User talk:78.171.71.17

Civility
Regarding the final sentence in this comment:, I find it very insulting and hurtful. Such accusations make it difficult to discuss things calmly and in a civil manner. Would you consider deleting or striking through the text? Thank you. --IamNotU (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello. As a Turkish person, I found your comments quite offensive as well. I also felt it was unwanted and unwarranted gatekeeping (it sounded like you suggested as I should not identify like X but like Y, based on your personal opinions). Also I thought maybe I should stop bothering with Wikipedia, when even such a simple (and what I thought to be quite clear and well sourced) change proved to be so contentious. If you were really unaware of the actual information (the links I provided), I'm happy to strike through. However, if you maintain a position like native Americans need to be 100% native to be considered native American, that is quite racist, I have to say. If that was not the idea you were trying to convey, I'm happy to strike through as well.
 * I did not say anything resembling "native Americans need to be 100% native to be considered native American" at Talk:Turkish people. Regarding a discussion of the linguistic difference between native of and native to, I said only that European- or African-American citizens, while they could individually be described as "natives of the US", are not referred to as "native Americans", nor "native to America".
 * The Métis for example, who are of mixed ancestry, are widely considered and described by reliable sources as an indigenous native group. Reliable sources simply don't say the same about Turkish people though. There is more to whether a group is considered in published sources to be an indigenous native people than just genetics. I am aware of the information in the links you provided, which discuss a DNA admixture in the population of Turkey. But nowhere do they explicitly state that Turkish people are recognized as an indigenous native people of Anatolia.
 * I am here to build an encyclopedia, not to interfere in your personal situation; you may identify however you like in your private life and I don't have any opinion about it. But any information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable in existing reliable, independent, published sources. I have been unable to find any significant sources that directly and unambiguously say that the Turkish people, as an ethnic group, are considered to be an indigenous or aboriginal native people. Your statement that they are analogous to Native Americans would seem to be a minority point of view, if it is in fact published in any reliable source at all. I can understand if you feel it's unfair or even racist that reliable sources in general don't consider Turkish people to be an indigenous native people of Turkey, but please blame the sources for that, not me.
 * As I said before, I don't dispute that there are some senses of the word "native", other than indigenous/aboriginal, that could be applied to Turkish people, but this ambiguity can make the term problematic and unclear (see e.g.: ) so it is best avoided. Without general agreement by reliable sources, statements introduced to the article that could be interpreted as saying that the ethnic Turkish people of Turkey are considered an indigenous native people would not be in keeping with the neutral point of view policy, and I am certain that you will not get a consensus to make such a statement. I'm sorry if that offends you, that is not my intention, but only to follow the core content policies of Wikipedia, which require reliable sources and do not allow original research.
 * I ask you again, whether you would please agree to remove (if nobody has replied) or strike your comments (including the above) alleging racism on my part? Thank you. --IamNotU (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Umm, you repeated yourself. Did you not read my response in talk? Here's a reliable source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4405460/
 * What it says: "Our ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig 2) revealed that Turkic-speaking populations scattered across Eurasia tend to share most of their genetic ancestry with their current geographic non-Turkic neighbors. This is particularly obvious for Turkic peoples in Anatolia, Iran, the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe, but more difficult to determine for northeastern Siberian Turkic speakers, Yakuts and Dolgans, for which non-Turkic reference populations are absent. We also found that a higher proportion of Asian genetic components distinguishes the Turkic speakers all over West Eurasia from their immediate non-Turkic neighbors. These results support the model that expansion of the Turkic language family outside its presumed East Eurasian core area occurred primarily through language replacement, perhaps by the elite dominance scenario, that is, intrusive Turkic nomads imposed their language on indigenous peoples due to advantages in military and/or social organization."
 * There are other sources like this. So, Turks are more analogous to Native Americans than a European/African-background New Yorker. But there are also differences as Native American, and certain meanings of native (such as in the sources you linked), has a specific meaning. There are also no sources that say Turks are NOT at all indigenous or suggest something similar to the idea that Turks are more analogous to a European/African-background New Yorker or Afrikaners, which were your examples. As such, your answers seemed a bit racist to me, not the sources (also you didn't provide any).
 * In any case I did not call you a racist, I criticized your responses. I had also suggested this in the talk page: "Maybe we can say "Turks are natives of Turkey." Now that you expanded your responses (Metis example) and in order to not drag this further, I'll strike that part.
 * Actually I just removed that part.
 * Thank you for removing that. My examples about Afrikaners etc. were meant to illustrate the linguistic difference between "native of" and "native to", not to imply that ethnic Turkish people have no ancestral connection at all; someone else had written that opinion earlier in the discussion and you can see that I disagreed. Regarding "Turks are natives of Turkey", if that means "born in Turkey", then we can just say "born in Turkey" and avoid any misunderstanding. On the other hand, the article isn't about "people born in Turkey" or "the people of Turkey", but only about ethnic Turks. That's different from for example the article on Lebanese people, though I have no explanation for why that is. Maybe it should change. --IamNotU (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing that. My examples about Afrikaners etc. were meant to illustrate the linguistic difference between "native of" and "native to", not to imply that ethnic Turkish people have no ancestral connection at all; someone else had written that opinion earlier in the discussion and you can see that I disagreed. Regarding "Turks are natives of Turkey", if that means "born in Turkey", then we can just say "born in Turkey" and avoid any misunderstanding. On the other hand, the article isn't about "people born in Turkey" or "the people of Turkey", but only about ethnic Turks. That's different from for example the article on Lebanese people, though I have no explanation for why that is. Maybe it should change. --IamNotU (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)