Talk:Yörüks

Misleading statement
I think that the way this article describes the connection of Yoruks with Sarakatsani is misleading. In his mentioned book of Kavadias that is used as a source, he summarized all the main theories about Sarakatsani, among which the theory of van Gennep which are:

1) The Sarakatsani are the lineal descendants of the Dorian tribes who lived in what is today Greece over three thousand years ago. This theory is endorsed by Greek historians and by a couple of Western European scholars who happen to be enthusiastic philhellene scholars too.

2) They are a branch of the nomadic Farseroti Vlachs who became Hellenized in the second-half of the 18th century under the pressure of the proselyt monk Cosmas of Aetolia (who later became sanctified). There are countles Vlach words still in use in the vocabulary of the Sarakatsani. Moreover, the Sarakatsani have the same socio-political patterns of organizing themselves as the Vlachs. Each socio-political unit was called a celnicat, in which each unit was lead by a leader known as a celnic (in Vlach) or tselingas (in its Grecized form). The word celnic/tselingas is of Slavic origin meaning 'forehead' (metopo in Greek). This theory is endorsed by Romanian and Romanians of Vlach descent scholars such as Nicolaie Iorga, Tache Papahagi and Theodor Capidan, as well by the Austro-Hungarian scholar Lajos von Thalocy.(see Aromanians)

3) They are a Christianized branch of the nomadic shepherd tribe of the Yoruk (or Yuruk) Turcomans (according to Arnold van Gennep)

_________________ I think that it would have been more honest and more useful for the readers to add a parenthesis stating that so I did itElvira2674 (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I will have a look at it. On the first sight it looks very misleading. Don't know why nobody cared for this until now. Balkan Yoruk are to be found at this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Gagauz_Turkish They number about 400 thousand people and have nothing to do with the Sarakatsanis. Nonetheless, Sarakatsanis seem to related with the Yörük subtrube Sarikecili, but there is no arctile about them currently. Agua-Habit (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

A puzzled reader from Salonica
what kind of an article is this!!!!somebody should mention some facts in here: 1.in the ottoman state the islamic law was active,which simply means that if someone was converted to islam from christiany was granted limetime-tax free,but if someone was converted(or reconverted) from islam to christiany,had to face death penalty.so,the yuruks CANNOT be christianised turks. 2.even if the christianising matter refears to pre-ottoman period,someone should mention a sourse of that time about their immigration movement.nothing can be more dangerous than theories based in single sourses,that talk about things that happened centuries earlier and without mentioning a historian of that time that may support the specific theory. 3.can someone tell me why the yuruks are insulted when someone calls them 'turks'?that's a fact...try to find sourses about this if u want. 4.for those who say that the yuruks are turks:why do they have ancient greek rituals mixed with islam?i am refearing to those who live in central anatolia,not for those who supposendly live in pindos(lol...i live there too...i have not met a single one in my life!!!!) 09:53, 24 January 2006 83.235.185.160 GR GREECE THESSALONIKI THESSALONIKI OTENET

P.S. You forgot to sign. I oblige by revealing your whereaboutApostolos Margaritis 10:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that the Yuruks are Christianized Turks, I said that a branch of them adopted the Greek Orthodox religion and became known as Sarakatsani Apostolos Margaritis 10:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not uncommon for a part of a tribe or nation to convert to another religion. Look at a segment of the Megleno-Romanians who live around Kilkis, Greece who adopted Islam while the rest of them remained Christian or to up to 1/3 of the Greeks of Crete who adopted Islam too during the 17th-19th centuries only to be deported to Turkey in 1923.Apostolos Margaritis 10:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

--- "why do they have ancient greek rituals" Who says that they have ancient greek rituals??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.5.1 (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "but if someone was converted(or reconverted) from islam to christiany,had to face death penalty.so,the yuruks CANNOT be christianised turks." But they did tend to live in places where the authority of the state didn't reach, right? David Marjanović (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Finno-Ugrian connection?
It's funny that these Yoruks are quite fair skinned, have reddish-russet hair and are light-eyed. See image Yoruk woman and child taken from this site. The lady looks pure Finno-Ugric or even Hungarian to me. She actually looks very much like like an older version of Monica Seles (who is originally a Hungarian-speaking Jewess from Novi_Sad) !! Apostolos Margaritis 09:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The 1911 Edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica about Yuruks, Kailars and Konariotes
see Web link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apostolos Margaritis (talk • contribs) 10:25 & :33, 2 February 2006

The first Turkish immigration from Asia Minor took place under the Byzantine emperors before the conquest of the country. The first purely Turkish town, Yenije-Vardar, was founded on the ruins of Vardar in 1362. After the capture of Salonica (1430), a strong Turkish population was settled in the city, and similar colonies were founded in Monastir, Ochrida, Serres, Drama and other important places. In many of these towns half or more of the population is still Turkish. A series of military colonies were subsequently established at various points of strategic importance along the principal lines of communication. Before 1360 large numbers of nomad shepherds, or Yuruks, from the district of Konia, in Asia Minor, had settled in the country; their descendants are still known as Konariotes. Further immigration from this region took place from time to time up to the middle of the 18th century. After the establishment of the feudal system in 1397 many of the Seljuk noble families came over from Asia Minor; their descendants may be recognized among the beys or Moslem landowners in southern Macedonia. At the beginning of the 18th century the Turkish population was very considerable, but since that time it has continuously decreased. A low birth rate, the exhaustion of the male population by military service, and great mortality from epidemics, against which Moslem fatalism takes no pre-cautions, have brought about a decline which has latterly been hastened by emigration —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apostolos Margaritis (talk • contribs) 10:32, 2 February 2006

The Turkish raral rural population is found in three principal groups: the most easterly extends from the Mesta to Drama, Pravishta and Orfano, reaching the sea-coast on either side of Kavala, which is partly Turkish, partly Greek. The second, or central group begins on the sea-coast, a little west of the mouth of the Strymon, where a Greek population intervenes, and extends to the north-west along the Kara-Dagh and Belasitza ranges in the direction of Strumnitza, Veles, Shtip and Radovisht. '''The third, or southern, group is centred around Kailar, an entirely Turkish town, and extends from Lake Ostrovo to Selfije (Servia). The second and third groups are mainly composed of Konariot shepherds. Besides these fairly compact settlements there are numerous isolated Turkish colonies in various parts of the country.''' The Turkish rural population is quiet, sober and orderly, presenting some of the best characteristics of the race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apostolos Margaritis (talk • contribs) 10:35 & :42, 2 February 2006
 * The following signature constitutes a forgery as to time: it was added by that user, at that time, as part of the 'graph that precedes it, but it neither was part of the edit(s) that created anything preceding it in the section, nor reflects the time(s) of that content's addition.

Apostolos Margaritis 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

H. Brailsford about Kailars
see link

The Moslems of Kailar, on the southern verge of what is properly Macedonia, are genuine Osmanli Turks, who are said to have been exiled from Asia Minor in order that they might be isolated. There is also a similar Turkish belt inland from the Aegean in the rich tobacco-growing country between Serres and Drama, but this again is on the fringe (the eastern fringe) of what is properly Macedonia. Elsewhere even the Moslems of the rural districts come within our generalisation. They are either Albanians or Slavs, [2] converted by force or allured by self-interest to Islam, and while politically they form part of the ruling caste, in language, origin, and even in many of their social customs and institutions they do not differ from their Christian countrymen. Apostolos Margaritis 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Kailar or turkish Kayılar are the same in Ottoman writting sistem. Kailar turks came to Rumelia with Kai Tribe (Kayı Boyu) as a kai. Kailar; turkish kai tribe -ler makesplural form. Ottoman family was also from kayı or kai tribe as a yürük.  Actually when Rumelia as a  Byzantian Empire land were taken by Latin Empire . Even Costantinopolis were taken by Latin Vandals. At that time Byzantiane Emperors wanted to help from yoruk kai tribe lider Osman I Gazi who strucred Ottoman Empire. So that Osman I 's kais (or kailar or kayı-s) were tooked placed to around Vardarriver and Kailar by Byzantian Emperors. Kailar was center for yürük turks. Yurukhans were took placed to Ardamuş(Erdemuş) villiage. Ayyubid Dynisty to Kailar city center. The Moslems of Kailar was moslems alll the time were they were in Rumelia.-- 3210  (T) 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Total population
Please find out what the total population is and add to article. Even if it is just an estimate. In that case, write it with a tilde and put "est." in parenthesis. Like so: "~20,000 (est.)" - Pernambuco 00:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lutfullah Kayalar.jpg
Image:Lutfullah Kayalar.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

meglenovlachs
regarding the part with the meglenovlachs... i actually knew a vlach family that had the lastname Iuruc. always wondered why did they have such a strange name. so i guess that it went both ways, some turks may have converted to Orthodoxy.

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yörük → Yoruks –
 * (Greek: Γιουρούκοι, Bulgarian: юруци, Turkish: Yörük) a multilingual surname - name, requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial. --Withevenoff (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Reasons are weak. As long as I know, specialist scholars use the term Yörük for this nomadic group. Takabeg (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Move rationale is not coherent.  I will revisit and reconsider if additional reasons are given.  —  AjaxSmack   18:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Yoruk origin

 * In the same book and other references is that they spoke the Greek language, most probable origin is the Greek. --Withevenoff (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He may confused again with his Greek Epirotes Hero Skenderbey! (Leave out the Greek sperms of the Greek ivasion in Asia-Turkey!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.11.44 (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I will introduce some academic literature regarding this section. --Greczia (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC) -- Skenderbey was not a greek. His father was a Gheg Albanian and his mother was a half Albanian and half Serbian.

Move to Yorouks from Yörüks
It has been done with no justification and against the explicit consensus. I will be reverting it. --Mttll (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Yorouks → Yörüks – The move to Yorouks from Yörüks has been done with no justification and against the explicit consensus, should be reverted. (The preceding is based on wording from Mttll (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC) )


 * Comment, from the history, the moves made to this article have been:
 * (cur | prev) 12:46, 5 November 2011‎ Withevenoff (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,600 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Yuruks to Yorouks: Requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial
 * (cur | prev) 19:11, 3 November 2011‎ Withevenoff (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,600 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Yörük to Yuruks over redirect: Requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial
 * — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment, also:
 * 08:46, 23 January 2006‎ Khoikhoi moved Yoruk to Yörük
 * 17:45, 23 October 2005‎ 207.200.116.67 created Yoruk


 * So, as alternative spellings, we have:
 * singular: Yoruk, Yorouk, Yuruk, Yörük
 * plural: Yoruks, Yorouks, Yuruks, Yörüks


 * I trust that Yörükss, which was created "for technical convenience", is not a serious alternative.
 * Yuruk is a disambiguation.
 * — Wbm1058 (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Close RM and restore to result of last RM - It looks as if one or more users moved something contrary to a recent RM decision, and without Talk discussion. I would have thought restore and issue a friendly advice to the Users concerned. For what it's worth Lonely Planet and Britannica both have "yörük (nomad) carpets", but we don't need to be having an RM here, at least not until the result of the previous RM was restored. WP:RM isn't perfect but is one of the more efficient/democratic mechanisms for editors on en.wp, results should be respected, except/even when egregious. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Restore it to Yörüks; looks like an earlier RM was attempted to move it from Yörüks to Yoruks, only got opposition, then somebody just went ahead and moved it anyway. That's bad. Move it back to the old spelling, which is also, thankfully, supported by sources. bobrayner (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

EB1911

 * 1) Revision as of 00:02, 3 February 2008 by 3210
 * 2) Revision as of 16:33, 3 February 2008 by Chapultepec

Edit 1. introduced two facts from EB1911. Edit 2 introduced attribution to EB1911.

The text added was

In checking EB1911 I found it to be from the article to be 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Macedonia (page 271).

The quote "noble, sober\ordered Yörükhan family" is not accurate what it says is

I am going to remove the EB1911 addition and replace it with the two sentences "Before 1360... southern Macedonia" I will also remove the EB1911 section and global attribution and replace it with inline attribution which is more in keeping with just two copied sentences.

-- PBS (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

1911 is over
It was quite funny to see "beys or Moslem landowners in southern Macedonia" referred to as existing "in the present day". Since 1911, there have been 3 Balkan wars, WWI, a war of everybody (mostly Greece) against the remnant of the Ottoman empire, and then (in 1923, as the article states elsewhere) the population exchange in which most Muslims from outside Turkey were sent to Turkey and most Christians from Turkey were sent to Greece. Bey is an Ottoman title that hasn't existed since 1922 or thereabouts; "Moslem landowners in southern Macedonia" who aren't Albanians are probably very hard to find nowadays, too!

I've edited the article accordingly.

David Marjanović (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yoruks and yoruks
Some Yörüks went to california in the old time, and they named there yoruk

also some yakuts of sibiria went to california and named yokut — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.102.63 (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Yörüks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090404021912/http://www.tdk.gov.tr:80/TR/SozBul.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6AA849816B2EF4376734BED947CDE to http://www.tdk.gov.tr/TR/SozBul.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6AA849816B2EF4376734BED947CDE&Kelime=y%c3%b6r%c3%bck
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090404021912/http://www.tdk.gov.tr:80/TR/SozBul.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6AA849816B2EF4376734BED947CDE to http://www.tdk.gov.tr/TR/SozBul.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6AA849816B2EF4376734BED947CDE&Kelime=y%c3%bcr%c3%bck

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yoruks
To me there's a serious problem with this comment " today they live mostly in houses in the valleys and plains and have preserved fair hair and a fair complexion, and blue or greyish-blue eyes of their Oghuz ancestors.[13][14][15] "

This is made up I believe. None of the three links that claimed that Oghuz tribes were fair hair, fair complexation with blue or greyish-blue eyes and that Yoruks inherited it. This is practically claiming that the Turkmens, Afghan Turkmen, Iranian Turkmen, Iraqi Turkmen are all non-Oghuz descent because almost all of them have dark hair and dark eyes, and their skin complexion is light to dark, the great vast majority clearly don't look have blue eyes, green-blue eyes ( a few do have them ) but not the level of Yoruks.Vamlos (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Durul (1977)
I have been able to extract two consecutive paragraphs from Durul (1977) via Google Books snippet view, the second of which is cited here in the verbatim quote. Taken together with the preceding paragraph from the source, it gets confusing: Now the lede says that "Turcoman" designates Yörük ancestry. But then we use a source in order to describe lifestyle and physical characteristics of Yörüks by citing a paragraph that is about the Turcomans, even though this very source says that "there is a very marked difference between the Turcomans and the Yoruks"? Please clarify this.
 * From the anthropological point of view there is a very marked difference between the Turcomans and the Yoruks. The Yoruks are tall and dark, with protruding cheekbones. They live hair tents [sic!] and normally settle in the highlands or plateaus. They weave their own clothes, and they also breed their own horses, for which they show a great affection. The Turcomans, on the other hand, are of medium height, with fair hair and a fair complexion, and blue or greyish-blue eyes. They generally live in houses in the valleys and plains.

And to second the question by : where do these sources mention that those physical characteristics are "preserved" from their Oghuz ancestors? I find it bewildering that a 21th-century encyclopedia should give so much weight on stereotypes of physical appearance in an article about a ethnic (sub-)group (the age of Coon is past, no?), but if this kind of stuff is even unsourced, it becomes untenable.

Since you have restored this content respectively twice (H) and three times (B), maybe you can help out with more details? Btw @Beshogur, I do understand your reverts when I look at the opinionated low-standard edit summaries of earlier deletions of the text. –Austronesier (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't add both. But Turkmen / Yöruk split can be explained by Turkmens being pastoralists and Yörüks being nomadic. In Ottoman documents, semi settled or settled Turkmens are called Turkmân and nomadic ones are called Türkmân yörükan or simply yörükân.

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Tahtacı Turkish Alevi.jpg
 * Yoruk josephine powell.jpg
 * Yoruk josephine powell.png
 * Yoruk josephine powell2.jpg
 * Yoruk josephine powell2.png
 * Yoruk josephine powell3.jpg
 * Yoruk josephine powell6.png