Talk:Demographics of Turkey/Archive 1

In transit from Turks:
The Oghuz tribes gained dominance in the region not by their high populations but their superiority in warfare. So, initially Turkic people lived as a minority in many regions that they first captured. Anatolia, which was formerly a part of the Roman Empire, was (and still is) especially an ethnically very mixed region. It is, therefore, impossible to speak about a pure Turkish race in the tangled ethnic mix of Anatolia. Moreover, many tribes has accepted the Turkish race as their ethnical identity and Turkish language as their native language in the past centuries. In Turkey, it is not surprising to notice blond and blue-eyed individuals within the dominant black-haired, Mediterranean-looking mass. For this reason, it is not only difficult but also scientifically inappropriate to classify people in Turkey as those coming from Turkic origin and others. In this context, the genuinely Turkic people are individuals named as Central Asian Turks (including Tatars), most of whom have possibly come to the region by Mongol invasion long after the initial Oghuz tribes conquered and mixed with the local population. Proving this difficulty, there are as many classifications as the number of scientific attempts to make these classifications. Turkey is not a unique examle for that and many European countries (e.g. France, Germany) bear a great ethnic diversity. However, this ethnic diversity does not prevent in the long run a person living in France or Germany to accept his/her ethnic identity as French or German, just as it does not in Turkey. It can be concluded that it is the very ethnic identity an individual feels to belong to that really counts rather than the language he/she is speaking or the ethnic root he/she has descended from. So, the immense diversity observed in the published figures for the percentages of Turkish people living in Turkey (ranging from 80 to 97%) totally depends on the method used to classify the ethnicities. Complicating the matter even more is the fact that the final official and country-wide classification of ethnical identities of Turkey has been performed on 1965 and many of the numbers published after that time are gross estimations (but surprisingly demonstrated as sheer facts). Some classifications based on the spoken language is also invaluable, because in the mixed society of Turkey many Kurdish people are speaking Turkish as their first language and many Turkish and Arabic citizens are speaking Kurdish as fluently as Turkish or Arabic.

It is mandatory to take into account all these difficulties and be cautious while evaluating the ethnic groups. A possible list of ethnic groups living in Turkey could be as follows (based on the classification of P.A.Andrews (1), however this book is more like a review and depends on other people's publications):


 * A)Turks: Kirghiz, Karapapaks, Turkmens, Kazakhs, Kumuks, Yoruks, Uzbeks, Tatars, Azerians, Balkars, Uighurs, Karachays.
 * B)Kurds
 * C)Zazas
 * D)Arabs
 * E)Georgians
 * F)Laz
 * G)Balkan origined groups (Bulgarians, Serbians, Croatians, Rumenians and Bosnians): These people have migrated to Anatolia during the Ottoman Era and have accepted Turkish-Muslim identity.
 * H)Minorities: Greeks, Jews, Armenians.
 * I)Others: It is well known that very small groups of people from Germany, Poland, Estonia, Sudan and Somali are also living within the territories of Turkey.

1.Andrews, Peter A. Ethnic groups in the Republic of Turkey. Wiesbaden: Reichert Publications, 1989.

see:


 * Turkic languages
 * Turkish language
 * Ottoman Empire
 * Turkey

Turkic Peoples:
 * Göktürks
 * Khazars
 * Uighurs
 * Seljuk Turks

5 million Turkish citizens are of Albanian descent ?
An exercpt from a BBC article

Turkey not only sees the Balkans as its backyard, but is itself home to an estimated 5 million ethnic Albanians. According to sociologist Nukhet Sirman of the Bosphorous University in Istanbul, many Turks are only now beginning to discover their Balkan roots.

Here's the link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/11/98/crossing_continents/374751.stm

Your thoughts on how this bit of info should be integrated into the article ?


 * It is yet another moronic article with full of overstatements about Turkey's demographics and Turks "discovering" this or that about themselves. In Turkey there are "of course" 5 millions of Albanians, then 5 millions of Bosnians, 5 millions of Georgians, 5 millions of Abhazs, absolutely surely another 5 millions of Circassians, etc. etc. According to such BBC-esque mathematics, there is just no Turk in Turkey!. There is no worthwhile info in the article to integrate into the article--Jensboot 16:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

an article based on Turkish government's propaganda
I'm quite appalled to read in this article The so-called genocide of Armenians, Greeks, Syrians, and Assyrians and some other niceties over the treatment of minorities, coming just from the Turkish government's propaganda literature. This article (at least its parts about minorities) doesn't meet the requirements of a neutral encyclopedia. --Pylambert 09:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you expect? Most sensible people have not got the energy to fight nationalists. I for one totally agree with you but I don't have the energy to patroll these pages for Turkish propaganda, just see what happened at Adana.--Wiglaf 12:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but there is another possibility, block some people from wikipedia, it would seem wise for the Turkish nationalist vandal operating only on controversial pages to add nationalist nonsense: Adana, Armenian Genocide, Kurds etc. (just have a look at his 'contributions'). I hope if all sensible people keep watch on some pages it will be possible to eradicate these vandals. I already do it for Movement for Rights and Freedoms, Muttahida Qaumi Mahaz and Alawite (and some others, including in the French and Dutch wikipedias), but I agree with you that it can become somewhat boring. Well, that's the way wikipedia works, adding and correcting... --Pylambert 14:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I block people, such as Isarioglu, when discover that they remove information despite being warned. However, I can only block them for shorter periods of time, and I am not allowed to block them if I am in a content dispute with them. Anyway, in Isarioglu's case, I don't think it would help much since he only edits at Wikipedia every once in a while.--Wiglaf 19:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"Almost anti-Turk" !
User:Jensboot added disputed accuracy and lack of neutrality banners afetr my extensive additions to the article, unde the pretence that "The current state of the article is almost anti-Turk POV". I strongly disagree, furthermore such banners, in my opinion, may only be added if the reasons are exposed on the discussion page, which is not the case. If User:Jensboot has any observation to make on the lack of accuracy or of neutrality of my modifications (which are based on scientific sources and critical analysis of other sources), let him put them on, this discussion page. I have been very careful not to fall into the traps of Turkish and anti-Turkish propagandas, so altogether Turkish, Greek, Armenian as well as Assyrian nationalists may not like the present version of the article because it expooses facts, sometimes disturbing. As User:Jensboot didn't appropriately back the addition of the litigious banners, I take them away. It is too easy just to write that "The current state of the article is almost anti-Turk POV", it is not enough under wikipedia's standards. --Pylambert 08:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits
I'm appalled by the injurous insults and aggression by Pylambert.

I'm explaining one by one the edits:

1) I replaced the ambigious "traditional-style mosques" with "mosques" since what is "traditional" or "modern" style in mosques is not very understandable. Only "modern" mosque which became famous as far as I remember is the Faisal Mosque but such designs didn't take off. Local style, or the in the case of immigrants, the dominant style in the original country, seems to be more used.

2) On the statistics section, it was given a very large interval estimates of percentage without backed by data and stated that "(there are no official figures)" without backed by data. On the contrary, *there are* official figures. The 1965 census do provide statistics about the primary languages and knowledge of the languages. Therefore it is not correct to say there aren't official figures and there is no reason not to incorporate these data into the interval estimation of ethnicities. In order to estimate, data must be used, and without data, it is pure speculation. If there is data, therefore it must be used. Pylambert inserted to the article the phrase "Linguistic censuses in countries like Turkey are however subject to controversies." without properly stating what are these. Also the dictum "countries like Turkey" is incredibly discriminatory, Orientalist and then unashamedly POV.

2bis) All the ethnicities stated in the article have their proper language, and a prominent part of the self-identification is by primary or secondary usage of the language. Therefore an estimation can very well incorporate the lingustic groups and stats. It will be good to list the relevant percentages according to the last census in the article.

3) I used "source" instead of "reference". In general, I prefer to preserve the word "reference" for sources with very wide consensus upon. It is a rather stylistic issue.

4) Oğuz instead of Oghuz since thanks to development of the UTF charsets as the browser standard, we can now see in the browser the exact word so original form of the word can be now written.

5) "A a matter of fact" > "As a matter of fact". A typo correction.

6) Added "Islamic" to "jizya" since it is so. It is not an Ottoman invention. I added the portion "to enter professions reserved for Muslims", since in classical Ottoman era, some professions and branches of 'esnaf' were reserved for Muslims and non-Muslims were not permitted to do these or to enter the relevant 'maestranza' unions for these professions. It must be stated in the article. I left stated the Devşirme link and but removed the portion previous to it for a more NPOV, since it wasn't limited to non-Muslims to provide manpower to the Ottoman army, on the contrary Janissaries were a small contingent of Ottomans. The sipahis, timariots, bashibozuks thus bulk of the army and navy was drafted among Muslims in the same manner with Janissaries but without any benefits, privilegied status and hierarchical hope. I feel that too must be stated in the article for a more balanced view. Without it, the paragraph would be biased. Sufferings were just common. Most accounts only Devşirmes but not obligations on others. I suspect whether the conversion was a prominent method for avoiding Devşirme system since being a reaya wouldn't mean less taxes or exemptions from service obligations. I remember reading somewhere the non-muslim families prefered to send their children away or make injuries to their children to prevent their selection.

7) I removed the bundle starting with "It is remarkable that Hamshenis...". The article is about the general demographics of Turkey so its correct place is the "Hamshenis" or an article like "Ethnic Groups in Turkey". Otherwise for a more NPOV, every ethnicity there would be needed to be allocated a paragrapgh in the main article like "It is remarkable that Romaniot Jews...", "It is remarkable that Askhenaz Jews...", "It is remarkable that Lezgis..." etc. ad infinitum, which would make the article unreadable.

8) The next paragraph was too much Original research which is against current Wikipedia policy. It is stated in the article about the book and the author in the Wikiquote that the book didn't gather any attention. Therefore so it is not meaningful to say it provides a good illustration of a trend.

9) I added to "following Zevi's example" to paragraph dealing with followers of Sabbatai Zevi, since he had instructed his followers to do so, and himself converted to alleviate the pressure from Rabbis and Ottoman authorities.

10) I added "Slavonic" to before "blond haired..." since a blond hair-blue eyes are mostly some indicator of Slavic origin in Turkey.

11) "Emire" > "Empire" A typo correction.

12) I added "confessional" to refugees from Central Europe. I listed Russians who escaped to Turkey from the persecutions in XVIIth century of the Russian Orthodox Church due to religious differends. They are returned to Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution. However I wasn't able to remember the exact name (something like Nekrasovites or Nedrasovites...). I also added anti-Bolshevik Russians who fled to Turkey after the Revolution, due to their deep impact on the urban culture in Turkey. I added "(and Turkic)" to distinguish Turkic and non-Turkic Muslims fleeing from persecutions. I replaced "conquered" with "invaded" since "conquer" is quite a POV word. I added "Kirghiz"s who fled from Afganistan as well.
 * It was Nekrasovites. `'mikka (t) 06:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

13) "Hamshenis" are given a separate bullet point it seems from their article that they are distinct from Armenians despite sharing some common points.

14) I corrected the spelling of "Polonezköy".

15) I added "laïque" since secularism in Turkey is rather associated with that word and notion insead of "secular".

16) The next paragraph was dealing with religious minorities not ethnicities so since Alevis encompass people both Turks and Kurds ethnicities, so is replaced "Sunni and Alevi Kurds" with "Alevis" having problem in religious issues. (Sunni creed has the dominant religious majority in Turkey)

17) I replaced "very authorative sources" with "sources" for a more NPOV.

18) The main problem is that Turkish Alevi clercs are not paid thru the state. The minority religious authorities are left autonomous in the management of their religious affairs by the Treaty of Lausanne and they collect themselves money from their believers by some forms or other(like the Kashrut approval levy of Jews by the Chief Rabbinate, the church donations etc.).

19) There is no ministry for religious affairs in Turkey but a presidence. I corrected that also the translation in the parantheses. It previously read (Turkish Diyanet Foundation) which is a separate organization, not the part of the state.

20) "alrealy" > "already". A typo correction.

I believe in Stefan Zweig style editing. Like he said in the World_of_Yesterday (Die Welt von Gestern), the author may in manuscript have thousands of pages, but to reach the final form, it must be continuously condensated, its internal structure must be brought consistence, in contrast of adding, enlarging, deepening every issue. So in Wikipedia, of which we are the collective authors, our duty is as much of cutting the non-sense and relegating side matters, details to other articles as adding new information. Since the hypertext gives the miraclous ability of linking and refering to other articles and easy access (in contrast of Zweig and other paper-bound authors), and the wiki that of creating new articles, we must be bold and take the advantage of these to establish high quality articles. Jensboot 10:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Answers:

--Pylambert 20:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * points 2 and 2b Linguistic, ethnic or 'race' censuses conducted by highly nationalist states, be they 'Oriental' or 'Western' (typically irrelevant Orientalist categories) are always subject to the natural suspicion of promoting the nationalist values of the government (including in this case the Turkish Derin devlet - 'Deep State') and minimizing the numerical importance of the minorities. The Minority Rights Group report of 1985 (by Martin Short and Anthony McDermott) gave an estimate of 19% Kurds in the population of Turkey in 1980, i.e 8,455,000 out of 44,500,000, with the preceding comment 'Nothing, apart from the actual 'borders' of Kurdistan, generates as much heat in the Kurdish question as the estimate of the Kurdish population. Kurdish nationalists are tempted to exaggerate it, and governments of the region to minimize it. In Turkey only those Kurds who do not speak Turkish are officially counted for census purposes as Kurds, yielding a very low figure.'. In Turkey: A Country Study, a 1995 on line publication of the U.S. Library of Congress, there is a whole chapter about Kurds in Turkey where it is stated that 'Turkey's censuses do not list Kurds as a separate ethnic group. Consequently, there are no reliable data on their total numbers. In 1995 estimates of the number of Kurds in Turkey ranged from 6 million to 12 million.' out of 61.2 million, which means from 10 to 20%. And higher percentage (between 20 and 25%) can be found elsewhere in various sources. Kurdish national identity is far from being limited to kurmanji language, as many Kurds whose parents migrated towards Istanbul or other big non Kurdish cities mostly speak Turkish, which is one of the languages used by the Kurdish nationalist publications.
 * point 7 The passage about Hamshenis is important, 'It is remarkable' can be replaced by 'An exception is the Hamshenis'. As a matter of fact, there is another one, the Pontic Greek-speaking Muslims. These two groups are exceptional because they consist of people converted to Islam but who retained the language of their Christian ancestors whereas most other converts gradually adopted the Turkish language after islamization.
 * point 8 Jensboot refers to a wikiquote article that had recently been modified several times, and ultimately suppressed by the administrators on October 8. The Encyclopaedia of the Black Sea is considered as a valid source on the Turkish wikipedia (see the articles linked to tr:Özhan Öztürk, where they apparently have got Turkish or Turkish-speaking contributors not influenced by nationalism and its propaganda. See also http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/First_encyclopedic_dictionary_of_the_Black_Sea_released . He is not the only Moslem Turkish author with Greek, Laz or Armenian ancestry who opened the intellectual debate about these questions, other known writers are Ömer Asan and Selma Koçiva.
 * point 10 This remark is purely racist in the XIXth century mode, physical traits linked to a specific origin. I brings nothing to the article. Should dark-haired brown-eyed individuals among 'Slavic people' be characterized as
 * point 13 Hamshenis are just descendants of Armenian Christians who were islamized in the XVIIIth century (see e.g. the article about them), their dialects belong to the Occidental Armenian dialects, there is thus no reason to separate both groups in the classification based on languages or language families.
 * point 15 It would be useful to add that the Turkish term is 'laik', based on the French concept.
 * point 18 This is not true: the Treaty of Lausanne only mentions the ('Greek') Orthodox and Armenian churches, thus not encompassing others Christian or non Christan denominations. The problem is thus not at all limited to Alevi clerics, it also exists for the various Assyrian churches e.g.
 * points 1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 14, 17, 20 are just detail non problematic modifications
 * points 6, 9, 12, 16 are justified modifications

1923 Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey
1923 Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey is a huge demographic event. It should be mentioned in this article.

Syriacs (also called Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)
Benne, himself a nationalist Syriac/Assyrian, replaced all occurrences of Assyrian or Assyrians by Syriac or Syriacs, which is not the usual denomination for these ethnic groups, in Turkey or elsewhere. There is a discussion on this subject at Syriacs/miniproject. In Turkish, the ethnonyms are Süryani, Keldani and Asuri (or Nasturi), referring to the churches as well as to the ethnic groups in fact, but the usual denomination in English or Russian for all these groups is Assyrians (in French, also "Assyro-chaldéens"). --Pylambert 10:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Where did you get the idea of me being "nationalist" and a "Syriac/Assyrian"? I can assure you, I am neither. I kindly ask you not to rush to conclusions, nor judge too hastily. Please read my comments on Talk:Syriacs/miniproject.
 * Indeed, the Turkish name is Süryani, which is the equivalent of the Syriac self-appellation Suryoye/Suryāye. In English, the name Syriacs is often used to represent this name.
 * Within the group, there is a dispute about the name. It is true, many identify themselves as "Assyrians", but a considerable part prefer to use the name "Arameans", again others call themselves "Chaldeans". Please, see the Syriacs article for some more information about this issue.
 * It is incorrect to translate Süryani as "Assyrian", since that name is Aşuri in Turkish. Arameans are called Arami in Turkish, and Chaldeans Keldani.
 * The term Nasturi --translated in English as "Nestorians"-- refers to a religious division within the group, and should be avoided. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that: The Turkish name is not Süryani, as you probably know religion (din) is mentioned on the Turkish identity cards, and it is either Süryani or Keldani or Nasturi, but all three terms are religious, not ethnic or ethnonational. The correct ethnonym is Assyrian, as used e.g. in the USSR (and successor states): Aisor, and by most scholars. The members of these ethnic groups usually call themselves by the religious denomination. I won't begin an edition war with you, but I certainly disagree with your modifications, Syriacs is never used in scientific artiucles or books refering to contemporary Assyrians or Assyro-Chaldeans. I will however modify one error: Arabs and Assyrians belong to the same Semitic language family, just like Georgians and Laz. --Pylambert 11:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The identity cards of Turkey indeed mention religion, but (if I remember correctly) not denomination, just Hıristiyan.
 * The name Suryoye/Suryāye is used by people from both the West Syriac and East Syriac traditions, also by many people calling themselves "Assyrians". See for example the forum on www.suryaniler.com, or (on the same site) an article about the name (in Turkish).
 * In English, "Syriacs" has been coined as an equivalent for this name, since its original translation "Syrians" has become ambiguous due to the foundation of the Syrian Arab Republic. Often, a combination like "Syro-Aramean" or "Assyrian/Syriac" can be seen. By the way, I have the impression that in francophone countries, "Syriaques" has become more common as well. But please also note that "Araméens" is used as an ethnonym, e.g. on the site of the Arameans in Liège, Belgium. Another site I would like to mention is the Aramaic Democratic Organization.
 * With all due respect, who are we to determine what is the correct ethnonym? On Wikipedia, "ethnic group" is defined as "a culture or subculture whose members are readily distinguishable by outsiders based on traits originating from a common racial, national, linguistic, or religious source." (I added italics.) Therefore, I think it is perfectly correct to call Suryoye/Suryāye (and hence Süryani, Syriacs, and Syriaques) an ethnonym.
 * It is not my purpose to push for one particular name, but if we want to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, all sides should be heard. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

-- the name assyrian is not appliable to the name of Syriacs, due to the facts that the assyrian nation is mainly accepted by the nestorians, and not the others (few chaldeans and orthodox) accepts assyrianism. For the aramean term, it is mostly melkites,maronites, orthodox(jakobites) and some chaldeans. Now the problem as one can see is that these group depending on their natural geografical location choose an identity that suit for them. But still both of these wings exclude eachother when they speak of assyrianism or arameanism. The syriac word is from the word Syrian wich is currently use by arabs from the syrian state. Syriac identity is appliable to all wings, no political wing (assyrians nor arameans) can deny that they are suryoyo or suryaye, wich means Syrians->Syriacs. therefore the most accurate name to identify the people is Syriac name. and the others should be considerd as political parties with differente agendas of the same people.

shlome// Michael 22:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Just another orientism article
I am seeing ethnicty as a term invented to replace the term "RACE" which has no scientific value in the century we live in. It is ridiculous to classify citizens of a country talking the same language and sharing the same culture. I think Western people, who give meaning to their lives by being anti-something, are insisting that Turkey is much more monolithic than most of the EU countries just to feel better about themselves. Worthless article.

Articles purpose
What is the point of having 3 articles explain the same thing. People of Turkey, Turkish people and this article talk about the same thing! -- Cat out 01:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Pointless data
I noticed sections such as "Current trends in situation of minorities" on this article which has litle to do with demographics.

What happens to Med TV has nothing to do with demographics. See: Demographics of the United States for a real demographics article.

-- Cat out 01:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Peoples of the Caucasus in Turkey
No merge. Demographics of Turkey is about general demography. Its main purpose is not to list all the ethnic groups in Turkey. On the other hand, Peoples of the Caucasus article is about the geographical distribution and a classification of these peoples in Turkey and the content of the term Caucasian people. Behemoth 05:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong POV
I started pointing out discrepancies and POV statements in the article, however it turned out that it would be longer than the article itself. POV, biased and irrelevant information is all over the place. Just in the introduction part of the article, in the second paragraph; ''Turkey has been officially secular since 1924. Although 99% of the population is at least nominally Muslim, there are people who insist on being labeled as atheists, a peculiarity unknown in most other Muslim countries where this is at least socially unacceptable, and often a legal offence and a one-way ticket to jail for apostasy.'' I don't see what the bold part has to do with demographics of Turkey. It's basically claiming an injustice pratice in some other countries other than Turkey.

or the paragraph starting with; '' Ethnic groups: Turkish 80-92%, Kurdish 7-20% The Minority Rights Group report of 1985 (by Martin Short and Anthony McDermott)..'' The numbers presented in the subtopic are not even repeated in the explanation part, are not cited nor there are any information from Turkish government sources (which, I believe, must have something to say about the demographics of the country it is the government of)

"Ethnicity in Turkey" topic is basically claiming that a handful of Oguz Turks came to Anatolia, oppressed the native people for centuries and finally disappeared in thin air. Check out the phrases like It is, therefore, absurd to speak about a "pure Turkish people", even more in the tangled ethnic mix of Anatolia. or '' Islam spread slowly over many generations either through voluntary or forced conversions; many poor families chose to become Muslims in order to escape a special tax.. '' which is succeded by similar phrases alleging how people were assimilated.

I'm not even detailing the part under the "Current trends in situation of minorities" topic, as first of all I don't understand what the term 'trend' could refer to when you talk about stituation of minorities. Following lines contain irrelevant information as well. DeliDumrul 00:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody disagreed upto now. I'm tagging the article. DeliDumrul 20:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. Why tag the article at all?  Just fix it! -- Cjensen 21:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Slant-eyedEast Asian looking people? Isn't that almost racist? This article is very poorly written. Please clean it up.

Disclaimer
Is this "disclaimer" really encyclopedic? Khoikhoi 08:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I was thinking :) I think that info (or its equivalent in the Turkey article) should be merged to either under minorities or some other section. Baristarim 08:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Phew! I was just perusing the article and there are way too many weasel words here and there. Some cleanup is neccessary :) Baristarim 09:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. I don't think there should be anything titled "disclaimer" as if Wikipedia is presenting some sort of possibly libellous third-party quote, however I suppose that there needs to be some kind of explanatory paragraph/sentences that cover that particular facet of the issue. I agree with Ottoman's reasoning that Turkish citizenship laws (and a lot of social and republican structures) are modelled after the French model, and present important and interesting takes on the issue of citizenship that would need to be explained so that readers can understand the issue better. However, I also think that Demographics of France article overdid it by placing a huge paragraph titled "disclaimer" on top. French people tend to be sensitive about this as much as the Turkish people (maybe more so :)) since there are philosophical parallels in how those identities were created, so I will abstain from editing the French article since I don't want to start an edit-war with the French editors but that disclaimer shouldn't stand alone, but rather be integrated into the intro or a relevant section in a way.


 * I suppose this can make a good case for systemic bias since some countries can forge and apply a unified national identity without practically no-one raising any eyebrows, but when it comes to another country many people find it offensive for some reason even though the underlying philosophical argument for such an application of national identity is extremely valid in context. I suppose if Turkey were as rich as France it wouldn't have those sort of problems :)) c'est la vie I suppose... Baristarim 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Bias originates without the emphasizing the major fact. An ideology (so the followers of the ideology) that separate people into sections (by the way there is no limit where to terminate the division, "I'm a ... However ... also has xxx and yyy, AND not all xxx are alike, not all yyy alike ... continious 4 ever) would like to ignore the major policy regarding demographics and for that person even a mention of the policy is a bias (this is how I perceive the people reject the disclaimer). If we look at the people who want to remove the disclaimer, they disclaimed that they prefer to see people; "not as people" but people that has a form of property, (talk like me, walk like me). In a page about classifying people, if the major data originates from CIA which is not the original institution DIE (by the way Turkey = Republic of Turkey, not a random location) if you do not mention why the state do not generate the data (the original state wants to promote the idea that people a like) produces a bias regarding the "data in the page". In a way not giving disclaimer is promoting the CIA data. I claim these people are biased against the Turkey and biased for the CIA. PS: I'm not against ethnicity but I'm against removing the note that informs about ethnicities.  Thanks OttomanReference 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Name
Why is this page titled "Demography of Turkey", while the standard naming convention here is "Demographics of [country]"? Static Sleepstorm 19:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

black-haired Mediterranean Turks?
Who says that "...black-haired Mediterranean" are called Turks? Can you give sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilhanli (talk • contribs) 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Statistics
The statistical breakdown of minorities living in Turkey is over twenty years old and thus considerably out-of-date. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.36.125 (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Easily the worst article I've seen in a while
I'm afraid I'm forced to remove large parts of this article mercilessly. I'm sorry, but "demographics of Turkey" isn't about Y-Haplogroups or native American theories. This article badly needs to be deconstructed and reconstructed.

-- Mttll (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC) --

The only thing that looks fine is religion section. I seriously need help: Please translate KONDA study and add it to this article.

-- Mttll (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC) --

Can somebody please update the basic date from TUIK? I am having difficulty finding the exact page.

-- Mttll (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How come NOBODY participates in this discussion and still dares to mass revert?

1. Of all demographics of X country articles, this is the only one that starts with Y-Haplo info as if it means anything.

2. Theories like Native Americans (people who came from Asia to America 12,000 years ago) being Turkic has no place in this article.

3. Mongoloid or Mongoloid-Caucasoid hybrids becoming Caucasoids? Really?

Now the question is this: Is Wikipedia supposed to reflect well-known, academic, mainstream information or those crappy racialist forums?

- Completely outdated linguistic census result from 1960s which is distorting the article's layout.

- Look at this classification:

''Turkic-speaking peoples: Karakalpaks, Turkmens, Kazakhs, Kumyks, Yörüks, Uzbeks, Crimean Tatars, Azeris, Balkars, Uyghurs, Karachays. Indo-European-speaking peoples: Kurds, Zazas, Armenians, Hamshenis, Greeks Semitic-speaking peoples: Arabs, Jews, and Assyrians Caucasian-speaking peoples: Georgians, Lazs, Circassians, and Chechens Other Muslim groups originally from the Balkans (Bulgarians, Albanians, Macedonians, Serbs, Croats, Romanians and Bosniaks): These people migrated to Anatolia during the Ottoman Era and have been assumed to accept Turkish-Muslim identity. Cossacks in Turkey (mostly left Turkey by 1962) Others: There are small groups and individuals from all over the world living in Turkey, either remnants of past migrations (there is for instance a village near the Bosphorus named Adampol in Polish, Polonezköy, "the Polish village", in Turkish) or witnesses of contemporary mass migrations towards the European Union and its periphery (there are also illegal migrants camps with thousands of Africans and others intercepted while trying to embark, or swimming from the wreckage of overpopulated small boats, for the Greek or Italian shores)''

The first four is linguistic and the next is religious. Since when can't a Muslim be Turkic-, Indo-European etc etc speaker? Completely nonsensical. What's more, Indo-European is extremely large family should definitely be divided into Slavic, Iranic etc in an ethnic classification.

- The minority section should focus on the fact that the only recognized are Jews, Armenians, Greeks and develop from there. There are misconceptions about this issue. And the other info belongs to Secularism in Turkey article.

Please discuss, if you care. Write your objections. DON'T mass revert. Add particular parts if need be. DON'T repeat Wikipedia's codewords to me, I'm fully aware.

-- Mttll (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that's not how it works here. You can't come here, delete lots of sourced information from the article and then require others to prove discuss the return piece-by-piece. It's definitely your responsibility to convince other editors that something isn't good in the article.


 * Among the problems with your edit are:


 * Removal of sourced table with the numbers of first- and second- language speakers of various languages of Turkey. Imho it's absolutely relevant to this article.


 * Wikipedia isn't bound by Lausanne treaty so other minorities like Circassians, Laz and Kurds should be described in no less detail.


 * You've simply removed "60% of women wear the headscarf or hijab in Turkey." although this too was referenced. This I can't understand at all.


 * So, please take one issue (like DNA research) at a time, propose something about it at the talk and try to establish a consensus. Alæxis¿question? 19:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

''':: You've simply removed "60% of women wear the headscarf or hijab in Turkey." although this too was referenced. This I can't understand at all.'''

I can't understand it either, because I did no such thing. I expect an apology for false accusation.

''':: Removal of sourced table with the numbers of first- and second- language speakers of various languages of Turkey. Imho it's absolutely relevant to this article.'''

Well, it's terribly outdated, and more importantly, distorts the article. You're right, maybe I shouldn't have deleted, but replaced with a better one.



Well, there are two different sections: Ethnicity and minorities. Ethnicity describes all ethnic groups living in Turkey. Why should "Minorities" do the same? The concept of minority in Turkey, at least officially, is bound by Treaty of Lausanne. Are you saying Wikipedia should ignore this fact? Are you joking?

-- Mttll (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I will apologise if I'm wrong but in your version of the article there are no such words as hijab or headscarf. Try to search for them yourself. I'll answer the rest later. Alæxis¿question? 05:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The table was made in 1984. I've added this year to the article to make it clear to the reader. But unless you've got a newer table I think this one should stay. I'd also move it to the 'Ethnic Groups' section.


 * Regarding the 'Ethnic groups' and 'Minorities' section I'd merge them, but I'm ok with two sections as well. What don't you like in them? Why have you deleted all the info about Kurds, Laz and Circassians that was in the Ethnic Groups section?Alæxis¿question? 05:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

''':: I will apologise if I'm wrong but in your version of the article there are no such words as hijab or headscarf. Try to search for them yourself.'''

It was removed by another editor, with the IP of 88.245.64.90. And here's the proof:

'''The table was made in 1984. I've added this year to the article to make it clear to the reader. But unless you've got a newer table I think this one should stay.'''

My objection is technical. Can't you modify the table so it doesn't distort the page.

'''What don't you like in them? Why have you deleted all the info about Kurds, Laz and Circassians that was in the Ethnic Groups section?'''

Because the starting sentences and classification of ethnic groups were nonsensical. I was going to readd them as the article is reconstructed.

-- Mttll (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry then
 * So, the real problem was with the beginning of the 'ethnic groups' section. What don't you like there and what do you propose to add/remove? Alæxis¿question? 17:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems in this article. I tried to correct them one by one, you guys had to insist on mass reverting. Now, I'll do the same, but this time I'll delete only when it's clearly necessary, not as a precaution. If you have objections, please go ahead and discuss about the particular edit. PLEASE DON'T MASS REVERT.

-- Mttll (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Where's the previous consensus?
I fail to see any discussion in talk page about the changes I've made. It seems the article as it is now isn't a result of a consensus, but a large number of individual edits. I say the article is terrible and I'm using other "Demographics of X country" articles as reference.

Now the most important question is: DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY? If so, go ahead and let's discuss. Or are you just for some weird reason acting like mass revert warriors?

I'm fully aware that Wikipedia functions through consensus, but I'm also fully aware that Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold in making changes and discourages conservativeness which makes people believe they own the article.

-- Mttll (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is getting extremely annoying. I modified and deleted only when absolutely necessary and still people mass revert what I have done? Will you please come and discuss your objections here?

Here's a few things:

- The article should discuss Turkish people, not Turkic people (see these articles please) as a whole. Of course, additional Turkic people can be mentioned, but before my edit Turkish people wasn't mentioned at all, which is completely ridiculous. What's more, the part about Turkic people discusses phenotype like stupid racialist forums and mentions (without a source) NATIVE AMERICANS, WHAT THE HELL? Wikipedia is supposed to be based on mainstream, common knowledge, reliable sources, not fantasies!

- CIA World Factbook gives an estimate about Kurds in Turkey, but doesn't say explicitly about Kurdish-speakers which is something different from Kurds.

- The numerical figure about Circassians was unsourced.

- This article is about modern Turkey, right? Then what's the point of a picture from 1870s? Unnecessary at best, harmful/misleading/counterproductive at worst.

- That certain classification (Turkic, Indo-European, Caucasian, Muslim (?), Cossacks (?!?!), Other) is nonsensical. Cossacks are Indo-European/Slavic. Muslim is a religion, there is nothing stopping a Muslim from being a Turkic, Indo-European, Caucasian, Cossack etc.

PLEASE DISCUSS THESE AND DON'T EDIT WAR

Some of them are plain obvious, some of them are debatable, but you keep mass reverting, I'll be forced to revert that. Please revert particular parts and write your arguments.

-- Mttll (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems that you mean well, but you are trying to do way too much with each edit. The article grew over many months, a little at a time, contributed by intelligent, well-intentioned people, and to mass revert their work, as if you know so much better, doesn't go over well. Try reverting a specific passage, waiting a few days to see if there are any objections, and then move on to another passage. And if you really know so much better than everyone else, then you should use your real name, with your credentials listed on your user page, so that the rest of us can feel more comfortable with your edits.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lezgi
Isnt there a small number of Lezgi also in Turkey? Driven by the Czarist Russian expansion in the Caucuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.118.177 (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Genetics
What has Genetics to do with the Demographics? There is another article Genetic origins of the Turkish people. Jingby (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right. It has no place here. I have taken the liberty. --Mttll (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Languages spoken ?
I didn't quite understand the table Languages Spoken. According to the table the total no. of mother tongue speakers was just over 31 million in 1984. The graph in the very same page shows that the total population of Turkey in 1984 was about 52 million. So what happenned to the remaining 21 million? All non speakers ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The source is from 1984 while the data is from 1965 or so as far as I know. --Mttll (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to drop the table of languages from this article and refer people to the Languages of Turkey article especially since the table in that article has more up-to-date info. Integrate any discussion of languages into the discussion about the groups that speak them.  --Erp (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

somebody put this in the actual article
"There is no mention of Asia minor Greeks along the black sea coast. Usually referred to as Rumcha in Turkish."

I did a google search for Rumcha but didnt find it. maybe we need a native speaker to translate from the turkish wiki. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments
guys there's gotta be more polish people in turkey, long long time ago a lot of polish people came to ottoman empire. there's even a area called polonezköy which means "polish village"? any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.10.149 (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Description of this article...
Ends with a sentence which makes no sense whatsoever: "There are more than 1 million people of non-Turkish descent, about 1 million of whom are foreign residents." There are about 14 million Kurds ALONE in Turkey! Somebody should be ashamed! No link at the end of this claim, nothing...stupid, just stupid. Do not edit 'till you double-check or don't write anything at all. Miljkovicmaster (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)miljkovicmaster


 * Articles like this tend to accumulate bits and pieces (and this article could do with a good overhaul, should we use the Turkish government figures and/or the CIA World Factbook [which I suspect uses the government figures for some items], have we properly cited every fact, etc). I removed the sentence you cited as 'Turkish' could mean either from a Turkic speaking people or born in Turkey (aka not immigrants or foreign residents) so is vague.  In addition even if the latter is what is meant I'm sure a certain percentage of immigrants have become Turkish citizens (or else the sentence is redundant).   --Erp (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Birth per woman 2010
The birth per woman 2010 in Turkey was 2.18 and not 2.31

here the link: http://www.indexmundi.com/turkey/total_fertility_rate.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.13.185.126 (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Indexmundi does not appear to be a very precise source as their numbers for many countries are often off by some margin. Turkstat claims that the TFR for Turkey in 2009 was 2.06. They have not yet released any numbers for 2010. Indexmundi and the CIA Factbook (which this article heavily uses) seem to purely rely on estimates, which have to be recalibrated over time to prevent them from steadily becoming less accurate.The Tollan (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups in Turkey

 * Turkic groups:Turks(Balkan Turks,Anatolian Turks),Kumyks,Crimean Tatars,Karachays,Balkarians,Nogays,Karakalpaks,Azeris
 * Balkan groups:Turks(Balkan Turks),Bosniaks,Greeks(Grecian),Bulgarians(Christian & Pomak),Albanians
 * Anatolian groups:Turks(Anatolian Turks),Greeks(Pontic Greeks too),Roma,Kurds,Armenians(Hamshenis Armenians as well),Assyrians,Arabs
 * Chevneburis:Georgians
 * Caucasian groups:Inguish,Chechens,Abazas,Abkhazians,Adyghes,Laz

J87

U.S. data from the Ethnologue: Languages ​​of the World organization PA St. Andrews - compared to 2001

Ethnic origins in Turkey:

86.21% of Turkish

Kurdish 8:36%

Circassian 2.14%

Arab 1.63%

Zaza 0.53% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

ZAZAS=KURDS!
im zazaki speaker kurd .zazaki is dialect of kurdish language!pls edit page!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.179.151 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Zaza people is a little İranian people living in Turkey.They re not Kurdish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.166.177.239 (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Serps In Turkey
"...55 million ethnic Turks, 9.3 million Kurds, 3,000,000 Serbs, 3,000,000 Zazas" 3 million Serbs? I didn't see anything about Serbs in source link. I don't meet any Serb in Turkey. Better to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.183.82 (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

How was that table "POV"?
Eagerly waiting for an explanation. --Mttll (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of POV (the editor who said so admitted to being mistaken), but the study is misused, as has been explained to you in Talk:Turkey. Athenean (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, I don't see how. Regardless, I will be re-adding it with a more descriptive title of what it really is:


 * {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" border="1"


 * + In 2006, 47,958 adults in Turkey have identified themselves in an unguided survey conducted by KONDA (published by Milliyet in 2007) as in the following table: 
 * Identity groups used in the survey
 * Total %
 * Identity categories said by subjects
 * Total %
 * Turkish
 * 81.33
 * Turkish
 * 81.33
 * rowspan="6" | Local identity
 * rowspan="6" | 1.54
 * Manav
 * 0.59
 * Laz
 * 0.28
 * Turkmen
 * 0.24
 * Region name in Turkey
 * 0.22
 * Yörük
 * 0.18
 * Anatolian Turkish tribes
 * 0.03
 * rowspan="3" | Other Turkic
 * rowspan="3" | 0.08
 * Tatar
 * 0.04
 * Azeri
 * 0.03
 * Central Asian Turkic tribes
 * 0.01
 * rowspan="3" | Of Caucasian origin
 * rowspan="3" | 0.27
 * Circassian
 * 0.19
 * Georgian
 * 0.08
 * Chechen
 * 0.004
 * rowspan="3" | Of Balkan origin
 * rowspan="3" | 0.22
 * From Balkan countries
 * 0.12
 * Bosniak
 * 0.06
 * Turkish from Bulgaria
 * 0.04
 * rowspan="3" | Immigrant
 * rowspan="3" | 0.4
 * Muhacir
 * 0.22
 * Balkan immigrant
 * 0.16
 * Region name abroad
 * 0.02
 * rowspan="2" | Muslim Turkish
 * rowspan="2" | 1.02
 * Muslim
 * 0.58
 * Muslim Turkish
 * 0.44
 * Alevi
 * 0.35
 * Alevi
 * 0.35
 * rowspan="3" | General definition
 * rowspan="3" | 0.36
 * From Turkey
 * 0.23
 * World citizen
 * 0.12
 * Ottoman
 * 0.01
 * rowspan="2" | Kurdish and Zaza
 * rowspan="2" | 8.61
 * Kurdish
 * 8.61
 * |Zaza
 * 0.41
 * Arab
 * 0.75
 * Arab
 * 0.75
 * rowspan="4" | Non-Muslim
 * rowspan="4" | 0.1
 * Armenian
 * 0.08
 * Greek
 * 0.01
 * Jewish
 * 0.004
 * Assyrian
 * 0.004
 * Romani
 * 0.03
 * Romani
 * 0.03
 * rowspan="5" | From other countries
 * rowspan="5" | 0.05
 * European
 * 0.02
 * Asian
 * 0.01
 * Russian
 * 0.01
 * Iranian
 * 0.004
 * American or African
 * 0.004
 * Citizen of Turkey
 * 4.45
 * Citizen of Turkey
 * 4.45
 * Total
 * 100
 * 100
 * }
 * Greek
 * 0.01
 * Jewish
 * 0.004
 * Assyrian
 * 0.004
 * Romani
 * 0.03
 * Romani
 * 0.03
 * rowspan="5" | From other countries
 * rowspan="5" | 0.05
 * European
 * 0.02
 * Asian
 * 0.01
 * Russian
 * 0.01
 * Iranian
 * 0.004
 * American or African
 * 0.004
 * Citizen of Turkey
 * 4.45
 * Citizen of Turkey
 * 4.45
 * Total
 * 100
 * 100
 * }
 * Citizen of Turkey
 * 4.45
 * Citizen of Turkey
 * 4.45
 * Total
 * 100
 * 100
 * }
 * 100
 * }
 * }


 * Feedback please. --Mttll (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope. Semantic games with the title is not going to cut it.  Raw data is not suitable for an encyclopedia, particularly seeing how the source itself gives an adjusted figure of 15.7% for the Kurds. Athenean (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The world doesn't revolve around Kurds. This is a published table of how adults in Turkey self-identify in an unguided survey. You need stronger arguments against it. --Mttll (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's raw data, as you have been told 20 times now, and thus unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Repeating yourself and pretending not to hear isn't going to change things. Athenean (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You are the one who keeps repeating himself. It's the kind of raw data the surveyors chose to feature and publish. As long as it's presented by a perfectly accurate title of what it is, it's suitable for Wikipedia. --Mttll (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As already discussed in Talk:Turkey#Percentages of ethnic groups in Turkey this table is raw data the surveyors did publish along with their actual results. The Ethnic Identity Distribution in Turkey table in section 4.3 of the study contains the relevant result of this study. If you want to add a table from this study, then add this table from section 4.3. Lumialover2 (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure. Do we have a practice in WP of publishing such sizable tables from private companies? To the best of my knowledge such prominence is only granted to official, national censuses. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"...at times, especially in the past..." ?
What does this mean?

"The word Turk or Turkish also has a wider meaning in a historical context because, at times, especially in the past, it has been used to refer to all Muslim inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire irrespective of their ethnicity."

"...at times, especially in the past..." but less so in the future?

This should be edited to: "The word Turk or Turkish also has a wider meaning in a historical context because, at times, it has been used to refer to all Muslim inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire irrespective of their ethnicity."

All historical contexts are in the past. I would have edited, but it looks like many edits on this page get reverted. 70.74.191.229 (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

black-haired Mediterranean Turks?
Who says that "...black-haired Mediterranean" are called Turks? Can you give are source?

Afro Turks - Afrika Kökenli Türkler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Map in Kurdish is not accurate
Gaziantep, Kilis and Northeastern Anatolia Kurdish population(except Iğdır) is not true. And also Iğdır's Kurdish population started to rise in 1990's because of internal emigration so it's not historical — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.159.9 (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish population, migration Multiply. (Gaziantep -Kilis - Adiyaman- K.maraş - Malatya-Elazığ -Erzincan -Erzurum- Kars and Ardahan) Turkish majority. ( Şanlıurfa-Mardin ) Turkish - Kurdish -Arabs. Bingöl ZaZa, Tunceli Zaza - Turkish

Kurds who fled Iran-Iraq war from 1988 Halabja : 60.000-120.000

Kurds fleeing the 1.Gulf War 1991 : 460.000

Kurds who fled civil war in Syria : 400.000 Syria civil war

ISIS terror Yezidis fled : 100.000

Kurdish population in Turkey: Kurdish population in Turkey before 1980 was around 9-11%. Iran-Iraq war of Halabja,First Gulf War,Gulf War 2,Syria civil war Began to increase, Today, the Kurdish population in this migration has reached 14-16%  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Afro-turks
why this article doesnt disscuss about afro-turks as part of minority ethnic group in Turkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.10.159.31 (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Was an Ottoman army aviator who may have been the first black military pilot in aviation history.World's first black pilot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Demographics of Turkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111003033528/http://www.avrupa.info.tr/Files/MRGTurkeyReport%5B1%5D.pdf to http://www.avrupa.info.tr/Files/MRGTurkeyReport%5B1%5D.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121205060027/http://www.bianet.org/bianet/kategori/bianet/105059/usaklar-ha-bu-lazcayi-konusmayin-da to http://www.bianet.org/bianet/kategori/bianet/105059/usaklar-ha-bu-lazcayi-konusmayin-da
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090729194614/http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/viewdocument.php?doc_id=7081 to http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/viewdocument.php?doc_id=7081
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131019123605/https://worldview.gallup.com/default.aspx to https://worldview.gallup.com/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Demographics of Turkey. 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:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6RcHhdXBF?url=http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_population.htm to http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_population.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070116043608/http://www.bartleby.com:80/61/92/T0419200.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/92/T0419200.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124050012/http://konda.com.tr/html/dosyalar/ttya_en.pdf to http://www.konda.com.tr/html/dosyalar/ttya_en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080902110745/http://www.taraf.com.tr/yazar.asp?id=12 to http://www.taraf.com.tr/Yazar.asp?id=12
 * Added tag to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=161291
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524004644/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325005232/http://www.konda.com.tr/html/dosyalar/ghdl&t_en.pdf to http://www.konda.com.tr/html/dosyalar/ghdl&t_en.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=161291

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Türkiyeetnikharitası.JPG
According to what is this map?--Nonemansland (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The map very much corresponds to the 2015 ethnic map of Jacques Leclarc. The map here was published earlier- in 2010.--Nonemansland (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Ethnolinguistic map of Turkey.jpg
Mehrdad Izady, the author of the main source of the linguistic map has Kurd roots, while the publisher filters the work as reliable. Which is Columbia Univeristy ranked third in the US after Harvard and Stanford. Izady's map is based on other sources. The Kurdish areas from his map appear on an image of the 1986 CIA World Factbook. --Nonemansland (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Demographics of Turkey. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bartleby.com/61/92/T0419200.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031229094340/http://www.azerbaijantoday.az:8101/Life.html to http://www.azerbaijantoday.az:8101/life.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=161291
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140527211449/http://www.usefoundation.org/view/865 to http://www.usefoundation.org/view/865
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.konda.com.tr/html/dosyalar/ghdl%26t_en.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=161291

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Flag of the African Union (free).png

Summary Ethnic Groups
Dear editors. I removed this, because it has multiply issues like putting non existend states like; Kurdistan, Eastern Turkistan, Lazica, etc.. Second problem is, Turkic peoples are listed while Central Asian Turkic nations are listed separate. Meskhetian Turks are listed as if they're from Turkey, which they are not. And different European nations which are not of same from the same ethnicity, such as Germanic and Slavic people, were put together. Also the numbers are exaggerated and unsourced. There are already several ethnic estimated on the article. Edit: I found that it was placed by an user which had different accounts. first edit, confirmed sockpuppet. And its second account. Beshogur (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Unclear source
Where does the number 1,180,840 births for the year 2019 and an alleged fertility rate of 1.88 per woman are coming from?

62.226.90.50 (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

ethnic group
The Turkish people, are a nation (millet) in the meaning of an ethnos (Halk in Turkish), defined more by a sense of sharing a common Turkish culture and having a Turkish mother tongue, than by citizenship, religion or by being subjects to any particular country.

I removed this. I don't think wikipedia is any position to define the identity of the Turkish people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.3.239.126 (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Halk in turkish means people, not ethnos. Ethnos/nation means millet/ulus, not halk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.18.20 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ethnolinguistic map of Turkey.jpg