Talk:Turkish people/Archive 9

Recent developments
I have recently started to re-write this article as it needs a lot of TLC. Would appreciate any help/advice/suggestions from other users who can help improve the article. Many thanks in advance.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 13:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Turkish folk culture : Epic of Köroğlu, Yunus Emre, Book of Dede Korkut ,Ergenekon legend, Nasreddin, Haji Bektash Veli, Âşık Veysel Şatıroğlu, Dadaloğlu, Karacaoğlan, Pir Sultan Abdal, Sarı Saltuk, Ashik

Turkish Cuisine, Turkish folk, Turkish Culture ,Turkish art

Atrocious introduction
Is there really a need to list all those countries? How redundant. --Mttll (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a need, they all form what is today considered the "Turkish ethnicity". You can help improve the introduction if you wish, but you are not actually making it any better by removing the fact that Turkish minorties exist in say Western Thrace, Kosovo, etc. These are important Turkish minorites, and are discussed within the article. Hence, they need to be part of the summary too.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 22:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Does the word, introduction, mean anything to you? When it's expressed that there are Turkish minorities in the former lands of the Ottoman Empire, there is no need to list countries that were formerly part of the Ottoman Empire, it's redundant. --Mttll (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But there is not a Turkish community living in every single country which was once part of the Ottoman Empire (e.g. Albania). In my view it's better to be specific. According to Manual of Style/Lead section "the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." Hence, if we do not show all the Turkish communities in the lead, the reader would not be able to have a concise overview... they would have to go to the section "Traditional areas of Turkish settlement". Turco  85 ( Talk ) 10:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, how would it be a summary if you would mention every ex-Ottoman country with a Turkish minority? Can't you see listing some 18 countries, which greatly vary between themeselves in terms of the significance of Turks living there, is detrimental to the readability of the article? I only edited out the redundant parts without sacrificing informativeness. --Mttll (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the point you are making. But there is significant communities in say Kosovo, Macedonia, and Greece... I don't think they should be removed from the introduction just because they don't form the second largest group in the country. The introduction needs to be improved regardless of this minor disagreement, as there is no mention of language/relgion/culture there either. Right now I'm occupied with trying to improve the history section. I would appreciate any suggestions you have for improving the intro though... but in my opinion you havn't actually made the intro better, nor worse, just by removing those minorities. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 12:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Being second largest ethnic group" is just a practical measure to cut the redundancy in the intro. Otherwise, Turkish population in different countries are well covered in the article as well as in various other articles. I also agree with you the intro is rather bare, but I don't think there is a lot of creativity needed here, following the example of similar articles to this one should do it. --Mttll (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

what happened to the genetics of Turks? why is there so much information on ottoman empire ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.172.59 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Genetics has been merged into the "origins" section. I'll shorten the Ottoman era section tomorrow. I first needed to write-up all the important information. The entire article will take a few weeks of hardwork and research before it can be of good quality. Please be patient.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 22:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Crazy estimates
A million Turks in France, 100,000 in Egypt, 50,000 in Kosovo, 2 million in Algeria........

is anyone supposed to actually take any of this seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.146.35.112 (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What exactly makes these estimates crazy? They are all sourced; in fact, many of these estimates have been double/triple sourced. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 19:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * most of them aren't even proper sources.


 * well i just looked at Kosovo, for example, and the source is talking about 50,000 Mesketian Turks in Kyrgyzstan, not Kosovo! HA HA. And the other link is broken. So, are you going to correct your mistake? Seeing as you claim to have written this whole article, you must have put that info in to? Gonna own up?


 * I think you are getting yourself confused. Kosovo's sources are footnote 60 & 59 not 60 & 61. The sources for Kyrgyzstan are footnotes 44 & 61. Hence, no mistakes have been made, it seems as though you have misunderstood the citation process.  Turco  85  ( Talk ) 09:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The given number for Bulgaria is of the Muslim population, not of the turks, who are about 400000-500000. The rest of us are Bulgarian, who speak Bulgarian (some also understand Turkish, but personally I don't know it) and even follow some Bulgarian non-religious traditions. I have respect to the turks I know, but my people and I don't want to be counted as such, especially if with this, we're related somehow to the imperialist Ottoman empire, so please diminish the number down! 82.46.239.160 (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Kubrat Gadjanov (this is my real name, not account)
 * we base our content on what reliable published sources say. do you have sources that indicate different numbers? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What reliable source does exactly show 800000 turks in Bulgaria? In the last census in 2011 they were about 550000 (check exactly how many, can't remember). I'll also emphasize to you that during it, there were people from the town, who came to my grandparent's village near Omortag to agitate the Muslims to call themselves Turkish, although the village is mixed (there are also Christians, who btw treat us much better than the Ottomans Muslims did in the past) and all the people are Bulgarians. So I think even this number of 550000 may be overrated. Simply said - please, stop counting us as your reaya and diminish this number of 800000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.239.160 (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent conflict
Can contributor 31.146.35.112 please stop reverting my edits. I am in the process of trying to improve this article by using wiki's guidelines. Please read the following: Have a look at other ethnic articles such as Greeks (which actually has good article status, unlike here) to see the size of the paragraphs.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 09:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Article size
 * Writing better articles


 * I simply restored information you deleted (which contradicted information you inserted) on etymology - and YOU reverted ME. Now, how does that make sense? 31.146.35.112 (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed some of the information I had prevously written because the article was getting far too long. Nonetheless, you are not actually "restoring" the information I removed to exact past... especially since you are removing any mention of "Seljuk Turks" and replacing it with "Seljuk-Persian". Yes the Seljuk Turks were influenced by the Persian culture, but this article is about the Turks; hence, removing the term "Seljuk Turks" seems politically motivated. One must remember that this article is about an ethnicity not empires. This article should only be dealing with Turks who lived in the Seljuk, Beylik, Otttoman periods rather than being about the empires itself which had many ethnic groups within its borders. Do you understand where you seem to be going beyond the scope of this articles purpose?  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 22:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, your edits are not supported by what the citations actually say whereas the version of the article I have written actually does correspond with the sources. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 22:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You're confusing the reader by your omissions. First, your putting forward your preferred etymology of the word "Turk", despite there being numerous theories as to its origin. Second, your version of the article implies that the "Turks" of the Seljuq Empire are synonymous with the Turks of today's Republic of Turkey - which of course is not true. Third, your version has inserted a politicized paragraph that argues that the native Anatolians somehow preferred the Seljuq rulers to the Byzantines - maybe that's true, maybe it isn't, but that's a argument not suited to such an article.


 * More importantly, you position here seems to be "Only I am allowed to edit this article, and I am just going to automatically revert anyone else who attempts to contribute". I'm sorry, but that's just bollocks. 31.146.35.112 (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edits conflict with what the sources actually say; simple as that. You have in no way justified your edits nor have you shown any citations to support your arguments. Until you actually follow the wiki policies and learn to work together, you wont be taken seriously by me. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 22:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's because you have deleted all the other sources in your version; simple as that. 31.146.35.112 (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

My "position" is to only illustrate what the sources say. Here is a wide range of citations for you to read:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 Turco  85 ( Talk ) 11:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And could you please tell me where any of those sources contradicts any of the edits I have made? 31.146.35.112 (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are removing all the mentions of Seljuk Turks (e.g. removing Seljuk Turks from the "see also" template) and replacing it with Turco-Persian. The sources do not say anything about the Seljuk Turks being Turco-Persians. This article is not about the Seljuk Empire, it is about the Turks and hence would include the Turks who were within the Seljuk empire. If you have no objections to the sources above, why an earth are you changing the article to this?  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 12:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you've stated that before, and I've stated my disagreement. Unfortunately for you, I am supported by reliable scholarship - you are not. Just look at what the Encyclopedia Britannica has to say (that's an encylopedia, not Lonely Planet or whatever other stuff you've found on Google):


 * Seljuq, also spelled Seljuk, ruling military family of the Oğuz (Ghuzz) Turkmen tribes that invaded southwestern Asia in the 11th century and eventually founded an empire that included Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and most of Iran. Their advance marked the beginning of Turkish power in the Middle East.


 * Persian cultural autonomy flourished in the Seljuq empire. Because the Turkish Seljuqs had no Islamic tradition or strong literary heritage of their own, they adopted the cultural language of their Persian instructors in Islam.


 * - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/533602/Seljuq


 * You can also look to the numerous references provided in the main Seljuq dynasty article on Wikipedia:


 * Hottinger, Arnold, The Arabs, (University of California Press, 1963), 90; "..and for these Turko-persian Seljuks who now ruled the largest Islamic state..."


 * Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes, (Rutgers University Press, 1991), 161,164; "..renewed the Seljuk attempt to found a great Turko-Persian empire in eastern Iran..", "It is to be noted that the Seljuks, those Turkomans who became sultans of Persia, did not Turkify Persia-no doubt because they did not wish to do so. On the contrary, it was they who voluntarily became Persians and who, in the manner of the great old Sassanid kings, strove to protect the Iranian populations from the plundering of Ghuzz bands and save Iranian culture from the Turkoman menace."


 * Nishapuri, Zahir al-Din Nishapuri (2001), “The History of the Seljuq Turks from the Jami’ al-Tawarikh: An Ilkhanid Adaptation of the Saljuq-nama of Zahir al-Din Nishapuri,” Partial tr. K.A. Luther, ed. C.E. Bosworth, Richmond, UK. K.A. Luther: "... the Turks were illiteratre and uncultivated when they arrived in Khurasan and had to depend on Iranian scribes, poets, jurists and theologians to man the institution of the Empire”(pg 9)


 * Jackson, P. (2002). "Review: The History of the Seljuq Turks: The History of the Seljuq Turks". Journal of Islamic Studies 2002 13(1):75–76; doi:10.1093/jis/13.1.75.Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies.


 * Bosworth, C. E. (2001). "Notes on Some Turkish Names" in Abu 'l-Fadl Bayhaqi's Tarikh-i Mas'udi. Oriens, Vol. 36, 2001 (2001), pp. 299–313.


 * Dani, A. H., Masson, V. M. (Eds), Asimova, M. S. (Eds), Litvinsky, B. A. (Eds), Boaworth, C. E. (Eds). (1999). History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers (Pvt. Ltd).


 * Hancock, I. (2006). On Romani Origins and Identity. The Romani Archives and Documentation Center. The University of Texas at Austin.


 * Asimov, M. S., Bosworth, C. E. (eds.). (1998). History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. IV: The Age of Achievement: AD 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, Part One: The Historical, Social and Economic Setting. Multiple History Series. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

Thanks for playing. - 31.146.35.112 (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for playing what? Is this a game to you? Because some of us take editing articles on wikipedia very seriously. All you have done is listed a bibliography here, no quotations with that list, nor any page numbers...


 * Ummm..... trying reading again... 31.146.35.112 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you find Britanica so reliable compared to all the other sources, here is what it says:




 * Unless you actually come up with a valid reason as well as sources to back up your views, your argument is not proving to be valid. I have no problem with the paragraph mentioning that the Seljuk Turks' culture was influenced by the Persian, because that is a fact. But the idea of removing the term "Seljuk Turks" in an article about the Turks seems utterly absurd. Furthermore, I should point out, we should be focusing on the Seljuk Turks who actually arrived in Anatolia rather than, what you seem to be doing, focusing on the ones in which stayed in Persia. The paragraph cannot be talking about the period of Khurasan after we have mentioned the Battle of Mazikert because it would not make sense chronologically.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 13:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, how does any of that contradict my edits????? I didn't delete any use of the "Seljuk Turks" term, I simply removed that terminology from the opening two paragraphs, because it's outdated. Nowadays we use "Seljuqs" or "Saljuq Dynasty".


 * And so now you admit they were a Turco-Persian dynasty, that used the Persian language.... so what specific problems do you actually have with my edits? Other than the fact that I had the temerity to tamper with your pet, and improve on your rather clumsy English? 31.146.35.112 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether you are genuinely misunderstanding me or not. This article is not about the dynasty. i.e. the paragraph is not meant to be an explanation of the Seljuk Empire, it is meant to be a paragraph about the Turks who lived within it. I have not got any objections in stating that they were influenced by the Persians. But saying Turco-Persians is not correct at all. They were not Turco-Persians, they were merely Turks who had been influenced by the Persians. There is a big difference between what you have been writing and the actual reality. And like I said before, within the Seljuks ear section, we are focusing on the Turks after the Battle of Manzikert because that is when the Turkish-speaking migration to Anatolia really began, as the overwhelming sources above illustrate.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 14:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you don't personally believe they were Turco-Persian, take it up with the academics I listed above (and the authors of the Wiki article on the Seljuqs) - they are precisely the type of Persianate (read: Central Asian Islamic) people for which the term "Turco-Persian" was invented. But please, don't try and alter history for your own narrative purposes. 31.146.35.112 (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to think that you are just trying to take the piss here! I am going by what the sources say, and it is you who keeps on making up your own views about so many articles relating to the Turks. Gosh, it's so obvious that you are yet another sockpuppet of User:Ledenierhomme and I've had enough. Let me direct you to a book which is probably suited to someone like yourself:


 * Whatever you say kid. Here's some more reading material for you, that talks about Turco-Persian societies:


 * Josef W. Meri, Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, Routledge, 2005, p. 399
 * Michael Mandelbaum, Central Asia and the World, Council on Foreign Relations (May 1994), p. 79
 * Jonathan Dewald, Europe 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World, Charles Scribner's Sons, 2004, p. 24: "Turcoman armies coming from the East had driven the Byzantines out of much of Asia Minor and established the Persianized sultanate of the Seljuks."
 * Ram Rahul. March of Central Asia, Indus Publishing, page 124.
 * C.E. Bosworth, "Turkish expansion towards the west", in UNESCO History of Humanity, Volume IV, 2000.
 * Mehmed Fuad Koprulu, Early Mystics in Turkish Literature, Translated by Gary Leiser and Robert Dankoff, Routledge, 2006, pg 149.
 * O.Özgündenli, "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish Libraries", Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition, (LINK)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turco-Persian
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persianate_society


 * - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.146.35.112 (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I just checked Jonathan Dewald (2004) and did not find such a quote on page 24. Moreover, trying to direct me to other wiki articles means nothing. In fact, it seems that all you have done is copy-pasted the references and notes from those articles. Why don't you try and find citations with the quotation and page number yourself and place them on this talk page?  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 14:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wasn't difficult. http://books.google.ge/books?id=CIYYAAAAIAAJ&q=%22Turcoman+armies+coming+from+the+East+had+driven+the+Byzantines+out+of+much+of+Asia+Minor+and+established+the+Persianized+sultanate+of+the+Seljuks.%22&dq=%22Turcoman+armies+coming+from+the+East+had+driven+the+Byzantines+out+of+much+of+Asia+Minor+and+established+the+Persianized+sultanate+of+the+Seljuks.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M2rPT-CMKo3O4QTi6OWIDA&redir_esc=y 31.146.35.112 (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well that's page 80, not page 24, so you can't expect me to find the quotations if you are giving me wrong page numbers. Would you be willing to compromise if we place the article back to the version which I have previously reverted it to, but including in the first sentence that it was "Persianized"? Because so far our discussion has not resolved anything. You seem to still be arguing about an entire empire whilst I'm trying to write an article about the Turkish people, because if you have not realised that is what this article is called.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 15:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I though I was a "sockpuppet" Ledenierhomme? Why would you want to compromise with a sockpuppet?

In all this huff and puff, you've yet to point out, specifically, what is wrong with my edits. What specific changes, specifically, are problematic for you? Can you quote something from the article that I inserted, that you believe to be factually incorrect? 31.146.35.112 (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I do believe that you are a sockpuppet of User:Ledenierhomme, and if not of that user, or some of user who has been at wikipedia for a while. I doubt very much that these last few days have been your first here. Nonetheless, I'll compromise not because I want to "get on with you" but because you actually provided a source (shocking right!, well that's how wikipedia actually works...). What is incorrect is the simple fact that you have removed "Seljuk Turks" from the template above the heading, where it currently says "Main article: Great Seljuq Empire", and have removed the word "Turks" in the majority of sentences. For example, "The Seljuks were originally a nomadic people from Central Asia" whilst the sources actually say "The Seljuks Turks were originally a nomadic people from Central Asia".  Turco  85  ( Talk ) 18:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There, I have clarified in the opening that the Seljuqs were originally a Turkic nomadic people from Central Asia. It should be abundantly clear now to any reader. If you have any other objections to my edits, please raise them here before deleting them for the 10th time. Thanks. Whatisgeorgianwhatisgood (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There are almost a dozen sources listed above, many with page numbers. The fact that you are unable to verify them immediately via Google (although I did with the one you contested) is irrelevant. Wikipedia, I gather, is not deisnged to be a repository of information that is already online - but a repository of encylopedic information full-stop. A "temple of knowledge" I believe I've seen the founder on TV say.


 * And yes, this is me the IP, I am back. You got me blocked because I was apparently on an "open proxy" (which I wasn't, but I realize now why the User:Alison may have thought so, and I have made the necessary changes to my dial-up settings). Whatisgeorgianwhatisgood (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You were not blocked for simply being an "open proxy" you were blocked for your continuous disruption to this article. Rather than actually helping to improve this article you have tried to take control of its entire content by adding words/sentences which the citations do not support and removing words/sentences which are actually supported by the references. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 23:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any controversy in saying that Anatolian Seljuks being Turko-Persians. I would think that a middle ground could have been found. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Haplogroup of Oğuzhan
Because so many people today claim to be a Prince of the Ottoman Dynasty, and were therefore entitled to inherit, The true male members of the House of Osman, currently twenty-four Princes now in the Line of succession to the former Ottoman throne, and their cousin, the Amuca Kabilesi who are descendants of Gündüz Bey the older brother of Osman I, tested their Y-DNA.

Genetic history of the Turkish people, shows that the common ancestor Ertuğrul of the Kayı tribe, belonged to haplogroup: R1a=6.9% - Typical of Central Asian, Caucasus, Eastern Europeans and Indo-Aryan people.

Dilek2 (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you got any sources to back this opinion of yours? Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Turks in Anatolia
The Turks came to Anatolia (where they still live) much before Xth Century. The first Turkish peoples (or tribes) to form part of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine if you wish) Empire and to fight in its armies mostly turned to Christianity and after the islamisation of the bulk of the Turkish immigration into Anatolia, either disappeared within the Christian society (some of them) or were converted to islam (most of them) and their previous existence in Rome (Anatolia) mostly forgotten.

One reason the Turks won the Manzikert War easily is the fact that many Turkish tribes, who were within the Byzantine army ranks, changed sides when they realized that the "enemy" they were fighting against was their own kins. (Some of those Christian Turks survive in Moldovia, the Balkans end elsewhere under the name of Gagauz.

I wish to attract attention to the article Bardanis o Toupkos or "Bardanes the Turk", about an Armenian general of the Byzantine army who served between 895-903 as Commander of the Anatolian Army for the Empire. In other words, even by then (as early as the end of IXth Century) the so-called Armenian plateau (today part of Eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey) was known as a place associated with the Turkish people, who dwelled in that area, and had such a strong presence to outname the Armenians who claim to be contemporaries of Noah at times...

I hope this information may be useful to develop the contents of the Turkish people article. --E4024 (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some sources to support your theory?  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 12:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no theories of my own but many Turkish history books (not the textbooks you read at school that make us hate history) confirm the presence of Turks in Anatolia before Manzikert. Manzikert is only a milestone in the changing of the political geography of Turkey. If you are interested in the presence of Turkish soldiers (therefore their families, in short Turkish colonies) in Rome (or Byzantium if you like) at the time of Manzikert and before, begin by reading the first sentence of the article Turcopole in this WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E4024 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, well would you be able to help by listing some of these sources please? I'll try look into it in more depth as well.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 14:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Genetics
Please anonimous streaming IP-s, avoiding 3RR-ban, stop pushing here info that was deleted as unreliable on the talk-page of the article Genetic origins of the Turkish people. Your sources are older then 10 years and out of date or absolutely unreliable as Eupedia. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing the genetic-related paragraphs; Contribute to the Genetic history of the Turkish people
I'm going to remove the two genetic-related paragraphs in the origin section of Turkish people because there is already a page called Genetic history of the Turkish people which is about the genetic studies of Turkish related people, and there is no need to mention the same or similar contributions repetitively in both of the articles. You can go on genetic-related contributions on the Genetic history of the Turkish people. BozokluAdam (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

RE : Between 300,000 to 400,000 have immigrated to Turkey since 1923
Because that comment follows a statement of Greek government policy, it implies to the reader that Greek government policies are the reason these Turks have immigrated. The statistics that reveal the true picture is what percentage of Greece's population was Turkish in 1923 and what is that percentage now. I will replace that statement with these statistics unless editors give me good reasons not to. I would also like to contrast these statistics with the equivalent ones for Greeks in Turkey since 1923. HelenOfOz (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed POV as your edit does not comply with the what the source actually says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.216.86 (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also removed HelenOfOz's edit. This source HelenOfOz has provided mentions nothing about the Western Thrace Turks. Moreover, the Cyprus issue is dealt with within the "Cyprus" heading. Turco  85  ( Talk ) 11:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes I didn't copy my text correctly. Here are some sources [][][][] HelenOfOz (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Collage request
1. If you cannot find an illustration (not the miniature in his article) about Alp Arslan please remove him from the collage. 2. Same for C. Sonku. 3. Mesut Özil, playing for the German national team is not the most representative Turkish footballer, change with someone else please. 4. Elif Safak is not such an important writer. Replace with Yaşar Kemal (I am ashamed of pronouncing these two names together: A master and a newby!) 5. Mehmed II is not less important than Süleyman, add him also. 6. Add (or replace with the first Turkish beauty queen) Keriman Halis (later Ece), the first Turkish woman to win an international beauty contest. Thanks.


 * Could someone please replace the photo of Dürrüşehvar Sultan(a) with the one on her own article? She was an Ottoman sultan/a (princess), yes, but was only 8 years old at the wake of Empire; so her childhood photo goes better with this article. Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Acquisition ????
The map mentions acquisitions? Those were ocupations and in no way acqusitions. Please fix the map accordingly. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.75.124 (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Origins of Turkish people in the article is wrong
The origins, in its current version, looks like "Turkic" nationalistic propaganda devoid of any objectivity or modern science. Turkish people from Turkey are not primarily from Central Asia as the article suggests, but seem to be native to Anatolia. "Turkish populations are atypical among Altaic speakers in having low frequencies of Asiatic haplotypes. Rather, these two Turkic-speaking groups seem to be closer to populations from the Middle East, Caucasus and the Balkans. 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 indigenous peoples without significant genetic admixture, possible example of elite cultural dominance - driven linguistic replacement" Therefore, I'll be adding some of the results of the modern genetic studies in the history section. Cavann89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And I will be asking a checkuser's help to show you are not new here as you pretend and will be reverting your edits per WP:SOCK and WP:DUCK. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Cavann89 (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Culture
Although I am not against having a heading entitled "Culture", I have removed the current version of the section as those topics (i.e. Architecture and Calligraphy) are not refering to the Turkish culture but rather Turkey itself. Turkish culture would be more about foods, dances, beliefs, etc. which would be common, in someway, amongst the Turkish people regardless of whether they live in Turkey, Cyprus, or the UK. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 12:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is about the ethnic group as well as the nation. I don't think information on the culture of Turkey is to be excluded unless it's distinctly associated with a non-Turkish community in Turkey. --Mttll (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * see similar articles, for example Russians. It includes a similar section, which can also be seen as about the culture of Russia. Kavas (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Genetics (again) and recent edits by User:Cavann
I've recently removed Cavann's edit; I assume it's a good faith edit but we've debated about genetics in the talk page numerous times and it seems that most agree that we shouldn't mix ethnicity with genetics especially since these studies are based on people of Turkey rather than Turks as a whole (i.e. including Bulgarian Turks, Turkish Cypriots etc.). Furthermore, Cavann's sub-headings in the history section are confusing; I don't understand how we can have a "Anatolians" section when a) not all of today's Turkish people are in Anatolia; b) the sections after it talk about the ancient Turks who were in Central Asia before even stepping foot in Anatolia; hence, it's not chronological! I've already added the following sentences in the origins section: "In 1071, the Seljuk Turks defeated the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert; the Turkish language and Islam were introduced to Anatolia (present day Turkey) and gradually spread over the region and the slow transition from a predominantly Christian and Greek-speaking Anatolia to a predominantly Muslim and Turkish-speaking one was underway.[89][90] In the time of the Ottoman Empire, the Turkish-speaking Anatolian population had spread throughout the Balkans, Cyprus, North Africa, and the Middle East, and remnants of these Turkish minorities still exists. Today the ethnic Turks have a mixed heritage; they are the descendents of not only Turkic migrants from Central Asia but also descendants of peoples whose ancestors were the Hittites, Phrygians, Lydians or other early peoples of Anatolia." Surely that's sufficent enough?  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 21:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 1)Incorrect. Read the sources before you delete them, otherwise you are just deleting cited information, which is against Wikipedia policies and makes this article worse. The studies I cited are NOT based on people of Turkey as a whole, it is based on ethnic Turks from Turkey (eg., it would exclude Kurds). Here's the abstract of one of the articles ("Who Are the Anatolian Turks?"):

Due to its long-term geographic position as gateway between Europe and Asia, the genetic constitution of Anatolia is highly complex. In spite of its overwhelming diversity, most citizens of the Republic of Turkey are firstlanguage Turkish-speakers and consider themselves ethnic Turks. This was not the case during the early Middle Ages and the time of the Byzantine Empire. Although we are able to identify four successive Turkic empires, Islamicization, and post–World War I nationalization as the essential steps toward ethnic homogenization, from historical texts alone we cannot determine to what extent mass migration from Central Asia and Siberia is responsible for Turkish dominance in Anatolia today. To assess the extent of gene flow from lands east of the Caspian, we examined the patterns of genetic variation in Turkic-speaking populations from Anatolia to Siberia. This analysis allows us to build the case for incommensurable, long-term, and continuing genetic signatures in both Anatolia and Siberia, and for significant mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome divergence between the regions, with minimal admixture. We supplement the case against mass migration with correlative archeological, historical, and linguistic data, and suggest that it was irregular punctuated migration events that engendered large-scale shifts in language and culture among Anatolia’s diverse autochthonous inhabitants.Cavann (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 2) As for your other points, there are Swedish people in Canada for example, but Swedes article starts with Svealand and Götaland, since they are the core. Similarly, Anatolia is the core for Turkish people. And given that modern ethnic Turks are primarily of indigenous Anatolian ancestry, it is chronological, since those populations predate Turkic-speakers in Central Asia, who transferred their language to native populations. The article needs to reflect that. Although, as I said, it was a start, and the Anatolian section needs to be expanded so it is less confusing. Cavann (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You're clearly the same user as last time trying to push for genetics to be placed here. Your using the exact same sentences which are just copy and pasted from the abstracts of these articles. The origins section already states that today's Turkish people are a mixture of peoples throughout history, though your reverts have ironically now removed this. I'm not willing to waste my time with you I have better this to do.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 22:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I quote abstracts, because -unlike you- I try to stick to the sources, rather than my own imagination. If you are talking about Cavann89, obviously that's me. Some of the stuff are copy & pasted from other articles, like Turkification, as explained in the edit summaries. Cavann (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Pre-Turkish Anatolians are just that, pre-Turkish Anatolians. This article is about the Turkish people. --Mttll (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly! I propose that we remove the heading "Anatolians" for two reasons: 1) no citations; 2) it's not chronological as the Turkish history of Anatolia began with the arrival of the Seljuks so it does not make sense to have this above the ancient period whereby the Turks where in central Asia moving westwards. I also propose that the genetics section be removed and that what most consider to be improtant there be placed into the origins section. Obviously today's Turkish people are a mixture of history, this is already in the origins section, showing "genetics" is not the correct way to show this, especially since the studies do not include all Turkish people and just of those living in Turkey.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 11:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed the "Anatolians" sections and replaced it back with "origins". Note, I have not removed "genetics" as I'm willing to see if we can reach a compromise here. I'm hoping that my last edit will not be reverted. Although I suspect that the above user is a sock, I'm willing to try and finally reslove this issue as they'll only come back with another user name. Lets just please stay civial here. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 12:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I suggest that we keep the following (from the "genetics" section) and place it in the "origins" section:
 * Several studies have concluded that the historical Anatolian groups are the primary source of the present-day Turkish population. Thus, although the Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance, including the introduction of the Turkish language and Islam, the genetic significance from Central Asia might have been slight with today's Turkish people being more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations. Hence, elite cultural dominance-driven linguistic replacement was imposed on the diverse indigenous inhabitants.
 * What do we think?  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 12:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to take a step back and ask yourself a few questions, before we can proceed and hopefully reach a consensus, because you still seem to be giving knee-jerk reactions towards keeping the article from changing (i.e., you are trying to WP:OWN the article). The reasons I'm saying this is two fold. 1) Why did you delete the cited information in rest of etymology section??? 2) Why are you opposed to a genetics section? Cavann (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * IE:

The word Türk was used only referring to Anatolian villagers back in the 19th century. The Ottoman elite identified themselves as Ottomans, not usually as Turks. In the late 19th century, as European ideas of nationalism were adopted by the Ottoman elite, and as it became clear that the Turkish-speakers of Anatolia were the most loyal supporters of Ottoman rule, the term Türk took on a much more positive connotation. During Ottoman times, the millet system defined communities on a religious basis, and a residue of this remains in that Turkish villagers will commonly consider as Turks only those who profess the Sunni faith, and will consider Turkish-speaking Jews, Christians, or even Alevis to be non-Turks. On the other hand, Kurdish-speaking or Arabic-speaking Sunnis of eastern Anatolia are often considered to be Turks. The imprecision of the appellation Türk can also be seen with other ethnic names, such as Kürt, which is often applied by western Anatolians to anyone east of Adana, even those who speak only Turkish. Thus, the category Türk, like other ethnic categories popularly used in Turkey, does not have a uniform usage. In recent years, centrist Turkish politicians have attempted to redefine this category in a more multi-cultural way, emphasizing that a Türk is anyone who is a citizen of the Republic of Turkey. Now article 66 of the Turkish Constitution defines a "Turk" as anyone who is "bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship".


 * You deleted this relevant information, even though it has bunch of sources without any reasoning . Why? Cavann (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In answer to your questions:
 * 1) We do not need an "etymology" heading when the "origins" heading already shows the origin of the word "Turks".
 * 2) I'm against a "genetics" heading because we are dealing with an ethnicity which, like all ethnic groups, are cultrually constructed not genetically. Furthermore, the origins section already states that the Turkish language and Islam gradually spread over the region and a transition from a predominantly Christian and Greek-speaking Anatolia to a predominantly Muslim and Turkish-speaking began. Thus, it's not even necessary to have another section with merely a different heading stating the exact same things.
 * Now would you be kind enough to answer my question? Are you willing to compromise by us placing my above written version of the genetics studies?
 * I must actually stress that my main problem is that the current version of the "genetics" is actually the way in which it is written. It reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia (such as "inconclusion"). Moreover, it goes off topic by talking about Armenians and Azerbaijanis when this article is meant to be about the Turkish people. So Can you just tell me what your objections are with my above version so I can understand where our main dispute lies. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 23:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We cannot proceed unless you specify why you keep deleting sourced information like the one above, given that you side stepped that question above. Cavann (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well firstly it is just a copy-paste from Turkification; secondly, just because it contains citations it does not make it valid for this article; thirdly, it goes off topic. You must remember, this article is not about Turkey but about an ethnic group. Clearly, you don't seem to understand this. If you keep avoiding my questions and stalling the future of this article then there is no point in you even being here as so far you have not shown any form of cooperation or means of compromising! Turco  85 ( Talk ) 20:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We cannot communicate or cooperate or compromise, if you ignore questions asked to you and just repeat yourself.
 * As for your reasons, the first is not a relevant reason (as long as there are non-wiki sources in the text). Secondly, it is not up to you what is valid or not, please read WP:V and WP:NPOV. Finally, it does not go off topic. It is very relevant to mention that being a Turk during Ottoman times had a different meaning than today. I do not understand why you keep saying "this article is not about Turkey but about an ethnic group", because it does not apply to things you are deleting.
 * I'm Turkish myself and I do not consider the origin to be Central Asia, whereas you obviously do. That is why the article needs to be neutral and tell it how it is. In addition there are 3 FA articles in WikiProject Ethnic groups, try to emulate those. Eg: Tamil_people Toraja. They both have a section before History.
 * In summary we need a "Etymology and Ethnic Identity" section (current origins section + the info deleted).
 * As for the genetics section, I insist it stays, because some people just want to read about modern science -i.e., genetics,- before reading a history lesson about Seljuk Turks and blah blah. However, we can make the genetics section more concise, similar to what you proposed plus some more information. Cavann (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You insist that the genetics sections stay but its current form is written like an essay not an encyclopedia(!); for this reason I have tried to compromise by placing an alternative which I have written above (at 12:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)) yet you have not even said what you think of it. If you are going to continue like this then why are you even here? As for the "Turkification" that you have copy pasted it is off topic (e.g. "The imprecision of the appellation Türk can also be seen with other ethnic names..."; "...the Turkish Constitution defines a "Turk" as anyone who is "bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship"). What if one does not even live in Turkey? The constitution of Turkey means nothing when it comes to ethnic Turks because that constitution means nothing in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, etc. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 20:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, Wikipedia is not here so you can consolidate your Turkish-Cypriot-British identity, so try not to see the entire article from your point of view.
 * 1) There is a similar text in Germans (with respect to constitution). It is quite relevant to the article and it is (or will) be sourced. Instead of trying to delete everything that is contrary to your identity, try to expand on them.
 * 2) I did not say genetics should stay in its current form. Again. Read: "However, we can make the genetics section more concise, similar to what you proposed plus some more information." I'll come up with a proposal soon below: Cavann (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, I just have to answer back at your statement: "I'm Turkish myself and I do not consider the origin to be Central Asia, whereas you obviously do" I'm a British-born Turkish Cypriot and do not actually have central Asian features. I don't want to get personal here, but maybe me saying this will help you realise that I'm not "for" or "against" anything, I just want this article to flow and for it to stay on topic. In fact, it is you who is using your opinions to try and make it fact (i.e. you said "I do not consider the origin to be Central Asia") whilst I'm trying to keep this article as balanced as possible. Not all Turkish people live in Turkey so it's constitution, as well as the Turkification in Turkey, did not effect all of today's Turkish people who live outside of Turkey. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 20:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Then maybe you should avoid saying things such as "I'm Turkish myself and I do not consider the origin to be Central Asia, whereas you obviously do". Turco  85 ( Talk ) 21:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Etymology
As I discussed above, I will restore the Etymology section. I will delete the Origins section, because it implies that the origin of Turkish people is Central Asia, which is incorrect. Here's the suggested text:

Although Turkic languages may have been spoken as early as 600 BC, the first mention of the ethnonym "Turk" may date from Herodotus' (c. 484-425 BCE) reference to "Targitas"; furthermore, during the first century CE, Pomponius Mela refers to the "Turcae" in the forecasts north of the Sea of Azov, and Pliny the Elder lists the "Tyrcae" among the people of the same area. The first definite reference to the "Turks" come mainly from Chinese sources in the sixth century. In these sources, "Turk" appears as "Tujue" (T’u-chue), meaning "strong" or "powerful", which was used to refer to the Göktürks.

The word Türk was used only referring to Anatolian villagers back in the 19th century. The Ottoman elite identified themselves as Ottomans, not usually as Turks. In the late 19th century, as European ideas of nationalism were adopted by the Ottoman elite, and as it became clear that the Turkish-speakers of Anatolia were the most loyal supporters of Ottoman rule, the term Türk took on a much more positive connotation. During Ottoman times, the millet system defined communities on a religious basis, and a residue of this remains in that Turkish villagers will commonly consider as Turks only those who profess the Sunni faith, and will consider Turkish-speaking Jews, Christians, or even Alevis to be non-Turks. On the other hand, Kurdish-speaking or Arabic-speaking Sunnis of eastern Anatolia are often considered to be Turks. The imprecision of the appellation Türk can also be seen with other ethnic names, such as Kürt, which is often applied by western Anatolians to anyone east of Adana, even those who speak only Turkish. Thus, the category Türk, like other ethnic categories popularly used in Turkey, does not have a uniform usage. In recent years, centrist Turkish politicians have attempted to redefine this category in a more multi-cultural way, emphasizing that a Türk is anyone who is a citizen of the Republic of Turkey. Currently, article 66 of the Turkish Constitution defines a "Turk" as anyone who is "bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship"; however, this definition and the constitution itself may change in the near future.

Although "Turk" refers to Turkish people, it may also sometimes refer to the wider language group of Turkic peoples.Cavann (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Remainder of Origins
I'm not sure about what to do about the following part, after creating Etymology and deleting Origins. Suggestions?

Seventh century Chinese sources preserve the origins of the Turks stating that they were a branch of the Hsiung-nu (Huns) and living near the "West Sea", perhaps the Caspian Sea. Modern sources tends to indicate that the Turks' ancestors lived within the state of the Hsiung-nu in the Transbaikal area and that they later, during the fifth century, migrated to the southern Altay.

By the ninth century, when the Great Seljuk Empire had emerged, the Turks began their expansion to the west directly colliding with the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, the Seljuk Turks defeated the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert; the Turkish language and Islam were introduced to Anatolia (present day Turkey) and gradually spread over the region and the slow transition from a predominantly Christian and Greek-speaking Anatolia to a predominantly Muslim and Turkish-speaking one was underway. In the time of the Ottoman Empire, the Turkish-speaking Anatolian population had spread throughout the Balkans, Cyprus, North Africa, and the Middle East, and remnants of these Turkish minorities still exists. As the Ottoman Empire gradually shrank in size, military power and wealth, many Ottoman Turks and Balkan Muslims migrated to the Empire's heartland in Anatolia, along with the Circassians fleeing the Russian conquest of the Caucasus.

After adding few things, it could be the overview of History section? Here's a suggestion:

Although numerous modern genetic studies have indicated that the historical Anatolian groups are the primary source of the present-day Turkish population, the first Turkic people lived in a region extending from Central Asia to Siberia and were palpable after the 6th Century BC. Seventh century Chinese sources preserve the origins of the Turks stating that they were a branch of the Hsiung-nu (Huns) and living near the "West Sea", perhaps the Caspian Sea. Modern sources tends to indicate that the Turks' ancestors lived within the state of the Hsiung-nu in the Transbaikal area and that they later, during the fifth century, migrated to the southern Altay.

By the ninth century, when the Great Seljuk Empire had emerged, the Turks began their expansion to the west directly colliding with the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, the Seljuk Turks defeated the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert; the Turkish language and Islam were introduced to Anatolia (present day Turkey) and gradually spread over the region and the slow transition from a predominantly Christian and Greek-speaking Anatolia to a predominantly Muslim and Turkish-speaking one was underway. In the time of the Ottoman Empire, the Turkish-speaking Anatolian population had spread throughout the Balkans, Cyprus, North Africa, and the Middle East, and remnants of these Turkish minorities still exists. As the Ottoman Empire gradually shrank in size, military power and wealth, many Ottoman Turks and Balkan Muslims migrated to the Empire's heartland in Anatolia, along with the Circassians fleeing the Russian conquest of the Caucasus.Cavann (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Genetics
This is taking longer than I expected so I will not be able to finish it today. I just want more detail than this, but it also needs to flow:Cavann (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Several studies have concluded that the historical Anatolian groups are the primary source of the present-day Turkish population. Thus, although the Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance, including the introduction of the Turkish language and Islam, the genetic significance from Central Asia might have been slight with today's Turkish people being more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations. Hence, elite cultural dominance-driven linguistic replacement was imposed on the diverse indigenous inhabitants.
 * What do we think?  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 12:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok here's my preliminary suggestion. I will add a little more detail to this, because I wanna say which study looks into alleles, or which study looks into Y-haplogroups, etc.

During the late Roman Period, prior to the Turkic conquest, the population of Anatolia had reached an estimated level of over 12 million people.[129][130][131] The extent to which gene flow from Central Asia has contributed to the current gene pool of the Turkish people, and the role of the 11th century invasion by Turkic peoples, has been the subject of various studies. Several studies have concluded that the historical Anatolian groups are the primary source of the present-day Turkish population.[14] DNA results suggests the lack of strong genetic relationship between the Mongols and the Turks despite the historical relationship of their languages [133] and Anatolians do not significantly differ from other Mediterranean populations [134] In addition today's Turkish people being more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations.[17][18] These findings are 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 indigenous peoples with relatively little genetic admixture, possible example of elite cultural dominance-driven linguistic replacement.[136] These observations also may be explained by Anatolia having the lowest migrant/resident ratio at the time of Turkic migrations (source?). Hence, elite cultural dominance-driven linguistic replacement was imposed on the diverse indigenous inhabitants.[19][20] Results of a 2012 genetic study, which looked into over 500,000 SNP genotypes, showed the admixture of Turkish people, which were primarily European and Middle Eastern, with a small Central Asian (9%-15%) component. [142] Cavann (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think that the authors of this article - especially of the disputed section - are sincere in their approach. No offence! It is strange that there is a dispute regarding the (well-sourced) genetics section, claiming that "ethnicity and genetics are not related", while the article itself starts with a presumed "ancient origins of the Turks", claiming that the current Turkish people - and this article is about them only - has origins in Central Asia. This claim is - by all means - complete nonsense. While there is without any doubt some Central Asian and East Asian influence, the overwhelming and vast majority of the curent Turkish peopulation (in Anatolia, Cyprus and East Europe) has nothing to do with East or Central Asia, except the Turkish language which belongs to a family that originated in East Asia. As such, Turks (= speakers of Turkish) have the same place among the Turkic peoples as African-Americans among the English-speakers. Of course, this scientific approach is not in common line with the Turkish political agenda propagated since the rise of Atatürk. But Wikipedia is not a place for political propagandas.
 * The facts are:
 * 1) The term "Türk" originates from Orkhon "türük", itself derived from Khotan Saka "ttrukä", an epithet adopted by a legendary dynasty of sedentary iron smiths in what is now Mongolia and Western China. Most likely, they belonged to the Saka people and were later assimilated by Altaic supporters and subjects.
 * 2) The very first Turks who came in contact with the European and Oriental cultures were without any doubt a Mongolid people. In the eyes of the Iranians, for example, who came in contact with the Turks as early as the 5th century, they were not much different from the Chinese. Even as late as the Seljuq era, the Turks remained a strange and foreign people in the eyes of Arabs and Iranians, not only because of their nomadic way of life but also because of their physical features. But there was also - without any doubt - a mixed Perso-Turkish group collectively known as the "Turkoman" who united Turkic and Iranian elements and who were considered Turks by the Iranians and Iranians by the Turks (as is evident in the writings of Mahmoud al-Kashgari). The Seljuqs and subsequently the Ottomans sprang from this mixed group.
 * 3) The modern Turkish-speaking population of Anatolia and Europe are a result of Turkish cultural and linguistic dominance. They are not "genetic descendants" of the original Turks, but descendants of the Non-Turkish original population of Anatolia who have adopted the Turkish language. They are not much different from surrounding populations, like Kurds, Arabs, Persians, etc. who all descend from an original sedentary culture of Mesopotamia and the Levente. Some of them adopted an Indo-European language (like Kurds and Persians), other a Semitic language (like the Arab-speakers of Syria and Palestine), others adopted Turkish. The actual genetic imprint of the "original" Aryans, Arabs, and Turks is marginal - this is a cultural phenomenon and bares testimony to a long history of conquests and wars. These languages were exported the same way European languages were exported during the age of colonialism. Good examples for this process are the Hazara in Afghanistan (a now Persian people with an undeniable Turko-Mongol background) who speak Persian and whose original language, the Moghol language, is extinct by now, or the blond and blue-eyed Turks of Western Anatolia who speak Turkish and identify as Turks, but are without any doubts of East European origins. The common Mediterranean population of Anatolia, Iran, etc is no different: they simply adopted this or that language due to political, cultural or economic reasons. They are neither direct descendants of the pre-historic Aryans nor descendants of some legendary Turkish warriors in East Asia. --Lysozym (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * To Cavann, considering that those studies are all based on Anatolia, I would be happy to have this as long as it is under the "Traditional areas of Turkish settlement" subheading "Turkey" as the studies are obviously about the Turks of Turkey. However, I have two questions; firstly, have you finished your sugggestion yet? secondly, considering that millions of Muhacirs arrived from the Balkans in the 19th and 20th century wouldn't that also affect the studies which state that the genetics is closer to the Balkans; hence, how is it possible to identify whether the Seljuks really had a great impact if the descendants of Muhacirs were also in these studies?
 * To Lysozym, that's all well and good. But rather than writing an essay of opinions can you just show sources which support your arguments? As I've said before, I'm not for or against anything, we have to be balanced here and represent what the academic sources actually say. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 15:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that 60 mil out of 70 mil Turks live in Turkey, I'm against putting it in the Traditional areas of Turkish settlement. In the future, when you find sources, you may add studies about Turks from elsewhere. Cavann (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Cavann, I looked at your contributions. Why are you obsessed with Turkish people? Are you an SPA? The other user (and the ducks) that do similar work with Turkish Cypriots (Turks of Cyprus in Turkish; in Turkish language we have no "Turkish Cypriots") is known to you? Are you planning to make genetics contributions to articles on other peoples? --E4024 (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Turco85: sources for which part exactly?! The scientific sources on genetics are either deleted or totally misinterpreted. The sources on the pre-Seljuq era are quite clear. Starting the history of the modern Turkish people with the Göktürks is like starting the history of the English people with the Kurgan hypothesis - that means: it's nonsense. The history of the modern Turkish people starts explicitely with the migration of Turkoman tribal bands in Anatolia around 1000 AD. The continuos migration of Turkish and Muslim groups into Anatolia slowly but surely Islamized and later Turkicized the native population. That's why Turks have Mediterranean physical features and not Mongolid like the original Turks or almost all other Turkic peoples. As for the reason why the Turkic tribes migrated into Anatolia, I highly recommend the article "Saldjuqs" in the Encyclopaedia of Islam: one of the main reasons - perhaps the most important - was the Saljuqid policy of diverting the unruly Turkish nomadic tribes from Khorasan. Their nomadic lifestyle clashed with the agricultural and urban culture of the native population, their animals (mostly sheep) destroyed the agriculture, there were constant clashes between villigers and nomads. By diverting the Turkmen to Christian Anatolia, the Seljuqs tried to get rid of two problems: the "Turkoman question" in Khorasan and their Christian enemies in Armenia and Anatolia. The actual number of these Turkish and Muslim "ghazis" - along with their family - was about 1 million in the course of 500 years. They were absorbed by the original population of Anatolia that was continuosly at about 12 million and rising (to give you an exaple: it's like the migration of 1 million Turks in the course of 500 years to, let's say, the Netherlands). The native languages of Anatolia - Greek and Armenian - were replaced especially in the late Ottoman era. The final aspects Turkification were concluded with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's language reform and the laws banning all other languages. Hence, the position of modern Turks within the Turkic language family is the same as that of African-Americans or Latin-Americans among the Indo-Europeans: a population of mostly Non-European origin that was linguistically and culturally assimilated by a smaller but dominant European elite. The same way, the original population of Anatolia was assimilated by a smaller but dominant Turkish-speaking and Muslim elite. --Lysozym (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: "The (Turkish?) Laws banning all other languages"? The Turkish Alphabet Reform was made in 1928. Language reform is even later. The Turkish "Official Gazette" was established in October 1927. The Official Gazette keeps the archives of every Turkish Law, Government Decree, Parliament Decision, Appointments etc of the last 85 years. Its website (link provided above) is user friendly; one can reach each and every edition of those 85 years easily. Would you mind showing me which "Laws banning all other languages" you refer to? I would be very interested in reading their texts... --E4024 (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Turco85, here's my suggestion:

During the late Roman Period, prior to the Turkic conquest, the population of Anatolia had reached an estimated level of over 12 million people. Furthermore, during the time of Turkic migrations, Anatolia had the lowest migrant/resident ratio. The extent to which gene flow from Central Asia has contributed to the current gene pool of the Turkish people, and the role of the 11th century invasion by Turkic peoples, has been the subject of various studies. Several studies have concluded that the historical Anatolian groups are the primary source of the present-day Turkish population. Thus, although the Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance, including the introduction of the Turkish language and Islam, the genetic significance from Central Asia might have been slight. Today's Turkish people are more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations, and a study looking into allele frequencies suggested that there was a lack of genetic relationship between the Mongols and the Turks, despite the historical relationship of their languages (The Turks and Germans were equally distant to all three Mongolian populations). In addition, another study looking into HLA genes allele distributions indicated that Anatolians did not significantly differ from other Mediterranean populations. Multiple studies suggested an elite cultural dominance-driven linguistic replacement model to explain the adoption of Turkish language by Anatolian indigenous inhabitants. Cavann (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Although numerous modern genetic studies have indicated that the historical Anatolian groups are the primary source of the present-day Turkish population, the first Turkic people lived in a region extending from Central Asia to Siberia and were palpable after the 6th Century BC" This sentence confuses readers. you start a sentence with Anatolia and end it with Siberia. This is indeed poor article writing. Kavas (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is the sourced information on the spectacular Turkish expansion into western Anatolia after the Mongol expansion removed? Can genetic studies prove that Turks did not move after they were expelled by Mongols ? If so, why did languages spoken in Western anatolia die? Kavas (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Infobox
Religion

It was changed from this:

To this:

The original version is both simpler and more precise:
 * Very few Turks are explicitly atheist or agnostic by percentage. And neither atheism nor agnosticism are religions.
 * An even smaller minority are Christian, whereas Judaism is an ethnic religion.
 * Turks are almost uniformly Hanafi when they are Sunni and Alevi when they are Shia.

Related ethnic groups

From this:

To this:

Now, I am not against a genetics section in this article, but editors mustn't overstate its relevance:
 * Turks never had any contact with ancient Anatolians. By the time Turks arrived in Anatolia, ancient Anatolians were long extinct; either died out or assimilated among ethnic groups such as Armenians or Greeks. And no anthropologist is going to say Turks are ethnically related to Armenians or Greeks.
 * The only peoples related to Turks in the Balkans are other Turkic peoples. And no, this is not the position of the so-called pan-Turkist Turkish government. See Etnographical Map of Turkey in Europe by E. G. Ravenstein (1880) or Carte Ethnographique de L'Europe Centrale Et Des Ètats Balkaniques (1918).

Mttll (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Anatolians' language got extinct, but the people themselves did not go extinct. A map from 1880's does not prove your argument. Ethnicity is not just about language. Are people from Congo related to French, just because they speak French? Cavann (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again, Turks had no contact with ancient Anatolians. By the time Turks arrived in Anatolia, they had become Armenians, Greeks etc. Can you quote one scholar that says Turks are ethnically related to Armenians or Greeks? Also, can you quote one scholar that says Turks don't speak Turkish as an ancestral language like the French speak French but instead perceive it as a foreign language imposed by colonial overlords as in the case of the Congolose and French? Get real. --Mttll (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And I posted that French map from 1880 so that people wouldn't complain about pan-Turkist propaganda. Here are some others:
 * Ethnic Groups in the Soviet Union (1974)
 * Ethnic Groups in Southern Soviet Union and Neighboring Middle Eastern Countries
 * Ethnolinguistic distribution ca 1900 (Eastern Europe)
 * Mttll (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes we are closer to Greeks and Armenians, than to Central Asians. That's what genetic studies show. For you, everything seems to be about language. Are Mexican people Spanish? Are Congolese people French?
 * In any case, this discussion is irrelevant, because what matters to Wikipedia is not our personal opinions, but sources. And I sourced what I put into the infobox. So do not delete it based on your personal opinions or on your subjective interpretation of old maps. Cavann (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I asked you to quote a scholar, not to express your personal opinion. You are the one introducing original research into the article by overstating the relevance of genetics. --Mttll (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The source is already there: Yardumian, A., & Schurr, T. G. (2011). Who Are the Anatolian Turks?. Anthropology & Archeology Of Eurasia, 50(1), 6-42. doi:10.2753/AAE1061-1959500101. Here's the abstract:

Due to its long-term geographic position as gateway between Europe and Asia, the genetic constitution of Anatolia is highly complex. In spite of its overwhelming diversity, most citizens of the Republic of Turkey are firstlanguage Turkish-speakers and consider themselves ethnic Turks. This was not the case during the early Middle Ages and the time of the Byzantine Empire. Although we are able to identify four successive Turkic empires, Islamicization, and post–World War I nationalization as the essential steps toward ethnic homogenization, from historical texts alone we cannot determine to what extent mass migration from Central Asia and Siberia is responsible for Turkish dominance in Anatolia today. To assess the extent of gene flow from lands east of the Caspian, we examined the patterns of genetic variation in Turkic-speaking populations from Anatolia to Siberia. This analysis allows us to build the case for incommensurable, long-term, and continuing genetic signatures in both Anatolia and Siberia, and for significant mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome divergence between the regions, with minimal admixture. We supplement the case against mass migration with correlative archeological, historical, and linguistic data, and suggest that it was irregular punctuated migration events that engendered large-scale shifts in language and culture among Anatolia’s diverse autochthonous inhabitants. Cavann (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you read at all? This very source itself explicitly contrasts genetics against native language and ethnic identity:




 * Mttll (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, can you read at all? "We supplement the case against mass migration with correlative archeological, historical, and linguistic data, and suggest that it was irregular punctuated migration events that engendered large-scale shifts in language and culture among Anatolia’s diverse autochthonous inhabitants"


 * Where's your source that says Turks are only related to Turkic people? Cavann (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want we can delete everything there. Not all ethnicity articles have a field for related ethnic groups. But if Turkic people is gonna stay, so should Ancient Anatolians. And not all Central Asian people may see themselves as being related to Turks. A possible example: if you look at the article Kazakhs, it only lists "Nogais, Karakalpaks." Cavann (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly clear that the source you posted says Turks may be genetically related to pre-Turkish Anatolians despite not being linguistically or ethnically related. Now, let's take a look at what scholarly sources says Turks are ethnically related to.


 * Search results for Turks "ethnically related" in Google Books: (Link)














 * Using the same results from Google Books, who are Turks not ethnically related to? Let's see:








 * Results for Turks "ethnically related in Google Scholar: (Link)






 * Again, it seems quite clear what being ethnically related means in general, or who Turks are ethnically related to, in the academic community, or in the rest of the world, for that matter. Wikipedia editors don't have the right to express their personal interpretation of things in the articles against an overwhelming body of verifiable sources. --Mttll (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't spam with random incoherent quotes. I have sourced what I put into the infobox. See: Core content policies, especially Verifiability. If you need help with what sources to use, ask an admin. Ethnic group does not simply mean linguistic group, it may also mean ancestry. This is all I will say. I do not have the time to read random quotes from Google, especially considering that I did not remove Turkic people from the list. Cavann (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The quotes I posted are only perfectly coherent and yes, they are certainly numerous, but I am not about to apologize for that. The source you put, on the other hand, talks about genetic connection despite lack of ethnic connection, in other words the complete opposite of what you claim it says. --Mttll (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In the end:
 * The sources I posted say Turks are linguistically and ethnically related to other Turkic people as well as that Turks are not ethnically related to neighboring Balkan Slavs, Greeks or Kurds.
 * The source you posted says Turks are genetically related to pre-Turkish Anatolians but not linguistically or ethnically.
 * And if you read any anthropological source on this matter, you will see "ancestry" in this context means a common heritage passed down by generations. It's not something determined by tests on the Y-chromosome in genetic laboratories. No geneticists would claim such a thing either, it's just your attempt at WP:OR here. --Mttll (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, having not heard any argument on religion part, I'm restoring the older version. --Mttll (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You quoted 3 texts without writing their sources (not everything in google is reliable) about whom Turks are not ethnically related to and they do not say what you say they do. Genetic studies are done to find out about ancestry. And I already said ethnicity is related with ancestry, although it is sometimes about culture and language too. That's why Anatolian people needs to stay along with Turkic peoples. And that's all I'm gonna say because you keep repeating yourself or say nonsensical stuff like no geneticist would claim they are talking about ancestry. Look up what ancestry means in dictionary. Cavann (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Correction: I quoted 11 different sources. The results I posted are not raw Google searches, they are from Google Books and Google Scholar. So they are published material. And I gave you the links.


 * By the way, I just checked your other source which you put next to Balkan people in the infobox:




 * Once again, the source, by contrasting genetics against language and ethnicity, is saying the complete opposite of what you claim. Seriously, enough is enough with this dishonesty. --Mttll (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In short, geneticists say they find genetic connections between ethnically unrelated peoples. You claim this makes whom geneticists call ethnically unrelated, ethnically related.


 * As for the word, ancestry, let me just quote a referenced passage from the Wikipedia article, Ethnic group:




 * Mttll (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your quotes were incoherent. For example, how is this quote relevant? "By assisting the national liberation movement of the culturally and ethnically related Balkan peoples, the Russians were in a strong position to push the Turks back in this area."? How is that relevant to Turks and Anatolians? Where are the sources for individual quotes (eg: "Bosnians are Slavs; Turks are an Altaic people. Bosnians are ethnically related to Russians and Czechs; Turks are ethnic relatives of such as the Uyghurs.")?

As for words, from OED:

Ethnicity: 2 "Ethnic character or peculiarity."

Ethnic: 2a "Pertaining to race; peculiar to a race or nation; ethnological. Also, pertaining to or having common racial, cultural, religious, or linguistic characteristics, esp. designating a racial or other group within a larger system; hence (U.S. colloq.), foreign, exotic."

Ancestry: "1. The relation or condition of ancestors; progenitorship; ancestral lineage or descent. Hence, distinguished or ancient descent."

Lineage: 1c "A family or race viewed with reference to its descent; a tribe, clan. spec. in Cultural Anthropol., patri- or matrilineal descent within a social group traced from a single ancestor; also occas. the traditional line of descent for the handing down of skills and knowledge pertaining to a particular craft or profession."

Descent: 8a "A line of descent, lineage, race, stock."

In short, your insistence on only Turkic peoples seem to be WP:POV since ethnicity has several meanings. Therefore "ethnically related" will have several meanings too. Cavann (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That quote is relevant because it's telling how Russians were helping the national liberation movements of the ethnically related Balkan Slavs against Turkey in the 19th century. It highlights how outlandish your original research idea that Turks are ethnically related to Balkan Slavs. An affront to the most basic knowledge of history, really.


 * The source for the second quote is Lies of Our Times (Sheridan Square Press, 1993). You can read the passage in Google; the 7th link in the 2nd page: Link.


 * And no, we don't need to dissect the words and contemplate on their meanings when both of the sources you brought explicitly say they are finding the genetic connection of Turks to Balkan peoples and pre-Turkish Anatolians despite the lack of ethnic relation. Currently you have 0 sources that support your viewpoint. --Mttll (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * We seem to be running in circles, feel free to ask for WP:DR


 * You do not know what is a reliable source? "Lies of Our Times" seem to be a monthly magazine, . This is an example of how you cannot comprehend that everything you find in "Google scholar" may not be a reliable source and is certainly not comparable to peer-reviewed journal articles. Cavann (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The trouble is, you don't have peer reviewed sources supporting your viewpoint. I'm not quoting sources that Turkish people are linguistically related to other Turkic people and then argue here there must be ethnic relation as well. The sources I quote say Turks are linguistically and ethnically related to other Turkic people.


 * You, on the other hand, quote sources that say Turkish people are genetically related to Balkan and pre-Turkish Anatolian people, but not linguistically or ethnically. Then you come here and argue by yourself genetic relation means ethnic relation as well despite the fact that the very sources you post explicitly say otherwise. --Mttll (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:DR Cavann (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity and genetics remind me of racism. I think culture, beginning with language, something with which we express and define our identity, is the key to the relationship between all the Turks or Turkic peoples if you wish. The article should be dealt with within these lines, too much discussion confuses everybody. --E4024 (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No one is saying ethnicity = genetics. But ethnic relatedness may mean more than linguistic relatedness. That's why I'm saying Turkic people SHOULD STAY ALONG WITH ANATOLIANS. If anyone disagrees, WP:DR is the next step. Cavann (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you are the one who disagrees with the community. --E4024 (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * More importantly, he disagrees with the sources he himself brought forward in the first place. --Mttll (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's because you did not understand what the source says or what the source is. Cavann (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Running out of arguments here, the editor, Cavann tries to endorse his POV in the infobox until a formal dispute resolution process: (Link).

Cavann, let me remind you Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and that the first step of dispute resolution is getting a third opinion and the editor, E4024, was kind enough to offer his and it happens be contrary to your POV. --Mttll (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @Mttll: Will you please be so kind to clarify if third opinion of E4024 was offered after request for third opinion was submitted at appropriate page (link)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it was his spontaneous contribution. --Mttll (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarification. It was wrong to refer to the spontaneous contribution of E4024 as third opinion within DR process. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I requested more input at WikiProject Ethnic groups Cavann (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My comment here is based on the request for more input at WikiProject Ethnic groups. Template:Infobox ethnic group says that field for related ethnic groups should contain a "List of other ethnic groups related to the group". I am not expert in this field and my comment is only my honest opinion. I think that Balkan people and Ancient Anatolians do not belong to the list in the field for ethnic groups related to Turks because they don't share common cultural heritage, culture, language or dialect. Balkan people are not even an ethnic group.
 * I fully understand that some editors can perceive being related in sense of common ancestry. Since Turks probably share common ancestry (but not common identity trough cultural heritage, culture, language or dialect) with long list of ethnic groups (including many ethnic groups from Balkan and also Ancient Anatolians) it would be probably impossible to summarize all of them within one infobox field. Since it is already explained in the main body of the article I don't see a particular need. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no "common identity trough cultural heritage and culture" with Turkey and most Turkic countries, eg: Tajikistan. Latter would share more with Afghanistan. If Turkish people are related to all Turkic peoples, are Indians related to Germans because they all speak Indo-European languages? Furthermore, if you look at French people, they included Celtic peoples due to Gallo-Roman ancestry. Cavann (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I already showed in this page, various published sources identify Azeris, Kazakhs, Tatars, Turkmens, Uyghurs etc., in short, other Turkic peoples, as ethnically related to Turkish people. Wikipedia is a place to describe the world using reliable sources, not to "correct" it in spite of them. --Mttll (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) you need to source them individually. 2) I did not delete Turkic people from the list. Cavann (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) No, I don't. For example, this passage is more than enough:
 * Encyclopedia.com is not a reliable source. This is why I do not want to debate with you. You do not even know what a reliable source is. Cavann (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How is a published encyclopedia not a reliable source? And if you don't want to debate me, you can try debating other two editors here who seem to agree with my position. --Mttll (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How is a published encyclopedia not a reliable source? And if you don't want to debate me, you can try debating other two editors here who seem to agree with my position. --Mttll (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You are right, my mistake. I had thought you got it from a random .com website. In any case, as I said before, I did not remove Turkic people. Cavann (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is, there isn't a source that ethnically lumps Turkish people together with Ancient Anatolians or Balkan peoples like Encyclopedia of Modern Middle East and North Africa does with other Turkic peoples. All you can provide is two sources that say Turks may be genetically related to the former two despite lack of ethnic and linguistic connection. The sources are against your position, the editor who offered his third opinion as a part of dispute resolution is against your position. It's time this ended. --Mttll (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 2) You are argued something as ridiculous as that Turks are related to other Turkic peoples in the same way the Congolese are related to the French. --Mttll (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your contribution. Before Cavann reverted it, I had changed the Related ethnic groups tab to:
 * If we have reached a consensus here, I will be restoring this. --Mttll (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. BTW since when is Tajikistan Turkic? --E4024 (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, then let me answer my question myself: Maybe the reliable sources that Cavann use say that Tajikistan is a Turkic country... --E4024 (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, then let me answer my question myself: Maybe the reliable sources that Cavann use say that Tajikistan is a Turkic country... --E4024 (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This is how User:Cavann behaves when the dispute resolution he initiates ends in his disfavor. --Mttll (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Related ethnic groups
This is a problematic category. As we know, ethnicity may mean several things including culture, language, and ancestry. Ancestry of Turkish people seems to be primarily Ancient Anatolians according to several studies (eg: ), so I put that in the Related Ethnic Groups part of the infobox. Some editors, however, insists we should only include Turkic people there. I think if Turkic people is going to be there, so should Anatolians OR the entire thing should be left blank. Furthermore, the current source they are using refers to "Turks", but this article is specifically about Turkish people. While, Turk and Turkish may be synonymous sometimes, the word "Turk" has also a wider meaning and may refer to the linguistic group of Turkic peoples. For an example, see French people, where ancestry plays a role in Related Ethnic Groups category. Cavann (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The simple fact of the matter is other Turkic people are identified as related ethnic groups to Turkish people by reliable sources, ancient Anatolians or non-Turkic Balkan peoples aren't.


 * As for the source in question, let's read carefully what it says: --Mttll (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)




 * This matter stayed in limbo long enough. Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. You can't use dispute resolution methods to delay and endorse your POV in spite of published sources as well as the opinions of other editors. --Mttll (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You cannot delete sourced material just because it is contrary to your POV. Cavann (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's my new suggestion: . I think this informs the reader in the most accurate and neutral way possible. How does it look? Cavann (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That doesn't neutral to me as the sources don't give 50/50 weight to what you label as ethnolinguistic and ancestral components. A neutral version would look like this: --Mttll (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Turkish people don't share much ancestry with Central Asian Oghuz people though. So if you are going to say "despite lack of ethnic or linguistic ties" for Ancient Anatolians, you should also specify that for Oghuz people. My suggestion is neutral because it accurately describes the situation. Again, ancestry means lineage (ie: genetic). Cavann (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, outside sources don't give 50/50 weight to your definition of "ancestral" and "ethnolinguistic" components. When you type "Turks" and "ethnically related" in academic search engines, the results are invariably other Turkic peoples. For example, when a political analyst talks about Turkey's role in Armenian-Azerbaijani dispute Turkish people will always be identified as ethnically related to Azerbaijanis, but not to Armenians, despite the fact that they are genetically related to either of them.


 * Secondly, no, ancestry doesn't merely mean genetics on a laboratory level. There are family trees, tribes and movements of said tribes by which Turkish people can trace their history to Central Asia. One might argue Turks are choosing to identify with only some of their ancestors (even by merely saying they are Turks at all), but that's something up to Turkish people themselves. In short, if you want to have Ancient Anatolians and Balkan peoples in the infobox in spite of everything, you have to make a little compromise and give them their duly weight which is below other Turkic peoples. --Mttll (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "by which Turkish people can trace their history to Central Asia"? Really? This is incorrect. '"ethnically related" in academic search engines, the results are invariably other Turkic peoples.' is also incorrect. Most people in Turkey can't trace their ancestry beyond few generations. So the origin is somewhere in Anatolia or Balkans or something.
 * In any case, it looks like we need to go to formal mediation. Are you fine with that? Cavann (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We did go to formal mediation already and it ended in your disfavor. However, since I'm a reasonable person, I'm willing to make a compromise have genetically related groups in the infobox as long as they are given their duly weight. It seems to me as though you are using formalities to delay endorse your version. You disappear from discussions for weeks, only to be reappear instantly when I make a change in the infobox. --Mttll (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We did not go to formal mediation. Formal mediation is this: Mediation. This is just another example of you making incorrect claims. And as I said before, it's not just about genetics. From the source:

We supplement the case against mass migration with correlative archeological, historical, and linguistic data, and suggest that it was irregular punctuated migration events that engendered large-scale shifts in language and culture among Anatolia’s diverse autochthonous inhabitants.


 * Are you willing to go to mediation? If necessary, especially given your previous POV pushing bans and Turanic viewpoint, I'm also willing to go to Arbitration/Requests. Cavann (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you read English at all? The source is talking about mass migrations that caused language shifts and correlating archaeological, historical and linguistic data with them. In other words, it's talking about the Turkic migration among others. Once again you shoot yourself in the foot.
 * I have never been banned for POV-pushing, you are the one who is doing POV-pushing here against all sources and editors, quite a one-man show. I suggest you start the whatever bureaucratic process you are talking about now, because no amount of lingering or delaying will make me go away. --Mttll (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you not read the part about against and autochthonous? Seriously, I should ask you your own question. Can you read English at all? I do not wanna get into long discussions with you where I have to explain the text to you. We seem to be moving in circles. The source says archeological, historical, and linguistic AND genetic evidence points that ancestry of Turkish people are autochthonous. Hence my suggestion. Cavann (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Those two words are not even in the same sentence. You are a hopeless case in this regard. But never mind this, are you going to start the mediation process or were you just bluffing? --Mttll (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Could someone explain to me why there is the Turkic peoples article in addition to this one, and why you are ignoring the History sections in both?
 * Seems to me the 'Turkish people' are only so known since the creation of the Türkiye Cumhuriyeti, before which they were known as the Osmanlı from a Great Seljuq Empire north-Anatolian beyliks. Seljuqs though came from the Oghuz Yabgu State. Seems to me that Cavann is mistaken. On the other hand, the modern demographic incorporates colonised populations, and a large number of slaves that were brought into the population over the centuries. This makes Anatolian Turkic population look physically different to the Central Asian Turkic populations, and the segregation of the two parts of the single ethnicity since the Caucasian War has further created a cultural divide as the Modern Turkey became more European and secular. Crock81 (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Your response is offensive, and is bordering on racism, suggesting that "slaves" made Turkish people different. Read the part about elite driven language replacement. So, it's not just "slaves" that make Turkish people "look physically different to the Central Asian Turkic populations." Cavann (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Cavann. Your "racism" accusation is offensive, not Crock81's comment. I understand your position and I AGF that you really believe you are right. Still, please accept independent inputs (opinions of member of related wikiproject and comments of other users) with respect even if they don't agree with your position.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Er...@Cavann, sorry you think this way, but I had no intention to be offensive! Slavery was a fact of life into the 19th century I think. And, it was quite a significant factor in the Ottoman society, particularly that segment which could afford slaves. I'm only suggesting that it made Anatolian Turkic populations look different to the Central Asian populations where slaves were harder to come by, and were usually of central Asian origins, not that encompassing North Africa, Southern Europe and West Asia Crock81 (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Crock81, most Turkish people are not of Turkic ancestry, hence the difference in physical appearance. Cavann (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Using the same logic, most Serbian people are not of Slavic ancestry, hence the difference in physical appearance from Russians. However, in their article they are described as a Slavic people in the opening sentence, which they are, per sources, the same way Turkish people are Turkic, and in the infobox, their related ethnic groups are identified as South Slavic people, again the same as Turkish people and Oghuz branch of Turkic peoples. Your one-man crusade to "fix" the world has no place in Wikipedia. --Mttll (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)