Talk:Turkish people/Archive 6

Population update added
changed to 70,413,958 and 66.7 to 74.5 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aceflooder (talk • contribs) 14:42, 3 September 2006.


 * It's wrong. &mdash; Khoikhoi 23:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone in turkey is ethnical Turkish but about 90 percent are. there are also turkish minorities in balkan countries. North Cyprus is 99.5 % ethnical turkish, but only turkey recognises it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoko19 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 13 September 2006.


 * 90%? According to the CIA World Factbook, Kurds make up 20% of Turkey's population. BTW, remember that Turkey's census is not based on ethnicity. &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Cry-tpvgames.gif]] Khoikhoi 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have changed Turks in Turkey from 71 mill. to 55 mill. according to KONDA Arkadaslar lütfen degisiklik yaparken kaynak gösterelim. Sadece büyük görünmek icin insanlari yaniltmayalim. Bir zamanlar rahmetli sayin Turgut Özal'in Bulgaristan metnine isi cevirmeyelim "100 Milyon oldugumuzda size gösteririz" vb. Büyüklük sadece rakamlarla olmaz.

Saygilarimla Babaeski.

İf kurds made uo %20 they wouldn't have ant rouble getting into parlament, would they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanalp (talk • contribs) 06:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sertap Erener
Sertap Erener is a Turkish sitizen but she is not a Turk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilhanli (talk • contribs) 22:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What a nonsense! What is she then? --88.106.114.175 22:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

haha, she is patagonian!! man, dont you know? :D:D --Orkh (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * She was Jew I think, can't she?--Ilhanli (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: put this genetic stuff in a separate article
The genetic stuff in the article is (A) obviously not maintainable in a stable form (see the edit history of the last year or two), (B) totally incomprehensible and utterly confusing; (C) not really that relevant to the main topic.

Therefore I propose to delegate this to a separate article, and to state here something that basically says that researchers have obtained a variety of results, referring to a separate article for details. --Lambiam 23:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support
 * --Lambiam 23:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's better to separate the controversial section. E104421 (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Stong Support- YES! put this information on another page, it has made this article far to long --15:53, 3 march 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.166.132 (talk)


 * Oppose
 * It is not necessary! The result is clear. Jingby (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments/further discussion:
 * Can Jingiby explain to me why all the material about genetics (haplogroups and such) is presented in the first part of the section "Turkish phenotypes and diversity" and not in the subsection "Possible genetic links"? Can Jingiby explain why, conversely, all content referring to physical appearance is under "genetic links" and not under "phenotypes"? Can Jingiby further explain why extensive quotations were introduced from the study by Cinnioğlu et al. without even mentioning that study? What happened to proper source citations? Is the reader supposed to know what "(Di Benedetto et al.2001)" refers to? And what exactly is it about the result that is clear? I understand from the material presented that the Central Asian gene flow contribution is both about 30% and less than 9%. --Lambiam 14:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Using Central Asian Y-chromosome data from either 13 populations and 149 samples (Underhill et al. 2000) or 49 populations and 1,935 samples (Wells et al. 2001) where these diagnostic lineages occur at 33% and 18%, respectively, their estimated contributions range from 0.0153/0.329×100=4.6% to 0.0153/0.180×100=8.5%.

An article on the origin of the Nogays from the Caucasus (Phylogeographic Analysis of Mitochondrial DNA in the Nogays: A Strong Mixture of Maternal Lineages from Eastern and Western Eurasia) a convenient characterization of the mtDNA of a sample of 218 Turks, taken from Richards 2000.

In this sample, the following non-Caucasoid haplogroups were detected:

2.78% of L (Negroid) 0.46% of A (Mongoloid) 0.46% of A (Mongoloid) 1.39% of C (Mongoloid) 1.85% of D (Mongoloid) 0.46% of F (Mongoloid) 0.46% of Y (Mongoloid)

Therefore, 2.78% of Negroid admixture and 5.08% of Mongoloid admixture, for a total of 7.86% non-Caucasoid admixture. There is an additional occurrence of 1.5% of lineages of Indian origin, which however should not be labeled as non-Caucasoid.

We can also examine the non-Caucasoid admixture in Turkish patrilineages, using the large sample of 513 Anatolian Turks published by Cinnioglu.

0.38% of A (Negroid) 0.19% of E3a (Negroid) 0.38% of E3* (Negroid) 0.38% of C*(xC3) (Mongoloid) 0.96% of C3 (Mongoloid) 0.19% of O3 (Mongoloid) 2.87% of N*(xN3a) (Mongoloid) 0.96% of N3a (Mongoloid) 0.19% of Q2 (Mongoloid) 1.72% of Q*(xQ2) (Mongoloid)

There is thus 0.95% of Negroid admixture and 7.27% of Mongoloid admixture, for a total of 8.22% non-Caucasoid admixture.

Based on these numbers, the non-Caucasoid admixture in Turks can be quantified as 1.87% Negroid, and 6.18% Mongoloid, total 8.05%. Also by 6.18% Mongoloid admixtures is not seriously to talk about Asiatic ancestry of the Turkish people.Jingby (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be removed, primarily because it is a very notable distinction between the Turks of Turkey versus Turkic peoples of Central Asia. Turks are heavily mixed with the indigenous populations of Asia Minor and West Asia (The Seljuks mixed with Persians, later on the Turks would mix with Assyrians, Greeks, etc.) I think there are still some wording problems and perhaps it should be simplified so its easier for everyone to read it. I did make some grammar changes. Similarly, there is an inclusion of genetic data in articles on Azeris I believe, since whether or not their origins are Turkic or Iranic are still debated. -Rosywounds (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

?
What is the relevance of the following sentence in this article?!?


 * Throughout history, Turks have established numerous states in various geographical regions on the continents of Asia, Europe and Africa. They brought their culture to the places to which they had migrated or invaded and were also affected by the existing cultures of these regions.

I think this paragraph should be removed since it is not dealing with the Turkish people but speaks in a general way of all Turkic peoples. This is like starting the article English people with:

''Throughout history, Indo-Europeans have established numerous states in various geographical regions on the continents of Asia, Europe, Africa, the Americas and Australia. They brought their culture to the places to which they had migrated or invaded and were also affected by the existing cultures of these regions.''

This paragraph then could be copied into all articles dealing with some Indo-European people. What I am trying to say is that it is irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk • contribs) – Please sign your posts!


 * The paragraph was introduced in this edit, which aimed at being a compromise before another edit war erupted. Although not quite irrelevant, I agree it is not informative, and especially not because the section offers no information about the culture of the Turkic invaders (were they horse-riding nomads gallopping in from the steppes of Central Asia?); it would be more helpful to the reader to explain the relationship between the Oğuz "who moved into Anatolia" and the Seljuks. --Lambiam 12:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkish phenotypes and diversity (2)
Look above, i've explained why! Please do not add researces which sample sizes are not big enough!!! --Ilhanli (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not a specialist and your opinion is not professional! Pleace, read Genetic history of Europe before editing! When you are going to be an Professor in genetics as Cinnioğlu  your opinion would be relevant! Jingby (talk)

Don't you know?! To conclude something your sample must be at leas 5% of the total population (even, it can not be consistent), but that research contains only 0.1% ot the total population, it means that you know the facts about 1 person out of 1000, what abou other 999? I mean you do not have enough data to generilaze. Oo, i'm not big spcialist but i know what says the data; which i explained above and above, again and again. --Ilhanli (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ilhanli, can you give a citation for this statement from some textbook on statistics? I have explained several times in great detail why your statement is wrong, but you just keep repeating it like a broken gramophone record, without giving any justification. --Lambiam 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cited studies by geneticists that have been published should not be deleted. These are not partisan works, and I think those that did the samples understood what they were doing. Moreover, there is no "bottom number" for statistics. The larger the sample, the smaller the margin of error is. That doesn't mean you need 5% for a sample to be valid. A 5% sample is actually a massive sample; that would mean you would need to poll/sample millions of individuals. No statistician would ever do a sample that large (e.g. according to a "5% rule," one would need to poll 15,000,000 Americans in order to get a valid number for the USA presidential election - sorry, but that is impossible). The content was sourced, published scientific literature. It should not be deleted; especially by a nonprofessional. If these studies are good enough for Stanford University (see here), then they are good for Wikipedia.-Rosywounds (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Too much importance is given to this single article. Linking the ehnicity to haplotypes is futile. Using this argument one can prove that the English is actually Spanish and the Russians are Indians and every ethnic group in Eurasia is a minority on the land they live. See the world haplogroup map here [] in the textbook material [] and see that population of Anatolia is very similar to Caucaus, Iran, Turkmen,Uzbek,Uygur. Textbook materials are secondary sources that are preferred over the primary sources and in this specific case this textbook material helps us break free of the tunnel vision this single article creates. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

History Section
I made it chronological and restructured it. I deleted some information that pertained to other Turkic peoples; this article is about Turks from Turkey. I think this section ought to be expanded slightly, only because it discusses empire-building and nation-building almost exclusively. The Turks have done more in history than simply build empires; I think the history section ought to touch on some other things briefly that are notable to Turkish history. Does anyone think that's a good idea? At the minimum, some aspects of the Seljuks (other than expansion) should be mentioned. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

90 Million ???
The numbers are wrong ... again. 77m Turks in Turkey? That's even more than the total population of Turkey! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.131.39 (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Article bloat
The article has recently dramatically expanded and is now far too long. As of January 1st, it was 35,050 bytes; now, less than three weeks later, it is 65,846 bytes, almost twice as large. Note that the rule of thumb for the "ideal article" is that it is less than 5000 words!

The recommended solution for when an article gets too long is to break it up. What has happened here is almost the opposite: all kinds of topics related to Turkish history and culture that are already dealt with in other articles have now also got extensive coverage here.

Please stop adding material to the article that is already dealt with elsewhere, or if it isn't, don't add it here but add it to another article where it properly belongs, such as Ottoman Empire, History of Turkey, Culture of Turkey, Turkish language, Turkish cuisine, etcetera, etcetera.

--Lambiam 07:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now it is 71,071 bytes, meaning it grew by another 8% in the less than 18 hours since my previous post. At that rate of growth we will surpass one million bytes in 25 days from now. --Lambiam 00:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it has started to get out of hand; would it be possible to protect the article from anonymous editors? They have done the bulk of the "bloating." -Rosywounds (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It really adds up
It really adds up if you start counting Turkic peoples as Turkish people (Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Central Asian Turks in Tajikistan), as is done in the infobox of Turkish people! Each is counted for 200,000 people, and another 200,000 in Macedonia, although the most recent census (cited as a source) has only 77,959. Also, are the Syrian Turkmen really Turkish Syrians? --Lambiam 23:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe it had been previously clarified that Turkish people refers specifically to citizens of Turkey. I think you should begin reverting/deleting some of the excessive and unnecessary content. I have been too busy with other articles and have been unable to make some fixes here. -Rosywounds (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it is not that simple; see the introductory section of the article, which does not give a precise definition but uses a different notion than simply citizens of Turkey. --Lambiam 06:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Because of the heavy migration rates starting from the ottoman era it is as lambiam said 'not that simple' to distinguish the diaspora rates of the turks. for example the iraq turkmen today are still seen as turkish people due to that fact that they form a distinct group within the Oghuz Turks (which includes Ottoman Turks and modern Turks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.101.26 (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Syrian turkmen are of course turkish! its is like saying are turkish cypriots turkish... we know that the answer is of course yes. Also there is actually high figures of turks in the turkic countries however it is harder to find this information, as turkish people are not seen as another race within these countries --Thetruthonly 14:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the numbers are actually quite prudent, if anyting there may be more turkish people than stated in the info box, i also think that this page is more accurant then other pages on ethnic groups e.g. if you look at spanish people they have 80 million spanish people, however say there is 135 million decendants! now thats what is exaggeration . However maybe we should include decendants as well (that is if there is reliable refrencing!). -Ozipozi (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article on the Demographics of Kazakhstan gives detailed census data (although rather old) on the ethnic composition of the Kazakhstan population, in which I can't find anything even vaguely resembling the 200,000 from our article (unless you identify the category "Other" with "Turkish people"). In general these data are really fictitious, since there are no objective criteria for the labels applied, and they are certainly not consistently applied in census taking in different countries. In France it is even illegal to ask for ethnicity in official data collection. In Syria, many Turkmen do not speak a Turkic language and do not self-identify as Turks; should they nevertheless still be counted as such? However, in Wikipedia the criterion for the inclusion of data is verifiability, not truth. Really, we should not discuss whether the data is right, but whether it can be verified in reliable published sources. We should not make up our own definitions to fill in gaps in the existing material. --Lambiam 05:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lambiam we must try to fill in the gaps rather than questionn the refrences, however i have read up on the Syrian Turkmen and found that linguistically the name 'Turkmen' can be divided into two words; Turk and men. The word Turk is used as synonym to the word 'Turkic' of the international literary. The word Men means “'I'. Figuratively it refers to the braveness; accordingly the word Turkmen can be explained as: I am a Turkish man or We are Turkish brave men (supported by Y. J. Diny and K. Kahin see also Ibrahim Kafesoglu, “Turkmen Kelimesi’nin Anlami” – The Meaning of the name Turkmen- Kardashlik Journal, issue 807, Baghdad 1971, p 18-19.)
 * Also according to the Encyclopedia Britannica the name Turkmen is a synonym of Oghus which includes all the Turkish population who live to the southwest of Central Asia. Finally i would like to point out what is written in Syrian Turkmen where many turkish people migrated to Syria during the ottoman period; this therefore can be argued that they are actually like the Turkish cypriots. --Justinz84  16:14, 02 June 2008 (UTC)
 * More precisely, in many cases the Syrian Turkmen (or rather their ancestors) did not migrate to Syria during the Ottoman period, but had already been living there for centuries when Syria became part of the Ottoman Empire. In any case, an essential difference between the Turkmen of Syria and the Turkmen of, say, Turkmenistan, is that the former, if they still speak a Turkic language at all, speak essentially standard – although a bit old-fashioned – Turkish, whereas the latter speak the Turkmen language, clearly a different language. Although men means 'I' in the Turkmen language, I'm not so sure about the etymological analysis of the word 'Turkmen'. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the origin is Persian Turkman, literally "Turk-like", from Turk + -man "like". --Lambiam 04:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We should probably leave these statistics in the info box because the term Turkmen for the Iraqi Turks and Syrian Turks was created during the discussion of Mosul issue in the 1930s- to isolate these Turks from the ones in Turkey. However, the statistics of Turks of Iran are not actually related turkish people (whereas Iraqi and syrians are) --Thetruthonly 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Turk"
While the articles claims that "the word Turk first documented in the 6th century in Central Asia", it does not mention the fact that "Turk" was not a self-designation of the majority in Anatolia until the 20th century. The word was considered pejorative by the ruling elite and was used to distinguish the urban and elite Anatolian population from the semi-nomadic Turkish-speaking peasants. The evidence, including quoted from Bernard Lewis, have been given further above. Here is a summary:


 * ... The word Türk which was used at the beginning in such meanings as "nomad and peasant," later on departed from these meanings and came to be used to mean "stupid, doll-witted" (aptal, idraksiz). The Seljuqids [...] used the word to distinguish themselves from the nomadic Turcoman tribes ("Türk") and from those who were non-urban ...  (Soykut, Mustafa. "Historical Image Of The Turk In Europe", Isis Press, Istanbul 2003, p. 14, ISBN 9754282471)
 * ... Mahrem idinme kendine her Türk-tab'i kim -- Elbette ahmak olanın olmaz sadakati ... (translation: "Do not be intimate with one who is Turk-natured -- Certainly, the one who is foolish does not have fidility"; Hayretî, Dîvân, ed. Mehmed Çavoşuğlu, M. Ali Tanyeri, Istanbul 1981, p. 414)
 * ... Nedir bildin me sin âlemde Türk'ü -- Ola eğninde kürkü, başında börkü -- Ne meszheb bile, ne din, ne diyânet -- Yumaz yüzün ne abdest ü tehâret ... (translation: "Did you know who is the Turk in this world? -- The one who has fur on his back and a fur hat on his head -- He does not know about religion, or religious sects, or piety -- Never washes his face, perform ablutions, or cleans himself"; Agha Sırrı Levend, Divan Edebiyatı, Istanbul 1984, p. 597)
 * ... in the Imperial society of the Ottomans the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages ... (Bernard Lewis quoted in O. Mehmet, "Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery mentions", 1990, p. 115)
 * ... The! surest way to insult an Ottoman gentleman is to call him a 'Turk' . His face will straightway wear the expression a Lon­doner's assumes, when he hears himself frankly styled a Cockney. He is no Turk, no savage, he will assure you, but an Ottoman subject of the Sultan, by no means to be confounded with certain barbarians styled Turcomans, and from whom indeed, on the male side, he may possibly be descended. ... (Davey (1907), quoted in O. Mehmet, "Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery mentions", 1990, p. 115)
 * ... One consequence was to reinforce these officers sense of their Turkish nationality, and a sense of national grievance arising out of the contrast between the non-Muslim communities, with their prosperous, European-educated elites, and 'the poor Turks [who] inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plough.' Unlike the non-Muslim and non-Turkish communities, they noted with some bitterness, the Turks did not even have a proper sense of their own national identity, and used to make fun of each other, calling themselves 'donkey Turk' ... (Handan Nezir Akmeshe, "The Birth Of Modern Turkey: The Ottoman Military And The March To World War I", I.B.Tauris, 2005. p. 50)

The meaning of the word "Turk" and its history in Anatolia is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.157.30 (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Although we can refer to the name turk somewhere in the article, we must remember that this is an article of TURKISH PEOPLE and not all turks. Also these things seem quite anti-turk to me and therefore should not be added to the article--- 81.159.195.40  14:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The Turks of Turkey have the same position among the "Turkic peoples" as Hazaras have among the "Iranic peoples" or Afro-Americans among the "Germanic peoples". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.131.209 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing suprising here. BTW, the article says "the Caucasian and Anatolian peoples", not the "Turkish people", there is a nuance in this. Regards. E104421 (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote is clear. Present-day Turkish-speakers in Turkey (so-called "Anatolian Turks") are predominantly descendants of Non-Turkic, native inhabitants of Anatolia (i.e. Greeks, Assyrians, Kurds, etc) who were linguistically Turkified by a small but powerful Turkic group from Central Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.144.211 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2008.


 * Actually, the definition of a Turk/Turkic is quite clear, which is based on the linguistics rather than the genetics. The genetics data is not quite relevent here, since it deals with the data in terms of tens of millennia. Regards. E104421 (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are being dishonest. While in the article Iranian peoples, you stubbornly push for a contrary POV-version in which you persist on mentioning the (alleged) origins of the Aimak and Hazara peoples, despite the fact that these two groups speak an Iranian language and have - to a considerable degree - mixed with the local populations (as is explained in the respective articles in Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam), your view of the Turkic peoples and Turkic languages is totally different. Why the double-standards?! You tell me: are the Turkish-speaking people in Turkey a "Turkic people" despite the fact that they are NOT descendants of the original Turkic population that conquered Anatolia in the 12th-15th centuries?! If your answer is "yes", based on the linguistics: why do you claim that that the Hazaras and Aimak are not Iranian peoples, despite the fact that they speak Persian?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.143.206 (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "The genetics data is not quite relevent here, since it deals with the data in terms of tens of millennia." Tajik, your edits are being reverted, since you are banned by the WP:ArbCom. Keep in mind that reverting the banned users does not count! Regards. E104421 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't change the toppic. You always revert the parts you do not like. And revrting for the sole purpose to actually falsify Wikipedia articles and delete reliable sources (which has always been the main purpose of your edits; 90% of your latest 150 edits were removing sources and reverting to old and false versions) is not in the interest of Wikipedia. In an Afghanistan-related article, you reverted back to the version of banned User:NisarKand (who has been caught using 80+ sockpuppets). Your revert in that articles may be interpreted as meatpuppetry and proxying for a banned user: here you reverted to this version by banned user NisarKand. So, again: you are being dishonest! So please stop pretending. And please do not change the toppic of discussion. It's already a shame that you admit that you rather destroy the quality of an article, falsify its content than to accept a good edit by an admin. And, by the way: you claim that you were merely reverting the article is not correct. Here, you actually changed and falsified the article without reverting. In fact, you did not anyone else but only the good contribution of admin "Dbachmann". (see the proof)

I am going to insisst about the introduction as showing the correlation between the much more predominated aboriginal peoples and the Turkic settlers! Also about the number of 12 000 000 people preexisting population! During the Bronze Age the population of Anatolia expanded,reaching an estimated level of 12 million during the late Roman Period (Russell 1958). Such a large pre-existing Anatolian population would have reduced the impact by the subsequent arrival of Turkic speaking Seljuk and Osmanlı groups from Central Asia. See here: pg. 135. Please, readd this info! Regards!

Macedonia
According to the 2002 census, there are 77,959 Turks in the Republic of Macedonia. The table needs to be updated. --121.221.141.212 (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But i have looked at the refrences shown in the info box, they clearly state 200,000. also the turkish weekly was written in 2006 and it therefore a more recent statistical data --11:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.49.24 (talk)


 * Those reference are obviously incorrect. In this case, official state censuses hold more weight. The Turkish Weekly would have a Turkish bias and therefore more likely to inflate the figure. In any case, saying there are 200,000 Turks in the Republic of Macedonia is mathematically impossible. --121.221.141.212 (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * well this is a Macedonian source. is this realiable enough? Geo-Native Macedonia--19:27, 02 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.121.47 (talk)

Genetics - Why are Turks compared to Mongols, Why is R1a associated with being European
The Turks arn't Mongols, thus trying to quantify Turkicness by their genetic affinity with Mongols is ludacris.

Then there is the obvious fact that there is no "Turkic" genetics, actually no nation has its own set of uniqeu genetics.

Also, R1a is noted as a European genetic marker when the highest R1a results are present in Kyrgyzistan and the Altai region.

--Torke (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. While it's clear that some recent mongoloid admixture is present in west asia, the idea of turks being racially mongoloid, or anywhere near mongoloid, is absurd. In fact, it's worth pointing out that most Turks and a fair percentage of Iranians are primary caucasoids as indicated by global Principal component maps. This is because A) West Asia is the major LGM evolutionary site for a great percentage of the early (and current) genetic identities of Europeans, West Asians, Middle Easterners, Indians, and North Africans. B) their is relatively low foreign admixture in Turks and a significant Iranian subset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.35.158 (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Turkmen and turkomans
These people are different from turkish people, although related. They should not be in the turkish people infobox. They should be added at their own infobox.

I can see that some turkmen in iraq and syria identify as turkish, but in iran and uzbekistan also?(!) Also the source (6) is from a turkish magazine or newspaper, not very reliable or NPOV...

The hun state...
This article is starting to get together nicely, especially the historical section however shouldnt we also mention the huns? becauce it is accepted by many that Turkish political history began in Asia and started with the Huns. After the collapse of the Asian Hun State, a new state called the Gokturk was founded by the Turkish tribes who adopted the traditions and administrative experiences of the Huns. Therefore i believe we should include this information as it is extremley significant.--Justinz84 (Justinz84 ) 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree because this is a significant part of turkish history I have found a reference from ataturk.com which states 'The 16 Great Turkish Empires'

Please go to the hun articte for that info. There it says that there is no scientific proof for the relation of huns and turkish people. 89.210.20.133 (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and controversial sources need to go
I'm taking about Mirora(5), a turkish translation company. It's not official and not even NPOV, how can such a source be accepted in an encyclopedia?

Second, I can't believe you have joshua project as a source (28 and 29)! Their numbers are not sourced and should considered original research. If you want to have joshua project as a source then do it for all the countries listed in the infobox, but I guess that's not acceptable because they find 'only' 56 million turkish speakers in the world, far away from the 75m you claim here! So please remove them along with all the inflated numbers from the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.20.133 (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. First source is Nilgun Gulcan, not Mirora. They just translated it. I removed the joshuaproject. Now, I wonder if we need fact tags for the ones that are not referenced. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. All numbers must be backed by reliable sources. Reliable sources are official censi from the countries. Check the greek people and bulgarian (turkeys neibours), they cite only reliable sources, even if they don't favour them! (like official censi from Albania and FYRoM), a big improvement! Also turcomans and turkmens should be in their own infoboxes and not in the turkish one. Thanks again for your efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.20.133 (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A simple, logical point on genetics
I realize that the question of genetics may be a sensitive one to a lot of people, but I would nonetheless like to present one simple argument, which I think most should be able to accept as relatively logical. In short, unless you assume that the invading Central Asian Turkic peoples (or whatever you choose to call them) committed large-scale genocide on the original inhabitants of modern-day Turkey, it seems extremely unlikely that they would somehow constitute a majority of the descendants of modern Turks. The area was fertile and fairly densely populated for the time. I honestly don't see how any invaders could realistically have "outpopulated" them, especially given the obvious difficulties of large-scale transfers of people at the time. In fact, I generally believe (and this seems to be confirmed by a wide range of recent studies) that relatively large, settled, indigenous populations are practically never swamped by invaders to the extent that would be required for the levels of Central Asian genetic origins suggested by some here. Even in Latin America, where the indigenous population was decimated by disease, war, slavery, etc., they still form a significant (genetic, if not necessarily cultural) majority in most areas. So, to return to my original point, it seems absurd to suggest that the original population would contribute anything less than 50% (and even that seems like a stretch) of the genetic makeup of modern Turks without assuming an extermination of almost unprecedented scale. In any case, I honestly don't see why this would be insulting to Turks, or anyone else for that matter. Modern Turks are in all likelihood a healthy mix of a wide range of peoples, along with practically all modern human populations.

Maitreya (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We do have reliable references, and if they seem to be conflicting each other, we need to have all of them and presented in the correct way. I checked the text now, and it turned out to be better than I envisioned (the facts are there, but they are written in an essay'ish way). I guess I had low expectations. I am no expert on genetics, but I can see that if the "Asian gene" was the more dominant one, it would survive even in the case you mentioned. The Turks who came to Anatolia numbered in ten thousands; and that was when the non-Chinese, non-Indian old continental Earth people were numbering in several hundred millions or maybe less. Ten thousand in hundred million is not that small. I don't know what the population of eastern Anatolia was one millennium ago, but I know that the population of the whole Ottoman Empire was 26 mi at the end of 19th century. Should the genes have been equally dominant, should the intercultural marriages have happened often enough, certainly in thousand years of Turkish presence in Anatolia, the genes would have mixed well.
 * Also, Turks were people who migrated from just east of the Caspian Sea/Lake to just the west of that lake a thousand years ago. I don't see any reason to shun the possibility that they might have migrated from west of the lake to the east of the lake, say a few more thousand years ago. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not a geneticist either, so I'll admit immediately that I may have misunderstood how this works, but as far as I understand, studies in genetic genealogy are done on Y-chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Y-chromosomes are passed exclusively from father to son and mtDNA is similarly passed exclusively from mother to daughter. Thus, you can basically use this to quite accurately trace the paternal or maternal line back millennia (look it up here on wikipedia for a better explanation than I can provide). There tends to be some mutation every now and then, but generally this gives a fairly good picture of the origins of a human population (assuming there's a sufficient number of representative samples in the study, which there all too often isn't in these studies). Anyway, this was a rather roundabout way of saying that no genes would be dominant or recessive, as Y-chromosomes and mtDNA are passed on unchanged (with the exception of mutations) from father to son and mother to daughter, regardless of the ethnicity of the parents. Dominant genes would, I assume, affect the phenotype (fancy word for physical appearance) of descendants, but several studies have shown that the link between genetic origins and phenotype is weaker than one might think (in the sense that, to use a common example, a person of primarily sub-Saharan African ancestry with some European admixture might in some cases "look white" or vice versa). All this being said, however, it is my impression (which may of course be incorrect) that genetic genealogy is still a scientific discipline in its infancy (possibly puberty?), which is why I chose to make an argument based primarily on simple logic rather than any specific studies out there. According to the article "Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia" (http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/HG_2004_v114_p127-148.pdf), which also seems to be one of the most well-founded of the sources mentioned in this Wikipedia article (in particular because it appears to draw on a significantly larger number of samples), the population of Anatolia at the end of the Roman period was an estimated 12 million. Thus, in my opinion, it seems highly unlikely that the contribution of the Oghuz to the genetic makeup of modern Turks could be as great as the highest suggestions in the Wikipedia article, even assuming significant later immigration. Maitreya (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"I don't see a reason why not, therefore it is."

The main fallacy of the genetic argument in this context is that we do not know the genetic admixture of neither the indigenous populations of Asia Minor nor the incoming Turkish tribes before 1000 CE.

The genetic argument is based on the assumption that "Turks must have been like Mongols so the haplotypes commonly found in Mongolia could be used as tracers to estimate the Turkish genetic contribution to Asia Minor."

The "indigenous" population has never been a uniform group of people in Asia Minor. In fact it is impossible to identify an "original inhabitant group" in that land. Haplotypes are much older than the "nations", "ethnicities" and the "languages". First IE language appeared in 1900-1700 BCE in the western and 1300-700 BCE in the eastern Asia Minor. Before that the whole Asia Minor spoke a non-IE language. The civilization founded in Çatalhöyük goes back to 10,000 years ago. We can construct a similar seemingly logical genetic argument that "it is unconscienceable to think that anybody that came after them could have "outpopulated" them."

If there was a definite set of "Çatalhöyük haplotypes" who could argue that they were more like Greek or Turkish or Kurdish or Armenian haplotypes considering that the genetic admixture of the said ethnicities are pretty much the same in the modern populations?

This line of thinking is also erroneous in the light of the facts that have been recorded in the recent history. Two major Mongolian and myriad of Arab invasions that lasted 200 years of the Asia Minor and two major Plagues (Justinian 541–542 CE. and the Black Death of 1300 CE) have changed the demographics and Asia Minor considerably. The Mongolian tracer haplotypes that were found in the experiments could be a relic of the Turks interaction with the Mongolians or it could be brought directly to Asia Minor by the Mongol invasions or they could have been there from the Çatalhöyük times or even before.

Whatever I said above does not even scratch the surface of the complexities of what transpired in Asia Minor if we adopt a timeframe comparable to the lifecycle of haplotypes. In that frame of reference we have to be thinking in 10,000 and 50,000 years. Seemingly logical arguments fail drastically before such magnificent quantities. That is exactly why people thought that the Earth was flat not comprehending that the Earth could be such magnificently large that it would look flat whereever you are on it. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The population numbers in this article are inflated
First, according the CIA World Factbook, Kurds are 20% of Turkey's population of 72 million, which equals 14.5 million. So 72 million minus 14.5 million equals 57.5 million, not 60. Second, the numbers for Iran, Iraq and Syria are also inflated. In the case of Iran, the figure of 1.5 million applies to the Turkmen of northeastern Iran, which are different from the Turkish people of Turkey. The same goes for the Turkmen of Iraq, and the figure of 2.5 million seems much higher than what I've seen in the literature and is moreover from a dubious source. As for Syria, the figure of 1.5 million seems also highly inflated and is from some dubious Turkish nationalist website. Including these figures here is incorrect and smacks of pan-Turkism. Also, the definition of a Turkish person as someone who simply speaks the language is similar in spirit, as that would include Azerbaijanis and all Turkmen. A better definition of a member of the Turkish people would be someone who would espouse Ataturk's dictum of "Ne mutlu Türküm diyene", which would not apply for the turkmen of Central Asia. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, they are very inflated and not only that, because it is assumed that there are only kurds and turks in turkey. From those 57 million there are included all the non turkish minorities, like arabs, jews, armenians, greeks, georgians, circassians, albanians, bulgarians etc... So the real numbers is even below that. I already commented for the turkmens and turkomans (see above). I also edit warred about the turks in Greece. The infobox stated 250.000, with a source from before the 1923 population exchange!!!! I won't also comment the figures of kazakstan, uzbekistan and etc... 89.210.20.133 (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Good work! Now check source no 5. http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=29895 The best are: Yunanistan(ie Greece): 200-250,000 (Including Western Thrace Turks) Like there are other than Western Thrace turks!, Irak: 3,5-4,000,000 Yay,we are as much as the Kurds there, we own them!!! Belgium: 200-300,000 (no comment!) Avustrlia: 150,000 (They mean Australia) --- we own the cangaroos! And many more from www.turkishweekly.net, your daily NPOV and neutral data about turkey! Also all turkic numbers need to go, like uzbekistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.20.133 (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This point has been made, correctly, in past discussions. The total population of Turkey is not the same as the total number of Turkish people in the country. Any attempts to go over the number of 60 million is just blind nationalism to prove a point, I'm afraid. Monsieur dl   mon talk-mon contribs 17:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

RACIST PEOPLE IN THE DISCUSSION BOARD
turks migrated from khazar into anatolia, in every book in everywhere you may find it. there are many tuckicized greeks in here who want to make a revenge because of the ottoman empire's genetic policy. for example greek presiden karamanlis carry karamanid gens who were originated from central asia... in everywhere you can find turkic gens but you cant find any indo-european gens in turkey.. sorry but thats why people call ottomans as a real f*ckers... sorry greeks and armenians and other europeans. but you are turkish--Orkh (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Race has absolutely nothing to do with it- you can identify someone as being of another group and still have them as a Turkish citizen. The Ottoman history of dealing with non-Turkish peoples is just that, history, and doesn't factor into accounting for the number of Turkish people in Anatolia and beyond. I do not think that if you went to let's say the Lake Van area and told everyone there that they were Turkish people that they would agree. I completely understand the hatred and the suffering that occurs from both sides, but this article is about identifying the number of Turkish people, and it does a very good job. Monsieur dl   mon talk-mon contribs 13:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over population figures
Can we please stop the edit war and discuss the issues? As far as I can see all versions are poorly supported by the cited sources. For instance, the data from Deutsche Welle very likely includes a large number of Turkish Kurds, while here we are trying to count "ethnic Turks" – by itself already a somewhat fuzzy concept. --Lambiam 20:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you lambiam I have agreed with many of the things that you say on this discussion board and hope that we can finally solve this edit war that is going on. I would foremost like to state with reference to the Turks in Germany; vast deals of statistics articulate that there are 3million Turks in Germany; however the info box does show a more prudent figure. Touching onto the ethnic Turks; I trust that it is imperative to have these figures, if we demonstrate Turks of Turkey, Cyprus and Greece, why not Bulgaria, Syria and Iraq?

I sincerely believe that this edit war is due to anti-Turks on wikipedia. The Turkish population being stated as 70million is not absurd; as at one point it was written as 90million! And now there are people trying to say there is only 60mil which is outrageous. People have also deleted the statistics of Turks in Australia but why? We should keep the current figure of 70million but as always I agree that better statistics are necessary. --Justinz84 00:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I balanced both the statistics which are being edited in the info box; it is likely that there maybe anti-Turks who are editing the article e.g. user: Tsourkpk stated that they were ‘rv bogus numbers from bogus sources’ however it is surely a political thought as:
 * They keep changing the Turkish population of Greece (even though the Human Rights Watch has stated there is roughly 80-120,000 Turks in Greece)
 * The Kosovo Turks are also being reverted to being part of Serbia even though Kosovo has gained its independence
 * They have removed some of the ethnic Turks
 * Also if we look at their references one can see that they have not used recovered referencing; they have used the French and Azeri census of 1999 (it is now 2008- we need a more up-to-date reference) and for Belgium they have used Gulcan, Nilgun's article which states that there is 200-300,000 Turks in Belgium (even though they have reverted this to a mere 39,419). Turks in Cyprus are also written as 200,000- as a Turkish Cypriot I know this is not correct as there are also Turks from Turkey in Cyprus. And finally for the United Kingdom they have used a reference of Turkish Cypriots only…however there has been an immense increase of Turks from Turkey coming to the UK in recent years.
 * We should leave the figure at 70million and try and use better references as I havve just touched on SOME of the incorrect factors of the infor box. --Somethindifferent 11:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it is anti-tuks who keep reverting this page! i am really upset about this today, it is becoming extremly ridiculous! we need to lock this article or something, what do you all suggest? i will try and add the turks of australia later on thank you for realising this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.186.59 (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources are mainly from turkish sites and magazines (turkish weekly). This is not acceptable, you have to give npov sources. And don't insert turkic people in ther infobox. Why don't you add all the population of turkmenistan in it then, they are turkic people also! Try to have a peer review from neutral administrators and see what they say about it. 89.210.238.247 (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * the Meskhetian Turks and Cretan Turks are of Turkish decent!!! stop reverting this as it is becoming extremley annoying. we are trying our best to try and improve this article... so stop editing this info box and give it some time to improve!i for one will be watching this page so your are just waisting your time by do that!  --Thetruthonly  23:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No they are not, at least not all of them! Almost all of the cretans are greeks who became muslim during the ottoman era. Same about the mesketians, who are mostly georgian. Also stop puting turkomans in the infobox. These people need to go to their own one and put a related link for them. Also stop merging the kurds in the turkish diaspora. Finally the turks in turkey are about 80% of the 70.5 mill of the total population there. The others are mostly kurds and arabs with some other minor minority groups, like armenians jews, greeks, georgians etc. This is taken from CIA factbook. A source you use a lot! why not here also? Call a peer review. Look at the greek people, they did it and now it's a good article (GA). Don't want yours to be too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.238.247 (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok sorry for my look message but i am going to clear this up once and for all
 * I do not understand the anonymous users point to be honest. I have just looked at their contribution and have found the following errors:
 * You have changed the statistics of the Turks in Germany even though your references state that there is 2.5 million (observatory of EU) and the other by Zouboulis, Christos (2003) states that there is 4 million Turks in Germany- yet you put in the info box that there is only 1.9 mil Turks there.
 * You have changed the Turks in France to 368,000 even though your reference by Hunter, Shireen states this number may be small as the Turks in France approaches 500,000.
 * The same with Turks in United Kingdom you have used references which state that there is 250-300,000 Turks in the UK yet you have changed the figure to 165,000!
 * SHALL I CARRY ON!.. OK…
 * The Turks in Northern Cyprus- you have changed this to 200,000! Well guess what I am Turkish Cypriot so I know that that is just a silly figure to write down! Your referencing yet again is not supporting what you have written! I.e. the press statement states that there is 264, 172!
 * Turks in Belgium- you have changes this to 40,000! Yet again references states otherwise… and also you have said that the problem is the Turkish weekly but yet again you used Gulcan, Nilgun which means that you have still used it!
 * For Kosovo you have used a references which states 2002 census in Serbia (EXCLUDING Kosovo)!!!! It is not even referring to the Turks of Kosovo!
 * For Turks in Sweden- (well it’s the same thing really-but I will carry on with my point!) just look at the second page of that reference and you will see my point!
 * Turks in Canada- you have changed this to 24,910 people- what an approximate looking figure! Yet your reference states in the third to last paragraph It is estimated that the number of Turks in Canada has reached 50,000. A large number of these Turkish citizens are university graduates and have been integrated in the Canadian community...
 * LETS MOVE ONTO GREECE- you don’t believe in using Turkish referencing yet your putting a Greek one… well I don’t know what it says because I can not read Greek; however I have found statistics from THE HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH is that not reliable enough? In fact there are TWO references from the HRW!
 * Finally Japan well this is also funny isn’t it? Although it is in Turkish anyone can understand the figures! It clearly states in the reference that in 2006 there was 8,849 + 2,264!!!! Although you used the reference the info box yet again is not collating this as you wrote 2,500 people!
 * I have completly cathched you out on nearlly everything so please stop doing this annoying edit-war unless you have a real contribution to make! --Justinz84 13:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Calm down man! These sources were not mine. I just looked at the official censi from every country that have turkish people.
 * The turks in Germany are about 1.7 million here is the source: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3159799,00.html. DW is credible source) the other 1 m. are actually kurds and zaza who are NOT turks...
 * For France look here: http://www.insee.fr/fr/recensement/nouv_recens/resultats/repartition/chiffres_cles/autres/chiffres-cles-regions.xls. It's 222.000 for 2005 and 368.000 is an overestimation...
 * The soures about UK are limited... The turkish embassy says there are 156.000 including cypriot-turks and there is a weird report of smugling 100.000 turks in britain! No official data so 300.000 is a litle off...
 * If you are from N. Cyprus then you know that after the invasion, the turkish government transferred a lot of people from anatolia to repopulate the deserted area. Look here : http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/languages/langmin/euromosaic/cy_en.pdf
 * For belgium look at the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium (It states this number: 39,419. The turks in belgium article has only turkish sources, so no credibility)
 * For Serbia there are no Turks except from Kosovo, where it says here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Kosovo. 1% Turks from 1.9 millions total. You are lucky we put 50.000 it should be 19.000!
 * For Sweden look here: http://www.ssd.scb.se/databaser/makro/MainTable.asp?yp=tansss&xu=C9233001&omradekod=BE&omradetext=Population&lang=2&langdb=2. 60.000 is overestimation by turkish sources only again.
 * For Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Canada. The 50.000 is again only from turkish sources and still an 'estimation'. Estimations from npov sources are not to be put in infoboxes.
 * For Greece look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_of_Western_Thrace.  The HRW is considering all the muslims as turks, which they are not! 50% only are speaking turkish. 25% of the 100.000 total speak bulgarian (pomak), 15% romani and the rest greek...
 * For Japan, yes it's very funny! Again you put only the turkish source, look here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Japan. Only 2,275. The 10.000 are nationalistic nonsense as all the other numbers in the infobox.
 * And don't get me started about the turkomans of Iraq and Syria... Find npov sources and come back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.238.247 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all I am pleased that you have publicized your thoughts through the discussion board rather than reverting the info box again. However I still do have some concerns with what you have written:
 * With reference to the Turks in Germany it was already disputed that we should not use the Deutsche Welle because they have many figures for the Turkish population there (you can observe this by looking through the history page) which used this reference: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1840793,00.html same website yet it says 2.7million Turks, so we probably shouldn’t use this website.
 * Regarding the reference for France; unfortunately I was not able to actually find the statistics on the Turks living there from your source (sorry).
 * I think that the sources for UK are as bad as France! But I actually live in London (as that’s were all us Cypriots live lol) so I think that it is quite realistic and now there is also an increase of Turks from Turkey immigrating to the UK.
 * I do understand your point about Cyprus and I know the situations regarding it, however there is A LOT of Turks from Turkey in Cyprus now, it doesn’t matter if anybody recognises them as a citizen, as they are still living there and should therefore be added in (its nothing personal).
 * With regards to Belgium if we look at a wide range of data it is extremely disputed-http://www.flwi.ugent.be/cie/CIE/kanmaz5.htm states that there are 100,000 then if you look at the Brussels newletter page 5 it states ‘The KBF survey was based on 240 interviews of people selected from Belgium’s migrant community of 200,000 Turks, 200,000 Moroccans, 22,000 Congolese and 6,500 Indians…’ http://www.kbs-frb.be/uploadedFiles/KBS-FRB/18)_Website_static_Content/Enews/International_newsletter_7_(May_2008).pdf
 * For Kosovo my point is not about the population- I think you missed my point, my point was that why is there a statistic which excludes Kosovo- that doesn’t make sense, don’t you think?
 * Today a user has put a new source for Turks in Canada by the Canada statistics- we don’t need to worry about that.
 * With the Turks in Greece it is obviously going to be disputed and that’s why I feel that we should just state it as 80-120,000 rather than saying 80,000 our 120,000. At the end of the day Turks in Greece are not seen as a minority- they are seen as ‘Greek Muslims’ and therefore Greek statistics are likely to be biased and that’s why a Turkish one should not be used either.
 * For Japan you are right it does state a different figure, I will change that! Because if you look at that article the first reference used is that same one in this article. And it is obvious that the person who wrote that figure misunderstood the data. As it is 8849 + 2264- not 2264 on its own.
 * At the end of the day it doesn’t matter if the sources were yours or not, you have been reverting the info box and adding new numbers to something that didn’t match the references and then you complain about the ones used by others, however i do appreciate your thoughts and help. --Justinz84  00:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This article really need to cleaned up. Request help from the experienced admins here. Have a peer review, check other peoples articles that are rated as GA and above. Thanks for your understanding. 89.210.238.247 (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This article might count the citizens of turkey in Germany, which includes kurds,zaza and other non turkish peoples... There are many kurds in Germany who have turkish citizenship, you can't deny that.
 * Sorry for France. Wrong xls file! Check this: http://www.insee.fr/fr/recensement/nouv_recens/resultats/repartition/chiffres_cles/autres/donnees-socio-demo-etrangers-immigres.xls
 * The problem with UK is that they count (as immigrants) only those that were born in their countries. The British born are not in! So that figure might be accurate (300.000) but it's still shady...
 * Dude the invasion was supposed to protect the turks, not make them flee their homes like the greeks! We cannot be sure about the population, because the TRNC and Turkey try to justify the invasion by inflating the official census numbers. There were no more than 80.000-90.000 native turks before...
 * If it's extremely disputed, then don't put the highest estimation. 100.000 seem ok. But not 300.000!
 * It makes sense, because Kosovo was an autonomous region of Serbia, there are also figures that include Kosovo. After all those population exchanges I don't expect to find turks in Serbia proper. So use the 1% figure for Kosovo and we are covered!
 * If it's official Canadian data, then it's fine. That sources I'm talking about!
 * Turks in Greece... In Greece population ethnicity is counted by citizenship, so the all the muslims are regarded greeks because they have greek citizenship. However there are language studies for the muslim minority and 50% of them are speaking turkish. So 50.000 is a good number for the turks in Greece. Note that in previous years Greece regarded them as turks to curb the claims of bulgaria in Thrace and now admits there are 35.000 pomaks (bulgarian speaking muslims) and about 15.000 Romani muslims. Also the new generations start to abandon turkish\pomak\romani in favour of greek...
 * Again the source if from the embassy of turkey. Find some official Japanese data to put there...


 * Wow I had masses of things to read right now! Did not want to miss anything out!
 * Turks in Germany- know body has stated a denial of Kurds in Germany so we don’t have to worry about that, but we cannot use a source which talks about Turks in Germany and then say ‘o but there’s around this many Kurds as well’. If the source specifically talks about TURKS then we add that figure.
 * Turks in Cyprus- if we look at the Northern Cyprus page (under demographics) it does add up to around 250,000 people (including the ones from Turkey). This website: http://english.people.com.cn/200605/07/eng20060507_263552.html also explains the new increase in the population of N.Cyprus
 * I agree on Kosovo- it is roughly 1% of the population (maybe a little more… but 1% is written is there demographics page)
 * For Greece why don’t we compromise it at 80,000?  --Thetruthonly   —Preceding comment was added at 13:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok for Germany, put it like that: 2-3 mil. stating that kurds are also in the higher number.
 * It still refers to TRNC sencus which is controversial and that's the problem... Put 120.000-250.000(estimated) Dont put everywhere the highest estimation!
 * For Kosovo put 20.000 to round it up.
 * We can't compromise, there are 50.000 turkish speaking people in Xanthi, Rhodopi and Evros departments. The same is done in the Bulgarian article. Only the turkish speaking are counted as turks.
 * And remove those numbers from Iraq, Syrian and Uzbekistan! Not turks (turkic is different than turkish) and not that much either! 89.210.238.247 (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How can there be only 20,000 turks in kosovo if there is 41,198 living in Prizren alone (see under demographics)? what you are all saying does not make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.46.182 (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Those figures are estimates: Source: For 1991: Census data, Federal Office of Statistics in Serbia (figures to be considered as unreliable). 1998 and 2000 minority figures from UNHCR in Prizren, January 2000. 2000 Kosovo Albanian figure is an unofficial OSCE estimate January-March 2000. 2001 figures come from German KFOR, UNHCR and IOM last update March 2, 2001. May 2002 statistics are joint UN, UNHCR, KFOR, and OSCE approximations. December 2002 figures are based on survey by the Local Community Office. All figures are estimates.

Also on may there are 12.000 and suddenly there are 41.000 in december of the same year? It's obvious they put everyone except albanians in the figure!

Will anyone change the numbers? I will if none does... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.245.7 (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The situation for the Syrian and Iraqi Turkmen is not so clear-cut; see the discussion above at . Ultimately, the problem is that the criteria of the article are vague. A much more precise criterion is to count only the people who have Turkish as their mother tongue. Unfortunately, the various sources use different criteria, which they do not always make explicit. --Lambiam 21:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why they are called turkmen. They are turkic but not turkish, they should go to the turkic infobox. Also the turks keep inflating their numbers at an astonishing rate! 2,5m in iraq? Then they should be in the government like the kurds! The 1,5m in Syria is also absurd. At this percentage they sould be ruling like the turks in bulgaria (who controls a large part of the government)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.218.189 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont think you understand, the iraqi turkmen are not the same as TURKMEN PEOPLE they are of TURKISH decent. If you are to check the Turkmen people page you will see that in that info box there is no mention of turkmens of iraq. This is because they are NOT the same people. The iraqi Turkmen are Oghuz Turk classification, which includes Ottoman Turks, and modern Turks. Thus, the term Turkmen for Iraqi Turks was created during the course of the discussion on the Mosul issue in order to isolate the Iraqi Turks from the Turks of Turkey; ironically this has obviously worked since we are disputing over whether they are Turkish or not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthonly (talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes they are quite the same! They don't even speak turkish... Even if they were, what's the reason to inflate their numbers? the 2.5 and 1.5 million figures are only from turkish sources. Western sources find only 250.000 (Helen Chapin Metz and the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress. Iraq: A Country Study, p. 86) at most in iraq and even less in Syria! The problem is the turkish nationalism and not that we don't understand... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.201.206 (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well at least your varifying the fact that they are turkish people, my point was this...not the population figures. Why dont you have a look at the Iraqi Turkmen website: http://www.kerkuk.net/ please not that this is not a source by turks of turkey, thus the iraqi turkmen see themselves as turkish themselves. other sources include:


 * http://www.2000fm.com/turkmen/index.htm - The Voice of Australian Iraqi Turkmen (who claim that there is 3.5million iraqi turkmen who speak a dialect of TURKISH)
 * http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-1458626_ITM - illustrates the intentions of ethnic cleaning due to the mosul issue
 * http://www.migrationletters.com/turkmen/turkmeneng.pdf - this is a report of iraqi turkmen one quote states 'Turkey’s concerns about Turkmen as a Turkish population mainly residents in oil rich Kirkuk and surrounding towns over which Turkey have been carrying unvoiced ambitions since the early 1920s' (page 4 paragraph 3)
 * http://www.al-bab.com/arab/background/turkoman.htm this site confirms that they talk TURKISH
 * http://www.kirkuk.us/index.php?action=Language - another example --Thetruthonly  15:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Read what I wrote... the turkmens of iraq and syria are of turkic origin, they don't even speak turkish. Turkey remembered them because of the kurds that want Kirkuk with it's oil. About the population, this says it all: Turkmens Win Only One Seat in Kerkuk. Turkmen expected to win at least 10 seats! If they were 2-3m as the turks say then they would gain 100 seats... Also the turkmen will say anything if it gets them the oil in Kirkuk, it's the money they want... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.201.206 (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Turkish timeline
why dont we make it more simple; instead of putting random events why dont we put the 16 major empires? The Turkish Presidential Seal is composed of a sun (16 points/rays) surrounded by 16 stars. The sun represents the present Turkish Republic and the stars represent the 16 independent Turkish Empires that have been founded throughout history. These are: founded by Mete (Bagatir) bordering Siberia in the North, Tibet-Kashmir in the South, the Pacific Ocean in the East and the Caspian Sea in the West (total area 18,000,000 sq. km). founded by Panu covering the area over present day Central Asia. founded by Muncuk, Oktar, Rua and Aybars (brothers) covering the area of present day Southern Russia, Romania, Northern Yugoslavia, Hungary, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Southern and Central Germany (total area 4,000,000 sq. km). Gradual decline after 454 AD. founded by Aksuvar (Aksungur) covering half of Northern India, Afghanistan and part of Turkistan (total area 3,500,000 sq. km). founded by Bumin Khan (Tumen) in the inaccessible valleys of the Altai Mountains (Ergenekon)(total area 18,000,000 sq. km). founded by Bayar Khan covering the area between the Volga River, Hungary and Bessarabiya. founded by the Hazar tribe of Gokturks who migrated to the West and settled in the area stretching from the Caucasian Mountains to the Danube River and to the middle of Russia. Its greatest ruler was Hakan Yusuf. founded by Kutlug Bilgekul Khan covering Central Asia and northern Mongolia. founded by Saltuk Bugra Khan covering the Trans-Oxus area including Issyk and Balkash lakes. founded by Alptekin covering the area from the Trans-Oxus to the Ganges River, from the shores of the Caspian Sea to the steppes of the Pamir (total area 4,700,000 sq. km). founded by Seljuk Khan bordering Balkash and Issyk lakes and Tarim Derya in the East, Aegean and the Mediterrenean shores in the West, Aral Lake, Caspian Sea, Caucasian and the Black Sea in the North and Arabia and Gulf of Oman in the South (total area 10,000,000 sq. km). founded by Kudrettin Mehmet (Harzemshah) covering Persia, Southern Caucasia, Dagestan, Afghanistan and most of Central Asia (total area 5,000,000 sq. km). founded by Batur Khan covering Eastern Europe, the Western Urals, the Crimea and the area to the north of the Volga. founded by Timur Gurgani bordering the Balkans in the West, the Volga in the North, Indian Ocean in the South and Central Asia in the East. founded by Babur Shah covering Afghanistan and India (total area 2,700,000 sq. km). founded by Osman covering Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Anatolia, Caucasia, the Crimea, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus (total area 20,000,000 sq. km).
 * 1. The Great Hun Empire (204 BC - 216 AD)
 * 2. The Western Hun Empire (48 - 216 AD)
 * 3. The European Hun Empire (375 - 454 AD)
 * 4. The White Hun Empire (420 - 552 AD)
 * 5. The Gokturk Empire (552 - 743 AD)
 * 6. The Avar Empire (562 - 796 AD)
 * 7. The Hazar Empire (602 - 1016 AD)
 * 8. The Uygur State (740 - 1335 AD)
 * 9. The Karahan (932 - 1212 AD)
 * 10. The Gazneli (962 - 1183 AD)
 * 11. The Great Seljuk Empire (1040 - 1157 AD)
 * 12. The Harzemshah (1077 - 1231 AD)
 * 13. The Golden Horde (1224 - 1502 AD)
 * 14. The Great Timur Empire (1369 - 1501 AD)
 * 15. The Babur Empire (1526 - 1858 AD)
 * 16. The Ottoman Empire (1299 - 1922 AD)


 * As the intro of the article states, the topic of this article are the Turkish people, defined mainly as being the speakers of Turkish (Türkçe) as a first language. "Turkish" here means the Turkish language that is spoken in Anatolia and Thracia. This article is not about the Turkic peoples; we have a separate article for that. We should resist the temptation to put information about the Turkic peoples in general in this article unless it is somehow specifically relevant to the Turkish-speaking Turks. --Lambiam 04:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * i understand what you mean, i just thought it gives a more clear understanding of the turkish peoples historical and social background. --Justinz84  13:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on this page?
I see that someone had fun with himself to vandalise this page. The page consist of inaccurate informations and inaccurate citations. Someone obviosuly manipulated the number of Turks living abroad. At this momemt, someone edited that 10-15 mio turks lives in Germany.

Could someone please ban the IP.

Please let the information stay as accurate as possible and please use the correct references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.168.203 (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis
I see also that one anonymous user repetedly delete this chapter without any reason. The chapter was sourced with 10 University references and I identify this as vandalism! Jingby (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user this is not my opinion.

Please read here: The Turkish and Azeri populations are atypical among Altaic speakers in having low frequencies of M130, M48, M45, and M17 haplotypes. Rather, these two Turkic-speaking groups seem to be closer to populations from the Middle East and Caucasus, characterized by high frequencies of M96-and M89-related haplotypes. This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic languages, originating in the Altai-Sayan region of Central Asia and northwestern Mongolia, were imposed on the Caucasian and Anatolian peoples with relatively little genetic admixture—another possible example of elite dominance- driven linguistic replacement Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,.

And here: In the evolutionary history of modern humans, Anatolia acted as a bridge between the Caucasus, the Near East, and Europe. Because of its geographical location, Anatolia was subject to migrations from multiple different regions throughout time. The last, well-known migration was the movement of Turkic speaking, nomadic groups from Central Asia. They invaded Anatolia and then the languages of the region was gradually replaced by the Turkic language...Analysis suggested that, genetically, Anatolia is more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations. Furthermore, the association between the Central Asian contribution and the language replacement episode was examined by comparative analysis of the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia, Azerbaijan (another Turkic speaking country) and their neighbors. The Central Asian contribution to Anatolia was estimated as 13%. '''This was the lowest value among the populations analyzed. This observation may be explained by Anatolia having the lowest migrant/resident ratio at the time of Turkic migrations'''. -

Department of Biological Sciences, Middle East Technical University, 06531 Ankara, Turkey. Jingby (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Also there are not Posible but only Genetic links - they are scient

Below is the text wich was deleted!

Ethnogenesis

Further information: History of Anatolia, Turkic migration, and Turkification Anatolia, the landmass that is now Turkey, was for centuries a cradle for a wide variety of peoples and kingdoms during antiquity and the Middle Ages. Before the Turkic settlement the population of Anatolia expanded and reached an estimated level of 12 to 14 million people during the late Roman Period.[50][51][52]

The conquest of Anatolia by Turkic peoples and the rise of the Seljuk Empire began in the 11th century. Over time, as word spread regarding the victory of the Turks in Anatolia, more Turkic ghazis arrived from the Caucasus, Persia, and Central Asia. Turkish migrants began to intermingle with the local inhabitants, which helped to bolster the Turkish-speaking population. Also following the collapse of Ottoman Empire many Muslims from the Balkans, Middle East, Caucasus and the Black Sea regions migrated to the territory of present-day Turkey, i.e. Anatolia.

As a result the DNA researches of the today Turkish speaking population is atypical among Altaic languages speakers in having lowest frequencies of Asiatic haplotypes. It seems this Turkic-speaking group to be closer to populations from the Middle East, Caucasus and the Balkans. This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic language was imposed on the indigenous peoples, possible example of elite cultural dominance - driven linguistic replacement. This observation may be explained by Anatolia having the lowest migrant/resident ratio at the time of Turkic migrations. [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] (See below: Possible genetic links.) Jingby (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear unregistred and anonymous user, pleace, be polite and expose here your arguments! Jingby (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose the next:

The name of the chapter Possible genetic links to be changed simply in GENETIC LINKS! They are not possible, but determine with reliable not nationalistic, but scientifical methods. Jingby (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis is the process by which a group of human beings comes to be understood or to understand themselves as ethnically distinct from the wider social landscape from which their grouping emerges. How does this chapter not fit to this article? This is nonsence! Jingby (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, if you have another meaning to the ethnogenesis discuss it, but do not delete the whole chapter! Jingby (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Also the heading of the chapter is Genetic links without "possible"! Regards! Jingby (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Jingiby, why do you want to re-write Turkish people's history. Your so-called ethnogenesis part is not true as we know. My m-DNA tested in London, and i carry Asian gens, of course it may not for all Turkish peoples in the area but likely total number is Asian. So please dont vandalise Turks as a European or Middleeastern. By the way, arent you a Bulgarian? Start with yourself pls--Orkh (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Excelent arguments! Only "bla - bla"! Read more. Educate more. Develop yourselve. Be open to knew knowledges! The Pan - Turkism is political, not biological movement! Lern mor about your Anatolian roots. Mongolia is utopia! Regards! Jingby (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia?!#%&/+^^¨~!!!!--Ilhanli (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

'''Ethnogenesis and genetic links needs to be shorted and cleaned up dramatically... if this is not done in the next few days I will try and shorten it; otherwise we will have to remove this section as it is becoming ridiculous. NOTHING HAS BEEN IMPROVED SINCE MARCH 2008... '''Thetruthonly (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The citations have to be removed too! Jingby (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to begin try to improve his section as of today and tomrrow, or would you like time to do some improvements yourself? as i have realised that you have contributed to this section... i do not want to end up vandilising this section. But i hope everyone agrees that it is in need of great attention. Thetruthonly (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Do yow agree that citations also have to be removed? Jingby (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we should obviously keep the necessary citations which support the evidence. I have looked at what you have done (briefly)... it has obvioulsy been shortened (which is great), i am going to just read through it just for today and then i will try and improve it tommorw...this is to give more time for those who want to help with this section. I think that if we can achieve this then the article will be well written and we can try and make it a GA! Thetruthonly (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dylan
It should be mentioned that Bob Dylan has Turkish ancestry which he mentions in his biography. After all, he is a great musical talent and should be listed among the images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.238.16 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * you can look at the Turkish americans article he is mentioned there :) Thetruthonly (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Attention... Dikkat...
The article has gone through a large article bloat, although this has already been discussed on this page it has obviously not stopped. Edit wars have also increased over some issues, thus i have created a new template (Template: Turkish ethnicity) which is basically the information from the info box which was on this article. This strategy has helped to lower the bytes by 11,500 bytes. Therefore discussions on the popultion figures should be dealt with on Template talk:Turkish ethnicity. I hope this helps us to improve this article once and for all...Thetruthonly (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Turkish timeline
Why you are adding only Turkey and Ottoman Empire?--Ilhanli (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Attention... Dikkat...
The article has gone through a large article bloat, although this has already been discussed on this page it has obviously not stopped. Edit wars have also increased over some issues, thus i have created a new template (Template: Turkish ethnicity) which is basically the information from the info box which was on this article. This strategy has helped to lower the bytes by 11,500 bytes. Therefore discussions on the popultion figures should be dealt with on Template talk:Turkish ethnicity. I hope this helps us to improve this article once and for all...Thetruthonly (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Turkish timeline
Why you are adding only Turkey and Ottoman Empire?--Ilhanli (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Archive
Archive 7 has been created with a link at right. Archive 8, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Turkish people/Archive 8" and the link added to the template on this page's code. For further information on archiving see How to archive a talk page. Justinz84 (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

IN 10th century Anatolian population is 12 MILLION: It is false
During the Bronze Age the population of Anatolia expanded, reaching an estimated level of 12 million during the late Byzantine Empire period. ???????????????

This reference is not true.

ın last Byzantine era population is not 12 million, only one or two million anatolian people lived in these times. Also, only 200.000 or 400.000 people lived in İstanbul same time.

Whereas, in Ottoman era, Anatolian population reached 10 million.

When the Turkey founded, the population is 13 million. !!!!

In the centuries after the Battle of Manzikert local populations began to assimilate to the emerging Turkish population ????????????????????

Why local Kurdish people didnt begin to assimilate?

--193.140.180.223 (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason why Kurdish people didnt assimilate is because they were Muslims when the Turks came.The other Anatolians,they converted to Islam from the Turks,so no suprise they eventually adopted their language and culture.But not all converted Anatolians became Turkified.An example would be the Pontic Greek Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.77.208 (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

== Blatant copyright infringement from here Ancient DNA Tells Tales from the Grave in the chapter Ethnogenesis and genetic links ==

DNA from a 2,000-year-old burial site in Mongolia has revealed new information about the Xiongnu, a nomadic tribe that once reigned in Central Asia. Researchers in France studied DNA from more than 62 skeletons to reconstruct the history and social organization of a long-forgotten culture. The researchers found that interbreeding between Europeans and Asians occurred much earlier than previously thought. They also found DNA sequences similar to those in present-day Turks, supporting the idea that some of the Turkish people originated in Mongolia.

The research also provides glimpses into the Xiongnu culture. Elaborate burials were reserved for the elite members of society, who were often buried with sacrificial animals and humans at the time of burial. And relatives were often buried next to each other.

“This is the first time that a complete view of the social organization of an ancient cemetery based on genetic data was obtained,” says Christine Keyser-Tracqui of the Institut de Médecine Légale in Strasbourg, France. “It also helps us understand the history of contacts between the Asiatic and European populations more than 2,000 years ago.”

The necropolis, or burial site, was discovered in 1943 by a joint Mongolian-Russian expedition in a region known as the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia. Skeletons in the site were well preserved because of the dry, cold climate. The researchers estimated that the site was used from the 3rd century B.C. to the 2nd century A.D.

The researchers were able to figure out how various skeletons may have been related by analyzing three different types of DNA. They used mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited only from the mother, Y-chromosome DNA, which is passed from father to son, and autosomal DNA (that is, everything but the X and Y chromosomes), which is inherited from both mother and father.

Egyin Gol region of Mongolia with detail from a map of the Egyin Gol burial site. View full © 2003 American Journal of Genetics Most scientists had previously thought that people from Asia mixed with Europeans sometime after the 13th century, when Ghengis Khan conquered most of Asia and parts of the Persian Empire. However, Keyser-Tracqui and her coworkers detected DNA sequences from Europeans in the Xiongnu skeletons.

“This suggests that interbreeding between the European and Asian people in this part of the world occurred before the rise of the Xiongnu culture,” says Keyser-Tracqui.

The oldest section of the burial site contained many double graves. This may reflect the ancient practice of sacrificing and burying a concubine of the deceased along with horses and other animals. This practice, reserved for the more privileged members of society, was apparently abandoned—later sections of burial site revealed no double graves.

The most recent sector of the necropolis contained only the remains of related males, a burial grouping that had never been seen before.

Skeletons from the most recent graves also contained DNA sequences similar to those in people from present-day Turkey. This supports other studies indicating that Turkish tribes originated at least in part in Mongolia at the end of the Xiongnu period.

'''This research is mentioned in the article Genetic origins of the Turkish people. I will remove this text.''' Jingby (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

QUESTION: Why did you remove this research article that clearly shows Turks' link to Central Asia? This is difficult to understand. Why don't you put this important analysis in the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.29.184 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Which research? Are you a scientist? Where are your references and sourses? I will rstore the referenced version. Why were the references deleted? Jingby (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Romany fasil MASTIKA.ogg
The image Image:Romany fasil MASTIKA.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --20:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Turkish people
In the very first sentence it says: "The Turkish people (Turkish: Türk Halkı), also known as "Turks" (Türkler) are defined mainly as being speakers of Turkish as a first language."

So really if someone of Turkish ethnicity doesn't speak Turkish as a first language, does that mean that they're not Turkish all of a sudden? Runningfridgesrule (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * lol probably. what is more weird is the genetic links. so the evidence suggest that Turkish people are a mix of Turkic people who migrated and mixed with the native Anatolian people? and when did they migrate? when did the Turkic language first appear in Anatolia?150.140.225.175 (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

protecting the page
Can we please protect this page to prevent edits from anonymous users. Recently the article has had alot of racist abuse. Turco85 (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

note
hi folks it should be stated  that  we are all  open  to  turkish ethnicity picture,but the points  alwas should  be  contribution to country and  diverse branches  that is why  ı REMOVE the last caliph (not  sultan) vahidettin. and it is obvious that  there is no reason to put  three  generals  considering   academic  world ,fine arts,social sciencesUser:lilybaeum