Talk:Genetic studies on Turkish people

Inconsistency
The introduction contains this sentence" Contrary to nationalist dogma, studies of population genetics have indicated that the modern Anatolian Turks are prevalently descended from indigenous (pre-Islamic) Anatolian populations." but the remainder of the article talks of Turkich origin for Turkish people. I have also failed to find where in the reference that's used for the sentence that suggests what the sentence say. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC), this prevalent descent is reinforced by genocide of Turks against true Asiatic Turks which came from Mongolia and China, although they may have had a nomadic origin if blond, blue eyed Turks from Turkey as a separate unique wolf from Aryan formed Turk man race the Kok Turk, Kokturk, Gok Turk, Gokturk, the Heaven Turk, the Saljuq Turk, the Osmanli Ottoman Turk, as of the twentieth century initiated by the Greeks and their idealistic Christian Turco-Mongol allies in the Turkish population and army who sought a regional confederation to replace the weakening Ottoman Empire and to live up to the Freedom Blood Oaths of dangers unsuspected by average Turks and then sought to receive protection from the Kingdom of Armenia which however did not spare them their fate for seeking to depose the Sultan, mass execution and connivance with Greek massacre of "unsubmissive" Ottomans on the Gemick-Yalova Peninsula still name like Haftanin after Yalova of the Russian officers and generals including women commanders of Ildalqu Altan Ulus the Mongol army, these being those who differed from the practices of Buddha in war, and therefore left and joined the Ottoman army over centuries, and Turks had inhabited Central Asia and were used to repopulate Turkey by Mustafah Kemal Ataturk from the Tarim Basin, and inhabited Central Asia in Turkmenistan, and in Mongolia and parts of Central Asia the Christian Naiman Turk that created the Chahar Mongol by admixture and the Turks that occupied central China since An Lu Shan, and till northwest China, which they populated intentionally losing a battle to the Arabs when part of the imperial Chinese army at the Pamirs, the Arabs sang out the Koran and their troops exercised their beautiful bend into the union with the Arab troops, joining them and encircling the Imperial Chinese Army to strive to convert all China to Islam, and compelling them to accept Islam, which they since doubtfully observe in any form, at the Pamirs, a Turk who is a member of Turkish security troops at high level and of Portugeuse and Brazilian branches still insists that the Turks are not called Turks before they reached Turkey, although the Ottomans brought with women as according to Islam and therefore according to Yasa as they fled the Mongols and their army of which they were part and came to Turkey where they established the Ottoman empire, and Kokturk before them had children of Asiatic Turkic race women. confer Hasan Celal Guzel: (2002) The Turks: Early Ages publisher Yeni Turkiye

this page is a crap this page clearly has been created by enemies of turkic people, the whole idea of this page is to induct that original turks had east asian ethnics while there are abondant clues and proof that shows that 1000 years ago turkic people were all a white race. even now among uighur and other turkic people which live in central asia there are no east asian ethnics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.129.162 (talk) 07:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This page should be deleted because there aren't any other pages on the origins of any country's people in Wikipedia; and the page is not objective, but biased. Also, we know that there are many ethnic groups in Turkey. The following researches don't categorize the ethnic groups of the people in Anatolia, so they aren't reliable. The ethnical diversities of Anatolia are displayed as if the Turks were the mixture. 81.213.113.80 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The genetic data is reliable and it's based on ethnic Turkish people not any other ethnic groups in Turkey, Turks were never white as shown from the Xiongnu skeleton they were an predominately Mongoloid people with some admixture of Caucasoid. There is no pure caucasoid ethnic in Turkic people of Central Asian either since all of them have different degrees of Mongoloid and Caucasoid admixture. The fact Turkish has some significant Mongoloid DNA shows the Turks were indeed an people who had high admixture of Mongoloid blood. --- 92.236.36.173 (talk) 9:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Invalid Researches
In Turkey, there are many ethnic groups. If you don't arrange a stratified sampling, of course you get "Mixed" results. Not all Turkeyian people are Turkish in terms of their ethnic groups. If a research distingusihes the ethnic groups at the onset of sampling phase, You will reach a better understanding of Turkey.--76.31.238.174 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They claim to be stratifying. Also, why are the Turkish people Middle Eastern by race, and not resemble the Yakuts, for instance? СЛУЖБА (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Middle Eastern is not a race it is a geographic classification. Turkish people are geographically middle eastern but not genetically. Turkish people are closest to southern europeans with a very large oghuz turkic contribution. While yakuts are closest to mongolians with a very large turkic contribution. Yakuts and turkish people are divided by thousands of miles and years. Yakut people are Turco-Mongol origin while turkish people are Turco-Anatolian origin. KnowledgeEnjoyer1 (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing with a neutral point of view
The following sentences on the intro do not include neutral point of view, which consist of biased information based on political opinions;

Old Biased Text: ''The discussion of the question in population genetics has historically been marred by Turkish nationalism which postulates a Pan-Turkic identity emphasizing Central Asian roots. Contrary to nationalist dogma, studies of population genetics have indicated that the modern Anatolian Turks are genetically influenced by indigenous (pre-Islamic) Anatolian populations.'' New Text from a Neutral Point of View: ''The contribution of the Central Asian genetics to the modern Turkish people has been debated and become the subject of several studies. As a result, the studies of genetics on the people of Turkey have indicated that the modern Anatolian people are genetically influenced by indigenous (pre-Islamic) Anatolian populations as well as Central Asian roots.''

Also, I remove the following unrelated sourced information because Prof. Togan's following research is on the contribution of Central Asian genetics to the shepherd dogs and sheeps of Anatolia. You can read it from the related symposium abstract: In 2010 Inci Togan et al. utilized both mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA results from Anatolian Turks and repeated former finding that about 13% of the Turkish lineages stemmed from Central Asia. (ref)"Central Asian genetic contribution to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans was estimated as 13% by an admixture analysis implemented in LEA. An Anatolian Trilogy: Arrival of nomadic Turks with their sheep and shepherd dogs, 4th International Symposium on Biomolecular Archaeology, Abstract.(/ref) Please check the following website of Togan for more information: http://www.metu.edu.tr/~togan/people.html

Also remove the following sourced repetition which is also the publications from the same research of Togan, but published on another journal. Ceren Berkmen is also the student of Prof. Togan: ''In 2008 Ceren Berkman et al. concluded genetically, Anatolia is more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations. The Central Asian contribution to Anatolia was estimated as 13%. (ref)"Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 136:1 (May 2008): pages 11-18.(/ref)'' BozokluAdam (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with this manipulation. Do not delete reliable sourced info. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you check the sources, I hope you will agree. The sourced information is about the genetic contribution of Central Asian shepherd dogs and sheep. Also, there is a repetition of the same research studies under different pen-names. BozokluAdam (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There are several studies dedicated as to the domestic animals, as well as to the local population. Conclusion is clear: only 13% of the Turkish lineages stemmed from Central Asia.Jingiby (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

13% to animals or humans? I read the article, and think that it's not about the matter we discuss. So I recommend to remove this information till Prof Togan or her colleagues approve this. Let me send an email or phone her? So, what's your idea? Thanks. BozokluAdam (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I think you broke the rule of three-revert, but here I want to find a solution for this matter. Thanks. BozokluAdam (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Jingiby, In the article, there isn't such a sentence or expression meaning "a sample of inhabitants of Turkey identifying themshelves as Turks in ethnicity". Instead, it is mentioned "Principal component analysis and FRAPPE/STRUCTURE results from three regions in Turkey (Aydin, Istanbul and Kayseri) were superimposed, without clear subpopulation structure, suggesting sample homogeneity." which means samples were taken from the large and mixed cities, especially Istanbul and Kayseri, without clear subpopulation structure. Already it's explained on the abstract of the article "Turkey has experienced major population movements." So they take the samples from the cities taking migration from different parts of Turkey. There isn't an expression or implication in the article for that "inhabitants of Turkey identifying themshelves as Turks". So, I'll change POV to NPOV. However, if you have another advice, let's change it together, but removing the following POV: "a sample of inhabitants of Turkey identifying themshelves as Turks in ethnicity". There isn't such an explanation, instead emphasizing unclear subpopulation structure.
 * On the other hand, Berkmen, on the conclusion chapter of her thesis p.98, says "Lower male than female contribution from Central Asia to Anatolia was obtained. The situation was explained by invoking the idea of homogenization between the males of the Balkans and Anatolia. Since females could not migrate alone, the true Central Asian contribution for both males and females were assumed to be 22%." So the following sentence causes ambuguity: "the true Central Asian contribution for both males and females were assumed lower male (13%) than female (22%) contributions from Central Asia to Anatolia" So, I'll edit the change which causes ambuguity.
 * Or let's put the following explanation alternatively?
 * "Central Asian contribution of the males was assumed to 13%, whereas the contribution of the females was assumed to 22%. So, lower male than female contribution from Central Asia to Anatolia was observed. However, the true Central Asian contribution for both males and females were assumed to be 22% as females could not migrate alone."
 * Thanks for your understanding. BozokluAdam (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (Note) Sorry for braking this post, but if you read the whole article you will see that the researchers selected people who are Turks in ethnicity (not Kurds or Jews or whatever). What you display here is only the abstract. Go to PubMed and find the full text. 176.58.220.122 (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Anatolian population before 11 th . cent.
The last edits are all, but not NPOV. I think the newly registered IP-s are pushing only nationalistic agenda here, which are not an improvement. Jingiby (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please provide reliable, scientific secondary or tertiary sources that Anatolia was populated exclusively by Greeks until the 11 century, i.e. the Turkic invasion. As per the article History of Anatolia that is false claim. More, ethnonym was never used in official Byzantine correspondence prior to 1204 AD. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No discussion was held. I have reverted a lot of biased edits, also POV and vandalism by several IPs on the article, back to the proper, neutral version. Jingiby (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Turkish people
the Anatolian Turks does not belong to Afro-Asian populations such as Near East and North African Populations.
 * my apprehension are that the last changes are conduce to abuse with anti-turkish resentments this article and plus it was months ago more neutral. 95.114.105.32 (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Turkish People don't belong to Europe or to Balkan Area too. My Impression is this article is subject to constant attempts of manipulation by some anti-greek or turkish-nationalists. I think it should be locked from any editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.243.167 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it seems the article is subject to several attempts of manipulation by possible Turkish-nationalists just like Cavann or Jingiby for purely rhetorical or populist purposes. It is so obvious that Turkish people is genetically linked to the Near East and North Africa as well as to the native local populations who lived in Anatolia since the Hellenic Ages ages. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricojellyfro (talk • contribs) 12:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the that turkish-nationalists are the problem here. The problem are anti-turkish sentiments which try to show turkish people as an arabic or near eastern population. 95.114.69.139 (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with the post above mine. Now if the science shows they are European, are you not trying to hold on to the belief that they are mongols or some invader purely out of non-science backed beliefs? the fact remains a large portion are European or Mediterranean peoples including various Greeks who settled there in the time of Alexander. It seems all a bit like cognitive dissonance where one does not wish to accept that the Turkish people are what the science shows. You can argue with genetics using political or ideological arguments but it remains that science will usually win. Even if this was a conspiracy by Turkish nationals as some claim here than they aren't wrong based on the evidence cited, just look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.176.102 (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The science you are talking about is Eurocentric and serves only Western cultural ideologies and sometimes even Western politics - it is a permanent attempt to degrade and denounce Turkey, which is considered the eternal enemy, in its identity.
 * The effect to be achieved is to nullify our successful past. It's even sometimes tragically funny, some trying to make "Mongolians" out of us in order to form a cultural dividing line, others trying to attribute imperial successes to an "european-heritage" (because the slapping doesn't hurt so much if the people somehow are related ).On the other hand there are idiots who believe that we are one people "without roots" and only "assimilated".. But of course Europeans are all homogeneous .. whatever that is supposed to be -ever heard of "Völkerwanderung" ? lol
 * A majority of Turkey's ethnic Turks are exactly what their ancestors were: Turks, we are neither European nor Middle Eastern people, our diversity did not first occur in Anatolia.
 * We brought this diversity with us because we are and were a nomadic people that formed in the great steppes over thousands of years. Whoever lived and thrived on the steppe was part of our ethnogenesis. About 1000 years ago, the people of Central Asia were not very different from the Turks of Turkey -colorful . Our specific tribe, the Western Oguz, belonged to the Seljuk Empire, who were also Oguz Turks. After the Battle of Manzinkert, many oguz nomads from horasan and the caucasus/caspian region settled in anatolia.
 * By the time Genghis Khan was spreading his "ulus" to Central Asia, a large part of various Turkic tribes were being incorporated into the empire as soldiers, generals and commoners - they were loyal and accepted Genghis as khan, especially northeastern Kipchak Turks. Other tribes of Turks who refused were massacred or fled.
 * It was no different with oguz turks, most of whom fled west, especially after the fall of the seljuk dynasty - we didn't want to submit to the mongol empire. Genghis Khan's reign certainly influenced the gene pool of Central Asia, even today some modern tribes of Kazakhstan trace their origin back to Mongols - Mongols are basically east-asian humans, we Turks have always lived between Siberia and the Urals - the origin of Turks and Mongols is very different ,the only common things are steppe traditions and mythology and some cultural overlap through wars and coalitions.
 * This is our origin - whatever the "DNA" composition was, it doesn't matter because throughout the Ottoman centuries ethnic Turks and minorities hardly mixed because we - the regular Turks - didn't need it (alongside the later Ottoman dynasty - but that was another story) and non-Turks didn't want to mingle with us. We haven't even imposed our culture on them, let alone assimilated anyone - otherwise people in the Middle East and Southern Europe would speak Turkish and identify as Turks - but they don't. European colonizers imposed their language, culture and religion on every place they raided, raped and robbed - we didn't do that because our Turkish rules and our religion, Islam, forbids it.
 * This does not mean that there are no people in Turkey who are of non-Turkish descent or have multiple ancestors. In Turkey you first identify with the Turkish state as a Turkish citizen - loyalty, then you might have a second identity which is probably lezgin or kurdish bosnian, , roma whatever you may be - everyone in turkey knows their true one Descent - because no one has lost their identity - many second languages ​​are spoken in Turkey. But all of these people became part of our history and our nation. Today people of all Turkish nations come together again - old ties are reawakened and new families are created - another modern Turkish ethnogenesis is imminent and we will again neither become Europeans, Arabs nor Mongolians ,but Turks. 46.114.172.245 (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Clean Up Required / Fake Sources
Eg: "Moreover, the mtDNA (female linkeage) sequence shared by four of these paternal relatives were also found in Turkish individuals,[14]" The source is about rocks! The article does not have the words "Turk" or "Turkish" or "Anatolia" in it! Unsourced or fake sourced material should be deleted Cavann (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Turkish and British
There are barely no genetic connections or similarities among Turkish and British people, image reference should be removed it's just a mere nationalist rethoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricojellyfro (talk • contribs) 21:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "that now-days many Turkish citizens have Greek origins or ancient native peoples of the Middle East and North Africa"
 * Did you check every turks dna ?fckg dimwit lol 46.114.172.245 (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems there are many deceptions by some probable Turkish-nationalists who reject the idea that now-days many Turkish citizens have Greek origins or ancient native peoples of the Middle East and North Africa. I think it's better to exclude the article from any possible editable changes.

When you compare at y-dna haplogroups of greek people to turkish, they are not similar. Turkish y-dna haplogoups are more similar to Armenians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.142.179.252 (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that the IP 93.33.243.167 is adding fake sources. See:  Cavann (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I2 haplogroup.
"I=5.3% - Typical of Central Europeans, Western Caucasian and Balkan populations."

Not really true, I am from Artvin paternally(of Meskhetian Turkish stock) and I carry hg. I2 aswell. But my haplogroup mutation is L68, which is native to Caucasus. There are I2 lineages among Kurds, Zazas, Armenians and Georgians as well, so there is also a South Caucasus/Eastern Anatolia branch. Also there is always some I2 around Caspian Sea and even in Central Asia but I don't know what subclade is it:

--212.156.122.30 (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User Ricojellyfro
The user Ricojellyfro is changing the full main Article without any notes. See it seems like he is pushing his ideas. 77.3.74.1 (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

plus his source says that the Ancient Greeks were genetically influenced by Near East and North African populations, and not the modern Anatolian people. Also other sources report that Greek were influenced by Sub-Saharan Africa, but the african admixture is also found in other Southern Europe regions. that's the neutral view of point. 77.3.74.1 (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

plus you can see at the distribution of Lactose intolerance that Southern Europe regions and Cyprus the people where more missing this enzyme lactase EXCEPT in Anatolia. 77.3.74.1 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

plus it is ridiculous to claim that anatolian turks where only Greek origin. They were influenced by Caucasian peoples, Greco-Anatolians (Greeks), Galatians, Thracians, Romans and at last by Oghuz Turks. 77.3.74.1 (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * could someone clean up the several attempts of manipulation by possible Pan-Hellenic or anti-Turkish sentiment for purely rhetorical or populist purposes. It is so obvious that Turkish people are genetically linked to Caucasian people, European and Euroasian populations who emigrated into Anatolia. Putting Turkish people into same conner with Near East and North African populations is Turcophobia. This propaganda poster is exactly showing that propaganda you are approving on this article. The depicting an oriental imagined Turk.. 95.114.25.2 (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. No explanation was given. Only biased, propagandist edit. We need NPOV-article, but not nationalistic propaganda. Jingiby (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This map shows which country in europe have african admixture, but the Subclade E-V13 is evolved and only found in Europe (inclusive Anatolia and Cyprus) ->  95.114.25.2 (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Report disruptive users and IPs at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Cavann (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Neighbour joining tree image"
Before I start, a caveat: I came here via recent changes patrol. I am not knowledgeable on this subject.

153.232.169.142 removed the image of the "neighbor joining tree" first on the grounds that the source was bad and then on the grounds that it was original research and misrepresentation of the sources (without being specific as to how). I'm still concerned that this decision is not correct, but I'll leave it to editors more familiar with the topic to move forward. Points I would like to make, however, are as follows:

1) The image doesn't qualify as OR since it is from a reliable, published source (legitimate journal published by IAS/Springer. It would be better if it were not from a primary source, but that isn't enough to make it OR.

2) So far as I can tell the image isn't used in a fashion misrepresentative of the original source: the figure has been redrawn, and colour added, but remains essentially the same with the same caption (see http://i.imgur.com/2og7MsT.png for a comparison). This doesn't mean it isn't misleading, though, so I would invite the IP editor to elaborate further why the believe it to be.

3) The copyright status of the figure seems dubious.

Thanks!

GoddersUK (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 December 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Genetic history of the Turkish people → Genetic history of the Turkish population – The article name is Genetic history of the Turkish people. However, content is related to the genetic history of the Turkish population which is different thing since minorities compose 20-25% of Turkish population. All genetic studies that are used as sources are related to Turkish population. Requesting permission to change the article name to Genetic history of the Turkish population and redirect Genetic history of the Turkish people to the same content. Ferakp (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The request was a good idea. Moving it without a response, not so good. Please see Requested moves/Controversial and follow the procedure there. At the moment I've moved it back and protected it from being moved for 2 weeks. Doug Weller  talk 17:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The whole article discusses whether the Turks of Anatolia are related to other Turkic peoples or assimilated native Anatolians through a language shift. The researches that made comparisons with Uralics and other Turkic peoples also aimed to find an answer to same question. So, it is clearly about ethnic Turks rather than Turkish citizens. Therefore, it is very misleading to change it. 85.105.128.126 (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Turkish population
I added details about the Turkish population and studies that are used in sources. They are related to the Turkish population, the people who live in Turkey. Only article that tell about the Turkish population is Demographics of Turkey. Turkish people which was used before is not appropriate since it says that Turkish people are ethnic Turkic group. Studies are related the people who live in Turkey not only ethnic Turkic people who live in Turkey. You can discuss here if you are against my added details and sources. Ferakp (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Your sources which include the word "Turkish population" which you bolded, are not the same with the sources that were used in the article. Second, the source that was bolded by you (Arnaiz Viella) states that "HLA alleles and haplotypes in the Turkish population: Relatedness to Kurds, Armenians and other Mediterraneans" It directly contradicts the statement that was added by you (Turkish population including Kurds). Turkish population including Kurds and its relatedness to Kurds?! Nonsense. Third, stop pushing your POV without no consensus. 85.105.128.126 (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what are you talking about, they are exactly the same sources. You can check them yourself. The source (Arnaiz Viella) is not added by me, it was already added. And it doesn't contradicts the statement, it actually confirm my statement. Here you can read summary of the study:. It says: Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Iranians, Jews, Lebanese and other (Eastern and Western) Mediterranean groups seem to share a common ancestry: the older "Mediterranean" substratum. It looks like you haven't even read the sources. Read the studies that are used as sources and stop vandalism. Ferakp (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)"
 * Confirms? Sorry but it is about your mental state. Please wait for others comments instead of vandalizing the page. p.s.: I did said that you bolded it with the aim of finding a base for your statement.85.105.128.126 (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Lol, are you serious? I bolded for showing that source has used Turkish population. Look what the first source says: '''PC analysis and FRAPPE/STRUCTURE results from three regions in Turkey (Aydin, Istanbul and Kayseri) were superimposed, without clear subpopulation structure, suggesting sample homogeneity. Thus, this study demonstrates admixture of Turkish people reflecting the population migration patterns.''' Is this sufficient for your IQ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferakp (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "ADMIXTURE" is something different from the statement that you tried to add to the article, genius. Last comment. 85.105.128.126 (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I still have no idea what are you talking about. I am still waiting you to show and explain why you reverted my changes.Ferakp (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Turks and British
This in the article is surprising:


 * According to a different genetic research on 75 individuals from various parts of Turkey, Mergen et al. revealed that genetic structure of the mtDNAs in the Turkish population bears similarities to Turkic Central Asian populations. The neighbour-joining tree built from segment I sequences for Turkish and the other populations (French, Bulgarian, British, Finnish, Greek, German, Kazakhs, Uighurs and Kirghiz) indicated two poles. Turkic Central Asian populations, Turkish population and British population formed one pole, and European populations formed the other, which revealed Turkish population bears more similarities to Turkic Central Asian population and British people.[11]

What's cited, however, appears to be a primary source. Is there any more research replicating this, or has this been discussed in a review? I tried searching PubMed and Google Scholar, but I couldn't find anything else. If anyone has better sources, please post them here.--Beneficii (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say "bears more similarities to.. British people." I've removed that, in fact everything but the major conclusion. The rest is just confusing. Doug Weller  talk 16:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have a copy of the article here:


 * https://drive.google.com/open?id=0By6Guoyqrd27SVN2YjZBRlVVUmM


 * The article says this on the relationship between the Turks, Turkic Central Asians, and the British: "The neighbour-joining tree built from HVS I sequences of European, Turkish and Turkic central Asian populations showed two opposite poles. Turkic central Asian, Turkish, British and Finnish populations are placed on one side, and German, French, Bulgarian and Greek populations are on the other side of the tree," and "Comas et al. (1998) reported that Turks present shorter genetic distances to the British than to central Asians. This controversy may be due to the fact that data were obtained from different Turkish samples (Comas et al. 1998). In our study, Turkish population has a shorter genetic distance to British than to the other European populations."


 * It gives a table (Table 4) which shows very high Nei's mtDNA HVS-I genetic identity and very low distance among the British, Turkish, and Turkic Central Asian populations; they are very far from the other European populations sampled, the Finnish being the closest.


 * This result is surprising, and I'm not sure what to make of it. Pubmed shows the article was cited 4 times, but I could not find any commentary on it (it looks like the citing articles aggregated the study among other articles). I don't see any evidence of an attempted replication of these results, but that may be due to the sparcity of Turkish and Central Asian samples in general.


 * Would it be wrong to state that the British, Finnish, Turkish, and Turkic Central Asians formed a pole on the opposite side of the other Europeans, as the study itself said?--Beneficii (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Beneficii}} Sorry about my earlier edit, but I think it uncovered a retracted source used in some of our articles, so not a complete waste of time. There's too much of a tendency to pick undiscussed data out of genetic articles, and it's my opinion we should stick to the discussion. Saying that, this is a 12 year old article, making it pretty dated but also giving other scientists plenty of time to comment on it. They don't appear to have commented on this 'pole' bit, which even the authors don't actually explain well, so I'd say no, stick to what the discussion actually says. [[User:Doug Weller| Doug Weller talk 10:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Retracted source? Was this 2004 Mergen article retracted?--Beneficii (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * No. Doug Weller  talk 20:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As for "pole", they had used a neighbor-joining tree, a kind of phylogenetic tree, which shows a kind of family tree relationship among populations, and the poles represent the 2 highest-level branches of the tree, where the tree branches out in 2 directions from the origin. They found that the British, Finnish, and Turkic populations constituted one of those 2 top-level branches or "poles" and the other Europeans constituted the other. Of course, they don't explain beyond that what this may mean or why the British may be found to cluster so tightly with the Turkic populations, so inclusion may not be appropriate for Wikipedia, as you say. (It is a curious result, however, and I personally will be asking around about it.)


 * Anyway, thanks for your help improving the article.--Beneficii (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Genetic history
The following was inserted between the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the lead by User:Barisizmirli. While the genetic data are validly referenced, the conclusions being drawn appear to be "original research", so I have moved the passage here Noyster (talk),  11:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Passage moved from article
It should be noted, however, that genetic studies mistakenly use 'Central Asian' to denote Mongoloid ancestry, while they are two very different things. Central Asia has been inhabited by Indo-European ethnic groups that are largely Caucasoid for thousands of years and Indo-Europeans occupied a greater territory of modern Central Asia until the arrival of the Proto-Turks, who were likely entirely Mongoloid, from the Mongolian Plateau to Central Asia. These Proto-Turks absorbed most of the Indo-Europeans, such as Scythians, of Central Asia and genetic studies show the Proto-Turks were likely smaller in numbers than the Indo-European Central Asians, since the Mongoloid genetic component is present in male Turkmens with the frequencies of about 20%, more than 35% among Uzbeks and Kazakhs and less than 20% among Bashkirs and Tatars. Thus 'Central Asian', while speaking about genetics, is not always used to refer the mix of the Mongoloid and Caucasoid ancestry, but could very well be mistakenly used to designate only the former.

The fact that not Turks in their evolved form, but Proto-Turks migrated to Central Asia and absorbed the various Indo-Europeans, is of high significance in the debate concerning the Turkish people's Central Asian genetic admixture, since it greatly affects the estimates on the Turks' Central Asian admixture. When a population is in its 'proto' fase, the identity that is developing and evolving from of that population is not formed yet, and the genetics of any people that the proto population absorbs, becomes part of the genetics that reflect the identity of the population that is 'evolved' from its proto ancestor. Due to this, majority of most Central Asian Turks' ancestry, both Mongoloid and Caucasoid, could be considered entirely Turkic, and not partially Indo-European. In that case, the Turkish people do not have 13-15%, but 20-60% Central Asian admixture, since the percentage of Mongoloid ancestry among Turks ranges between mostly 6-18%, with the highest frequencies being detected in west Turkey.

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) 02:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Y-DNA differences between Turks and Greeks and Cypriots.png 2017 Heraclides.png

Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes Reveal the Absence of Maternal Kinship in the Burials of Çatalhöyük People and Their Genetic Affinities
What is about this?

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/10/3/207?fbclid=IwAR2ZnMHRZkIw6SKqojJcjHkvLaBASjyNDue1iGqPNjAQHuTGDEdZk-dkiEw 109.42.1.191 (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring by Hunan201p
This person is removing content without providing logical reason or evidence and he's pushing his POV. The paragraph about J2, K, R1a being present in Central Asia were removed by him without providing an actual reason. Shou's study about J2 being in Uzbeks/Uyghurs is "fake" according to him, even though it does say that J2 is present in 30.4% of Uzbeks. The reason why I removed Cinnioğlu's interpretation in 2004 was it was outdated since the haplogroups' descriptions below it go against his interpretation (IE Central Asian being only limited to C, Q, O haplogroups). On top of that, Cinnioğlu doesn't even consider N to be a Central Asian haplogroup in his study but for some reasons this guy think he does and doesn't even try to change that part as well. Anyway, I stopped reasoning with him about the Cinnioğlu but he shouldn't touch the study or the paragraph. An another user already mentioned that as far as I see in the history of the page. The only thing this person does is clicking the undo button. I suggest taking action on this page considering how he was warned multiple times. Tasase5 (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Citations needed for the following claims:
 * "This person is removing content without providing logical reason or evidence and he's pushing his POV"
 * "Shou's study about J2 being in Uzbeks/Uyghurs is "fake" according to him"
 * Hunan201p (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary of edit spate (March 13-15, 2020)
At 13:28 on March 13, Tasase5 substracted 1,320 characters from the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people&diff=945360608&oldid=945359892

The content removed by Tasase5 was data from a 2004 paper by Cinioğlu, as well as a paragraph following it, containing original research, which I would likewise remove in a later edit. The following edit summary was provided by Tasase5 for his 13:28, March 13 edit:

It seems that there is no need to add Cinnioğlu's interpretation in 2004 if we already explain the haplogroups that are shared with what populations below and the counter-argument that argues why Cinnioğlu's Central Asian interpretation based on East Eurasian haplogroups only (excluding N, since the study assumes it's not an East Eurasian haplogroup) is wrong.

I recognized this as Tasase5's POV and reverted the edit at 18:36 on March 14:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people&diff=945554535&oldid=945360608

At 18:38 on March 14 I removed 987 characters from the article, which I summarized as POV which was not included in the reference cited. Note that in his original 13:28, March 13, Tasase5 had also removed this material:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people&diff=945554774&oldid=945554535

The following is the paragraph I removed from the article:

"However, this figure may rise to 36% if K, R1a, R1b and L (which infrequently occur in Central Asia, but are notable in many other Western Turkic groups) are also included. J2 is also frequently found in Central Asia, a notable high frequency of J2 (30.4%) is observed particularly in Uzbeks."

The following is the 2010 paper (Shou 2010) in the reference ahead of the above quote:

https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg201030

This is a case of POV, original research, and/or SYNTH. The 2010 paper above says nothing in relation to Cinioğlu (2004). It does not that Uzbeks have haplogroup J, but this paper does not support any statements with regards to Cinioğlu's work. So this paragraph is POV and original research.

This was pretty much the extent of my concern here. Note that up to this point, Tasase5 and I were at least 50% in agreement with eachother. I supported part of his contribution in my 18:38, March 14 edit.

Tasase showed up again at 01:55, March 15 and deleted the 350 characters of Cinioglu (2004) again. From that point on, until 03:25, we reverted back and forth, with my explanation consistently being that Tasase5 was pushing POV by removing Cinioğlu (2004), and him mostly not offering any explanation at ±all other than he feels Cinioglu (2004) is outdated and that such and such haplogroup came from such and such.

At 03:26, March 15 I removed an external image from the article which was privately made and hoated on Reddit. At that point I went to bed.

When I woke up, I found that Tasase5 had, bizarrely, restored the 987 character content he and I had both seemed to agree on removing in our earlier edits, his on 13:28, March 13 and mine on 18:38, March 14:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people&diff=945639228&oldid=945621361

His edit summary for the above contribution:

"Readding sourced content back. Do not vandalize the page."

I am unsure if Tasase5 was talking to the community or himself in the above edit summary. - Hunan201p (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have never agreed with you. You were merely vandalizing the page. You lost the argument with me and undid my post without writing a anything the last time, you were barely writing anything anyway if we don't count accusations of POV. A lot of users also accused you of vandalism.


 * You say "all other than he feels Cinioglu (2004) is outdated". But I wonder if you have actually read this page. The page literally says "Over-reliant on one, outdated source, e.g. Cinnioğlu 2004.". So it's already established by people here (other than you) that the study is outdated. I suggest you to actually read this page before you push your POV.


 * "The 2010 paper above says nothing in relation to Cinioğlu (2004)"


 * This is not really an argument. Do you want to see a study that used Cinnioğlu's data? Here.


 * https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/HaplogroupdifferencesbetweenTurksandGreeks.jpg


 * This study is much more recent than Cinnioğlu's although they used the same data, and their findings are different. According to Cinnioğlu "central asian haplogroups" were around 3%, whereas this study, shows a higher number for East Eurasian haplogroups for Turks.


 * Why was Shou's study important? Because it was posted there to show that Central Asia itself isn't 100% East Eurasian to not mislead people. If a study says J2 is commonly found in Central Asia, which is also commonly found in Turkey, then it means Central Asian haplogroups are not limited to East Eurasian haplogroups and there is a link between 2 places. This is not a point of view. This is literally what is stated in the study. It's only you who thinks genetic findings are POV. Also in case you don't know it wasn't me who originally added that part of the study. That part was added by different people, edited by different people and removed only by you. I suggest you to actually read a study before you talk about genetics. - Tasase5 (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Sources in the Lead
The following line with bunch of sources seem problematic:

While it's indeed true that Turkish people are close to Western Asian populations, the current wording is not exactly supported by all sources cited and misrepresents those sources. Here are what the sources are saying one by one:


 * 1) HLA alleles and haplotypes in the Turkish population: relatedness to Kurds, Armenians and other Mediterraneans


 * "Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Iranians, Jews, Lebanese and other (Eastern and Western) Mediterranean groups seem to share a common ancestry: the older “Mediterranean” substratum"


 * This source doesn't just talk about West Asia but also Mediterranean. It is also cited twice for some reason.


 * 2) Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia


 * "The major components (haplogroups E3b, G, J, I, L, N, K2, and R1; 94.1%) are shared with European and neighboring Near Eastern populations and contrast with only a minor share of haplogroups related to Central Asian (C, Q and O; 3.4%), Indian (H, R2; 1.5%) and African (A, E3*, E3a; 1%) affinity."


 * This source doesn't just talk about Near East/West Asia, but also Europe (and Central Asia, Indian and African)


 * 3) Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe Is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language


 * "However, some examples of non-IE languages reflect not persistence but recent acquisition through “elite dominance”: for example, the Hungarians acquired their Uralic language from the invading Magyars only ∼1,100 YBP (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994), and the Altaic language of the Turks was acquired as a result of the Turkic invasions during the 11th–15th centuries (Renfrew 1989). This process of language acquisition by elite dominance is not expected to be accompanied by a high degree of genetic admixture, and, if this is so, populations such as the Hungarians and Turks are unlikely to be separated from surrounding populations by genetic barriers."


 * This talks about surrounding populations.


 * 4) Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus: evidence from the Y-chromosome


 * "A previous analysis of mtDNA variation in the Caucasus found that Indo-European-speaking Armenians and Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanians were more closely related genetically to other Caucasus populations (who speak Caucasian languages) than to other Indo-European or Turkic groups, respectively."


 * This source is about Armenians and Azerbaijanians, not Turkish people.


 * 5) The Eurasian Heartland: A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity


 * "The Turkish and Azeri populations are atypical among Altaic speakers (Table ​(Table1)1) in having low frequencies of M130, M48, M45, and M17 haplotypes. Rather, these two Turkic-speaking groups seem to be closer to populations from the Middle East and Caucasus, characterized by high frequencies of M96- and/or M89-related haplotypes. This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic languages, originating in the Altai-Sayan region of Central Asia and northwestern Mongolia (31), were imposed on the Caucasian and Anatolian peoples with relatively little genetic admixture—another possible example of elite dominance-driven linguistic replacement."


 * This source does talk about West Asia.


 * 6) Who Are the Anatolian Turks?


 * "This analysis allows us to build the case for incommensurable, long-term, and continuing genetic signatures in both Anatolia and Siberia, and for significant mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome divergence between the regions, with minimal admixture. We supplement the case against mass migration with correlative archeological, historical, and linguistic data, and suggest that it was irregular punctuated migration events that engendered large-scale shifts in language and culture among Anatolia's diverse autochthonous inhabitants."


 * This source also does talk about Anatolia/West Asia


 * 7) Alu insertion polymorphisms in the Balkans and the origins of the Aromuns


 * "We have analysed 11 human‐specific Alu insertion polymorphisms in the Balkans to elucidate the origins of the Aromuns, a linguistic isolate inhabiting scattered areas in the Balkan Peninsula. Four Aromun samples (two from the Republic of Macedonia, one from Albania, and one from Romania) and five neighbouring populations (Macedonians, Albanians, Romanians, Greeks, and Turks) were analysed by means of genetic distances, principal components and analyses of the molecular variance (AMOVA)....The present results suggest a common ancestry of all Balkan populations, including Aromuns, with a lack of correlation between genetic differentiation and language or ethnicity, stressing that no major migration barriers have existed in the making of the complex Balkan human puzzle."


 * This source talks about Balkans, not West Asia.

The current wording is also awkward as it says "haplogroups indigenous to Western Asia". For example, Haplogroup R1b also originates in West Asia, or Central Asia, but it'd be awkward to put same wording into Spanish people article or something.

So the current wording should be changed to similarity with West Asia and Mediterranean, or something like that. I'm not sure about the Balkan source, as it doesn't look at all Balkan populations, and most of populations covered are also in the Mediterranean (except Romanians). I think it could be moved down into the body of the article. There's also a part about language change which should be a separate sentence. I'll try to make a suggestion here or will change it in the article later. Bogazicili (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I made several changes, will also include things about language etc. Current version should still be more accurate, given what the sources say, compared to previous versions. I only read abstracts and conclusions, and did few key word searches however, so let me know if there are any issues.Bogazicili (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Found Review Article/Secondary Source
Found a recent, good review article/secondary source. Full pdf can be found at researchgate.net.

This review paper seems to be in agreement with the main points in this Wiki article. Few quotes, as I don't want to quote the entire article:


 * Western Asia: "The area is informally defined but is often understood as comprising the contemporary national boundaries of Turkey, Iran, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, as well as the Arabian Peninsula and south Caucasus (Knapp 1988)."


 * "As a whole, the contemporary Western Asian genomic variation looks most similar to genomic variation of South European populations (e.g., southern Italians; Alkan et al. 2014). This seems to be true for Arabian, Turkish, and Jewish genetic variation and, to a lesser extent, Iranian variation (Scott et al. 2016)."


 * "First, contemporary populations in Iran and Turkey are more related to each other than they are to populations living in the Arabian Peninsula. Second, these two populations also seem to have higher levels of genetic affinities to southern European populations than to populations speaking Semitic languages."


 * "We now know that contemporary Western Asian genomes have been greatly influenced by these early inhabitants, as well as by the contribution of later population movements, including migrations of Turkic speakers into the region"

I'll be adding citations to this paper and adding information as necessary. Given it's a secondary source, I think we can remove the "This article relies too much on references to primary sources" tag. I'll move the tag to "Genetic history and Turkish identity" section, since it's an entire section with just one primary source. I'm not sure if anyone reads the talk page here, but just wanted to make the talk page notification first. Not sure when I'll get around to doing this.Bogazicili (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Topic about sources.
Dude it was Bulgarian genetic studies source yes. But it mentioned from East Eurasian gen pool in article. And i fixed East Asian to East Eurasian. Tarik289 (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits/reverts
Regarding 's recent edits/reverts, here is what the secondary source says :

"Second, the genetic variation in Central Asian populations that neighbor Western Asia has been poorly characterized. We have little or no genomewide data from transition geographies, such as Azerbaijan, or people living in Central Asian geographies, such as Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. As such, it is likely that Western Asian populations are also closely related to populations in the east, but Central Asian populations are yet to be comprehensively sampled for genome-wide analyses."

I see no reason to drop the word Azerbaijan (since it gives an example to what they mean by "transition geographies") or the authors conclusions/opinions. They actually say "it is likely", where as I had just used "may" Bogazicili (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you should wait for the discussion to conclude before editing the article, but you seem to be in such a hurry to restore most of your controversial edit that you cannot wait even a little bit ... Anyway, could you please show me where the source says inluding turkey ? Also, the source says that "it is likely that Western Asian populations are also closely related to populations in the east" "in the east" does not only mean Central Asians. Last but not least, an entire paragraph based by a single source sounds WP:UNDUE. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, because I was a bit annoyed since you engaged in similar behaviour in Azerbaijanis (Talk:Azerbaijanis ). Turkey is up, in the definition of West Asia.


 * "Western Asia has been the geographical center of history of Eurasian peoples, first as an ancestral homeland and later as a center and crossroads of civilizations (Figure 1). The area is informally defined but is often understood as comprising the contemporary national boundaries of Turkey, Iran, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, as well as the Arabian Peninsula and south Caucasus (Knapp 1988)."


 * If you do not have access to academic journals, you can still find the entire article at researchgate.net.


 * Also given that you seem to just want to use primary sources, I suggest you to look at Reliable_sources and No_original_research. Wikipedia should be based primarily on secondary sources. Bogazicili (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, i know that Turkey belongs to Western Asia, but so do some 10 other countries, so what's the point with your "includng Turkey" ? Besides, being "annoyed" does not give you the right to ignore Wiki policies. Besides, being a secondary source does not mean that that source can have an undue weight. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Because this article is about Turkish people/Turkey. It's also a transcontinental country. So I'm clarifying the scope with respect to this article. Also, you seem to be the one ignoring such policies. Again, Wikipedia should be based mainly on secondary sources. As for WP:UNDUE, do you have other reliable secondary sources? Are you actually claiming that there have been genome-wide studies in Azerbaijan? Bogazicili (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No, i do not ignore that secondary sources should be usually used in Wikipedia, but WP:CONSENSUS is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and you are blatantly ignoring it here. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * What WP:CONSENSUS? I was adding something new and it's just you contesting it. Anyway, we can get a third opinion later if you want, I'm running out of time for today. Just to be clear can you explain your reasoning? If you claim it's UNDUE can you present other secondary sources? Are you against including Azerbaijan in the wording? What is your rationale for your rewording/reverting? Bogazicili (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok so i revert back to the stable version untill a third opinion steps in. Also, as you said, you were adding something and another editor (me) diagreed with you, that means that you have to achieve consensus (with me, among others) on the article's talk page before. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * What is your rationale though for reverting though? You are not explaining yourself or backing up your claims? Bogazicili (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * My rationale is that as you said above, let's wait for a third opinion before inclusion. However, i must say that you addressed most of my concerns, excepting WP:UNDUE since the Azerbaijan article contains lots of genetic studies while your source claims the opposite. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can't be a reference for other Wikipedia articles. Plus if you mean genetics section in Azerbaijanis, the only secondary source there is the one I added. Again, Wikipedia should be based mainly on secondary sources, see: No_original_research. Before we proceed to dispute resolution, is there any other secondary source you would like to present? Bogazicili (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I will investigate a bit tomorrow to see if there are secondary sources about that, if yes, i will present them here, if no, i will restore your edit. If you still want to go to dispute resolution anyway, please proceed. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This source says that the Azeris and Central Asians have only little in common when it comes to their gene pool, however, i will reinstate your edit since this article is about Turkey, not Azerbaijan, so i will leave Azerbaijan out if you agree. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a primary source, it is not a secondary source. It says "Original Investigation" on top. I linked No_original_research so many times now.


 * It's also very dated for a genetic study (from 2003). It also does not contradict anything I had put in the text, as it is not a whole-genome study nor does it claim such a study has been conducted.


 * You seem to be only objecting to using Azerbaijan in the sentence, and you didn't answer in my talk page . I believe reverting this whole thing just because you objected to use of "Azerbaijan" was Disruptive editing. (striking this part, because I hadn't read that you wrote you will reinstate the edit, I had just looked at your source and seen that you didn't undo your last revert). I'll undo your last revert and request third opinion for the use of "Azerbaijan". Bogazicili (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I requested 3rd opinion. If anyone answers, this is the original text I had added: "As of 2017, Central Asian genetic variation has been poorly studied, with no whole genome sequencing studies for countries such as Turkmenistan and Afghanistan.[1] There are also no such studies for transition countries in Western Asia such as Azerbaijan.[1] Therefore, future comprehensive genome-wide studies are needed; Central Asian populations near Western Asia may also be related closely to Western Asian populations, including Turkey.[1]" seems to only object to including Azerbaijan there, although he had reverted the whole thing. Bogazicili (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Don't put words in my mouth please, i did not revert "the whole thing" just because i disagreed with the word Azerbaijan, but also for other reasons that have been explained above (WP:UNDUE is one of them). Also, i have read several genetic studies that say that Turkish people's main gene pool might originate in previous Armenian and Greek populations of Anatolia. That is actually raising the question of how exactly Turkish people are connected to other Turkish speaking populations of Central Asia. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I highly doubt a reputable source would put it that way. But it's true that all people in the area were influenced by earlier farming populations . If there's no 3rd opinion, are you still objecting to including Azerbaijan in the sentence? You haven't shown any contradictory source yet. In order to cite WP:UNDUE, you actually have to show sources that contradict what's being added. We can't really go by what you might have read somewhere. Do we need to proceed to Dispute_resolution_requests/Noticeboards? Bogazicili (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short 2 to 3 sentence response below.


 * Viewpoint by (Bogazicili):

Hi,. Sorry for late reply, been pretty busy. Basically, the issue is I made this edit: and  seems to be contesting it. But he hasn't clarified his position:

1) Does he object to anything other than adding "Azerbaijan" into the sentence? 2) Does he still object to adding "Azerbaijan" into the sentence? If yes, does he have any contradictory sources?

He has only presented one source, which was a dated primary source that does not even contradict what I had initially added. In layman's terms there has been no Whole genome sequencing study done in Azerbaijan (one that looks at the entire genome), but only studies that looked at smaller parts of the DNA. He also has said there are UNDUE issues but again he hasn't presented any sources. So I'm not sure what he is objecting to at this point or if he still maintains we shouldn't add "Azerbaijan" into the sentence. Bogazicili (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Viewpoint by (Wikaviani): When i look at the article about the Azerbaijanis people, i see several sources (number 152, 154 and 159) supporting that the Azerbaijanis are descended from native Iranian peoples of northwestern Iran, saying that there are signoficant ties between Central Asia and the Azerbaijanis just because one source says that, is, in my humble opinion, giving an undue weight to that source. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  19:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * so who are Qarapapaqs, Terekeme, Qajars, Afshars, Küresunni, etc., then? Bold statement. Beshogur (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are Turkish speaking populations, i would be surprised if you prove to be able to provide reliable sources supporting a significant genetic relationship between Afshars or Qajars and Central Asia. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * such a weird statement. You expect these peoples should have a similar dna like Kazakh to being considered a Turkic people? Every Turkic people has different genetic material and admixture of some other nation into their ethnogenese formation. Take a look at Yunusbayev's works: In agreement with the elite dominance model of language expansion most of the Turkic peoples studied genetically resemble their geographic neighbors. However, western Turkic peoples sampled across West Eurasia shared an excess of long chromosomal tracts that are identical by descent (IBD) with populations from present-day South Siberia and Mongolia (SSM), an area where historians center a series of early Turkic and non-Turkic steppe polities. Also personally there had been a genetic research on Afshars of Turkey: In an Afshar village near Ankara where, according to oral tradition, the ancestors of the inhabitants came from Central Asia, the researchers found that 57% of the villagers had haplogroup L, 13% had haplogroup Q and 3% had haplogroup N. Examples of haplogroup L, which is most common in South Asia, might be a result of Central Asian migration even though the presence of haplogroup L in Central Asia itself was most likely a result of migration from South Asia. Therefore, Central Asian haplogroups potentially occurred in 73% of males in the village. Furthermore, 10% of the Afshars had haplogroups E3a and E3b, while only 13% had haplogroup J2a, the most common in Turkey. Honestly, haplogroup isn't alone to enough determine some people's origin, considering Persians doesn't share much common (regarding haplo) with proto Iranian IE groups. Beshogur (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "such a weird statement." : May i suggest you stay cool when you interact with fellow Wikipedians ? focus on content, not editors. Thanks in advance.
 * "You expect these peoples should have a similar dna like Kazakh to being considered a Turkic people?" : Nobody says that, but this article is about genetic studies of the turkish people, therefore let's focus on genetics and leave culture/civilization out.
 * That some western Turkic populations have some degree of Central Asian admixture is not surprinsing, but that does not mean that there is a significant relationship between Azerbaijanis, Afshars or Qajars from Iran and Central Asians.
 * As to the Iranian population (including Arab or Turkish speaking groups), professor Maziar Ashrafian Bonab, an Iranian from Cambridge University, issued a study years ago that suggests that at least 70% of the gene pool of the 26 main ethnic groups currently living in Iran (including Arab or Turkish speaking groups) is common and dates back to a 12000 years old population living in southwestern Iran (however, this talk page is not about the Iranian people but the Turkish people). Haplogroups are not really relevant to find out the gene pool of a population, they are only useful tools to study the ancestry of populations. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So who is representing the "Central Asia" if not Kazakhs? What's the "Central Asia" genetic based on? Beshogur (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ouzbek, Kazakh and Kyrgyz peoples are Central Asians (part of the Turkmens too, but probably in a lesser degree, because of significant admixture from their Iranian and afghan neighbors). ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  23:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * could be healthy to compare Azerbaijanis with Turkmens instead of others. Also personally I think genetic testing is still premature considering a lot of historical autosomal examples still not exist. It could be interesting to see Seljuk, Aq Qoyunlu and early Ottoman result. Nvm, turned into a forum. Beshogur (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, i have no problem with comparing any ethnic group with another, but i think that we'll have hard time trying to find reliable sources supporting a significant genetic relationship between the Azerbaijanis and the Turkmens.  ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

actually there is: Azeris are integrated in the first cluster, together with Gorgan (Iranian Turkmen population (Rey et al. 2014)) and Kurds (Armirzargar et al. 2015), and in intermediate position between Iranian populations (Gonzalez-Galarza et al. 2011), and western Siberians: Russian Chuvash (who live near lower Volga River, 126 North Caspian Sea (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2003)), Russian Siberian Mansi (from western Siberia (Uinuk-Ool et al. 2002)), Russian-Mongols Buryat (from Baikal Lake region (Uinuk-Ool et al. 2002)) and Russian Siberian Todja (from western Siberia, inhabiting in the northeastern part of Tuva Republic (Uinuk-Ool et al. 2002)) and Azeris are located close to Gorgan Turkmen in an intermediate situation between these two major groups in this analysis but closer to the first one (Origin of Azeris (Iran) according to HLA genes) Beshogur (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources seem to indicate that Azeris are close to Gorgan Turkmens (i.e. Tukmens living in Iran) rather than Turkmens from Turkmenistan. Also, according to Andonian l and al : Iranian Azerbaijanis are genetically more similar to northern Azerbaijanis and the neighboring Turkic population than they are to geographically distant Turkmen populations and Farjadian and ghaderi state : No close genetic relationship was observed between Azeris of Iran and the people of Turkey or Central Asians. According to the current results, present-day Kurds and Azeris of Iran seem to belong to a common genetic pool. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , that quote seems to come from this. . It's a dated study (2007), and only looks at human leukocyte antigen (Human leukocyte antigen). This is a 2019 genome-wide study:
 * "Other samples from Caucasus (light blue in Fig. 3) fell into a macrogroup that includes eight different clusters (Lezgins, Azeris, Turks, Georgians, Balkars_Adygei, Balkars, Adygei1, Adygei2)." Bogazicili (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The first quote is from 2007, the second is from 2011. None of these sources seems too old to me. Also, i don't see how your 2019 source contradicts the fact that Azeris and Central Asians are genetically unrelated, since the clusters mentioned by the source are not said to be related . ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , those are very dated for genetic research, especially 2007 one. As the cost of Whole genome sequencing came down, more studies came out. It is also dated because they look at small parts of human DNA, rather than being Genome-wide association study. My answer was response to your claim that Turkish and Azeri are not related in your latest quote . Bogazicili (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Where did i say that Azeris and Turkish are not related ? i said, accordingly to the sources : "Iranian Azerbaijanis are genetically more similar to northern Azerbaijanis and the neighboring Turkic population than they are to geographically distant Turkmen populations" and "No close genetic relationship was observed between Azeris of Iran and the people of Turkey or Central Asians. According to the current results, present-day Kurds and Azeris of Iran seem to belong to a common genetic pool.". Besides, again, i don't agree with your opinion about the sources being too old. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  08:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Third opinion by Firefangledfeathers: I have much more engagement to do with the article and sources provided. My first thought is that we might use something like: "A 2017 literature review found that understanding of the genetic connection between Turkish and Central Asian peoples is hampered by the lack of whole genome sequencing of West and Central Asian populations." For this section of the article, does find that to cover the most important points? Does  find that to still be too much from that source? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the issue still stands in my humble opinion. The question is : why should we give an undue weight to a single source over 3 others ? ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  17:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was trying to address weight concerns by shortening the length of the content. Also, I don't find that my proposed text clashes with the 3 sources in any way and does not make any comment on the descent of Azerbaijanis. Do you feel that WP:DUE requires us not to use this one source at all? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that the Azerbaijanis have some significant ties with Central Asia sounds quite exceptional and thus, would require multiple reliable sources rather than a random one. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I absolutely would not use this one source to say that Azerbaijanis have significant ties to Central Asia. Please note that my proposed language does not make the claim that you find exceptional. The source itself doesn't even claim that, instead saying:
 * It doesn't specify Azerbaijan and is simply speculating about likelihood regarding the whole region. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If Azerbaijanis are left out, then your proposal is fine by me, however, please note that the Azerbaijanis are mentioned in the source, raising some concerns on my end about how reliable that source is, especially when compared with many other sources about this very same topic. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , how do you feel about this above language proposal? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry for late reply. Your suggestion is not exactly accurate as there have been whole-genome studies in West Asia (in Turkey and Israel). Also, similar to the quote you put above, the overall point is that Central Asian populations might be similar to all West Asians, not just Turkish. Perhaps the authors mean countries like Afghanistan is more similar to countries like Iran, for example, due to linguistic similarity. In the paper they also discuss about the effect of early Iranian farmers in Central Asia. So there is a bit of misrepresentation issue if you say that issue is between Turkish and Central Asians only. I also don't see the rationale behind stripping out additional information such as giving examples to Central Asian countries (eg: Turkmenistan and Afghanistan) or the concept of transition zones. Also note that has talked about other sources, but he did not give any examples that could back up his claims. So it seems to be his subjective interpretation that the claims are exceptional. Bogazicili (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If that claim wasn't exceptional, we should be able to find multiple reliable sources supporting it. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Then please provide contradicting sources to support your claim. The only source you have provided so far in this talk page was a dated primary source that did not contradict what I had put into this article. I have already provided a high quality secondary source that meets WP:MEDRS. The onus is on you now to back up your claims. Bogazicili (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:ONUS more carefully, as said onus is on the editor who seeks inclusion, thus not me but you. Azerbaijanis must be left out, and if i got 's below comments, they agree with that point. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. The point I'm making below is that I don't believe anyone, including Bogazicili, has suggested including the claim you find exceptional. If I'm right, you don't have to be concerned about DUE or ONUS issues, Bogazicili doesn't have to worry about you finding secondary sources supporting your side of things. To reiterate, I don't believe anyone is proposing to state or imply that Azerbaijanis in particular are closely related to Central Asians. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the below comment by which says "As for Azerbaijan, I see no reason to leave it out. There has not been any genome-wide studies there and my suggestion was saying just that. This is not contested by any of the sources.". Sounds pretty clear to me that Bogazicili wants to include the Azerbaijanis in the group of western Asian populations that are closely related to Central Asians. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  09:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Two things. First, Bogazicili's claim there is just that Azerbaijan hadn't had any whole-genome studies as of 2017. Second, the source does support that Azerbaijan (since it's part of West Asia) may be related to Central Asian populations. Do you object to either of those narrow claims? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well,i would like the source to be more explicit instead of throwing some baseless claims in my humble opinion. When we will find some sources that are dealing with whole-genome studies of Azerbaijan, then we will be able to find out if the Azerbaijani people is related to Central Asia or not, but including Azerbaijan on the ground that they may be related sounds irrelevant. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Claims in a Review article are not baseless. The authors review existing literature and previous studies before making claims. is a high quality source, as it is a review article (ie: secondary source), recent, and published in Human_Biology_(journal). It would meet WP:MEDRS. Bogazicili (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should stop for a moment to determine clearly what claim we're talking about and whether such a claim needs to be made in this article. I'm doing some amateur mind-reading here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think In my opinion, the Bogazicili's claim (as I understand it) about possibility is well-supported and we should include it, being careful not to overstate the point. I don't think anyone is proposing inclusion of the claim Wikiavani wants to keep out (as I understand it), one that is not affirmed by any sources we have found and is contradicted by at least one source. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries on the timing; I saw you were going to be away for a while, and there's no deadline. I appreciate your constructive criticism. I agree the language was too vague about the lack of studies and will aim to be more accurate in the next draft. I disagree that we need to make the authors' point about all of West Asia; as you noted above, this is an article about Turkish people and it's fine to focus on them. I think there's room for debate on that point if you continue to feel the source is being misrepresented. I would be fine with specifying Central Asian countries. Transition zones isn't well-understood without explanation, and also doesn't really seem to be a term used in the literature either, so I'd rather avoid that phrasing altogether. We might use something like "countries near the border between Central and West Asia". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , basically my position is I'm pro whatever the reliable sources are saying. So yes, the article is saying it's a possibility, so we should say that too. However, I'm not sure if the authors are saying ALL of Central Asia is similar or just the border countries. What do you think? Here's the quote:
 * "Second, the genetic variation in Central Asian populations that neighbor Western Asia has been poorly characterized. We have little or no genome wide data from transition geographies, such as Azerbaijan, or people living in Central Asian geographies, such as Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. As such, it is likely that Western Asian populations are also closely related to populations in the east, but Central Asian populations are yet to be comprehensively sampled for genome-wide analyses."
 * It's not exactly clear to me and that's also why I think we should stick to the source as much as possible, without Close paraphrasing. Perhaps we can also use direct quotes. Something like "countries near the border between Central and West Asia" could work. But again, the overall point is similarity between West and Central Asians. So I'd prefer something like: "Therefore, future comprehensive genome-wide studies are needed. Central Asian populations near Western Asia may also be related closely to Western Asian populations, including Turkey". As I said the authors might mean countries like Afghanistan is similar to Iranians as well, due to Iranian_languages speakers there. Since they didn't say which or all countries are similar to Turkey specifically, we can't say what the sources aren't saying.
 * As for Azerbaijan, I see no reason to leave it out. There has not been any genome-wide studies there and my suggestion was saying just that. This is not contested by any of the sources. Bogazicili (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Both your proposed language and mine attribute to the study the claim that Turkey's populations are potentially closely related to Central Asian populations. I don't think the author is only talking about West Asian border countries; I don't think they have said anything to suggest that to be true. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , have you read the entire article? I'm asking because it's behind a paywall but you can find it on reserachgate.net. I'm being cautious because I have read the entire article and the authors also say:
 * "As a whole, the contemporary Western Asian genomic variation looks most similar to genomic variation of South European populations (e.g., southern Italians; Alkan et al. 2014)."
 * "First, contemporary populations in Iran and Turkey are more related to each other than they are to populations living in the Arabian Peninsula. Second, these two populations also seem to have higher levels of genetic affinities to southern European populations than to populations speaking Semitic languages."
 * "We now know that contemporary Western Asian genomes have been greatly influenced by these early inhabitants, as well as by the contribution of later population movements, including migrations of Turkic speakers into the region"
 * I also know some individuals from Turkmenistan are in a similar cluster:
 * "The algorithm additionally reconstructs the hierarchical relationships between the clusters, in the form of a tree, that allowed us to redefine West Eurasia as the monophyletic clade of 82 fineSTRUCTURE clusters containing 1,000 individuals (Figures 1 and S1B), which incorporates all of mainland Europe, Sardinia, Sicily, Cyprus, western Russia, the Caucasus, Turkey, and Iran, and some individuals from Tajikistan and Turkmenistan"
 * And again general impact in the region:
 * "In contrast to relatively low levels in Northern Europe, ancestry from East Asia is much more visible in the West Central Asian, Caucasus, and Turkish clusters, where the influence of Mongolia (mon) in particular can be seen through the pink links and bars in Figure 2B and in Figure 4A. In West Central Asia (WA), some Central (cas) and East Asian (eas) ancestry is also present across this region. Within Anatolia (here defined as Armenia and Iran, IA, and Turkey, TK), West Central Asia (WA; including Nogai, Tajik, and Turkmen individuals), and several other groups from the Caucasus (EC and WC), events largely involve Asian sources, with the period after 1000 CE appearing to be important in the generation of the ancestry of this region (Figure 3B)."
 * Those are why I'm more cautious. I'm not sure if authors of the paper we were discussing mean all of Central Asia or just bordering countries when they say "east": "As such, it is likely that Western Asian populations are also closely related to populations in the east". And also why I want to maintain talking about all of West Asia.
 * I will also have another update below as I found a 2019 genome-wide study that includes Azerbaijan. Bogazicili (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have (through JSTOR), but thanks for the offer. I misunderstood your comment that my reply was to, and looking back I see what you meant. I do think it's a good idea to specify "Central Asian populations near Western Asia" as you propose below. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

and, I have found a 2019 article that is a genome-wide study that includes Azerbaijan. . It's a great study and will be including it in the relevant articles in the next few weeks. But I am now ok with dropping Azerbaijan from what we were discussing. Are you 2 ok with the below wording:

"As of 2017, Central Asian genetic variation has been poorly studied, with little or no whole genome sequencing data for countries such as Turkmenistan and Afghanistan.[1] Therefore, future comprehensive genome-wide studies are needed. Central Asian populations near Western Asia may also be related closely to Western Asian populations, including Turkey." Bogazicili (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! That language looks mostly good to me. I prefer a Turkey-first approach, given the subject. I think the last sentence would be stronger as "Turkish people, and other Western Asian populations, may be closely related to Central Asian populations near Western Asia." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don't get why we should include any comparison between western Asian populations and Central Asians while this article is about genetic studies of Turkish people and given that we have reliable sources supprtiong that at lest some western Asian populations and Central Asians are unrelated (See my above quotes in my reply to Beshogur). Sounds like WP:OR to me. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the sources you have provided do not contradict the 2017 study. If they did, we would still probably prefer the more current, secondary source. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but how is it relevant to include content about a vague "western Asian populations" and Central Asians into this artice ? Also this source says "No close genetic relationship was observed between Azeris of Iran and the people of Turkey or Central Asians. According to the current results, present-day Kurds and Azeris of Iran seem to belong to a common genetic pool." and Andonian l.; et al. (2011) : "Iranian Azerbaijanis are genetically more similar to northern Azerbaijanis and the neighboring Turkic population than they are to geographically distant Turkmen populations." (Azerbaijanis are a Western Asian population). ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  21:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you've made the best case you can make with the sources you've cited so far. Having read all your points, I still find the proposed language (with some tweaks) to be appropriate. Other outlets are available to you if you continue to disagree, including looking for more sources or posting at WP:RSN. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with going to WP:RSN, but since this discussion is not about the reliability of the cited sources, rather due weight and exceptional claims, i don't see how this would help us here. Also, i think that Bogazicili's wording is more appropriate than your above proposal. Please let me know if you think that i've missed some key point. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  23:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know that you've missed anything. I think your passionate advocacy for accuracy when discussing Azerbaijan-related topics is an asset, but perhaps one that is leading you to view this article through a lens that few other readers will share. I am genuinely happy to hear you supporting Bogazicili's wording. Bogazicili, unless I've changed your mind on the Turkey-first point, I think you're set to make your edit. Compared to your initial edit, this proposal drops mention of Azerbaijan and is about 20% shorter. Hopefully we can all move on to other things at least partially content with the outcome. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I actually changed the last sentence based on your comment and adjusted the wording a bit. Let me know what you think. Also thanks for bringing an outside perspective to this discussion!, for the outdated research you quoted, I responded here . Turkish people are a Western Asian population and the source talks about Western Asia as a whole (similar to other sources ). Our wording should be in line with what the sources say per WP:No Original Research. Bogazicili (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the Azerbaijanis, not the Turkish population. I'm happy with the Azeris being left out, as i said from the beginning. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  08:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , but are you against Azeris being mentioned in this article at all? Some sources do talk of Turks and Azeris together and I will add them. Eg: "Other samples from Caucasus (light blue in Fig. 3) fell into a macrogroup that includes eight different clusters (Lezgins, Azeris, Turks, Georgians, Balkars_Adygei, Balkars, Adygei1, Adygei2)." . I'm just mentioning this now while is hopefully still around lol, so we don't have any extended disputes in the future. Bogazicili (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Being in a macro group does not mean that they are closely related, that's WP:OR and i provided several sources that contradict Azeris being closely related to the Turkish people or Central Asians. I suggest everybody moves forward. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  08:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If they cluster together, it means they are close. But yeah my wording will be in line with sources. I'll need to review sources and articles more fully first before I add them to the page. I just wanted to check if you are against Azeris being mentioned in this article at all and it seems you are. Bogazicili (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A marcro group is not a cluster. Besides, since we have sources that contradict this so called "cluster" containing the Azerbaijanis and Central Asians, we have to fairly represent both views.  ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  16:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They found macro groups based on similarity. In any case, Supplementary Table S2 is quite clear . Azerbaijanis and Turkish people have the lowest Fixation index distances with each other (0.001). I noticed that you seem completely unaware of more recent research in this field (in the past 10 years or so). Maybe that's why we ran into problems in this talk page where you had repeated unsubstantiated UNDUE claims multiple times. I agree that we should present information in a fair way going forward in both this article and in articles like Azerbaijanis. Bogazicili (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "I noticed that you seem completely unaware of more recent research in this field (in the past 10 years or so)." please desist from such a personalized comment as you know absolutely nothing about me.
 * The source you posted is focused on Corsica and its surrounding areas, not on the Middle-East. Indeed, the Azerbaijanis have the closest Fst with Turks rather than with Italian or French peoples, but this is irrelevant because in the Middle East, there are peoples that are way closer to the Azerbaijanis than the Turks, like, for example the Kurds, who are not in the table. I have no problem with your last edit which has been dubbed as ok by too. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  14:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm surprised you made such a false claim. does include populations in Caucasus and Near/Middle East. It's very clear in Figure 3. Bogazicili (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as i can see, it's quite difficult to find out which one of the blue populations are close to the Azeris. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

, we started discussing another topic above. But are you ok with the current wording in the article now after this edit? Bogazicili (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Bogazicili (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Why were these words removed?
In the original English text of this article, there was a thesis of a geneticist named Cavalli-sforza, who rejected the dominant culture assimilation theory for Anatolian Turks. cavalli-sforza said: "Asian haplogroups in Anatolian Turks show a significant amount of Asian migration. There are two major migration waves, and apart from that, there are uninterrupted small migrations of around 1% of the population every century. If all these waves of migration had occurred in a single time, rather than in intervals, today's Anatolia The outward appearance of his society would be no different from that of the Central Asians." For some reason, these expressions were also removed from the original article in English. Burtigin (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Whole genome sequencing
Do we have regions of 16 Turkish samples? I found a statement of reference, "We sampled the genomes from diverse geographical regions in Turkey". Considering ethnic diversity of different regions of Turkey and the obscurity of the rate of representation, I am not exactly sure about suitability of the reference. BerkBerk68 11:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Another study to be included in the article
A 2017 study compared Kurds with their neighboring populations concluded that HLA genetic similarity have been reported between Turks (whose genes they said belong to old Anatolian stock) and Kurds despite the fact that Kurds and Turks speak languages that are included in different families, they noted that Kurds HLA genetic studies include them into Mediterranean stock together with Turks, they also concluded that “This again shows that languages and genes do not correlate because languages may be imposed by a genetic (but powerful) minority. This is the case of Turks: Anatolian people were settled down there since ancient prehistoric times, but a minority of people (Turks) coming from Central Asia imposed language in historical times” Tezak habra 2 (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Amr.elmowaled