22:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It might help though if you explain which parts bother you. The article doesn't really have any tone that I can discern. Race is itself a highly contested issue so the line you quote isn't really out of line, but its inclusion is not imperative either. I'm not sure what re-writing the whole thing will do. Keep in mind that this article should not become some feel good to be Turkish page either. None of the peoples articles should. They should relate as much information as possible. If you want some things added then say so. Tombseye 00:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am %100 sure about you are not Turkish.No Turk says "i am not the Turkish race".You are probably a kurd and...Lütfen kendi propagandalrın doğrultusunda insanları yanlış bilgilendirip işimizi daha da zorlaştırma.


The majority of the Turks in Turkey are actually "Turkish-speaking Anatolians", while the real number of "ethnic Turks" (meaning the descendants of the original Oghuz-tribes that migrated to Anatolia) is very small (and even those Oghuz-tribes were partially Arabized or Persianized). This is confirmed by many historians and by modern genetics:
  • "... As with the mtDNA study, based on the Y-chromosome Armenians and Azerbaijanians are more closely-related genetically to their geographic neighbors in the Caucasus than to their linguistic neighbors elsewhere. However, whereas the mtDNA results show that Caucasian groups are more closely related genetically to European than to Near Eastern groups, by contrast the Y-chromosome shows a closer genetic relationship with the Near East than with Europe. ..." [1]
  • “… many Armenian and Azeri types are derived from European and northern Caucasian types (p.1263) … The U5 cluster … in Europe … although rare elsewhere in the Near east, are especially concentrated in the Kurds, Armenians and Azeris … a hint of partial European ancestry for these populations – not entirely unexpected on historical and linguistic grounds (p.1264)” -[Richards et al., (2000). Tracing European founder lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA pool. American Journal of Human Genetics, 67, p.1263-1264, 2000]
  • "... incoming minorities (...) conquer other populations and (...) impose their languages on them. The Altaic family spread in this fashion ..." - [Colin Renfrew, World linguistic diversity, Scientific American, 270(1), 1994, p.118]
  • " ... Around the third century B.C., groups speaking Turkish languages (...) threatened empires in China, Tibet, India, Central Asia, before eventually arriving in Turkey ... genetic traces of their movement can sometimes be found, but they are often diluted, since the numbers of conquerors were always much smaller than the populations they conquered (p.125) ... Turks ... conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453. ... Replacement of Greek with Turkish ... Genetic effects of invasion were modest in Turkey. Their armies had few soldiers (...) invading Turkish populations would be small relative to the subject populations that had a long civilization and history ... " - [ Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi (2000). Genes, Peoples and Languages. New York: North Point Press. P.125, 152]
-Tajik 00:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I didnt know that whole world were so complex about Turks.That's nice also...Can i ask what is mean "tajik"? Has anybody heard it?


You can read about the meaning of the word "Tajik" in the article Tajiks. You - as a native Turkish-speaker - should know that the modern word "Tajik" derives from Old-Turkish "Taçikler" (first mentioned by the Turkic Uighur schollar Mahmud Kashgari) and means "Persian" ... -Tajik 04:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The numbers of Turkic invaders who invaded Anatolia in the eleventh century were relatively small compared to the numbers of people already in Anatolia. Their advantage was advanced military tactics -- not overwhelming numbers. If you have a doubt in your mind, go to battle of Malazgirit.Roman forces had more man heavily armed than did Turkish forces. Battles cannot be won by numbers. Tajik is a Persian word, but in Turkish Tajik refers a person who lives in Tajikistan. We use Fars and İranlı to refer Persian. Turk was also derived by Persians, and firstly used officially in Firdavi's works, 'Turian'.
The first part of your comment supports the accepted belief that most of the present-day Turks are not ethnic-Turks but "Turkic-speaking", comparable to the large numbers of Spanish-speakers in South-America who are not Spanish by ethnicity. The word Taçikler is indeed Old-Turkish and has the same root as "Tat", which means "Persian". The word has no history in the Persian language and was totally unknwn until the Turkish conquest of Turkistan. In addition, the people of Tibet and Eastern China call all Iranians "Tajiks". As for the word "Turk", it has absolutely no connection with the Avestan "Turanian". "Turanian" is Old-Iranian and means "those from the darkness". "Tur" means "dark" and is still alive in the Pashto word "tora" (like in "Tora Bora", "Black Powder") and has clear similarities to Persian "târik" and English "dark". "Iran" and "Turan" are part of the Avestan dualism and resemble the fight of "light" (= Iran = civilization) and "darkness" (= Turan = nomadism). The word "Turk", on the other hand, has Altaic origin and is confirmed in many Chinese and other sources. The word "Turuk" (the self-expression of the Göktürks) is preserved in Orhun-scripts. It was already noted by the Islamic schollar Mas'oudi that some people (including Ferdousi) wrongly considered "Turanians" and "Turks" to be the same. Ferdousi did that, because he lived in a time when Turkish hords conquered large parts of his country. He was also highly influenced by Turkish legends (see "Encyclopaedia Iranica" --> "Afrasiab" p.570-p.576). In reality, the mythical "Turanians" were Iranic nomads of Central-Asia (Scythians, Saka, Parthians, etc) who were in constant war with the settled and cultured Iranics (Persians, Bactrians, etc). -Tajik 22:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
WWI and its aftermath made any demographics pertaining to previous era irrelevant. Let's talk about what really should be in an article called "Turkish People" AverageTurkishJoe 20:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The peoples were already formed by WWI so as to whether it is relevant or not, I think we need to keep most of the information we have so far in the article. What changes do you have in mind? I happen to agree with what Tajik's points as they are corroborated by a great deal of information that corresponds to cultural shifts around the world. There is even the strong possibility that Indo-European invaders simply lent their language to much larger indigenous populations in Europe for example. The identity of the modern Turks should encompass as many possibilities as possible rather than closing a door to promote a nationalist POV of some homogeneity that doesn't exist with any people on earth. Tombseye 21:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course, Indo-Europeans also "forced their languages" on other people. The best examples are the British and Spanish conquetsts of America. The Altaic family (most of all modern Turkish) was also forced on other peoples. While in case of Iranian languages, whe have clear genetic proof that there has been a "female migration" of Indo-Europeans into Iranian and Indian highlands, we do not have such a proof in case of Turks in Anatolia and Caucasus:
  • " ... The overwhelming majority of the Iranian mtDNAs have been shown to lie in the West Eurasian domain of the global human mtDNA pool [27,28]. Here we focus on the analysis of mtDNA lineages that are shared between Indians and Iranians and bear signals of pre-Holocene expansion in the region. ... Over 90% of the mtDNAs found in Iran belong to haplogroups HV, TJ, U, N1, N2 and X, commonly found in West Eurasia (Table 2). ... Indian-specific (R5 and Indian-specific M and U2 variants) and East Asian-specific (A, B and East Asian-specific M subgroups) mtDNAs, both, make up less than 4% of the Iranian mtDNA pool ..." edid=15339343
It is confirmed by mtDNA tests (mtDNA is inherited from the female line, unlike Y-chromosomes) that there has been a large migarion of Iranians into Iran, and not just male armies. We do not have such a proof for the Turkish claim that "Turkic nomads migrated to Anatolia". Tajik 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Turkish/Turkic issues

The theories on the origins of Proto-Indo Europeans is a fascinating topic but this article is not the place for it. Jury is still out on the theories of Gymbutas, Renfrew and Alinei. Number of Indian historical linguists also claim that India is the 'urheimat' for the so-called Proto-Indo-Europeans. But this is not the place for this discussion.
There are other fascinating topics quite relavant to "Modern Turks" : Modernity and the Turkish populations, the role of Atatürk and the secular Republic in defining the modern Turkish identity, how is it possible that Turkey is a democratic secular state with muslim population, Sunni-Alevi populations, Yoruks and their culture, current religious schools, affiliations of prominent Turks with these schools, Turkish music, division between the pop, folk and palace music. One party years and CHP in forming the Statist structure of Turkey. Victory of Democratic party in 1950 elections and its implications. Turkeys membership in Nato and its social impacts. Turkish Army's involvements in Korean War. 1960 Coup d'etat, Cold war and 1962 Cuban Missile chrisis and its effects on Turkish society. Communist groups in Turkey in 70s, "Johnson Letter", Emergence of first religious party "Salvation Party". 1972 coup d'etat, 1974 Cyprus War and following embargo on Turkey, 9/12/1980 coup d'etat and its role in transforming society, parallels between 9/12 and 9/11 rhetoric. Turkish participation in Olympics, European and World soccer tournaments, place of Soccer in Turkish popular culture. Role of mandatory military service in Turkish society. Birth, Marriage and Death customs. Turkish Pop music, Eurovision song contests. Turkish NGO's, Turkish Universities their history, Importance of University entrance exams in Turkey, European Union Application of Turkey and prospects. Iraq war, Turkish public opinion on the war. Turkish fiction writers, popularity of the book "Metal Storm" and underlying sentiments. Armenian Genocide Allegations and Turkish public opinion, ASALA, PKK and the effects of terrorism on general public.
If you guys are not knowledgeable about these topics please do not stand in the way of others who are knowledge about these topics and have relavant information and have the will to improve this article. As long as this article is kept locked it will stay as an eye-sore.
AverageTurkishJoe 02:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Every single toppic you have mentioned is important - including the question of "who the Turks really are". It seems to me that you are trying to divert the toppic. That cannot be a solution. Tajik 02:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a separate "Turkic Peoples" article you can discuss this on that article. AverageTurkishJoe 03:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea at all, considering the complexity and scope (and sensitivity) of the subject matter in question, and simply have this one focus on Turkish (Turkey) nationality and so forth. SouthernComfort 08:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, Turkic peoples can be branched out into several different subarticles as well, which would each deal with the ethnic and racial issues concerning each Turkic group. Just my two cents. SouthernComfort 08:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that this should be done for every group, only with those where the sheer amount of data available would be necessary to transfer to a separate article to preserve article flow and readability. SouthernComfort 08:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What a dumb article

Most of the "Turkic" people in the world call themselves Turk. Tamerlane, an Uzbek, referred himself as a Turk in his memoirs. Azeris call themselves Turk. No need to mention Turkmenistan etc. So who decided that the Anatolian Turks were the only Turks? I can understand the Tuurkic terminology due to some differences between these people, but nobody has the rights to say that only Anatolian Turks are Turks, (look at the Göktürk Empire for god's sake). I think this article should be deleted, because we already have a Turkic people article. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

  • Tamerlane was not an Uzbek but a Berlas-Mongol and he had a lot of pride in his Mongol heritage (he did not call himself "Turk"). Although his mother-tongue was the Chaghatai language, he claimed to be a descendant of Jingiz Khan and considered himself a Mongol. His biography was written in Persian during his life-time. He was called "Timur the Mongol" on coins printed during his reign: [2] Tajik 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is are distinctions here. This article refers to the Turkish people, not Turks which can be applied to many people or even Turkic which is generally a linguistic categorization. Turkish, in the English speaking world, refers only to the Turks of Turkey. Azeris is the term we use for Azerbaijani Turks etc. The Turkic peoples article basically corresponds to say the Iranian peoples article or Germanic peoples article, while the Turkish people article is similar in content and intent to say the English people article. Thus, I would strongly disagree that this article is either "dumb" or in need of deletion. Tombseye 22:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Two non-Conversion Stories:

The French traveller to the Ottoman Empire, Antoine Galland, recorded in his calendar on September 2, 1674 the following episode:

Today the Turks did a perfidy to a young Greek who was tutored by a Turk. While he was tutored, some Mussulmans, who were nearby, handed over to the teacher a piece of paper with the Islamic creed of faith written on it. They asked the Turkish teacher to turn it over to his young student asking him to read it aloud. They wanted to learn for themselves whether the young Greek could read Turkish fluently. Unsuspicious of the trick, the youth read the paper aloud. No sooner had he finished than the Turks immediately seized him and took him before a judge. They testified that the Greek youth had read in their presence the Moslem creed, the Salabati; therefore, he was expected to become a Moslem. In protest the young man answered that he had been deceived and that he had no intention of changing his Christian faith: The judge ordered that the youth be put to torture. When he insisted on adhering to his faith, he was thrown into prison where he was kept for a month, refusing to apostatise. He must have been between the age of 18 and 20 when he was beheaded (Gatland, 1881).

The French traveller did not record the martyr's name but modern scholarship has identified him as the neo-martyr Nicholas of Karpenision, whose story has been reconstructed as follows:

At the age of fifteen Nicholas came to Constantinople with his father, where the latter opened a shop in Tachtakala. Α Muslim barber, their neighbour, at the request of the father, gave Nicholas lessons in Turkish. The Mussulman looked forward to leading his pupil to change his religion and communicated his plan to the soldiers who frequented his house. And together they hatched a plot. The barber transcribed the Salabati, a profession of the Islamic faith. When the young man presented himself for his lesson, in the presence of the soldiers, the barber placed the paper before him. Suspecting nothing, Nicholas began to read it. When he had reached the end, the soldiers cried: "you have become a Turk; you have pronounced the Salabati." Stupefied and indignant, Nicholas protested hotly: "Ι am a Christian and not a Turk. Ι read what my master gives me for my lesson." But he was dragged before the Caimacan. The fatal paper served as proof of the odious accusation. After a long imprisonment and all sorts of ill treatment Nicholas was condemned to death (Delehaye, 1921, p. 705; Perantones, 1972). He was beheaded on September 23, 1672. His martyrdom was recorded by a third person, De la Croix, secretary of the French Embassy in Constantinople (De La Croix 1695).

These stories are quoted from the site:

You will notice that the second story is a rerun of the first after 40 years. 1881 is when the Thessaly is annexed by Greece and 1921 is when the Invading Greek army needed a boost of morale after their defeat at Sakarya . They appealed to the Allies for help, but early in 1922 Britain, France and Italy decided that the Treaty of Sèvres could not be enforced and should be revised. (Battle of the Sakarya)

These are the so-called conversion stories. AverageTurkishJoe 05:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) But recemtly there have been more objective analysis of he Christian populations in the Ottoman years: This is from Hellenic Communication Service, LLC

One might have expected that Christianity would now be suppressed, but exactly the reverse happened. The first patriarch under Ottoman rule, Yennadhios, was enthroned within a year of the conquest, and Sultan Mehmed himself handed Yennadhios the robes, staff and pectoral cross of office. The Greeks,like other Christians in the Ottoman empire, were left completely free to practice their religion, under the patriarch's spiritual leadership. The patriarch was now the political as well as the spiritual leader of the Christian Ottoman subjects, responsible for the good behaviour of his flock, and for ensuring that they paid their taxes to the state.
Some traditional Greek histories suggest that there were forcible or mass conversions to Islam. But the Turks had no incentive to force conversion on Christians and, as a result, lose the poll tax, paid only by Christians. Nor was avoidance of the poll tax a sufficient incentive for the Greeks to convert. They would, it was said, be "selling their souls for a penny worth."
By 1666 things had changed. Though the devshirme was still described as "one of the most important state affairs", none had taken place "for a long time". The tone had become emollient: "No one is to be wronged or coerced of the villagers".In 1721 the devshirme was officially abolished.
Sole responsibility for Greek educati was left to the church and has long been believed in Greece that, because of Turkish oppression, children had to go to school in the church secretly at night. This is a myth. In reality the priest was the only possible teacher, the church the only available school room, and the children went after dark because they worked in the fields all day. The debunking of the myth is slowly working its way down the Greek education system.

Apparently no mass conversions took place since 1453. So all the alleged amalgamation -if there is any merit to this argument- should have taken in 380 years. This is not a short period. We just need to show whether it withstands scrutiny. AverageTurkishJoe 02:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)