Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:49, 5 February 2006

Hi everybody! I recently discovered that there was no entry for ethnic Turks (as opposed to citizens of Republic of Turkey or speakers of the Turkish language or of all the Turkic languages combined), so I created one along the lines of the other ethnic group articles. But it needs a lot of help to conform the the standard of the other articles. //Big Adamsky 05:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, what a total difference since yesterday - looks really thorough and professional, User:70.122.73.105! 8-] //Big Adamsky 19:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi I would like the anti-Turkish bias removed from this article

What do the harems have to do with the Turkish people? It is not as if a significant part of the Turkish population is descended from the harems. It just sounds like people who have a dislike for Turks are posting irrevelent information just to remind people of the negative aspects of Ottoman Turkey.DivineIntervention 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It might help with the Demographics 'war' if dissenters gave their sources

When I made the edits and put in the data on the Turkish population, I listed what sources I used. I used German census information, the article on Bulgarian Turks, Ethnologue, etc. Obviously,the number greatly varied and the information at Ethnologue was very dated, but it did point me in the right direction as to which countries have large Turkish populations. If whoever wants to make changes and make them stick, it might help to say where you are getting your figures. The Bulgarian numbers might be low given the nature of Turkish-Bulgarian ethnic relations in the country since the attempts at Slavicizing the Turks is still a bitter memory in recent times, but whatever other information is attained has to explained I'd say. Tombseye 19:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Just noted the edits by 85.97.17.88 and have to comment. The information doesn't discern the Kurdish and Turkish populations it seems. It simply relates Turkish citizens which can mean that they are either Kurds or Turks. I know for a fact, that a high percentage of 'Turks' in Germany for example are actually of Kurdish background as I lived there for 7 years. At any rate, the sources isn't all that great, but some of the information might be useful and could be incorporated to some extent as in some cases it might be accurate. Although, the numbers state that over 3.5 million live abroad, while the number in Turkey is well below 60, so where does the 67 million figure come from? Tombseye 00:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Tombseye, the author needs to give the proof and the source for the sentence "While perhaps less than one-third of those who self-identify as ethnic Turks." Who originally claimed this and what methods were used to come up with this number? The burden of proof is not on the dissenters it is on who claims this.AverageTurkishJoe 17:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Identy

Well then "To be Turk" doesnt mean you have to %100 pure Turkish race.There are more than 30 nations in Turkey and most of them have been melting between eachother."Obedience to Turkish Replublic" couchs to be a Turk...

Turks in Bulgaria

Bulgarians oppressed more than 3 million turks in Bulgaria and forecefully bulgarized them, now the number of turks in Bulgaria is 12% from 50%

http://www.ingilish.com/turksofbulgaria.htm

Most of the Turks weren't Bulgarized, they were forced to emigrate back to Turkey according to the link you posted. It doesn't say anywhere in the article that half the population of Bulgaria was Turkish at any point. In fact, the article says that the majority of "turks" in Bulgaria were in fact "turkified Bulgarians", including the majority of those who emigrated to Turkey after the first world war. Epf 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Could the significant populations be split out of the infobox into a separate table like Kurdish people? Or could the language etc. be put above the significant populations bit? - FrancisTyers 01:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, most ethnic groups follow the format that the Turks article does, such as Russians, French people, and Romanians. --Khoikhoi 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you are right, perhaps the Kurdish people article should be adjusted accordingly. I still think that significant populations should be at the bottom of the infobox though... Perhaps I'll bring it up on the template talk page. - FrancisTyers 01:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorting issue on balkan and anatolian Turks over immigrant turks

When it comes to the population stats of Turks in various countries, I would suggest a emphasis on Turks who have been living in countries for several centuries(Bulgaria, greece, macedonia, serbia), over recent immigrant communities(Germany, netherlands, france). I think we should move those countries up the list to highlight the difference.

Otherwise it might give the impression that Turks are native to Germany or the lands around Germany, rather than Anatolia and the Balkans.

Who's with me here ?

Explain your identy at first...

Germany offered workers to Turkey in 50's and 60's.Besides nobody can move Turks anywhere...

New image

Hey, nice job! It looks like the Tatars page has some competition... :-P --Khoikhoi 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The new image has some problems. Roxelana, according to most accounts, never saw herself as a Turk, but Ukrainian which she was. Also Barbarosa was a Greek convert to Islam. I realize that since Turks are themselves related to these people (moreso Greeks than Ukrainians) this can be quite confusing, but we should at least stick to the point where when people identify themselves as Turks, they qualify and those that do not shouldn't be lumped in. Otherwise, the picture seemed okay. I still prefer the 4 people format myself. Tombseye 04:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Barbaros Hayrettin was Greek!!??? Hürrem was Ukrainian!!???

Barbaros was a Turkish pirate who lived in Algeria.Hürrem was a crimean Tatar(or Turk).Sinan was greek,right?(!)

I didnt understand why all Turks try to seen diffrent here(!)

"Roxelana, according to most accounts, never saw herself as a Turk"

Has anybody talked with her? If it was so,she could kill all the Turks...

So both of you(tombseye and khoikhoi) are not Americans...

I'm an American... Californian actually. --Khoikhoi 06:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks it is better not to make any effort about something here...

Okay, no big argument here, but the 4 people page looks better than the 20 Turks stacked up. The 4 people picture resembles the other pages like the Russians, Greeks, etc. Roxelana's father was an Orthdox priest and she spoke Ukrainian. Maybe her mother was a Tatar, I don't know. The Barbarosa brothers were born on the Greek island of Lesbos to a Greek father. They converted to Islam to get ahead in the Ottoman Empire and became pirates and then Khair ud Din became the admiral of the Ottoman fleet. Perhaps Barbarosa could be considered a 'Turk' or not. Me, I think of him as a Greek convert and Roxelana as a Ukrainian sold into slavery who rose to become something more. My passport begs to differ, but I'm not sure what my nationality has to do with this. Ciao. Tombseye 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems ok in my book. After all the article mentions that turks are an amalgation of different ethnic groups. Many people adapted Turkish ethnicity over the years. Ive met many Greeks who tell me that most Turks are in fact turkified Greeks. Maybe we could replace Barbarossa or Hurrem with Sezen Aksu. Come on, surely there must be a place for the most prominent Turkish singer in the past 30 years or so. Also, i prefer the 4 people version of Orhan Pamuk over the new one. But for the most part, good job on inanna's partEnter sandman

Hey Inanna did a good job, no question. I just think it'd be cool if we kept the 4 people format as it reflects some continuity. I don't mean to be rigid, but encyclopedias are meant to be informative and not platforms for national pride or whatever. The 4 people collage reflects as many different aspects of the population as possible, preferably with some creative/scientific achievement, political figures, and hopefully one woman as well. Tombseye 18:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree one woman would be better.

Tombseye:

How do you know that she spoke ukrainian? Everybody speaks the language of their own country's majority language.She was crimean tatar.You can see that in your web-site as well.Barbaros was Turkish.Even your web-site says that also.The things what you say has no prove...Dont forget to chage them!

I mean all the minorities call themselves Turks as you do it for yoursleves.US and EU want to seperate them by provacations but it will be a flop...

I dont make any national pride.You gave permission that alexander's or aristotele's pictures about greeks.Alexander was albanian(illyrian) as his most army.Aristotele was macedonian(slav).Trojans were luvis(hittites)...What is mean than double-standard?

Doesn't anybody want to sign their username? Geez. She said who her father was. A Ukrainian Orthodox priest. What website are you talking about? Like this one that says she was a Russian (Ukrainian subtype): http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/empires/ottoman/roxelana.html

That's from the university of Calgary so if they're wrong, you should let them know I guess. Her birthname was Aleksandra Lisowska. It's in history books. Read them. She was absolutely NOT a Crimean Tatar. As for the Barbarosa brothers, actually, the wikipedia doesn't say much at all and it's not my article. If you check actual sources such as an encyclopedia, you will see that the Barbarosa brothers were born Greek on the island of Lesbos and converted to Islam. Check the Encyclopedia Brittanica or Encyclopedia Americana and then tell me I'm wrong because I'm really not. Tombseye 10:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Enter Sandman:

Your greek friends are just history thieves and this web-site supports them.If you ask them,they will say everybody is greek.Hollywood try to show them as heros.I cant understand why the masters(!) of american media loves greeks so much although they hate them and i cant understand why they try to show Turks terrible although we have always helped them...

Who are you talking to?Tombseye 10:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

1) It is such a stupid idea that when you search Turks, your are redicting to this page. This page is full of info for Turks who live in Turkey. IT IS NOT FAIR... Because there are approximately 250 million people whose ethnicity is called Turk.

You must realize the difference between ethnic Turks and the larger group of Turkic peoples which includes ethnic Azeris, Turkmen, Uyghurs, etc.Epf 09:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Turk was firstly used by Persian (please search name 'Firdavsi', 'Türa'), to identify people who maintained their culture in Central Asia. After solving conflicts among 25 families, they were 25 tribes which was called Turk, because in Orkhun Scripts vizier Nizamül-mülk said that " They are 25, and they all are my sons. I fought 12 times in a year aganist all of them ", Teoman, great king of the huns achieved to take over the control of all families with the idea of a Great Türa Kingdom.

Turks who live in Turkey are mostly Oghuz Turks. There are another 24 tribes which also called Turks. Tatarstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan are also Turkic countries.

2) There are some pictures of well-known Turkey Turks. It is such a shame that Nazım Hikmet is not on the picture, as another well-known Turkey Turks, such as Mevlana, Kemal Dervis. BUT, writer put Orhan Pamuk's picture on the page. Orhan Pamuk is well-known, because of his trail. Many of people know him, NOT BECUASE OF HIS BOOKS. As a reader, I did read some of his books. Personally, his style is not extraordinary and interesting. As consumerism goes its perfect, people are consuming without thinking, or comparing.

I am definetly sure of that some will say " But he was chosen by Nobel Committee ". My answer is " I am not those of man. " A committee cannot decide what is the best and what is the worst for me. Besides, the committe is not unquestionable.

Consequently, Please let the article, Turks, to have its own page with description for all Turkic people.

History is not a fucking best time activity

I would agree that a disambiguation page would be useful for the term Turk so that people could choose different categories including Turkic peoples, Turks in Turkey etc. Orhan was included because he's a modern Turk and he's well known world-wide. This page isn't just for people from Turkey who want or don't want something on this page, but for people world-wide and Orhan's well known and a lot of people happen to like his books, including me. This page reflects having a wide range of people as representing Turks in Turkey from historical figures to creative types and at least one female if possible and a politician. This article accomplished that. Mevlana Rumi was an Afghan Tajik, not a Turk. He was born in what is today Afghanistan and his mother tongue was Persian and he later moved to Anatolia. We can't just include everyone because they at some point moved to Turkey as that's not really fair to the other groups here. These pages should not serve as some nationalist platform for people to crow about their people, but an encylopedic rendition of said group. Tombseye 20:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't care which Turks is most populer on your side. This page is not for someone to describe Turkey's Turks. This page was opened to serve for presenting Turkey' Turks. I am a Turkey Turks and I think I have a right to present my people.

Secondly, I was born in Grece, but may parents are Turks. It doesn't make a Greek, as it doesn't make Mevlana to be an Afghan. Mevlana, firstly moved to Baghdad from Nisabur. It doesn't make him an Iraqi.

If the case about my country, history and culture, be sure I am a nationalist.--hybrid lily 22:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So basically, you don't want Orhan Pamuk to be on this page because you don't like him? --Khoikhoi 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that there are many of Turks who deserve to be on this picture more than him. For ins. NAZIM HİKMET RAN, KEMAL DEVIS, MEVLANA, YUNUS EMRE, BEKTASI. En önemlisi, Istanbul'u alan padişah burda yok, kıçı kırık Orhan Pamuk burda bu ülkenin ünlü insanları arasında yer buluyor. Tamamen saçmalık. Tamamen saçmalık

Çok haklısın.Bana yardımcı olduğun için de çok teşekkür ederim.Çünkü burada tek başıma mücadele etmek gerçekten çok zor ama sonuna kadar gideceğim.Bunlarım amacı bizi kötü göstermek ve ben buna asla izin vermeyeceğim.Orhan Pamuk'un resmini koymamdaki neden de(kendi hazırladığım resimde) bunlara bunu kabul ettirmekti.Bir süre sonra da silecektim.Gördüğün gibi bizi medya araçlarıyla yok etme peşindeler.O adamı desteklemerinin nedeni de,ödül alabilmek için söylediği yalanlar yüzünden.Onu büyük gösterip başkalarını da özendirmeye çalışıyorlar...

And I was born in Cyprus, my parents are Turkish-Cypriots and that doesn't make a Greek as all they want...-Inanna-

The picture

Well democracy rules here so one person's views, even if they are Turkish, doesn't change anything. You can't unilaterally decide who should be on the peoples page. How about we vote on it then? And Rumi is absolutely NOT a Turk. Next thing you'll tell me is that the Kurds are Turks. What we're doing with the 4 people picture is not promoting whom some people think 'deserve' to be on there, but a cross-section of people. That means people different time periods, representing different aspects of life. What's the point of putting up a bunch of classical writers? This isn't a feel good to be Turkish page you know. Encyclopedias need to present all aspects of a society. Now if there's a shortage of well known people or pictures that's another thing, but the choices made by Khoikhoi were frankly excellent. Tombseye 02:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Folks, let's leave the mosaic of prominent Turks intact for the time being, it won't be the end of the world if this temporary version happens to be "wrong". Post your suggestions and objections here below. I'll start:

• There are far too many small portraits depicted. Other ethnic group boxes have just 3-5 pictures. //Big Adamsky 21:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that both should both need changing. I agree that there are far too many people on the picture. However I think that the one has been put up needs to be changed. It should have at least one woman. I think the problem stems from the fact that this picture of 4 Turks did not take into regard the opinions of the Turks on wikipedia concerning whom should be on the picture. The Turks might feel that they were not consulted on who should be on in the picture. Orhan Pamuk is not so popular with the Turks which is why I think all this arguement is all about. Maybe Orhan Pamuk could be replaced by someone else - someone that everyone can agree on. Is it neccessary for Orhan Pamuk to be in the picture paticularly when there are countless other Turks that could be in that picture, especially one female.

Khoikhoi why did you decide Orhan Pamuk? Dont you know that he isn't really popular in Turkey (He mentioned the Armenian Genocide, everytime someone sees him they will remember the Armenian genocide or by clicking his name they will get redirected to the Armenian Genocide page is this why you did it? Hows California I hear the Armenian population is pretty numerous over there) - if I am wrong you will have absolutely no objection to remove Orhan Pamuk from the picture and replace him with someone else. You got one Sultan (a legacy of Turkeys past, you have Ataturk(the founder of modern Turkey) - then you have a author who is controversial in Turkey and a Singer. I think the last two should be changed why dont you have someone loved by Turks like Kemal Sunal(actor), or the first female prime minister of Turkey Tansu Ciller, or any sports star like Hakan Sukur. DivineIntervention 05:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi DivineIntervention, I am aware that Orhan Pamuk is not very popular with the Turks. However, there's no rule (correct me if I'm wrong) that states that these pictures in the ethnic group infoboxes have to be national heroes. Doing that only supports nationalism on Wikipeida, and that's not how it is meant to be - Misplaced Pages is supposed to present facts in a Neutral Point of View. --Khoikhoi 00:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that Misplaced Pages is suppost to present facts from a neutral point of view but I am still questioning you insistance out of the 100s if not 1000s of Turks you could have put you chose him? and your insistance to keep him? English People The people on the English Peoples page are all great and highly regarded people by the English. The people on the Spanish Peoples page are all great and highly the Spanish Spanish People, etc..... However Orhan Pamuk is not regarded highly by Turkish people. For this reason alone this picture doesn't present a neutral point of view and therefore does not conform to Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy. I dont think this is about nationalism, in anycase isn't having Ataturk's in the picture "nationalism" in the first place?? DivineIntervention 02:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because a lot of Turks don't like him, doesn't mean that he is not famous. I mean, as Tombseye pointed out on another talk page, "Misplaced Pages is not a feel-good encyclopedia". I agree with that. I don't get what you're saying - how is it that having a picture of a person that some people don't like POV? Having a huge page about the Armenian Genocide isn't necessarily going to please Turks, but we have it. The picture of Turks on the page are just 4 famous Turks - not necessarily people that everyone's going to like. --Khoikhoi 04:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well...first off, this page is a mess. I'm not Turkish, I live in America, and I have no stake in this article. Ok, the 4 pic collage should be kept(looks like ya'll decided on that), I would like to see captions so I tell who they are without going to the image page. But, I do believe that as a source of a "nationalistic" page, the standard has been set by English People , Spanish People, Kurdish People. I see no need to antagonize Turkish peoples without neccisity. This is not neccasary. Orhan Pamuk is definatly not popluar enough to guarantee a picture such as Ataturk is. It seems that maybe we could use a scientific person, any suggestions? Or, maybe even another women, I do know Turks love thier women :). Anyways, best solution, find someone else. Joe I 03:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that there is no need to have Pamuk in the portraits section. Let's just find someone else to visually represent this particluar people. //Big Adamsky 02:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. He's still famous. --Khoikhoi 04:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone wants this picture to be changed, so there we have it the picture must be changed. There are 100's if not 1000's of other famous Turkish People that can be used, yet Khoikhoi you are still, still, still being insistant on this one guy. I have to ask myself why is it that you are not willing to compromise on this (despite of everyone elses opinion)? This is not a personal attack but I have to question your motives. DivineIntervention 18:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Khoikhoi's simply making the point that Pamuk is a well known Turk worldwide, but if he's creating that much of a stir, I don't think it's imperative to have him. However, Roxelana and the Barbarosa brothers should not be included here. A 4 people picture with a substitute for Pamuk isn't going to kill us so I have no objections to replacing him though. But it's POV to include Roxelana et. al. and all I ask is that they need be included. Thanks. Tombseye 19:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My Answers for those VandalPedia writers

Democracy is not an issue here. The issue is who would be the best representative of Turkey's Turk. I don't know what type of link you have with Turkey's Turk, but we Turkey's Turks, possess many renwoned people. Actually, I think you don't know most of them. Of course this page cannot be a toy of a couple of individual. Unfortunately, you also should obey this rule.

You will give me such a happiness if you answer this question;

When you buy a book, and if you don't like some part of it, or you don't like one its picture, Do you persist to change the part through your own idea ?

Secondly, I like those of people when a Turkey's Turk start to speak, the issue of Kurds come alive in discussion. I can understand your democracy. Democracy of all, except Turks. An comlaining starts as beause they..., beause they ...

In real life, Kurds and Turks sharing the same religion, the same land, and some piont the same history. Both group of people estalih families, and they have a lot of respect for each other.

The important thing is that the issue cannot be a tool to oppose. It makes both them angry. You cannot make fun on someone's problems. Perhaps problems can be solved, but funny stories on it mostly turns such a revenge. So please change your mind about this conflict.

Which book did you read about Mevlana ? 'read' beause you are not a researcher. I took a close look on self-page. As a SUFI and a historian, so I can be sure about his origin. His father wasn't an Afghan, but his mother was an Afghan. Without a doubt he had link with Afghan, and Muslim Perian culture. Otherwise, he definetely wasn't be a Sufi.

Ok, let's change the idea, most of the American people came from Europe, mostly from England. But they don't say that ' I am a British ', or ' I am a Frank '. They all say that ' I am an American '. ;)

Consequently, by reading papers, books you just learn theories. I spent time in his old Dergah, in Konya. I won't let you to present Turkey's Turks on your point of view. Orhan Pamuk cannot be a good representative among another historic characters.

MEVLANA, OSMAN BEY, FATIH SULTAN MEHMET, YAVUZ SULTAN SELIM, YUNUS EMRE, HACI BEKTASI VELI, NAZIM HIKMET RAN, and a lot of whom I don't remember their names.

Several books, including translations from the original Persian by Barks discuss Rumi's early life. His mother AND father were Tajiks from Afghanistan. He was born there and raised there. It's not really fair to other peoples to just claim anyone you like as a Turk. He's a Persian regardless of where you place him. Do a google search and then look up his work on Amazon.com. His biographic information defines him as a Persian. Why are you arguing over something that academics all agree upon here? Including Turks I might add. Visiting where Rumi lived sounds great, but that's hardly going to give you insights into his nationality.

Interesting analogy about Americans, but Rumi's still an Afghan immigrant and not a Turk. Usually new immigrants to America from say England are called English-Americans or French-Americans or Chinese Americans. Then after a generation sometimes their children still use those terms and others don't. But when you first come to the US, you usually do identify your country of birth most of the time. You can't really not let me do anything. We can get an administrator and/or vote on it, but you also cannot decide by yourself what you want to see here. Tombseye 21:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Below for people who knows Turkish;

Arkadaşlar, eğer bu safya Turkiye de yaşayan Türkleri tanıtmak için varsa, Orhan Pamuk belki sonda bile olamaz. Konu Orhan Pamuk'un siyasi kişiligi yada onun kitaplarını tarzını begenmeme degil. Kişisel fikrim, Orhan Pamuk bir yazardan cok, bir pazarlamacıdır. Bir kitap yazar o günün akşamı bütün televizyon kanallarında gülümseyerek kitabı anlatır. Orhan Pamuk sittin sene bir ' Ince Mehmet ' yazamaz.

Benim bu sayfayla ilgili iki noktada kızgınlıgım var.

Birincisi; bütün Türk medeniyetini Türkiye olarak gösteremeyiz. Asyadaki bircok soydaşımızın Türk medeniyeti üzerindeki emeklerini katletmiş oluruz. Ben buna kesinlikle müsade etmem.

İkincisi; Orhan Pamuk'un bir tanıtıcı olarak resme edilmesi ve bu sayfada yer almasıdır.

--hybrid lily 08:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye:

"That's from the university of Calgary so if they're wrong, you should let them know I guess."

Where is calgary? In canada? I didnt suprised.Canada is one of the biggest enemies of Turkey.You can see that they have kept ASALA terrorists and recogized so-called armenian genocide...Anyway,a university which is miles of far away form these lands cant have so clear information...Hürrem was a Crimean Tatar and Barbaros was a Turkish Pirate.Full stop!

Lol, a Canadian university is now an enemy of Turkey and that's why they are discussing Hurrem's background?! That's ridiculous. Have you ever been to a university in North America or Europe? Academics can't lie these days because their peers will catch them and discredit them. What are they going to gain by talking about her background and what her name was before she was taken as a slave? So basically, you believe only what you want to believe rather than what any evidence points to. Just saying she was a Crimean Tatar doesn't change her original name or the fact that her father was a Ukrainian Orthodox priest. I say we get an administrator because no way am I going to agree that Hurrem or the Barbarosa brothers were born Turkish without evidence and references from universities or something academic. Full stop! Tombseye 21:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You already dont have evidences especially about BARBAROS...

II.Mehmet is serbian,Süleyman was greek,Mehmet Ali was albanian,Atatürk was jewish,Mevlana was afghan...Your aim is very avaible.Well then,i am really sure about something...

Tombseye,have you gone to church today?

I presented evidence from a professor at a university. So far you haven't shown anything other than opinion. Okay, see a book called The Sultan's Admiral: the Life of Barbarossa which discusses his life. I'm not saying Mehmet, Suleyman, or Ataturk were not Turks, but I am saying that Mehmet Ali was Albanian and Mevlana was Afghan yes. These people were born with different mother tongues and outside of Turkey and remember that Ottoman used to mean anyone from the empire so perhaps you'd like to convince the Serbs that they can be considered Turks then? I'm an atheist so church doesn't usually fall into my list of extracurricular activities. Are you trying to conduct some sort of personal attack just because you can't prove anything other than by making assertations? I haven't gotten personal with you so I'd appreciate it if you'd just discuss whatever references you have and stop acting like I'm trying to denegrate the Turks which I am not. Like I said, we should get an administrator to deal with this then and see who is being biased here. Tombseye 22:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh and have the decency to sign your username so that there's accountability here. Tombseye 22:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hımmmm. Talks turn on Barbarossa. Actually, the history is full of Barbarosas. The word of Barbarosa is an Italian word which means ' red beard '. He was a pirate at once, some says that he was a Cizvit, some says he was an Algerian. Soryy, I am about to forget his real name, Hayrettin.

Tombseye, on your side, all Turkish heros are converts, devsirme. puhahahahahha. As all the other propagandas againist Turkish culture possess this idea.

There are enourmous numbers of books which are ill of Turkish culture. I was an exchange student in POrtugal, at those days I had a change to read some of them. the funniest of them was about the Inquisition. 'Yavuz took all the jews to Anatolia, because he wanted more slaves 'ahhhhhhhhhhh fucking liesssssssss.

Consequently, personally I believe that the West never accepts the fact which come from the East. For instance in your case, if a Canadian proffesor says that Ottoman Empire came from another universe, they had a link with whom built the Pyramids, and they were all E.Ts, I am sure about that you and your friends will accept it without thinking.

The authority of Turkish history is Turkic History and Language Association based in Turkey, in Ankara. Turkish government spends much of its budget for their research. I think you should read it sometimes.. Ohhhhh yeahhhhh, I am about to forget it again, THEY AREN'T CANADIAN :))

--hybrid lily 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but authority really does vary and no one organization can claim ultimate authority, although I do like the link you provided as it in turn archives many links to academic journals and books regarding the Turks of Turkey. Good stuff. I don't believe Jews went to Turkey as slaves and I do agree that people have many false notions about the Turks. I'm not supporting anything about heroes or villains here. I'm just saying that within the Ottoman Empire there were various other peoples. My main criteria here is that if you're born with Turkish as your mother tongue, then we'll include that person as a Turk as most reference books do. We can't include Bosniaks as Turks for this reason even though some Bosniaks became Jannisaries. I'm the one who wrote about the diversity of Turkey in this article and how their origins are varied, but more closely linked to the Balkans and the Caucasus than anywhere else. Overall, I wanted to convey that point, but not include everyone who ever went to or lived in Turkey as a Turk. I'm only following what other reference books and general academic practice denote. Ethnic groups are tricky and opinions vary, but the examples of Roxelana, Rumi, and the Barbarosa brothers are documented and their lives discussed by academics of many countries including Turks. There are many Turkish professors in the US and Europe who also discuss the history and particular points. I'm not trying to be unfair about the Turks at all, but I do believe that we have to set some sort of criteria or just remove these articles on various peoples. My Canadian example was the first in a long list of pages that can be googled. Tombseye 23:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My resources are in Turkish.If you speak Turkis,sure! I am an atheist as well and i have just tried to understand something about what i heard.Both of you(tombseye and khoikhoi) always try to change things about Turkey and Turks to negative ways by a big passion.Most of the information about us is wrong in here...

-Inanna- the Goddess of Uruk city,lady of heaven...

There are a lot books written by Turks in English too and journal articles as well so I don't see how that makes a difference at all. What have Khoikhoi and I done to present the Turks in a negative light exactly? We're trying to keep a neat article and keep a 4 people picture spread like all the other peoples articles (see English people or Persian people for examples) and include a wide range of people and not just those some users may prefer, but well known figures worldwide. What information in the article is wrong exactly? Obviously, you have problems with the picture, which I really don't understand as the picture is quite good and inclusive, but I want to know specifically what is wrong with the article which we wrote to be as neutral as possible with numerous references? Tombseye 23:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean not only this article.About Turks in Kosova,so-called armenian genocide,battle of gallipoli...Most of them were written by far away from neutrality...

-Inanna- the Goddess of Uruk city,lady of heaven...

I didn't edit those articles and belittling the Armenians killed doesn't sound very neutral either. Whether you call it a genocide or not inserting 'so-called' makes a mockery of the people killed. It's like saying the so-called deaths of Turks during World War I. If you don't agree that it was a genocide that's fine, but you need to present evidence that supports your claim that it was not systematic and that Armenian people weren't deliberately targeted and killed. Otherwise, no one will believe you. Tombseye 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your all answers about armenian issue are there...

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr

-Inanna- the Goddess of Uruk city,lady of heaven...

That page doesn't seem to be opening. I'm already aware of the Turkish position that Armenians were not targeted and that many people from all sides were killed during World War I. I get the feeling that the problem you guys have with Orhan is not that he's not a good 'representative' of Turkey, but that he's critical of the view that Turkey has continued to argue that there was no Armenian genocide. Okay, here's the thing, in my country for many years the government said that Native Americans were not killed systematically and that they voluntarily moved etc. these were lies that our govt. told us. They lied recently about the reasons for the Iraq War and they've lied throughout history as with the USS Maine to start the war with Spain. Andrew Jackson for example appears to have supported the murder of Native Americans to push them out. He's on the 20 dollar bill so some consider him a 'hero' of sorts. The point is that countries do a lot of horrible things. The US govt. committed genocide against Filopinos during and after the Spanish-American War and killed untold thousands of civilians. Most people prefer not to think or talk about it, but some us do want it out in the open. Before you accuse me of being biased you need to understand that I'm skeptical of a lot things that governments claim. Now the Turkish govt. claimed back when the Armenians died or were killed that there was no genocide or systemtic killing. Maybe that's true, but did you ever stop to think that maybe your govt. lied to the Turkish masses back then and has continued to maintain that line ever since? I mean we know the US govt. has lied countless times and lots of Americans believed them and still do. Now we know that some Armenians rebelled and aligned themselves with the Russians during this time-period. You don't think it's possible that Turkish forces at the time may have decided that it would be okay to kill the Armenians in revenge? It wouldn't be the first a people were targeted for the acts of the few. The Israelis blame the Palestinians for the acts of the few all the time. The US govt. blamed Cochise for what other Apache did and killed his relatives. I think you need to keep an open mind and entertain the possibility that your government has lied to you in order to cover its own acts. It doesn't make the Turkish people as a whole responsible. Nor does it make Turks 'evil' or bad people, but simply dismissing the possibility sounds like nationalism to me. There are no perfect countries in the world. Anyone pretending that their countries have never done anything that was violent or highly questionable is really kidding themselves. Tombseye 07:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, hey ... Take it easy ! The Claims of Genocide is another conflict that has no link with this talk. Please talk it another time. But Tombseye, numbers of historians claim that there is no Genocide, not Turkish government.

Secondly, Barbaros Hayrettin is a different than you think. His real name was ' Hızır '. He captured by ' Temple Knights ' and taken to Malta. Somehow he achieved to escape from Malta and decided to be a pirate as his big brother, ' Oruç Reis'. His another brothers name was ' Ishak Bey '. Barborassa was a given name for only ' Hızır Reis '. Besides, he changed his name as ' Hayrettin. '. At his time, he was a bloody pirate, he never forgive any ship in Mediterranean Sea. Turkish Pirates. He was a Turk.

Thirdly, in Ottaman Empire, the language wasn't Turkish. The language was a meltin pot which contains Persian, Arrabic and Turkish. All states was used to speak Ottaman Languages. This point makes your opinion about who speaks Turkish is accepted as a Turk. Turkish was found by Turkic History] after Mustafa Kemal's order. Now, it has a Latin alphabet. I am sure of that you will still claim that Mustafa Kemal wasn't a Turk, he just spoke Turkish. Please read sometimes. However, in some part I totally agree with you. The main idea of Ottaman Empire didn't serve for Turks, it served to Islam. Thats why, it was multinational.

If we can come back to our conflict which is about your persisting for Orhan Pamuk and Turkish DNA map, I followed the link which has a reseacrh about DNA works of an Italian University. In this work, the secientist never compares Armenian DNA and Anatolian Turks's DNA. Additionally, at the page of result, he/she draw his/her conclusion as The work satisfactorily proves that Anatolian Turks immigrated from Central Asia He/she doesn't say that They are convert of Armenian or Kurds. So, PLEASE CHANGE IT WITH FACTS...

In my opinion, both of you (Tombseye and Kho.. whatever) are working on Turkish History to present it as Mogoloid Islamis Terrorist, please look history of the article. I don't accuse you as you made it. But I hate the statement. That's why, I have written it.

Tombseye has many conflict not only in this article, but also with all articles which relate with Turkish History. You are changing the facts according to your facts. YOU ARE ALWAYS PERSISTING FOR YOUR FACTS. I will never allow you to change my thousand years old history.

Tombseye mentioned about a conference. I attanded a conference about Islam, in Portugal. They were discussing ' The Challange of Islam '. In this conference, there wasn't a single Muslim. They wrote a script and played it by themselves. I just watched them with a smile on my face.

No genocide? So all those thousands of people who disappeared and were reported killed went where? You're just being a nationalist and I doubt you can criticize your govt. over anything let alone it's desire to ignore history.

You're not talking about the Barbarosa brothers early life and just moving right into their adult years. Come on.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding language usage. Nor have I contested Ataturk being a Turk and yet you keep bringing it up. Look, the people in the Ottoman Empire still included Turks, Serbs, Arabs, Albanians etc. These people had nationalities as they do today. Simply lumping them all together for the purposes of claiming prominent historical figures is absurd. Is this what they're teaching you in history? That everyone who lived in the Ottoman Empire and was a Muslim was a Turk? Sure looks that way.

Lol, you didn't understand the study then. It denotes that the Turks are genetically between, to varying degrees European populations and Central Asian Turks (similar results were found with the Azeris). It doesn't say that they are largely or even entirely of Central Asian origin. When they say Europeans who do you think they mean exactly? There are other studies as well that do compare Mediterranean populations in general: http://phoenicia.org/genetics.html. The clustering seems to indicate that the Turks are indigenous to the area moreso than to Central Asia. Who do you think lived in Anatolia exactly when the Turkic tribes arrived? And I wrote the general position at the beginning as to whether or not Turks genetically cluster with Greeks and Armenians, their immediate neighbors, but did not claim that they clustered with Armenians exclusively. There is nothing wrong with how its written. Other studies also show some Turkish-Armenian relationships such as common genetic diseases as well: http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/39/1/67

And we all know that many Armenians converted to Islam so I'm not really sure where I was wrong here. The genetic testing done in the Caucasus showed a relationship between the Azeris and Armenians as well. You really think there was no interaction in-spite of being neighbors? I'm not saying Turks are entirely or even mostly Armenian. But there is a relationship. Inevitably every country has ties to all of its neighbors.

You must have read a different article. We wrote a neutral assessment of the Turks and their varied origins. We didn't write anything negative that I can discern and your complaints are so vague and bizarre that frankly I have no idea what your problem is other than wanting to promote a Turkish nationalist view of everything. Yeah, big surprise I edit a lot of articles and a lot of people think like you do. They want their groups to be depicted in the most positive light possible. Nationalists want their population statistics to be higher. They want to claim everyone possible as one of their own. They want to promote some idea of a contiguous history that stretches as far back as possible and they want to blame everyone else around them for any problems. None of that is done in this article. The Turkic tribes arrived to a region that was largely Greek, Armenian and Kurdish. In fact, there isn't even a promotion of forced conversion as evidence indicates that most people were voluntary converts for a variety of reasons, especially due to sufi involvement.

Your last tirade doesn't make any sense. I'm asking for evidence and you keep clinging to 'your' thousand year old history. It's not yours to claim. You live in the present and I've been never been a big fan of ancestor worship frankly. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and that's all we can deal with here are facts. Neither Khoikhoi nor I have called anyone Islamic terrorists either. Tombseye 17:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

1)Let's continue armenian issue in my talk page.It's place is not here...

2)Degenrate our historical characters are division plans of EU and USA about Turkey...

-Inanna- the Goddess of Uruk city,lady of heaven...

Let's cool down, eh?

Well, frankly I think that a good starting point towards resolution here is to try not to assume conspiratorial ill will. I started this article because I had noticed that the understanding of who is a "Turk" had some residual meanings inherited from the legal codes of the old Ottoman Millet system. Those laws gave limited internal autonomy to confessional groups, irrespective of ethnicity or geographic distribution. And so, as a consequence what is commonly understood by "ethnic group" in a modern scientific ethnological sense differs quite a bit from the view inherent in the constitution of the nascent Republic of Turkey, resulting in the acknowledgement of only three or four non-Muslim groups within the Turkish society. There were "Turks" in the west who might informally be labelled "Balkan Turks" and "Aegean Turks" whose family origins where in Romani, Bulgarian, Western Armenian, Bosnian, Greek, Spanyol, Albanian or Italian-speaking circles and who probably spoke Turkish (or its predecessor) only as a second language. In the east, there were the "Mountain Turks" whose families spoke Laz, Eastern Greek, Georgian, Armenian, Kurmanji or Levantine Arabic. My point and opinion is that language shift and religious conversion were important factors in the shaping of the modern Turkish identity, and also that ethnic identity is based on group inclusion as well as mainstream exclusion. Cheers & semi seviyorum! =] //Big Adamsky 20:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody denied it.However,Turkey's public administration and administrative law is same with French; a citizenship policy with ideally no ethnic consideration.We were so toleranced to everybody in all history.However,there is no nation in the world who is pure.Besides,if you would like to make a ethnic division in Turkey,let's start from USA at first.So Washington was not American,Lincoln was not American,Bush is not american...right?

-Inanna- the Goddess of Uruk city,lady of heaven...

But this article is explicitly not about citizenship. For the dynamics of the concept of ethnicity in the United States, see ethnic origin, one drop rule and melting pot. See also Talk:Georgian people, Talk:Azerbaijani people or Talk:Tajiks for related discussions. :~] //Big Adamsky 21:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop reverting the page to one that throws in non-Turks. You're misleading people and excluding someone you personally don't like for being critical of the status-quo. American is not an ethnicity. And you're not even trying to read what Adamsky is talking about. You don't become a Turk just by walking into Anatolia. That's ridiculous. If there are no ethnic considerations, then I guess there are no Turks at all then. You can't have it both ways. This article reflects what encyclopedias denote and what most academics agree upon and common usage. Including Roxelana (who was CAPTURED by Crimean Tatars and sold as a slave), the Barbarosa brothers, and Rumi as an ethnic Turks is just plain inaccurate because it assumes, as Adamsky explained, that they were ethnic Turks because they were Ottoman citizens rather than explaining their background. Tombseye 21:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What can i say if you are man of armenian and greek lobby?

-Inanna- the Goddess of Uruk city,lady of heaven...

Inanna, please assume good faith or else take a vacation from this page. Come back when you have cooled down and feel ready to contribute constructively so we can work toward a consensus, inch by inch. //Big Adamsky 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I am so cooled down honey.You should say that to tombseye and kokikoki.They become as furious as a bull which saw red when they heard the "Turk" word...

-Inanna- the Goddess of Uruk city,lady of heaven...

Why do all you love Othan Pamuk so much? Answer is too easy.Because he is making Anti-Turkish propaganda so that hold a noble prize. The target is encourage more people to be like him.Right?

-Inanna- the Goddess of Uruk city,lady of heaven...

What a Mess! Perfect candidate for a Speedy deletion

I have three quotes here from the article, which is choke full similar nonsensical stuff.

“While perhaps less than one-third of those who self-identify as ethnic Turks in Turkey today are predominantly of Altaic origin”

“Ultimately, it is absurd to speak of any ‘Turkish race’ in the tangled ethnic web of Anatolia.”

“As a matter of fact, most present-day Turks are the offspring of all sorts of populations whose original languages have sometimes been extinct several centuries ago.”

What is being Altaic origin? Do you mean ancestors of the rest did not speak an Altaic language? Since this seems to be the main message of the article I assume this is what is meant with this sentence. The crux of the matter is that if the author(s) think(s) that these people were not “Turkish people” then they certainly do not belong to this article, the article is about “Turkish people” remember? Start an article called “Asia Minor” and write all you know about it (Just out of curiosity why were Pelasgians excluded from this article?)

So what “race” makes the ultimate sense in a phrase like “X race”? Aryan Race? Any choice would sound equally absurd to me. There seems to be hidden message along the lines that people of Turkey is not a homogeneous society unlike that of Japan or something. Even if this was the fact, this does not seem to be big deal since only a few nations are homogeneous societies and it is considered an anomaly to be so (an island nation etc.)

“Turks are the offspring of all sorts of populations” as opposed to what? Being a thoroughbred like a racehorse?

There are articles about Turkey and Turkic peoples there seems to be no need for this article and IMHO there seems to be no salvageable info in this one. I make a move for speedy deletion of this article. AverageTurkishJoe

The Turks of Turkey are being defined the best way possible. I'm not in favor of a speedy or long deletion. Nor are we making a stance on race so much as background. The Altaic peoples originated in the steppes of eastern Eurasia near Mongolia. The modern Turks of Turkey do not bear any genetic relationship to them, thus showing us an example of language transference. Japan's not a homogenous country either. that's not the point of this article. It's to discuss the Turkish speaking population of Turkey and dispel some incorrect rumors about them and clarify their origins and history. If you want to remove this article, better do that for all the ethnic group articles too because we can make the same argument for all of them. Tombseye 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I see this article is largely copied and pasted from Demographics of Turkey which has the same hodge-podge style. The article starts with a premise of answering the question of what is "Turkish ethnicity" and "and how much of a relationship "Turks of Turkey" have with other Turkic peoples". And the article ends with the conclusion that "very little". Gold standard of Turkish Ethnicity is assumed to be the Central Asian Turkic groups and the adopted method of measuring the relatedness is the DNA analysis. If this "debate" is taken away from this article, the rest could easily merge with the Demographics of Turkey (Since it is mostly copy paste from that article, large portions will be deleted during this merge.) In the referenced article 'DNA Diversity and Population Admixture in Anatolia', Giulietta Di Benedetto et. al. find 30% gene flow (in both males and females) from Central Asia. In that article this is given as "a substantial" gene flow as opposed to "elite domination" (therefore language replacement by elite domination). In this article this translates to "perhaps less than one-third of those who self-identify as ethnic Turks in Turkey today". I wonder if the observation of 30% being less than 1/3 is the origin of the phrase "perhaps less than one-third" in the article. Isn't this a blatant POV? While Giulietta Di Benedetto et. al. are speculating about a continuous gene flow of 1% for 40 generations to find a solution in their article to the question why this gene flow is very high and howcome people of Turkey started speaking Turkish so fast an so completely and why there is no genetic boundary between the Turks and the Europeans (as opposed to the one they found between the Turks and the Arabs), in this article it is given as a historical fact with no corroboration with the historical records. The other DNA related article in the reference section is about the relatedness of population of Modern turkey to other populations in terms of mitochondrial dna (tracing the female ancestry) and it finds that the British are much closer to Turks than Greeks, a result which is conveniently ignored in this article. I suspect it is because It would sound very weird to say "Turks are an amalgam of the British, Greeks, etc".

It is not about "defining the Turks of Turkey in the best way possible way" it is about *not* making stuff up. AverageTurkishJoe 08:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, part of it was taken off of Demographics of Turkey, but not largely as this new version expands upon some issues brought up considerably and adds population figures. If that's a problem I can edit it further, but you're the first to complain about it. Your questions regarding genetic testing entail Central Asian Turkic geneflow stemming from the Y-chromosome as mostly males came from that region, while the vast majority of females were not of Central Asian origin and thus the similarity with British and other European populations who may simply be more native to Europe than previously believed. In fact, British similarity with other populations stems from the Y-chromosome that links them to Germans and Scandanavians. There are no surprises here and the estimates are just that estimates. No one is saying this is concrete and unalterable. As for the historical record, there were no censuses taken in the 11th century. Look, Turkey may have received upwards of 30% geneflow from Central Asia, but this just means that people have SOME Central Asian ancestry within this grouping at varying degrees. That's how you read the data. If how I wrote it is not clear, then say so. Also, if some of the information is repetitive or could be better explained or appears contradictory, then that too can be worked on. I fail to see how deletion will solve anything. What's more genetic testing as used to explain historical events is becoming quite common. For example, the majority of Uzbeks show a relationship with Genghis Khan and the Mongols whereas the Azeris don't. Also, Rumi and other sufis are known to have proselytized amongst the Greeks and Armenians in Anatolia and converted many. Population replacement requires wholesale slaughter such as that which took place in Central Asia where there was population replacement. There is no historical evidence that the people of the Caucasus (in Azerbaijan) or in Anatolia who were around before the Turkic tribes arrived were killed. This would mean that they survived and were probably the majority as they were slowly assimilated. Genetic testing isn't an exact science, but most of the tests show that the Turks cluster with other Mediterranean peoples moreso than with Central Asian Turks, although of these groups, the Turkmen are the closest. At any rate, I believe this article can changed through constructive criticism and have no problem with changes that could be made as a result. Tombseye 23:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion notice removed

I added a speedy deletion notice to this article ( { Db-nonsense } ) it was removed by User:Longhair. I am not going to add another one lest I might anger the administrators. So If you guys agree with me that this article needs to be deleted give a holler on this page. AverageTurkishJoe

Tombseye, you can't use the research as a clear proof to say that Anatolian Turks were convert. As you said they just compared all kind of DNA's and eventually they found that they aren't convert. Besides, my answer for your missing thousands is WAR. I totally agree with one who said that there is no pure blood nation. But, people should have respect for them, I don't understand your attitude towards Turkish history. Misplaced Pages is not a place for you to practice your HEGEMONY. Perhaps you know something about Turkish history. However your attitude damage Turkish History. As a historian, I can absolutely say that you are just a fanatic student. You should make a deep research on Turkish history. There were no Barbarossa brother. It was given to only one person whose name was Hızır Reis. In your point of view, all Ottamans were coverts. It is an absolute lie.

There is a biography of Barbarossa Hayreddin written by Seyyid Muradi. The name of book is Gazavât-ı Hayreddin Paşa. The book was written by the order of Barbaross Hayraddin himself. Because, he thought that there would be many questions about his life. Most of the historian accept this book as an authority of his life, BUT YOU AND YOUR UNIVERSTIES.

The other boy, only think that this discussion is only a competition. Well, I haven't seen any single word from him/her at this talk. He/she just try to change the article. Please a little bit respect. I want to see an administrator who can stop him.

--hybrid lily 10:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Because you're full of shit. --Khoikhoi 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, first of all, calling me a fanatic student is really doesn't help your argument. If you want to debate as an adult, start typing like one. Second, I'm not practicing any hegemony at all. I'm open to suggestions and changes as long as you explain them. My attitude towards Turkish history is the same as with all the others. Just the facts please and a preponderance of evidence. So you're contending that the Greeks and Armenians were killed by invading hordes from Central Asia then? Aside from cultural differences, and I've visited Turkey, why Central Asian Turks look so different from Anatolian Turks in general? Population replacement usually requires the type of massacres that took place under Genghis Khan or hell Stalin (although no one replaced the dead Soviets). What your suggesting though is a possibility, but one that is contrary to most historians, including Turkish historians, who believe that most Turks were culturally assimilated by invading Turkic tribes who, by the time they reached Anatolia, were quite varied themselves. I'm only relating what encyclopedias (Brittanica, Americana) relate about the Barbarosa brothers. Sorry if I don't your word for it that there were no brothers. He's reported to have been of Greek descent, although there is speculation that his father had converted to Islam (from his original Greek Orthodox religion). At any rate, the administrators aren't going to just stop someone. They require reason and a valid argument. So far you're not offering any compromises either. Tombseye 23:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It was only Armenians above, you added Greeks. What's next ? Kurds. Please stop!

If we are talking about Anatolian Turks, we should consider Oghuz Turks as their grandfathers. The first immigration of Oghuz was led by Alparslan, after Battle of Malazgirit. It has passed thousand of years after the battle. Oghuz adopted themselves to Anatolia. The reason of the differences between appearance of Central Asians and Anatolians is probably as above. You can't say that there is a keen differences, so it proves my suggestion that they were all convert of Armenians.

Secondly, I must tell you that Anatolians Turks also seems like Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian people. So you should add those nations to your list. :)

For Barbarossa, if he had a biography, I don't care what Brittanica says. Please take a close look to his biography. He doesn't describe himself as a convert of Greek Orthadox. As you said they are all speculations.

Khoi.. 's attittude toward this talk can be a good reason for an administrator to stop him. He has no idea what we are talking about.

--hybrid lily 08:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually do, but I see know reason why you think it's right to bring your Pan-Turkish ideas to a neutral encyclopedia. Please read over WP:NPOV about 3 times and come back here. --Khoikhoi 08:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The reference with Greeks and Armenians and Kurds is about the Byzantine period and then the transitional period as the Ottoman state expanded in Anatolia. During this period, untold thousands if not millions of native Anatolians were converted to Islam and adopted Turkish as their language. By our modern period these people are 'Turks' of Turkey. That's what this reference is about. It is NOT about the modern issues dealing with Turks and Greeks, Armenians, and Kurds. I agree that the Oghuz are important to consider here as their language is the main influence upon modern Turkish, while saying Turkic refers to minor Turkic tribes usually. I'm not saying the Turks of Turkey are only of Armenian extraction, but that's one part though. Genetically and physically the Turks of Turkey are more like Mediterrean peoples rather than the Central Asian Turks who show clear Mongol traces. It's not my opinion, but that of most academics. I'm not doing original research here, but relating what's been written. I do contend that most Turks of Turkey are derived from cultural assimilation of previously Byzantine Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, and others. The Greek-speakers of Anatolia, in turn had pre-Greek ancestry derived from Hittites, Galatians etc. who mixed with Greek Ionian settlers along the western coast of Turkey. This is all found in the historical record and is supported by the genetic evidence too. I don't think I'm making any huge leaps of logic here. When Turks are defined as Mediterranean it includes their similarity with Italians and Spaniards and other groups of the region. The references to Barbarosa rely upon autobiographical info. as well and this since this is not a place for original research I am merely writing what is found in encyclopedias. If I'm wrong, I'll freely admit it. The Barbarosa brothers' father is related as a Greek from the island of Lesbos where the brothers were born. Not my words, but that of encyclopedias. Khoikhoi's frustrated because it seems that some of you guys are viewing this page as a nationalistic front. We have NOT written anything negative about the Turkish people. Read the article. It talks about common human experiences as people change in various ways through history and actually explains how interesting the diversity of modern Turks is. Orhan's inclusion is not based upon his views on Armenians, but regarding his worldwide fame from his award winning work. Tombseye 18:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixing wrongs by talking is not Pan.... Perhaps we have some conflicts, but I have respect for Tombseye. However, you are acting as a stupid kid. If you have idea what we are talking, why didn't you write your opinion ?

Well, good because I have no respect for you, and based on how you act, makes me want to hate all Turks in general. --Khoikhoi 15:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You already do,dont you?

-Inanna-

Tombseye:

"Indigenous people of Anatolia includes Greeks, Armenians and Kurds. Not at all inconsistent."

All the greeks were sent to greece in 1923 by population exchange.Most armenians have already left Turkey.You can see them in california,france,...etc.Kurds are already screaming everywhere that they are kurds under seperatist propagandas of somebody(!)...I hope these are enough for you(I never suppose but anyway...)

-Inanna-

Actually, the reference is regarding BEFORE the Turkic invasion by Alp Arslan. By 1923 it had been centuries since most of the Greeks, Armenians, and Kurds had adopted a Turkish identity through cultural assimilation. You're not understanding what I'm saying here. This is not a reference to modern times or context. Listen to me for a second. I'm talking about the people of Anatolia who lived during the Byzantine and then Ottoman periods who were over the centuries converted to Islam and adopted Turkish as their language. That's what that reference is talking about. Do you understand? Tombseye 18:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has converted to something.If we really did that,there would be no christians or jews in balkans,anatolia and caucassia.No nations are pure.You are showing alexander and aristotele as greeks.Greeks try to show themselves same with ancient greeks but they are not.Ancient greeks were compeletly deleted on earth by roman invasion.They dont speak ancient greek.Russians gave them so-called "greek" name to be able to divide ottoman empire.Modern greeks are actually albanians,slavs,turks,ulahs,gyspies...etc.Kurds are already not a pure nation.First kurdish tribes were Turks.But they have mixed with persians(indo).Armenians are already degenerate people.Nobody knows what they are.So you cant talk about a pure nation...

-Inanna-

You seem quite certain that there was no conversion, but let's look at the facts. What were the sufis doing in Turkey then? Their attempts to convert the local Greek-speaking people are documented. Also, you're not understanding the context here. You keep thinking in terms of modern people and the political issues with Greeks and Armenians, Kurds etc. I'm talking about MILLIONS of people in the Byzantine Emipre and only thousands of Turkic warriors. How do explain a population replacement like that? Obviously people were converted to Islam and adopted Turkish over the CENTURIES slowly. We're starting this discussion from the Byzantine period to the present. The origins of the Greeks can be understood at the Greek people page. Here the point is that the people who lived in Anatolia when the Turkic tribes arrived spoke Greek, Armenian, and Kurdish. Do you agree that that was the case as this is also historical record? Next, the Turks over a period of centuries converted people to Islam and most of these people began to speak Turkish. this same thing happened in Moorish Spain where local Iberian Muslims outnumbered the Arab-Berbers over the centuries. Most Egyptians are not Arabs from Arabia either. It's a cultural assimilation and adoption process. Think about it for a second and read the historical events and you may start to understand what we're talking about here. Tombseye 19:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh and namecalling directed at the Armenians is a really not called for. Kindly keep such comments to yourself. Tombseye 19:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I will reply this later.Did you look at my discussion page? There is something for you...

-Inanna-

How about some research

How about some research on the history of the Turkish conquest rather than endless revert wars. Fred Bauder 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What is your point ?--hybrid lily 08:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"::Well, good because I have no respect for you, and based on how you act, makes me want to hate all Turks in general. --Khoikhoi 15:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)"

After that speech and reading most articles here,no doubt about Anti-Turkist and seperatist propagandas is made here.

Why Orhan Pamuk's picture is wanted to shown so much?

Answer: Because Orhan Pamuk is lying about his nation to be able to win noble prize.He is not a famous writer.This anti-Turkist admins want to show him becase the main aim is encourage more people to be like him by media.Although Nazim Hikmet is too much more famous than Orhan Pamuk,he is definitely not shown.Because he was a nationalist,realist and against imperialism.

Although we are showing resources,Turkish population try to shown less.Turks are try to explained "Turkified greeks,armenians,kurds...etc." to be able to destroy the "Turkish National Consciousness".

Kurds are try to shown 3 times higher in Turkey to be able to encourage Kurds agaisnt division of Turkey.

I can count a lot of intrugues of USA on Turkey...However,our subject is about media and that discussion has not over yet...

-Inanna-

Inanna, here's the thing. You perhaps don't understand what we're doing and maybe it's partially because English is not your first language. Pamuk's well known world-wide including the US because of his literary work. He's also grabbed headlines for his trial, although we are wondering what kind of freedom of speech you have in Turkey when you can't even have different opinions? How do you know he's lying? Were you alive in 1915? None of us know for sure what happened. Orhan's a Turk himself and frankly being a nationalist and a realist sounds contradictory as does your notion of imperialism.

I thought your national consciousness was more robust. You all speak the same language and have the same culture basically. How's learning about the origins of the Turks change that? You seem very insecure if you actually think we in the US care about that.

As for the Kurdish question, some of us believe in self-determination of peoples IF that's what they want. For example, Puerto Rico is a US commonwealth which voted on whether to leave the US, stay a commonwealth, or become a US state. They chose commonwealth. Most of us in the US would not fight to keep people in the country. It's supposed to be voluntary. We're not trying to separate the Kurds as you guys have done a good job of that already. I think you're being paranoid if you actually think this is about some sort of intrigues. Like I said, it seems we have a language barrier here as you're not comprehending what is being conveyed and misinterpreting things. Tombseye 21:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are Turks ?

Hi !

I was reading the article. I am confused of who the Turks are. Author said that Aremians, Greeks, and Kurds live in Turkey. Hımmm, If there would be no Turks living in Turkey, why would we call Turkey for the country ? Should we call something else for it ?

No, the article states that before Turkic tribes arrived there were Greeks, Armenians, and Kurds in Anatolia. This is historically accurate. Genetic tests have shown that most Turks are related to the people around them and the PRELIMINARY conclusion would be that most Turks are descendents of converts to Islam who adopted the Turkish language from a group that was quite mixed when it arrived anyway. This does not mean there are no Turks. Turks are a people today and well defined. This is only an explanation of their ancestry as a whole. Hope this helps to clarify things. Tombseye 18:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Turkish Prejudice

I am afraid this article serves as a platform for the bigots to bolster their hate mongering against the Turks. I would like to give the author the benefit of the doubt that this was not his intention but he cannot escape the blame for this shoddy article where the references do not support the claims made therein which renders the article a pure speculation and not fit for an encyclopedia. The article itself claims that it is a "debate" and therefore not an encyclopedic item.

Defining the Turkish ethnicity as a mixture of Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, etc. ethnicities begs the question whether these ethnicities are distinct and pure. For example Herodotus thinks that Hellenes are the descendants of Pelasgians a Pre-Indo European people Pelasgians which separated from the main body and increased to a multitude of nations by the voluntary entrance into its ranks of numerous tribes of barbarians.) It is known that the first indo-european elements in Asia Minor dates back to1900-1700 BC in the western Asia Minor and 1300-700BC in the east. Before that aboriginal peoples of Asia Minor spoke a non IE language. Michael E. Weale · Levon Yepiskoposyan et al. In their article named "Armenian Y chromosome haplotypes reveal strong regional structure within a single ethno-national group" find that not only different Armenian populations are different from each other but also there is a high degree of gene import into the Armenian populations. (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Weale-HG-01-Armenia.pdf) The Misplaced Pages article Genetic insights into the background of the Kurds describes the genetic contribution of different peoples in the Kurdish populations.

What makes the Turkish case in the authors view different is that supposedly there was no Turkish element in Asia Minor prior to 1071 and the Central Asian Turkic groups could be used as a test group to prove the non-Turkishness of the Turkey's population. Since it is not possible to find pure Greek, Armenian and Kurdish test groups to test the Turkey's populations against, the main premise of the article is un-testable and unscientific.

This kind of fallacy is called “non-sequitur” that is conclusion does not follow the argument. (That is according to your argument Turks might as well be the descendants of Zulus and not Greeks as claimed; you need to test your argument not some other argument.) Besides Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be the place for sophomoric debates. I repeat my request for speedy deletion of this article. AverageTurkishJoe 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no intent to promote hate mongering against the Turks. What genetic testing HAS found is that most people cluster with their neighbors. That's all this is. We know from the historical record that Anatolia was inhabited by Greeks, Armenians, and Kurds when Turkic tribes arrived. The contention is that the majority of Turks are descendents of converts to Islam who adopted the Turkish language and in addition groups from the Balkans, Russia, Arab countries, and Jews also arrived, most of whom adopted a Turkish identity over time as they mostly intermarried with locals. This is just a historical overview. In turn, one can read about the background of the various peoples and come to the realization that they are varied too. The point though is that language-wise and culturally there were people in Anatolia and a cultural shift took place. Yes, I'm the one who added the article on the Kurdish genetic background. We can actually remove the genetic question and even focus on the linguistic one, but the point is that there is strong evidence that the Turks of Turkey are not, for the most part, descendents of Central Asian Turks. I don't see what is wrong with pointing that out for people who otherwise think the Turks are all invaders when in fact most are native to Anatolia and simply changed their language and religion (as no doubt their forebears did when Greek colonists took-over and Armenians moved into the east and Kurds lived in the southeast etc. I don't agree that deletion is the answer. We can do a re-write and explain things better. What I've just explained is NOT a non sequitur as the historical background and genetic testing show that most Turks are native to Anatolia. There are no records of massive genocide by invading Turks and there are records of conversions that took place thanks in part to the efforts of the sufis. Couple this with the majority of Turkish genes that do not cluster with Central Asian Turks and you have solid evidence. Tombseye 19:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"Turkish people" as an article title is a rather ambitious and misleading if the intention to express continuity of the gene pool of autochthonous populations in Asia Minor. Especially when the Turks article redirects to this (Turkish people) article one thinks that there is a special political agenda here. I would expect and article titled "Turkish people" or "Turkish Ethnicity" would concentrate the cultural and linguistic elements of ethnicity (folk music, fables, legends, genesis legends, beliefs, superstitions etc.) While there is a wealth of material to talk about in the subject of "elements of Turkish Ethnicity"; this article seems to be only concerned about a single issue: "people of Asia Minor did not speak Turkish before 1071", a statement of which the burden of proof is strictly on you. We are just going to have live with the fact that there is no genetically distinct IE population and the distribution of the human genes display a continuous variance all the way from Europe to Asia.

Just to destroy a myth please see the Turkish Kipchak soldiers In Western Asia minor in 838 CE in the following links. (http://www.amoriumexcavations.org/siege.jpg , http://www.amoriumexcavations.org/Site.htm)AverageTurkishJoe 17:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently an important part of the Bizantian army was composed of ethnic Turks and they were figting the Muslims Mamluk army which was dominated by Kipchak Turks. Also the Kipchaks were employed as the police force all the from Constantinople to Jarulsalem. No wonder why so called "Turkification" of Asia Minor was so fast and so complete.(Also note that even the name of the "Thema" system is itself a loanword from turkish "Tumen", a military unit of 10,000 soldiers)

The Roman army of this period(800s) was characterised by the numerous mercenaries who served both the Emperor and the several thematic strategoi. The Turkic peoples of the Eurasian steppe, like the Khazars, the Patzinak (Pechenegs) and the Cumans (Kipchak), were included in the army under the status of foederati and employed mainly as mounted archers. Russ (Scandinavians), Slavs, Normans, Italians, Germans and even Arabs and Seljuk Turks, among many others, were employed either singly or in ready-to-hire units.

The Themes system was developed under Constans II and Constantine IV (although some attribute it to Heraclius) in order to face the constant threat of the Muslim Arabs who had taken Syria, Egypt and Mesopotamia in the 7th century. Thus, the first themes appeared in the Eastern provinces, which were both the richest and most emperiled.

The Hetaereia ("Companions") regiments, although including Greeks, were mainly composed of Khazars and Pharganos (from the Fergana Valey, in Central Asia), all of them of Turkic stock, and also Maghlavitae, which were probably Muslims from the Maghrib.

Sources:

• http://www.imperobizantino.it/content/view/168/2/
• Translations and Reprints from Original Sources of European History, Vol. VI:4, Willian Fairley, University of Pennsylvania Press, n.d.
• Comnena, Anna; translated by Dawes, Elizabeth A.. The Alexiad; London: Routledge, Kegan, Paul, 1928
• Dennis, George T. Byzantine Heavy Artillery: The Helepolis; Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 39, pp. 99-115; De Re Militari online, 1998
• Dennis, George T. The Byzantines in Battle; Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 39, pp. 165-178, De Re Militari online, 1998
• Heath, Ian, McBride, Angus (ill.). Byzantine Armies 886-1118; Osprey Publishing (Men-at-Arms 89), 1979
• Nicolle, David, McBride, Angus (ill.). Romano-Byzantine Armies 4th - 9th Centuries; Osprey Publishing (Men-at-Arms 247), 1992
• Nicille, David, McBride, Angus (ill.). Attila and the Nomad Hordes; Osprey Publishing (Elite 30), 1995
• Treadgold, Warren T. Notes on the Numbers and Organizations of the Ninth-Century Byzantine Army; De Re Militari online, 1980

AverageTurkishJoe 19:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have adjusted the terminology to reflect that Anatolians when the Turks arrived were Greek-speaking due to a Hellenization process as well. I think that's a valid point. The overall impact of mercenaries though is misleading as it's difficult to determine how much of an impact thousands of people would have on a population of millions. This same is true with Turkic warriors. Obviously, small groups came, mostly males who married local females, over a period of centuries etc. There are often two histories to understand though. One is about military events, rulers, and other prominent peoples and then there are the masses who aren't written about. Since many believe that Anatolians were only part Greek, while most were Hellenized following Alexander's conquest, it is important to note that this is rarely mentioned as the history of the region is related through the rulers. Thus, my point is that military events do not equal population replacement unless coupled with mass genocide of local populations as took place in Central Asia when the Mongols arrived there. Tombseye 20:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Turks are herdsmen-pastoral warriors which is likely to have Demographic impact unlike the all male soldiers in barracks. Please see the "Yuruks before Seljuks in Asia Minor" section I just added. AverageTurkishJoe 03:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Inanna wrote:

Yes,my english is not well(cause of many reasons as way of thinking and very diffrent language classes).However i can understand what's going on.If you make his advertisement so much,he will become very famous for sure.Although he degraded the Turkish identy,he is still free.Dont talk about freedom of speech if you want.Because i know how these things go in europe and america...

Were you alive in 1915? Anyway,i trust my state's history foundation.We have offered armenia to set up a common commission about this issue.But armenians who were spoiled by someone refused that immediatley.Besides,i use my brain to think what happened.I have posted something for you in my discussion page.You still couldnt reply it...

Armenians are running riot by provacation jewish lobby in USA.Let me tell you an explainition of jews in canada:

"We have provoked armenians in many periods of history, We spread this issue by our strong media in the world, We have trained the young armenians in our camps in palestine by the help of CIA, We named this organisation ASALA and we have sophisticated them about guns and explosives, We sold weapons to this organisation which we produced and earned money, We made problem that to Turkey to divert and keep it our control, ... We have created a vengance sense at all armenians in the world against Turks, We have showed what armenians had done to Turks as Turks have done to armenians and made bleed that bruise again, We recommended armenians to offer lands and indemnity money from Turkey, Our target was not to give lands to armenians, They had already their own state and lands, Even they didnt know how to use their lands, The lands where we offered the name of armenians from Turks,were the lands of great israel state's in future,actually..."

That's the reality.My aim is not making anti-semitism.I am just trying to show the truth.

24 april of each year,Turkey says USA not to recognize the so-called genocide.Then you say that's a work of lobby and offer us to make happy the jewish lobby in USA.By this way they can offer something from Turkey about israel...

Let's come to nations in Turkey.They have always kept their language and religions.We have only assimilated them for military and they died in wars.If we would like to destroy them,we could do this in our best period easily.

Kurdish issue:

Nobody has asked what the americans think about politics of Turkey.You are one of the last state who should talk about this.I mean it doesnt interest you.For puerto rico; what changes if they stay there or not? America(continental) is new world.No history,no spiritual importance,not a home of a nation.Even you are not a nation(racially)...

So why did you found a kurdish government in north iraq and terrorist PKK's flags are everywhere? Answer: USA wants to set up a second israel against Turkey.However we took precautions about this.You are not the only clever in this arena...

All we know USA thinks to occupation of Turkey.You try to collect all neighbours of Turkey(iraq,syria,iran and founding bases in armenia...).After all,we are a nation who is 11,000 years old.We are the only nation who were never ruled by others in all history.We have too much experience.I mean nothing happens to Turkey...

Well i am not paranoid.You government try to make you paranoid against muslims by el-kaide.Do you really believe that 3-5 men in mountains could explode a bomb in the middle of istanbul or new york.Of course not.El-kaide is only a name.I really wonder why all terrorist are from Pakistan.May the reason Pakistan is one of the best allies of USA? So what happened el-kaide? You occupied afghanistan.Couldnt you find usame bin ladin yet? Too strange...

-Inanna-

Inanna, you say your aim is not to make "anti-semitism" but what you wrote here can be interpreted as anti-semitism. Your mention of non existence of "el-keide" damages your credibility a great deal. Let's keep on the topic and stop the "hate talk". AverageTurkishJoe 13:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am saying what i think and this is the discussion page.Everybody should share their opinions and everybody should respect this.It is not "hate talk",it is opinions and reality for me.If i will be banned,doesnt matter.I never impressed myself.Besides,they are doing Anti-Turkish propagandas and force us to accept that.Is this justice then?

-Inanna-

I think it's extremely naive to believe that the Turkish government has never lied or done anything wrong. There are no governments or people on earth who can claim that. I would also add that Armenians tend to overlook the role of Armenian rebels which may have prompted harsh Turkish reprisals though. As for Kurdish separatists, well we can agree to disagree on that one as I still support the self-determination of peoples. You do realize that not all Jews work together or think the same way. A professor at UCLA who happens to be of Jewish religion (by birth anyway) named Stanford Shaw has written a number of books about Turkey and is married to a Turkish woman and I actually knew his daughter at UCLA and he was actually one of the staunch defenders of Turkey against Armenian claims that it was genocide rather than reprisals. Frankly, lumping any group together in terms of how they think does constitute a form of prejudice. All Jews don't even support Israel or US foreign policy (see Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Howard Zinn etc.), so your whole point about some collusion sounds a bit bizarre frankly. Well, if Turkey is a nation that is 11,000 years old then you must support the idea that most Turks are not from Central Asia as well. As for the US wanting to occupy Turkey, I'm really not sure why the US would want to since Turkey does whatever the US govt. asks anyway. The US tends to go for military occupation when its policies are challenged. You're just kind of making things up with that don't you think? You really missed the point I was making. Americans fought a Civil War to keep the country together once. That will not happen again. Most of us don't want to force people to remain a part of our nation. And for the record the former Czechoslovakia broke up and they have quite a bit of culture and common history. The Israeli issue is not really related to the Kurdistan issue. The US backed Israel in part due to the pro-Israel lobby and in part due to Cold War dynamics as well as what some people perceive as US 'interests'. What that has to do with the Kurds I don't quite know. I back the efforts of the Palestinians to have a state and apply the same to any other peoples. Not really sure what you're getting at here. I don't support the war on terror and don't believe all Muslims are the same. You really don't know very much about the US actually. We have a large population that is against the war in Iraq, does not believe everything our government tells us (unlike yourself as it seems that you believe everything your government tells you without question), and the Al Qaeda tangent is strange on your part. Al Qaeda is, supposedly, a loose group of independent cells with some connections that, I admit, the US govt. tries really hard to establish (as they tried with Iraq even though the evidence was really flimsy) ties that don't exist for their own purposes though. And that's a really absurd thing to say that all terrorists come from Pakistan. Perhaps you didn't notice that most of the terrorists from 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and that the bombings in Spain were by North Africans or that the people involved in the London bombings and attempts were Pakistani-British and Somalis. That doesn't sound like they're all coming from Pakistan. You could have made a better case by alluding the US-Saudi alliance, especially in terms of the 9/11 aftermath.

Here's the other difference. I don't relate everything Turkey or the govt. of Turkey has done to all Turks. Meanwhile, you seem to be laboring under the illusion that all Americans are responsible or support what our govt. does and says. You seem okay with criticizing others, but don't seem to take anything criticism back. That how it is then? The Turkish govt. does no wrong and everyone else is out to get them? Sounds pretty paranoid to me. Tombseye 19:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article comes close to saying "Turks are rootless bastards" without actually saying it. Anti-Turkish prejudices go back a millenia it is nothing new. Turks were instrumental in creating the European (Western) identity; Europe created its self identity as the antithesis of the Turks. So I don't think this is a recent secret conspiracy against the Turks. It is pretty much socially accepted and practiced out in the open. Nobody is shunned for saying bad things about the Turks. History books are full of this prejudice. This article is just one of them. AverageTurkishJoe 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The intent is not to say that Turks are rootless anything though. The article makes it a point that the Turks of Turkey are largely a product of cultural assimilation. This can also be applied to Algeria where most Arabs are Berbers who adopted the language and switched their religion from Christianity to Islam. This does not imply anything prejudicial. I do agree that Turks are often demonized unfairly though. And I also agree that the Armenian genocide requires more context in terms of what may have prompted Turkish actions. Also, read Stanford Shaw's work History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey and you'll find that not everyone in the West seeks to depict Turks in only a negative light. Academic views tend to be more nuanced and debate is welcomed, not excluded. Popular opinion though is shaped by political interests though yes. America has a lot of Armenians and Greeks who aren't fond of Turkey and do try to promote an unrealistic portrayal of Turks, but this can only change if everyone tries to better understand matters, both historical and otherwise. Tombseye 19:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course jews will support Turkey.We are training israeli army and pilots under difficult weather conditions.We are one of the first states who recognized israel state.We aren't doing these due to we love jews so much.Let me tell you darling;

Israel is a small state but like an american state.Their enemies arabs are millions of.Israel is in fight with syria(especially),iraq and iran(who are our enemies).Our ones of the worst enemies syria is spending all her money to military against israel and cant develop as economic.Israel spends too much money for arms also.They were sucessful in past against arabs.Because arabs had just saved from colonization and their population was not so much.Now they are 150 millions.Israel will never be able to grow anymore.Let we say if they did that.They can never take over control on arabs.We really support them because until a small american state israel lives,there will never be stableness in middle east and there will be under our control.

Do jews love Turkey?So how will you explain israel is training kurdish terrorist in north iraq? Besides,i have read talmud.I know their (dream)state's boerders and i have information about their tactiques...

Almost all jews in Turkey marry with Turks as well.I can understand their cooperation with Turkey against armenians because armenians hate jews more than everything as greeks.

You cant deny that USA doesnt have eye on Turkey.We have the %70 of bor minerals in the world what is future's energy resource.We live on oil and natural gas ocean as Shell's CEO's said.However,problems never end in the eastern Turkey.At first armenian and now kurdish.Our lovely allies never gave us technology while USSR was helping us.These are not coincidences.Besides,Turkey is based on the world's most important geo-politic area.

Let's come to muslim terrorist issue.When ETA or IRA does terror,you dont call them catholic terror.US try to show muslims as terrorists because after Soviets has demolished,a big threat was ended.USA couldnt find anybody to sell weapons.She needed a new big threat for the world."Muslim"(as you call) were good for this job.I am not saying these dut to most of my people are muslims.I am saying what i see.

Terrorism could never win anything at Turkey in all history.If who(europe,america or anybody) supports terror or train terrorist,she will pay this too difficult.Look at france! They were the center of ASALA terrorists.However,Turkey sent her secret nationalist men to paris and cleaned all these scums.Nobody could understand that it was done by Turkey.France is the biggest supporter of armenians at the moment.Even they declared this year as "armenian year".They will pay what they all did to us.We found the victims of France in history.They have killed about 1,5-2 million arabs in algeria.They already didnt like them.Now,they will hate french people more than everything.There are millions of arabs in france.Only 2-3 blacks ravaged there.We have 400,000 Turks in france.Can you image what will happen when we provoke algerians against france.This will be end of her.Eeehh...they shouldnt have played with Turks.I am sorry but they will burn...

I reccomend you stop keeping PKK terrorists and set up kurdish government in north iraq.We dont have any other 300 billion dollars to spend and loose 70,000 women and children again.We can do everything against that.Our plan is already going very well,actually...

-Inanna-

I really can't comprehend where your going with the Israel thing, but I was trying to relate to you to not link all Jews to Israel and not that I am fond of Israeli policies or actions. Many people argue that rather than Israel being a US 'state' that it is the US that does what Israel wants, but that's not really the point here. As for all the people who hate other people etc., I'm again at a loss as to how to respond to that. I'm going to guess that Armenians don't all think the same either and saying who they all hate and don't hate is a bit of a stretch.

Turkey's the world's most important geopolitical what? Come on. A bit full of ourselves aren't we? There is no single most important area in the world really. It's all a case by case basis. The US looks to safeguard its interests everywhere in the world, including Turkey, but frankly I don't know where that line of thinking is headed either.

They will pay for what they did to you? Scums? They will burn? What are you talking about? Can you try to make sense and discuss the issues of this page. Your other views are frankly strange and do not translate well into English.

You do realize that terrorism can be state sponsored and conducted by nation-states as well as organizations right? No of course not. I don't understand your PKK reference either. I'm NOT supporting terrorism, but the right to self-determination of all peoples. Clearly, we aren't understanding each other as this language and cultural barrier is bigger than I initially thought. Tombseye 20:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi I would like the anti-Turkish bias removed from this article

What do the harems have to do with the Turkish people? It is not as if a significant part of the Turkish population is descended from the harems.It just sounds like people who have a dislike for Turks are posting irrevelent information just to remind people of the negative aspects of Ottoman Turkey. DivineIntervention 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just editted some of the article with more relevent and useful information. DivineIntervention 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Your edits are mainly good ones. I made some minor adjustments and it is actually correct to state that when we say Greek it should be clear that these were mainly Hellenized Anatolian peoples such as remnants of Hittites, Phrygians etc. The Armenian and Kurdish groups were probably small regional peoples in the east as well when the Turks arrived. Overall, I saw nothing wrong with your edits and I think this kind of collective working together helps the article. Thanks. Tombseye 20:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi the so called neutral

Khoikhoi you dont trick anyone. You are definantly someone who dislikes Turkey. I spent some time changing some pretty un-wikipedic statements in the article. You then go ahead and revert back. DivineIntervention 22:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I meant to revert someone else's edits but I accidentally reverted yours. I have changed it back. Sorry again. --Khoikhoi 23:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi's only aim is showing Turks and Turkey terrible...

Judging from Khoikhoi's other contributions, I do not think that his main objective is to villify the Turkish people or the citizens or institutions of Turkey. I would strongly advise against further accusations (unless you can provide some indication that suggests or proves that his contributions should in fact be considered tantamount to ethnic hatred).

You might eventually be blocked if it is determined that you are engaging in continued personal attacks, and as a consequence WP would then lose a (potentially) valuable source of information or perspectives. So take a deeeeeep breath and try to be more factual and specific in your accusations in future and let's work out a good article that is deemed factual and correct. //Big Adamsky 01:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for jumping the gun, in future I will not take things like this personally. I apologize Khoikhoi but the main reason I lashed out at you is because I have encountered people that do habour hatred for the Turks, the Turks dont deserve this constant negative portrayal as neither does Iran which is like Turkey an enthnic mosaic of different peoples, the Turks are one of a variety of peoples and faiths I want to stand up for and try and eliminate the baises - (e.g. midnight express).

Does the word "turkified" which in my opinion is not very un-encyclopedic. This word is used by Greeks and Armenians to spread anti-Turkish propaganda have to remain right on the top of this artile?? Cant the whole issue be moved somewhere into the main part of the text (such as the section entitled "The Modern Turks). As for "turkified" this is in itself a harsh term which could be better rewritten/reworded. It ignores the fact that alot of the native population voluntary converted to Islam (in Islam the word revert is used instead of convert) and that alot of people adopted Turkish culture freely. Alot of the Greek speaking population of Asia minor were Hellenized minorities - a case in point is Paul the apostle (a Hellenized Jew). To be quite frank to say that most Turks were people who were forced to become Turks which is basically what Turkified means is derogative. DivineIntervention 02:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi on January 2006 wrote "...makes me want to hate all Turks in general." I don't know if this phrase is tantamount to ethnic hatred but I find it extremely disturbing: why would one want to hate me for somebody elses actions. Should I expect some harm that would come because of this? AverageTurkishJoe 18:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

stop redicting the page

TUrks and Turks of Turkey should be different article. PLease, stop redicting the page. I am sure, Khoi.. did it.

User:DivineIntervention, thank you for your addings.

It's not a matter of what you think is right, it's because most articles that link to Turks refer to the Turks of Turkey. --Khoikhoi 08:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter what your purpose is. Turks and Turks of Turkey have many common points. HOwever, Oghuzs are only one of the Turkic tribes.

According to your opinion. It is NOT a matter of what you think is right for the page. You are a REVERT-FETISH. No more than that.

Also, i saw you can spell Turkish. Don't tell me that you are an American. You are a Kurdish.

Lol, your English is so bad I can't even understand what you're saying. How am I Kurdish? Why don't you go outside and play with your little friends. --Khoikhoi 08:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If you dont understand my english, why don't we speak Turkish ? :),

Because I'm not Turkish. --Khoikhoi 08:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Puhahaha, you are so funny, ı didn't call you, Turk. You are a Kurdish. Well, without a doubt, you don't know that Kurds also can speak Turkish.

If we come back to redicting issue, There is a general page which has all information about Turks. Additionally, there is a page for Turkey too. The answer of the question why my browser is redicting to this page is because you want people to know what you wrote.

I am thinking of redicting the page to your userpage, so everybody can have knowledge what are your beliefs, values. --hybrid lily 08:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

For the last time, I'm not Kurdish. Ok, fine, let's play your little game. You're Chinese.

I already explained to you why the Turks page should redirect here. You obviously didn't read my comment. --Khoikhoi 09:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I explained to you what my opinion is. These pages should be seperated. Besides, I am telling you again, it's your opinion that Turks should be redicted to this page. Did you try to someone explain his/her opinion about it ? NOOOOOOOOOOOO, because you are so selfish.

Well, why not Chiniese, or Mongoloid Islamis terrorist. That is what you want people to know Turkey. Dont you ?

Also, If all Turks were converts of Armenians, Kurds and Greek, Why wouldn't you give me a chance to be convert of Chinese. --85.99.202.76 09:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Kokikoki is not kurdish but he loves kurds so much and training those terrorists in north iraq against Turkey.

-Inanna-

Wow, how stupid are you guys? Speaking of selfish people Hybridlily, isn't changing the picture to someone that you personally perfer considered selfish, last time I checked it was.

Another thing I just discovered is that you can't read. Where does this article fucking say taht ALL Turks are Armenian, Kurd, and Greek converts? --Khoikhoi 17:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's know why you want to see Orhan Pamuk. Have you ever read one of his book ? Let's discuss about his style.

Hahahahha, why don't you read the article ? The first paragraph...

Lastly, KEEP YOUR WATCH DOGS AWAY ! I know you have many of them who can do favor for you when you are blocked.

Puahahahha, Khoi.. you don't know any shit about Turkey. Istanbul is not the biggest city of Turkey. It has only the biggest part of the population. Hava a look at the map of Turkey.

The biggest city of Turkey is Konya.

I never thought I'd meet anyone that's never gone to school. -- Khoikhoi 17:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Konya = 40 824 m2

Istanbul = 5 170 m2

Sources Cities of Turkey

Without a doubt, you dont know any shit about math. If I were you, I would spend my time to study on Math.

Okay, this argument is going nowhere and serves no purpose. Rather than throwing insults around, we need to discuss things. Clearly, there is a language barrier here though and a misinterpretation of a lot things said. By the way 'biggest city' in its connotation in English usually means population and not actual size. Thus, New York City is the biggest city in the US and not Los Angeles. I've adjusted the beginning paragraph to reflect the variety of Anatolians and as Big Adamsky tried to get through, let's assume good faith and stop making wild assertions here okay people? Tombseye 20:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't ' the biggest ', it was ' the largest ' before I changed. No matter if you changed it as ' the biggest '. --85.99.147.107 22:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an example of a language barrier. You don't understand English vernacular usage. Largest, when referring to cities, is still synonymous with biggest. Usually, people specify land area when talking about city size as most of the time the usage is a reference to population. Tombseye 22:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You are saying that both ' the biggest ' and ' the largest ' have the same meaning vernacular usage. I am asking because you answered either with the same answer.

List of Kokikoki's Watchdogs

• Eliezer
• Pgk
• Sam_Korn
• Mrent
• Can't sleep, clown will eat me

When Khoi is blocked by admins, he writes messages to his friends. If you look at these users pages, you will see that

Do me a favor and change the article. If I do it, I will be probably blocked.

--hybrid lily 18:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually have never left any comments on any of those users talk page's. See for yourself. --Khoikhoi 21:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

of course you deleted all the evidences. I saw it with my own eyes. --85.99.147.107 22:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The last is much more better than the previous one. Now, I want to add more pictures which contains more than 4 pictures and Orhan Pamuk' on the page. If is it OK, I will do it

--85.99.147.107 23:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You forgot Tombseye in "List of Kokikoki's Watchdogs"

-Inanna-

Thank you for expanding the picture, -Inanna-. It looks better now. --hybrid lily 23:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have worked so much on it.It had taken more than 4 hours of mine.Even i put traitor Orhan Pamuk but they still try to errase it(!)

-Inanna-

I have reaserached new things about Hürrem Sultan.She was not daughter of an orthodox family.She was jewish origin.Jews of russia,ukraine(and this area) are Turkic origin(Khazarian,Krymchak...).She was probably a "Krymchak".Besides,she had grown in Turkey since she was 10 years old and had Ottoman Culture...

-Inanna-

That makes even less sense. Russian Jews are not all Khazars first of all and secondly, what research are you talking about? Her name and her father's profession are mentioned in various books about her and I'm the only one referencing any of it. Tombseye 00:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Everybody knows her as jewish in here.Because she was so...and Tombseye,are you girl?

-Inanna-

Who is this everybody? I'd like to know. What's your source? Your contentions contradict everything about her including her Ukrainian origins. Aside from the Bulgarians reference you have yet to offer up any reliable references to anything except your own opinion, which given your track record, hasn't been all that reliable. Getting personal again are we? You realize you broke the 3 revert rule? How unfortunate for you. Tombseye 00:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The picture debate

There I dont really see anything wrong with either picture. However maybe a picture with at least 1 Turkish women might be better? (just a suggestion) DivineIntervention 00:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

See this section for discussion about why the image is inaccurate. --Khoikhoi 01:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yuruk in Asia Minor before Seljuks

Oh, you guys need to read this...

...the Yuruks. These Anatolian shepherds, nominally Moslems, grazed their flocks in the hinterland of Asia Minor for centuries before the Seldjuks came; they even paid return migrations, now and then as far as Macedonia. No wonder, then, that some of the aura of a fable hangs about the Sarakatsans.."

...The Greek historiography usually encourages the stereotype according to which the Ottomans are presented as conquering Greece from the "Greeks". It has to be understood -to refer only to the Mainland Greece- that neither the major -at that time- city of Salonica (which was a Venetian possession seven years prior to the final Ottoman conquest) nor Athens, which was in the hands of the Florentines, and previously in those of the Catalan Company of Pedro when the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet finally entered it (and has been continuously held by the Catholic ‘Franks’ since 1204) were "Greek" at the time of their sacking by the Turk. The native population, though partly -at surface- Greek speaking, was a complex motley of ethnicities lacking unity or homogeneity despite the attempt of the central Byzantine government to subdue them through taxation, recruitment in the armies, relegating them to the status of parikoi, or dilute their specificity by ascribing (or converting) them to the Greek language officiating Orthodox Church. This heterogeneity rendering the locals passive made even easier for the incisive nomads who were the Yuruk to deeply penetrate Greece and the Balkans.

Source:

• Brian de Jongh - "The Companion Guide to Mainland Greece" (revised by John Gandon), Collins, London 1985

http://www.vlachophiles.net/conf.htm (Balkan Borderlands and endless paths: Vlach-Yuruk-Sarakatsani confluences in Rhodope and Macedonia)

People with prior knowledge of Sarikechili, Karakechili, Karakoyunlu will immediately recognize these people. AverageTurkishJoe 02:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To my friends:

I think we should remove the "smyrna" page.There is only one İzmir.We should hinder these seperatist and unfair propagandas of someones(!) -Inanna-

Also see: Yoruk

This unequivocally destroys the idea that there were no Turks in Asia Minor before the Seljuk invasion. Apparently Turks were living there both Asia Minor and Balkans before 1071 as this fact makes it abundantly clear.

What is interesting that "Yoruk"s are touted as the truest of the Greeks in Greece where in fact they are the truest of the Turks. They kept their pastoral lifestyles and they did not mingle with the city folk. Roman Empire(East and West) was not able to assimilate them.

They do not have any Mongol traits and they always spoke Turkish. My great-grandma used to say, "Yes, I am yoruk but I am yoruk from Istanbul" it makes perfect sense.

The current location of the Yoruks in Turkey is also the land of Isaurans. A "semi-barbaric" people that were never conquered or assimilated by the Byzantine empire. These people also produced two Iconoclastic Emperors. They were not conquered until the Seljuks.(Maybe they were just brethren and this was just a re-union rather than a conquest?) There are references that suggest they were "asiatics".

Byzantine emperor Leo III the Isaurian marries his son Constantine (later Constantine V Kopronymous) to the Khazar princess Tzitzak (Çiçek in Turkish) (daughter of the Khagan Bihar) c. 750. Their son Leo (Leo IV) would be better known as "Leo the Khazar". There are some Turkish connections there.

AverageTurkishJoe 12:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Turkification Followed a Depopulation of Asia Minor

I am writing a draft for the opening paragraphs of this article. Please respond by your comments and concerns since this draft is drastically changing the content by removing the "debate" about "how Turkish the Turks of Turkey are".

Turkish people are the current inhabitants of Asia Minor. Conquest of Asia Minor by the Turks and its transformation into the "Home of the Turks" has always been a contentious issue for the Europeans. In some circles it still is incomprehensible and sometimes intolerable. It is customarily assumed that Asia Minor of the eleventh century must still have been highly urbanized cultivated and Hellenized Asia Minor of the Roman times. However even in the antiquity geographical conditions did not allow the same level of development in the central and eastern Anatolia as the Aegean costs. Even today, western provinces of Turkey in general are remakably more developed compared to the eastern ones. We do not have accurate knowledge of conditions of the central and eastern provinces in the antiquity, whatever they might have been the continued wars against the Arabs and the Persians had profoundly changed Anatolia and the eastern parts were impacted the most. For generations, vast areas, particularly on both sides of the Taurus and Cappadocia, had suffered from retaliatory raids, plundering and devastation. Depopulation of the areas and the creation of no man's land had been employed as a method of defense by all parties. Massacre of the Paulician heretics in Tephrike region (modern Divrigi) is such an example.

There were attempts to repopulate certain zones by the Byzantine Empire. These re-population attempts had a military character. The numerous mercenaries who served both the Emperor and the several thematic strategoi characterized Byzantine army in c. 800. The Turkic peoples of the Eurasian steppe, like the Khazars, the Pechenegs and the Cumans (Kipchak), were included in the army under the status of foederati and employed mainly as mounted archers. Russ (Scandinavians), Slavs, Normans, Italians, Germans and even Arabs and Seljuk Turks, among many others, were employed either singly or in ready-to-hire units.

The Themata system was developed under Constans II (630 -668))(Constans Heraclius) and Constantine IV (649-685) in order to face the constant threat of the Muslim Arabs who had taken Syria, Egypt and Mesopotamia in the 7th century. Thus, the first Thema appeared in the Eastern provinces, which were both the highest paid and the most endangered. Under this system a plot of land was given to the soldiers to farm. The soldiers were still technically a military unit, under the command of a strategos. (Both Seljuks and Ottomans employed the same system later.)

These frontier-dwellers -Byzantine akritai and Muslim ghazis- though fighting against each other were alike in their physical and spiritual isolation from the governments, which took almost no part in their activity, and as a result they sometimes almost fraternized. Evidence of this is provided in the chivalrous romances or poems, which recount the exploits of both sides.

Turkification of Asia Minor thus followed first a depopulation and later a repopulation of the lands with Turkic elements.

In the 9th century Turkification reached the capital: the Hetaereia regiments (elite cavalrymen imperial guards) although including Greeks, were mainly composed of Khazars and Pharganos (from the Fergana Valley, in Central Asia).

There is also evidence that the Yoruk Turkish tribes were populating both the Balkans and Western Anatolia all the way to Cappadocia centuries before the first Seljuks arrived. Sarakatsani and Karakatsani, (Sarikeçilia and Karakeçili) Turkish nomadic tribes who were trapped in Greece proper and Bulgaria and who still live there attest to the Turkification of Asia Minor and the Balkans long before Battle of Manzikert in 1071.

AverageTurkishJoe 05:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Not sure why the Europeans would be contentious on the issue of the turkification of Asia Minor though. Mostly, many Greeks and Armenians resent it as they believe that their own ethno-linguistic and former territories were reduced by the coming of the Turks. Aside from these two, French people or the English don't particularly care. Also, this new beginning page doesn't really say anything about the Turks. The specific questions surrounding the Turks, including myths etc., is that many people believe the Turks simply invaded and displaced the local Anatolian population. Genetic testing has proven that to be largely false. In addition, we have historical records and the work of people like Rumi to attest that many local non-Muslims were converted to Islam over the centuries. These are really the main issues about the Turks that define who they are today. Also, sporadic depopulation doesn't appear to have drastically altered the region either. Mainly, in the historical record, we have writings pertaining to changes that largely reflect what happened to ruling elites. Occassionally, this is extended to the masses, but the reality is that if an elite ruling class was destroyed or forced out, that's what we read. The other people aren't mentioned. This sort of hermeneutic reading is required in almost all histories these days. American history is a good example as well since most history is sanitized, glorified, and related as events that effect the elites. The masses are forgotten and the substantial socialist movement of the 19th century forgotten for example and re-written as some 'labor strikes'. Also, the usage of military elite troops have rarely drastically altered a population. I've read about the Byzantine (and Sassinian) reliance upon mercenaries, but these are thousands of people at the most in comparison to millions of settled peoples. It barely makes a dent. The depopulation theory doesn't wash as the genetic evidence supports the more autochthonous origins of most Anatolians, including the Turks. What's more viable is that most Anatolians, under Greek and Byzantine rule, adopted Greek as the elites were hellenized, while Ionian settlers were probably a minority. This theory has more credibility amongst academics as well (see the references section for the page), rather than a highly unlikely depopulation and repopulation theory that took place in Central Asia during the Mongol invasions. Tombseye 22:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the Plague and Byzantine-Persian & Byzantine-Arab wars were responsible for depopulation

The Justinianic plague, apart from its devastating immediate impact, is generally viewed as undermining the late Roman empire, politically and economically, creating conditions ripe for disaster. Coupled with the other disasters of the reign of Justinian, the plague may have reduced the population of the Mediterranean world by the year 600 to no more than 60 percent of its count a century earlier. Such a massive mortality rate would naturally lead to social and economic ruin. Also, the depopulation of the urban centers might have created a structural imbalance in favor of the desert Arabs.

Plague in the Ancient World: A Study from Thucydides to Justinian by Christine A. Smith

• http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1996-7/Smith.html
• http://www.byegm.gov.tr/YAYINLARIMIZ/newspot/2004/jan-feb/n11.htm

Towns and villages were abandoned and food production plunged because of manpower shortages. The marginal regions could sustain only small populations and previously densely settled areas turned into wastelands that were open to invasion by nomads. The more distant parts of the empire, such as Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, were seriously weakened, making them vulnerable to Persian and Arab incursions.

Clive Foss, Byzantine Symposium, Urban and Rural Settlement in Anatolia and the Levant, 500-1000 AD: New Evidence from Archaeology

• http://www.doaks.org/abstracts05/ByzSym05Hirschfeld.html

Simultaneously with the loss of the Balkans the Empire suffered a more serious amputation by being deprived of its eastern and southern provinces. This happened in two stages. First, between the years 609 and 619, the Persians conquered all of Syria, Palestine and Egypt. They were then defeated by the emperor Heraclius and withdrew to their own country; but a few years later the same provinces were overrun by the Arabs and, this time, lost for good. The whole of the north African coast also succumbed to the invader. The Mediterranean empire of Rome simply ceased to exist, while the Byzantine State found itself limited to Asia Minor, the Aegean islands, a bit of the Crimea and Sicily.

The Persians also initiated another development that was to have important demographic consequences by striking at Constantinople through Asia Minor. In so doing they caused immense havoc. When the Arabs had succeeded to the Persians and made themselves masters of all the territories up to the Taurus mountains, they, too, struck into Asia Minor- not once or twice, but practically every year- and this went on for nearly two centuries. Many of the raids did not penetratc far from the frontier, but several of them extended as far as the Black Sea and the Aegean, and a few reached Constantinople itself. As it turned out, the Arabs never managed to gain a foothold on the Anatolian plateau. What happened instead was that every time they marched in the local population would take refuge in the inaccessible forts with which Asia Minor is so liberally proviced. The Arabs would pass between the forts, taking prisoners and booty, while the Byzantines would burn the crops to deprive the enemy of supplies and keep him on the move. The consequences of this prolonged process are easy to imagine: much of Asia Minor was devastated and depopulated almost beyond repair.

Cyril Mango. Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome. Scribner's, 1980.

• http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/mango.html

last article is very resourceful for the demographic data. AverageTurkishJoe 04:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly Byzantine Empire article does not mention this plague at all. AverageTurkishJoe 05:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That's good stuff actually. I read some accounts about the Arab invasions of Asia Minor and there are even accounts of Christian Arabs moving to Anatolia when they refused to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax (see Al Baladhuri). This information would be an interesting addition to the Byznatine Empire page, but I think the other point here would be that while the Arabs depopulated some parts of Asia Minor, the main areas of concentration, namely the center and northwestern sections were spared from most Arab incursions. The areas hardest hit by the Arabs may have been Kurdish and Armenian areas. Ultimately though, a lot of this is speculative and the other issue is that populations do recover through natural increase. And since we can obviously see that most Turks live not in the east of Turkey, but the west that it's difficult to determine the level of devastation. Still though you make a good case for some levels of depopulation and this could account for a higher level of Central Asian ancestry (up to 30%) than say Azerbaijan. I like how this is going with this page actually. This kind of information exchange helps these articles. Perhaps we can put in some of this information with the caveat that the level of devastation is not entirely known and you might want to put in some of this information on the Byzantine Empire page (or any pages that relate to the Arab conflicts). All in all though, good historical information. Tombseye 19:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit the article, not the picture!

I noticed that the so hotly debated picture in the infobox is being removed by changing the image file. I think this is misleading, since the changes cannot be found on the history page, and do not appear on the watchlist.

The fact that Orhan Pamuk is currently criticised in his own country, doesn't mean that he isn't a prominent Turkish author. He is throughout the world acclaimed as a distinguished writer.

In Turkish, there's a proverb that says: Kimse kendi memleketinde peygamber olmaz. (No one becomes a prophet in their own country.) --Benne _(talk) 20:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sexist are you? There is not one female in the picture! DivineIntervention 14:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look more closely, and not judge so easily. Isn't Sezen Aksu a woman?

By the way, I think it would be better to include two women in the infoboxes. My suggestion for Turkey: Halide Edib Adivar. --Benne _(talk) 14:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sezen Aksu is a woman. Sezen is a female Turkish name ! I think we should do a Tatar-esque collage. That way we can all get our preferred prominent individuals in there. 4 simply isnt enough. There will always be someone nitpicking about the exclusion of his/her preferred personality(ies) Enter sandman 15:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Most ethnic group articles have 4 pictures. --Khoikhoi 18:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah most ethnic groups have 4 pictures. Not all of them have 4 pictures doesn't do the Turkish People justice. DivineIntervention 16:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Who says it has to do the Turks justice? Misplaced Pages has a Neutral Point of View policy and can't get caught up political stuff. --Khoikhoi 19:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we can do a compromise here. We can not include Pamuk in the 4 people picture, but also stick to the format of the 4 people picture and just replace him with another person. This picture should not include people like Roxelana who is not an ethnic Turk is all I ask though. It's stupid ultranationalism and revisionism to promote this national mythology stuff. I would have thought that Pamuk's views could be a point in which more public debate would take place and not this keen interest in defending the metanarrative that the Turkish govt. has handed down to the masses. Nationalism is a curse that distorts peoples' thinking and makes them blind to any faults in their own country. I ought to know, the US is filled with delusional politicians and their followers. Tombseye 19:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Benne,Thank you for remind me.How did i forget?!

-Inanna-

I still don't see what wrong with Orhan Pamuk just because he doesn't reflect some nationalistic hero. --Khoikhoi 03:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

He degraded the Turkish identy.He said "If nationalism rises in Turkey,i will move to France".What is he waiting for? He makes us so happy by getting lost...

-Inanna-

Ok, well all you said is that you and your people don't like him - well what about are the other 6 billion people in the world?? --Khoikhoi 03:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever count how many of them like Orhan Pamuk or how many of them has any idea about Orhan Pamuk ? He is on the picture, because you and your pretty watchdogs want to see him. Why don't you buy a poster of him ? It would be better for all of us.

In Turkish, çeteresini mi tuttun kaç kişi seviyor kaç kişi sevmiyor diye.

I gotta say, if this is the prevalent attitude of many Turks towards differing viewpoints and opposition to the bane of nationalism, then, if I were the Europeans, I wouldn't allow Turkey into the EU. Europeans debate and often increasingly dismiss nationalism and allow for a great deal of dissenting views on their countries and their histories. The French have admitted to many massacres in Algeria during the 1950s and 60s for example as well as in Vietnam. I'm not necessarily backing keeping Pamuk or not, but he is a well known figure all over the world today and he's a very brave man to stand up to so many people who think national pride is more important than any introspective rethinking. Regardless, any new picture should stick to the 4 people format AND not include Roxelana and the Barbarosa brothers. Other than that, if Pamuk is that divisive I'm not against replacing him. Tombseye 19:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogiehogie, only enemies of Turkey(as you) love him.They are very small population... Let's describe hogiehogie:

• Anti-Turkist,
• Anti-Feminist,
• Sided and unfair,
• Very ill-mannered,

...Do you want more? I think you should be banned but we cant expect something diffrent form sided web-site.If i were you, i would stop complaining as primary school boys and begging help from others.You really become ridiculous...

TombofTurks, who wants EU? EU needs us, we dont need them.I think you should continue to support of Turkey's membership or our new friends will be russia and iran.We have proved everything.He is a liar and will be punished(by indirect ways).He is hero for you.You declared apo hero before...

We havent forgotten that you got through sack on Turkish soliders yet and we wont.Please dont put your nose everywhere.You dont know anything about Turkish history.I know how americans are unsuccessful at history.Moreover, some of you suppose Turkey is closer to Japan.So stop bullshits about our history.You cant know better than us.You are already sided.I have changed the Tatar Hürrem's picture.This picture will stay.Barbaros was TURKISH!!!

For all of you, dont test my patience anymore...

Arkadaşlar bildiğiniz iyi bir "H....r" var mı? Şunlara arık hadlerini bildirmenin zamanı çoktan geldi...

-Inanna-

Actually, you should be banned. You violate the protocol all the time, cannot admit when you are wrong (as with Roxelana), break the 3rr rule on numerous occassions, resort to personal attacks like a child, and haven't really contributed much of anything except a lot of blank space. The EU lives by certain standards that I frankly don't think should be reduced for anyone, least of all someone like yourself who is clearly an ultranationalist posing as someone rational. You keep talking in circles and can't produce any constructive arguments or sources. I don't care about your patience as frankly mine is at an end with your ridiculous and simplistic so-called contributions. Hah, now she's a Tatar again after you claimed she was maybe a Jew. How many times do you have to be caught in a lie before you stop vandalizing? No, this picture will not stay. Tough break 'goddess'. Tombseye 21:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have never attacked anybody.You should tell this to your impolite and sexist best friend khoikhoi.Judaism is a religion.Jews of imperial russia are Turkic origin.Your all informations are smelling hatred propagandas.Even i am showing resources.Both of you are only trouble makers.You dont have any interest about my country.You always violate the rules but nothing happens to you(!) You should learn stay far from brainwashing and control your senses.Besides, you should learn to think logical and be fair...

-Inanna-

I did not want to partake in the picture debate but here I am. What I see as the main issue is that Turkish wikipedians are not happy with the fact that their identity is being defined for them and the picture debate is part and parcel of this. What is more interesting is that how the non-turkish wikipedians who showed a great zeal about this article (and the picture) could have such strong opinions about it. It is easily discernible from the state of the article that its contributors are clearly not experts in this topic . Thus the source of this devotion escapes me. Still this does not hold them back from being equally fiery with the group that sees this article as an attack on their identity. AverageTurkishJoe 02:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the article exactly? I keep hearing that it has problems, but what problems? The main debate does involve whether the Turks are native to the region or not. Most academics believe they are native to the region and mainly not Central Asian. I've studied the history quite a bit and brought in various other aspects that I thought would help with the debate. I'm against ultranationalism as is Khoikhoi and a lot of others. We tend to respond to people who wave their flags as if they are the center of the world with some occassional zeal, but more like an attempt to convey the simple fact that this article is not meant to be a feel good about yourself by claiming the collective accomplishments of others who share your national identity. I mean come on, every Ottoman citizen is now a Turk? These guys are claiming everyone from Rumi to Roxelana is a Turk which is ridiculous. And the Barbarosa brothers were born to a Greek father on the island of Lesbos. It's in any encyclopedia. Putting up pictures of people who aren't Turks seems really misleading and is part of the bane of nationalism which I ardently oppose. Hope that clears things up. And for the record, I personally like Pamuk as well. He's a brave guy for going up against what so many people believe and his opposition to nationalism is something I admire. The fact that people like the so-called goddess Inanna don't like him makes him all the more appealing. Tombseye 06:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

TombofTurks:

At least, i have a nation which i can be a nationalist of it.You cant know this sense.That's why it's very easy to destroy you... -Inanna-

Yeah, my country has done a lot of horrible things that we at least admit to, but let's face it, as far as accomplishments are concerned the US has put people in space, dominated science and technology, and reshaped the planet. I could be a nationalist drone like you, but I choose not to. You believe in fairy tales and hey that's fine. Tombseye 06:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Im adding "-ian" to my last name

Thats what you all want us to do right ? After all according to this article, we turks are descended from greeks, slavs, kurds and armos who were invaded by "savage mongol barbarians" and brainwashed. I wonder where georgians and albanians went. Looks like the albanian and georgian nationalists havent found this page yet. Sarcasm over - Raki-holic 09:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S - AverageTurkishJoe, I agree with you. Some people in here have an agenda to undermine Turkish identity and promote their own hegemony.This article is a farce. Has anyone noticed that there are double entries for Iraq on the significant populations bit ? - Raki-holic 10:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article has been changed to reflect an indigenous origin for most Turks. That means Anatolian and not necessarily Greek, Slavic, Kurdish, etc. One does have to understand though that when delving into the past, that Turks did not arrive until the 2nd millenium, at least not in large numbers. I thought Turkish identity was based upon a common language and culture. Is it that easily undermined by an inquiry into the past? And, for the record, Central Asians aren't all Mongols. Mainly they are a fusion of Iranian tribes and Turkic-Mongols from the steppes. By the time they reached Turkey they were most likely even more diluted by mingling with peoples along the way. Regardless, genetic tests don't lie. Tombseye 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Genetics tests says kurds and jews are the closest people(!) Turks are neither mongoloid nor persian.Azeris have persian blood in their veins.But we are not.Sumers were the fathers of early Turks and the first inhabitants of anatolia.It was proved that Hittites were Turkic tribe.They came from back of caucaussia(central asia) and adopted the language of indo-europeans(Hattis).

Central asian Turks are really mongloid because mongolians killed millions of Turks and raped the women.They had razed all the cities and then rebuild again.That's rest of the Turks emigrated to Anatolia.

-Inanna-

Last Picture

I really want to end this picture fight.I have shown 3 men and 3 women from diffrent categories.All of them are very famous characters and i suppose someones wont be able to find any reason to errase it at his time.

-Inanna-

I'm okay with this picture. It's accurate and I like the inclusion of more women. See now was that so hard? Compromise is good. Tombseye 23:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I always try to compromise but khoikhoi breaks it all time and provoking.Dont worry! He will errase this one soon...

-Inanna-

The problem with your picture is that many of the people in it aren't Turkish. Stop trying to claim people are and just let the current picture be - at least everyone in it is Turkish. --Khoikhoi 01:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

All of them are Turkish.You have no information about anything.You are only problem in here. Senin bilgin ne gerizekalı?!

-Inanna-

Ah, I see you changed it. It's still not 4 pictures though. --Khoikhoi 01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

and it wont be...

-Inanna-

...yes it will. --Khoikhoi 01:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

We shall see...

-Inanna-

...yes we will. --Khoikhoi 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's quite telling that the article consists of a little more than some claims on turks'

supposed origins, turkish phenotypes etc. What happened to the everything else - culture, religion, population distribution ?

How about the persecution of Bulgarian Turks and Turkish Cypriots ? Why isnt that in the article ?

Of course it isnt in. It doesnt fit your agenda as far as hegemonial claims are concerned !: - Raki-holic 23:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raki-holic,

Ok, first off, I didn't write the article. Tombseye wrote a lot of it. You are welcome to add all that info that you mentioned - the culture, religion, etc. After all, Be Bold is one of Misplaced Pages's mottos.

I don't have a political agenda on Misplaced Pages. Please don't accuse me of anything without evidence. --Khoikhoi 05:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with this article.

What is wrong with this article

The title of the article does not match the content. Content sounds like Calvin’s (of Calvin and Hobbes) homework where the bulk of the work is the product of over-active imagination and some facts heard through the grapevine sprinkled in. Ignoring the content’s fable-like style, it belongs more to Demographics of Turkey. Also the article is too weak to be titled “Turkish Ethnology” since it is basically some bizarre jumble of hearsay put together for some unknown reason. It manufactures facts with the “probably” disclaimer like “one third of the Turks identifying themselves as ethnic Turks” or “most historians believe”. And for all the claims mentioned there is no analysis supplied, no numbers were given. It clearly does not fit into an encyclopedic mold.

1. Modern Turkey started with 10 million people with more than 3/4th of the population being rural. This is after 150 year old process of losing of the European lands and ethnic minorities separating from the Ottoman empire. And after the population exchange between Greece of Turkey following the WWI and Turkish War independence. The population of Ottoman Empire at its highest was 90 millions. That is one out of every nine Ottoman subject was deemed a “Turkish person” in 1923. Peoples who fought the Imperial powers in WWI and the Turkish war of Independence were entitled to be owners of the new Turkish Republic. The new Turkish identity was based on the Turkish war of Independence. The founding treaty “Lausanne” specifically prescribed the exchange of the Christian and Muslim populations. Greek and Armenian contribution to Turkish population that the article puts forth is merely a “guess”. Population influx from the lost Balkan lands on the other hand was substantial. The article omits this fact but mentions for example “Balkan people were brought to Turkey as Slaves in the Ottoman times .”

2. There is assumption that Central Asian Turks are more Turkish then western Turks. To back this argument the article claims without evidence is that there were no Turks in the in the west before 1071 c.e. Which is demonstrably wrong.

3. The article claims that “Turks *must* be an amalgamation of Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, etc” as if these ethnicities are monolithic homogeneous entities. There is evidence the said ethnicities absorbed large Turkic contributions even in the late antiquity.

4. Genetic argument totally ignores the Turkic genetic contribution to Balkans and Greece. The fact that Turks are similar to Europeans can also be explained by Turkic contributions to European and especially southeastern European populations. Examples of this are many: Bulgarians are Slavicised Turks and the Balkans were an Avar land for a very long time. Romanians are also very close genetically to Turks. The ethnicities of the nations around the Black Sea were established around 1000 c.e. after their Christening. The Turkic roots and elements in todays “Christian” nations are purposefully ignored and forgotten.

5. Depopulation of Asia Minor in Justinian years is glossed over. This had tremendous demographic effects to the point that the ethnic composition of Eastern Roman Empire changed and Asia Minor was populated with Slavs and Turks by Constantinople itself. Most of the Roman cities in Asia Minor abandoned during this time and archeological evidence backs this. Depopulated lands were filled with imported people from the Balkans. Seljuk invasion of Asia Minor followed this depopulation. Kipchaks (Cumans), Pechenegs, Khazars and Seljuk Turks were in enlisted in the Eastern Roman army some under the Themata system a plot of land was given to the soldiers to farm. Constantinople itself (the Palace) was Turkified during the Iconoclastic rulers. The Khazar royal guards attest to it. Stating that Turkic contribution as being small before the Seljuk’s arrival is just a mere guess. The fact that Avars captured all the lands of todays Greece (Thessaly, Old Epirus, Attica, Euboea, Peloponnese) in 587 attests to the Turkification of Greece itself. The great multitude of so called Slavs of that was transferred to Asia Minor (in Bythnia which is also the birthplace of the Ottoman Empire ) in Justininan II’s reign were most likely Avars which explains why thirty thousand soldiers raised from this group defected to the Mameluke army in their first encounter -an episode repeated in exactly the same manner in Mazikert in 1071 where the Kipchak soldiers defected to Seljuk army - their brethren. History books calls the imported populations Slavs ignoring the fact that Avars were the overlords of the Slavs.

6. Asia Minor has never been totally “Romanized”. Substantial populations in Asia Minor were Turkified before ever being Romanized (which can be explained by their Turkic affiliations in the first place.) The contribution of the Nomadic Turks (Yoruks) were totally ignored while we have evidence that they were in Asia Minor hundreds of years before the arrival of Seljuks and they probably had been there since the Avar times.

7. The “millet” system of Ottomans kept peoples separate. Until the 20th century Turks were farmers and herdsman and lived in segregated villages. Kurds and Turks lived in similar conditions albeit in separate villages. So the melting-pot analogy is fundamentally wrong for the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish Republic started with a huge demographic catastrophe that made almost all the previous demographic structure obsolete. The article is totally devoid of the analysis of how the different ethnicities lived in the Ottoman centuries. It drops in inconspicuous references about people converting to Islam without referencing any numbers or without any indication of their impact on the demographics and it ignores demographically significant data.

AverageTurkishJoe 05:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You could edit the article to improver rather than simply say that it's a deficient article as well. Well, I mostly agree on the historical background, but with some problems. The Balkan contribution can be easily fixed and the article was written with succinctness in mind. Actually, the article is not making the Armenian and Greek claims as I edited it to say Anatolian peoples. And the guesses are based upon what we know from the historical record. This would constitute an educated guess. The Yoruk and other Turkic tribes were most likely quite small. Inevitably, people misunderstand the migration of tribes as if they represent some massive demographic shift. Generally, nomads travel in small band and even large armies constitute at the most thousands of people and NOT millions. The Arabs during their early conquest of Syria put in the field a few thousand troops who were successful through guerrila tactics against the Byzantines. This should not be lost in this assumption that there was a large Turkish presence in Anatolia because one has to ask what do you mean by large? Actually, you very much wrong on the Turks' genetics. The Turks of the west are a result of assimilation and intermingling. The Turks did originate from northern Eurasia and their language is a testament to their original links to the Mongols. These Turkic tribes moved to Central Asia and mingled with Iranian peoples and then moved on to other places where there was further intermingling. Most of these early Turks still bore some Turkic-Mongol ancestry however and so are easily distinguishable from other groups. You are confusing modern Turks with the Turks of the past. In addition, the Bulgarians are not Slavicized Turks, but mainly Slavs who were conquered by a small Turkich ruling caste that lent their name and not their language to the modern Bulgarians. Avars as well as Ugric peoples like Magyars etc. do bear a distant relationship with Turks, but aren't necessarily close relatives and, at some point, these groups most likely also go back to northern Eurasia and are believed to have changed through a process of moving to other territories. Thus, Ashkenazi Jews tend to be roughly half European and half Middle Eastern, Gypsies also bear roughly half their genetic makeup to the Europeans etc. To act as if these groups are simply homogenous is absurd. I'm not ignoring any Turkish contribution at all, but it's not a major contribution. Even in Hungary and Finland the Ugric elements (some believe there is a Ural-Altaic connection for example) appear to have been superimposed upon an extant population. You can't simply present small groups as indicative of a larger mass population as there is no evidence and the genetics show which people cluster where. If the Turks are as similar in general to Europeans then why do the Kazakhs and Uzbeks bear substantial similarity to the Mongols? You keep talking about military groups as if they can replace millions of people. Unless there is also a massive genocide, military invaders generally do not replace local populations. The groups you mention constitute thousands of people in a sea of millions. Depopulated or not, populations recover and it's highly unlikely that the densely populated regions of Anatolia were depopulate to the extent that the entire population would be outnumbered by Turkic migrants. I'm not saying these groups don't deserve mention, but to elevate them to majority status is highly speculative and you aren't going to find many takers in universities (and I'm including Turkish professors). I never said Anatolia was Romanized, but it was largely Byzantine. Why are looking for small exceptions to the rule here? I mean they bear mention and feel free to do so, but putting this scant evidence of small Turkic groups as indications of a larger change is absurd. How do these small groups impact a region of millions? I agree that the millet system deserves mention, but let's face it, people don't remain separate just because someone sets up laws that are meant to do so. You really think Jim Crow laws kept whites and blacks completely separate? Human nature doesn't allow it. I think that a lot of what you mention makes good sense to include in the article, but probably in a capacity that is as short as possible as we don't want to repeat what the history section writes. Otherwise, there is still no massive proof that most Turks aren't native Anatolians who were turkified over time. Tombseye 17:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

All of us are confused of genetic origin of teh Turks, but you. Sound stupid. Because, I checked the sources, however it doesn't prove that modern Turks, 'according to you' that their root comes from eastern europe.Neither western historians, nor you and your lovers never accepted Turks as the owner of Anatolia and Istanbul. That's why, you, your universities, ' also some Turkish professors ' are thrying to rewrite the history of Turks. --hybrid lily 19:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, I am saying that WWI and Turkish War of Indepence and the following population exchanges made Ottoman demographics irrelevant. What is your take on that? AverageTurkishJoe 01:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A Note on Jim Crow analogy: Millet system protected the minorities rights it has nothing to do with the Jim Crow laws where the aim was to keep the African Americans in slavery conditions after the abolution of slavery (please see Millet (Ottoman Empire) and Jim Crow law ) AverageTurkishJoe 01:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I happen to agree on the demographic changes of modern Turkey that you put forth completely. I'm not disputing that aspect of modern Turkey's formation after World War I at all. I am merely saying that the history situation of the Turks as non-Anatolian doesn't bear up to scrutiny.

My crude analogy was meant to specify not to discrimination, although some people would view any separation as leading inevitably to discrimination, but to point out that laws that attempt to separate people usually don't end up working. I'll gladly take the analogy back as my intent was not to make a comparison that could be deemed as derogatory. Look Joe, contrary to what you might think, I believe you are pretty reasonable and I like most of the points you've brought as I've read about them myself and I think it's more constructive to mention MORE things in regards to the history of the Turks than to view this article as completely deficient. No one's going to protest the reasonable and valid points you are raising at all. As to their impact upon the Anatolian population (not the modern demographic shifts, but the early history during Alp Arslan's time), different viewpoints can be put into the article. My intent is not to put the Turks in a bad light or a good light. Perhaps you've noticed that nearly all of the peoples pages have nationalist tendencies with people wanting to claim all sorts of things. those of us who aren't fond of nationalism and prefer an academic view are just doing the best we can. If we make mistakes along the way, then hey not a problem if it can be explained and corrected. Tombseye 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection?

User:AverageTurkishJoe requested unprotection on WP:RFP. Are we ready to go here? howcheng {chat} 21:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This article should be put up for deletion. It's pretty much insalvageable as I see it. The whole objective of it seems to be to enforce the idea that we should throw "Ne metlu turkum diyenne" into the trash bin, stop being ("fake") turks, and reclaim our "lost" greek/slavic/kurdish/armenian identities. - Raki-holic 01:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said, you are welcome to edit the article. But what's the point of deleting an article about the Turks if when we have articles about all the other ethnic groups in the world? --Khoikhoi 05:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that the article deserves deletion. Nor is it saying that the ethnic groups you mention are themselves somehow 'pure' or anything. Language assimilation and cultural shift take place quite often and the article tries to explain the many aspects of the modern Turk. Native Anatolians does not necessarily translate to Greeks, Armenians, or Kurds. We all know though that these were the predominant groups before the Oghuz arrived though. It's not even my POV, but the contention of a great many academics. Tombseye 00:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

raki(theTurk), we never throw anything of our greatest leader.We are original.Stop trying to show yourselves similar with us.There are 3,5 million Turks who mixed with Kurds in the east.Their population number includes all the kurdish number of Turkey.There are muslim armenians as well and we know who are them(hemshenis).Greeks were sent to greece by poulation exchange in 1923.Muslim greeks live in blcksea and aegean region and they are not more than 10,000.Already, greeks have Turkish genes because the Turks in anatolia converted to christinaty by pressions of byzantine empire or how could greeks spread in whole anatolia? I didnt know that slavs emigrated to anatolia...

So stop try to have our nation,history and culture...

-Inanna-

Khoikhoi, I shouldnt have typed in "deleted". Must have put it in over the top of my head.I actually meant that the article needed a complete rewrite from scratch. My bad.

Inanna, I dont quite get what you are trying to say to me. I never advocated throwing it in the thrash. I just said that the article advocates that Turks should do it, with stuff like Ultimately, it is absurd to speak of any ‘Turkish race. Im Turkish myself, and am very disenchanted with the article, as it seems to imply that real turks are a tiny minority or do not even exist within Turkey. The whole tone of the article seems very wrong to me . :- Raki-holic 22:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It might help though if you explain which parts bother you. The article doesn't really have any tone that I can discern. Race is itself a highly contested issue so the line you quote isn't really out of line, but its inclusion is not imperative either. I'm not sure what re-writing the whole thing will do. Keep in mind that this article should not become some feel good to be Turkish page either. None of the peoples articles should. They should relate as much information as possible. If you want some things added then say so. Tombseye 00:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am %100 sure about you are not Turkish.No Turk says "i am not the Turkish race".You are probably a kurd and...Lütfen kendi propagandalrın doğrultusunda insanları yanlış bilgilendirip işimizi daha da zorlaştırma.

-Inanna-

The majority of the Turks in Turkey are actually "Turkish-speaking Anatolians", while the real number of "ethnic Turks" (meaning the descendants of the original Oghuz-tribes that migrated to Anatolia) is very small (and even those Oghuz-tribes were partially Arabized or Persianized). This is confirmed by many historians and by modern genetics:

• "... As with the mtDNA study, based on the Y-chromosome Armenians and Azerbaijanians are more closely-related genetically to their geographic neighbors in the Caucasus than to their linguistic neighbors elsewhere. However, whereas the mtDNA results show that Caucasian groups are more closely related genetically to European than to Near Eastern groups, by contrast the Y-chromosome shows a closer genetic relationship with the Near East than with Europe. ..."

• “… many Armenian and Azeri types are derived from European and northern Caucasian types (p.1263) … The U5 cluster … in Europe … although rare elsewhere in the Near east, are especially concentrated in the Kurds, Armenians and Azeris … a hint of partial European ancestry for these populations – not entirely unexpected on historical and linguistic grounds (p.1264)” -

• "... incoming minorities (...) conquer other populations and (...) impose their languages on them. The Altaic family spread in this fashion ..." -

• " ... Around the third century B.C., groups speaking Turkish languages (...) threatened empires in China, Tibet, India, Central Asia, before eventually arriving in Turkey ... genetic traces of their movement can sometimes be found, but they are often diluted, since the numbers of conquerors were always much smaller than the populations they conquered (p.125) ... Turks ... conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453. ... Replacement of Greek with Turkish ... Genetic effects of invasion were modest in Turkey. Their armies had few soldiers (...) invading Turkish populations would be small relative to the subject populations that had a long civilization and history ... " -

-Tajik 00:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I didnt know that whole world were so complex about Turks.That's nice also...Can i ask what is mean "tajik"? Has anybody heard it?

-Inanna-

You can read about the meaning of the word "Tajik" in the article Tajiks. You - as a native Turkish-speaker - should know that the modern word "Tajik" derives from Old-Turkish "Taçikler" (first mentioned by the Turkic Uighur schollar Mahmud Kashgari) and means "Persian" ... -Tajik 04:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The numbers of Turkic invaders who invaded Anatolia in the eleventh century were relatively small compared to the numbers of people already in Anatolia. Their advantage was advanced military tactics -- not overwhelming numbers. If you have a doubt in your mind, go to battle of Malazgirit.Roman forces had more man heavily armed than did Turkish forces. Battles cannot be won by numbers. Tajik is a Persian word, but in Turkish Tajik refers a person who lives in Tajikistan. We use Fars and İranlı to refer Persian. Turk was also derived by Persians, and firstly used officially in Firdavi's works, 'Turian'.

The first part of your comment supports the accepted belief that most of the present-day Turks are not ethnic-Turks but "Turkic-speaking", comparable to the large numbers of Spanish-speakers in South-America who are not Spanish by ethnicity. The word Taçikler is indeed Old-Turkish and has the same root as "Tat", which means "Persian". The word has no history in the Persian language and was totally unknwn until the Turkish conquest of Turkistan. In addition, the people of Tibet and Eastern China call all Iranians "Tajiks". As for the word "Turk", it has absolutely no connection with the Avestan "Turanian". "Turanian" is Old-Iranian and means "those from the darkness". "Tur" means "dark" and is still alive in the Pashto word "tora" (like in "Tora Bora", "Black Powder") and has clear similarities to Persian "târik" and English "dark". "Iran" and "Turan" are part of the Avestan dualism and resemble the fight of "light" (= Iran = civilization) and "darkness" (= Turan = nomadism). The word "Turk", on the other hand, has Altaic origin and is confirmed in many Chinese and other sources. The word "Turuk" (the self-expression of the Gokturks) is preserved in Orhun-scripts. It was already noted by the Islamic schollar Mas'oudi that some people (including Ferdousi) wrongly considered "Turanians" and "Turks" to be the same. Ferdousi did that, because he lived in a time when Turkish hords conquered large parts of his country. He was also highly influenced by Turkish legends (see "Encyclopaedia Iranica" --> "Afrasiab" p.570-p.576). In reality, the mythical "Turanians" were Iranic nomads of Central-Asia (Scythians, Saka, Parthians, etc) who were in constant war with the settled and cultured Iranics (Persians, Bactrians, etc). -Tajik 22:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

WWI and its aftermath made any demographics pertaining to previous era irrelevant. Let's talk about what really should be in an article called "Turkish People" AverageTurkishJoe 20:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The peoples were already formed by WWI so as to whether it is relevant or not, I think we need to keep most of the information we have so far in the article. What changes do you have in mind? I happen to agree with what Tajik's points as they are corroborated by a great deal of information that corresponds to cultural shifts around the world. There is even the strong possibility that Indo-European invaders simply lent their language to much larger indigenous populations in Europe for example. The identity of the modern Turks should encompass as many possibilities as possible rather than closing a door to promote a nationalist POV of some homogeneity that doesn't exist with any people on earth. Tombseye 21:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Indo-Europeans also "forced their languages" on other people. The best examples are the British and Spanish conquetsts of America. The Altaic family (most of all modern Turkish) was also forced on other peoples. While in case of Iranian languages, whe have clear genetic proof that there has been a "female migration" of Indo-Europeans into Iranian and Indian highlands, we do not have such a proof in case of Turks in Anatolia and Caucasus:

• " ... The overwhelming majority of the Iranian mtDNAs have been shown to lie in the West Eurasian domain of the global human mtDNA pool . Here we focus on the analysis of mtDNA lineages that are shared between Indians and Iranians and bear signals of pre-Holocene expansion in the region. ... Over 90% of the mtDNAs found in Iran belong to haplogroups HV, TJ, U, N1, N2 and X, commonly found in West Eurasia (Table 2). ... Indian-specific (R5 and Indian-specific M and U2 variants) and East Asian-specific (A, B and East Asian-specific M subgroups) mtDNAs, both, make up less than 4% of the Iranian mtDNA pool ..." edid=15339343

It is confirmed by mtDNA tests (mtDNA is inherited from the female line, unlike Y-chromosomes) that there has been a large migarion of Iranians into Iran, and not just male armies. We do not have such a proof for the Turkish claim that "Turkic nomads migrated to Anatolia". Tajik 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Turkish/Turkic issues

The theories on the origins of Proto-Indo Europeans is a fascinating topic but this article is not the place for it. Jury is still out on the theories of Gymbutas, Renfrew and Alinei. Number of Indian historical linguists also claim that India is the 'urheimat' for the so-called Proto-Indo-Europeans. But this is not the place for this discussion.

There are other fascinating topics quite relavant to "Modern Turks" : Modernity and the Turkish populations, the role of Ataturk and the secular Republic in defining the modern Turkish identity, how is it possible that Turkey is a democratic secular state with muslim population, Sunni-Alevi populations, Yoruks and their culture, current religious schools, affiliations of prominent Turks with these schools, Turkish music, division between the pop, folk and palace music. One party years and CHP in forming the Statist structure of Turkey. Victory of Democratic party in 1950 elections and its implications. Turkeys membership in Nato and its social impacts. Turkish Army's involvements in Korean War. 1960 Coup d'etat, Cold war and 1962 Cuban Missile chrisis and its effects on Turkish society. Communist groups in Turkey in 70s, "Johnson Letter", Emergence of first religious party "Salvation Party". 1972 coup d'etat, 1974 Cyprus War and following embargo on Turkey, 9/12/1980 coup d'etat and its role in transforming society, parallels between 9/12 and 9/11 rhetoric. Turkish participation in Olympics, European and World soccer tournaments, place of Soccer in Turkish popular culture. Role of mandatory military service in Turkish society. Birth, Marriage and Death customs. Turkish Pop music, Eurovision song contests. Turkish NGO's, Turkish Universities their history, Importance of University entrance exams in Turkey, European Union Application of Turkey and prospects. Iraq war, Turkish public opinion on the war. Turkish fiction writers, popularity of the book "Metal Storm" and underlying sentiments. Armenian Genocide Allegations and Turkish public opinion, ASALA, PKK and the effects of terrorism on general public.

If you guys are not knowledgeable about these topics please do not stand in the way of others who are knowledge about these topics and have relavant information and have the will to improve this article. As long as this article is kept locked it will stay as an eye-sore.

AverageTurkishJoe 02:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Every single toppic you have mentioned is important - including the question of "who the Turks really are". It seems to me that you are trying to divert the toppic. That cannot be a solution. Tajik 02:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a separate "Turkic Peoples" article you can discuss this on that article. AverageTurkishJoe 03:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea at all, considering the complexity and scope (and sensitivity) of the subject matter in question, and simply have this one focus on Turkish (Turkey) nationality and so forth. SouthernComfort 08:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, Turkic peoples can be branched out into several different subarticles as well, which would each deal with the ethnic and racial issues concerning each Turkic group. Just my two cents. SouthernComfort 08:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that this should be done for every group, only with those where the sheer amount of data available would be necessary to transfer to a separate article to preserve article flow and readability. SouthernComfort 08:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What a dumb article

Most of the "Turkic" people in the world call themselves Turk. Tamerlane, an Uzbek, referred himself as a Turk in his memoirs. Azeris call themselves Turk. No need to mention Turkmenistan etc. So who decided that the Anatolian Turks were the only Turks? I can understand the Tuurkic terminology due to some differences between these people, but nobody has the rights to say that only Anatolian Turks are Turks, (look at the Gokturk Empire for god's sake). I think this article should be deleted, because we already have a Turkic people article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.107.208.103 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

• Tamerlane was not an Uzbek but a Berlas-Mongol and he had a lot of pride in his Mongol heritage (he did not call himself "Turk"). Although his mother-tongue was the Chaghatai language, he claimed to be a descendant of Jingiz Khan and considered himself a Mongol. His biography was written in Persian during his life-time. He was called "Timur the Mongol" on coins printed during his reign: Tajik 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is are distinctions here. This article refers to the Turkish people, not Turks which can be applied to many people or even Turkic which is generally a linguistic categorization. Turkish, in the English speaking world, refers only to the Turks of Turkey. Azeris is the term we use for Azerbaijani Turks etc. The Turkic peoples article basically corresponds to say the Iranian peoples article or Germanic peoples article, while the Turkish people article is similar in content and intent to say the English people article. Thus, I would strongly disagree that this article is either "dumb" or in need of deletion. Tombseye 22:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Two non-Conversion Stories:

The French traveller to the Ottoman Empire, Antoine Galland, recorded in his calendar on September 2, 1674 the following episode:

Today the Turks did a perfidy to a young Greek who was tutored by a Turk. While he was tutored, some Mussulmans, who were nearby, handed over to the teacher a piece of paper with the Islamic creed of faith written on it. They asked the Turkish teacher to turn it over to his young student asking him to read it aloud. They wanted to learn for themselves whether the young Greek could read Turkish fluently. Unsuspicious of the trick, the youth read the paper aloud. No sooner had he finished than the Turks immediately seized him and took him before a judge. They testified that the Greek youth had read in their presence the Moslem creed, the Salabati; therefore, he was expected to become a Moslem. In protest the young man answered that he had been deceived and that he had no intention of changing his Christian faith: The judge ordered that the youth be put to torture. When he insisted on adhering to his faith, he was thrown into prison where he was kept for a month, refusing to apostatise. He must have been between the age of 18 and 20 when he was beheaded (Gatland, 1881).

The French traveller did not record the martyr's name but modern scholarship has identified him as the neo-martyr Nicholas of Karpenision, whose story has been reconstructed as follows:

At the age of fifteen Nicholas came to Constantinople with his father, where the latter opened a shop in Tachtakala. Α Muslim barber, their neighbour, at the request of the father, gave Nicholas lessons in Turkish. The Mussulman looked forward to leading his pupil to change his religion and communicated his plan to the soldiers who frequented his house. And together they hatched a plot. The barber transcribed the Salabati, a profession of the Islamic faith. When the young man presented himself for his lesson, in the presence of the soldiers, the barber placed the paper before him. Suspecting nothing, Nicholas began to read it. When he had reached the end, the soldiers cried: "you have become a Turk; you have pronounced the Salabati." Stupefied and indignant, Nicholas protested hotly: "Ι am a Christian and not a Turk. Ι read what my master gives me for my lesson." But he was dragged before the Caimacan. The fatal paper served as proof of the odious accusation. After a long imprisonment and all sorts of ill treatment Nicholas was condemned to death (Delehaye, 1921, p. 705; Perantones, 1972). He was beheaded on September 23, 1672. His martyrdom was recorded by a third person, De la Croix, secretary of the French Embassy in Constantinople (De La Croix 1695).

These stories are quoted from the site: http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/constantelos_altrouistic_4.html

You will notice that the second story is a rerun of the first after 40 years. 1881 is when the Thessaly is annexed by Greece and 1921 is when the Invading Greek army needed a boost of morale after their defeat at Sakarya . They appealed to the Allies for help, but early in 1922 Britain, France and Italy decided that the Treaty of Sèvres could not be enforced and should be revised. (Battle of the Sakarya)

These are the so-called conversion stories. AverageTurkishJoe 05:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) But recemtly there have been more objective analysis of he Christian populations in the Ottoman years: This is from Hellenic Communication Service, LLC

One might have expected that Christianity would now be suppressed, but exactly the reverse happened. The first patriarch under Ottoman rule, Yennadhios, was enthroned within a year of the conquest, and Sultan Mehmed himself handed Yennadhios the robes, staff and pectoral cross of office. The Greeks,like other Christians in the Ottoman empire, were left completely free to practice their religion, under the patriarch's spiritual leadership. The patriarch was now the political as well as the spiritual leader of the Christian Ottoman subjects, responsible for the good behaviour of his flock, and for ensuring that they paid their taxes to the state.

Some traditional Greek histories suggest that there were forcible or mass conversions to Islam. But the Turks had no incentive to force conversion on Christians and, as a result, lose the poll tax, paid only by Christians. Nor was avoidance of the poll tax a sufficient incentive for the Greeks to convert. They would, it was said, be "selling their souls for a penny worth."

By 1666 things had changed. Though the devshirme was still described as "one of the most important state affairs", none had taken place "for a long time". The tone had become emollient: "No one is to be wronged or coerced of the villagers".In 1721 the devshirme was officially abolished.

Sole responsibility for Greek educati was left to the church and has long been believed in Greece that, because of Turkish oppression, children had to go to school in the church secretly at night. This is a myth. In reality the priest was the only possible teacher, the church the only available school room, and the children went after dark because they worked in the fields all day. The debunking of the myth is slowly working its way down the Greek education system.

• The Tourkokratia - Was it Really That Bad?-Part 1A (http://www.helleniccomserve.com/tourkokratia.html)

Apparently no mass conversions took place since 1453. So all the alleged amalgamation -if there is any merit to this argument- should have taken in 380 years. This is not a short period. We just need to show whether it withstands scrutiny. AverageTurkishJoe 02:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Turks2.jpg

I was told by User:Khoikhoi that consensus had been reached on the use of this image so I changed it in the article for him, but User:-Inanna- uploaded Image:TTurks.JPG over it (thus the current versions of the two images are identical). I've reverted Inanna's change and am protecting the image. However, if there has been no consensus on the image, I'm going to revert it back to the original image. What are we doing here, folks? howcheng {chat} 00:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my version WAS the original image. Ask any other user. Inanna's image was uploaded later, and was snuck into the page by Inanna's sockpuppet before the page got protected. The image has been talked about, and people have rejected Inanna's image (see above). --Khoikhoi 01:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Mine was original and i have worked on it more than 4 hours.I have changed it many times by opinions.Last one was accepted by all the users(except for khokhoi).I have never used sockpuppets.Please dont care Khokhoi,Tombseye and Latinus.They are changing all the articles about Turks.The most important and famous people are on my picture.

-Inanna-

Ok let's review what Inanna just said:

• Mine was original. Lie. Proof:
• Last one was accepted by all the users(except for khokhoi). Lie. Proof: see the discussion above, many users such as Tombseye, Benne, and Burgas00 have agreed with me.
• I have never used sockpuppets. Lie. Proof: Here's a very partial list of some of her sockpuppets, used to avoid violating the 3RR or evading her blocks: 85.96.134.129 (talk · contribs), 81.213.100.174 (talk · contribs), 85.108.6.87 (talk · contribs), 85.108.6.110 (talk · contribs), 85.97.21.239 (talk · contribs), 85.96.135.20 (talk · contribs)
• The most important and famous people are on my picture. Lie. Those two women on the right are not as famous as other Turks, such as Orhan Pamuk.

--Khoikhoi 02:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, not being logged in is not the same as using sockpuppets. Also, you guys have been in repeated violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Let's try to keep the discussion level-headed, okay? howcheng {chat} 17:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history of this discussion, we've been able to come to some consensus with people who are willing to be flexible and include a wide range of views on various topics. The problem is that -Inanna- wants to inflate all population figures (including counting Turks and Turkish Cypriots twice and ignoring any information she doesn't like) and she deliberately, after we had the discussion and I provided academic links on people such as Roxelana and the Barbarosa brothers, insisted that anyone who was of any note who set foot in Turkey was a Turk and could be included in her picture collage. Some of the more outlandish claims included counting the Tajik Rumi as a Turk. She since has dropped this demand at least with Roxelana, especially after she backtracked and claimed that she must have been a Khazar Jew and thus still a "Turk" or a Tatar etc., while simply ignoring the Barbarosa brothers birth on the island of Lesbos to a Greek father. In addition, just for the sake of giving the page a look that matches all the other peoples picture pages, we were hoping for a 4 people picture. Orhan's not popular with some Turks, not because he's not famous, but because of his political views and thus he is not wanted on the picture page. The picture is minor point in comparison to the other behavior. -Inanna- shows a history of deceit, breaking the 3R rule over and over again, ZERO willingness to compromise, making offensive remarks deliberately (either she is goaded by others such as some Greeks or simply goes on a tirade on Greeks, Kurds, Americans, you name it), attempting to make things personal on a regular basis by first asking questions about posters and then attempting to use that information to belittle them later, and frankly hasn't contributed much of anything other than links and pictures to promote a nationalist perspective. I think, at this point, my history with this page and other pages shows that I am willing to listen and compromise whenever possible whereas here, certain people simply want their POV and refuse to consider any other possibilities. This page was not written with any malicious intent and has been altered over and over again to appease people who think it doesn't present the Turks in a POSITIVE enough light. Some of the other comments were constructive and given a great deal of credence whenever applicable. That's what this is about. None of the information is wrong, references and sources are given, and the diversity of the Turks should be considered something of amazing quality given their ability to assimilate other people. Judge for yourself and look at the track record here thus far. Tombseye 18:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Inanna, please do not remove others' comments as you did here . Thank you. howcheng {chat} 21:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I should change the lies about me.He changes all my comments all the time.Why doesnt his deletion reverted? He is talking about me but he is using sockpuppets as well. Anyway i understood what's going on...

Tombseye, dont make any comments about me again please.At least dont use my username.

-Inanna-

I have never used sockpuppets. Please don't make claims without backing it up with sources. Tombseye has a right to talk about you. Why shouldn't he? --Khoikhoi 01:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Howcheng, Inanna has taken advantage of her changing IP address to edit pages during her blocks, as well as avoiding the 3RR. See the history page of Turkish Cypriot for example. --Khoikhoi 01:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That's too hilarious. Deleting proof constitutes lies now. I'll make whatever comments I feel like. Talk about denial. Tombseye 18:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I say we submit the image issue to a vote. Let's close this poll in five days (ends 6 Feb 2006). howcheng {chat} 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support Khoikhoi's image:

• Khoikhoi 01:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Tombseye 18:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Tajik 18:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Chaldean 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Eupator 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Support Inanna's image:

• AverageTurkishJoe 01:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• --hybrid lily 09:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Raki-holic 16:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Altau 22.20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• --TuzsuzDeliBekir 07:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• -Inanna- 5 February 2006
• KanuniSSKanuniSS 23:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Support neither: (please be sure to add suggestions on what to do)

• Benne _(talk) 19:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC) -- I would like to see four pictures on every peoples page, and prefer two of them to depict women. I think it would be wise to concentrate on people who lived in the Republican age.

My suggestions:

1. Atatürk
2. Halide Edip Adıvar
3. Orhan Pamuk -- his controversiality does not make him less well-known, he has written great books
4. Sezen Aksu

OK, here are some of the contentious issues I see with the image (summarizing from previous discussion):

1. Number of pictures in the collage. Can we come to an agreement on four since that's what other articles have?
2. Orham Pamuk. Can we find a suitable replacement?
3. Pictures of women. Can we find at least one woman to put in?

Did I miss anything? Again, I'm just trying to find some sort of compromise that will be acceptable to all parties here. howcheng {chat} 21:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sezen Aksu, the one on the far right is a woman. --Khoikhoi 00:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sezen Aksu is a woman ? Her voice sure had me fooled(j/k). Ajda Pekkan is probably more prominent than Sezen Aksu, but i wont be all dressed in black if Sezen is put up. Ataturk and Suleiman I are absolute musts. Halide and pamuk are both novelists. Let's have some variety. How about a sportsperson like Hakan Şükür or Naim Süleymanoğlu ?

I've a suggestion about voting for pictures. May be its better to vote for names.Its better for voting a group of names, to vote name by name. Every people nominates for example 4 people. And then users vote 3 of them. After the voting time finishes (can be 7 days), 4 most voted peoples pictures can be put.--Ugur Basak 23:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In the Poll make sure the people contributed are not locked out and cannot respond

Please do not declare the results of the picture poll before hearing from everyone who voiced opinion on this page.

And please make a note that "Misplaced Pages is not a Democracy". A statement cannot be proven or disproven by intimidation or consent.

AverageTurkishJoe 02:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No one is blocked at this time, and the people who usually get blocked edit anyway by changing their IP. --Khoikhoi 02:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad Process Warning

In the Poll make sure the people contributed are not locked out and cannot respond

Please do not declare the results of the picture poll before hearing from everyone who voiced opinion on this page.

And please make a note that "Misplaced Pages is not a Democracy". A statement cannot be proven or disproven by intimidation or consent.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:WWIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy

Also note that:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:WWIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball

• http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:WWIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

• http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:WWIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought

I know you all have read these but I feel obliged to repeat here. This article itself confesses that it is a "debate" which Misplaced Pages Guidelines clearly state that "debates" are not acceptable as articles. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of unverifiable speculation: The whole basis of this artice is speculation. Tombseye agrees that this is a "guess" an "educated guess".

This article has been locked for 3 weeks now. Effectively making it Tombseye's article. Which is definitely against the core idea of Misplaced Pages. This article displays an anti-pattern of what a Misplaced Pages article should *not* be since it violates fundamental guidelines of Misplaced Pages.

Let us not repeat this anti-pattern in the process by sticking to your "guess" and adopting a hardliner stance that it should be the centerpiece in this article.

If the voting process is a preparation for a "fait accompli" along the lines of your "debate" this article will also be the despicable example of Misplaced Pages process anti-pattern.

AverageTurkishJoe 02:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem with the article as it stands though? I get the feeling that the only problem here is that it doesn't back a view that the Turks are largely immigrants to the region or something. I think the DNA tests, and there have been a lot of them done in Turkey, seem to universally back that the Turks are largely linked to the region and not to Central Asia. Are you just looking for something to back some view that most people were not turkified? Mostly, the info. I input is from academic references listed at the bottom of the page. SOME things are educated guesses, but to paint the entire article as one big guess is misleading. Specifically, what's wrong with the article? Tombseye 19:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please try to see the inappropriateness in entirely devoting the article called "American People" to how "English" they are or whether the language of "America" should be German instead of English as if America and American people do not have a history or culture of their own. Or a more striking example: "Greek People" article being exclusively devoted to sorrorities and fraternities in college campuses. I have raised many objections about the factual accuracy of this article, but the inapropriateness of the content to the title is my main concern. Trying to associate a 60,000 year old haplotype to certain ethnicites is as best left to the the claimer of that effort. I would suggest the controversial claims are best presented on the articles that are devoted to their owners. So If Renfrew is claiming something which is not widely accepted it is best to include it the "Renfrew" article. If there is a controversy about the "original homeland" of the slavic peoples this should be in the article called "Slavic peoples" article.

So you are saying "Turks of Turkey aren't very Turkish" and you want this to be the central message of *this* article. How does this contribution rate in terms of value it adds to Misplaced Pages and value it takes away from by usurping this real estate and not letting any information that would be directly related to todays "Turks of Turkey"?

Tombseye, I am sure you have spent a lot of time adding info and editing this article. But this does not give you the "authorship" and the final say in the destiny of the article. Your contribution is the largest because everybody else is locked out from making any contribution. I have a hard time to understand your overprotectiveness and I take offence in being blocked from making contribution. AverageTurkishJoe 04:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, don't get me wrong I am also sticking to my "depopulation" just like you are sticking to your "amalgamation" theory. AverageTurkishJoe 14:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure what being Turkish means other than speaking the language and being from Turkey etc. I'm not claiming authorship or being overprotective so much as sticking to what a lot of other academics say about Turkey and the Turks. In addition, I can quite easily tell that many academics have faced a lot of the nationalist rhetoric handed down by the Turkish govt. for decades that was meant to unite the country, but clashes with views that in any way divide the Turks by ancestral origin or diversity of that sort. The amalgamation theory isn't mine either. Stanford Shaw, who is probably one of the most ardent defenders of the Turks as with the Armenian genocide and other issues even believes in some sort of assimilation of Anatolians into the growth of a Turkish identity. It's quite common at the academic level. I never claimed final authorship and if you look above I keep asking what do you want to add to change the article and I wanted to work together. My problem was not with you and after a while I decided that the picture issue was not really worth arguing over either so long as people who aren't Turks are kept off such as Roxelana et. al. However, you have to admit that your examples seem to point to sporadic depopulation and how do you accommodate the genetic issue at all here? I'm also not responsible for the blocking of the article and you're not one of the people with whom I've seen as completely unreasonable either. We can put forth a two theory approach then and say that some believe that Turks entered a depopulated area and you explain who, what, where, when, and how this points to population replacement etc. I've never been opposed to the possibility as many things are possible, but yes I don't believe in a depopulation theory simply because I find it hard to reconcile the genetic evidence and the large native population of millions being replaced by, at the most, thousands of Turkic peoples. I'm also going by the preponderance of academic views who relate the growth of a Turkish population through a process of large-scale assimilation over the centuries in addition to migration that contribued close to 30% of the gene pool. Like I said before, there's plenty of room for compromise and adding to the article without everyone simply taking an extreme view here. As for the picture conflict, how about we stick to a 4 people picture and we can not include Pamuk? Can you agree to that so that we can move on and get this page unprotected? Then you can add your information regarding a depopulation theory alongside what is already in the article. In this way, the article will address many issues and also look comparable to other ethnic peoples articles. Is this agreeable? Tombseye 22:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok let's try to come up with an article that willl make sense. Please read the the "More historical overview" I just added. AverageTurkishJoe 19:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

AverageTurkishJoe, if you feel strongly about this, I suggest you list this page at WP:RFC/SOC to get some other third-party comment. I myself have been trying to act as a mediator in gaining some sort of consensus as to what this article is supposed to be. At this point, I'm still reluctant to unprotect the article as I have no guarantees this isn't going to just return to a revert war. howcheng {chat} 20:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, if we can come back the issue, DNA researches are made with limited experiments, and their results mostly generalize for all. Another aspect that we cannot ignore experiments background. Did scientist have a deep information about them ? I will ask this, because of migration after the dead of Ottoman Empire. Was their family born in Anatolia or another countries which are considered as Turkic country ? In point of view, I am afraid, these aspect will cause a big conflict, and discussion won't find its end

Above was made by TuzsuzDeliBekir. I agree with him. Tombseye, I think you should consider his comment.--hybrid lily 22:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem with that assessment, there have been MANY tests and done at random over and over again. It's not really possible to conduct a test of millions, but thousands done in different regions and peoples is to me pretty convincing. Next, a lot of the scientists are either Europeans or Turks with Turkish names. It's a collaborative effort. Why are we supposed to assume that there is some sort of conspiracy here? Are you sure this isn't simply about not liking the findings rather than questioning the scientific merit of the results? I find it hard to believe that people who have worked on so many different research projects have all come to similar findings and have also been working together to subvert some belief or other. These tests have been used in England to find that the English cluster with both the Irish/Scots and Germanic peoples for example. I don't think the results of these tests are the problem as many people don't like them because they believe certain things and don't like the idea of having something distorting that view. If there is some evidence you have of a conspiracy then share it. Tombseye 23:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi:

Yes, you did.Stop provoking people by your lies.Even I dont know how to change an IP adress.To be honest, i asked this one user but he didnt tell me and i really dont know.Besides, stop showing yourself as piteous.For Tombseye, I dont give that right to him(her).

Note: Sezen Aksu is a Tatar.But that doesnt mean we cant put her picture.Just an information.

-Inanna-

I have never logged out on purpose to evade my 3RR blocks. You have done this many times. Here's my proof: see the history page on Turkish Cypriot. You have no proof that I have ever used a sockpuppet.

Just saying "Sezen Aksu is a Tatar" isn't going to cut it. Where's your proof? --Khoikhoi 00:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, i am calling to my right friends; If you want to change any person in my picture, please notify me...Thanks.

-Inanna-

Archiving very necessary

Someone please take the time to archive this page - I've not been involved in the discussion here so I don't know which parts are still relevant. SouthernComfort 01:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

More Historical Overview

I don't have any problem with including in the picture anybody who was once citizen of Turkey or Ottoman Empire if the title means Turks of Turkey, People of Turkey etc. So Roxelena is okay with me. I don't have an objection to Orhan Pamuk either. As a matter of fact we don't have to make the format of the Turkish people article similar to others. Jewish People and French people do not have pictures and number of countries do not have "people" articles including American people for example. Ziya Gokalp who was the intellectual force in defining "turkish nationalism"; he had Kurdish parents. So by your standard he would not make it to the picture but by his standards he would. Exclusion of Roxelena would be similar to exclusion of the "House of windsor" from the English people since they are Hapsburgs. Anyway picture debate is not at the top of my concerns in this article.

I would like to know what is meant by "amalgamation". I know it is used as a metaphor for "melting pot" but you would agree that "melting pot" is also another metaphor. Do you mean some kind of a "hybridization" (crossbreeding or mongrelization) of the peoples? You would agree that this is quite offensive no matter what ethnicity one belongs to. That is ethnic and religious minorities in Turkey would also find it very offensive. If I were a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin I would have had a hard time to see the distinction between being called a "hybrid" and a "mountain Turk." Contrary to what you might think Turkish people do know their parents' origin and have no problem in saying I am Circassion, Kurdish, Laz, etc. I would very much see the term "amalgamation" and the genetic argument removed. Mongrelization is the more direct term. (and if and if you are claiming that Turks are mongrels the argument should be abundant with primary sources and direct quotes from reserarchers that say so, for obvious reasons.)

The main problem arises from trying to define the ethnicity of the peoples by their genes while they themselves clearly declare what their ethnic affiliation is. This effort leads to another problem that different self-proclaimed ethnicities are genetically similar in Turkey and that genetic material in Turkey is close the neighboring countries and to Europeans. This is where the big jumping to the conclusion comes: "All peoples in Turkey must be mongrels and and the Turkish contribution must be small". (With only one research paper claiming this it looks like the author of this article is bearing witness to the trueness of their conclusion.) There are too many assumptions in this statement and this amounts to a "historic interpretation".

The statement one third of the population being ethnically Turk either need to be sourced like "according to so and so" with a direct quote or it should be excluded from the article. Yes Turkish government stopped asking the ethnic origin of their citizens for number of reasons whether rightly or wrongly and we may not have this information but this does not give us the freedom of manufacturing it. If Stanford Shaw is claiming Turkish people are mongrels then he should be quoted as saying this with his own words.

We do not have a very clear picture of the number of inhabitants of Asia Minor in neither in the late antiquity not in the early Medieval times. Instead we have widely ranging estimations of the figures one figure is 30 millions for the whole Roman Empire (East West combined) to 30 million for the eastern part before the Justinian plague of 587. Please note that eastern part of the Empire includes Syria and Egypt. Procopius reports that 1,200,000 people died just in Constantinople in four months. Upto one half of the population of the city perished in 542. (http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1996-7/Smith.html) The mortality rate for the whole empire is estimated to be one third. The plague hit the urban centers the hardest and mortality rate in urban centers is much higher that the rural areas.

Again Cyril Mango writes about the very considerable number of Slavonics including the tribe Sagoudaous in Bythnia circa 1100. The name Sagoudaous is curious for it sounds like Scythians and the district across the Bosphorus is called Uskudar namely the land of Scyths. �When the Seljuk commanders settled down in Konya, there were still large Christian populations in the towns along the coast. The process of conversion of all of Anatolia was slow during the 1100s. The Byzantines and the Turkish Sultans were usually at peace and they treated each other mostly with respect and diplomacy.The Mongol invasions (in 1243 and again in 1256) changed all that. The Turks were pushed from Central Asia into the towns and valleys of Anatolia which increased the Turkish population greatly.� (http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/Ibn_Battuta/Battuta's_Trip_Five.html an easy read)

We have the account of the Ibn Batuta's visit to Anatolia at this this time 1330-1331. In his account there is no mention of conversions of the Christian population and all places he mentions he was taken care of by the Turkmens Ahis. He also mentions that Turkmen women did not cover their head and men and women were not segregated as it would be in the Arab Islamic lands. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/batuta.html. Ahi organization was in the form of a masonic lodge and they were involved in colonization and organized immigration of the Turks in Anatolia. Apparently the Turkmen tribes were in contact and Ibn Battuta's tour was planned and executed with the exactness of a modern Rock concert tour. (my interpretation.) This gives us an idea of the organization level of turkmens in 1300s. It is also interesting to note that the the orthodox interpretation of the Islamic attire and manners were dictated in the cities but the Turkic populations had their own interpretation of the practice. Batuta in a way acting like an inspector and observing the adherence to Islam of the Turkmen populations. (In way much similar to what St. Paul did and conveyed his observations and warnings in the letters to the seven churches of the Ancient World.) He saw practices that did not fit the orthodox interpretation but he was overall very pleased with he way he was treated.

Ibn Batuta seems to have visited the Sunni and nominally Sunni lands of the Turkmens in the West. In the east Alevi/Bektashi/Kizilbash elements were dominant and situation was markedly different. Even looking at todays Alevi/Sunni population distribution in Turkey -except for migration to coastal large cities in the modern times- we can still see that the places Batuta visited are constrained to Sunni/Turkmen lands. This is a very good evidence that the populations in Turkey for the most part stayed put where they first settled and they still live there. This may not be a well known fact outside of Turkey but in Turkey, when asked where one is from they answer with the city they live now and the city/village their ancestors were from. The internal immigration to cities took place in the 70s and even then people from the same village settled in the same districts in the large city. In Istanbul there are myriads of social clubs named after their villages cities etc. It is also important to note that the village name also shows the tribal affiliation.

The central authority, the Seljuk State was sunni and viewed the Turkmen settlement in the west as growing of their land but the turkish settlement in the east with alevi turkic elements were viewed with suspicion but tolerated during this time. In the west there was a clear frontier where the greeks lived in the coastal towns and Turkmen and the Greek speaking Romans did not have much of a contact.

In the east situation was a little different:

During the Byzantine times in Eastern Anatolia most part of people were and stayed Armenian or Monophysite Christians, and for that reason have had to endure hostility and persecutions from the Byzantine Church. Then, they almost gave a warm welcome to the Turks, like manycenturies ago, Nestorians and Palestinian and Syrian Monophysites greeted with favour the Muslim conquest. But there was no massive conversion in Anatolia.(The Armenians of Erzincan is a special case and needs to be investigated without over generalization) The social and demographic situation of the Kurdish populations at this time is a lot more complicated. Since unlike the west where there was clear seperation between the greek speaking people and the Turkmen, in the east Turks and Kurds settled in the same areas. Kurds at this time were also Muslims and thus there was no frontier in the Turkmen settlement. (There could be some assimilation of the Turkmen in the Kurdish population here but this needs to be investigated meticulously and all generalizations should be avoided.) Before the mongol invasion there is a Babai revolt where mixed Kurdish Turkish (Afshar) groups revold against the Konya Seljuk and they are transported to Azerbayjan. And this group is instrumental in the formation of Safavids. (Since this statement is likely to spark contreversy along the lines whether Safavids had Turkish roots, I am saying that this needs to be investigated and we shoud avoid overreaching generalizations. )

There was another plague in 1348 (Black Death) which also wiped out one third of the population of Eastern Roman State (probably it was much higher in the cities). This is also very important since the Roman populations were concentrated in the cities along the coasts this is very likely to change the demographics of Asia Minor in favor of the Turks. (Boubonic plague was carried by the rats and there are accounts of ships hitting the shores with dead or abondoned crew so it is likely that Greek speaking coastal towns are hardest hit and the Turmens in the inlands were uncathed.)

Ok, I just wrote all this to give some historical background, it seems likely that the brief 'historical overview' included in the article is not on the mark about Turkish people being a mongrel. I woud advise against including this 'genetic argument' in this article. We have archeological records and first hand account in the impact of the plagues and other disasters in the Roman empire and resulting depopulation. We have evidence that Turkic/muslim elements did not merge with the christian populations, there are accounts of settlement by the Turkish elements in the Muslim-Kurdish areas and possiblem assimilation of Turks in the Kurdish groups. And there is evidence that people stayed put where they settled for almost a thousand years. I would think that we are not burdened here to explain the results of a specific genetic research. If that piece of information is not mature enough for an encyclopedia we just wait until it matures. AverageTurkishJoe 19:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like some good information which I'll wade through as time permits. We can't include everyone who ever lived in the Ottoman Empire! I mean Rumi was an ethnic Tajik. How can one become a Turk just like that? Perhaps that would make more sense if we had an Ottoman people page. I think we have to draw lines such as newly arrived people, at the very least are a hyphenated people as we refer to in the US such as Chinese-American etc. Nor does it seem likely that someone like Rumi simply decided that he was no longer a Persian and had become a Turk simply because he moved somewhere else. That just opens up a whole can of worms. I'm not going to argue over the picture page, but including known non-Turks seems really problematic and is something we're trying to avoid on the other peoples pages. As for the historical information backing a replacement population, I think it can be included WITH the genetic information. The Country Guide on Turkey published by the US Library of congress actually refers to the genetic study showing 30% Central Asian admixture and it's discussed in numerous journals and is referred to without actual reference but allusion in Encyclopedia Americana. I have no problem with adding information, but definitely against removing pretty reliable information that adds another dimension just as your historical data does which shows where the 30% contribution comes from since that's a higher percentage than even in Azerbaijan which is closer to Central Asia. Tombseye 20:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No offence to Tajik poeople but Mevlana's classification as Tajik would be very wrong. He became famous in Konya, he calls himself Rumi - (Seljuk Rum that is he is from Konya) that is his own saying. He wrote in Persian (, Konya Seljuk leaders had persian names also). Besides, ethnic affiliation did not mean much to him: He is ultimate peak of islamic sufism he preached unity all of people, the nature and God. This is another case where Mevlana refuses to be piegonholed, maybe he is just too great to belong to just one article. AverageTurkishJoe 22:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)