Talk:History of the Turkish people

=Comments=

It is wrong
7th century BC is a wrong date for the first appereance of the Turkish tribes. At least 40 centuries of Turkish history is known today(actually ancestors of the first Turkish tribes possibly lived 10,000 years before). With respect, Deliogul 10:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The author says that the Turks first appeared in HISTORY (that is, in written sources) in the 7th century BC. It does not say this is the first moment the Turks appeared, but the first moment they appeared in history.DaMatriX 23:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, it is 2nd century BC that Turkish people appear as a part of Hun coalition under Teoman. But Turkic people has an older history. Ati7 10:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This article has factual frauds and is not supported by mainstream literature. The history of the Turkish people starts with the migration of the Seljuqs into Anatolia and, ultimately, with the rise of the Anatolian Turkmen Beyliqs who are the real origin of the modern Turkish people. This article does not differenciate between the Turkic peoples and the Turkish people. Modern Turks are mostly descendants of early Anatolians and converted Europeans who at some point in history adopted the language of the Turkish rulers. That's why their physical appearance is identical to neighbouring peoples, such as Persians or Greeks, who are not of East Asian or Mongoloid origin. The early Turks had Mongoloid features and were culturally and linguistically related to the later Mongols. The Turkic peoples of Central Asia who had lesser interactions with Non-Turks (for example the Yakut people or the Altay people) still reflect the ethnic Turkish origin. Like so many other Iranian, Greek, Arab, and Turkish articles in Wikipedia, this article, too, has a strong nationalist bias. It does not mention the real history of a people, but the history these people claim for themselvs. The truth is that all people in the Middle East - whether Persian, Kurd, Afghan, Turk, or Greek - share more or less a common origin which was neither Turkish, nor Persian, nor Greek. In the course of history, these people were conquered by small numbers of mostly nomadic invaders: first Semetic tribes, later Indo-Europeans, and then Turks. The number of these invaders was too small to change the genetical pool, but they were - in various degrees - able to force their language and/or identity on these people. It's called "elite dominance" in literature, and this process of "elite dominance" is the origin of Indo-European languages and Turkic languages in the Middle East. The concept of "Turkishness" was propagated in the early 19th century and was aimed to create some kind of "Turkish ethnic identity", something that had not existed in Anatolia before. Ottoman Anatolia was a mosaic of ethnic minorities of whom the large majority was non-Turkish. "Turk" was a mark of pride claimed by the Ottoman rulers who saw themselvs as descendants and successors of early Turkic ghazis. The word ''"Turk"' was established as a self-designation of the population of Anatolia much later. Thus, it is wrong to equate these people with the historical, nomadic tribes of Central Asia known as "Turks". This same mistake was corrected in Afghanistan-related articles, where nationalist Afghans claimed that "Afghanistan has 5000 years of history"'' and that all kinds of Islamic heroes and personalities were "Afghans": The truth is, that prior to the 20th century, only a few people in Afghanistan identified themselvs as "Afghans". Like in Turkey, the name was propagated by the Pashtun-dominated government and was aimed to eliminate the ethnic identity of other tribes ("Afghan" is actually another word for "Pashtun"). Turkish and Afghan politics of the early 20th century had the same source, and elite politicians from both countries - most notably Mahmud Tarzi - followed the same policies. Those who refused to submitt to the new nationalist policies of one single tribe were hunted down and were brandmarked as "traitors" and "enemies": in Turkey, it was the Armenians and Kurds. In Afghanistan, it was the Hazara and the Shia population in general. 82.83.158.97 12:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, since you think the word "Turk" is a mere political ethnic term, to collectivise the 'mosaic' of different cultures in Anatiolia. I've heard this nonsense many times before, by people who were simply jealous of a Turkish people permanently taking over foreign territory. It is widely accepted and proven that the Turkish migration from central asia was most significant of all migrations, with over a million Turkmens coming into Anatolia, and many more, such as Tatars, Pechenegs, etc over the course of centuries. The word "Turk" was STILL used in Anatolia during the Seljuk and Ottoman times, but at a less extent to not to create ethnic tensions and separatism. It was a theory of "ummetcilik, or Osmanlicilik", where racial/ethnic terms were not used to judge a person, only religious terms such as muslim/non-muslim. This however did not mean that the Turkish migration was minor, as Turks all over Asia and Europe mmigrated into Anatolia hearing of the succesful Seljuk migration, and the Ottoman empire's glory. Once Anatolia was full of beyliks and Turkmen tribes, they were settled into the Balkan areas, genetically Turkifying the Anatolian population. For an empire to use its palace language (Ottoman Government language to be TURKISH, not Persian), there must have been significant Turkish migration into the area... 58.164.101.210 (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the last post by 58.164.101.210 is loaded with nonsense, in my opinion. I think 82.83.158.97 has made some good points.DaMatriX (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DaMatrix and 82.83.158.97. There was significant migration into Anatolia by Turkic peoples but the evidence strongly favors the view that the overwhelming majority of the population did not originate this way. The genetic evidence does not show very large influence from Central Asia or East Asia populations. The genetic markers are very similar to those of neighboring populations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.115.144 (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 82.83.158.97, you are partially wrong. The Turkic people who were ancestor of Turkish people are probably like Turkmens and not like, for example, Mongols. Kavas (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Tonyukuk
Tonyukuk was not a khan. He was a yabgu of Bilge. (I didn't change it) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute of the name Turkish
Are there political intentions to have a dispute about the word TURKISH but no dispute about whats written about the Armenian Genocide ??? 88.246.134.75 (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirect the page
I suggest we should redirect History of the Turkish people to History of Turkey, actually they have the same meaning. Only materials that cannot be moved from this page to History of Turkey are this long DNA section and origin of Turkish people section. But, most of this material can be moved to Turkish people article. Kavas (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved some of the material to History of Turkey, but I realized that most of the article did not use sources. I also moved that DNA stuff to Genetic origins of the Turkish_people page. Kavas (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I copy edited the page; but the page is still bad written. Now, as "origin of Turkic people" is moved to Turkish people page; there is nothing that can be kept at this page. I redirect it to History of Turkey; if you object to this, you can use the history of the page to restore the content. Kavas (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How could this even happen? Turkish people have not only settled around Turkey in history. They have migrated. So the history of the Turkish people should not only be covered by history of Turkey. It has a wider meaning, don't you think so? --Stultiwikiatext me 22:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)