Talk:Turkish people/Archive 15

Portrait Album
Can we add gazi Yasargik and Cahit Arf into the Album. There are too many sports/Movie people and hardly any Scientists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.166.156 (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Supersport World Championship Kenan sofuoğlu  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.225.59 (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Turkish people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090325222928/http://www.migrantsingreece.org/transpartner/Tables.pdf to http://www.migrantsingreece.org/transpartner/Tables.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Turkic people
Turkish people belongs to the Turkic people. It is very weird to say: Turks originally descend from peoples of Turkic origin, but later mixed with Anatolian, Balkanian, Caucasian and Mediterranean peoples.

Since almost all peopled are mixed with other peoples afterwards. My opinion is that there should be clear information that Turkish people are are an ethnic Turkic group... Like German people and Russians. Turkish people are accepted as Turkic people. Information that Turkish people are mixed with other peoples belongs to the Genetics sectin.
 * Agreed, but as explained in the Genetic section the "Turkic" genetic contribution was quite small. AcidSnow (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Non of those nations in Wikipedia has no such description, why only Turks? Article already has the genetic section.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Now it looks much better but main point is still missing. I understand that modern turkish people are geneticly far from real turkic peoples. But since turkish culture, language and history are related to the Turkic people, I believe it's important to mention that Turkish people an ethnic Turkic group at the beginning of the article like Germans. The reason why it's important is because there is thousand of websites including Google that takes first sentences of the article and let the users see on their page. But that is not necessary, it is just my opinion.
 * I understand what you're trying to say. Instead of saying "ethnic" we can say something such as this: "are a Turkic cultural group". It does sound strange though. AcidSnow (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow, I agree. Turkick cultural group seems to be even much better than Turkic ethnic group.
 * Yeah but who are the "real Turkic people" and their genetic feautures? and what is the difference of Turks from Them? Khazaks, Uzbeks, Kyrgyzs, Tuvans etc are in the same genetic pool and share exact cultural stuffs? No. Turks are like other Turkic nations, they are just Turkic, that's all, why are we keep playing with the words here?Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My guess is that the most biologicaly authentic Turkics are the Kazakhs of maybe even the Oirats. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

My intro was good actually. Why did you remove it. Check French people for a similar intro     kazekagetr  08:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

finally, i have improved the intro. what do you guys think about it? kazekagetr 19:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @kazekagetr I recently removed your last addition, this one is more problematic than conflicted older one (this was the removal reason). First, we need a consensus to add such description. Please wait for other users' opinions. To my opinion, I don't think it's an appropriate intro. Like I said before, article already has the genetic section and this subject doesn't belong to lead sect.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "They are mostly made up of assimilated Anatolian populations and are native to the Republic of Turkey" Obviously this sentence has to change. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Religion in the infobox
Christians and Jews are tiny minorities in Turkey, and this article isn't even about all Turkish nationals, just ethnic Turks. The Armenian, Greek and Jewish minorities in Turkey are beyond the scope this article. Ethnic Turkish converts to Christianity or Judaism are an extremely tiny minority (~0.01%) and shouldn't be given undue weight in the infobox. There is a significant number of Jafari Shias in Turkey, but they are of Azerbaijani origin. It is unclear if they should be covered in this article or in Azerbaijanis in Turkey. The Azerbaijani and Turkish identities overlap. Ethnic Turks are predominantly Hanafi Sunni Muslim with an Alevi minority. There are irreligious ethnic Turks and while they are small minority (<10%), they are large enough to be mentioned (>1%). --Mttll (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I am removing this section. O.celebi (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Number inflation in the infobox
Some of the population figures given in the infobox are grossly inflated and are sourced. Per WP:RS, Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Furthermore, '''The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception'''. The cases I describe below fail to meet the above criteria.


 * Iraq: This source, is of dubious reliability.  The other two sources, (Park and Philipps) are reliable.  However, both those sources use a figure of 500,000-600,000, clearly stating that the only source for the figure of 3 million is from iraqi turkmen groups.  Iraqi Turkmen groups are obviously POV and self-published (i.e. not "third-party" or "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy") and thus do not meet the criteria for reliable sourcing.  I propose that a figure of 500,6000 be used, with the claim of 3 million relegated to a footnote.


 * Syria: This source, while very generalist in nature, appears reliable and gives a figure of close to 100,000. This source  on the other hand, is published by the Turkish think tank ISRO , which is funded by the Turkish government.  As such it fails the criteria for being a "third party source" and with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Ditto for the other ISRO publication, which is not viewable online.  The next source, Today's Zaman, is a pro-AK government Turkish newspaper, and the article is moreover not viewable online , and thus fails verification.  The last source  also appears to be a publication by a Turkish think tank funded by the Turkish government.  As such, it fails the criteria for being a "third party source" and with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Thus the only reliable source used gives a figure of 100,000, so that is what we should go with for now.


 * Saudi Arabia: Neither of the two sources provided is viewable online, however, one of the at least is published by Brill, a reliable published, and thus appears reliable, so I will let this stand on good faith.


 * Egypt: One of the sources is this , a reprint of a travel guide from 1898 (!).  Clearly not suitable. The other source is "Akar, Metin (1993), "Fas Arapçasında Osmanlı Türkçesinden Alınmış Kelimeler", Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi 7: 91–110", a Turkish journal , however, it is not viewable online nor is an inline citation provided.  Egypt should thus be removed from the list until reliable sources are found.

In addition many of the sources for the numbers in western countries should be treated with caution, as they may include large numbers of Kurds from Turkey. More to come. Athenean (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Especially after the war the growing of the Turkmen population, or any other population in Syria, is impossible. It is kind of confusing whether Iraqi and Syrian Turkmen are Turkmens, Turkish people or just Azerbaijani speakers. Does anybody know???Ugud (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We have to be careful with Turkmen. In Turkey, indigenous Turkmen consider themselves as Turks. And those of Syria to acknowledge kinship to Turks in Turkey. I do agree that numbers need to be better sourced. The onus is on the editor in question to bring peer reviewed material first and then see what changes can be made. Numbers should not be blocked however if they are based on peer reviewed material. Anyway to any Turkish editors interested, so the edits can are measured and accurate message me on my talkpage so we can talk about it. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups
Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Since there is no other comments I will delete this section.O.celebi (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Clean up
The article is in need of serious TLC! I have removed sources that are not about ethnic Turks (i.e. about Turkish citizens). Obviously such sources are irrelevant to ethnic Turks in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Tunisia, etc. But sources specifically about ethnic Turks in Turkey are more than welcomed! O.celebi (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Some of the sources you removed are about ethnic Turks. I am not OK with the neutrality of the re-introduced sources. There was previously a discussion and their deletion has been agreed.Ugud (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there, please do tell me which sources you are concerned with.O.celebi (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Genetics
Obviously Turks are a mixture of many other ethnic groups- ethnicities are a social/cultural construction. But is this bulky section on "genetics" really necessary? Surely it is sufficient to have this stated in the history section. Thoughts, anyone? O.celebi (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The important thing is not the DNA structure. It is the mother tongue and the sense of belonging. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"Notable achievements" and portrait gallery
1. The portrait gallery is a non-starter, as these are deprecated per WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. There is wikipedia-wide consensus that ethnic group articles should not contain such galleries. This is because who is "notable" and who is Turkish is often vague and subjective and always leads to conflict.

2. Regarding the notable achievements, that is a) WP:PEACOCK ("1001 ways in which Turks are amazing!") and b) what is a "notable achievement" and who is considered Turkish (e.g. Mimar Sinan) is often vague and subjective. No other ethnic group article has such a section, and for good reason. Also many of the entries are unsourced. Notable individuals can be included in their respective sections (e.g. the way Orhan Pamuk is already mentioned in the Arts and Architecture section). A laundry list of "notable achievements" is crude peacockery and POV. Athenean (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough I left it out, how can we illustrate those images on the page? because the pages of German and Italian peoples for example also contain images, kind regards Redman19 (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at the page of the Russians, my input was strongly based on that one. Redman19 (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It will take me some time to source the input, please inform me how to successfully put this article into Wikipedia standards thank you Redman19 (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Like I said in my above post, it would be better if you integrated notable individuals in their respective sections (e.g. notable artists and c=architects in the Arts and Architecture section). Laundry lists of "notable achievements" are WP:PEACOCKy and unencyclopedic. Athenean (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Consider it done sir, it will take some time but I will do my best. Thank you Redman19 (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at the articles of the German and Italian peoples and I am intended to expand this article the way it was done on those articles, if there is anyone around who can help me out in editing it would be really good, thank you Redman19 (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be great if contributors spent more time on writing objective articles rather than focusing all their energy on infoboxes and useless Galleries? O.celebi (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about Galleries, that issue was resolved for all Wikipedia long ago. Not even sure why it has been brought up.Resnjari (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

== Background

Turks are in the offsprings of Yafis who was the son of Nooh(A.S). It is said that Turk was born in Turkistan at the bank of a canal called as Isiq Kol. The personal country of Turks was Anatolia where they were born. After the war of tang dynasty( Changez Khan) they unsatisfied and travel from country to country and in the end they come back to Anatolia.

A.Mannan Ashraf ([[User talk:Man

Turks in Greece
Your quote from Clogg is misleading, to say the least. The full story goes like this: Clogg quotes the number of Muslims (112,665) in the 1951 census, then the number of Turkish speakers (179,895). Then he discusses why so many more gave their mother tongue as Turkish than gave their religion as Muslims: "This is explained by the fact that many of the incoming refugees from Asia minor in the 1920s spoke Turkish as their first, and in some cases, their only language." Then he continues: "Moreover, by no means all Muslims in Greece were Turkish speaking." Using Clogg as a witness for 150,000 Turks in Greece is extremely selective reading, bordering on source falsification. You will also see that in the very same book (pp. 81-93), Ronald Meinardus discusses the number of Muslims. Needless to say, the numbers he mentions are not even close to your 150,000. I have not looked into your other sources, but if they are read as selectively as Clogg, well... --T*U (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Tu-nor, I apologize if I came across as misleading but I did provide a Google Books link for you all to see the source. You probably are aware that there is academia that suggests Karamanlis as ethnic Turks of the Greek Orthodox religion (similar to the Gagauz). Nonetheless, I'm glad that you took a look at the source and welcome you to look at the rest too, in case I have made a mistake. I will try to see if I can find the Turkish/Muslim figure for this census. Thanks O.celebi (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So I've just found that the Muslim Turkish-speaking were 85,945 (the remainder were made up of Roma and Pomaks).  O.celebi (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I trust that you then forget your claim about 150,000 Turks in Greece. --T*U (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Tu-nor, please don't make this personally about me. It is not "my claim". I am showing the estimates of published work. These are the estimates of published academics, not my claims or estimates.


 * For the 1951 census, yes, it is fine to place the 85,945 because that was the last time the minority were allowed to declare ethnicity and religion. However, in the current version of the info box it states "49,000 (official estimate)–80,000" [which are footnote 50 Greek Helsinki and 51 Eurfedling). The former states 50% of 120,000 is Turkish according to the 1991 census. Two problems with this: firstly, this totals to 60,000 not 49,000 as the info box shows. Secondly, we need to include a footnote clearly stating that the census didn't allow citizens to declare their ethnicity. I couldn't access the second source, it seems to be stuck on the Demographics of Austria and therefore should be removed (or please send me a quote of what it says). The only source I have found stating a figure of 49,000 as an official Greek estimate is Hurriyet Daily News, which I'm assuming you will consider unreliable to cite because it is a "Turkish source".


 * There are, however, still several reliable sources that do suggest higher estimates. For example, Lois Whitman's book Destroying Ethnic Identity: The Turks of Greece, published by the Human Rights Watch, states "Between 120,000 and 130,000 ethnic Turks live in Western Thrace" and Hermann Kandler's article in the edited book Islam in the World Today: A Handbook of Politics, Religion, Culture, and Society, published by Cornell University Press, estimates 150,000.


 * What do you say to showing the population in the info box like so:
 * 85,945 (1951 census)
 * est.49,000 to 150,000 O.celebi (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As for Whitman, you will notice that the book was written in 1990, before the 1991 Census that was the basis for the downwards revision of the official estimate from 120,000 to 98,000. From where Kandler has got the number 150,000 is difficult to understand, since he a few lines down mentions 45 percent of 114,000, which gives 51,300. --T*U (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Clearly there seems to be quite a lot of confusion on this matter within academia too. But can you address the issues with footnote 51 (for the 80,000 estimate)? The Human Rights Watch in 1999 (so post-1991 census) states an est. of 80,000-120,000 . This has been cited in more recent publications too. For example, an article by Nathalie Tocci (2008), in an edited book published by Palgrave Macmillan, states the following: "The Turkish Muslim population of Western Thrace also fell considerably as a result of discrimination and the revocation of citizenship. Currently, the community numbers approximately 80,000-120,000..." . Plamen K. Georgiev (2008) places more detail on this estimate, stating "Among approximately 120,000 Muslims some 30,000 are Pomaks, some 5,000 are Gypsies, the rest being Turkish (Muslim)" (that is a total of 85,000 Turks in Western Thrace) . In addition, there is approx. less than 5,000 Turks in Rhodes and Kos. We can represent the total as so (i.e including Western Thrace, Kos and Rhodes):
 * 85,945 (1951 census)
 * est.49,000 to < 90,000
 * Also, do you mind if we create a sub-heading here for Greece, to make it easier to read through the talk page. O.celebi (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for late answer. I have been without any Internet connection for a couple of days, and will be so for the next days, so here just a quick comment while I have the chance. The number 90,000 (quite some change from 150,000!) is fine if you include the Dodecanese Turks. Problem is that the 49,000 number does not include those, so the numbers will be incommensurable. Given the uncertainty of all the numbers, I suggest to use ca.50,000 instead of 49,000. My suggestion is then to use the numbers ca. 50,000 – ca. 85,000 and include the current footnote about the Dodecanese Turks and the new immigrants.
 * I do not think that the numbers from the 1951 census are relevant to present here. That is 65 years ago! I think ca.50,000–ca.85,000 (and the footnote) gives the best representation of the sources for the numbers of Turks in Greece now.
 * I have followed your suggestion of a separate subtitle, and added one more below. Regards! --T*U (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, where I am proven to be wrong, I'll accept that. Though, as I said before, it seems many academics have also been confused by this matter. I just hope that users who have objected to the regions I know best (i.e the Middle East, inc. North Africa) are also willing to be objective and open-minded.


 * I do think we should still show the 1951 census, to keep the section consistent. This is because we are using other censuses that are also outdated, such as the Republic of Macedonia census of 2002. In fact, using this 1951 census gives us the opportunity to clearly show the distinction in the census of what was actually "Turkish". It would also help to deter later disputes that could arise on this subject; because the distinction of Turk, Roma and Pomak seems to be more of a political dispute between Greece and Turkey. However, the census itself shows who declared themselves as Turks. Hence, this census is very important in showing that there are Roma and Pomak who do in fact differentiate themselves from the Turks. O.celebi (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The 1951 census is 65 years out of date.  The infobox numbers are meant to be current numbers, not historical. Athenean (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * On the Romani and Pomaks, in Eastern Thrace the bulk of these have alligned with a Turkish identity and there are studies on this. Question for here is how to go about it. Probably citing recent Turkish population estimates from peer reviewed scholars on Greek Thrace. Konstaninos Tsistislekis would be a good start as he has written much on Islam in Greece. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Athenean, I hardly expect you to reply back with a polite tone, but the least you can do is tell me why the current footnotes do not correspond to what is written in the infobox. O.celebi (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I got the link for the book (2012) by Tsitselikis. . He should have recent statistics on the minority and he is a scholarly authority on Islam in Greece. Best.


 * TU-nor, yes, that is the same source I showed above. Can you direct me to the page you are looking at?
 * Another option would be to do the following:


 * 85,945 (1951 census)
 * est. 49,000 to 85,000
 * (in Western Thrace)
 * est. less than 5,000
 * (in Kos and Rhodes)
 * Note, the census itself shows the Turks in Greece rather than just Western Thrace. O.celebi (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Last time I checked Kos and Rhodes were part of Greece (unless you disagree) so there is absolutely no reason to include them separately. Athenean (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Gosh, Athenean, chill out.. I meant something like this:
 * 🇬🇷 Greece 85,945 (1951 census) recent estimates:
 * 49,000 to 85,000
 * (in Western Thrace)
 * less than 5,000
 * (in Kos and Rhodes)


 * For clarity, yes there is a need to represent them separately. O.celebi (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First, your comment: "TU-nor, yes, that is the same source I showed above. Can you direct me to the page you are looking at?" must be a misunderstanding. I have said nothing about any source. That edit was made by Resnjari, but he forgot to sign it.
 * Regarding the presentation: You have so far not got any support at all for using the 1951 census. Please forget it. Most of these people are long dead, and most of the current Turks were not born. I find it OK to mention Western Thrace and Dodecanese as two separate entries under Greece, and I agree that they should not be added together. A footnote could mention the 8,297 Turkish immigrants living in Greece (currently mentioned in note g).
 * I do not understand why you insist that the number 49,000 needs citation.The Greek Helsinki Monitor source says in Part I, Section 4 that the Greek state "has recently revised downwards its estimate of the Muslim minority, based on the 1991 census, to 98,000 from a previous estimate of 120,000; it also claims that “50% of the minority are of Turkish origin...". Then it continues "Our own estimates, based on the same census, are slightly lower, while the breakdown is also slightly different. There are 90,000 Muslims, of whom some 50,000 have Turkish as a mother tongue,..." That means that GHM is a source for two different estimates, The Greek state 49,000 and GHM 50,000. Hence my suggestion of using the numbers 50,000–85,000.
 * What I find a bit strange, is all this interest in the infobox, when the article lacks something essential: There is no mention of Turks in Greece in the section "Geographic distribution", not even under the subheading "Balkans". There it could even make sense to mention the 1951 census. --T*U (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting that the 1951 census should be included for consistency -but most importantly because it is the last census that allows citizens to declare ethnicity. Athenean keeps going on about censuses for countries that do not allow citizens to declare their ethnicity yet rejects using it for Greece. So if he/she is so insistent on this matter I do not see the problem for Greece. Isn't the 2002 census of the Republic of Macedonia also outdated? (14 years ago). I have no objection to using the Greek Helsinki Monitor, but again, bare in mind that it is basing census estimates from 1991 (25 years ago). Moreover, the source - which itself was published in 1999 (and again, outdated)- states "Nevertheless, the very large majority of all Muslims, including Pomaks and Roma, have today a Turkish national identity." This will have to be mentioned in the article.


 * On the whole, I agree with you that the article lacks a lot of essentials. I want to resolve this info box dispute soon so that I can start working on the entire article. O.celebi (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You really need to let go of this fixation with the 1951 census, it's not going to fly. Also note that contrary to what you are saying, I am not advocating using the 1950s censi of North African countries, merely that current censi of these countries say nothing about any "Turks", much less millions of them.  You need to stop twisting and misconstruing other people's words. Athenean (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, what "current censi" are you talking about? Can you show me any censuses of North African countries that show ethnicity?

Keith Walters (2006, published by Walter de Gruyter) points out (in regards to the Berbers - though this applies to all ethnicities) that in Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya "No reliable figures exist for the number of speakers...or the individuals who identify as ethnically...in any of the countries treated here. National censuses do not query this issue such ethnicity-based distinctions being seen as antithetical to fostering nationalism."  Hence, many states forbid the recording of ethnicity. Felix Mukwiza Ndahinda (2011, Springer Publishers), for example, states that "Algerian law forbids population censuses based on ethnic, religious or linguistic criteria" So just because censuses do not show Berbers, Turks, Jews, or other minorities, it doesn't mean that they don't form large minorities in these countries.

This is also a similar case with many European countries, who record people based on their citizenship rather than their ethncity. Thus, it undercounts, or doesn't count at all, the individuals who have been naturalised or born in the "host" country. Ian Law & Sarah Swann (2016, published in Routledge) points out that "Danish, Swedish, German and French data is very limited with no collection of information on self-declared ethnicity." 

As you well know, this article is about the ethnic group the Turkish people/Turks. So it is only logical to show censuses that allowed this ethnic group to declare themselves as such. So what is not "going to fly" - as you put it - is double standards. I would have been fine with only showing the estimates for Greece (rather than the 1951 census) but it is you who keeps demanding the "current censi". Yes, the 1951 census is outdated but it is also the most current census that allowed the minority to declare their ethnicity.

Nonetheless, if you are finally willing to acknowledge that it is impossible to show "current censi" for countries that do not have recent data on the ethnic Turks, because such data is legally forbidden, then we shouldn't have a problem. Perhaps now we can have consistency in the info box rather than one rule for Greece and another rule for the rest. O.celebi (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The only one who needs to be "finally willing to acknowledge" something is you, of the fact that there are no figures for the Arabized mixed-ancestry non-Turks of North Africa. By the way this is the section for Greece, so I'm not sure why you're going on about North Africa here.  As far as Greece is concerned, it's case closed. Athenean (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It is you who began to mention North Africa, I just replied to your comment. The case will not be closed until we come to an agreement. O.celebi (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Turks in Barbary

 * Hi Athenean, To be sure the figures given for the Turks in Barbary may be somewhat exaggerated. But they are sourced. The editor O.celebi claims that the English sources also back these figures. Unless the opposite is proven we should accept the figures. I don't understand why you tag some sources as being unreliable. We are not in the position to classify the sources as being reliable and unreliable. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The figures for north africa are not just exaggerated, they are wildly exaggerated. The censi of these countries say nothing about "Turks".  There may be people of partial Turkish descent over there, but they are fully arabized and very few if any identify as "Turks".  This is a similar situation to that of the Arvanites, who although originally albanian are now counted among Greeks, not Albanians.  Regarding the sources, the main source for the figures is Akar, and when you have a single source that contradicts everything we know about these places, it calls the source's credibility into question.  The only English-language source I see is Oxford Business Group, which is non-academic despite the name.  The burden of proof is on whoever is claiming the figures.  If you're going to claim millions of "Turks" in North Africa, that is a very strong claim that requires very high quality sources. Athenean (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you say. An additional sentence though in the body of the article should cite that some people in Northern Africa are from full or partial Turkish descent (due to the Ottoman era) with them being Arabized today (with population numbers/estimates not being invoked due to issues around them). Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Whilst many can be considered "Arabized" by language (many older generations still speak Turkish), the Turkish minorities still practice the Hanafi School of Islam. On the other hand Arabs and other groups in North Africa mainly practice the Maliki School. This identity is one of the main factors that still differentiates the community. They even continue to use separate mosques and live in separate neighbourhoods. O.celebi (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * And your source is...? Athenean (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

We need to source it O.celebi. Most have adopted a Arab identity due to the nationalist Arab regimes that followed, though there is retention of Turkish heritage. Have a read of Norris. starting from page 196. He did research on Turkish, Bosnian and Albanian populations (their emergence in Northern Africa due to the Ottoman era) and their aftermath. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, first of all I must stress that there are no "official figures" for the Turks in North Africa because Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia do not have official census that allow citizens to declare their ethnicity. In reality, these countries are not 99% "Arab", the demographics are far more complex and diverse. Secondly, I am aware that there has been a degree of Arabization but this does not mean that we should ignore the Turkish minority completely. Indeed, Arabs, Albanians, and Bosnians have also experience Turkification in the Republic of Turkey. Does this mean we should remove all the population estimates and paragraphs that mention the Turkified Arabs, Bosnians and Albanians in their respective wiki articles?


 * Below, I have listed numerous sources that show the existence of a Turkish minority in some of these countries. In particular, the Turkish minorities differentiate themselves by practicing the Hanafi school of Islam (in contrast to the majority of Arabs and Berber who practice the Maliki School) and using surnames of Turkish origin. Again, I have included urls so you can all access these sources through Google Books. If you cannot access them, I can send them to you via email.


 * North Africa in general
 * Jane E. Goodman (2005, published by Indiana University Press): "From early on, the French viewed North Africa through a Manichean lens. Arab and Berber became the primary ethnic categories through which the French classified the population. This occurred despite the fact that a diverse and fragmented populace comprised not only various Arab and Berber tribal groups but also Turks, Andalusians (descended from Moors exiled from Spain during the Crusades), Kouloughlis (offspring of Turkish men and North African women), blacks (mostly slaves or gormer slaves), and Jews."


 * Algeria:


 * William B. Quandt (1968, published by MIT): "One of the two major ideas of the Berberists was that Algeria was not Arab, but, rather, Algerian. By this they meant that all Algerian Muslims, whether of Berber, Arab or Turkish descent, should participate fully in the liberation movement."
 * Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen Gibb (1967, published by BRILL) "Virtually the only rite practised in Algeria is the Malikite; there are a few followers of the HanafI rite among people of Turkish descent in Algiers and Tlemcen."
 * Britannica (2012): "The population [of Tlemcen] is sharply divided between the Hadars (the middle class, descended from the Moors) and the Koulouglis (descendants of Turks and Arab women), each living within its own sector. Pop. (2008) 173,532.
 * Gillian Vogelsang-Eastwood (2016, published by Bloomsbury Publishing) "The population [of Sharshal/Cherchell] has a very mixed origin, including Arabs, Berbers, Europeans, Ottoman Turks, and others."
 * Nina Epton (1954, published by Victor Gollancz Ltd) "The result of Turkish domination has remained, ethnically, in the Kulughlis who are descendants of Turkish marriages with Arab women."
 * Oxford Business Group: "Algerians of Turkish descent still represent 5% of the population and live mainly in the big cities"
 * Mary Margaret Johnson (2010, published by Dorrance Publishing): "Algeria's population, a mixture of Arab, Berber, Turkish and West African in origin, number nearly 30 million and is 99% Moslem."


 * Several sources also argue that Turkish origin families can still be identified by their surnames e.g:
 * -Anna Parzymies (1985, published by Éditions Scientifiques de Pologne): "Parmi les noms de famille d'origine turque, les plus nombreux sont ceux qui expriment une provenance ou une origine ethnique, c.-à-d., les noms qui sont dérivés de toponymes ou d'ethnonymes turcs."
 * -1980 publication in the Africana Bulletin: "La plupart des noms de famille algériens d'origine turque expriment une provenance ou une origine ethnique"


 * Libya
 * Peter Malcolm & Elizabeth Losleben (2004, published by Marshall Cavendish) "There are some Libyans who think of themselves as Turkish, or descendants of Turkish soldiers who settled in the area in the days of the Ottoman Empire."
 * Salim Ali Hajjaji (1962, published by Stanford University) "The Turkish rule in Libya left ethnic traces among the Libyans, the so-called Kologhlis, especially in Tripolitania."
 * Chia-Lin Pan (1949, published by Taylor & Francis): "Two groups, however, in the long series of foreign invaders, have had a profound and lasting influence, namely, the Arabs and the Turks" (page 102). Moreover, Pan shows the 1936 Italian census of Libya. There were 35,062 Turks, forming 4.7% of the total population of Libya - the third largest group after Arabs and Berbers (page 121, table 7). (If you do not have access to jstor I can email it to you all).


 * Tunisia:
 * Encyclopedia of Islam (2009) "...most of whom [Tunisians] follow the Maliki Legal school. Others, claiming Turkish ancestry, follow the Hanafi Legal school."
 * The Encyclopedia Americana (1988) "Most follow the Malikite school of law, but descendants of the old Turkish ruling class follow the Hanifite school."
 * The Rotarian (1969, published by Rotary International) "The population of more than 4.6 million is made up mostly of people of Arab, Berber, and Turkish descent."
 * Daniel Jacobs and Peter Morris (2001, Rough Guides) "The majority of Tunisians have always belonged to the Malekite school of the Sunni orthodoxy (their mosques easily recognizable by square minarets). The Turks brought with them the teaching of the Hanefite school (these mosques have octagonal minarets), which still survives among Turkish-descended families"
 * Larry Allen Barrie (1987, published by Boston University) studied the influential Bayram family. He states that they still identify as Turks and that "Even today, for example, Ahmad Bayram lives on the prestigious Rue des Juges in the heart of the elite quarter. Furthermore, the Yusuf Dey mosque and madrasah, which the Bayrams came to dominate in the 18th century, lie just behind the old Dar al-Bey or government palace of the Husaynid Beys. This pattern establishes the rise to prominence of the of the Bayram clan."


 * O.celebi (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Extremely impressive but I'm afraid you are missing the point. I see lots of sources that say there are individuals of mixed Turkish/Arab/Berber ancestry in North Africa, and we can use these sources to add a sentence to the article to that effect, but for the numbers in the infobox you would need nothing less than a source that said "there are X thousand Turks in country Y" or "X percent of country Y's population identifies as Turkish. I don't see that here, except maybe for the Oxford business group source, which is non-academic and of dubious credibility. Simply put, the claim of "millions of Turks" in North Africa is woefully lacking in sources. Athenean (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not think that I have "miseed the point" at all. You asked me for sources when I stated that differences remain between the Turkish minorities and the Arabs/Berbers (i.e. religion and surnames, as well as self-identification) - which I have done. My aim here is not to "prove" that there are millions of Turks. I am arguing that it is wrong to completely neglect the Turkish minorities of North Africa in this article. And I am more than willing to be objective by showing both low and high estimates. You have not shown me any sources that refute my original edits on the infox box, except for Greece.


 * Whilst most sources do not seem to represent population estimates of any minorities (not just the Turks) in North Africa, I have demonstrated above that there are a few sources suggesting that about 5% in Algeria and Libya are Turkish origin (i.e. the Oxford Business Group and the 1936 Libyan census). Indeed, Metin Akar [ is consistent with these publications, as well as with modern publications regarding say Iraq and Syria. Initially, in the heading "Number inflation in the infobox" you argued that the Akar source must be removed because "Egypt...it is not viewable online"  However, since I have found and quoted the source, you now see it as an "unreliable" source.


 * In the subheading "sources" I have shown a wide range of references published from Routledge, the BBC, the New York Times, as well as other notable publishers. However, your replies have constantly been "no...no...no...not reliable...not reliable..." and you have hardly backed up any of your arguments with sources. You have even called Scott Taylor an unreliable source despite the fact that he is considered "perhaps Canada's best military affairs journalist";  you have dismissed the Cypriot Constitution and the fact that Turkish Cypriots are one of the "Two Communities";  you refuse to use the high estimates of Akar yet you have left the low estimates of the same source for Libya, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia; you have refused to use the last Greek census that allowed Turks to declare their ethnicity - yet you demand for census figures of Algeria and Tunisia even though these countries do not show ethnicity.


 * You have not compromised on anything with me, despite all the sources that I have shown in the last week. Unless you show some interest in working together, I think it is time we ask an administrator to mediate this dispute because you really do not seem to have any intention on achieving a balanced and objective article here. O.celebi (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, I am totally against adding up censuses and estimates from different years and creating a "total population" in the infobox. Unless you find a source that shows the total population, this invention must be removed and "unknown" should be written in its place. O.celebi (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It's really simple: To put Turkish population numbers for North African countries in the infobox, you need reliable sources to that effect.  The sources you provided say nothing of numbers, merely that there are arabized individuals of mixed descent, i.e. not usable for the infobox.  The only source with numbers is Akar, an obscure Turkish academic in an obscure Turkish journal from over 20 years ago, making extravagant claims about millions of Turks in North Africa.  The only way to arrive at such numbers is to count all individuals of even partial Turkish ancestry, which is a non-starter.  And since I highly doubt Akar conducted field work in all these countries, these are probably just guesses and extrapolations. Athenean (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We still need a sentence in the article body on the Turkish heritage of some of the Arab population in northern Africa. On numbers in the info box, a suggestion. Maybe a more encompassing category is created were it says North Africa and a note to it that the population of these people of Turkish heritage is unknown today as they have been assimilated (partly and fully). A similar example exists on the Albanians page regarding people of Albanian heritage in Turkey. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

And I see the double standards from Athenean, yet again. Here you argue that Akar is a source that is over 20 years old and above in the "Turks in Greece" heading you are pushing for the Greek Helsinki source from 1999 - which is 20 years ago! If you read Akar's article you would see that he did indeed do field work.

As I said before, my point above was to show you that there are academics who recognise that Turkish minorities still prosper in this region. Algeria, Libya and Tunisia forbid declaring ethnicity in censuses so obviously I cannot show you official data, because it simply doesn't exist, for any minority in these countries.

Nonetheless, I did also included the Oxford Business Group (OBG) for Algeria. The OBG is a source which clearly focuses entirely on this country. Moreover, it is recognised by the British Government website as a "global publishing firm" and was one of the 100 representatives that accompanied former British Prime Minister David Cameron on his delegations in India. OBG often appears on BBC World. It is also cited by respected institutions like the University of Westminster who state "Oxford Business Group is a global publishing, research and consultancy firm, which publishes economic and political intelligence on the markets of the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and the Carribean." . The University of York states "Oxford Business Group is a publishing company producing 34 annual reports on emerging markets. The reports are primary research, written by a team of analysts who spend at least 6 months in each country to offer an accurate analysis of political, macroeconomic and sectoral developments." OBG also presents lectures at Oxford University (such as in St Antony's College). Clearly a recognisable and respected source, unlike the Piquant Editons you are insisting on for Syria. O.celebi (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * , have a look at the Albanians article infobox, in particular figures for Albanians in Turkey. So it might be an example for how to go about this. You will probably need to state something in a note in the infobox that its a estimate from 20 years back and also that the bulk of this population has assimilated or Arabized. Read Norris, he came across some of these people in the already 1990s, though their identification as Turks outright is not strong however some of them are aware of their origins. By the way add a sentence in the body of the article based on the good sources you found that cites that part of the Northern African population has some Turkish heritage. Go through that Tsitselakis source i refered to. He should have the most recent estimates for Turkish numbers in Greek Thrace. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The only thing that goes in the infobox are current, reliably sourced figures. So far I have yet to see that. Oxford Business Group  and Akar are junk sources.  OBG is non-acedemic, self-publishes, PR outfit, in other words total garbage.  Akar's figures have not been cited by any other academics, and his work is generally ignored.  If reliable numbers for these people existed, they would be easily found in English-language sources (why is it so much easier to find figures about Turkish populations elsewhere?).  But they don't, because these people are Arabized and of mixed descent anyway, they are not "Turks" in any sense of the word.  To lump these people in the infobox together with Turks of Anatolia, Cyprus, etc... would be highly misleading to our readers. A sentence or two in the article about them is fine, but for the infobox, no way. Athenean (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * So if you want "current" sources - which we all do - why do you want to use the 1999 Greek Helsinki Report? If you want "reliable" sources - which we all do - why do you insist on using the missionary publisher "Piquant Editons" for Syria?


 * The Oxford Business Group works with several British universities and is cited by academics too, therefore it is reliable. I've used The BBC, The Guardian, and various universities to backup my points on this matter. You have used one source called the "glassdoor" and then complain about the sources I'm using. Am I missing something here? You seem to have a subjective approach when it comes to the definition of "reliable" sources.


 * I've reached out to you; I want us to work together to achieve an objective article. However, you don't seem to be willing to do this. You seem to be full of rhetoric but show no sources to backup your points. O.celebi (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 one external links on Turkish people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927104440/http://www.devplan.org/Nufus-2011/nufus%20son_.pdf to http://www.devplan.org/Nufus-2011/nufus%20son_.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.sida.se/Svenska/Lander--regioner/Europa/Turkiet/Utvecklingen-i-Turkiet/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141113203531/http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/129854 to http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/129854
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.azstat.org/statinfo/demoqraphic/en/AP_/1_5.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423153420/http://www.angelfire.com/az/rescon/ALEVI.html to http://www.angelfire.com/az/rescon/ALEVI.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319183323/http://www.chowk.com:80/khadijabibi/iLogs/life/35000-Moslems-convert-into-Christianity-each-year-in-Turkey to http://www.chowk.com/khadijabibi/iLogs/life/35000-Moslems-convert-into-Christianity-each-year-in-Turkey
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080501100907/http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua:80/eng/results/nationality_population/nationality_1/ to http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/nationality_population/nationality_1/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310234552/http://www.csgb.gov.tr/csgbPortal/diyih.portal?page=yv&id=1 to http://www.csgb.gov.tr/csgbPortal/diyih.portal?page=yv&id=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hurriyet.de/haberler/yazarlar/999787/ingilteredeki-turkler
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.starkibris.net/index.asp?haberID=51233
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kibrisgazetesi.com/index.php/cat/1/col/119/art/17680/PageName/Ana_sayfa
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/683aGZggq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdemoscope.ru%2Fweekly%2Fssp%2Frus_nac_10.php to http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_nac_10.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106212632/http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_nac_89.php?reg=4 to http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_nac_89.php?reg=4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929205227/http://www.musavirlikler.gov.tr/altdetay.cfm?AltAlanID=368&dil=TR&ulke=DZ to http://www.musavirlikler.gov.tr/altdetay.cfm?AltAlanID=368&dil=TR&ulke=DZ

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

adjective at religion part
can anyone please define 'extreme minority' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.225.144 (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add this: Genetics study
This peer-reviewed study proves that many Anatolian Turks are not just Turkified natives:
 * Our ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig 2) revealed that Turkic-speaking populations scattered across Eurasia tend to share most of their genetic ancestry with their current geographic non-Turkic neighbors. This is particularly obvious for Turkic peoples in Anatolia, Iran, the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe, but more difficult to determine for northeastern Siberian Turkic speakers, Yakuts and Dolgans, for which non-Turkic reference populations are absent. We also found that a higher proportion of Asian genetic components distinguishes the Turkic speakers all over West Eurasia from their immediate non-Turkic neighbors. These results support the model that expansion of the Turkic language family outside its presumed East Eurasian core area occurred primarily through language replacement, perhaps by the elite dominance scenario, that is, intrusive Turkic nomads imposed their language on indigenous peoples due to advantages in military and/or social organization.link 94.176.82.177 (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You may add it. Be bold! Kavas (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017
212.149.244.40 (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"Öksökö" image
I do not doubt that in the context of 20th-century Pan-Turkism, the Yakut name of Öksökö was adduced to describe the Anatolian double-headed eagle emblem. The trick would be in CITING YOUR SOURCES so people know who did so, and when. --dab (𒁳) 18:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)