Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:22, 22 September 2013

Turkish people has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 19, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Turkish people received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turkish people article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Turkish people is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 28, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

On "Turkish Nation"

According to the definition　by the state of Turkey, "Turkish Nation" (Türk Milleti) exists. But, this is different concept (political concept) and one of the Turkic peoples is explained in the this article. I think description of nation has to be removed and if need, the article Turkish Nation can be created. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The following quotation from an academical research explains the issue: The word "Turk" or "Turkish" is used for two different meanings: first, it is a name for the people who migrated from Central Asia to Anatolia, and chose to make this land their country. Second, it is also used as term of national identity for the people living in Turkey. The Turkish national identity defined in the Turkish Constitution is a legal conception, not an ethnic one. You can check the article from this link of pa.edu.tr. It is better that a nation stays in the introductory statement. Thank you. ModulaX6 (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

We should remember the meaning of the nation: Nation can refer to people who share a common territory and government (for example the inhabitants of a sovereign state) irrespective of their ethnic make-up; that is, a nation state. In the same way, Turkey is also a nation state, and all the people (whatever their ethnicity are) are defined as "Turkish" in the Turkish Constitution. Thanks. ModulaX6 (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I think he means Turkish nation isn't in the scope of this article. Kavas (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Why ?

Why are you (editors editing this article) only adding information about politics, demographics? The editors here removed cultural information on Turkish people, but did not rewrite the paragraph. Are you planning add "culture"? Kavas (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not remove anything, feel free to add it if it is concise and sourced. Cavann (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Kavas (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

grammar check

"Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups, in addition to neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples, despite speaking a Turkic language, which was adopted by the local populations who predominantly had spoken Indo-European languages." Is the sentence properly written? Kavas (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Seems to me like maybe it is Cavann who should learn English before suggesting others to do so. --Mttll (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OOA

Reverting even the most simplest of things. I urge you here to stop this, Cavann. --Mttll (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Turkish people/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 15:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Fascinating article! Review will proceed soon. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a marvelous work. Both the images and the prose pass. I have never reviewed an article of this volume in which there are no issues to be allayed. Excellent nomination, and a congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks QatarStarsLeague! Cavann (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

POV?

I'm getting the impression that this article is trying to convince its readers that Turks are native to Asia Minor. Turks are bearers of the Turkic culture, not Anatolian. They are indeed, genetically, far from the "pure" Turkic people such as Turkems, Uzbeks and Kyrgyz, but that doesn't change the facts that Turks are Turkic people and culturally, have nothing to do with the ancient Anatolians. The sentence "Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups" isn't clear enough. One can think that the Turks are just the modern form of the ancient Anatolians, like Italians are of the ancient Romans, which isn't really the case. --Երևանցի 00:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. You can't find another source who approaches the Turkish people like the lead of this article does. This is just a one-man POV show of User:Cavann. --Mttll (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This article apishly asserts that Turkish people are native to Anatolia, and originally of ancient indigenous people of Anatolia such as Greeks and Armenians. If so, it means that Anatolia is the motherland of today's Turkish people. In my opinion, the article's intro should be changed. Turkish people is a different ethnic group descending from Turkic tribes migrating to Anatolia, but not a total mixture of Greeks, Armenians etc as it's claimed as a hypothesis in the article's intro ridiculously. In fact, it's not scientific, just includes POV of a few jagged editors. Indigenous people of Anatolia left Turkey with Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, and Tehcir Law. By making Turkish people the mixture of Armenian and Greek means nothing than asserting that Turkish people are the owner of Anatolia. 141.196.81.85 (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In the article this claim is sourced with 7 (!) academic sources. If any other claims with respectable references are available, feel free to discuss them in talk page, instead of criticizing the well-sourced information in such manner. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You can give 100 academic sources. The problem here is the tone and the POV wording. --Երևանցի 17:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I ignored this nonsensical crap, do not take that as permission to disrupt this article. Take your "concerns" to the likes of US Congress of Library sources, and Cavalli-Sforza, and journal articles. Cavann (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you to use a more appropriate language. Read my comments over. I don't dispute the reliability of the given sources. The way this article is written is what makes it biased. It is trying to convince the reader that Turks are native to Anatolia, which isn't the case. --Երևանցի 20:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Find reliable sources, and quote them. I am not interested in opinions or interpretations of far-right nationalistic types, such as yourself, or what you imagine the article is trying to "convince readers". This will be my final response to you, unless you find reliable sources to "set the tone" you want. I'm not here to waste my time. Cavann (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice research, friend! Dig deeper, I guarantee you'll find even more interesting stuff. --Երևանցի 20:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, don't forget to look at my achievements. I'm really sad you didn't say anything about them. --Երևանցի 20:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Moderm Turkish people aren't Ancient Anatolians.

Moderm Turkish people mostly descent: Albanian, Serb, Macedonians, Bulgarian, Crimean, Circassian, Georgian, Laz, Kurd, Zaza, Arap, Cretan and Mongol-Nogai were islamised made by Ottoman Sultan(Caliph). Now they call themselves (Pseudo)Turks.

What happened to the indigenous people of Anatolia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Hamidian_massacres

http://en.wikipedia.org/Adana_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/Armenian_Genocide

http://en.wikipedia.org/Greek_genocide

http://en.wikipedia.org/Assyrian_genocide

http://en.wikipedia.org/Zilan_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/Dersim_Massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.169.73 (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Cavalli-Sforza book

Alexikoua removed this, saying "source doesn't say this, it says only about Byzantine era population". Yet the source talks about "aborigines," ie: "indigenous groups" in the text.

L. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza; Paolo, Menozzi; Alberto, Piazza (1994). The history and geography of human genes. Princeton University Press. p. 243.

I will be adding this source back. Cavann (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cavann. Jingiby (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Its not about genetics, its about ethnicity which somebody declare, culture, language, citizenship... Genetically there is a "little difference" between all people on the world.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Read British people, another GA, where they talk about where they descend. Cavann (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I did. It says: "it is possible that future genetic studies of ancient and modern human DNA may help to inform our understanding of the subject" but "early studies have, so far, tended to produce implausible conclusions from very small numbers of people and using outdated assumptions about linguistics and archaeology." That is written in 2007. Your source is from 1994. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance. Are you going to eliminate every similar source on Misplaced Pages based on that sentence? Plus Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's book is a very solid source. "Cavalli-Sforza's The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994 with Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza) is a standard reference on human genetic variation." Plus there are sources later than 2007 in the article. Cavann (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You yourself refulted your position when you pointed to the link which emphasize that gene studies of the past still can only produce implausible conclusions. "Critics of Cavalli-Sforza's work have increased in recent years, and critics of new gene studies of the past have always been active..." - Pamela Kyle Crossley (2008). What is Global History. Polity. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-7456-3301-5. Retrieved 2 September 2013.. I suggest you to WP:DROPTHESTICK here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That response would have been more relevant if there weren't 5 other sources. I suggest you to read WP:Reliable. Cavann (talk)`

I did. It says Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. None of the sources you presented here directly support your assertion. I suggest you to read Don't shoot yourself in the foot essay.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we are having a WP:Competence issue here.

Eg: "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) 21:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Antid.. A cheap attempt to support a theory of national autochthony. A have also to note there is nowhere in the article stated that pre-Turkish (11th c.) Anatolia was predominantly Greek and Armenian speaking ].Alexikoua (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the article?

"After Alexander the Great's conquest, the area was Hellenized."

"Nonetheless, the Turkish language and Islam were introduced 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."

"Although the Ottomans were only a small principality among the numerous Turkish beyliks, and thus posed the smallest threat to the Byzantine authority, their location in north-western Anatolia, in the former Byzantine province of Bithynia, became a fortunate position for their future conquests. The Latins, who had conquered the city of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, established a Latin Empire (1204–61), divided the former Byzantine territories in the Balkans and the Aegean among themselves, and forced the Byzantine Emperors into exile at Nicaea (present-day Iznik). From 1261 onwards, the Byzantines were largely preoccupied with regaining their control in the Balkans."

And some more. Info about Greeks/Byzantines is way more than Hittites.Cavann (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

There can be a brief mention of pre-Turkish Anatolia (under the relevant title), but this should be limited to ca. a couple of centuries before 11th century, in order to describe the situation in Anatolia just when (and a little before) the first Turkish tribes arrived. In no case can this goes back to the Bronze Age... 2 or 3 millenia before...

Dont you see the incosistency? The 1st paragraph is about antiquity in Anatolia and the following one (just in the same section) mentions the first Turkic tribes in central Asia... Alexikoua (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a Good Article, it needs to be comprehensive. See: Misplaced Pages:Good_article_criteria

"The above quote is under "INCEPTION AS A NATION" for the chapter "Turks: nationality." Your arguments are getting even more bizarre. Cavann (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)" Cavann (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your source is little better than a travel guide. It is very generalist in nature, and it is just one source after all. The way the article received its GA status is questionable. The reviewer didn't make a single comment or suggestion. Nothing, he just passed it, just like that. Even though the article is plagued with problem with POV problems (a strong primordialist/nativist current), not to mention ridiculous number inflation using dubious sources in the infobox. When I have more time I will ask for a reassessment of the GA status, and we will see just how much of a GA the wikipedia community thinks of it. You also seem to think that the fact that the article is for now a GA means that it is not to be edited by others and that you WP:OWN it. Wrong on both counts. Athenean (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I come up with peer-reviewed journal articles and encyclopedias; you come up with imaginary "majority of literature." Do you have a review article, that goes over this literature?

Oh, and please do. The more eyes on this article, the better. Cavann (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid this is WP:IDHT case. You yourself refuted your own position when you pointed to the link which says (in 2007) that gene studies of the past still can only produce implausible conclusions. I presented 2008 work written by Pamela Kyle Crossley who clearly say "Critics of Cavalli-Sforza's work have increased in recent years, and critics of new gene studies of the past have always been active...". This author continues: "The vast majority of the genetics (including Cavalli-Sforza) have emphasized that there is no scientific basis for a concept of "race" ... and so much less a scientific basis for "national" identities. Yet in his publications he and his team normally use racial and national terms to describe their populations. This raises the question of circular reasoning...Anthropologists and historians of culture would respond that racial and national categories are obviously not objective, but are "social constructions" - controlled by general patterns of group thinking and public expressions... For population genetics such as those working in the Cavalli-Sforza mode, making a contribution beyond what anthropologists and cultural historians have already surmised would seem to require transcending the ideologically charged and a priori subjective vocabulary of race and nationality.". Please WP:DROPTHESTICK.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What link are you talking about? And what are you talking about? All these sources, including those later than 2008, do not lose legitimacy solely based on what "Pamela Kyle Crossley" "clearly say"s. You do not make any sense whatsoever.

And what "race and nationality"? I am the one who added "The Turkish people, or the Turks (Turkish: Türkler), are citizens" which is being discussed in the section below. Do you actually have any idea what is going on? Did you think I said "Turks are a race"? Your comments are bizarrely irrelevant. Cavann (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship in English. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I am aware. Bizarrely irrelevant again. Cavann (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You first bolded citizenship and now you proclaim it irrelevant. Your editing here is tendentious and disruptive. Have you considered disengaging? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I should, because I don't think you have WP:competence. You are the one who mentioned "race and nationality" and then assumed citizenship implies race, because nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship in English. You are the one who assumed quote from National Museum Wales in British people was talking about all relevant studies, instead of only about early work that Oppenheimer cited to support his opinion about British people. You are the one who assumed some quote from Pamela Kyle Crossley invalidates all research in this area. You are the one who confuses descent and background with race, or racial theories. I will not be responding to you bizarrely irrelevant comments that are completely nonsensical. And yes, your comments are irrelevant, because none of what you said is relevant to what is being discussed about the text of the article. Misplaced Pages is not a forum. Cavann (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

My comments present assertions supported by scholarly sources which refute your position based solely on Cavalli-Sforza source. The link you pointed to presents scholarly opinion about all "early genetic studies of the past" not Oppenheimer's work. Work of Pamela Kyle Crossley does not refer to "all research in this area" but only to "a contribution beyond what anthropologists and cultural historians have already surmised" otherwise it would be transcending the ideologically charged and a priori subjective vocabulary of race and nationality." Your claim that I "assumed citizenship implies race" after I explained that Nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship in English is just another blatant misinterpretation. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

My position is not solely based on Cavalli-Sforza. That seems to be one of your other bizarre assumptions even though I already pointed out other sources before, some of them as late as 2011. Cavann (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your position is solely based on C-S because none of the sources you brought directly support your assertion per wp:reliable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Another bizzare statement. I already a gave you a quote and link to a 2011 journal article in this discussion.. There are more sources in the text of the article as well.Cavann (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion here seems to be very similar to the one I have brought up before. Like I said, this is Turkish Republican rhetoric that is highly controversial and needs to be treated as such. Turkish laws regarding citizenship are opinionated descriptions of citizenship and race but is never a fact set in stone. Neither are the authors and writers that present it as a fact. Citizenship and race in Turkey is a HUGE problem. Many politicians have tried to solve the issue through legislative reform but failed miserably (See here). Others, like Hrant Dink, have even been prosecuted and eventually assassinated in Turkey just because they said that they are "Armenian". Please, let us not present these notions as fact, but as a highly controversial and ever so problematic issue for the country. Proudbolsahye (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Mahidevran is not an ethnic Turk

...in fact her ethnic background is a matter of debate. Many argue that she is Albanian or from the Caucasus. I will remove her image without any further objections. Proudbolsahye (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Changed. The images can be exclusive, but the text needs to be inclusive, including all viewpoints. Cavann (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Turkish citizens are not Turkish "people"

This is a myth set up within the legal framework of the Turkish Republic and particularly its constitution. Unfortunately, it has now spilled into Misplaced Pages. Just because someone has Turkish citizenship does not make one a "Turk". In fact, some have even been prosecuted and eventually assassinated in Turkey just because they said that they are "Armenian". Please let us not have this nonsense spill into this encyclopedia. We all know that there is a stark difference between ethnicity and citizenship, which is a common understanding in the western world. I will remove without objection. Proudbolsahye (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Leave it. I'm getting sick of everyone trying to push their POV in this article. Official definition should be there. There is also further explanation.

"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 sometimes considered to be Turks. The imprecision of the appellation Türk can also be seen with other ethnic names, such as Kürt (Kurd), which is often applied by western Anatolians to anyone east of Adana, even those who speak only Turkish. 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." Although, since 1960s, the Kurdish nationalism has re-emerged. Currently, a new constitution is being written, which may address citizenship and ethnicity issues." Cavann (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Interpretations of Turkish citizenship, whether they be legal or historical, can go into the body of the article but not into the lead. Currently, a highly controversial and utterly non-nonsensical sentence such as "The Turkish people, or the Turks (Turkish: Türkler), are citizens or natives of Turkey, and their descendants..." ultimately presents an argument that is highly controversial in not only international law, but in Turkish society today...to say the least. This lead does not even mention a word about Turks being people that belong to a certain ethnic group. The Russian people, Greek people, Poles, and etc. articles all refer to those people as an ethnic group. A certain Turkish Republican rhetoric has engulfed this article and needs to be removed. I propose changing the first sentence back to its original language:

The Turkish people, or the Turks, (Turkish: Türkler), are an ethnic group primarily living in Turkey, and in the former lands of the Ottoman Empire where Turkish minorities have been established. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Support this wording. Excellent point. Athenean (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked at GA ethnicity articles, and then found British people. Russian people and Poles are not GA. Greek people cannot be an example to Turkish people, given that Greece is very homogenous, and I am not interested in the region, besides Turkey.Cavann (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the GA reviewer may or may not have overlooked these claims. There needs to be a further reassessment with the nomination. There are serious flaws when it comes to this article. If these problems are met, I'll be more than happy to keep the article in its current status as GA. Proudbolsahye (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this wording, if "Turkish nationality law, which regulates current Turkish citizenship and nationality, is based primarily on the principle of jus sanguinis." also stays. Cavann (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I propose...reinserting "The Turkish people, or the Turks, (Turkish: Türkler), are an ethnic group primarily living in Turkey, and in the former lands of the Ottoman Empire where Turkish minorities have been established." as the first sentence in the lead. You can discuss citizenship and race on the basis of jus sanguinis in the body of the article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What "citizenship and race"? Cavann (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Jus sanguinis or "right of blood" refers to racial or ethnic characteristics as determinants. If Turkey practices this as a form of citizenry and ethnic relations (you might call national), it must be explained in the body of the article. However, it should not the first sentence of the article. I am now changing the first sentence to its original wording. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Cavann (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there still a need for a third opinion here?

No. Issue resolved. Proudbolsahye (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will remove the article from the list then. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not resolved. See Talk:Turkish_people#2.2B_millenia_time_gap_.28Hittites_at_the_first_paragraph_of_the_history_of_Turkish_people.3F.29. Cavann (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe the is talking about this specific section. The first sentence of the lead has changed. This section ("Turkish citizens are not Turkish "people"") may be removed. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No he is not. Read the entry in third opinion page. This specific section is solved, but not the Talk:Turkish_people#2.2B_millenia_time_gap_.28Hittites_at_the_first_paragraph_of_the_history_of_Turkish_people.3F.29 one.Cavann (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion is only suitable for disputes with only two editors involved. There seems to be more than two here so I will leave you to it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

2+ millenia time gap (Hittites at the first paragraph of the history of Turkish people?)

A really wonder whats the meaning to mention the Hittites, and other Bronze age info about Anatolia, as part of the history of the Turkish people. For sure there is a huge time gap (some millenia) before the first presence of Turkish people in that region.Alexikoua (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I can only assume that this is just part of an ulranationalist autochtony theory, which has no place, for sure, in this community.Alexikoua (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Read the sources. It is interesting that you deleted an entire paragraph based only on your assumptions. Cavann (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No encyclopedia would ever have a map of the Hittite Empire in an article about the Turkish people. This is like an asylum taken over by a madman. --Mttll (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If by asylum, you mean reliable sources, sure. And by encyclopedia, you prolly mean 50-year old print ones that you got from a newspaper. Cavann (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No, by encyclopedia, I mean any kind of encyclopedia. As for reliable sources, all they say is that modern Turkish people partially descend from pre-Turkish Anatolians in terms of genetics. How do you go from that to inserting a Hittite Empire map into an article about Turkish people when there is over 2 thousand years gap between them? By being insane of course. --Mttll (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL, you learn to read first before throwing around words. Various sources start with prehistory, Hittites, etc, (books, US Library of Congress country profile, etc) when they are starting history of Turkey. Turkish people also mean citizens of Turkey. Cavann (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(ignore trolling) Exactly, not a single reference confirms that there is an ancestral link between Hittites-Bronze Age/Ancient Anatolia populations and Turkish people, especially when we have a huge time gap this is completely science fiction. This isn't the history of Turkey but of the Turkish people. So, in case no serious mainstream reference is provided to confirm it, this paragraph gets out as an extreme case of wp:synth, wp:or, wp:pov.Alexikoua (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The only relevant fact I see in mainstream bibliography, is that this was an unhistorical theory (national myth) "According to the Turkish myth, the Hittites were bonafide "Turks"!. The tiny Ottoman state was the catalyst of a titanic rebirth! it meant the reawakening of the Hittite Turk gloriously returning as the Ottoman Turk.". There is no serious argument in order to add this as real history.Alexikoua (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This gets even more problematic since the users that contributed to this article, choose specific groups of peoples that lived in the are of modern Turkey, (Hittites etc.), but on the other hand population such as the Anatolian Greeks or Armenians, who lived in the past in this region, are not even part of this strange mix of populations.Alexikoua (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that Cavann is mixing up Turkey and Turkish people, which are different topics, and hence why they have separate articles. Athenean (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Source:Stokes, Jamie; Gorman, Anthony (2010), "Turks: nationality", Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Infobase Publishing, ISBN 143812676X. Pages: 721-722

If the paragraph is not restored, I'm reporting this at ANI. Cavann (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly for that reason the paragraph has no place in this article. I don't see the word "Turkish" (or similar terms) in pre-11th century Anatolian history. Moreover, an inclusion will be also inconsistent with similar article about ethnic groups, for example Germans (pre-Germanic Germany is excluded), Serbs (pre-Slav Serbia excluded), Russians (same).Alexikoua (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

In general and since the article is about an ethnic group, not a state, bibliography focused on ethnology is helpful. For example this one The Turks in World History. No wonder, the only reference to the Hitites is in p.208, but refers to 1930s ultranationlist theories ("fantastic theories"). This isn't history as explained above.Alexikoua (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The above quote is from a chapter for Turks in an encyclopedia. It's weird you do not see the the word "Turkish". This article is about Turks/Turkish people. Cavann (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's weird you see a similar term in this text prior to 11th century Seljuk invasion. I'm sorry I can't help you much on that. Off course pre-Turkish Anatolia isn't part of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The above quote is under "INCEPTION AS A NATION" for the chapter "Turks: nationality." Your arguments are getting even more bizarre. Cavann (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The Hittitea have NOTHING to do with the inception of the Turkish nation. Stop adding irrelevant material to this article. This isn't the article on Anatolia. Athenean (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Read relevant reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is not the place to push your POV. Cavann (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. That is just a low quality generalist source that conflates Turkey with Turkish people. The majority of the literature on the subject does not include Neolithic sites into the "inception of the Turkish nation. Gobekli Tepe? Catalhoyuk? You must be joking. Threatening other editors and repeating yourself like a broken record will get you nowhere, only to a well-deserved block (by now). Athenean (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please remain civil ("repeating yourself like a broken record"). Where's this "majority of the literature"? Here's a secondary source, that is it is peer reviewed:

Source: Yardumian, A.; Schurr, T. G. (2011). "Who Are the Anatolian Turks?". Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia. 50: 6. doi:10.2753/AAE1061-1959500101 Cavann (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! ...beginning in the European Middle Ages. One more reason to exclude this bizarre Hettite claims.Alexikoua (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL. You missed the "the vast pre-Turkic-speaking populations of Anatolia" part. That's why a paragraph is appropriate.Cavann (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

So what? pre-Turkic populations from the Middle Ages. You don't believe that the Hittites were still living in a region that witnessed multiple population movements in the meantime right?Alexikoua (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess English is not your first language. That is not what the quote says. It says the cultural shifts occurred starting in middle ages.Cavann (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

At which point the "vast pre-Turkic population of Anatolia" was no longer Ancient Anatolian, but largely Greek-speaking, Armenian-speaking, Kurdish speaking, etc...Thank you for showing the wikipedia community how your point is self-defeating. Athenean (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Hellenization, Greek language, Byzantines, etc are already mentioned in this article. I'm not leaving that out. But you are trying to push your POV, by trying to exclude that paragraph about Ancient Anatolians.Cavann (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Gobekli Tepe, Catalhoyuk, the Hattians and Hittites are irrelevant to this article. What does the fact that Catalhoyk may be the "first ever city" have to do with the Turkish people? This is not a travel guide. The Hattians and Hittites were long extinct as distinct identities before the arrival of the Turks. A brief mention that Anatolia was under the rule of the Byzantine Empire and inhabited by Greek-speakers and Armenian speakers is all that is needed. By the way, most of your oh-so reliable sources for that section consist of travel guides, e.g. Lonely Planet and the The Rough Guide. So much for that argument. Athenean (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"By the way, most of your oh-so reliable sources for that section consist of travel guides" is a laughable comment, coming from someone who edit wars and removes content based on personal opinion. Those sources offered a quick summary, but I can also use "The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia." Talking about sources, you did not even bother to link the source for FreedmanMyers, be more careful when you are copy and pasting. And none of the sources talk about culture extinction.

And please do not repeat yourself, the rationale of "Gobekli Tepe, Catalhoyuk, the Hattians and Hittites" were provided by reliable sources, including a peer-reviewed journal article. Mentioning these info in few sentences is not UNDUE. Deleting all that and expanding info about Byzantine rule, when it is already mentioned so many times in the rest of history section is so ridiculously POV, I think you are trying to help me with your future Arbitration case, just like when you are warning others about "rv WP:IDONTLIKEIT removal of relevant, reliably sourced information" when you -yourself- are doing the same. Cavann (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Cavann: There is no need to express extreme wp:own activity. In case of travel guides we should be very carefull. By the way why you are using Misplaced Pages:WIAFA as an excuse to revert (again)? The specific article isn't in fa status. Since you didn't liked the section split of two irrelevant (both geographically and chronologically) paragraphs, a more complex title is needed. Moreover, you don't believe that 6th century Gogturks were part of Bronze Age/Ancient history right?]Alexikoua (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, this turns to be quite childish: 2nd blind revert in zero time ]. What's the pov? Using the term pre-Turkish for Ancient/Bronze Age Anatolia? I don't thing that this is the pov problem in this case... Alexikoua (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

How can it be FA if it doesn't comply with FA criteria? My goal here is to improve articles. Cavann (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Cavann: You need to explain why its funny when Ancient/Bronze Age Anatolia is termed "Pre-Turkish Anatolia". Moreover, why you add the Thracians again and again? They aren't mentioned at all inside +they mainly inhabited the Balkans. Also note that the way you can't explain your actions can easily mean that you just perform blind reverts as part of an extreme wp:own strategy.Alexikoua (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I gave my answer here . As for Thracians, unless you noticed, Eastern Thrace is in Balkans, and many Thracians did expand into Anatolia . They are currently not mentioned in the article, because of Athenian's deletion of reliably sourced relevant material.

Once again, if you do not have the WP:competence, do not make edits about things you do not know. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Read the subject-matter, and then make informed edits.Cavann (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Completely unhistorical additon since according to this rational an addition of ca. 30 population groups should be added below the section title. Should I name them? (Cimmerians, Persians, Akkadians, Ancient Greeks, Arabs, Romans, etc...). By the way, what do you mean reliably sourced relevant material? Because secondary sources (contrary to travel guides and poorly cited non-academic tertiary sources) you mentioned above can't be considered as such, feel free to check wp:rs.Alexikoua (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

We have to choose most relevant links. Were they centered in today's Turkey's borders? Eg: was centered around Edirne; Phrygians, who came from Balkans, had their capital in Gordium. However, you are right. Byzantines had their capital in Istanbul, so a link is warranted in that case.

As for the rest of what you wrote, read my answer to Athenian: 'Those sources offered a quick summary, but I can also use "The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia."' Cavann (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Due to the above mentioned problems, I believe a GA reassessment is necessary. Please vote for your support or disapproval along side with your reasons. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment says " it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review; it is usually simpler to renominate it. If some time has lapsed since a delisting or fail it is better to renominate.....Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered." No mention of poll or voting or community reassessment on the article's talkpage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that 3 out of the 6 gan criteria aren't ok, but this is a personal opinion. As I see the nominator was quite quick in his comments and hadn't even mentioned how it passed all criteria. Alexikoua (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way the couple of weeks period has passed, since according to this page various issues have been continuously raised since ca. 1 month.Alexikoua (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about this. Significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks so the reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Another major issue is the lack of full citations, i.e. page numbers (or quotes in case of web pages), supposed to be fundamental for a ga nomination. There are still several cited journal articles which didn't say a word about the claimed facts.Alexikoua (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Lede

There has earlier been raised questions about one sentence in the lede, but it was not followed up at the time: "Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups, in addition to neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples, despite speaking a Turkic language, which was adopted by the local populations who predominantly had spoken Indo-European languages." I see some problems here.

• primarily vs. in addition to. If we take in addition to literary, it actually says that they descend from neighboring people and turkic people and, in addition, from indigenous groups (making the indigenous groups less important or at best equally important, but not more important). Even with a weaker interpretation of "in addition to" (taking it to mean "as well as" or just "and") it highlights that they descend from various groups and does not imply that any of the groups are significantly more important. Combining this with "primarily" does not make sense. If all the sources agree that the indigenous groups are most important, it could be stated as primarily combined with but also or similar. If all the sources agree on the diversity, it could be stated with in addition to (or as well as) without the word primarily. But you cannot have them both in the same sentence.
• despite is a tricky word. It reminds me ofvanish Ripley's Believe it or not: "Contrary to popular belief..." It is rather argumentative and suggests the message: "This should come as a surprice to you". But there is nothing surpricing in the fact that a mixture of population groups end up speaking a language that is not necessarily the language of the largest group. My earlier edit was reverted without any comment, possibly "by accident" together with other reverts. I try again.

Regards! --T*U (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think primarily and in aAchaeans of the ddition to are clear, but we can change it to but also, if it is confusing to some readers. As for the second part, the change you are suggesting is making the text less coherent. "They speak a Turkic language, which was adopted by the local populations who predominantly had spoken Indo-European languages." When were they speaking Indo-European languages, 50 years ago?? Why are we mentioning Indo-European languages if we are talking about the present. The time frame is more clear as one sentence. That paragraph is also like an historical overview, so switching to present is -again- making the paragraph less coherent. Actually two sentences make it better now. Cavann (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The specific part is quite problematic. So, another question is why Turkish people descend only from these people that lived in Turkey before (Ancient Anatolians & Thracians), while they do not also descent from the rest of the people that lived before the 11th century (citations don't claim something like that).Alexikoua (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way the 'page needed' tag, is placed in order to add the precise page where the claimed fact is found. Instead of disruptively removing it, it would be more civilized to carefully check the citation journal template (This Ancient Anatolian&Thracian ancestry +exclusion of all other population groups is really childish).Alexikoua (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Cavann, in the journal template there are both "pages" & "page" options. So I'm kindly asking you to fill the page option too, per pn tag (that's supposed to be important for an article to become ga).Alexikoua (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

. Cavann (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's see the very first line from Misplaced Pages:CITATION:

A full citation fully identifies a reliable source and, where applicable, the place in that source (such as a page number) where the information in question can be found.

Bingo. This means in case its impossible to give precise page numbers (or alternatively quotes) we have a huge wp:or concernt and all this fringe theory will soon go.Alexikoua (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"where applicable". If you are having issues, given that English is your second language, try Misplaced Pages:Mentorship. Cavann (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

In this case they are needed. I wish you good luck in searching (Someone can easily assume that the claimed facts are nowhere to be found, so as a desperate attempt of disruption we have the weak argument that pages and quotes are not needed... quite childish). Full citation please!Alexikoua (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You asked for page numbers for Yardumian et al, even though its abstract supports the sentence, and even though I have quoted that abstract in this talk page . I think you have enough warnings now. I will be taking this to Arbitration next time.Cavann (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(ignore trolling) Actually every single citation from no. 68 to no.74, lacks precise page numbers. I have to note that the poorly established argument that "journals don't need pages" is something a serious wikipedian should avoid. In general, removing the necessary tags can be easily described as an aggresive way of vandalism.

No wonder Yardumian doesn't claim that Turkish people came only from "Ancient Anatolians and Thracians" excluding all other populations that lived in Anatolia (i.e. Greeks, Armenians, due to obvious reaons). I assume that the same way of large-scale falsification of references occurred in the rest of the sources which lack the necessary pagenumber.Alexikoua (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There is also Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, something I kindly ask to respect:

Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)... as in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You acted in a disruptive manner. The citations were perfectly fine, as other editors have pointed out here Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Specific_page_numbers_for_journal_articles_needed.3F. You could have asked for it in the talk page, yet you edit-warred in the article and gave me a frivolous warning in my talk page.

I see you have no experience with journal articles. Yardumian et al. does talk about Ancient Anatolians throughout his article. That is why exact page numbers for journal articles are absurd, unless there is a quote, because sometimes you use information in multiple pages.

Still, as a courtesy, the quotes and page numbers are below. I also included where Yardumian et al. talks about "Anatolia’s Iron Age populations." Once again, your disruptive behaviour, accusations of source falsification, and etc are noted.

However, I should also thank you for your intransigence. I had completely forgotten about the section “Turks HLA profile reflects that of ancient Anatolians” in Arnaiz-Villena et al. It'll be an excellent source for my planned expansion of prehistory section.

Cavann (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's good you are finally convinced after you've been clearly instructed by multiple users to give the necessary information. No wonder we have the same conclusions, since you are still on wp:or territory. Characteristically, the additional info you provided doesn't even mention the word "Thracian". On the other hand what the references state is that modern Turks are not clear ancestors of the Turkic tribes moved to Anatolia, but a mix between them and all the people that lived in the region from Antiquity to medieval ages. Thus, the lead and the correspodent parts should change respectivelyAlexikoua (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yardumian et al. and Arnaiz-Villena et al. are clear. The lead is also clear, as it does not say Turks are purely Ancient Anatolian. Yardumian et al. also talks about "Anatolia’s Iron Age populations," (1200 BC – 500 BC) which would include Thracian immigrants like Phrygians, who had their capital in Gordium in the 8th century BC. Do not change the lead based on your lack of understanding of the text or issues.Cavann (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thracian immigrants like Phrygians? Well, that's another wp:or concert here. For future reference Iron Age populations in Anatolia include also Cimmerians, Ancient Greeks, Phrygians (generally accepted as non-Thracians). Not only the so-called Anatolian linguistic group.Alexikoua (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Anatolians are not just Anatolian linguistic groups. Phrygians are Thracian.. Any similarity to Greeks is covered by "but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples." Greeks are a neighboring people in case you have not noticed. However, Greek presence prior to iron age was limited, since Alexander's conquest was in 334 BC. And Yardumian et al. and Arnaiz-Villena say that Hellenization was also done through elite-dominance language replacement, so their genetic influence was limited too. So we cannot put Greeks to "various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups" part.Cavann (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The link you gave above says nothing about Phrygians being Thracians ], it just states that Phrygians lost much of their ancestral roots, i.e. Phrygians are not Thracians.Alexikoua (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

In fact Phrygians might share some very distant roots with Thracians, same with Greeks ].Alexikoua (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph starting with "The Thracians migrated to..." is pretty clear. Again, if you are having English issues, ask someone for help. Cavann (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

...and this paragraph states that... they lost much of their ancestral roots, i.e. Phrygians are not Thracians. For future reference Thracians and Phrygians are different people (unless you still believe in Strabo or 17th century historical books). In case no serious objection is provided this part will soon go as wp:or.Alexikoua (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL. What part of this do you not understand?

"The Thracians migrated to south-eastern Europe in the 7th millennium. After the 12th century, they also settled in Asia Minor, especially in Bithynia and the Troad, with the Brygi becoming ancestors of the Phrvgians. Although the Phrygians lost much of their ancestral roots, the Bithynians retained their Thracian culture."

Do you not understand that "they" refers to "the Thracians." Btw Bithynians were also in Anatolia.Cavann (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Algerian Turks

sources refer to Algerians who may be of Turkish descent, not modern Turkish people living in Algeria (of which I would guess there are very few, not millions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.15.132 (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Repetition for effect

Enough with the "genetic continuity" stuff. Inserting it in every section is getting old, and is nothing more than POV-pushing by repetition for effect. There is a genetics section for that, repeating it in the history section is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing at this point. The history section should be a history of the Turkish people, not a repeat of the history section Turkey. It appears some users have difficulty distinguishing between the two. Athenean (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Turkey articles
• Top-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• GA-Class Ethnic groups articles
• Top-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles