This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Genetic studies on Turkish people article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The introduction contains this sentence" Contrary to nationalist dogma, studies of population genetics have indicated that the modern Anatolian Turks are prevalently descended from indigenous (pre-Islamic) Anatolian populations." but the remainder of the article talks of Turkich origin for Turkish people. I have also failed to find where in the reference that's used for the sentence that suggests what the sentence say. TheDarkLordSeth ( talk) 11:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC), this prevalent descent is reinforced by genocide of Turks against true Asiatic Turks which came from Mongolia and China, although they may have had a nomadic origin if blond, blue eyed Turks from Turkey as a separate unique wolf from Aryan formed Turk man race the Kok Turk, Kokturk, Gok Turk, Gokturk, the Heaven Turk, the Saljuq Turk, the Osmanli Ottoman Turk, as of the twentieth century initiated by the Greeks and their idealistic Christian Turco-Mongol allies in the Turkish population and army who sought a regional confederation to replace the weakening Ottoman Empire and to live up to the Freedom Blood Oaths of dangers unsuspected by average Turks and then sought to receive protection from the Kingdom of Armenia which however did not spare them their fate for seeking to depose the Sultan, mass execution and connivance with Greek massacre of "unsubmissive" Ottomans on the Gemick-Yalova Peninsula still name like Haftanin after Yalova of the Russian officers and generals including women commanders of Ildalqu Altan Ulus the Mongol army, these being those who differed from the practices of Buddha in war, and therefore left and joined the Ottoman army over centuries, and Turks had inhabited Central Asia and were used to repopulate Turkey by Mustafah Kemal Ataturk from the Tarim Basin, and inhabited Central Asia in Turkmenistan, and in Mongolia and parts of Central Asia the Christian Naiman Turk that created the Chahar Mongol by admixture and the Turks that occupied central China since An Lu Shan, and till northwest China, which they populated intentionally losing a battle to the Arabs when part of the imperial Chinese army at the Pamirs, the Arabs sang out the Koran and their troops exercised their beautiful bend into the union with the Arab troops, joining them and encircling the Imperial Chinese Army to strive to convert all China to Islam, and compelling them to accept Islam, which they since doubtfully observe in any form, at the Pamirs, a Turk who is a member of Turkish security troops at high level and of Portugeuse and Brazilian branches still insists that the Turks are not called Turks before they reached Turkey, although the Ottomans brought with women as according to Islam and therefore according to Yasa as they fled the Mongols and their army of which they were part and came to Turkey where they established the Ottoman empire, and Kokturk before them had children of Asiatic Turkic race women. confer Hasan Celal Guzel: (2002) The Turks: Early Ages publisher Yeni Turkiye
this page is a crap this page clearly has been created by enemies of turkic people, the whole idea of this page is to induct that original turks had east asian ethnics while there are abondant clues and proof that shows that 1000 years ago turkic people were all a white race. even now among uighur and other turkic people which live in central asia there are no east asian ethnics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.129.162 ( talk) 07:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
In Turkey, there are many ethnic groups. If you don't arrange a stratified sampling, of course you get "Mixed" results. Not all Turkeyian people are Turkish in terms of their ethnic groups. If a research distingusihes the ethnic groups at the onset of sampling phase, You will reach a better understanding of Turkey.-- 76.31.238.174 ( talk) 03:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The following sentences on the intro do not include neutral point of view, which consist of biased information based on political opinions;
Old Biased Text: The discussion of the question in population genetics has historically been marred by Turkish nationalism which postulates a Pan-Turkic identity emphasizing Central Asian roots. Contrary to nationalist dogma, studies of population genetics have indicated that the modern Anatolian Turks are genetically influenced by indigenous (pre-Islamic) Anatolian populations.
New Text from a Neutral Point of View: The contribution of the Central Asian genetics to the modern Turkish people has been debated and become the subject of several studies. As a result, the studies of genetics on the people of Turkey have indicated that the modern Anatolian people are genetically influenced by indigenous (pre-Islamic) Anatolian populations as well as Central Asian roots.
Also, I remove the following unrelated sourced information because Prof. Togan's following research is on the contribution of Central Asian genetics to the shepherd dogs and sheeps of Anatolia. You can read it from the related symposium abstract: In 2010 Inci Togan et al. utilized both mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA results from Anatolian Turks and repeated former finding that about 13% of the Turkish lineages stemmed from Central Asia. (ref)"Central Asian genetic contribution to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans was estimated as 13% by an admixture analysis implemented in LEA. An Anatolian Trilogy: Arrival of nomadic Turks with their sheep and shepherd dogs, 4th International Symposium on Biomolecular Archaeology, Abstract.(/ref) Please check the following website of Togan for more information: http://www.metu.edu.tr/~togan/people.html
Also remove the following sourced repetition which is also the publications from the same research of Togan, but published on another journal. Ceren Berkmen is also the student of Prof. Togan: In 2008 Ceren Berkman et al. concluded genetically, Anatolia is more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations. The Central Asian contribution to Anatolia was estimated as 13%. (ref)"Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 136:1 (May 2008): pages 11-18.(/ref) BozokluAdam ( talk) 06:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree with this manipulation. Do not delete reliable sourced info. Thank you. Jingiby ( talk) 06:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
There are several studies dedicated as to the domestic animals, as well as to the local population. Conclusion is clear: only 13% of the Turkish lineages stemmed from Central Asia. Jingiby ( talk) 06:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
13% to animals or humans? I read the article, and think that it's not about the matter we discuss. So I recommend to remove this information till Prof Togan or her colleagues approve this. Let me send an email or phone her? So, what's your idea? Thanks. BozokluAdam ( talk) 07:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The last edits are all, but not NPOV. I think the newly registered IP-s are pushing only nationalistic agenda here, which are not an improvement. Jingiby ( talk) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
History of Turkey |
---|
Timeline |
Turkey portal |
Please provide reliable, scientific secondary or tertiary sources that Anatolia was populated exclusively by Greeks until the 11 century, i.e. the Turkic invasion. As per the article History of Anatolia that is false claim. More, ethnonym was never used in official Byzantine correspondence prior to 1204 AD. Thank you. Jingiby ( talk) 20:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
No discussion was held. I have reverted a lot of biased edits, also POV and vandalism by several IPs on the article, back to the proper, neutral version. Jingiby ( talk) 06:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
the Anatolian Turks does not belong to Afro-Asian populations such as Near East and North African Populations.
Turkish People don't belong to Europe or to Balkan Area too. My Impression is this article is subject to constant attempts of manipulation by some anti-greek or turkish-nationalists. I think it should be locked from any editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.243.167 ( talk) 22:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
You're right, it seems the article is subject to several attempts of manipulation by possible Turkish-nationalists just like Cavann or Jingiby for purely rhetorical or populist purposes. It is so obvious that Turkish people is genetically linked to the Near East and North Africa as well as to the native local populations who lived in Anatolia since the Hellenic Ages ages. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricojellyfro ( talk • contribs) 12:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed with the post above mine. Now if the science shows they are European, are you not trying to hold on to the belief that they are mongols or some invader purely out of non-science backed beliefs? the fact remains a large portion are European or Mediterranean peoples including various Greeks who settled there in the time of Alexander. It seems all a bit like cognitive dissonance where one does not wish to accept that the Turkish people are what the science shows. You can argue with genetics using political or ideological arguments but it remains that science will usually win. Even if this was a conspiracy by Turkish nationals as some claim here than they aren't wrong based on the evidence cited, just look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.176.102 ( talk) 02:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Eg: "Moreover, the mtDNA (female linkeage) sequence shared by four of these paternal relatives were also found in Turkish individuals,[14]" The source is about rocks! The article does not have the words "Turk" or "Turkish" or "Anatolia" in it! Unsourced or fake sourced material should be deleted Cavann ( talk) 19:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |booktitle=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
There are barely no genetic connections or similarities among Turkish and British people, image reference should be removed it's just a mere nationalist rethoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricojellyfro ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems there are many deceptions by some probable Turkish-nationalists who reject the idea that now-days many Turkish citizens have Greek origins or ancient native peoples of the Middle East and North Africa. I think it's better to exclude the article from any possible editable changes.
When you compare at y-dna haplogroups of greek people to turkish, they are not similar. Turkish y-dna haplogoups are more similar to Armenians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.142.179.252 ( talk) 14:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"I=5.3% - Typical of Central Europeans, Western Caucasian and Balkan populations."
Not really true, I am from Artvin paternally(of Meskhetian Turkish stock) and I carry hg. I2 aswell. But my haplogroup mutation is L68, which is native to Caucasus. There are I2 lineages among Kurds, Zazas, Armenians and Georgians as well, so there is also a South Caucasus/Eastern Anatolia branch. Also there is always some I2 around Caspian Sea and even in Central Asia but I don't know what subclade is it:
-- 212.156.122.30 ( talk) 19:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The user Ricojellyfro is changing the full main Article without any notes. See [3] it seems like he is pushing his ideas. 77.3.74.1 ( talk) 18:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
plus his source says that the Ancient Greeks were genetically influenced by Near East and North African populations, and not the modern Anatolian people. Also other sources report that Greek were influenced by Sub-Saharan Africa, but the african admixture is also found in other Southern Europe regions. that's the neutral view of point. 77.3.74.1 ( talk) 18:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
plus you can see at the distribution of Lactose intolerance [4] that Southern Europe regions and Cyprus the people where more missing this enzyme lactase EXCEPT in Anatolia. 77.3.74.1 ( talk) 18:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
plus it is ridiculous to claim that anatolian turks where only Greek origin. They were influenced by Caucasian peoples, Greco-Anatolians (Greeks), Galatians, Thracians, Romans and at last by Oghuz Turks. 77.3.74.1 ( talk) 18:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree. No explanation was given. Only biased, propagandist edit. We need NPOV-article, but not nationalistic propaganda. Jingiby ( talk) 20:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Before I start, a caveat: I came here via recent changes patrol. I am not knowledgeable on this subject.
153.232.169.142 removed the image of the "neighbor joining tree" first on the grounds that the source was bad and then on the grounds that it was original research and misrepresentation of the sources (without being specific as to how). I'm still concerned that this decision is not correct, but I'll leave it to editors more familiar with the topic to move forward. Points I would like to make, however, are as follows:
1) The image doesn't qualify as OR since it is from a reliable, published source (legitimate journal published by IAS/Springer. It would be better if it were not from a primary source, but that isn't enough to make it OR.
2) So far as I can tell the image isn't used in a fashion misrepresentative of the original source: the figure has been redrawn, and colour added, but remains essentially the same with the same caption (see http://i.imgur.com/2og7MsT.png for a comparison). This doesn't mean it isn't misleading, though, so I would invite the IP editor to elaborate further why the believe it to be.
3) The copyright status of the figure seems dubious.
Thanks!
GoddersUK ( talk) 16:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 ( talk) 05:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Genetic history of the Turkish people →
Genetic history of the Turkish population – The article name is
Genetic history of the Turkish people. However, content is related to the genetic history of the Turkish population which is different thing since minorities compose 20-25% of Turkish population. All genetic studies that are used as sources are related to Turkish population. Requesting permission to change the article name to Genetic history of the Turkish population and redirect Genetic history of the Turkish people to the same content.
Ferakp (
talk) 20:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted.
Jenks24 (
talk) 08:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The whole article discusses whether the Turks of Anatolia are related to other Turkic peoples or assimilated native Anatolians through a language shift. The researches that made comparisons with Uralics and other Turkic peoples also aimed to find an answer to same question. So, it is clearly about ethnic Turks rather than Turkish citizens. Therefore, it is very misleading to change it. 85.105.128.126 ( talk) 21:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I added details about the Turkish population and studies that are used in sources. They are related to the Turkish population, the people who live in Turkey. Only article that tell about the Turkish population is Demographics of Turkey. Turkish people which was used before is not appropriate since it says that Turkish people are ethnic Turkic group. Studies are related the people who live in Turkey not only ethnic Turkic people who live in Turkey. You can discuss here if you are against my added details and sources. Ferakp ( talk) 21:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what are you talking about, they are exactly the same sources. You can check them yourself. The source (Arnaiz Viella) is not added by me, it was already added. And it doesn't contradicts the statement, it actually confirm my statement. Here you can read summary of the study:. [1] It says: Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Iranians, Jews, Lebanese and other (Eastern and Western) Mediterranean groups seem to share a common ancestry: the older "Mediterranean" substratum. It looks like you haven't even read the sources. Read the studies that are used as sources and stop vandalism. Ferakp ( talk) 21:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)"
Lol, are you serious? I bolded for showing that source has used Turkish population. Look what the first source says: PC analysis and FRAPPE/STRUCTURE results from three regions in Turkey (Aydin, Istanbul and Kayseri) were superimposed, without clear subpopulation structure, suggesting sample homogeneity. Thus, this study demonstrates admixture of Turkish people reflecting the population migration patterns. Is this sufficient for your IQ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferakp ( talk) 21:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I still have no idea what are you talking about. I am still waiting you to show and explain why you reverted my changes. Ferakp ( talk) 22:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
References
This in the article is surprising:
What's cited, however, appears to be a primary source. Is there any more research replicating this, or has this been discussed in a review? I tried searching PubMed and Google Scholar, but I couldn't find anything else. If anyone has better sources, please post them here.-- Beneficii ( talk) 02:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The following was inserted between the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the lead by User:Barisizmirli. While the genetic data are validly referenced, the conclusions being drawn appear to be "original research", so I have moved the passage here : Noyster (talk), 11:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
It should be noted, however, that genetic studies mistakenly use 'Central Asian' to denote Mongoloid ancestry, while they are two very different things. Central Asia has been inhabited by Indo-European ethnic groups that are largely Caucasoid for thousands of years and Indo-Europeans occupied a greater territory of modern Central Asia until the arrival of the Proto-Turks, who were likely entirely Mongoloid, from the Mongolian Plateau to Central Asia. These Proto-Turks absorbed most of the Indo-Europeans, such as Scythians, of Central Asia and genetic studies show the Proto-Turks were likely smaller in numbers than the Indo-European Central Asians, since the Mongoloid genetic component is present in male Turkmens with the frequencies of about 20%, [1] more than 35% among Uzbeks and Kazakhs and less than 20% among Bashkirs and Tatars. [2] Thus 'Central Asian', while speaking about genetics, is not always used to refer the mix of the Mongoloid and Caucasoid ancestry, but could very well be mistakenly used to designate only the former.
The fact that not Turks in their evolved form, but Proto-Turks migrated to Central Asia and absorbed the various Indo-Europeans, is of high significance in the debate concerning the Turkish people's Central Asian genetic admixture, since it greatly affects the estimates on the Turks' Central Asian admixture. When a population is in its 'proto' fase, the identity that is developing and evolving from of that population is not formed yet, and the genetics of any people that the proto population absorbs, becomes part of the genetics that reflect the identity of the population that is 'evolved' from its proto ancestor. Due to this, majority of most Central Asian Turks' ancestry, both Mongoloid and Caucasoid, could be considered entirely Turkic, and not partially Indo-European. In that case, the Turkish people do not have 13-15%, but 20-60% Central Asian admixture, since the percentage of Mongoloid ancestry among Turks ranges between mostly 6-18%, with the highest frequencies being detected in west Turkey. [3]
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
What is about this?
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/10/3/207?fbclid=IwAR2ZnMHRZkIw6SKqojJcjHkvLaBASjyNDue1iGqPNjAQHuTGDEdZk-dkiEw 109.42.1.191 ( talk) 09:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
This person is removing content without providing logical reason or evidence and he's pushing his POV. The paragraph about J2, K, R1a being present in Central Asia were removed by him without providing an actual reason. Shou's study about J2 being in Uzbeks/Uyghurs is "fake" according to him, even though it does say that J2 is present in 30.4% of Uzbeks. The reason why I removed Cinnioğlu's interpretation in 2004 was it was outdated since the haplogroups' descriptions below it go against his interpretation (IE Central Asian being only limited to C, Q, O haplogroups). On top of that, Cinnioğlu doesn't even consider N to be a Central Asian haplogroup in his study but for some reasons this guy think he does and doesn't even try to change that part as well. Anyway, I stopped reasoning with him about the Cinnioğlu but he shouldn't touch the study or the paragraph. An another user already mentioned that as far as I see in the history of the page. The only thing this person does is clicking the undo button. I suggest taking action on this page considering how he was warned multiple times. Tasase5 ( talk) 03:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
At 13:28 on March 13, Tasase5 substracted 1,320 characters from the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people&diff=945360608&oldid=945359892
The content removed by Tasase5 was data from a 2004 paper by Cinioğlu, as well as a paragraph following it, containing original research, which I would likewise remove in a later edit. The following edit summary was provided by Tasase5 for his 13:28, March 13 edit:
It seems that there is no need to add Cinnioğlu's interpretation in 2004 if we already explain the haplogroups that are shared with what populations below and the counter-argument that argues why Cinnioğlu's Central Asian interpretation based on East Eurasian haplogroups only (excluding N, since the study assumes it's not an East Eurasian haplogroup) is wrong.
I recognized this as Tasase5's POV and reverted the edit at 18:36 on March 14:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people&diff=945554535&oldid=945360608
At 18:38 on March 14 I removed 987 characters from the article, which I summarized as POV which was not included in the reference cited. Note that in his original 13:28, March 13, Tasase5 had also removed this material:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people&diff=945554774&oldid=945554535
The following is the paragraph I removed from the article:
"However, this figure may rise to 36% if K, R1a, R1b and L (which infrequently occur in Central Asia, but are notable in many other Western Turkic groups) are also included. J2 is also frequently found in Central Asia, a notable high frequency of J2 (30.4%) is observed particularly in Uzbeks."
The following is the 2010 paper (Shou 2010) in the reference ahead of the above quote:
https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg201030
This is a case of POV, original research, and/or SYNTH. The 2010 paper above says nothing in relation to Cinioğlu (2004). It does not that Uzbeks have haplogroup J, but this paper does not support any statements with regards to Cinioğlu's work. So this paragraph is POV and original research.
This was pretty much the extent of my concern here. Note that up to this point, Tasase5 and I were at least 50% in agreement with eachother. I supported part of his contribution in my 18:38, March 14 edit.
Tasase showed up again at 01:55, March 15 and deleted the 350 characters of Cinioglu (2004) again. From that point on, until 03:25, we reverted back and forth, with my explanation consistently being that Tasase5 was pushing POV by removing Cinioğlu (2004), and him mostly not offering any explanation at ±all other than he feels Cinioglu (2004) is outdated and that such and such haplogroup came from such and such.
At 03:26, March 15 I removed an external image from the article which was privately made and hoated on Reddit. At that point I went to bed.
When I woke up, I found that Tasase5 had, bizarrely, restored the 987 character content he and I had both seemed to agree on removing in our earlier edits, his on 13:28, March 13 and mine on 18:38, March 14:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people&diff=945639228&oldid=945621361
His edit summary for the above contribution:
"Readding sourced content back. Do not vandalize the page."
I am unsure if Tasase5 was talking to the community or himself in the above edit summary. - Hunan201p ( talk) 17:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The following line with bunch of sources seem problematic:
Several studies have concluded that the genetic haplogroups indigenous to Western Asia form the largest part of the gene pool of the present-day Turkish population.[4][5][6][7][4][8][9][10]" |
While it's indeed true that Turkish people are close to Western Asian populations, the current wording is not exactly supported by all sources cited and misrepresents those sources. Here are what the sources are saying one by one:
The current wording is also awkward as it says "haplogroups indigenous to Western Asia". For example, Haplogroup R1b also originates in West Asia, or Central Asia, but it'd be awkward to put same wording into Spanish people article or something.
So the current wording should be changed to similarity with West Asia and Mediterranean, or something like that. I'm not sure about the Balkan source, as it doesn't look at all Balkan populations, and most of populations covered are also in the Mediterranean (except Romanians). I think it could be moved down into the body of the article. There's also a part about language change which should be a separate sentence. I'll try to make a suggestion here or will change it in the article later. Bogazicili ( talk) 12:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Found a recent, good review article/secondary source [7]. Full pdf can be found at researchgate.net.
This review paper seems to be in agreement with the main points in this Wiki article. Few quotes, as I don't want to quote the entire article:
I'll be adding citations to this paper and adding information as necessary. Given it's a secondary source, I think we can remove the "This article relies too much on references to primary sources" tag. I'll move the tag to "Genetic history and Turkish identity" section, since it's an entire section with just one primary source. I'm not sure if anyone reads the talk page here, but just wanted to make the talk page notification first. Not sure when I'll get around to doing this. Bogazicili ( talk) 08:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Kevo327: Dude it was Bulgarian genetic studies source yes. But it mentioned from East Eurasian gen pool in article. And i fixed East Asian to East Eurasian. Tarik289 ( talk) 18:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Wikaviani's recent edits/reverts [8] [9], here is what the secondary source says [10]:
"Second, the genetic variation in Central Asian populations that neighbor Western Asia has been poorly characterized. We have little or no genomewide data from transition geographies, such as Azerbaijan, or people living in Central Asian geographies, such as Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. As such, it is likely that Western Asian populations are also closely related to populations in the east, but Central Asian populations are yet to be comprehensively sampled for genome-wide analyses."
I see no reason to drop the word Azerbaijan (since it gives an example to what they mean by "transition geographies") or the authors conclusions/opinions. They actually say "it is likely", where as I had just used "may" Bogazicili ( talk) 21:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
This source says that the Azeris and Central Asians have only little in common when it comes to their gene pool, however, i will reinstate your edit since this article is about Turkey, not Azerbaijan, so i will leave Azerbaijan out if you agree.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers ( talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short 2 to 3 sentence response below.
Hi, Firefangledfeathers. Sorry for late reply, been pretty busy. Basically, the issue is I made this edit: [15] and Wikaviani seems to be contesting it. But he hasn't clarified his position:
1) Does he object to anything other than adding "Azerbaijan" into the sentence? 2) Does he still object to adding "Azerbaijan" into the sentence? If yes, does he have any contradictory sources?
He has only presented one source [16], which was a dated primary source that does not even contradict what I had initially added. In layman's terms there has been no Whole genome sequencing study done in Azerbaijan (one that looks at the entire genome), but only studies that looked at smaller parts of the DNA. He also has said there are UNDUE issues but again he hasn't presented any sources. [17] So I'm not sure what he is objecting to at this point or if he still maintains we shouldn't add "Azerbaijan" into the sentence. Bogazicili ( talk) 05:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
In agreement with the elite dominance model of language expansion most of the Turkic peoples studied genetically resemble their geographic neighbors. However, western Turkic peoples sampled across West Eurasia shared an excess of long chromosomal tracts that are identical by descent (IBD) with populations from present-day South Siberia and Mongolia (SSM), an area where historians center a series of early Turkic and non-Turkic steppe polities.Also personally there had been a genetic research on Afshars of Turkey:
In an Afshar village near Ankara where, according to oral tradition, the ancestors of the inhabitants came from Central Asia, the researchers found that 57% of the villagers had haplogroup L, 13% had haplogroup Q and 3% had haplogroup N. Examples of haplogroup L, which is most common in South Asia, might be a result of Central Asian migration even though the presence of haplogroup L in Central Asia itself was most likely a result of migration from South Asia. Therefore, Central Asian haplogroups potentially occurred in 73% of males in the village. Furthermore, 10% of the Afshars had haplogroups E3a and E3b, while only 13% had haplogroup J2a, the most common in Turkey.Honestly, haplogroup isn't alone to enough determine some people's origin, considering Persians doesn't share much common (regarding haplo) with proto Iranian IE groups. Beshogur ( talk) 18:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@
Wikaviani: actually there is: Azeris are integrated in the first cluster, together with Gorgan (Iranian Turkmen population (Rey et al. 2014)) and Kurds (Armirzargar et al. 2015), and in intermediate position between Iranian populations (Gonzalez-Galarza et al. 2011), and western Siberians: Russian Chuvash (who live near lower Volga River, 126 North Caspian Sea (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2003)), Russian Siberian Mansi (from western
Siberia (Uinuk-Ool et al. 2002)), Russian-Mongols Buryat (from Baikal Lake region (Uinuk-Ool et al. 2002)) and Russian Siberian Todja (from western Siberia, inhabiting in the northeastern part of Tuva Republic (Uinuk-Ool et al. 2002))
and Azeris are located close to Gorgan Turkmen in an intermediate situation between these two major groups in this analysis but closer to the first one
(Origin of Azeris (Iran) according to HLA genes)
Beshogur (
talk) 20:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
For this section of the article, does Bogazicili find that to cover the most important points? Does Wikiavani find that to still be too much from that source? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 05:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)A 2017 literature review found that understanding of the genetic connection between Turkish and Central Asian peoples is hampered by the lack of whole genome sequencing of West and Central Asian populations.
As such, it is likely that Western Asian populations are also closely related to populations in the east, but Central Asian populations are yet to be comprehensively sampled for genome-wide analyses.
Wikaviani and Firefangledfeathers, I have found a 2019 article that is a genome-wide study that includes Azerbaijan. [24]. It's a great study and will be including it in the relevant articles in the next few weeks. But I am now ok with dropping Azerbaijan from what we were discussing. Are you 2 ok with the below wording:
"As of 2017, Central Asian genetic variation has been poorly studied, with little or no whole genome sequencing data for countries such as Turkmenistan and Afghanistan.[1] Therefore, future comprehensive genome-wide studies are needed. Central Asian populations near Western Asia may also be related closely to Western Asian populations, including Turkey." Bogazicili ( talk) 00:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers, we started discussing another topic above. But are you ok with the current wording in the article now after this edit? [30] Bogazicili ( talk) 04:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
In the original English text of this article, there was a thesis of a geneticist named Cavalli-sforza, who rejected the dominant culture assimilation theory for Anatolian Turks. cavalli-sforza said: "Asian haplogroups in Anatolian Turks show a significant amount of Asian migration. There are two major migration waves, and apart from that, there are uninterrupted small migrations of around 1% of the population every century. If all these waves of migration had occurred in a single time, rather than in intervals, today's Anatolia The outward appearance of his society would be no different from that of the Central Asians." For some reason, these expressions were also removed from the original article in English. Burtigin ( talk) 08:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Do we have regions of 16 Turkish samples? I found a statement of reference [31], "We sampled the genomes from diverse geographical regions in Turkey". Considering ethnic diversity of different regions of Turkey and the obscurity of the rate of representation, I am not exactly sure about suitability of the reference. BerkBerk 68 11:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
A 2017 study compared Kurds with their neighboring populations concluded that HLA genetic similarity have been reported between Turks (whose genes they said belong to old Anatolian stock) and Kurds despite the fact that Kurds and Turks speak languages that are included in different families, they noted that Kurds HLA genetic studies include them into Mediterranean stock together with Turks, they also concluded that “This again shows that languages and genes do not correlate because languages may be imposed by a genetic (but powerful) minority. This is the case of Turks: Anatolian people were settled down there since ancient prehistoric times, but a minority of people (Turks) coming from Central Asia imposed language in historical times”
[1]
Tezak habra 2 (
talk) 12:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC) <---
blocked
sock of
User:Amr.elmowaled
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Genetic studies on Turkish people article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The introduction contains this sentence" Contrary to nationalist dogma, studies of population genetics have indicated that the modern Anatolian Turks are prevalently descended from indigenous (pre-Islamic) Anatolian populations." but the remainder of the article talks of Turkich origin for Turkish people. I have also failed to find where in the reference that's used for the sentence that suggests what the sentence say. TheDarkLordSeth ( talk) 11:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC), this prevalent descent is reinforced by genocide of Turks against true Asiatic Turks which came from Mongolia and China, although they may have had a nomadic origin if blond, blue eyed Turks from Turkey as a separate unique wolf from Aryan formed Turk man race the Kok Turk, Kokturk, Gok Turk, Gokturk, the Heaven Turk, the Saljuq Turk, the Osmanli Ottoman Turk, as of the twentieth century initiated by the Greeks and their idealistic Christian Turco-Mongol allies in the Turkish population and army who sought a regional confederation to replace the weakening Ottoman Empire and to live up to the Freedom Blood Oaths of dangers unsuspected by average Turks and then sought to receive protection from the Kingdom of Armenia which however did not spare them their fate for seeking to depose the Sultan, mass execution and connivance with Greek massacre of "unsubmissive" Ottomans on the Gemick-Yalova Peninsula still name like Haftanin after Yalova of the Russian officers and generals including women commanders of Ildalqu Altan Ulus the Mongol army, these being those who differed from the practices of Buddha in war, and therefore left and joined the Ottoman army over centuries, and Turks had inhabited Central Asia and were used to repopulate Turkey by Mustafah Kemal Ataturk from the Tarim Basin, and inhabited Central Asia in Turkmenistan, and in Mongolia and parts of Central Asia the Christian Naiman Turk that created the Chahar Mongol by admixture and the Turks that occupied central China since An Lu Shan, and till northwest China, which they populated intentionally losing a battle to the Arabs when part of the imperial Chinese army at the Pamirs, the Arabs sang out the Koran and their troops exercised their beautiful bend into the union with the Arab troops, joining them and encircling the Imperial Chinese Army to strive to convert all China to Islam, and compelling them to accept Islam, which they since doubtfully observe in any form, at the Pamirs, a Turk who is a member of Turkish security troops at high level and of Portugeuse and Brazilian branches still insists that the Turks are not called Turks before they reached Turkey, although the Ottomans brought with women as according to Islam and therefore according to Yasa as they fled the Mongols and their army of which they were part and came to Turkey where they established the Ottoman empire, and Kokturk before them had children of Asiatic Turkic race women. confer Hasan Celal Guzel: (2002) The Turks: Early Ages publisher Yeni Turkiye
this page is a crap this page clearly has been created by enemies of turkic people, the whole idea of this page is to induct that original turks had east asian ethnics while there are abondant clues and proof that shows that 1000 years ago turkic people were all a white race. even now among uighur and other turkic people which live in central asia there are no east asian ethnics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.129.162 ( talk) 07:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
In Turkey, there are many ethnic groups. If you don't arrange a stratified sampling, of course you get "Mixed" results. Not all Turkeyian people are Turkish in terms of their ethnic groups. If a research distingusihes the ethnic groups at the onset of sampling phase, You will reach a better understanding of Turkey.-- 76.31.238.174 ( talk) 03:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The following sentences on the intro do not include neutral point of view, which consist of biased information based on political opinions;
Old Biased Text: The discussion of the question in population genetics has historically been marred by Turkish nationalism which postulates a Pan-Turkic identity emphasizing Central Asian roots. Contrary to nationalist dogma, studies of population genetics have indicated that the modern Anatolian Turks are genetically influenced by indigenous (pre-Islamic) Anatolian populations.
New Text from a Neutral Point of View: The contribution of the Central Asian genetics to the modern Turkish people has been debated and become the subject of several studies. As a result, the studies of genetics on the people of Turkey have indicated that the modern Anatolian people are genetically influenced by indigenous (pre-Islamic) Anatolian populations as well as Central Asian roots.
Also, I remove the following unrelated sourced information because Prof. Togan's following research is on the contribution of Central Asian genetics to the shepherd dogs and sheeps of Anatolia. You can read it from the related symposium abstract: In 2010 Inci Togan et al. utilized both mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA results from Anatolian Turks and repeated former finding that about 13% of the Turkish lineages stemmed from Central Asia. (ref)"Central Asian genetic contribution to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans was estimated as 13% by an admixture analysis implemented in LEA. An Anatolian Trilogy: Arrival of nomadic Turks with their sheep and shepherd dogs, 4th International Symposium on Biomolecular Archaeology, Abstract.(/ref) Please check the following website of Togan for more information: http://www.metu.edu.tr/~togan/people.html
Also remove the following sourced repetition which is also the publications from the same research of Togan, but published on another journal. Ceren Berkmen is also the student of Prof. Togan: In 2008 Ceren Berkman et al. concluded genetically, Anatolia is more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations. The Central Asian contribution to Anatolia was estimated as 13%. (ref)"Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 136:1 (May 2008): pages 11-18.(/ref) BozokluAdam ( talk) 06:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree with this manipulation. Do not delete reliable sourced info. Thank you. Jingiby ( talk) 06:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
There are several studies dedicated as to the domestic animals, as well as to the local population. Conclusion is clear: only 13% of the Turkish lineages stemmed from Central Asia. Jingiby ( talk) 06:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
13% to animals or humans? I read the article, and think that it's not about the matter we discuss. So I recommend to remove this information till Prof Togan or her colleagues approve this. Let me send an email or phone her? So, what's your idea? Thanks. BozokluAdam ( talk) 07:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The last edits are all, but not NPOV. I think the newly registered IP-s are pushing only nationalistic agenda here, which are not an improvement. Jingiby ( talk) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
History of Turkey |
---|
Timeline |
Turkey portal |
Please provide reliable, scientific secondary or tertiary sources that Anatolia was populated exclusively by Greeks until the 11 century, i.e. the Turkic invasion. As per the article History of Anatolia that is false claim. More, ethnonym was never used in official Byzantine correspondence prior to 1204 AD. Thank you. Jingiby ( talk) 20:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
No discussion was held. I have reverted a lot of biased edits, also POV and vandalism by several IPs on the article, back to the proper, neutral version. Jingiby ( talk) 06:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
the Anatolian Turks does not belong to Afro-Asian populations such as Near East and North African Populations.
Turkish People don't belong to Europe or to Balkan Area too. My Impression is this article is subject to constant attempts of manipulation by some anti-greek or turkish-nationalists. I think it should be locked from any editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.243.167 ( talk) 22:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
You're right, it seems the article is subject to several attempts of manipulation by possible Turkish-nationalists just like Cavann or Jingiby for purely rhetorical or populist purposes. It is so obvious that Turkish people is genetically linked to the Near East and North Africa as well as to the native local populations who lived in Anatolia since the Hellenic Ages ages. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricojellyfro ( talk • contribs) 12:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed with the post above mine. Now if the science shows they are European, are you not trying to hold on to the belief that they are mongols or some invader purely out of non-science backed beliefs? the fact remains a large portion are European or Mediterranean peoples including various Greeks who settled there in the time of Alexander. It seems all a bit like cognitive dissonance where one does not wish to accept that the Turkish people are what the science shows. You can argue with genetics using political or ideological arguments but it remains that science will usually win. Even if this was a conspiracy by Turkish nationals as some claim here than they aren't wrong based on the evidence cited, just look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.176.102 ( talk) 02:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Eg: "Moreover, the mtDNA (female linkeage) sequence shared by four of these paternal relatives were also found in Turkish individuals,[14]" The source is about rocks! The article does not have the words "Turk" or "Turkish" or "Anatolia" in it! Unsourced or fake sourced material should be deleted Cavann ( talk) 19:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |booktitle=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
There are barely no genetic connections or similarities among Turkish and British people, image reference should be removed it's just a mere nationalist rethoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricojellyfro ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems there are many deceptions by some probable Turkish-nationalists who reject the idea that now-days many Turkish citizens have Greek origins or ancient native peoples of the Middle East and North Africa. I think it's better to exclude the article from any possible editable changes.
When you compare at y-dna haplogroups of greek people to turkish, they are not similar. Turkish y-dna haplogoups are more similar to Armenians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.142.179.252 ( talk) 14:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"I=5.3% - Typical of Central Europeans, Western Caucasian and Balkan populations."
Not really true, I am from Artvin paternally(of Meskhetian Turkish stock) and I carry hg. I2 aswell. But my haplogroup mutation is L68, which is native to Caucasus. There are I2 lineages among Kurds, Zazas, Armenians and Georgians as well, so there is also a South Caucasus/Eastern Anatolia branch. Also there is always some I2 around Caspian Sea and even in Central Asia but I don't know what subclade is it:
-- 212.156.122.30 ( talk) 19:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The user Ricojellyfro is changing the full main Article without any notes. See [3] it seems like he is pushing his ideas. 77.3.74.1 ( talk) 18:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
plus his source says that the Ancient Greeks were genetically influenced by Near East and North African populations, and not the modern Anatolian people. Also other sources report that Greek were influenced by Sub-Saharan Africa, but the african admixture is also found in other Southern Europe regions. that's the neutral view of point. 77.3.74.1 ( talk) 18:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
plus you can see at the distribution of Lactose intolerance [4] that Southern Europe regions and Cyprus the people where more missing this enzyme lactase EXCEPT in Anatolia. 77.3.74.1 ( talk) 18:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
plus it is ridiculous to claim that anatolian turks where only Greek origin. They were influenced by Caucasian peoples, Greco-Anatolians (Greeks), Galatians, Thracians, Romans and at last by Oghuz Turks. 77.3.74.1 ( talk) 18:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree. No explanation was given. Only biased, propagandist edit. We need NPOV-article, but not nationalistic propaganda. Jingiby ( talk) 20:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Before I start, a caveat: I came here via recent changes patrol. I am not knowledgeable on this subject.
153.232.169.142 removed the image of the "neighbor joining tree" first on the grounds that the source was bad and then on the grounds that it was original research and misrepresentation of the sources (without being specific as to how). I'm still concerned that this decision is not correct, but I'll leave it to editors more familiar with the topic to move forward. Points I would like to make, however, are as follows:
1) The image doesn't qualify as OR since it is from a reliable, published source (legitimate journal published by IAS/Springer. It would be better if it were not from a primary source, but that isn't enough to make it OR.
2) So far as I can tell the image isn't used in a fashion misrepresentative of the original source: the figure has been redrawn, and colour added, but remains essentially the same with the same caption (see http://i.imgur.com/2og7MsT.png for a comparison). This doesn't mean it isn't misleading, though, so I would invite the IP editor to elaborate further why the believe it to be.
3) The copyright status of the figure seems dubious.
Thanks!
GoddersUK ( talk) 16:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 ( talk) 05:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Genetic history of the Turkish people →
Genetic history of the Turkish population – The article name is
Genetic history of the Turkish people. However, content is related to the genetic history of the Turkish population which is different thing since minorities compose 20-25% of Turkish population. All genetic studies that are used as sources are related to Turkish population. Requesting permission to change the article name to Genetic history of the Turkish population and redirect Genetic history of the Turkish people to the same content.
Ferakp (
talk) 20:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted.
Jenks24 (
talk) 08:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The whole article discusses whether the Turks of Anatolia are related to other Turkic peoples or assimilated native Anatolians through a language shift. The researches that made comparisons with Uralics and other Turkic peoples also aimed to find an answer to same question. So, it is clearly about ethnic Turks rather than Turkish citizens. Therefore, it is very misleading to change it. 85.105.128.126 ( talk) 21:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I added details about the Turkish population and studies that are used in sources. They are related to the Turkish population, the people who live in Turkey. Only article that tell about the Turkish population is Demographics of Turkey. Turkish people which was used before is not appropriate since it says that Turkish people are ethnic Turkic group. Studies are related the people who live in Turkey not only ethnic Turkic people who live in Turkey. You can discuss here if you are against my added details and sources. Ferakp ( talk) 21:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what are you talking about, they are exactly the same sources. You can check them yourself. The source (Arnaiz Viella) is not added by me, it was already added. And it doesn't contradicts the statement, it actually confirm my statement. Here you can read summary of the study:. [1] It says: Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Iranians, Jews, Lebanese and other (Eastern and Western) Mediterranean groups seem to share a common ancestry: the older "Mediterranean" substratum. It looks like you haven't even read the sources. Read the studies that are used as sources and stop vandalism. Ferakp ( talk) 21:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)"
Lol, are you serious? I bolded for showing that source has used Turkish population. Look what the first source says: PC analysis and FRAPPE/STRUCTURE results from three regions in Turkey (Aydin, Istanbul and Kayseri) were superimposed, without clear subpopulation structure, suggesting sample homogeneity. Thus, this study demonstrates admixture of Turkish people reflecting the population migration patterns. Is this sufficient for your IQ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferakp ( talk) 21:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I still have no idea what are you talking about. I am still waiting you to show and explain why you reverted my changes. Ferakp ( talk) 22:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
References
This in the article is surprising:
What's cited, however, appears to be a primary source. Is there any more research replicating this, or has this been discussed in a review? I tried searching PubMed and Google Scholar, but I couldn't find anything else. If anyone has better sources, please post them here.-- Beneficii ( talk) 02:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The following was inserted between the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the lead by User:Barisizmirli. While the genetic data are validly referenced, the conclusions being drawn appear to be "original research", so I have moved the passage here : Noyster (talk), 11:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
It should be noted, however, that genetic studies mistakenly use 'Central Asian' to denote Mongoloid ancestry, while they are two very different things. Central Asia has been inhabited by Indo-European ethnic groups that are largely Caucasoid for thousands of years and Indo-Europeans occupied a greater territory of modern Central Asia until the arrival of the Proto-Turks, who were likely entirely Mongoloid, from the Mongolian Plateau to Central Asia. These Proto-Turks absorbed most of the Indo-Europeans, such as Scythians, of Central Asia and genetic studies show the Proto-Turks were likely smaller in numbers than the Indo-European Central Asians, since the Mongoloid genetic component is present in male Turkmens with the frequencies of about 20%, [1] more than 35% among Uzbeks and Kazakhs and less than 20% among Bashkirs and Tatars. [2] Thus 'Central Asian', while speaking about genetics, is not always used to refer the mix of the Mongoloid and Caucasoid ancestry, but could very well be mistakenly used to designate only the former.
The fact that not Turks in their evolved form, but Proto-Turks migrated to Central Asia and absorbed the various Indo-Europeans, is of high significance in the debate concerning the Turkish people's Central Asian genetic admixture, since it greatly affects the estimates on the Turks' Central Asian admixture. When a population is in its 'proto' fase, the identity that is developing and evolving from of that population is not formed yet, and the genetics of any people that the proto population absorbs, becomes part of the genetics that reflect the identity of the population that is 'evolved' from its proto ancestor. Due to this, majority of most Central Asian Turks' ancestry, both Mongoloid and Caucasoid, could be considered entirely Turkic, and not partially Indo-European. In that case, the Turkish people do not have 13-15%, but 20-60% Central Asian admixture, since the percentage of Mongoloid ancestry among Turks ranges between mostly 6-18%, with the highest frequencies being detected in west Turkey. [3]
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
What is about this?
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/10/3/207?fbclid=IwAR2ZnMHRZkIw6SKqojJcjHkvLaBASjyNDue1iGqPNjAQHuTGDEdZk-dkiEw 109.42.1.191 ( talk) 09:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
This person is removing content without providing logical reason or evidence and he's pushing his POV. The paragraph about J2, K, R1a being present in Central Asia were removed by him without providing an actual reason. Shou's study about J2 being in Uzbeks/Uyghurs is "fake" according to him, even though it does say that J2 is present in 30.4% of Uzbeks. The reason why I removed Cinnioğlu's interpretation in 2004 was it was outdated since the haplogroups' descriptions below it go against his interpretation (IE Central Asian being only limited to C, Q, O haplogroups). On top of that, Cinnioğlu doesn't even consider N to be a Central Asian haplogroup in his study but for some reasons this guy think he does and doesn't even try to change that part as well. Anyway, I stopped reasoning with him about the Cinnioğlu but he shouldn't touch the study or the paragraph. An another user already mentioned that as far as I see in the history of the page. The only thing this person does is clicking the undo button. I suggest taking action on this page considering how he was warned multiple times. Tasase5 ( talk) 03:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
At 13:28 on March 13, Tasase5 substracted 1,320 characters from the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people&diff=945360608&oldid=945359892
The content removed by Tasase5 was data from a 2004 paper by Cinioğlu, as well as a paragraph following it, containing original research, which I would likewise remove in a later edit. The following edit summary was provided by Tasase5 for his 13:28, March 13 edit:
It seems that there is no need to add Cinnioğlu's interpretation in 2004 if we already explain the haplogroups that are shared with what populations below and the counter-argument that argues why Cinnioğlu's Central Asian interpretation based on East Eurasian haplogroups only (excluding N, since the study assumes it's not an East Eurasian haplogroup) is wrong.
I recognized this as Tasase5's POV and reverted the edit at 18:36 on March 14:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people&diff=945554535&oldid=945360608
At 18:38 on March 14 I removed 987 characters from the article, which I summarized as POV which was not included in the reference cited. Note that in his original 13:28, March 13, Tasase5 had also removed this material:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people&diff=945554774&oldid=945554535
The following is the paragraph I removed from the article:
"However, this figure may rise to 36% if K, R1a, R1b and L (which infrequently occur in Central Asia, but are notable in many other Western Turkic groups) are also included. J2 is also frequently found in Central Asia, a notable high frequency of J2 (30.4%) is observed particularly in Uzbeks."
The following is the 2010 paper (Shou 2010) in the reference ahead of the above quote:
https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg201030
This is a case of POV, original research, and/or SYNTH. The 2010 paper above says nothing in relation to Cinioğlu (2004). It does not that Uzbeks have haplogroup J, but this paper does not support any statements with regards to Cinioğlu's work. So this paragraph is POV and original research.
This was pretty much the extent of my concern here. Note that up to this point, Tasase5 and I were at least 50% in agreement with eachother. I supported part of his contribution in my 18:38, March 14 edit.
Tasase showed up again at 01:55, March 15 and deleted the 350 characters of Cinioglu (2004) again. From that point on, until 03:25, we reverted back and forth, with my explanation consistently being that Tasase5 was pushing POV by removing Cinioğlu (2004), and him mostly not offering any explanation at ±all other than he feels Cinioglu (2004) is outdated and that such and such haplogroup came from such and such.
At 03:26, March 15 I removed an external image from the article which was privately made and hoated on Reddit. At that point I went to bed.
When I woke up, I found that Tasase5 had, bizarrely, restored the 987 character content he and I had both seemed to agree on removing in our earlier edits, his on 13:28, March 13 and mine on 18:38, March 14:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people&diff=945639228&oldid=945621361
His edit summary for the above contribution:
"Readding sourced content back. Do not vandalize the page."
I am unsure if Tasase5 was talking to the community or himself in the above edit summary. - Hunan201p ( talk) 17:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The following line with bunch of sources seem problematic:
Several studies have concluded that the genetic haplogroups indigenous to Western Asia form the largest part of the gene pool of the present-day Turkish population.[4][5][6][7][4][8][9][10]" |
While it's indeed true that Turkish people are close to Western Asian populations, the current wording is not exactly supported by all sources cited and misrepresents those sources. Here are what the sources are saying one by one:
The current wording is also awkward as it says "haplogroups indigenous to Western Asia". For example, Haplogroup R1b also originates in West Asia, or Central Asia, but it'd be awkward to put same wording into Spanish people article or something.
So the current wording should be changed to similarity with West Asia and Mediterranean, or something like that. I'm not sure about the Balkan source, as it doesn't look at all Balkan populations, and most of populations covered are also in the Mediterranean (except Romanians). I think it could be moved down into the body of the article. There's also a part about language change which should be a separate sentence. I'll try to make a suggestion here or will change it in the article later. Bogazicili ( talk) 12:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Found a recent, good review article/secondary source [7]. Full pdf can be found at researchgate.net.
This review paper seems to be in agreement with the main points in this Wiki article. Few quotes, as I don't want to quote the entire article:
I'll be adding citations to this paper and adding information as necessary. Given it's a secondary source, I think we can remove the "This article relies too much on references to primary sources" tag. I'll move the tag to "Genetic history and Turkish identity" section, since it's an entire section with just one primary source. I'm not sure if anyone reads the talk page here, but just wanted to make the talk page notification first. Not sure when I'll get around to doing this. Bogazicili ( talk) 08:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Kevo327: Dude it was Bulgarian genetic studies source yes. But it mentioned from East Eurasian gen pool in article. And i fixed East Asian to East Eurasian. Tarik289 ( talk) 18:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Wikaviani's recent edits/reverts [8] [9], here is what the secondary source says [10]:
"Second, the genetic variation in Central Asian populations that neighbor Western Asia has been poorly characterized. We have little or no genomewide data from transition geographies, such as Azerbaijan, or people living in Central Asian geographies, such as Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. As such, it is likely that Western Asian populations are also closely related to populations in the east, but Central Asian populations are yet to be comprehensively sampled for genome-wide analyses."
I see no reason to drop the word Azerbaijan (since it gives an example to what they mean by "transition geographies") or the authors conclusions/opinions. They actually say "it is likely", where as I had just used "may" Bogazicili ( talk) 21:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
This source says that the Azeris and Central Asians have only little in common when it comes to their gene pool, however, i will reinstate your edit since this article is about Turkey, not Azerbaijan, so i will leave Azerbaijan out if you agree.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers ( talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short 2 to 3 sentence response below.
Hi, Firefangledfeathers. Sorry for late reply, been pretty busy. Basically, the issue is I made this edit: [15] and Wikaviani seems to be contesting it. But he hasn't clarified his position:
1) Does he object to anything other than adding "Azerbaijan" into the sentence? 2) Does he still object to adding "Azerbaijan" into the sentence? If yes, does he have any contradictory sources?
He has only presented one source [16], which was a dated primary source that does not even contradict what I had initially added. In layman's terms there has been no Whole genome sequencing study done in Azerbaijan (one that looks at the entire genome), but only studies that looked at smaller parts of the DNA. He also has said there are UNDUE issues but again he hasn't presented any sources. [17] So I'm not sure what he is objecting to at this point or if he still maintains we shouldn't add "Azerbaijan" into the sentence. Bogazicili ( talk) 05:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
In agreement with the elite dominance model of language expansion most of the Turkic peoples studied genetically resemble their geographic neighbors. However, western Turkic peoples sampled across West Eurasia shared an excess of long chromosomal tracts that are identical by descent (IBD) with populations from present-day South Siberia and Mongolia (SSM), an area where historians center a series of early Turkic and non-Turkic steppe polities.Also personally there had been a genetic research on Afshars of Turkey:
In an Afshar village near Ankara where, according to oral tradition, the ancestors of the inhabitants came from Central Asia, the researchers found that 57% of the villagers had haplogroup L, 13% had haplogroup Q and 3% had haplogroup N. Examples of haplogroup L, which is most common in South Asia, might be a result of Central Asian migration even though the presence of haplogroup L in Central Asia itself was most likely a result of migration from South Asia. Therefore, Central Asian haplogroups potentially occurred in 73% of males in the village. Furthermore, 10% of the Afshars had haplogroups E3a and E3b, while only 13% had haplogroup J2a, the most common in Turkey.Honestly, haplogroup isn't alone to enough determine some people's origin, considering Persians doesn't share much common (regarding haplo) with proto Iranian IE groups. Beshogur ( talk) 18:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@
Wikaviani: actually there is: Azeris are integrated in the first cluster, together with Gorgan (Iranian Turkmen population (Rey et al. 2014)) and Kurds (Armirzargar et al. 2015), and in intermediate position between Iranian populations (Gonzalez-Galarza et al. 2011), and western Siberians: Russian Chuvash (who live near lower Volga River, 126 North Caspian Sea (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2003)), Russian Siberian Mansi (from western
Siberia (Uinuk-Ool et al. 2002)), Russian-Mongols Buryat (from Baikal Lake region (Uinuk-Ool et al. 2002)) and Russian Siberian Todja (from western Siberia, inhabiting in the northeastern part of Tuva Republic (Uinuk-Ool et al. 2002))
and Azeris are located close to Gorgan Turkmen in an intermediate situation between these two major groups in this analysis but closer to the first one
(Origin of Azeris (Iran) according to HLA genes)
Beshogur (
talk) 20:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
For this section of the article, does Bogazicili find that to cover the most important points? Does Wikiavani find that to still be too much from that source? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 05:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)A 2017 literature review found that understanding of the genetic connection between Turkish and Central Asian peoples is hampered by the lack of whole genome sequencing of West and Central Asian populations.
As such, it is likely that Western Asian populations are also closely related to populations in the east, but Central Asian populations are yet to be comprehensively sampled for genome-wide analyses.
Wikaviani and Firefangledfeathers, I have found a 2019 article that is a genome-wide study that includes Azerbaijan. [24]. It's a great study and will be including it in the relevant articles in the next few weeks. But I am now ok with dropping Azerbaijan from what we were discussing. Are you 2 ok with the below wording:
"As of 2017, Central Asian genetic variation has been poorly studied, with little or no whole genome sequencing data for countries such as Turkmenistan and Afghanistan.[1] Therefore, future comprehensive genome-wide studies are needed. Central Asian populations near Western Asia may also be related closely to Western Asian populations, including Turkey." Bogazicili ( talk) 00:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers, we started discussing another topic above. But are you ok with the current wording in the article now after this edit? [30] Bogazicili ( talk) 04:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
In the original English text of this article, there was a thesis of a geneticist named Cavalli-sforza, who rejected the dominant culture assimilation theory for Anatolian Turks. cavalli-sforza said: "Asian haplogroups in Anatolian Turks show a significant amount of Asian migration. There are two major migration waves, and apart from that, there are uninterrupted small migrations of around 1% of the population every century. If all these waves of migration had occurred in a single time, rather than in intervals, today's Anatolia The outward appearance of his society would be no different from that of the Central Asians." For some reason, these expressions were also removed from the original article in English. Burtigin ( talk) 08:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Do we have regions of 16 Turkish samples? I found a statement of reference [31], "We sampled the genomes from diverse geographical regions in Turkey". Considering ethnic diversity of different regions of Turkey and the obscurity of the rate of representation, I am not exactly sure about suitability of the reference. BerkBerk 68 11:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
A 2017 study compared Kurds with their neighboring populations concluded that HLA genetic similarity have been reported between Turks (whose genes they said belong to old Anatolian stock) and Kurds despite the fact that Kurds and Turks speak languages that are included in different families, they noted that Kurds HLA genetic studies include them into Mediterranean stock together with Turks, they also concluded that “This again shows that languages and genes do not correlate because languages may be imposed by a genetic (but powerful) minority. This is the case of Turks: Anatolian people were settled down there since ancient prehistoric times, but a minority of people (Turks) coming from Central Asia imposed language in historical times”
[1]
Tezak habra 2 (
talk) 12:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC) <---
blocked
sock of
User:Amr.elmowaled
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)