Talk:Turkification

Armenian Genocide
This has as much to do with Turkification as the Holocaust has to do with Germanisation. They are completely different concepts. A more accurate form of Turkification that was endorsed by the Ottoman Empire was the Janissary system. This has been argued ad nauseum without consensus, and frankly, it's completely original research; or, argued through speculation based on specific individuals, which constitutes an inductive fallacy. The article gives one the impression that all Turkified individuals were forced, which isn't necessarily true, either. "Genetic testing" does not prove the nature of that change. Turkification means cultural assimilation, it does not mean executions, nor does it imply force. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The section was removed but restored with edit summary: agree, it's a POV edit. But try to change it instead of deleting it. And maybe add something more to the article: Turkification was not simply ethnicide--it was voluntary assimilation. We all agree, I presume, that this was not a cultural change in which Armenians became Turks. In other words, this was not an instance of Turkification. As such it does not belong in this article. How then are we supposed to "try to change it" so that it belongs in this article? Replace "genocide" by "language courses"? By the way, there are already 670 other Wikipedia articles that refer to the Armenian Genocide; I don't think we urgently need one more. --Lambiam 22:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, now I see the reasoning, I concur--it doesn't belong. But why isn't there something here about the many refugees ethnically cleansed from the Caucasus, Greece, Bulgaria, etc. who voluntarily assimilated into a Turkish identity? Why are you guys letting the Turk-haters take over this article like they've taken over so many others? It's not enough to just delete bad stuff--you have to write good stuff. Where is the discussion of Ataturk's Turkishness policy, of the population exchanges? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As you can see above, I have proposed a segmentation into historic periods that would give such discussions a natural place. However, no agreement was reached; other editors prefer to group according to ethnicity – which makes it impossible to turn this article into something encyclopedic. --Lambiam 20:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

genetical contribtion is important

 * Not to forget that the GENETIC CONTRIBUTION is the most important act to do to ensure a peaceful religious/cultural conversion. It is obvious it has occured, and therefore must be mentioned.

The last and most significant "INVASION" was of Turkish, as millions of nomads rushed into the area —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.101.210 (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt that there were "millions" of Turks rush into Anatolia. the actual number is probably some ten thousands. Nomad people have less population as herding the animal requires large area of land and productivity level remains low. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.216.240.165 (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I added the population estimates for nomads 1 year ago. No need to thank me. Buhedyar (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Sciencereview, Unencyclopedic, Neologism
I have added the tags, Sciencereview, Unencyclopedic, Neologism to this article. There has been a long discussion about this article. A number of editors gave up on this article for the reasons that these tags stand for. Not having these tags gives the impression that this article is undisputed which is not the case. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the neologism tag, since that clearly doesn't apply (see my edit comment). For the other two tags, please be specific, regarding the sections that contain syntheses of primary sources, and regarding exactly in what ways the article is unencyclopedic (WP:NOT provides a rather lengthy list, and it's hard to know which points you think apply to the article). Thanks! --Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I can' find this term in the Dictionaries. For me it is defined for the first time in Wikipedia. That's why I think it is a neologism. As for its not being encyclopaedic, the author of this article thinks that the term "Turkification" is definite enough that it deserves its own Wikipedia article but the term "Turk" itself is not definite enough (or imprecise sic.)

Could the term be isolated from whether or not Turks brought Central Asian genes to Asia Minor? That is if the current occupants of Asia Minor were 100% Inuits would it change the meaning of the term "Turkification"?

The definition of the term is a totology; it is devoid of any cultural context: Something that was not X becomes X. Very much like liquefaction,compactification, emulsification etc.

It sounds to me as if it is derived by induction using the phonetic rules of the English language. (there is no term as "Germanification" because it literally does not sound right, and not because German's did not have a policy of cultural assimilation of minorities in German Culture. (I don't know whether they did or not but what I know is that phonetical rules do not generally reflect in political and cultural movements.) "Germanization" phonetically sounds better; but the fact that it sounds better does not mean that there was an actual political movement of "Germanization". (again I don't know if there was one.)

Can an inanimate object become "Turk"? I would think not. (Because Turk means a turkish person.) "Turkification of Anatolia" is probably the most common way this term is used. Then "Turkification of Anatolia" is not properly explained by the definition in this article since Anatolia is an inanimate object.

Number of books and articles written in the last fifteen years use the term "Turkification" without giving any proper definition of what the intended meaning is. Listing these books and articles as references really does not help define the term unless a frame of reference is established beforehand. I would think that this is exactly what this article is doing: setting a frame of reference so that the term "Turkification" in those articles will be interpreted in this frame of reference. Whereas the "Framers" of Wikipedia thought that it should work the otherway around. Interpretation should be done in the "Secondary sources" and Wikipedia should be the "Tertiary source" that is "an Encyclopeadia." That is why I think this article is not Encyclopeadic AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

New York Times 1918 article containing the term
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9504E3DA103BEE3ABC4152DFB3668383609EDE

That should give an end to some of the arguments here.

94.66.45.195 (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)NotSoAverageIonianJoe

Merge from Turkiate society
I don't know that there's much from there, but I think the two topics are very similar and that a merger would be a good idea, mostly because the other page doesn't have sources and compiling the two would be well worthwhile for someone researching the topic.

Turkification or genetic studies!
This article should discuss its actual title which is the process of cultural assimilation of non-Turkish ethnoreligious groups in modern Turkey. Not discus the "Genetic testing of language replacement hypothesis in Anatolia, Caucasus and Balkans". Someone should clean this article and start from scratch.--  R a f y  talk 22:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am deleting large chunks of this article (if no objections)
This article was written under the POV of Turkish nationalists and needs an entire make over. Most of this article can be directly merged and added to the Turkish people page. Turkification by definition is "a term used to describe a process of cultural change in which something or someone who is not a Turk becomes one, voluntarily or involuntarily." Grant it...the first sentence in the introduction of the article does state this, however, the process of cultural assimilation is no where to be found. If a consensus is reached, I am going to delete the "Appearance of Turks in Anatolia" and "Genetic testing of language replacement hypothesis in Anatolia, Caucasus and Balkans". Please vote either oppose or support. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am oposing for now, because I do not understand your agenda. Jingiby (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This article should be about a governmental policy of forceful assimilation and Turkification by the Ottoman and Turkish government. This article has no mention of direct governmental policies that did this. My intent is therefore to delete the Genetic testing of language replacement hypothesis in Anatolia, Caucasus and Balkans section since that has nothing to do with forceful assimilation. Above all, that section should already merged with an article dedicated to that subject (see: Genetic origins of the Turkish people). Remember, Turkification led to such events as the Armenian Genocide, Greek Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, 1934 Turkish Resettlement Law, Citizen speak Turkish! campaigns and other policies of forceful assimilation. The article treats only the involuntarily "enmeshment" of different peoples into the Turkish culture and nation and is undue weight.


 * The entire Turkification in Central Asia section needs to be either removed or added sources because it hasn't been sourced since November of 2010.


 * I take back deleting Appearance of Turks in Anatolia section. But it definitely needs a huge makeover.


 * The focus of this article should be about Turkish nationalism and the forceful implementation of assimilatory policies to create a Turkish supra-culture on a sub-culture. The article has no mention of nationalism. It has no mention of the results of this practice in the end of the Ottoman empire and the Turkish republic which cost the lives of millions of non-Turks. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Why should that be the focus? The focus should be Turkification, both voluntary and forceful. Do not delete anything sourced. Cavann (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My main concern is the Genetic section. It has its own article and has little to do with Turkification policies of the Turkish and Ottoman government. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a way to test the extent of Turkification of Anatolian populations, hence relevant. Cavann (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The article shouldn't be about testing the genetic code of Turks. The article is about a certain governmental policy. There is absolutely nothing about forceful assimilation conducted by the Turkish government. But now that I think of it...I will add more to the Turkish Republican government section. It has just two sentences. It's a joke. And well take it from there. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is about Turkification. If Anatolian genetics are the primary component, this shows that they were Turkified. It's as simple as that. You are being tedious, so I am not interested in getting into endless discussions with you.
 * You should start an Ottoman Empire section, and add the information you want to add there.Cavann (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Give me one second. I am adding information....and please...no name calling. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you really want to improve this article, I suggest you observe other articles in Cultural assimilation, such as Germanisation.Cavann (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I am taking it under consideration. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

a) The "Genetic testing..." can be shortened and the reader can be directed to the relevant article with a link. However, this section cannot be completely deleted, as it is very very relevant. Actually, most of the genetic bibliography includes some reference to the cultural/lingual shift to "turkishness". Other relevant articles are the Cryptochristians and Devsirme. (b) Turcification happened mostly before the emergence of turkish nationalism (late 19th c.). In ottoman period meaned shift of religion (Christian or Jew to Muslim) and shift of language (to Turkish). (c) There was no real "voluntary" turkification, as the turkified persons had to chose between poverty or even extinction and survival. (d) I could include a short paragraph to christian martyrs who died in this way: They were forced to become Turks and they refuse or, they had been turkified and decided to re-convert to their original religion, and eventually were executed.--Euzen (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me Euzen. My initial reaction to this article was that there was too much undue WP:Weight and that the article was missing entire sections about forceful Turkification. If the article can take a more balanced approach and thus bring together all other information regarding forceful Turkification as well, then I think it is okay. The article looks a lot better with the additions I added and the creation and expansion of the Republican and Ottoman section. But yes, I still agree that a lot of this information needs to be trimmed. The article also has very little sources. Some sections do not even have one source. The Turkification under Turkish Republic section has more sources than the rest of the article. I hope this can be improved. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Macedonian Slavs
Macedonian nationalism arose in the second half of the 19th. century, but until 1912 it was propagated only by a limited group of intellectuals. There is no data some of them to was turkified. Jingiby (talk)

No discussion of Central Asian Turkification?
I expected to read something about the expansion of Turks throughout Central Asia starting in the early centuries AD. Does this page specifically pertain to Ottoman Turkification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.195.227 (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Genetic testing of language replacement hypothesis in Anatolia, Caucasus and Balkans
This section is rather lengthy and includes interesting material that is sourced. However, none of the sources appear to be Turkification and its not clear why it's been added to this article. Turkish people has a section about this, but I see there is also a main article Genetic studies on Turkish people and would propose merging this section into that article. Seraphim System ( talk ) 02:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course the language replacement hypothesis is relevant and if I remember correctly some -- i.e. Cinnioglu etc -- did explicitly make the connection of that with resolving the debate of the means by which Medieval (not modern) Turkification occurred -- i.e. by adoption of elite culture and assimilation by the indigenous (fitting the definition of Turkification), rather than outright population replacement. --Calthinus (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. The language replacement hypothesis is disregarded these days. There was replacement, and there was ethnic mixing. Cinnioğlu's study is irrelevant as he only counts East Eurasian haplogroups as "Central Asian" and completely ignores haplogroups such as J2, R1b, R1a, K which are found in great amounts in Central Asia. Besides his source is outdated. I have a more recent study (Heraclides et al 2017) that talks about Turks' haplogroups. And in that study the Turks are described as a hybrid population of Anatolians, Turkics and ex-Ottomans (Balkans etc). Also an autosomal dna study in 2014 (Can Alkan et al 2014) explicitly mentions that there's a significant East Asian element in Turks. Plus, the study mentions that calculating the contribution of Central Asians is very difficult for we have no samples from Medieval Anatolia (Seljuk era). People should stop posting outdated studies to prove their point. The page itself is useless I admit, because we know little about the Seljuk Turks' genetic make up. Hence we can't talk about Central Asian genetic contribution. And relying on outdated studies is also wrong. For they're outdated and those studies are debunked by recent studies (like Wells' study, which was debunked by Can Alkan et al 2014, Heraclides et al 2017 and even Berkman et al 2006 which explicitly mentions that there was no elite assimilation in Anatolia and language was not enforced. I'm waiting for a recent autosomal study which clearly talks about genetics of Seljuk era Turkmens, Byzantine era Anatolians and modern Turks to delete those outdated studies or lump them together in a sentence which starts with "outdated studies". Buhedyar (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * ". [discussing Turkish and Azeri genotypes] ...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."
 * Above is quoted from Wells, a source used multiple times in the section. This seems pretty clearly related to the article topic and it does not seem like the text was OR or SYN as this is clearly supporting it.--Calthinus (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is enough discussing it based on what is in secondary sources, which do discuss the linguistic shifts in detail that we do not need primary studies to expand these sections. Connecting this to genetics does not seem to be supported by secondary sources and the primary sources I think would be SYNTH for this article. I haven't seen secondary sources that discuss genetics as a factor of Turkification or why this would be relevant (that the population is genetically not Turkic) - the section strongly implies a connection between the two that is unsupported by secondary sources. Does this make sense? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 03:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding that large sections of the article are currently in list form and once they are expanded to prose I think we will have adequately covered the view of secondary sources without any need to mix in primary genetic studies - I don't see any need to "disprove" this beyond what can be found in secondary analysis. Having glanced through the secondary sources the section also seems odd for singling out Anatolia, as I've found a couple of secondary sources that deal with China. Moving forward, I'm concerned that the content is overly technical about language replacement and already has separate articles that are more suitable. There are periodization issues as well, since this article has a lot of ground to cover and more specialized content is better suited for more specialized articles. It's not clear from the way it is written how it fits into this article - Ottoman Turkish is substantially different and I think we have to be careful here to reflect what secondary sources say about this instead of making assumptions based on things that may seem obvious or trivial. The post-Republic Turkification can also be seen as purging Arab and Persian elements from the language. On the whole, I don't think including technical information about genetic studies here improves the clarity of the article. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 03:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree somewhat, a connection clearly is made by sources between genetics and Turkification (which they refer to as "culture replacement" or some variant of that). That connection is that genetics is used as a way to prove or disprove hypotheses about it. Not only have there been plenty of papers on this -- all of which conclude that the majority of Turkish people have genotypes that more likely arose from an indigenous population that adopted the culture of conquerors, although they vary in how much they consider the conquerors to have contributed, varying from near zero to 15% (unless I missed one). There are even papers taking this as a given and trying to unearth what the nature of this substrate is -- for example one paper (which I would not recommend adding, that is actually UNDUE) makes the argument based on its interpretation of the evidence that this substrate population was more predominantly Armenian than Greek (or Hellenized indigenous Anatolian, for that matter). Yes this article has many problems but I don't think genetics OR is one of them (and believe that's a big problem elsewhere on wiki), actually the Anatolian Turkish language replacement is kind of now seen as a classic case of culture replacement to be referenced when discussing other cases. About the primary nature of genetic studies, the evidence is primary in my view, but not the interpretations of the academic writers which often do incorporate historical and linguistic knowledge and even (more rarely) historians and linguists. And obviously it deals with only medieval Turkification so discussion of modern affairs isn't really relevant. --Calthinus (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you noticed the line as well as the extinction of the local Anatolian languages - ok, but a significant part of this was a consequence of Hellenization. From reading this, I would assume it was a consequence of Turkification. There is WP:OR in the section, where the studies are loosely connected to issues about genetic makeup and linguistics. So the analysis of the primary sources is not based on secondary sources, and that is why it is WP:OR. If genetic studies are in fact used to prove or disprove hypotheses about Turkification as you suggest, then we should include only that secondary analysis, and not our own to avoid introducing (subtle) errors and misleading content to the article. Seraphim System ( talk ) 04:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The basic statement that there is no evidence of a link between language and genetic makeup in this part of the world is not so extraordinary, and most of the sources for this article are going to be history sources that explain how it happened, rather then arguing about whether it happened - I think this could be summarized far more clearly in one or two lines that links to language shift. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The other problem I am having is that every source that I have found that discusses Turkification in Anatolia discusses it in the context of "Turkification of the Ottoman Language" - none seem to discuss Turkification as a medieval concept. Even Manzikert is discussed in the context of modern histiography as a national myth (see ) - again, introducing primary source technical studies seems like a pretty roundabout way of making a point that is thoroughly discussed in secondary sources. Those secondary sources should be discussed, but we shouldn't introduce genetic studies to prove or disprove them unless they are discussed in the sources (Souces do not seem to support inclusion  discussing Turkification as primarily defined by language and not by biological factors).  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize the part about Anatolian languages-- yes obviously that should be removed. But I disagree with your argument that it is too "technical". Most people reading this page will already be familiar with a lot of that sort of languages-- and if not, they should know it if they are interested in topics of population dynamics, ethnogenesis, cultural shift phenomena, etc. Which is what most readers who aren't here for nationalistic reasons are here for (i.e. the ones that actually deserve to be catered to, no offense). --Calthinus (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing my point. I am not suggesting that we prove or disprove Turkey's nationalist narrative (either way). I am proposing that the article should discuss it in the way that it is discussed by the majority of WP:RS. I would like responses based on the sources I have posted before I start investing significant time into improving article. Can you show me what secondary sources you are basing this on? I think I understand what you want in the article that is supported by sources, but proving that Turkish people are not genetically Turkic is not discussed in any of the many and numerous sources I have consulted (it is not even disputed) - the only source that discusses genetics says that it was not a factor for Turkification (and states clearly that genetics-based nationalist arguments gained prominence only with the rise of Nazism) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 07:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can not find one single secondary source that discusses Cinnioglu and Turkification. The majority of sources do not discuss it at all - in fact, Turkification seems to be in use for two separate things 1) Genetic studies about the origins of Turkic peoples in China 2)The Turkifiction of Ottoman Turkey - the fact that Ottoman and "Turkish" are regarded as two distinct languages requires pretty big logical leap when trying to connect the genetic influence of medieval migrations on a modern population to Turkification (as it is discussed in secondary sources)(See this source about genetics and linguistics ). If Turkey was Turkified in 1071, why did it have to be "ReTurkified" after the Empire fell? The article as it is written does not even make sense, as far as I can tell it is a very bad type of POV WP:OR. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 07:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * For example Anatolians do not significantly differ from other Mediterranean populations, indicating that while the Asian Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance (language and religion), the genetic significance is lesser detectable - this is true, but there is no source that says "genetics" was part of Turkification. I don't even think I can argue that it is WP:FRINGE because I have not been able to find even one source for it.
 * And more sources, this one about Uzbek identity and Turkification in Iran, again based on an inclusive linguistic and cultural identity, not genetics. Similar to what Soner Cagaptay is saying about Turkification in Anatolia Seraphim System  ( talk ) 07:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point as well. The things you are bringing up further my argument: the consensus view is that Turkification was indeed, as you say, achieved through linguistic and cultural factors and not genetic factors, that is exactly what the tests' interpretations by the paper writers are saying. As for If Turkey was Turkified in 1071, why did it have to be "ReTurkified", well you're using different definitions of Turkification and confusing things, the first being the transition to a Turkish national identity and the second being the removal of some vestigial non-Turkish elements from the national culture, which are very different phenomena and unfortunately have the same name. But I can tell both of us can see past the semiological confusion in that sentence, so why use that as an argument? Last I remember Cinnioglu states pretty much that the majority of the genome appears native so there was a case of linguistic and cultural replacement (read Turkification). However I have lost access to his paper. I do have access to Wells. As I quoted above, Wells says the same thing. So no, this is not OR. I've noticed a lot of Turks get defensive about this on wiki, and make it sound as if they're being singled out. That isn't true. Wikipedia also has discussed related hypotheses (with varying degrees of support) of linguistic and cultural replacement with regards to certain Slavic speaking peoples, English people (which if this were a "bad thing" would be shocking given the known Anglocentric bias of English Wikipedia), Azerbaijanis, Romanians, and various others. --Calthinus (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I very much think you need to bring some sources into the discussion, because there is no source that actually supports that Manzikert in fact transitioned to a "Turkish national identity" - I have posted several sources that you should at least look at before commenting futher. I am looking for sources to help understand your position, and I can't find any. I don't really have any option beyond following WP:RS when expanding the article. Are there any sources you want me to look at? Because I can't improve the article based on unsourced comments on Talk. As I have said none of the sources I have seen discuss any kind of medieval Turkification. I also believe that you should generally not write three paragraphs on something that can be stated more clearly in one sentence. The way it is currently written is more likely to introduce WP:OR, like tangled spaghetti no one should have to unwind. For example, this source states it clearly and I think we can use it because it a study that confirms a previous study  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We're not discussing "Turkish national identity" and never were. Or rather, you were and I am not. As for sources I'm busy at the moment but in addition to Wells cited earlier I will bring more quotes and sources later. --Calthinus (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What you said is you're using different definitions of Turkification and confusing things, the first being the transition to a Turkish national identity and the second being the removal of some vestigial non-Turkish elements from the national culture - I posted eight sources last night. I have not been able to find any sources that support this definition of Turkification, and I posted several sources to show why this a problem. I am busy also, but I still took the time to do this. I have not been able to find any secondary sources that support your confused arguments, and I find your arguments are confusing me because they seem to contradict what is in the majority of WP:RS. I don't know if you mean different elements of the post-Empire Turkification, or if you are trying to make an argument that Turkification occurred under the Ottomans - it would really be better if you post secondary sources to support your comments, because talk comments obviously don't follow the same standards for academic rigor and precision that academic publications do. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay this is easier than I thought it would be. Here is Yardumian, who does make a more explicit connection to modern ethnic identities www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2753/AAE1061-1959500101

"In spite of its overwhelming diversity, most citizens of the Republic of Turkey are firstlanguage Turkish-speakers and consider themselves ethnic Turks. This was not the case during the early Middle Ages and the time of the Byzantine Empire. Although we are able to identify four successive Turkic empires, Islamicization, and post-World War I nationalization as the essential steps toward ethnic homogenization, from historical texts alone we cannot determine to what extent mass migration from Central Asia and Siberia is responsible for Turkish dominance in Anatolia today. To assess the extent of gene flow from lands east of the Caspian, we examined the patterns of genetic variation in Turkic-speaking populations from Anatolia to Siberia. 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 is clearly identifying the means by which Turkification occurred and it is not Wikipedia making the connection, it is Wells and Yardumian, and to a lesser extent Berkman et al who says similar stuff (13% contribution --> elite dominance, but he's less explicit []). We are not talking about modern day nationalism. We're talking about the relevance of a body of scientific literature that has lent evidence to debates about the means by which Turkification (termed: "linguistic and cultural replacement" as per definition) has occurred. This clearly fits the definition of Turkification given in the lede of this very page: Turkification, or Turkicisation (Turkish: Türkleştirme), is a cultural shift whereby populations or states adopted a historical Turkic culture. And we're also not trying to falsify Turkish identity or anything like that, because as you yourself have said, like almost all ethnic identities which have existed long before the advent of genetic testing, it has nothing to do with genes. But genes do lend insight on, as I keep reiterating, the debate about the means by which Turkification occurred. --Calthinus (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, that is the kind of source I wanted. I think the section itself is poorly written because it doesn't make the connection to the topic clear. I can pick it apart and highlight several examples if you want ("These findings are consistent with, etc.), but I think it should be rewritten based on this secondary source analysis of the scientific literature. Also, we should take the majority of sources into account and not give it WP:UNDUE weight, but I am satisfied the topic is not WP:OR for inclusion - my concern is with the section as it is written. Specifically the statement irregular punctuated migration events that engendered large-scale shifts in language and culture among Anatolia's diverse autochthonous inhabitants is covered by the majority of sources. We can give some background on this based on the source, but not too much. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 22:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If you want to propose a rewrite feel free to post it here, or on a link to your sandbox. I would help write it, in a magical world where I had infinite time, but I can tell you what I think of it. --Calthinus (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Challenged SYNTH - discussion
From WP:SYNTH - Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If an editor asks me to show multiple sources for something, I do it. This is not something that should be edit warred about. Please post multiple sources here so we can have a discussion instead of edit warring. Seraphim System ( talk ) 01:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * What are you even saying? It’s from the same chapter and talks about the same thing (i.e. Turkification), how’s that SYNTH? It’s not SYNTH if the topic is the same. In fact, it’s on the same page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "Thus began the efforts to Turkify the Armenian orphans. The boys were circumcised and were given Arabic and Turkish names...."--page 51.
 * "He then gathered the Armenian children and starting working with them to remember their Armenian names and explained to them that the Turkification process they had been going through was no longer in force."--pag 53.
 * Odd how you can make demands, yet other article(s) do not even need a page number included in a reference, much less a quote! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you posting quotes for content that wasn't removed from the article? What was removed was Despite his efforts at Antoura, it is believed by various scholars, that at least two million Turks have at least one Armenian grandparent. — this is not even within the ballpark of an accurate summary of what the source actually says. The source says "the process of Turkification was a clear attempt at ethnic cleansing...There is another element to consider in the discussion of Armenian orphans" — yes, the source is deliberately avoiding using this type of pushy language because of the sensitivity of the topic. Something like this (an accusation that the families were part of the ethnic cleansing for raising their children as Turkish) would not require only two sources, it would require maybe 7 or 8. Unless you have those sources, please do not restore it, there are reasons why a high quality source like this chooses its words deliberately and carefully. Seraphim System ( talk ) 03:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you know the author deliberately avoided using that term? Does he mention that in the source? Did he tell you that in a private correspondence or something? Or, worse yet, are you just making some POV claim? Because from what it looks like the: "There is another element to consider in the discussion of Armenian orphans..." bit is not changing the subject whatsoever, rather it is adding on to what the author already said. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is just unbelievable. The source clearly states Some believe that today at least two million Turks have at least one grandparent who is Armenian. Also can you please point to the wikipedia policy that requires "7-8 sources"? I don't see a WP:SEVENEIGHTSOURCES anywhere. Khirurg (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The source, edited by an international law scholar, is discussing Turkification as a matter of ethnic cleansing, which was not mentioned in this article. It is a complete distortion of the discussion in the source. This would mean that the families bear responsibility for the ethnic cleansing of the Turkification policy — the language, "despite that" (the Priest's efforts to stop it) implies that the policy was successful because the children were raised as Turkish. This is a WP:REDFLAG claim. The strong implication would be that the parents and families were complicit in what the source is arguing is ethnic cleansing. The source does not say that — do you really not understand how sensitive this topic is? "Another element to consider" does not necessarily mean the author intended to include this as part of the discussion on ethnic cleansing — if you are writing something like that, you better be sure it is supported by multiple sources. If I were you I would discuss content, not editors, and just find multiple sources to justify inclusion instead of continuing to edit war something completely unacceptable into the article (tag team edit warring is still edit warring). If we can't reach a consensus here, the next stop is dispute resolution. This should not be in the article until multiple sources are added. Seraphim System ( talk ) 04:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes absolutely no sense. And I am discussing content. And I also asked you a question. Can you point me to WP:MULTIPLESOURCES? Because I can't find it. On the other hand, I have found WP:TEND, WP:IDHT and WP:DIS. Khirurg (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, since it’s an encyclopedia, many sensitive topics are dealt with on Wikipedia, but this is not a reason to create your own rules like “it would require maybe 7 or 8 sources”. I think you should provide a link to this “rule” if you expect that other users accept it.—>Farawahar (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Instead of wikilawyering about whether you have to post multiple WP:RS — not an unusual request per WP:UNDUE WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG, why can't you just post the sources? Sources are necessary to have a consensus discussion. 6 or 7 sources is not unusual for WP:REDFLAG content or even just plain old contentious content that is likely to be challenged on sensitive articles. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 09:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To sum up, the book is an excellent source, but what editors were attempting to edit war into the article went even further beyond what the book said — I don't think a legitimate, high quality source would write about something like this with this kind of POV tone. He began the process of reversing the Turkification process by having the Armenian orphans recall their original names. Despite his efforts at Antoura, it is believed by various scholars, that at least two million Turks have at least one Armenian grandparent. — Armenians in Istanbul today speak Armenian, they have religious instruction at school. The source says there was a historical policy of ethnic cleansing, another possible interpretation is that it was unsuccessful because so many Armenians still live in Turkey today. Time and again when the Armenian community speak for themselves that is what they say. Who are our editors to change this, and without a source? This is an extremely controversial thing to add to an article. Fortunately, Etienne has already struck the "Despite this" part so with some more tweaking we should be able to reach a consensus. Seraphim System ( talk ) 10:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Persian Minority in Anatolia
To my knowledge, Persians never lived in Anatolia, and they barely inhabit the western part of their country (which was the case for centuries, western Iran was inhabitated by different Iranic groups, now it's inhabitated by Azeris and Kurds). And I fail to find any evidence of Persians forming a visible minority in Anatolia. No Persian towns, no Persian cities, no villages. So when I deleted the Persian claim part some dude undid what I deleted. In this section we try to find a source that Anatolia was inhabitated by Persians as well before the Turkish conquests. If I prove that Persians weren't a visible minority, i'll delete the Persian part. Buhedyar (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, who do you think Alexander fought at the Battle of the Granicus? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 20:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Achaemenids. Anatolia was predominantly inhabitated by Native Anatolias (Lydians), Greeks and Armenians. Persians merely conquered Anatolia and didn't settle in Anatolia. There was no recorded Persian migration to Anatolia. Buhedyar (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Anatolia, in antiquity, during the Achaemenid era, received a noted influx of Persian colonists. These people were the ruling class of the area during Achaemenid times, and remained important during the Hellenistic and Early Roman era that followed after, as founders and rulers of the Kingdom of Pontus and Kingdom of Cappadocia. A few quotes/pages from the cited source (which you tried to remove);


 * "For the Persians in Asia Minor, as perhaps everywhere, the fall of the Achaemenians meant crisis. Even in such areas such as Caria, far from the beaten (...)" -- Raditsa, Leo (1983). "Iranians in Asia Minor". In Yarshater, Ehsan. The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3 (1): The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian periods. Cambridge University Press. p. 105


 * "Here too, a descendant of the Iranian aristocracy had continued to play an official role. However in some cities in north-eastern Caria Iranian names scattered among the local population appear to indicate that the descendants of the Persian settlers had in the generations become integrated with the local population." -- Raditsa, Leo (1983). "Iranians in Asia Minor". In Yarshater, Ehsan. The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3 (1): The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian periods. Cambridge University Press. p. 106


 * "One of the most important consequences of this confusion was the emergence (about 305 B.C.) of two independent monarchies, one in Cappadocia and the other in Pontus, which claimed and were believed by their subjects to the descended from the Achaemenians. The mere existence of these monarchies testifies to the depth of the Iranization which had occured under the Achaemenians. Instead of adapting themselves to changed circumstances, like the Iranians in Caria and probably throughout western Asia Minor, the Iranian aristocracy east of the Halys river in Pontus and Cappadocia chose independence in defiance of the Macedonians." -- Raditsa, Leo (1983). "Iranians in Asia Minor". In Yarshater, Ehsan. The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3 (1): The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian periods. Cambridge University Press. p. 106


 * "In the time of the Achaemenians, two things of importance happened in Pontus: an Iranian aristocracy and the Persian gods entered the land (...)" -- Raditsa, Leo (1983). "Iranians in Asia Minor". In Yarshater, Ehsan. The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3 (1): The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian periods. Cambridge University Press. p. 111


 * "Until the fall of the Persian monarchy, the Iranian presence had probably been as intense in Asia Minor west of the Halys as it had been in Pontus and Cappadocia. With the victory of Alexander and the emergence of the Hellenistic kings, it begings slowly to fade in the west. Writing in the time of Augustus, Strabo only knew traces of Persians in western Asia Minor, but he considered Cappadocia almost a living part of Persia (XV. 3. 15)." -- Raditsa, Leo (1983). "Iranians in Asia Minor". In Yarshater, Ehsan. The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3 (1): The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian periods. Cambridge University Press. p. 107


 * There are literally dozens of peer-reviwed sources out there that stipulate the importance and presence of Persians/Iranians in Asia Minor/Anatolia in antiquity. You should deepen your knowledge, not just about Anatolia's history, but also about WP policies.
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

So there were only a small number of governors and elites coming to Anatolia? Might as well we should mention "Mongolian minority" when we talk about Iran's history. After all, Mongolians sent their leaders and commanders to Iran. Even soldiers. The only relevant page you posted is Carians having Iranic names, which can be linked to "Persian settlers". However that needs more explanation and solid evidence. I myself have an Iranic name and I'm not a Persian. Also there were no Persians before the Turks in Anatolia it seems. If we're talking about Achaemenids. The Turks came to Anatolia in late 1000s (AD) and Achaemenids were around in 500 BC. Which proves my point that Persians were not a visible minority in Anatolia. Buhedyar (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * " Also there were no Persians before the Turks in Anatolia it seems. If we're talking about Achaemenids. The Turks came to Anatolia in late 1000s (AD) and Achaemenids were around in 500 BC"
 * Uh ??? Dude, in case you missed a key point, 500 BC is 1500 years before 1000 AD, therefore, Persians were in Anatolia at least 1500 years before the Turks ...---Wikaviani (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we also mention Neanderthals? They also lived in Anatolia.

What i'm talking is a sizable Persian minority that lived in Anatolia before the Seljuk conquests. By before the Seljuks I mean the Byzantines. If you can't prove that there were Persians before the Seljuks in Anatolia i'll delete the Persian part. Buhedyar (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * First, you should learn to properly indent a thread. second, it was you who used this argument of the chronology of the arrivals in Anatolia, not me, therefore you should maybe answer to your own question "Why don't we also mention Neanderthals? They also lived in Anatolia"... Laughable
 * "If you can't prove that there were Persians before the Seljuks in Anatolia i'll delete the Persian part"
 * Obviously you have some WP:CIR issues dude. Check 's sources above.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "If you can't prove that there were Persians before the Seljuks in Anatolia i'll delete the Persian part."
 * I guess you missed these;


 * The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran: Rural Revolt and Local Zoroastrianism, Patricia Crone, page 304, "There was a large Iranian population in Anatolia dating back to the time of the Achaemenids, who controlled this region between 546 and the 330s BC."
 * Asia Minor in The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization, ed. Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, Esther Eidinow, page 94, "Much of the population of eastern Anatolia had strong Iranian connections, and Persian settlements were also widespread in the west after the mid-6th cent. BC."
 * Odd, that you missed these, since clearly you use google books. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

So all we have is some odd claims about a Persian minority in Eastern Anatolia in 600 BC. Backed up with no solid evidence (census, tax records etc)

Let's assume that this is true, then show me any evidence of Persian minority in Anatolia between 600 AD and 1066 AD.

There was no Persian minority in Anatolia in those years. "Persian buildings" are also not an argument as it was the conquerors who built these buildings. There are also Ottoman hamams in Hungary, yet no visible Turkish minority. Buhedyar (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "So all we have is some odd claims about a Persian minority in Eastern Anatolia in 600 BC. Backed up with no solid evidence (census, tax records etc)"
 * "Odd claims", made by Cambridge University and Oxford University. LOL. Classical refusal to hear anything to refutes your own opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of disruptive edits, Kansas Bear, I know of your edits that you made. Like this for example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hazir

"7.000" soldiers really? The original page said 70.000. And those "ancient estimates" have the same source as "modern estimates".

All I'm asking is a solid evidence. And even that is useless for we're talking about population of Anatolia between 600 AD and 1066 AD.Buhedyar (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "Speaking of disruptive edits..."
 * Your comparison of my restoring referenced information removed by an IP, to yours ignoring undeniable facts(Cambridge and Oxford University), is laughable at best. While you are in such a hurry to talk about me and not about the sources(you are ignoring), that IP never started a talk page discussion. AND, if you wish to continue this discussion of some edit(s) I have made, take your concerns to an Admin.
 * I have posted two university sources which support the information requested. Your continued refusal to accept said sources, is not my problem. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, and as for "disruptive editing", per Crawford, page 149, "Due to the mass evacuation of Syria ordered by Heraclius, it would be surprising if Menas had even a tenth of this recorded figure....."
 * So my "disruptive edit", was not disruptive at all, and makes your accusation a personal attack. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I'm still waiting for solid evidence. Something written in Achaemenid era Persian. Cambridge and Oxford are not "undeniable". Unless their claims are backed up with solid evidence (tax record, census, military records, anything).

Anyway, i'll be waiting until someone provides the source I mentioned. Until that day i won't talk about Persians. Don't worry I won't touch Persians either. That part will stay. Buhedyar (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "I'm still waiting for solid evidence. Something written in Achaemenid era Persian. Cambridge and Oxford are not "undeniable""
 * This edit on the other hand shows undeniably your dishonesty. You say that Cambridge and Oxford are not "undeniable" (which is quite under WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT), but when it comes to push your POV, you use a Cambridge University Press source (the number 17).
 * "Don't worry I won't touch Persians either. That part will stay"
 * Per WP:OWN nobody needs your permission for the inclusion of this content and you know very well what will happen if you engage in edit warring to remove it from the article. I would suggest you back to your homeworks and avoid disturbing this encyclopedia. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but unlike the Persian claim the evidence comes from Ottoman tax records. The Ottomans recorded everything and also calculated how many nomads there were in Anatolia. Unlike the Persian claim, the numbers are exact and the location of the Turkic nomads is known.

But the observations of Ibn Said can be discussed. However he's the only source we have about Seljuk era nomads and their numbers.

By the way, what "POV" are we talking about here? I never do anything without backing it up with evidence.Buhedyar (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's true they're not "undeniable" or infalliable, no source is, but they are strong sources. But what you are proposing is implausible. Most scholars seem to be in agreement about this. This is starting to devolve into a forum. Unless there is a case to make for significant minority view RS to discuss, I would support closing this section. Seraphim System ( talk ) 02:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

For I started the discussion, I suggest deleting this part of the page. Buhedyar (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Fossilized studies
If a source from 2002 is debunked by a source from 2014, then wouldn't that make the study false? Apparently the answer seems to be controversial, the basic logic can't be applied to genetics even though it is also science.

now let's look at outdated studies

A 2002 study concluded that Turks do not significantly differ from other Mediterranean populations, indicating that while the Asian Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance (language and religion), the genetic significance is lesser detectable.[120] A genetic research from 2001 has suggested the local Anatolian origins of the Turkic Asian peoples might have been slight.[121] In 2003, DNA results suggested there was no strong genetic relationship between the Mongols and the Turks people despite the historical relationship of their languages.[122]

Okay so these studies were conducted when we didn't know much about genetics. As a matter of fact, the study that Cinnioğlu conducted in 2004 is also full of flaws as in classifying haplogroup N as non Central Asian (though I don't believe such classifications, the "middle eastern" or "european" haplogroups can also be found in Central Asia. haplogroups predate modern ethnic groups. This is why you can find J2 in Xinjiang and in Italy even though there was no Uyghur migration to Italy or vice versa.) but a study that conducted in 2017 uses the same data as classifies it as East Eurasian (though I also noticed some flaws in that study as well). Also, lack of AUdna studies

Now let's look at modern studies

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

''Previous genetic studies have generally used Turks as representatives of ancient Anatolians. Our results show that Turks are genetically shifted towards Central Asians, a pattern consistent with a history of mixture with populations from this region '' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236450/

''The weight for the migration event predicted to originate from the branch ancestral to East Asia (presumably Central Asia) into current-day Turkey was 0.217 (21.7%) '' http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12607764/index.pdf

''Moreover, results pointed out that language (Turkish) in Anatolia might not have been replaced by the elites, but by a large group of people. Therefore, it can be concluded that the observations do not support the elite dominance model of Renfrew (1987 ; 1991). '' https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179474

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

though the metu one is a bit outdated, it is one of the few studies from 2000s that debunk the Turkification by elites myth. Anyway, pretty much any study that's made after 2012 debunks the myth of Turkification by Turkic wizards with superior language teaching skills.

Second study is also misunderstood by a lot of people, since it does not use the term "CENTRAL ASIAN" but "EAST ASIAN". In 2014, there was no reliable Seljuk/Ottoman era Turkmen samples. But in 2018 we got 2 samples. I tried to add them but for some mysterious reasons, they were deleted. Not sure if I tried to add them to this page but here we go

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2018/05/08/science.aar7711.DC1/aar7711_de_Barros_Damgaard_SM.pdf

Check page 43 or let me post the link for you

https://i.imgur.com/X5TQRlI.png

also page 44, for detailed information

https://i.imgur.com/RiSHdlC.jpg

So basically the Ottoman era Turkmens were around 20-40% Asian and they clustered with Central Asians. Whereas in most genetic studies Armenians and greeks and hellenized anatolians show little to no East Eurasian dna. Whereas for Turks this rate seems to be around 10% and 21.7% (somewhere between) based on my observations and Alkan's study. If we were to use basic math, we could see that a 10% East Eurasian Turk would actually carry around 25% to 35% Central Asian heritage and for a elite domination to happen, the elite impact should be below 10% according to METU study I posted. In other words, Turkic (Turkmen) impact isn't limited to culture and language only, but it also includes genetics as well.

The studies I posted from 2014, 2017 and 2018 seems to go along with the historic works. ALSO, I don't know if any of you read this before but with other works too.

''And when Archbishop Palamas came among Greek Christians in Asia Minor, who might be considered his own people, he observed with some wistfulness – but also some admiration – “the Christians and the Turks mixing with each other, going about their lives, leading and being led by each other...”

History of the Ottoman Empire - Douglas A. Howard

There is every reason to suppose that intermarriage took place rather extensively from the very beginning of the Turkish occupation of Anatolia and for several centuries thereafter. Anna Comnena speaks of the offspring of such unions as mixovarvaroi, and the twelfth-century Balsamon refers to their curious practises. When the Greek historian Nicephorus Gregoras passed through Bithynia en route to Nicaea in the middle of the fourteenth century, just one generation after the conquest of Nicaea, he observed that the population consisted of Greeks, mixovarvaroi (Graeco-Turks), and Turks. Thus intermarriage of Muslim and Christians at every level of society played a very important role in the integration and absorption of the Greek Christian element into Muslim society.

The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century - Speros Jr. Vryonis

In Turcomania there are three classes of people. First, there are Turcomans; these are worshippers of Mahommed, a rude people with uncouth language of their own. They dwell among mountains and downs where they they find good pasture, for their occupation is cattle-keeping. Excellent horses, known as Turquans, are reared in their country, and also very valuable mules. The other two classes are the Armenians and the Greeks, who live mixed with the former in the towns and villages, occupying themselves with trade and handicrafts.

The Travels of Marco Polo, Volume 1 ''

Speaking of greeks, I think Anatolian greeks should be considered as greek speaking Anatolians rather than greeks. Because genetically most of them are just greek speaking Anatolians with Western Anatolians having some greek heritage. Presence of 'many greeks', should be 'presence of greek states and elites'

https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201718

''Fallmerayer hypothesized that the Hellenization of the Peloponnesean Slavs was accelerated by the transfer to the Peloponnese of Hellenized populations from Asia Minor. We tested this hypothesis by comparing the Peloponneseans with three Greek-speaking populations of Asia Minor: a western-coastal population sample extending from the Propontis in the north to Alikarnassos (Bodrum) in the south; a northern population from Pontus, that is, the coast of Black Sea and the Asia Minor interior corresponding to the current northern Turkey; and a central Anatolian population from Cappadocia.  'All these populations are separated from the Peloponneseans by PCA ''' http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/18/015396.full.pdf

Here is the problem: If a study is debunked by a recent one, it basically has no value. In my opinion most of them should be deleted if the data is no longer reliable and most importantly if it clashes with recent findings, then they are not only old studies but also misleading.Buhedyar (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * To give a short answer to a long question: no. A study from 2014 does not "debunk" a study from 2002 just because the results are different, and no academic would even dream of making that claim. It is very common in genetics to find conflicting results, as virtually no studies compare more than a few genes. This does not mean that other results are "debunked". Jeppiz (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is common in genetics to find conflicting results, because genetics today are very different from genetics 20 years ago. Genetics today are cleaning the mess that the outdated studies created in the past because we had very little understanding of genetics. Now science is correcting itself. Cinnioğlu did not even know that haplogroup N had East Asian origins in 2004. Also, by basic logic, let's say I wrote a book about how the first coin was invented in X land based on current historic evidence. 20 years later, archeologists find a coin that predates the first X coin by 200 years. Would that mean my book about X coin being the first is still legit? By your logic, it is because history is apparently also producing conflicting results.Buhedyar (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's make this simple: please provide the source that says that the previous is "debunked". As long as it's only your interpretation, we are not removing it. Jeppiz (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It's clear that this person hasn't read anything that I posted. He asks me to repost the things that I already posted and thinks I didn't post them or they are not included in the links. So i'll discard his personal feelings towards science, or towards Turkish people, apparently the studies are also my own "personal interpretations" when one study openly says Therefore, it can be concluded that the observations do not support the elite dominance model and apparently the studies that imply a big Turkic impact don't go against the studies that claimed small Turkic impact. Too bad I don't have a WP like shiny link. Since he's referring to himself as "we", I suppose there is more of you. Who is next? Please read more than 2 lines this time. Buhedyar (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Now this person called should be banned from this page since he contributes nothing and he continues to attack me and threaten me with a ban. All I'm asking him is to debunk any of what I said and I will stay put. If he cannot debunk any of what I said THEN it means I'm right and I have the right to edit the page. I had a discussion about Persians 1 year ago AND when I was proven wrong (partially, time period wasn't given, my point still stands though), I didn't do any change. It is clear that this guy has no idea about how to read a text or how to discuss with a person online. If someone spent his precious time posting links about history and genetics, I'd bother to read and reply. Instead I get "warnings" for posting sources and threats and literally one line replies as if it's an insult. There is a reason why people do not take Wikipedia seriously anymore and users like him are contributors to this fact. I recommend a sitewide ban of Jeppiz from all Turkish related pages since he fails to logically explain his points and fails to explain why I'm wrong. Mostly because he didn't read any of what I posted and has a bias towards Turks or scientific facts. If it's the latter then what can I say? How do we teach people to respect science? Imagine if this discussion were about the solution of 2x2. Buhedyar (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

We better watch this article for future sockpuppetry and block evasion by him. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I watch it too. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Voluntary Assimilation
Hurri and Nairi communities living in Anatolia and speaking Armenian were not included in the city of Byzantium --78.174.231.102 (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

section Citizen, speak Turkish!
The Vatandaş Türkçe konuş section is in comparison to other phrases fairly over sourced. It has two phrases and 13 sources. while there is also a separate article of the Citizen, speak Turkish! campaign. The campaign is rather well known, I'd like to remove some citations and keep about two per phrase.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent blanking
Beshogur, I provided a reference that covers how the Arabs of Turkey have been affected by Turkification. Why have you deleted it? Konli17 (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit is an orginal research. Beshogur (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Beshogur is right here, Konli17. This article definitely should go down as an original research and never be viewed as a reliable source to make references to. -- Visioncurve Timendi causa est nescire  14:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Genetic section
This section has problems, similar to Archaeogenetics_of_the_Near_East. Most sources are primary sources, so most of the section needs to be re-written with secondary sources. Bogazicili (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed all genetic studies that were primary sources, let me know if there are any issues. Bogazicili (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Turkification is still an on going process and the section of "history" seems more to bury everything than actually account it properly
There seems to be nothing regarding the Turkification occurring in Afrin, Rojava, which is still an active situation even. After Turkey's invasion into Afrin via operation Operation Olive Branch Turkey has been changing names of buildings and locations, teaching local children Turkish and there is evidence of making them display the Grey Wolves hand symbol Article completely void of all that is happening involving the Syrian civil war and Rojava regarding Turkification.

With various military operations (too many to even name) and forces stationed inside the Kurdistan Region, Turkey is now essentially occupying parts of the region and areas in the guise of fighting the PKK. This results in projecting soft and hard force and also influence in the region, one angle turkey plays is attempting to create a pro-turkish turkmen organisation.

I propose the section header "history" be changed to something more appropriate so content like this can be added and also actual Turkification can be understood.TataofTata (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained removal by Beshogur
User can you explain your unjustified edit? You removed sourced content of secondary literature and restored a version with multiple issues, including original research. I hope this was a mistake. The relevant citations are from Lee & Kuang as well as Savelyev & Jeong: & (these are even open excess, you can just read...). Also pinging. If you dont bother to read, I will give you one of the most relevant quotes just here....
 * Finally, we suggest that the Turkicisation of central and western Eurasia was the product of multiple processes of language diffusion85 that involved not only originally Turkic-speaking groups, but also Turkicised (Indo-European) groups. That is, the earliest Turkic groups first Turkicised some non-Turkic groups residing in Mongolia and beyond. Then both Turkic and ‘Turkicised’ groups Turkicised non-Turkic tribes residing in the Kazakh steppes and beyond. Through multiple processes, including the Mongol conquest, the members of the extended Turkic entity spread the Turkic languages across Eurasia. They Turkicised various non-Turkic peoples of central and western Eurasia, including those in the Central Asian oases. Importantly, the Turkmens, who were themselves made up of both original Turkic and Turkicised elements, reached Anatolia and Turkicised the local populations, who have now become ‘Turks’.

The two papers are full of usefull content, so any removal and restoration of a Turkish nationalist version is highly questionable. 178.115.235.178 (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Are you new here? Aintabli (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Obviously I am not new here. I occasionally make maintains edits, and this one was already a long time on my list. But yeah, I know the "oh an IP, lets just revert them" topic well. And seriously? Contested?!! "rv" is not a contest. Maybe you guys like books from fringe authors such as Osman Karatay more? Or even Eren Karakoç?? calling Indo-European a hoax and all Central Asia entirley Turkic since eternity. To sum up: the artilce is heavily OR and suffers bad sourcing. I add two of the most relevant secodary literature available and two Turkish users instantly revert it without any explanation or reasoning (*). Well. Good work. It will just not help.178.115.235.178 (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Turkic expansion from modern-day Mongolia to Central Asia and beyond" looks pretty biased to me. Turkic is a language family. Other Cultural assimilation articles do not start with origin of language family. For example, Persianization or Germanisation do not start with Indo-European migrations out of Eurasian steppes. Moreover, Mongolia is one of the potential locations of origin of proto-Turkic speakers, but not the only one. The article does have bad sourcing though. Bogazicili (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding poor sourcing, this one needs to go: Peimani, Hooman (1998). Regional Security and the Future of Central Asia. Westport, CT: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-96021-8.
 * Dr. Peimani is an expert in "energy (energy security) and security (regional/international)" . He's not an expert in history, archeology or genetics.
 * This book by Joo-Yup Lee with a PhD in Turko-Persian Studies  would be a far better source.
 * I'm busy with other articles but I'll return to this article. Bogazicili (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The 2023 book is indeed another good citation, but to your edits in Turkic peoples, the full quote would be more appropriate:
 * The lack of a common identity or a collective sense of Turkic consciousness in the pre-modern Turkic world may perhaps be explained from the fact that the Turkic-speaking peoples do not all descend from the Türks of the Türk Qaghanate or any other single ethnic group. Extensive DNA testing of the modern Turkic populations informs us that they are a heterogeneous entity in terms of patrilineal descent. In other words, they do not descend from a common ancestral group.9 It should also be noted that even the early Turkic peoples, including the Tiele and the Türks, were made up of heterogeneous elements.10 Importantly, DNA studies demonstrate that the expansion process of the Turkic peoples involved the Turkicization of various non-Turkic- speaking groups. The “Turks” intermixed with and Turkicized various indigenous groups across Eurasia: Uralic hunter-gatherers in northern Eurasia; Mongolic nomads in Mongolia; Indo-European-speaking nomads and sedentary populations in Xinjiang, Transoxiana, Iran, Kazakhstan, and South Siberia; and Indo-European elements (the Byzantine subjects, among others) in Anatolia and the Balkans.11 This process was a multi-layered one in that the Turkic peoples or tribal unions containing Turkicized elements of non-Turkic origins also went on to Turkicize other non Turkic indigenous groups as they made their way into new territories. For instance, the Oghuz, a Turkic tribal confederation that inhabited the Aral and Caspian steppes in the ninth and tenth centuries CE and, in time, became intermixed with Iranic-speaking elements in Central Asia, went on, as Ottomans, to Turkicize various indigenous groups, including Armenians, Greeks, and Slavs, in Anatolia and the Balkans.
 * And not only that early Turkic peoples were made up of heterogenous elements... note how similar the FULL quote is to the one I gave and included... and still no response from Beshogur.178.115.235.178 (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)