Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:54, 16 April 2014

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

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

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

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

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

	Turkish people was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 28, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 19, 2013 Good article nominee Listed November 11, 2013 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

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

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

Archives

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

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

Proposal to remove sentence on descent from the lede

After months of discussion (literally), we are no closer to resolving the wording in the lede regarding the question of the descent of the Turkish people. I thus propose that this entire issue be resolved in Gordian-knot fashion, by removing the issue from the lede altogether. After all, almost all ethnic group article do not discuss the issue of ancestral descent in the lede, precisely because it is so complicated. Athenean (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from unilateral actions. The issue will go to formal mediation in the future, based on a time frame after Arbitration Enforcement makes a decision. I hope we can reach an agreement during the formal mediation.Cavann 20:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Cavann you need to clarify the above for all. Are you telling everyone they cant move forward or discus a solution because in the future you may request formal mediation? I would agree with Athenean proposal that we should cover the topic in the main body of the article, thus we could outline the situation in much more detail. -- Moxy (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying he shouldn't make unilateral deletions. Go ahead and discuss, and it is already covered in the body of the article. Cavann 20:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Cavann, clearly Athenean did not and will not make a "unilateral action". He merely proposed an idea which he believes may solve the entire issue at hand. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF, please. No "unilateral actions" on my part, only a proposal to see where the community stands. If a strong consensus forms around my proposal, it will spare us having to resort to mediation. Athenean (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to some claims made above, its actually not that rare for ethnic group pages to have ancestry and/or geographic origin in the lead. The pages for English people, Koreans, Arabs, French people and Italians all do. The page for Greeks also mentions geographical origin in the lead (which in this case more or less implies ancestral origin): "Greek colonies and communities have been historically established in most corners of the Mediterranean, but Greeks have always been centered around the Aegean Sea, where the Greek language has been spoken since antiquity". It's not so weird. Anyhow... as for how I feel about it being in the lead on this page, I really don't see why its such a big issue...--Yalens (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean to tell me the last two months of constant wrangling are not "such a big issue"? And the fact remains that most ethnic group articles do not discuss ancestry in the lede, certainly not to the extent done here ("primarily descend from group X, Y, Z"). Of the articles you mention, only French people and English people do so. Koreans, Arabs, Italians, Greeks do not, and there are many others as well (

No, I don't think whether ancestry appears in the lead is "such a big issue", but of course this isn't what we've been wrangling over for two months. As for Arabs and whatnot, I think you may have missed the second sentence on the page: "Most however have direct or partial ancestral relation to the nomadic indigenous inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula and the Syrian desert"... though to be fair I think I hastily misread the Italians page. The point, however, is that its not so clear cut. The Bulgarian, Russian, and Albanian pages don't, but the French, English, Arab, and Irish pages do. Another group of pages mention geographic origin which is more or less asserting the same thing (i.e. saying Greeks have lived in Greece "always" asserts an indigenous ancestry). It's hard to say which is more prevalent (indeed pages wiht longer leads seem to be more likely to include ancestry, for obvious reasons) and really looks more like a layout style choice than anything else...--Yalens (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually no, it really is obvious which is more prevalent. I gave plenty of xamples above, and I can come up with lots more. Pages that discuss ancestry in detail in the lede are a small minority. Geographic origin is a completely different thing, the page on Greeks would sound a lot different if one were to write "primarily descend from ancient Hellenes" as is done here. Athenean (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Lets look at some good articles and FA: Taiwanese aborigines, Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Jews, Greeks ("an ethnic group native to Greece, Cyprus, Anatolia and other regions"), British people, Chinese_Indonesians, Icelanders, Cornish people all mention ancestry in the lead. And I did not look at all good articles and FA. Per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead should offer a summary of the article's "most important aspects." So suggesting deletion of this part is unreasonable. And "two months of constant wrangling" is also not a good enough reason. However, it is a good enough reason to request formal mediation, which I intend to do after Arbitration makes a decision. Cavann 03:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I respect another Athenean's attempt to make compromise here but I think it would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. The lede should present information about origin of Turkish people, based on what anthropologists and cultural historians have already surmised about it. Without mitochondrial analysis of Ancient Anatolians. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

We should also take into account that the specific 'origins' are based solely on genetic studies, mitochondrial analysis etc. If a decent non-genetics bibliography is presented it will be ok, but I doubt about it.Alexikoua (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as I think about this more, I think it might actually be a good idea. One of the reasons that negotiation here has been so slow (aside from many others) is the heavy focus on the lead. Editing the lead neutrally is hard, because you have to squeeze everything into a couple sentences, meaning that many things must be omitted, and the choice of what to state becomes very significant. The mere some facts before others can be significant to disputes and every word is scrutinized ad nauseam. I also suspect both sides may be more picky about the lead, because it's, you know, the lead. Leaving the disputed matter out of there so we can solve it in the body might be a good move. --Yalens (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of it that way, but all right. Unless there are objections I will remove it until such a time as the genetics section is improved and we can agree on a wording. Athenean (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's remove the genetics. Please read old archives. This genetic issue has created an abomination of a WP article for seven years; Isn't this long enough for an argument? AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

We're only talking about the lead here, and unless I'm not understanding you properly, the proposal to simply remove it from all of the page would create quite an abominable controversy in and of itself. --Yalens (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have read what you are talking about. This argument has been going on from day one of this article whether in the lead or elsewhere. It is exactly the same vicious circle you are cycling. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and this proposal, controversial as it is, would easily become an integral part of the cycle. It doesn't end any fighting. --Yalens (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It is time to sit back and reflect then: Is this article about an ethnicity, or a nation, or citizens of a state, or current inhabitants of a geography, or a people speaking the same language? Do any of these terms have anything to do with genes? Or do we think that we can answer the first question only after the finding the answer to the second question? AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In English, "Turkish" can refer to any of those five things depending on the context. Do genes have anything to do with those? Well they represent the group's societal history. But of course they aren't of primary importance. They shouldn't dominate the page, but they are indeed relevant in my view for their historical value. --Yalens (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly my point can we define this specific "group" to everyone's satisfaction? Are we all talking about the same group of people? If not, disagreements do not mean anything. Agreement does not mean anything either if we are not talking about the same thing. Is the "object" in this discussion the article (the web page) itself? Or is the term "turkish people" object of this discussion? I don't think the editors are getting the same mental image when they hear 'turkish people' but I suspect there has been a lot of effort invested in making this article signify a personal mental image. Genetic argument in my opinion has been the bane of this article. I think in none of the categories that "turkish people article" would be a member of genetics plays a significant role. I would think sticking to a category for this article and dropping the genetic argument would be way out of this dilemma. We should be ok with the idea that this could be a boring article: Since 2005 all we have put together is a schizophrenic text. That is the reality we have to face. Encyclopedias are not respected for being exciting or shocking. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason the genetics section is included isn't because it is perceived to be "exciting or shocking," it's because it is relevant to the study of the group's history, and because readers (at least ones who don't have a nationalist bias that prefers not to see it) often find it interesting. I personally agree that the genetics should be removed from the lede, but keeping the tiny, two paragraph section in the body is hardly dominating the page in any way. --Yalens (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will be observing your progress. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Moena

I see that someone deleted the part regarding the Turks in Moena. The deletion is totally correct. You can read about the origin of this legend the article of Cesare Poppi, one of the most important Italian anthropologists "I turchi nelle dolomiti". Alex2006 (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

İnfobox pictures

Merhaba, KazekageTR

I think the info box should be expanded. You are right, Princess Fawzia more infulentual like Nazli Sabri. Already, she is daughter of Nazli Sabri and also, she is more important person and "Queen" of Egypt. Number of women is not enough on the box. It may be extended for an series like Greeks, Georgians and Iranian people. My choices,

1. Mihrimah Sultan
2. Nazli Sabri
3. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
4. Kıvanç Tatlıtuğ
5. Fatih Akın Maurice07 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Merhabalar, Maurice07

That is a great idea. By the way thank you for your edits. My propositions are;

1. Fatih Akın
2. Nuri Bilge Ceylan
3. Fazıl Say
4. Ferzan Özpetek
5. Arif Mardin
6. Nasuh Mahruki
7. Kenan Sofuoğlu

Edit:also Ahmed Adnan Saygun

KazekageTR (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

In a joint decision, Fatih Akın should be included in the box. I heard for the first time Ahmed Adnan Saygun, I have no knowledge, he may be one important. Kenan sofuoğlu, i have no objection in this regard but I am not in favor of adding new generation of people, entirely. Mihrimah Sultan and Prime Minister more well-known and famous people by the World. Erdogan was selected 6th The 500 Most Influential Muslims in 2013 and chosen as the cover TIME continue to negotiate ... Maurice07 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Arif Mardin, Fatih Akın, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Ferzan Özpetek got prestigious awards and i think they must be represented in infobox(and they do not belong to this new generation as you know).

But I really think that we shouldn't put any political leader to infobox, and it is not a step against Erdoğan, older politicians like Özal, Ecevit etc. shouldnt be on that infobox too, cause politics are highly controversial issues as you know(and direct target to vandalism).

So how about removing Saygun, Mahruki and Sofuoğlu from my list, adding Mihrimah Sultan and other historical person(other than Sabri cause she wasnt that influential) that you suggest, maybe Turkish rulers like Kılıç Arslan, Babür etc.. KazekageTR (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Or we can choose among those people instead of rulers;

1. Al-Farabi
2. Piri Reis
3. Ali Qushji

I look at other articles of nations and more than half the historical figures,Spanish people, Germans, Ukrainians.. Piri reis is a good option but no any pictures belong to him! Al-Farabi is disputed between Iranian or Turkish ? →See. Maybe Bâkî may be an option. Already, five people will take place. Fatih Akın ve Mihrimah Sultan üzerinde ortak bir karar almış olduk mu Kazekage? Maurice07 (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

O zaman şöyle yapalım. Lets add two more rows with following people; Nasreddin Hoca, Mihrimah Sultan, Fuzûlî, Bâkî, Ali Qushji, Arif Mardin, Fatih Akın, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Ferzan Özpetek

And the last person to add, is yours to choose.(Namık Kemal, Yunus Emre etc. still available)

Olur mu ? KazekageTR (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Two rows, too much for the info box. I'd like to all of them in the box, but even if we did an edit likely to be reverted by other users. We have to select among these five names. Maurice07 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

How about Fatih Akın, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Nasreddin Hoca, Mihrimah Sultan, Fuzûlî ? KazekageTR (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuzuli used in Azerbaijani People. Instead, Piri Reis would be better. I will upload his miniature or image on the Misplaced Pages Commons. Maurice07 (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be great mate, sağolasın... By the way, Princess Durru Shehvar, is she that important? Cause i've never heard of it in the terms of history. And since there are not that 'old' Turks in infobox, we could replace her with someone like Ali Kuşçu etc.

And we could replace Tarkan with Barış Manço ? KazekageTR (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Durru Shehvar is important figure for Turks and Indians, just like Princies Fevziye. She is daughter of last caliph Abdulmecid II and princess of Berar Sultanate. Ali Kuşçu could replace with Tevfik Fikret, Currently, five novelist here, i think it's unnecessary. I love Baris Manco but Tarkan is now known by the whole world. See: Other wiki languges Manço has 17 and Tarkan 42 wiki article. Also, I have uploaded Piri's image. My top five: Maurice07 (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Piri Reis → → → →

• I understand Tarkan but Durru Shehvar, i really dont know. Türkiye'de pek ünlü bir tarih figürü değil anlaşılan.

My top five is: Piri Reis → → → Nuri Bilge Ceylan → KazekageTR (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no a objection for me, sizin seçimleriniz iyi. Princess Durru Shehvar should stay there.Because Turkish women not sufficient, together with additional 7/23. Değişikliği size bırakıyorum. Best regards... Maurice07 (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Teşekkürler Maurice. Yes mate on a second thought, you are definitely right, we dont have important women in our history that much. KazekageTR (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Maurice07 I've uploaded a pic for Kilij Arslan I. But as Tevfik Fikret considered to be the founder of modern Turkish poetry, we should choose someone else to replace. Less important person.KazekageTR (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Also i've added Al-Farabi's picture, if we able to settle those copyright issues with Sabiha Gökçen, we will ad her picture again.KazekageTR (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sabiha Gokcen's identity as an ethnic Turk is highly questionable

Sabiha Gokcen's identity as an ethnic Turk is highly questionable. As we already know, recent research into her ethnic background has shown that she is likely an Armenian, not a Turk. Consequently, Sabiha Gokcen may might as well belong in the Armenian people article. Therefore, in order to reduce a rather unnecessary dispute over this matter (disputes in the past similar to this resulted in a delisting of this article's GA status), I propose we swap Sabiha Gokcen picture with that of Mimar Kemaleddin or another ethnic Turk. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The ibox isn't about people that have the Turkish cizizenship, but about the ethnic group, like the rest of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As ı said earlier, it's just a claim. There is no concrete evidence in this regard,except for a few newspaper headlines. See: WP:SOURCE. In 2004, armenian citizen Hripsime Gazalyan claimed that Gökçen her own aunt and the real name was Hatun Sebilciyan. Her sister Ülkü Adatepe has denied these claims. She said tahat: The claims are baseless and had no basis. Also, Turkish Armed Forces and THK have made ​​an official statement and reacted to the this theory. . Currently, Rumi and Al-Farabi disputed between Turkey and Iran but they are located in Iranian people. Another example; Ismail I, is in Iranian and Azerbaijani people articles?? Maurice07 (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a legitimate claim adopted by Western and Turkish sources alike. There has been a long standing consensus regarding this issue on this and of Sabiha Gokcen's article. The source's you provide aren't even academic and are seemingly guided by nationalist sympathies of the Turkish Republic, its government, and its cohorts. The Turkish government may say a lot of things, that doesn't mean it should be accepted outright. Therefore, to avoid continuing this endless debate and discussion, I think swapping Sabiha Gokcen for another ethnic Turk is a good proposal. What's so wrong about that? Mimar Kemaleddin's picture is nice as well. There are dozens of other ethnic Turks that deserve to be up there. Do you really want to continue arguing this for ages? Besides, as far as I can see from Rumi's article, there's a consensus on his article that he is Persian. Al-Farabi doesn't appear in the Iranian peoples article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Étienne Dolet, i agree that she is not Turkish origin, but these sources are not solid enough, not facts just claims though. The 'offical' sources indicates that she is a Turks (like TSK, THK etc.) Our point is to put Turkish women mainly to this infobox. Cause as you can notice there are not that much important Turkish women in our history. But if you find reliable sources like her own statements or DNA results etc. we will remove her from infobox, until then i insist for her presence. KazekageTR (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no "official" discourse on her identity. We go by what the research says. Just because the Turkish government says that she's Turkish doesn't mean she is one. If the German government says the Holocaust didn't happen, should we abide by those rules here as well? No. It doesn't work that way. Her Armenian racial identity is a major controversy in Turkey but it's an accepted fact under western scholarship and we have more than enough sources to attest to this. So instead of arguing and bickering, I suggest a simple swap of people. If not, I will take this to WP:DR for more community involvement. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well then why don we just go to WP:DR for all those people. As you know except Osman and Orhan, mothers of the Ottoman emperors are devşirme, as you know there are claims that Atatürk's father is Albanian not Turk. The fact is Turkey was a melting pot for cultures, ethnical groups and there are no definite ancestral background scheme for anyone(well even i don't surely know my origin, my grandfather says that we hailed from Caucasus like Chveneburi or Meskhetian Turks) . By the way i am a strict follower of Hrant Dink's wiews(i miss his presence in this country), he published several notes on that issue, that's why i believe that Gökçen is not Turkish. But further than that, i have nothing to say or show as a solid source. I'm passing the ball to Maurcie07. If he pleases to take this to WP:DR, i will be in that article too.KazekageTR (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your sincere response. Unlike Ataturk and the Devsirme's, the issue is that she is considered 100% Armenian by numerous sources as opposed to 100% Turkish by others. So her ethnicity is either black or white, there's no gray areas like Ataturk. So, if this continues, I will take this to DR if there is no third-party involvement here on this talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As long as there is no certainty on this issue, Gökçen's photo should stay there. WP:DR an option, no obstacle for me, unless there is an imposition, on the article of Sabiha Gökçen before WP:DR! Resources consist of newspaper clippings, not reliable WP:RS. I don't agree KazekageTR, no any definite and clear decision that she is an Armenian. Another important point, the person who defend this claim, does not have any concrete evidence. Maurice07 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Maurice07 i was saying that too, we are on the same page mate. Like i said no definite evidence. Just thoughts, claims.KazekageTR (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear, KazekageTR, I propose to swap Tevfik Fikret with Abdul Hamid II. Because, currently there are five novelist on the box. Also, Fikret is not a very popular author like Nazım Hikmet,Halide Edip, Pamuk and Şafak. However, no any last term Ottoman Sultans..Abdülaziz, Mehmed V, Mehmed VI etc. I think that is the most important sultan Abdul Hamid II with 31 March incident, İkinci Meşrutiyet.. Aslında önemi bu kolaj ile daha iyi anlaşılıyor. See: Maurice07 (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of Ottoman sultans already, instead of replacing it with another sultan, i think we should upload images for older Turkish rulers like Tughril and Kilij Arslan I. Nasıl? KazekageTR (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Sabiha Gokcen's ethnicity is uncertain is a strong argument to remove her picture, not to keep her. This is definitely the infobox about ethnic Turks, not Turkish citizens of uncertain ethnicity.Alexikoua (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As Maurice07 said; "Rumi and Al-Farabi disputed between Turkey and Iran but they are located in Iranian people." So can we remove them too then ? KazekageTR (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Each case offers a diferrent background, but I'm generally against adding personalities of complex or unclear ethnic background. As for Rumi, things seem to be clear: he was termed 'Persian' by Western sources, and of Persian family background too.Alexikoua (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Alex, What do you think about Ismail I ?? Currently, He is located in Iranian peoples, Kurdish people and Azerbaijani people infoboxes! Another exp, Saladin which nationality? Kurdish people or Iranian peoples? Arsen Kotsoyev's nationality Ossetian but he is take place Iranian peoples article together Ossetians. Besides, Carlos Slim, (richest person in the world) is Lebanese origin he has been included among Mexican people!! And Vladimir the Great, Russian or Ukrainian? and more..Sabiha Gökçen even can not subject of dispute between Armenians and Turks, while there are so many controversial figures. Maurice07 (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. It may be a complicated issue, but I'm in general against using people of multinational background as representatives of one ethnic group. I'm not going into further detail with this, per Misplaced Pages:OTHERCRAP, but maybe a general discussion is needed in the case of such iboxes.Alexikoua (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

But we in general against taking steps such as these before other issues(those Maurice07 mentioned) are solved. And you cannot remove anyone before we all settle on a decision by the way. Regards. KazekageTR (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

wp:OTHERCRAP per definition isn't a convicing argument. Alexikoua (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not a convincing explanation. I will not let in any "fait accompli" about Sabiha Gökçen like your vandalic edit .Gökçen's photo uploaded 3 November 2006 but "for some reason", it has been nominated for deletion. And other sabotage effort, . I have to report this situation to the administrator. Maurice07 (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing non-free images can't be termed vandalistic edit. As for the arguments about keeping the person in the infobox, I would suggest to follow instructions per wp:OTHERCAP: we are discussing about the infobox of this article and so please focus on the specific discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well thats the point mate. You could just replace her image with antoher image of hers, but you completely replaced her with another person. Thats we're saying not right and its considered to be vandalistic.06:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)KazekageTR (talk)

I'm against the use of fictious protraits, as the first 2 examples: 20th century oil paintings to depict medieval 11th century personalities is something that should be avoided in such infoboxes (might be a good idea for a children's book but not for an encyclopedia).Alexikoua (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As you know well, all of the paintings of the kings, old noblemen, old important persons' portaits are fictious. For example

• Archimedes
• Hypatia
• Peter I of Russia
• Joan of Arc
• Moliere
• Voltaire

These paintings are fictious after all, if you take a look at another portrait of those people, you'll see different faces. And there are no wikipedia rules to not to use them by the way.KazekageTR (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems that not all of the above examples are exactly fictious. The portraits of Moliere & Voltaire were painted the time they lived, Peter's was based on earlier portraits, Joan of Arc's was at least painted the century she lived.

On the other hand, based on the the low quality of the unknown oil paintings in this article (A.& K. Arslan, not to mention they both lack the necessary references: author, year etc.) someone can easily assume that they were just painted for a modern children's book. Off course they have nothing to do, in terms of quality, with some other famous portraits of the infobox, like that of Suleiman and MehmetII,

A better alternative of Arl Arslan will be this one ], in case we can find the appropriate reference here too.Alexikoua (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you get my point mate. What i'm saying is the definition of 'fictious'. It's up to painter's talent to reflect or not to reflect the reality of someones face appearances. We can assume that all of the paintings are fictious unless we got a photographic evidence. It doesnt matter whether they were painted the time they lived. It doesnt mean it reflects %100 reality. KazekageTR (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fact is that one cannot exclude pivotal exponents of an ethnic group (like Alp Aslan) just because there is no known faithful representation of them. Talking about my people, Marco Polo and Christopher Columbus are two examples of famous Italians who never were portrayed during their life, but they are present on the collage indeed. Of course, if there are no descriptive elements apt to represent faithfully someone, one is entitled to choose the best representation: in that case, I would choose the portrait which is temporally closer to the lifetime of the person in discussion. Alex2006 (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

What is a Turkified Armenian, but a Turk? Ethnicity isn't about blood. You know how many Turks would be "Armenians" if we were to do it by blood? A whole ton of them... Of course she's a Turk, regardless of her ancestry, because she behaves as one. --Yalens (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well fate's twist, I've removed or had to remove Sabiha Gökçen from infobox because of the copyright issues with her images. So can we remove the dispute template now? It looks bad at the top of that page. KazekageTR (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The dispute tag was placed long before the ibox issues and was placed due to serious issues raised about genetics and if they deserve to be mentioned in lead (...largely descend from these ancient indigenous Anatolian groups) and history section. Discussion link ].Alexikoua (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong person in the infobox: Al-Farabi

Most sources say he was a Persian (or from another Iranic ethnic group). Some sources debate that and say he was a Central Asian Turk. Everything about him is clear on his wiki article. He was not an Anatolian Turk. He is unrelated to Turkey and Turkey's Turkish people. Why you added his pic?! Completely wrong addition and just nationalistic. His pic should be removed from the infobox. Zyma (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's change him with Arf invariant, I mean Cahit Arf. --144.122.250.188 (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Don't take care so much user Zyma. He is well known anti turkish-turkic etnocentirst indo-euoropean nationalist.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Delisted good articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Turkey articles
• Top-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• B-Class Ethnic groups articles
• Top-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles