Talk:Turkish people/Archive 3

Image:Turks2.jpg
I was told by User:Khoikhoi that consensus had been reached on the use of this image so I changed it in the article for him, but User:-Inanna- uploaded Image:TTurks.JPG over it (thus the current versions of the two images are identical). I've reverted Inanna's change and am protecting the image. However, if there has been no consensus on the image, I'm going to revert it back to the original image. What are we doing here, folks?  howch e  ng   {chat} 00:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, my version WAS the original image. Ask any other user. Inanna's image was uploaded later, and was snuck into the page by Inanna's sockpuppet before the page got protected. The image has been talked about, and people have rejected Inanna's image (see above). --Khoikhoi 01:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Mine was original and i have worked on it more than 4 hours.I have changed it many times by opinions.Last one was accepted by all the users(except for khokhoi).I have never used sockpuppets.Please dont care Khokhoi,Tombseye and Latinus.They are changing all the articles about Turks.The most important and famous people are on my picture.

-Inanna-


 * Ok let's review what Inanna just said:


 * Mine was original. Lie. Proof:
 * Last one was accepted by all the users(except for khokhoi). Lie. Proof: see the discussion above, many users such as Tombseye, Benne, and Burgas00 have agreed with me.
 * I have never used sockpuppets. Lie. Proof: Here's a very partial list of some of her sockpuppets, used to avoid violating the 3RR or evading her blocks:, , , , ,
 * The most important and famous people are on my picture. Lie. Those two women on the right are not as famous as other Turks, such as Orhan Pamuk.


 * --Khoikhoi 02:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair, not being logged in is not the same as using sockpuppets. Also, you guys have been in repeated violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Let's try to keep the discussion level-headed, okay?  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at the history of this discussion, we've been able to come to some consensus with people who are willing to be flexible and include a wide range of views on various topics. The problem is that -Inanna- wants to inflate all population figures (including counting Turks and Turkish Cypriots twice and ignoring any information she doesn't like) and she deliberately, after we had the discussion and I provided academic links on people such as Roxelana and the Barbarosa brothers, insisted that anyone who was of any note who set foot in Turkey was a Turk and could be included in her picture collage. Some of the more outlandish claims included counting the Tajik Rumi as a Turk. She since has dropped this demand at least with Roxelana, especially after she backtracked and claimed that she must have been a Khazar Jew and thus still a "Turk" or a Tatar etc., while simply ignoring the Barbarosa brothers birth on the island of Lesbos to a Greek father. In addition, just for the sake of giving the page a look that matches all the other peoples picture pages, we were hoping for a 4 people picture. Orhan's not popular with some Turks, not because he's not famous, but because of his political views and thus he is not wanted on the picture page. The picture is minor point in comparison to the other behavior. -Inanna- shows a history of deceit, breaking the 3R rule over and over again, ZERO willingness to compromise, making offensive remarks deliberately (either she is goaded by others such as some Greeks or simply goes on a tirade on Greeks, Kurds, Americans, you name it), attempting to make things personal on a regular basis by first asking questions about posters and then attempting to use that information to belittle them later, and frankly hasn't contributed much of anything other than links and pictures to promote a nationalist perspective. I think, at this point, my history with this page and other pages shows that I am willing to listen and compromise whenever possible whereas here, certain people simply want their POV and refuse to consider any other possibilities. This page was not written with any malicious intent and has been altered over and over again to appease people who think it doesn't present the Turks in a POSITIVE enough light. Some of the other comments were constructive and given a great deal of credence whenever applicable. That's what this is about. None of the information is wrong, references and sources are given, and the diversity of the Turks should be considered something of amazing quality given their ability to assimilate other people. Judge for yourself and look at the track record here thus far. Tombseye 18:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Inanna, please do not remove others' comments as you did here. Thank you.  howch e  ng   {chat} 21:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I should change the lies about me.He changes all my comments all the time.Why doesnt his deletion reverted? He is talking about me but he is using sockpuppets as well. Anyway i understood what's going on...

Tombseye, dont make any comments about me again please.At least dont use my username.

-Inanna-


 * I have never used sockpuppets. Please don't make claims without backing it up with sources. Tombseye has a right to talk about you. Why shouldn't he? --Khoikhoi 01:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Howcheng, Inanna has taken advantage of her changing IP address to edit pages during her blocks, as well as avoiding the 3RR. See the history page of Turkish Cypriot for example. --Khoikhoi 01:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's too hilarious. Deleting proof constitutes lies now. I'll make whatever comments I feel like. Talk about denial. Tombseye 18:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I say we submit the image issue to a vote. Let's close this poll in five days (ends 6 Feb 2006).  howch e  ng   {chat} 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support Khoikhoi's image:
 * Khoikhoi 01:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Tombseye 18:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Tajik 18:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Chaldean 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * --Eupator 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Pylambert 00:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC) (but I'd rather like 3 men - 3 women, and the feminist one of Inanna would seem right to be included, plus for instance Bülent Ersoy, as a symbol of Turkey's modernity; I wouldn't mind also replacing Pamuk by Nazim Hikmet)
 * SouthernComfort 00:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Consistency amongst peoples articles which only have 4 images. However, I share a similar opinion as Pylambert - if Pamuk is the main problem, replace him.
 * TigranTheGreat 09:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Pamuk is a world renowned figure and major awards recepient. It should be a matter of pride for Turks to have him in the list. One Sultan is enough, 4 pics is the standard.
 * --Expatkiwi17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * --RaffiKojian 20:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC) for all the reasons stated above, I agree the original pic should stay. If people discuss the issue and decide on a new "top 4", then that is fine.

Sorry Pylambert, time's over!Altau 00:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Altau, since Howcheng posted his message on 22:14, 1 February, I think the poll closes 22:14 6 February. --Khoikhoi 00:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Khokoi, "Ends 6 Feb" means "Ends 6 Feb 00.00".Serbs,Czechs(and some others) have more than 4 people also.Pylambert if you prefer it so much so why didnt you vote on inanna? Altau 04:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Look Inanna/Altau, most ethnic group articles have 4 pictures. That's a fact. Stop using sock puppets and grow up. --Khoikhoi 05:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter; the "vote" was really just a way for me to gauge where everyone stands on this. If there was overwhelming support one way or the other, then we would just go with that one image, but as it stands, it looks as if we need to find some sort of common ground everyone can agree on.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should change those articles to 4 pictures as well. Wikipedia is not a stagnant resource - it is constantly changing and evolving and growing. We're slowly getting there, so I'm sure those articles will fall into line so as to be consistent. SouthernComfort 05:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me ask you a question - if Orhan Pamuk is replaced, will that end this dispute? SouthernComfort 05:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Support Inanna's image:
 * AverageTurkishJoe 01:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * --hybrid lily 09:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Raki-holic 16:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Altau 22.20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * --TuzsuzDeliBekir 07:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * -Inanna- 5 February 2006
 * KanuniSS 23:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * --Expatkiwi17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Support neither: (please be sure to add suggestions on what to do)
 * Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC) -- I would like to see four pictures on every peoples page, and prefer two of them to depict women. I think it would be wise to concentrate on people who lived in the Republican age.
 * My suggestions:
 * Atatürk
 * Halide Edip Adıvar
 * Orhan Pamuk -- his controversiality does not make him less well-known, he has written great books
 * Sezen Aksu


 * As i said below Its better to vote name by name than voting a group of names.. --Ugur Basak 23:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Image issues
OK, here are some of the contentious issues I see with the image (summarizing from previous discussion):
 * 1) Number of pictures in the collage. Can we come to an agreement on four since that's what other articles have?
 * 2) Orham Pamuk. Can we find a suitable replacement?
 * 3) Pictures of women. Can we find at least one woman to put in?

Did I miss anything? Again, I'm just trying to find some sort of compromise that will be acceptable to all parties here.  howch e  ng   {chat} 21:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sezen Aksu, the one on the far right is a woman. --Khoikhoi 00:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sezen Aksu is a woman ? Her voice sure had me fooled(j/k). Ajda Pekkan is probably more prominent than Sezen Aksu, but i wont be all dressed in black if Sezen is put up. Ataturk and Suleiman I are absolute musts. Halide and pamuk are both novelists. Let's have some variety. How about a sportsperson like Hakan Şükür or Naim Süleymanoğlu ?

I've a suggestion about voting for pictures. May be its better to vote for names.Its better to vote name by name than voting a group of names. Every people nominates for example 4 people. And then users vote 3 of them. After the voting time finishes (can be 7 days), 4 most voted peoples pictures can be put.--Ugur Basak 23:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, let me say that I'm cool with that suggestion since that jackass Altau/ -Inanna- deleted my comments because they didn't like them. Tombseye 23:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image voting
Putting into place User:Ugur Basak's idea, I'm listing the suggestions made by User:Benne above here. Please add your own suggestions, comments, and votes (I'll add Benne's since they're all his(?) suggestions in the first place). Let's close this poll seven days from now (23:59:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)) and the top four vote-getters go into the image. Note if you suggest someone, you should have a public domain or GFDL-compatible image to use to make this collage; there's no point in adding a picture that we can't legally use.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * May be there must be a rule about voting, every user can vote at most four names. --Ugur Basak 23:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Please limit yourself to four votes, people. Oh, and sign your votes with four tildes ( ~ ).  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * One more thing: any attempts at vote-stacking (i.e., going other users' talk pages and asking them to vote one way or another) will be highly frowned-upon. It's OK to go ask someone to vote, but do not tell them how to vote.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If you give permission, i want to prepare the picture for results. Inanna 01:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like our four winners are Suleiman, Ataturk, Adivar, and Aksu. Inanna, please go ahead and make the image. I hope this issue is now settled.  howch e  ng   {chat} 16:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Suleiman

 * 1) -Inanna- 7 February 2006
 * 2) Khoikhoi 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Raki-holic 21:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Ugur Basak 21:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) DivineIntervention 19:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) AverageTurkishJoe 23:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Atatürk

 * 1) -Inanna- 7 February 2006
 * 2) Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Ugur Basak 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Tombseye 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Khoikhoi 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Pylambert 01:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Raki-holic 21:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) DivineIntervention 19:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) AverageTurkishJoe 23:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Halide Edip Adıvar

 * 1) -Inanna- 7 February 2006
 * 2) Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Tombseye 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Pylambert 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Raki-holic 21:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) AverageTurkishJoe 23:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Orhan Pamuk

 * his controversiality does not make him less well-known, he has written great books
 * 1) Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Tombseye 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Khoikhoi 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sezen Aksu

 * 1) -Inanna- 7 February 2006
 * 2) Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Tombseye 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Khoikhoi 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Pylambert 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) AverageTurkishJoe 23:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fatih Sultan Mehmet

 * 1) Ugur Basak 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sertab Erener

 * 1) Ugur Basak 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) DivineIntervention 19:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazım Hikmet
--TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Pylambert 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (the Turkish literary and political equivalent of Pablo Neruda)
 * 2) -Inanna- 7 February 2006 I still think we should put 6 pics and one of them should be him.

Hülya Koçyiğit

 * 1) -Inanna- 7 February 2006 She holded the most awards.
 * 2) Raki-holic 21:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In the Poll make sure the people contributed are not locked out and cannot respond
Please do not declare the results of the picture poll before hearing from everyone who voiced opinion on this page.

And please make a note that "Wikipedia is not a Democracy". A statement cannot be proven or disproven by intimidation or consent.

AverageTurkishJoe 02:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is blocked at this time, and the people who usually get blocked edit anyway by changing their IP. --Khoikhoi 02:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad Process Warning
In the Poll make sure the people contributed are not locked out and cannot respond

Please do not declare the results of the picture poll before hearing from everyone who voiced opinion on this page.

And please make a note that "Wikipedia is not a Democracy". A statement cannot be proven or disproven by intimidation or consent.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WWIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy

Also note that:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WWIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WWIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WWIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought

I know you all have read these but I feel obliged to repeat here. This article itself confesses that it is a "debate" which Wikipedia Guidelines clearly state that "debates" are not acceptable as articles. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation: The whole basis of this artice is speculation. Tombseye agrees that this is a "guess" an "educated guess".

This article has been locked for 3 weeks now. Effectively making it Tombseye's article. Which is definitely against the core idea of Wikipedia. This article displays an anti-pattern of what a Wikipedia article should *not* be since it violates fundamental guidelines of Wikipedia.

Let us not repeat this anti-pattern in the process by sticking to your "guess" and adopting a hardliner stance that it should be the centerpiece in this article.

If the voting process is a preparation for a "fait accompli" along the lines of your "debate" this article will also be the despicable example of Wikipedia process anti-pattern.

AverageTurkishJoe 02:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly is your problem with the article as it stands though? I get the feeling that the only problem here is that it doesn't back a view that the Turks are largely immigrants to the region or something. I think the DNA tests, and there have been a lot of them done in Turkey, seem to universally back that the Turks are largely linked to the region and not to Central Asia. Are you just looking for something to back some view that most people were not turkified? Mostly, the info. I input is from academic references listed at the bottom of the page. SOME things are educated guesses, but to paint the entire article as one big guess is misleading. Specifically, what's wrong with the article? Tombseye 19:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ''Please try to see the inappropriateness in entirely devoting the article called "American People" to how "English" they are or whether the language of "America" should be German instead of English as if America and American people do not have a history or culture of their own. Or a more striking example: "Greek People" article being exclusively devoted to sorrorities and fraternities in college campuses.  I have raised many objections about the factual accuracy of this article, but the  inapropriateness of the content to the title is my main concern.  Trying to associate a 60,000 year old haplotype to certain ethnicites is as best left to the the claimer of that effort.  I would suggest the controversial claims are best presented on the articles that are devoted to their owners. So If Renfrew is claiming something which is not widely accepted it is best to include it the "Renfrew" article. If there is a controversy about the "original homeland" of the slavic peoples this should be in the article called "Slavic peoples" article.


 * ''So you are saying "Turks of Turkey aren't very Turkish" and you want this to be the central message of *this* article. How does this contribution rate in terms of value it adds to Wikipedia and value it takes away from by usurping this real estate and not letting any information that would be directly related to todays "Turks of Turkey"?


 * Tombseye, I am sure you have spent a lot of time adding info and editing this article. But this does not give you the "authorship" and the final say in the destiny of the article. Your contribution is the largest because everybody else is locked out from making any contribution.   I have a hard time to understand your overprotectiveness and I take offence in being blocked from making contribution. AverageTurkishJoe 04:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Tombseye, don't get me wrong I am also sticking to my "depopulation" just like you are sticking to your "amalgamation" theory. AverageTurkishJoe 14:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm actually not sure what being Turkish means other than speaking the language and being from Turkey etc. I'm not claiming authorship or being overprotective so much as sticking to what a lot of other academics say about Turkey and the Turks. In addition, I can quite easily tell that many academics have faced a lot of the nationalist rhetoric handed down by the Turkish govt. for decades that was meant to unite the country, but clashes with views that in any way divide the Turks by ancestral origin or diversity of that sort. The amalgamation theory isn't mine either. Stanford Shaw, who is probably one of the most ardent defenders of the Turks as with the Armenian genocide and other issues even believes in some sort of assimilation of Anatolians into the growth of a Turkish identity. It's quite common at the academic level. I never claimed final authorship and if you look above I keep asking what do you want to add to change the article and I wanted to work together. My problem was not with you and after a while I decided that the picture issue was not really worth arguing over either so long as people who aren't Turks are kept off such as Roxelana et. al. However, you have to admit that your examples seem to point to sporadic depopulation and how do you accommodate the genetic issue at all here? I'm also not responsible for the blocking of the article and you're not one of the people with whom I've seen as completely unreasonable either. We can put forth a two theory approach then and say that some believe that Turks entered a depopulated area and you explain who, what, where, when, and how this points to population replacement etc. I've never been opposed to the possibility as many things are possible, but yes I don't believe in a depopulation theory simply because I find it hard to reconcile the genetic evidence and the large native population of millions being replaced by, at the most, thousands of Turkic peoples. I'm also going by the preponderance of academic views who relate the growth of a Turkish population through a process of large-scale assimilation over the centuries in addition to migration that contribued close to 30% of the gene pool. Like I said before, there's plenty of room for compromise and adding to the article without everyone simply taking an extreme view here. As for the picture conflict, how about we stick to a 4 people picture and we can not include Pamuk? Can you agree to that so that we can move on and get this page unprotected? Then you can add your information regarding a depopulation theory alongside what is already in the article. In this way, the article will address many issues and also look comparable to other ethnic peoples articles. Is this agreeable? Tombseye 22:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok let's try to come up with an article that willl make sense. Please read the the "More historical overview" I just added. AverageTurkishJoe 19:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

AverageTurkishJoe, if you feel strongly about this, I suggest you list this page at WP:RFC/SOC to get some other third-party comment. I myself have been trying to act as a mediator in gaining some sort of consensus as to what this article is supposed to be. At this point, I'm still reluctant to unprotect the article as I have no guarantees this isn't going to just return to a revert war.  howch e  ng   {chat} 20:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyway, if we can come back the issue, DNA researches are made with limited experiments, and their results mostly generalize for all. Another aspect that we cannot ignore experiments background. Did scientist have a deep information about them ? I will ask this, because of migration after the dead of Ottoman Empire. Was their family born in Anatolia or another countries which are considered as Turkic country ? In point of view, I am afraid, these aspect will cause a big conflict, and discussion won't find its end


 * Above was made by TuzsuzDeliBekir. I agree with him. Tombseye, I think you should consider his comment.--hybrid lily 22:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the problem with that assessment, there have been MANY tests and done at random over and over again. It's not really possible to conduct a test of millions, but thousands done in different regions and peoples is to me pretty convincing. Next, a lot of the scientists are either Europeans or Turks with Turkish names. It's a collaborative effort. Why are we supposed to assume that there is some sort of conspiracy here? Are you sure this isn't simply about not liking the findings rather than questioning the scientific merit of the results? I find it hard to believe that people who have worked on so many different research projects have all come to similar findings and have also been working together to subvert some belief or other. These tests have been used in England to find that the English cluster with both the Irish/Scots and Germanic peoples for example. I don't think the results of these tests are the problem as many people don't like them because they believe certain things and don't like the idea of having something distorting that view. If there is some evidence you have of a conspiracy then share it. Tombseye 23:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi:

Yes, you did.Stop provoking people by your lies.Even I dont know how to change an IP adress.To be honest, i asked this one user but he didnt tell me and i really dont know.Besides, stop showing yourself as piteous.For Tombseye, I dont give that right to him(her).

Note: Sezen Aksu is a Tatar.But that doesnt mean we cant put her picture.Just an information.

-Inanna-


 * I have never logged out on purpose to evade my 3RR blocks. You have done this many times. Here's my proof: see the history page on Turkish Cypriot. You have no proof that I have ever used a sockpuppet.


 * Just saying "Sezen Aksu is a Tatar" isn't going to cut it. Where's your proof? --Khoikhoi 00:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, i am calling to my right friends; If you want to change any person in my picture, please notify me...Thanks.

-Inanna-

Archiving very necessary
Someone please take the time to archive this page - I've not been involved in the discussion here so I don't know which parts are still relevant. SouthernComfort 01:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

More Historical Overview
I don't have any problem with including in the picture anybody who was once citizen of Turkey or Ottoman Empire if the title means Turks of Turkey, People of Turkey etc. So Roxelena is okay with me. I don't have an objection to Orhan Pamuk either. As a matter of fact we don't have to make the format of the Turkish people article similar to others. Jewish People and French people do not have pictures and number of countries do not have "people" articles including American people for example. Ziya Gokalp who was the intellectual force in defining "turkish nationalism"; he had Kurdish parents. So by your standard he would not make it to the picture but by his standards he would. Exclusion of Roxelena would be similar to exclusion of the "House of windsor" from the English people since they are Hapsburgs. Anyway picture debate is not at the top of my concerns in this article.

I would like to know what is meant by "amalgamation". I know it is used as a metaphor for "melting pot" but you would agree that "melting pot" is also another metaphor. Do you mean some kind of a "hybridization" (crossbreeding or mongrelization) of the peoples? You would agree that this is quite offensive no matter what ethnicity one belongs to. That is ethnic and religious minorities in Turkey would also find it very offensive. If I were a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin I would have had a hard time to see the distinction between being called a "hybrid" and a "mountain Turk." Contrary to what you might think Turkish people do know their parents' origin and have no problem in saying I am Circassion, Kurdish, Laz, etc. I would very much see the term "amalgamation" and the genetic argument removed. Mongrelization is the more direct term. (and if and if you are claiming that Turks are mongrels the argument should be abundant with primary sources and direct quotes from reserarchers that say so, for obvious reasons.)

The main problem arises from trying to define the ethnicity of the peoples by their genes while they themselves clearly declare what their ethnic affiliation is. This effort leads to another problem that different self-proclaimed ethnicities are genetically similar in Turkey and that genetic material in Turkey is close the neighboring countries and to Europeans. This is where the big jumping to the conclusion comes: "All peoples in Turkey must be mongrels and and the Turkish contribution must be small". (With only one research paper claiming this it looks like the author of this article is bearing witness to the trueness of their conclusion.) There are too many assumptions in this statement and this amounts to a "historic interpretation".

(Correction: I read the Benedetto article again and that is not what they are claiming either so this claim is a POV of the WP editor, please read the 'Dienekes is no Historian' section below AverageTurkishJoe 16:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

The statement one third of the population being ethnically Turk either need to be sourced like "according to so and so" with a direct quote or it should be excluded from the article. Yes Turkish government stopped asking the ethnic origin of their citizens for number of reasons whether rightly or wrongly and we may not have this information but this does not give us the freedom of manufacturing it. If Stanford Shaw is claiming Turkish people are mongrels then he should be quoted as saying this with his own words.



We do not have a very clear picture of the number of inhabitants of Asia Minor in neither in the late antiquity not in the early Medieval times. Instead we have widely ranging estimations of the figures one figure is 30 millions for the whole Roman Empire (East West combined) to 30 million for the eastern part before the Justinian plague of 587. Please note that eastern part of the Empire includes Syria and Egypt. Procopius reports that 1,200,000 people died just in Constantinople in four months. Upto one half of the population of the city perished in 542. (http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1996-7/Smith.html) The population of Constantinople was down to 50,000 by 1453 (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/cnst/hd_cnst.htm) The mortality rate for the whole empire is estimated to be one third. The plague hit the urban centers the hardest and mortality rate in urban centers is much higher that the rural areas.

Again Cyril Mango writes about the very considerable number of Slavonics including the tribe Sagoudaous in Bythnia circa 1100. The name Sagoudaous is curious for it sounds like Scythians and the district across the Bosphorus is called Uskudar namely the land of Scyths. "When the Seljuk commanders settled down in Konya, there were still large Christian populations in the towns along the coast. The process of conversion of all of Anatolia was slow during the 1100s. The Byzantines and the Turkish Sultans were usually at peace and they treated each other mostly with respect and diplomacy.The Mongol invasions (in 1243 and again in 1256) changed all that. The Turks were pushed from Central Asia into the towns and valleys of Anatolia which increased the Turkish population greatly." (http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/Ibn_Battuta/Battuta's_Trip_Five.html an easy read)



We have the account of the Ibn Batuta's visit to Anatolia at this this time 1330-1331. In his account there is no mention of conversions of the Christian population and all places he mentions he was taken care of by the Turkmens Ahis. He also mentions that Turkmen women did not cover their head and men and women were not segregated as it would be in the Arab Islamic lands. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/batuta.html. Ahi organization was in the form of a masonic lodge and they were involved in colonization and organized immigration of the Turks in Anatolia. Apparently the Turkmen tribes were in contact and Ibn Battuta's tour was planned and executed with the exactness of a modern Rock concert tour. (my interpretation.) This gives us an idea of the organization level of turkmens in 1300s. It is also interesting to note that the the orthodox interpretation of the Islamic attire and manners were dictated in the cities but the Turkic populations had their own interpretation of the practice. Batuta in a way acting like an inspector and observing the adherence to Islam of the Turkmen populations. (In way much similar to what St. Paul did and conveyed his observations and warnings in the letters to the seven churches of the Ancient World.) He saw practices that did not fit the orthodox interpretation but he was overall very pleased with he way he was treated.



Ibn Batuta seems to have visited the Sunni and nominally Sunni lands of the Turkmens in the West. In the east Alevi/Bektashi/Kizilbash elements were dominant and situation was markedly different. Even looking at todays Alevi/Sunni population distribution in Turkey -except for migration to coastal large cities in the modern times- we can still see that the places Batuta visited  are constrained to Sunni/Turkmen lands. This is a very good evidence that the populations in Turkey for the most part stayed put where they first settled and they still live there. This may not be a well known fact outside of Turkey but in Turkey, when asked where one is from they answer with the city they live now and the city/village their ancestors were from. The internal immigration to cities took place in the 70s and even then people from the same village settled in the same districts in the large city. In Istanbul there are myriads of social clubs named after their villages cities etc. It is also important to note that the village name also shows the tribal affiliation.

The central authority, the Seljuk State was sunni and viewed the Turkmen settlement in the west as growing of their land but the turkish settlement in the east with alevi turkic elements were viewed with suspicion but tolerated during this time. In the west there was a clear frontier where the greeks lived in the coastal towns and Turkmen and the Greek speaking Romans did not have much of a contact.

In the east situation was a little different:

During the Byzantine times in Eastern Anatolia most part of people were and stayed Armenian or Monophysite Christians, and for that reason have had to endure hostility and persecutions from the Byzantine Church. Then, they almost gave a warm welcome to the Turks, like manycenturies ago, Nestorians and Palestinian and Syrian Monophysites greeted with favour the Muslim conquest. But there was no massive conversion in Anatolia.(The Armenians of Erzincan is a special case and needs to be investigated without over generalization) The social and demographic situation of the Kurdish populations at this time is a lot more complicated. Since unlike the west where there was clear seperation between the greek speaking people and the Turkmen, in the east Turks and Kurds settled in the same areas. Kurds at this time were also Muslims and thus there was no frontier in the Turkmen settlement. (There could be some assimilation of the Turkmen in the Kurdish population here but this needs to be investigated meticulously and all generalizations should be avoided.) Before the mongol invasion there is a Babai revolt where mixed Kurdish Turkish (Afshar) groups revold against the Konya Seljuk and they are transported to Azerbayjan. And this group is instrumental in the formation of Safavids. (Since this statement is likely to spark contreversy along the lines whether Safavids had Turkish roots, I am saying that this needs to be investigated and we shoud avoid overreaching generalizations. )

There was another plague in 1348 (Black Death) which also wiped out one third of the population of Eastern Roman State (probably it was much higher in the cities). This is also very important since the Roman populations were concentrated in the cities along the coasts this is very likely to change the demographics of Asia Minor in favor of the Turks. (Boubonic plague was carried by the rats and there are accounts of ships hitting the shores with dead or abondoned crew so it is likely that Greek speaking coastal towns are hardest hit and the Turmens in the inlands were uncathed.)

Ok, I just wrote all this to give some historical background, it seems likely that the brief 'historical overview' included in the article is not on the mark about Turkish people being a mongrel. I woud advise against including this 'genetic argument' in this article. We have archeological records and first hand account in the impact of the plagues and other disasters in the Roman empire and resulting depopulation. We have evidence that Turkic/muslim elements did not merge with the christian populations, there are accounts of settlement by the Turkish elements in the Muslim-Kurdish areas and possiblem assimilation of Turks in the Kurdish groups. And there is evidence that people stayed put where they settled for almost a thousand years. I would think that we are not burdened here to explain the results of a specific genetic research. If that piece of information is not mature enough for an encyclopedia we just wait until it matures. AverageTurkishJoe 19:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like some good information which I'll wade through as time permits. We can't include everyone who ever lived in the Ottoman Empire! I mean Rumi was an ethnic Tajik. How can one become a Turk just like that? Perhaps that would make more sense if we had an Ottoman people page. I think we have to draw lines such as newly arrived people, at the very least are a hyphenated people as we refer to in the US such as Chinese-American etc. Nor does it seem likely that someone like Rumi simply decided that he was no longer a Persian and had become a Turk simply because he moved somewhere else. That just opens up a whole can of worms. I'm not going to argue over the picture page, but including known non-Turks seems really problematic and is something we're trying to avoid on the other peoples pages. As for the historical information backing a replacement population, I think it can be included WITH the genetic information. The Country Guide on Turkey published by the US Library of congress actually refers to the genetic study showing 30% Central Asian admixture and it's discussed in numerous journals and is referred to without actual reference but allusion in Encyclopedia Americana. I have no problem with adding information, but definitely against removing pretty reliable information that adds another dimension just as your historical data does which shows where the 30% contribution comes from since that's a higher percentage than even in Azerbaijan which is closer to Central Asia. Tombseye 20:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No offence to Tajik poeople but Mevlana's classification as Tajik would be very wrong. He became famous in Konya, he calls himself Rumi - (Seljuk Rum that is he is from Konya) that is his own saying. He wrote in Persian (, Konya Seljuk leaders had persian names also). Besides, ethnic affiliation did not mean much to him:  He is ultimate peak of islamic sufism he preached unity all of people, the nature and God. This is another case where Mevlana refuses to be piegonholed, maybe he is just too great to belong to just one article. AverageTurkishJoe 22:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's insane! People don't change ethnicities just because they live somewhere or get famous somewhere. Is Arnold Scharzeneggar not of Austrian ethnicity anymore simply because he has American citizenship? What's the point of these articles if anyone can be any ethnic group they want or are seen by others as being. Rumi's not a Turk and he is a Tajik. He was born to a long established family from Balkh, spoke Persian as his first language, and simply moving to Anatolia does not change any of that. Sorry, but I can't even remotely agree with that assessment because frankly it makes zero sense. This frankly seems like a form of ultranationalism. No offense here, but the Nazis wanted to claim that the Doric Greeks and anyone of any historical note was a German. Gandhi preached a unity of all people as did Martin Luther King Jr. so how does that make Gandhi not an Indian and King not an African-American? Existential and metaphysical discussions aside, Rumi is not by any stretch of the imagination a Turk of Turkey. Tombseye 19:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As you will notice upon a second read I did not say he is Turkish. I said he is equidistant (or equally close) to all ethnicities. There is not need to involve Nazis in the argument. AverageTurkishJoe 02:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How is he equidistant? I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense. He's still a Persian. Fine, I take back the Nazi comment, but I don't at all support that he's 'equidistant' or anything other than what he was born as, a Tajik/Persian. Tombseye 05:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Dienekes is no Historian
Tombseye, It seems to me that you are trying to further Dienekes' political view.

He is no historian. I did respond to him when he first posted his article on his site. (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/02/how-turkish-are-anatolians.html) And I got the same response from him I am getting from you. There is just one research paper that found 3.8 percent "mongoloid" contribution in Turkey. He adds papers about the mongoloid contribution to other central asian turkish groups. And the result is that there is little mongolian contribution in Asia Minor. But he interprets this as turks must be more like mongols so population of turkey must not be very turkish. This is a political interpretation. I strongly disagree including this politically motivated genetic argument in Wikipedia. AverageTurkishJoe 04:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

On 26 November 2005, 14:43 User:Gerkinstock changed the Mongoloid article

From:

Turkic Mongoloids
 * In Central Asia, the Uzbeks, the Uighur, the Kyrgyz, and the Kazakhs are Turkic Mongoloid, the Western cousins of the Mongolians. Historically, the Huns and the Tatars have been considered to belong to the Mongoloid family. The Turkmen, while are still Central Asian, Turkic-Mongoloids, have mixed heavily with Caucasoid neighbours to the west, and most of the even more westerly Turkic-speakers of Turkey and Azerbaijan appear to have little or no Mongoloid ancestry.

To:


 * In Central Asia, the Uzbeks, the Uighur, the Kyrgyz, and the Kazakhs show strong Turkic Mongoloid elements, which would make them the Western cousins of the Mongolians. However, among them, and especially among Uzbeks and Uyghurs in particular, one may notice a continuum of physical types that ranges from Mongoloid to Europoid Caucasoid. This tends to also be true among the modern Tatars (Bulgars) and Bashkirs. Historically, the Huns and the ancient Tatars have been considered to belong to the Mongoloid family. The Turkmen, while are still Central Asian Turkic-Mongoloids, have mixed heavily with Caucasoid neighbours to the west, and many of the even more westerly Turkic-speakers, such as those in Azerbaijan appear to have little or no visible Mongoloid ancestry, although many may have less visible Mongoloid features. Turks in Turkey have an amount of Mongoloid features that is related to the amount of actual Turkic ancestry present in the individuals considered. This is variable in Turkey due to the varied ancestry of most of the population. While many scholars explain the variablity of the physical characteristics of Turkic Mongoloids as the result of intermixing with Caucasoids, some propose that there may have at one point been a distinct Turkic Mongoloid group, with particular and distinct physical characteristics

With no sourcing of the claim with references. Incidentaly It is the same claim added in this article on December 15, 2005  again without sources. And Tombseye added "real turks are mongoloids" argument which Dienekes is trying to show with torturing the results of several different papers. Is this some kind of a conspiracy? AverageTurkishJoe 06:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you mean by "real Turk". I think Turk should be used for people from Republic of Tukey only. Turkic should be used for everyone else. What's a real Turkic in this case? It's like asking what's a real Indo-European? A Turkic is defined by language not by race, well at least for the lst thousand years. A Europid Turk from Ankara (who could have Galatian ancestry) is equally just as Turkish as some guy that looks Chinese. Just my two cents. --Eupator 16:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dienekes isn't alone in his assessment AND the earliest (and of course modern Turkic peoples) known Turkic tribes speak a closely related language to Mongolian of the Altaic family, originally live in close proximity to them, and are mentioned in Eastern Asia quite frequently as with the Chinese LONG before any mention of them in Central Asia or anywhere further west. How do you reconcile that? The Turkic tribes, if we are to assume some relationship with Mongols which most academics do, moved and mixed with Iranian tribes, Scythians, and others or may have already mixed with early Eurasian groups while living close to the Mongols and then moved south towards the modern Middle East. I don't understand what you're debating here. Ignoring these issues does not make them go away. Also, I never said real Turks were Mongols as I would never claim that one group was more real than another; I simply said that originally Turkic peoples were probably of Turkic-Mongol extraction (paraphrasing here) and I stand by that, and lived in northeastern Asia. Are you disputing that too? At some point we have to assume that the Altaic peoples were one and lived in one area and then began to split off into other areas and using historical record we find them mentioned first in one place and then in other places and we can also see a clear pattern of movement. People change, move around, assimilate other cultures etc. The modern Greeks are hardly exactly the same as the Greeks of 2000 years ago. I don't understand what the problem is. You can present your information and we keep what is also in the article. That's a fair compromise. There's no conspiracy here. And Eupator is correct, someone Turkish is just as much of a Turk as a Kazakh. I don't understand what you want here. You clearly want to exclude information for some reason and want to promote some idea of a Turkic people who are more or less homogenous in Anatolia who replace existing populations with little violence or genocide and remove any information that states the contrary. I am saying we can include various theories including yours, but deleting the genetic data just sounds like a way to avoid reality to me. Tombseye 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of the difference between Altaic Languages and the so called Altaic Peoples. Which is Altaic Peoples is a misnomer. I also remain that for a Turkish person to have Europid traits that person does not have to have inherited these traits from an originally Indo-European speaking peoples. That is Galatian ancestry is not a requirement for a Europid Turk. Just like an originally Indo-European language speaking group does not necessarily mean that they are Europids, originally Altaic language speaking group are not necessarily mongoloids. If you guys agree on these statements then we are in agreement. But if you think that for this to occur there needs to be some language imposition like the so called "Aryan invasion" of India then we are in disagreement. AverageTurkishJoe 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're talking in circles here. IF the early Altaic peoples are associated with the Mongols and the Chinese write about them, then what are you talking about here? I never said they had to be 'Indo-European' either or 'Galatian' as that was just an example from Eupator. It really sounds like you are looking for reasons to define a people who are the same as the modern Turks of Turkey who lived in the steppes and arrived in a place where there weren't many people and then took over and then took on a few others who moved to Anatolia after WWI. So where are these people in Central Asia then? Why is the gradient from Turkic-Mongol a shift from a Mongol type to Eurasian/European types in the west and why are there so many common genes between Turks in Turkey and their neighbors, moreso than with other Turkic peoples? You're not even answering these questions and seem to be bent upon wanting to get rid of anything that alludes to this perfectly viable other view. If we have room for your theory, then we certainly have room for this one too. That's all I'm saying. As for language imposition, that's been going on for millennia. Why is it not possible in Turkey? Tombseye 05:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you are avoiding answering my question. But apparently you are disagreeing. Turkic people who were able to run away from the Mongol invasion are in Turkey and Europe now, and Turkic people who were overrun by  the Mongols are in Central Asia. That is exactly why the Mongol traits are highest in the Turkic groups closest to Mongolia and the Mongol contributin decreases as we go west. Dienekes in his analysis defines this hypothetical group "Altaians" as having 38.5% Mongolian haplogroups. He arrives at this number by averaging the Mongolian Haplogroup percentages for various Turkic speakers: Kazaks (86%), Uyghurs (33%),  Dungans (32%), Kyrgyz (22%),  Uzbeks (18%). His calculation is (86% + 33% + 32% +22% + 18%)/5 = (191%)/5 = 38.5%.  Anybody who has some exposure to science knows that you cannot average percentages (I am willing to debate at lengths about why you can't do that if there are any takers). As a scientist Dienekes knows this also, but he conducts this funny math for the mission of defining a Turko-Mongol group with of 38.5% Mongolian Haplotype contribution. This averaging hides the fact that Mongol contribution is highest where it is closest to Mongolia and it decreases as we get far from Mongolia.  When I pointed this funny math to Dienekes he was totally dismissive and he wrote me back something to the meaning that there were no Turks in the west before 1071 that is why they must be akin to Mongols and some funny math would not change this.  if we are talking about circular logic this is the epitome of it.  (he is using his result obtained with funny math to back the same claim in the first place.)  I still would like to hear an answer from you guys to the question I posed above. AverageTurkishJoe 08:42, 7 February 2006

(UTC)
 * Fine, lets not use Europid. Am I right to assume that you think the original Turkic speakers were not Mongoloid? How could they not be considering their geographic location? It's not really an imposition of language as by the time the Turkic speakers reached the West (Anatolia) or Russian steppes they were most likely already Caucasoid or Turanid (semi-Caucasoid) as a result of (call it assimilation or submission) of Iranic and Tocharian speakers.--Eupator 20:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes exactly. They obviously changed as they moved west over generations. Tombseye 23:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that you're right, but that really doesn't prove that the Turks and Mongols, who clearly lived near each other and share related languages weren't at one time one group. Also, this is curious on your part, what about the Kazakhs? Now let's assume that they then were overrun by Mongols, where is their partial genetic lineage showing that they have the same partial genes as say the Turks of Turkey or Azerbaijan even? I don't know what your thing is with Dienekes, but I didn't look at his work or link any articles about him when I put in the genetic information. I imagine he had his reasons for averaging the haplogroups, but I still don't see the relevance here since it's fairly simple what we're dealing with here. Gene flow of 1% per generation is substantial and shows that Turkey did not experience a complete linguistic replacement, but a mass migration that culminated with the absorbing of larger peoples in the region to account for the 70% genes that are not Central Asian. Also, you make another mistake here, it's not necessarily highest near Mongolia, just usually, since we find that the Hazaras and Kalmyks cluster with the Mongols moreso than many of the Turkic and Tatar tribes near Mongolia. Also, which question are you talking about? The one about a conspiracy or the one about assimilation through conquest? Either way, yeah it looks like we disagree pretty substantially, but hey feel free to add your theory. We can even do it as a conflicting theories approach, so long as we don't delete information that others might find interesting such as the genetic studies. Tombseye 21:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Tombseye, you are doing some funny math here also. Genes and languages are not linearly dependent. Genes and ethicities are not the same things either. We are not dealing with scalar quantities here. I am sure you understand what I am saying but you are just iterating your talking point.


 * You seem to have done some research about how the Tajiks and Persians separated. (Which also seems to be the reason why Rumi's family moved from Balkh to Konya) Incidentally it also involves Jenghiz Khan's pursuit of Jallal Addin. Why don't *you* tell us about this part of the history.


 * I don't think what we are dealing here is simple at all. And what complicates things is the genetic argument. Without knowing the mongoloid contribution in the Turkic people moved in Asia Minor, we cannot say anything about their numbers just looking at the genetic outlook of todays Turkey. (This is because the mongol haplogroups are used as tracers which I am disputing the validity of)  Comparing todays Turkey's genetic mixture to that of Central Asian turkic nations we are seeing the combined effect of the demographics events that took place in Central Asia, Asia Minor and the surroundings that they had interaction with. We know from historical record  that they were drastic events in the last fifteen hundred years. I mentioned just a few in the previous posts, two massive plagues and (again two major) Mongol invasions.  However we look at it the only thing that these genetic research results say is that Mongoloid haplotype contribution in Asia Minor is small compared to todays Central Asian populations. If we had a perfect (hypothetical) model of population dynamics for the world and if we had the perfect knowledge of the initial conditions we could have cranked this model forward and find how haplotypes travelled. We don't have this information and most proably we will never have.


 * Original location of the turkic peoples and the turkish language is an undecided matter . Situation is no better for other languages and peoples either. And there are new findings that point towards the origin of the languages in the poleolithic times (up to fourty thousand years ago.) You may have your ideas about the origins of the differrent peoples and languages but this is a hotly debated issue. "How about the Khazaks?" One tongue-in-the-cheek interpretation of this question would be "why did you leave them behind and run away to Asia Minor?" But I guess you are asking if they have that high of a mongoloid haplotypes can we call them turkic?  If they identify themselves as Turkic we call them turkic.  Why not? if they have high mongoloid haplotypes in their populations this is just  another piece of information. It is not Wikipedia's mission to teach people what their "correct" self-proclaimed ethnic affiliation should be. If you think that this is your mission please stop exercising it in Wikipedia.  G. di Benedetto et. al.   article you are quoting does not mention the effect of the plagues and the invasions by the mongols but it has this disclaimer If the European populations of the eastern Mediterranean region are not too different genetically from the 11th century Anatolian population, and if the Turkmen incomers  were not too different from the modern Turkic-speaking groups of Central Asia then it lists
 * 1) the Anatolian gene pool contains a substantial fraction of alleles of Asian origin;
 * 2) immigration rates inferred from female- and male-transmitted traits are similar;
 * 3) if there was a single, nearly instantaneous admixture event, some 30% of the current Anatolian genes have a Central Asian origin; and
 * 4) if there was a continous input of Central Asian alleles, it occurred at a rate of 1% per generation (or less, had the process started before the first Turkmen contact).
 * The question they started "Has linguistic change occurred independently from genetic change in Anatolia, and, if so, why? " They also disclaim that their Genetic data cannot tell us whether the historical sources are reliable. But if most Asian alleles in the current Anatolian gene pool arrived in the 11th century AD, the Oghuz invasion had a much greater demographic impact than is commonly believed by historians. AverageTurkishJoe 08:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep attributing things to me that I haven't said? And yes languages and genes don't have to correspond at all times. Nor did I say I support some aggregation of data. All I've said is that the genetic studies are ONE aspect that is also useful in terms of giving another possibilty and perspective. Do you deny that everything I've said isn't possible? I'm willing to say that your claims are a possibility, but not necessarily the strongest possibility. What does Rumi's life-story have to do with his ethnic background? I don't understand this tangent you're taking here. He was born a Persian/Tajik. End of story. Sorry, he's simply not a Turk. I also would like to clarify a few things. I agree that things aren't simple and welcome your input and what you put into the article. I don't support removing information though. And for the record, I didn't even say that the contribution to Turkey was a Mongol variety. Also, yes demographic shifts DID take place in Central Asia when the Mongols arrived and killed a lot people in,what they saw, as retaliation for the insults they took from the Khwarezm Shah. However, genetic studies have been done with a lot of other peoples and not just the Central Asian Turks, but also Mongols, Eurasian tribes and others. Also, you're overlooking the genetic similarity between the Turks of Turkey and their neighbors. This does seem to support the possibility that many people simply were assimilated into a growing Turkish culture. Also, the genetic contribution from the Mongoloid type isn't even the point as there should be then some similarity with the Tajiks of Central Asia or the variety of Turkified Iranic peoples in Central Asia and we don't even have that with Turkey, except in the minority. Again, I'm not saying that perhaps all of this data may be pointing us in the wrong direction and your theory is correct, but I don't think it can be dismissed on the possibility that it isn't 100% accurate given the changes in history. You know, nothing in history is 100%. For all we know Jesus Christ was made-up, and hell anything that didn't take place in our lifetimes has been fabricated. Lots of things are possible, but you can't dismiss the academic work just by saying it's possibile that it's wrong. That just reminds me of those so-called Intelligent Design people who think that by finding possible problems with any given theory means that evolution and the big bang aren't viable. Come on. By most accounts, according to the historical record, which you yourself have been referring to, the Turks are first mentioned by the Chinese and appear to be close to the Mongols. Why is your usage any more viable than this?
 * And again, the reason I put in the genetic data is because it showed up in print at the library where the Country Study on Turkey (from the Library of Congress) referred to 70% of the genes of Turks corresponding to their region. I'm not doing any original research here any more than you are. The quotes you give are the usual position with most studies of this sort. And yes 30% of a contribution is higher than many historians have believed as most I've read refer to the Turkic invaders as small bands of horsemen in a sea of millions whereas now we have a more viable and stronger theory of a slow migration in addition to cultural assimilation. The study is a perfectly acceptable position in the article along with your view based upon the historical record in the cases of the lesser populated regions of Asia Minor. I think we have room for more one than perspective in this article as, for example, on Pashtun people page we've included other perspectives without problem. Tombseye 23:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am all for adding more perspective to the article. This is my concern from the start. Let's start with two of my concerns.
 * genetic testing has revealed that as much as 30% of Turks have varying degrees of Central Asian ancestry.
 * This sentence is wrong: researchers do not say that that is what they found. (See their assumptions again.)
 * While perhaps less than one-third of those who self-identify as ethnic Turks in Turkey today are predominantly of Altaic origin, the remainder are actually an amalgamation of the pre-existing populations in Anatolia.
 * This sentence is POV. (It uses the previous sentence as justification and it's the authers view.)
 * 'One genetic tests conducted by G. di Benedato at al. using the test subjects from Izmir, Antalya, Van and Ankara and the published (and unpublished) data for the Turkish speakers from Central Asia showed that there is 30% similarity in the observed genetic markers between the test subjects and data for the modern Central Asian subjects.'' this is what they found. AverageTurkishJoe 02:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Similarity or dissimilarity do not mean ethnicities. As a matter of fact it doesn't even mean people. (see the Drosophila melanogaster article for this.) (that is why 30% + 70% = 100% is funny math in this context.)  Please do not introduce assertions of your own. AverageTurkishJoe 12:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Admixture estimates show genetic markers which group in certain regions and thus the estimates given are for example 30% Central Asian etc. The wording can be adjusted, but regardless shows that the Central Asian component is in the minority. No answer on why Anatolian populations cluster with their neighbors, including the Kurds I might add? The statements regarding the 1/3 are of Altaic origin wasn't written by me and since it is an estimate I have no problem with its removal. We can place exact quotes from the study and leave it at that and let the readers decide. Other more extreme views, such as Cavalli-Sforza et. al. even go so far as to say that the original Turkic component is so diluted in Turkey since even in Central Asia it's been diluted and preponderant view is that the original Turkic group was related to the Mongolian component in an early proto-Altaic group. You can pick apart every study you want to, but, outside of Turkey, which is let's face it, hampered by nationalist intentions as most countries seem to be, the prevalent view (including that of Turkish ex-pats and visiting academics) is that the modern Turks of Turkey are more genetically linked to their neighbors than to some aboriginal Turkic group. The majority of people in Asia Minor lived in the large cities and not in rural areas that were as you say depopulated. Nor is there very much mention of population recovery, which we can see even in modern times as with the extremely high birthrates in low life expectancy regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and Afghanistan etc. that often allow a population to return to its previous levels in a generation. In fact, you're making wide assertions yourself since you claim that due to depopulation, with some certainty on your part I might add, a replacement population theory is the most viable which is, let's face it, not really the case. We all know of depopulation in Russia for example by the Mongols and also by other invaders and yet the majority population remains Slavic. That's hardly a basis for dismissing the aboriginal element in Anatolia since without an official census a depopulation theory is hardly more viable, especially given the genetic studies that don't seem to support a majority population replacement. Nor is it the case that Central Asia was particularly close to Asia Minor in order to allow a more massive movement of peoples in the first place. Turkic rulers ruled much of southwest asia for centuries and dispersed in many different directions as far as Egypt. The genetic studies of the Azeris also point towards a more indigenous background for them and they live just across the Caspian from the Turkmen. I find all of this other evidence to be somewhat more convincing then a flimsy depopulation theory based upon reports of some sparely populated regions on the frontier moving or being killed by plagues etc. Do you know how varied the range is for the deaths attributed to the black plague? Estimates range from 1/5 to 1/2 for crying out loud! How is that an accurate reading of anything? It seems to me that we're both working with estimations of populations regardless of what angle, historical or genetic or a composite of both, and extracting exact quotes from the article should remove any ambiguity at any rate, while still keeping the information. If you're arguing for its removal, sorry but I'm not agreeing to that. We can add information, but I see no reason to remove anything. Tombseye 14:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not being precise about what the test found is more of a “disinformation” than information. Omitting the facts about what they found and under what assumptions would be misleading the reader. If editorial concerns will slant their results it is better not to mention it.


 * >Admixture estimates show genetic markers which group in certain regions and
 * >thus the estimates given are for example 30% Central Asian etc. The wording
 * >can be adjusted,


 * This wording is even more confusing. Are you saying “genetic markers are used to estimate the admixtures (the mixing of genetically differentiated groups)?” What is being said is not clear to me (whereas the G. di Benedato at al article is clear, even though it has the same politically motivated slant like selecting the subjects from the places which they think would better approximate the people before the arrival of the Turks in an apparent but failed attempt to exemplify the genetic dissimilarity.) Above I summarized what they found. It does not have the “umph” of  “real turks are only 30%” because their research did not find any such thing.


 * >but regardless shows that the Central Asian component is in the minority.


 * By “Central Asian” you mean todays Central Asian admixture that is after the mongol invasion. When we talk about the admixture of the Central Asian Turkic peoples there seems to be clear definition of mongol component. When we talk about the turks of Turkey we are talking about this exact mongol component (of lack thereof) as the Central Asian (read as Turkic) component. Let’s agree fist on what we are trying to say here, editorial polishing can come afterwards.


 * >No answer on why Anatolian populations cluster with their neighbors, including
 * >the Kurds I might add?


 * Similarity seems to be the norm not the differentiation. If they were different we would have to look into the reasons why they are different.


 * >the statements regarding the 1/3 are of Altaic origin wasn't written by me and
 * >since it is an estimate I have no problem with its removal.


 * Okay


 * >We can place exact quotes from the study and leave it at that and let the readers :>decide.


 * I would like add the phrase that “it is questionable if their assumptions are hundred percent valid considering the fact that Mongol invasions changed the admixture in Central Asia since the presumed arrival date of the turks.”


 * >Other more extreme views, such as Cavalli-Sforza et. al. even go so far as to say
 * >that the original Turkic component is so diluted in Turkey since even in Central
 * >Asia it's been diluted and preponderant view is that the original Turkic group was
 * >related to the Mongolian component in an early proto-Altaic group


 * Cavalli-Sforza had the same confusion about the Turkish and Mongol groups. He had thought that (like Gimbutas) Indo-Europeans originated from Asia, thus this did not leave any room for Turkic homeland. This is the original confusion about the  mongols and the turks. The phenotypical differences between the western turks and the eastern turks and mongol tribes were clear to he Chinese of 6th century.  Li Yanshou in his pook ‘’History of the Northern Dynasties’ accounts that Turks were different from the huns in the east. There is also an account of a contender named Sonji for the Great Turkic Empire was denied becoming the Khan because he looked more like a ‘Hu’ (Hun.) (http://www.transoxiana.org/0106/lin-ying_turks_solidus.html) Again in the Chinese accounts Western turks had colored eyes and they did not look like the huns. Also in Li Yanshou’s account Turks ancestors had originally dwelled to the west side of the Xihai (West Sea, Xi Hai was also the name for the Mediterranean). (Please take a look at the following links except the apparent pro-uygur (anti-chinese) site name the content is quite informative http://www.uglychinese.org/uygur.htm#westernturk, http://www.uglychinese.org/uygur.htm#Ashina, http://www.uglychinese.org/turk.htm )


 * >You can pick apart every study you want to, but, outside of Turkey, which is let's
 * >face it, hampered by nationalist intentions as most countries seem to be, the
 * >prevalent view (including that of Turkish ex-pats and visiting academics) is that
 * >the modern Turks of Turkey are more genetically linked to their neighbors than to
 * >some aboriginal Turkic group.


 * You have a point. Unfortunately this sentiment has not changed since the 19. century heyday of the “Superior Race” idea.


 * >The majority of people in Asia Minor lived in the large cities and not in rural areas
 * >that were as you say depopulated.


 * right.


 * >Nor is there very much mention of population recovery,


 * right, there is no mention recovery in the history either. All we have is an effort to repopulate the areas with imported populations. As a matter of fact modern renditions of the Roman history does not even mention the great plagues. Luckily there are some medieval histories still exist that mentions them.


 * >which we can see even in modern times as with the extremely high birthrates in
 * >low life expectancy regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and Afghanistan etc. hat
 * >often allow a population to return to its previous levels in a generation.


 * That is the difference between the tradesman/artisan city folk and the rural pastoral/herdsmen. In manpower pastoral-herdsman life the wealth is in the numbers human population needs to be proportional to the animals they have. They have to herd them milk them etc. The effects of Black Death and the following population decline is well attested. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population#Population_decline, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death)


 * >In fact, you're making wide assertions yourself since you claim that due to
 * >depopulation, with some certainty on your part I might add, a replacement
 * >population theory is the most viable which is, let's face it, not really the case.


 * Population did not recover after Black Death what reason do we have to believe that it did recover after Justinian plague?


 * >We all know of depopulation in Russia for example by the Mongols and also by
 * >other invaders and yet the majority population remains Slavic.


 * Event he Russians say “scratch a russian you’ll find a tatar” . The russian case presents and anti-thesis of the language replacement by the elite domination. “Golden Horde” was the elite that ruled over the slavs, but the the slavs were numerically much greater then the “Golden Horde” so they kept their language. There are too many Russians with turkic names that they have no idea what it means.


 * >That's hardly a basis for dismissing the aboriginal element in Anatolia since
 * >without an official census a depopulation theory is hardly more viable,


 * how can I dismiss non-turkish ethnicities? They are still there and they claim their ethnic affiliation. Greek-turks would tell you they are greek-turks, so would Circassians, Laz, Arabs, Georgians, Armenians, Kurds, all Turkmen tribes, Afshar tribes, Agacheris, Chepnis, Tatars, etc. One very interesting thing is that the Kurdish ethnic identity in the modern sense was formed quite recently and quite a number of actual aboriginal peoples were classified under Kurdish ethnicity. I am saying this as an observation otherwise I don’t mean to offend any ethnicity.


 * >especially given the genetic studies that don't seem to support a majority
 * >population replacement.


 * again we should be accurate of what the genetic studies measure.


 * >Nor is it the case that Central Asia was particularly close to Asia Minor in order to
 * >allow a more massive movement of peoples in the first place.


 * This is a very interesting point. “Movement of the nations” was the reason the Roman empire collapsed. The medieval times are defined by the movements of the peoples. Goths, visigoths, ostrogoths, saxons, kelts, avars, alans, magyars, vlachs, bulgars, slavs, petcheneks, were all on the move and why would you think the kipchaks, khazars and seljuks were not.  The difference was Muslim groups were able to to take the southern route also. Mongol invasions and the peoples movements because of this are well documented. I bring up Rumi not because I claim he is turkish but he is the perfect example of people running from the Mongol armies and settling in Anatolia. Besides the before the Manzikert turks were already militarily in control of he Islamic State of which capitol was in baghdad.  That is why the people formed the arabic armies called Saracens instead of Arabs.  How could a numerically negligible force could beat the Roman State and claim their lands.  They both fought with the archers and horseman. It was not like one side had canons and the other side did not. Ibn Batutas journal clearly shows the places the turkoman held and the level of their organization. The distance of Cental Asia to Turkey is the least convincing regarding the “Kings Road” extending from Izmir to Persepollis and Silk Road being the most travelled road from the times unkown extending all the way to china.


 * >Turkic rulers ruled much of southwest asia for centuries and dispersed in many
 * >different directions as far as Egypt.


 * okay


 * >The genetic studies of the Azeris also point towards a more indigenous
 * >background for them and they live just across the Caspian from the Turkmen.


 * This is pretty much the same argument. Jenghiz armies reaching of the Caspian sea is well documented.


 * >I find all of this other evidence to be somewhat more convincing then a flimsy de
 * >population theory based upon reports of some sparely populated regions on the
 * >frontier moving or being killed by plagues etc.


 * The plagues and the numbers of dead are from the recorded history. The mongol invasion is also from the recorded history. (Even genetic studies show its effects) Why don’t you believe it. You don’t believe it because even if it is in the history books these are not necessarily “favored” facts. As you recall this fact is not mentioned in the Byzantine Empire article. You also found this odd. Now you are assuming that “they must have recovered” while it is documented that Europe did not recover from the Black Death for a very long time.


 * >Do you know how varied the range is for the deaths attributed to the black
 * >plague? Estimates range from 1/5 to 1/2 for crying out loud! How is that an
 * >accurate reading of anything?


 * Not my numbers check the references.


 * >It seems to me that we're both working with estimations of populations regardless
 * >of what angle, historical or genetic or a composite of both,
 * >and extracting exact quotes from the article should remove any ambiguity at any
 * >rate, while still keeping the information.


 * As I said before, the genetic argument is a very fertile ground for slanting the information funny math and loading the dice. An average reader needs to know a lot about genetics and genetic research, statistics, vectoral quantities in order to have an independent assessment of the validity of what is being said here. I commented on this above also.


 * >If you're arguing for its removal, sorry but I'm not agreeing to that. We can add in
 * >formation, but I see no reason to remove anything.


 * If we are going to use this information, we need to supply enough information to bring the average reader to the level where he/she can independently asses what it means. This means with your terms 70% dissimilarity is the genetic content of which about 97% percent we share with the chimps (and 60% percent is the amount we share with the fruit flies). I would agree to  mention 30% is similarity to Central Asian peoples if you agree to put the info that 97% of the rest we share with the chimps.

AverageTurkishJoe 06:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I mean the dissimilarity does not mean anything, otherwise we share 97% of all our genes with the chims. AverageTurkishJoe 06:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You have no evidence that the study was slanted. You just don't like the results because you're contending something else. It's supported by your previous statements on a replacement theory. You're looking for faults in order to create reasons to delete information that contradicts your position. I'd like to see your proof on who the Turks were then if not related to the Central Asia populations or to the Kazakhs for that matter or any other Turkic group found in close proximity to the Mongols who were not overrun by them but were allied with them. You keep claiming that there was an original Turkic group that was not, I guess, Altaic, without any evidence. Your whole line of reasoning is far more conjectural than that of academics who strongly support an Altaic theory for early Altaic peoples. I feel as if we are covering the same ground over and over again here. I am not going to go along with deleting the study, but as for your statement you'd like to add regarding Central Asian Turks being altered by Mongol invasions, I have no problem with it because it's true and is supported by both the historical record and genetic tests on Uzbeks and other groups in the region. I believe that at this time it's a good idea to simply put a two theory approach to the article and leave it at that. Tombseye 17:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually you are right; most of the slanting is not done by the G. di Benedetto et. al. article but the way it is used in Turkish people article. I am critisizing the article because of the "aggregation" they used in their method. But for the question they wanted to answer this "aggregation" could be acceptable: The question they want to answer is "whether the Language replacement was accompanied by a genetic inflow". And they find the answer to be affirmative. For their purposes, when the population inflow occured did not matter because this was not their concern. Hell breaks loose when the similarity measure is interpreted as 30% turkic stock %70 aboriginal stock which they never claimed.  Considering the Turkish people article immediately claims that, " in turkey, perhaps one third  of the turkish people who claim themselves to be ethnic turks may have altaic origin", one thinks that this is what the G.Di Benedetto article set out to prove.  Which is not the case. Regardless, the structure of the article, it is either deliberately or inadvertantly channeling the reader into interpreting the article as if it is presented as a proof for the one-thirds altaic argument. But if you want to use it as a supporting point for the argument of "ethnic turks are minorities in turkey" this would be disingenious. The lumping of the genetic material collected from the central asian turkish speakers  makes the result of this articlw not suitable for this kind of speculation. AverageTurkishJoe 05:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not making an ethnic Turks claim because that's just meaningless for our purposes. Turkish people are just as 'Turkic' as the rest. The original Turks, in my view, are something else and even removed from the Turks in Central Asia as people change. I am not trying to make any aboriginal Turkic rendition here, but I am saying that most of the people of Turkey stem from an indigenous background that joined with a Turkic group that fused and culminated into a 'Turkish' identity. I would not make any claim that ethic Turks are a minority as that's just meaningless since it's impossible to determine something like that. The two theory approach should be one that points to population replacement and one that points to cultural assimilation. That's the fairest, and frankly more than most encyclopedias, rendition. Tombseye 19:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am afraid we are going to have to do a two-theory approach. Hopefully this will not be a duel of the Grand Narratives. AverageTurkishJoe 03:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with that. Many pages do this. See the Azerbaijanis page for example. --Khoikhoi 04:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to say but I think it is one of the worst articles in the whole WP. AverageTurkishJoe 03:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * After reading the discussion at Azerbaijanis I am convinced the there is a conspiracy. This is very sad, you guys shoud know that this is a disservice to WP and WP community. AverageTurkishJoe 04:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like there are just a bunch of anonymous editors adding their political POV (Point of View) to the discussion. At least they aren't editing the articles. ;) --Khoikhoi 01:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)