![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
The populations should change to give more accurate and correct data please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.172.59 ( talk) 15:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Turkish populaitons world : 75,000,000-85,000,000
Turkey : 58,000,000-62,000,000 % 78-84
Germany : 3,500,000-4,000,000
Iraq : 2,500,000-3,000,000
Syria : 1,500,000-2,500,000
Bulgaria : 750,000
France : 500,000-600,000
United kingdom : 500,000
USA : 500,000
Netherlands,Cyprus,greece,macedonia,canada,austria,belgium,russia.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.69.7 ( talk) 18:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The phrase "Although numerous modern genetic studies have indicated that the historical Anatolian groups are the primary source of the present-day Turkish population" which is then followed by the references of earliest traces of Turkic people. The phrase in the beginning tends to give an impression of Turks back then have (in a greater sense) nothing to do with Turks in Turkey, while the opposite is true. Being a Turk is not determined by genetics only but rather with culture, maternal tongue and sense of national loyalty. Just like Greeks and Armenians are Hellenized Anatolians like Hittites, Phoenicians, Assyrians and so on, but yet no one is less Greek by it. So this sentence in a general context is misleading and should be mentioned in "Genetics" (in this same article) which deals with genetics only and not with determination of identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.132.22 ( talk) 22:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The modern Turks are regarded as descendants of the Oghuzes, with ofcourse interaction with other gene pools. This does in no way mean they are not related anymore, DNA isn't the only factor which determines in a broader sense ones identity. You're deliberately making off base false reasoning's ripping everything from its context. This is pure your own concept, while in ethnology they never evaluate based only on ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.132.22 ( talk) 00:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The text does say that, "Although numerous modern genetic studies have indicated that the historical Anatolian groups are the primary source of the present-day Turkish population" what does that mean ? giving an impression like genetics means everything and the only thing that must be taken in account when tracking relations of populations. And also you're drawing a way too black and white picture of the Turkish gene pool, Turks have interacted with way more people then just Anatolians. Like how many Persians didn't they intermarry in the ages of the Seljuqs when a great deal of Persians moved in to Anatolia, let alone Turkish tribes before conquest of Asia minor were also divided into Europoid and mongoloid types. Like the Cumans and Kipchaks were Europoid they to have been assimilated into Oghuzes. Even, just only recent in the 1930's two million ethnically slavisized Turks seeked refuge in Turkey and assimilated into Turkish gene pool while at that time the whole Turkish population was only 12 million, this also has a big impact. If you track this from the 18th century until 1930 this number even rises to 5 to 6 million. The chart in Wikipedia Genetic history doesn't also support these simplistic claims :
J2=24% - J2 (M172) Typical of populations of Caucasus, the Near East, Southeast Europe, Southwest Asia with a moderate distribution through much of Central Asia, South Asia, and North Africa. R1b=14.7% -Typical of Western Europeans, Eurasian People, and typical of Uyghurs in the Central Asia [22][23] G=10.9% - Typical of people from the Caucasus and to a lesser extent the Middle East. E1b1b1=10.7% - Typical of people from the Mediterranean J1=9% - Typical amongst people from the Arabian Peninsula and Dagestan (ranging from 3% from Turks around Konya to 12% in Kurds). R1a=6.9% - Typical of Central Asian, Caucasus, Altaic people, Eastern Europeans and Indo-Aryan people. I=5.3% - Typical of Central Europeans, Western Caucasian and Balkan populations. K=4.5% - Typical of Asian populations and Caucasian populations. L=4.2% - Typical of Indian Subcontinent and Khorasan populations. N=3.8% - Typical of Uralic, Siberian and Altaic populations. T=2.5% - Typical of Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, Northeast African and South Asian populations Q=1.9% - Typical of Northern Altaic populations.
Only E1b1b1=10.7% - Typical of people from the Mediterranean, would be Anatolia specific. The potentially J2, R1b, G, R1a and I. Most of these are shared by almost any Europoid and some of these by Central Asians, Middle East etc. Hence, its impossible and based on assumptions how European genes were assimilated into Turkish gene pool. Unless its being guided with reliable historical documents which deal with mass delocation of populations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.132.22 ( talk) 17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
No sources were provided. Only original research and POV. Jingiby ( talk) 17:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Could we add there Lefter Küçükandonyadis, the legendary Turkish national football team player, on his first anniversary of passing away... Thanks. -- E4024 ( talk) 22:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I removed this category since it is vague and seems to be original research, and since Turkey is officially secular (and most Turks live there). Cavann ( talk) 19:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
According to the definition by the state of Turkey, "Turkish Nation" (Türk Milleti) exists. But, this is different concept (political concept) and one of the Turkic peoples is explained in the this article. I think description of nation has to be removed and if need, the article Turkish Nation can be created. Thank you. Takabeg ( talk) 21:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Why are you (editors editing this article) only adding information about politics, demographics? The editors here removed cultural information on Turkish people, but did not rewrite the paragraph. Are you planning add "culture"? Kavas ( talk) 17:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
"Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups, in addition to neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples, despite speaking a Turkic language, which was adopted by the local populations who predominantly had spoken Indo-European languages." Is the sentence properly written? Kavas ( talk) 13:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Reverting even the most simplest of things. I urge you here to stop this, Cavann. -- Mttll ( talk) 08:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague ( talk · contribs) 15:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Fascinating article! Review will proceed soon. QatarStarsLeague ( talk) 15:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a marvelous work. Both the images and the prose pass. I have never reviewed an article of this volume in which there are no issues to be allayed. Excellent nomination, and a congratulations! QatarStarsLeague ( talk) 00:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Moderm Turkish people mostly descent: Albanian, Serb, Macedonians, Bulgarian, Crimean, Circassian, Georgian, Laz, Kurd, Zaza, Arap, Cretan and Mongol-Nogai were islamised made by Ottoman Sultan(Caliph). Now they call themselves (Pseudo)Turks.
What happened to the indigenous people of Anatolia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adana_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zilan_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersim_Massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.169.73 ( talk) 19:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
...in fact her ethnic background is a matter of debate. Many argue that she is Albanian or from the Caucasus. I will remove her image without any further objections. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 13:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a myth set up within the legal framework of the Turkish Republic and particularly its constitution. Unfortunately, it has now spilled into Wikipedia. Just because someone has Turkish citizenship does not make one a "Turk". In fact, some have even been prosecuted and eventually assassinated in Turkey just because they said that they are "Armenian". Please let us not have this nonsense spill into this encyclopedia. We all know that there is a stark difference between ethnicity and citizenship, which is a common understanding in the western world. I will remove without objection. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 13:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Support this wording. Excellent point. Athenean ( talk) 06:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
No. Issue resolved. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 13:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Third opinion is only suitable for disputes with only two editors involved. There seems to be more than two here so I will leave you to it. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Alexikoua removed this, [1] saying "source doesn't say this, it says only about Byzantine era population". Yet the source talks about "aborigines," ie: "indigenous groups" in the text.
“ | The Turks are also defined by the country of origin. Turkey, once Asia Minor or Anatolia, has a very long and complex history. It was one of the major regions of agricultural development in the early Neolithic and may have been the place of origin and spread of lndo-European languages at that time. The Turkish language was imposed on a predominantly lndo-European-speaking population (Greek being the official language of the Byzantine empire), and genetically there is very little difference between Turkey and the neighboring countries. The number of Turkish invaders was probably rather small and was genetically diluted by the large number of aborigines. | ” |
L. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza; Paolo, Menozzi; Alberto, Piazza (1994). The history and geography of human genes. Princeton University Press. p. 243.
I will be adding this source back. Cavann ( talk) 18:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Cavann. Jingiby ( talk) 19:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
A really wonder whats the meaning to mention the Hittites, and other Bronze age info about Anatolia, as part of the history of the Turkish people. For sure there is a huge time gap (some millenia) before the first presence of Turkish people in that region. Alexikoua ( talk) 17:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I can only assume that this is just part of an ulranationalist autochtony theory, which has no place, for sure, in this community. Alexikoua ( talk) 18:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that Cavann is mixing up Turkey and Turkish people, which are different topics, and hence why they have separate articles. Athenean ( talk) 21:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
“ | INCEPTION AS A NATION
Archaeologist have discovered some of the oldest known human structures, a series of ritual or temple sites, in southern Anatolia. Dating from 9000 or 8000 b.c.e., structures at Gobekli Tepe and other places are believed to have been built by preagricultural cultures and include some of the earliest representations of human and animal figures ever discovered. Bronze Age technology also came to Anatolia early, and the peninsula was one of the centers of early civilization from the fourth millennium b.c.e. In the third millennium b.c.e. Anatolia was part of the Akkadian Empire, the world’s earliest known empire, and seems to have been an important source of metals for its Mesopotamian overlords (see Akkadians). The greatest indigenous civilization to arise in Anatolia was that of the Hittites, which thrived from the 17th to the 14th centuries b.c.e. and enjoyed a revival between about 1200 and 700 b.c.e. This was supplanted by the Lydian Kingdom (see Lydians), which was then conquered by the Iranian Achaemenid Empire in the sixth century b.c.e. (see Achaemenids; Persians). Conquest by Alexander the Great in the fourth century b.c.e. was followed by rule under the Seleucids (see Greeks) and eventual incorporation into Roman territory (see Romans) in the second century b.c.e. Parts of Anatolia were ruled by the Romans and their successors, the Byzantines, for over a thousand years until the 15th century c.e. Other parts of Anatolia, especially in the south and east, were ruled by a succession of colorful and powerful kingdoms including the Armenians, the Seljuk sultans of Rum (see Seljuks; Turkic Peoples), and the Ilkhans. The movement of Turkic peoples into Anatolia began in the 11th century c.e. following the defeat of Byzantine forces by the Seljuks at Manzikert in 1071.... |
” |
“ | It also offers us a most parsimonious, if not unanticipated, explanation of Turk ethnogenesis: the vast
pre-Turkic-speaking populations of Anatolia and Siberia came to be called Turkish or Turkic due to various large-scale language- and culture-shifts beginning in the European Middle Ages and not ending until the early twentieth century. |
” |
Due to the above mentioned problems, I believe a GA reassessment is necessary. Please vote for your support or disapproval along side with your reasons. Thank you. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 16:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
sources refer to Algerians who may be of Turkish descent, not modern Turkish people living in Algeria (of which I would guess there are very few, not millions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.15.132 ( talk) 21:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Athenean deleted this saying, "rm Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, unreliable source." [12] Antonio Arnaiz-Villena's work could have been criticized, but it is still a peer-reviewed journal article that has not been retracted. And it is not being cited here to support any of the relevant controversies (ie, it's not being cited to say something about Greeks). I made an entry in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cavann ( talk) 22:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Enough with the "genetic continuity" stuff. Inserting it in every section is getting old, and is nothing more than POV-pushing by repetition for effect. There is a genetics section for that, repeating it in the history section is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing at this point. The history section should be a history of the Turkish people, not a repeat of the history section Turkey. It appears some users have difficulty distinguishing between the two. Athenean ( talk) 21:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Very well, your continuing edit-warring and POV-pushing leave me no choice but to ask for a GA reassessment. Stability and neutrality are key characteristics of a GA. The way the article was moreover promoted to GA without a single modificiation or reviewer comment was always suspicious. Athenean ( talk) 21:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm getting the impression that this article is trying to convince its readers that Turks are native to Asia Minor. Turks are bearers of the Turkic culture, not Anatolian. They are indeed, genetically, far from the "pure" Turkic people such as Turkems, Uzbeks and Kyrgyz, but that doesn't change the facts that Turks are Turkic people and culturally, have nothing to do with the ancient Anatolians. The sentence "Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups" isn't clear enough. One can think that the Turks are just the modern form of the ancient Anatolians, like Italians are of the ancient Romans, which isn't really the case. -- Երևանցի talk 00:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Here are some sources
There has earlier been raised questions about one sentence in the lede, but it was not followed up at the time: "Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups, in addition to neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples, despite speaking a Turkic language, which was adopted by the local populations who predominantly had spoken Indo-European languages." I see some problems here.
Regards! -- T*U ( talk) 09:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
A full citation fully identifies a reliable source and, where applicable, the place in that source (such as a page number) where the information in question can be found.
Bingo. This means in case its impossible to give precise page numbers (or alternatively quotes) we have a huge wp:or concernt and all this fringe theory will soon go. Alexikoua ( talk) 21:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
No wonder Yardumian doesn't claim that Turkish people came only from "Ancient Anatolians and Thracians" excluding all other populations that lived in Anatolia (i.e. Greeks, Armenians, due to obvious reaons). I assume that the same way of large-scale falsification of references occurred in the rest of the sources which lack the necessary pagenumber. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)... as in this case.
Alexikoua (
talk)
13:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Sources, quotes, page numbers
|
---|
Yardumian, A.; Schurr, T. G. (2011). "Who Are the Anatolian Turks?". Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia 50: 6. doi:10.2753/AAE1061-1959500101
Rosser, Z.; Zerjal, T.; Hurles, M.; Adojaan, M.; Alavantic, D.; Amorim, A.; Amos, W.; Armenteros, M.; Arroyo, E.; Barbujani, G.; Beckman, G.; Beckman, L.; Bertranpetit, J.; Bosch, E.; Bradley, D. G.; Brede, G.; Cooper, G.; Côrte-Real, H. B.; De Knijff, P.; Decorte, R.; Dubrova, Y. E.; Evgrafov, O.; Gilissen, A.; Glisic, S.; Gölge, M.; Hill, E. W.; Jeziorowska, A.; Kalaydjieva, L.; Kayser, M.; Kivisild, T. (2000). "Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language". The American Journal of Human Genetics 67 (6): 1526–1543. doi:10.1086/316890.
Cinnioglu, C.; King, R.; Kivisild, T.; Kalfoğlu, E.; Atasoy, S.; Cavalleri, G. L.; Lillie, A. S.; Roseman, C. C.; Lin, A. A.; Prince, K.; Oefner, P. J.; Shen, P.; Semino, O.; Cavalli-Sforza, L. L.; Underhill, P. A. (2004). "Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia". Human Genetics 114 (2): 127–148. doi:10.1007/s00439-003-1031-4. Under title “Minor genetic influence of Turkic speakers” “These new Y-chromosome data provide candidate haplogroups to differentiate lineages specific to the postulated source populations, thus overcoming potential artifacts caused by indistinguishable overlapping gene flows. The best candidates for estimations are Asian-specific haplogroups C-RPS4Y (Wells et al. 2001; Karafet et al. 2001; Zerjal et al. 2003) and O3-M122 (Su et al. 2000). These lineages occur at 1.5% in Turkey (8/523). Using Central Asian Y-chromosome data from either 13 populations and 149 samples (Underhill et al. 2000) or 49 populations and 1,935 samples (Wells et al. 2001) where these diagnostic lineages occur at 33% and 18%, respectively, their estimated contributions range from 0.0153/0.329 × 100=4.6% to 0.0153/0.180 × 100=8.5%. During the Bronze Age the population of Anatolia expanded, reaching an estimated level of 12 million during the late Roman Period (Russell 1958). Such a large pre-existing Anatolian population would have reduced the impact by the subsequent arrival of Turkic speaking Seljuk and Osmanlı groups from Central Asia. ” (p. 135) Arnaiz-Villena, A.; Karin, M.; Bendikuze, N.; Gomez-Casado, E.; Moscoso, J.; Silvera, C.; Oguz, F. S.; Sarper Diler, A.; De Pacho, A.; Allende, L.; Guillen, J.; Martinez Laso, J. (2001). "HLA alleles and haplotypes in the Turkish population: Relatedness to Kurds, Armenians and other Mediterraneans". Tissue Antigens 57 (4): 308–317. doi:10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057004308.x Under title “Turks HLA profile reflects that of ancient Anatolians”
Wells, R. S.; Yuldasheva, N.; Ruzibakiev, R.; Underhill, P. A.; Evseeva, I.; Blue-Smith, J.; Jin, L.; Su, B.; Pitchappan, R.; Shanmugalakshmi, S.; Balakrishnan, K.; Read, M.; Pearson, N. M.; Zerjal, T.; Webster, M. T.; Zholoshvili, I.; Jamarjashvili, E.; Gambarov, S.; Nikbin, B.; Dostiev, A.; Aknazarov, O.; Zalloua, P.; Tsoy, I.; Kitaev, M.; Mirrakhimov, M.; Chariev, A.; Bodmer, W. F. (2001). "The Eurasian Heartland: A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98 (18): 10244. doi:10.1073/pnas.171305098
|
His article says that he's an Iraqi Turkmen. Here's a source from a Turkish govt agency. [24] Should he stay in the infobox? -- Երևանցի talk 04:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
“ | BIOGRAPHY
Ihsan Dogramaci: A Remarkable Turk, by Sir Horace Phillips. Bishop Wilton, York, England: Wilton 65, 1997. xiv + 106 pages. Index to p. 108. ?12. Reviewed by Howard A. Reed ... Dogramaci was born into an affluent Ottoman Turkish landowning family in 1915. His father, 'Ali Dogramaci Pasha, was mayor of Erbil. 'Ali Pasha later represented his Turkmen constituency in the Iraqi Senate under the British mandate in Baghdad |
” |
What do some have against this opening statement? -- Mttll ( talk) 09:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Why is this listed in GA articles when its clear it did not get a proper review Talk:Turkish people/GA1? It should be delsited ASAP to not confuse our readers. Will let others comment before delisting. -- Moxy ( talk) 20:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I knew this was coming. The article has a lot of problems that must be sorted out before being accepted as a GA status article. The nominator and the reviewer made almost no note of this. The Talk Page highlights much of these problems in addition to Athenean's concerns outlined here. First and foremost, claims from sources written by controversial academics who have rarely been referred to and are almost unheard of in today's academia were used to make bold and controversial claims. These claims and sources are already being examined by the WP:RS community so I am not going to lay them out here. Continuous edit-warring and problematic edits have severely tarnished this articles stance as being a GA article. If the article needs reassessment, I believe all editors involved with the concerns raised in the talk page of the article to reach a consensus or to somehow involve non-involved editors/admins to help them do so. We can't have this going on forever. As for my opinion, I support a reassessment of the article as a GA. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 05:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Without commenting on the article in and of itself, I should note that many diffs from 2009 were plagiarism additions by User:thetruthonly. I'm not sure how much of his revisions remain in the article, since there has been a very large number of edits since, but they will have to be reviewed on google books for this to remain a GA. His diffs are here: (+6070) (+975) (+747) (+1322) (+1761) (+794) (+6800). Wizardman 18:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It does look as though there are some real problems here. Looking back over how some of the sources and stats have been used raises some real questions for me, and the sources I'm able to easily check aren't backing up the cited claims being made. I'd support a reassessment. Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
“ | While adding footnotes is helpful, adding too many can cause citation clutter, which can make articles look untidy in read mode, and unreadable in edit mode. If a page has extra citations that are either mirror pages or just parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to its reliability while acting as a detriment to its readability. | ” |
“ | The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. | ” |
There is no reason why there should be 8 citations in just two sentences, especially in the lead. The same sentences are in 'Prehistory, Ancient era and Early Middle Ages' and 'Genetics' sections. -- Երևանցի talk 14:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone make a collage in a single picture including notable people, like in the other nationality articles. The current one looks too basic. By the way, I will gladly help to any request. User:KazekageTR —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
The populations should change to give more accurate and correct data please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.172.59 ( talk) 15:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Turkish populaitons world : 75,000,000-85,000,000
Turkey : 58,000,000-62,000,000 % 78-84
Germany : 3,500,000-4,000,000
Iraq : 2,500,000-3,000,000
Syria : 1,500,000-2,500,000
Bulgaria : 750,000
France : 500,000-600,000
United kingdom : 500,000
USA : 500,000
Netherlands,Cyprus,greece,macedonia,canada,austria,belgium,russia.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.69.7 ( talk) 18:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The phrase "Although numerous modern genetic studies have indicated that the historical Anatolian groups are the primary source of the present-day Turkish population" which is then followed by the references of earliest traces of Turkic people. The phrase in the beginning tends to give an impression of Turks back then have (in a greater sense) nothing to do with Turks in Turkey, while the opposite is true. Being a Turk is not determined by genetics only but rather with culture, maternal tongue and sense of national loyalty. Just like Greeks and Armenians are Hellenized Anatolians like Hittites, Phoenicians, Assyrians and so on, but yet no one is less Greek by it. So this sentence in a general context is misleading and should be mentioned in "Genetics" (in this same article) which deals with genetics only and not with determination of identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.132.22 ( talk) 22:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The modern Turks are regarded as descendants of the Oghuzes, with ofcourse interaction with other gene pools. This does in no way mean they are not related anymore, DNA isn't the only factor which determines in a broader sense ones identity. You're deliberately making off base false reasoning's ripping everything from its context. This is pure your own concept, while in ethnology they never evaluate based only on ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.132.22 ( talk) 00:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The text does say that, "Although numerous modern genetic studies have indicated that the historical Anatolian groups are the primary source of the present-day Turkish population" what does that mean ? giving an impression like genetics means everything and the only thing that must be taken in account when tracking relations of populations. And also you're drawing a way too black and white picture of the Turkish gene pool, Turks have interacted with way more people then just Anatolians. Like how many Persians didn't they intermarry in the ages of the Seljuqs when a great deal of Persians moved in to Anatolia, let alone Turkish tribes before conquest of Asia minor were also divided into Europoid and mongoloid types. Like the Cumans and Kipchaks were Europoid they to have been assimilated into Oghuzes. Even, just only recent in the 1930's two million ethnically slavisized Turks seeked refuge in Turkey and assimilated into Turkish gene pool while at that time the whole Turkish population was only 12 million, this also has a big impact. If you track this from the 18th century until 1930 this number even rises to 5 to 6 million. The chart in Wikipedia Genetic history doesn't also support these simplistic claims :
J2=24% - J2 (M172) Typical of populations of Caucasus, the Near East, Southeast Europe, Southwest Asia with a moderate distribution through much of Central Asia, South Asia, and North Africa. R1b=14.7% -Typical of Western Europeans, Eurasian People, and typical of Uyghurs in the Central Asia [22][23] G=10.9% - Typical of people from the Caucasus and to a lesser extent the Middle East. E1b1b1=10.7% - Typical of people from the Mediterranean J1=9% - Typical amongst people from the Arabian Peninsula and Dagestan (ranging from 3% from Turks around Konya to 12% in Kurds). R1a=6.9% - Typical of Central Asian, Caucasus, Altaic people, Eastern Europeans and Indo-Aryan people. I=5.3% - Typical of Central Europeans, Western Caucasian and Balkan populations. K=4.5% - Typical of Asian populations and Caucasian populations. L=4.2% - Typical of Indian Subcontinent and Khorasan populations. N=3.8% - Typical of Uralic, Siberian and Altaic populations. T=2.5% - Typical of Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, Northeast African and South Asian populations Q=1.9% - Typical of Northern Altaic populations.
Only E1b1b1=10.7% - Typical of people from the Mediterranean, would be Anatolia specific. The potentially J2, R1b, G, R1a and I. Most of these are shared by almost any Europoid and some of these by Central Asians, Middle East etc. Hence, its impossible and based on assumptions how European genes were assimilated into Turkish gene pool. Unless its being guided with reliable historical documents which deal with mass delocation of populations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.132.22 ( talk) 17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
No sources were provided. Only original research and POV. Jingiby ( talk) 17:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Could we add there Lefter Küçükandonyadis, the legendary Turkish national football team player, on his first anniversary of passing away... Thanks. -- E4024 ( talk) 22:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I removed this category since it is vague and seems to be original research, and since Turkey is officially secular (and most Turks live there). Cavann ( talk) 19:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
According to the definition by the state of Turkey, "Turkish Nation" (Türk Milleti) exists. But, this is different concept (political concept) and one of the Turkic peoples is explained in the this article. I think description of nation has to be removed and if need, the article Turkish Nation can be created. Thank you. Takabeg ( talk) 21:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Why are you (editors editing this article) only adding information about politics, demographics? The editors here removed cultural information on Turkish people, but did not rewrite the paragraph. Are you planning add "culture"? Kavas ( talk) 17:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
"Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups, in addition to neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples, despite speaking a Turkic language, which was adopted by the local populations who predominantly had spoken Indo-European languages." Is the sentence properly written? Kavas ( talk) 13:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Reverting even the most simplest of things. I urge you here to stop this, Cavann. -- Mttll ( talk) 08:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague ( talk · contribs) 15:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Fascinating article! Review will proceed soon. QatarStarsLeague ( talk) 15:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a marvelous work. Both the images and the prose pass. I have never reviewed an article of this volume in which there are no issues to be allayed. Excellent nomination, and a congratulations! QatarStarsLeague ( talk) 00:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Moderm Turkish people mostly descent: Albanian, Serb, Macedonians, Bulgarian, Crimean, Circassian, Georgian, Laz, Kurd, Zaza, Arap, Cretan and Mongol-Nogai were islamised made by Ottoman Sultan(Caliph). Now they call themselves (Pseudo)Turks.
What happened to the indigenous people of Anatolia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adana_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zilan_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersim_Massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.169.73 ( talk) 19:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
...in fact her ethnic background is a matter of debate. Many argue that she is Albanian or from the Caucasus. I will remove her image without any further objections. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 13:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a myth set up within the legal framework of the Turkish Republic and particularly its constitution. Unfortunately, it has now spilled into Wikipedia. Just because someone has Turkish citizenship does not make one a "Turk". In fact, some have even been prosecuted and eventually assassinated in Turkey just because they said that they are "Armenian". Please let us not have this nonsense spill into this encyclopedia. We all know that there is a stark difference between ethnicity and citizenship, which is a common understanding in the western world. I will remove without objection. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 13:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Support this wording. Excellent point. Athenean ( talk) 06:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
No. Issue resolved. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 13:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Third opinion is only suitable for disputes with only two editors involved. There seems to be more than two here so I will leave you to it. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Alexikoua removed this, [1] saying "source doesn't say this, it says only about Byzantine era population". Yet the source talks about "aborigines," ie: "indigenous groups" in the text.
“ | The Turks are also defined by the country of origin. Turkey, once Asia Minor or Anatolia, has a very long and complex history. It was one of the major regions of agricultural development in the early Neolithic and may have been the place of origin and spread of lndo-European languages at that time. The Turkish language was imposed on a predominantly lndo-European-speaking population (Greek being the official language of the Byzantine empire), and genetically there is very little difference between Turkey and the neighboring countries. The number of Turkish invaders was probably rather small and was genetically diluted by the large number of aborigines. | ” |
L. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza; Paolo, Menozzi; Alberto, Piazza (1994). The history and geography of human genes. Princeton University Press. p. 243.
I will be adding this source back. Cavann ( talk) 18:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Cavann. Jingiby ( talk) 19:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
A really wonder whats the meaning to mention the Hittites, and other Bronze age info about Anatolia, as part of the history of the Turkish people. For sure there is a huge time gap (some millenia) before the first presence of Turkish people in that region. Alexikoua ( talk) 17:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I can only assume that this is just part of an ulranationalist autochtony theory, which has no place, for sure, in this community. Alexikoua ( talk) 18:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that Cavann is mixing up Turkey and Turkish people, which are different topics, and hence why they have separate articles. Athenean ( talk) 21:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
“ | INCEPTION AS A NATION
Archaeologist have discovered some of the oldest known human structures, a series of ritual or temple sites, in southern Anatolia. Dating from 9000 or 8000 b.c.e., structures at Gobekli Tepe and other places are believed to have been built by preagricultural cultures and include some of the earliest representations of human and animal figures ever discovered. Bronze Age technology also came to Anatolia early, and the peninsula was one of the centers of early civilization from the fourth millennium b.c.e. In the third millennium b.c.e. Anatolia was part of the Akkadian Empire, the world’s earliest known empire, and seems to have been an important source of metals for its Mesopotamian overlords (see Akkadians). The greatest indigenous civilization to arise in Anatolia was that of the Hittites, which thrived from the 17th to the 14th centuries b.c.e. and enjoyed a revival between about 1200 and 700 b.c.e. This was supplanted by the Lydian Kingdom (see Lydians), which was then conquered by the Iranian Achaemenid Empire in the sixth century b.c.e. (see Achaemenids; Persians). Conquest by Alexander the Great in the fourth century b.c.e. was followed by rule under the Seleucids (see Greeks) and eventual incorporation into Roman territory (see Romans) in the second century b.c.e. Parts of Anatolia were ruled by the Romans and their successors, the Byzantines, for over a thousand years until the 15th century c.e. Other parts of Anatolia, especially in the south and east, were ruled by a succession of colorful and powerful kingdoms including the Armenians, the Seljuk sultans of Rum (see Seljuks; Turkic Peoples), and the Ilkhans. The movement of Turkic peoples into Anatolia began in the 11th century c.e. following the defeat of Byzantine forces by the Seljuks at Manzikert in 1071.... |
” |
“ | It also offers us a most parsimonious, if not unanticipated, explanation of Turk ethnogenesis: the vast
pre-Turkic-speaking populations of Anatolia and Siberia came to be called Turkish or Turkic due to various large-scale language- and culture-shifts beginning in the European Middle Ages and not ending until the early twentieth century. |
” |
Due to the above mentioned problems, I believe a GA reassessment is necessary. Please vote for your support or disapproval along side with your reasons. Thank you. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 16:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
sources refer to Algerians who may be of Turkish descent, not modern Turkish people living in Algeria (of which I would guess there are very few, not millions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.15.132 ( talk) 21:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Athenean deleted this saying, "rm Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, unreliable source." [12] Antonio Arnaiz-Villena's work could have been criticized, but it is still a peer-reviewed journal article that has not been retracted. And it is not being cited here to support any of the relevant controversies (ie, it's not being cited to say something about Greeks). I made an entry in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cavann ( talk) 22:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Enough with the "genetic continuity" stuff. Inserting it in every section is getting old, and is nothing more than POV-pushing by repetition for effect. There is a genetics section for that, repeating it in the history section is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing at this point. The history section should be a history of the Turkish people, not a repeat of the history section Turkey. It appears some users have difficulty distinguishing between the two. Athenean ( talk) 21:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Very well, your continuing edit-warring and POV-pushing leave me no choice but to ask for a GA reassessment. Stability and neutrality are key characteristics of a GA. The way the article was moreover promoted to GA without a single modificiation or reviewer comment was always suspicious. Athenean ( talk) 21:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm getting the impression that this article is trying to convince its readers that Turks are native to Asia Minor. Turks are bearers of the Turkic culture, not Anatolian. They are indeed, genetically, far from the "pure" Turkic people such as Turkems, Uzbeks and Kyrgyz, but that doesn't change the facts that Turks are Turkic people and culturally, have nothing to do with the ancient Anatolians. The sentence "Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups" isn't clear enough. One can think that the Turks are just the modern form of the ancient Anatolians, like Italians are of the ancient Romans, which isn't really the case. -- Երևանցի talk 00:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Here are some sources
There has earlier been raised questions about one sentence in the lede, but it was not followed up at the time: "Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups, in addition to neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples, despite speaking a Turkic language, which was adopted by the local populations who predominantly had spoken Indo-European languages." I see some problems here.
Regards! -- T*U ( talk) 09:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
A full citation fully identifies a reliable source and, where applicable, the place in that source (such as a page number) where the information in question can be found.
Bingo. This means in case its impossible to give precise page numbers (or alternatively quotes) we have a huge wp:or concernt and all this fringe theory will soon go. Alexikoua ( talk) 21:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
No wonder Yardumian doesn't claim that Turkish people came only from "Ancient Anatolians and Thracians" excluding all other populations that lived in Anatolia (i.e. Greeks, Armenians, due to obvious reaons). I assume that the same way of large-scale falsification of references occurred in the rest of the sources which lack the necessary pagenumber. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)... as in this case.
Alexikoua (
talk)
13:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Sources, quotes, page numbers
|
---|
Yardumian, A.; Schurr, T. G. (2011). "Who Are the Anatolian Turks?". Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia 50: 6. doi:10.2753/AAE1061-1959500101
Rosser, Z.; Zerjal, T.; Hurles, M.; Adojaan, M.; Alavantic, D.; Amorim, A.; Amos, W.; Armenteros, M.; Arroyo, E.; Barbujani, G.; Beckman, G.; Beckman, L.; Bertranpetit, J.; Bosch, E.; Bradley, D. G.; Brede, G.; Cooper, G.; Côrte-Real, H. B.; De Knijff, P.; Decorte, R.; Dubrova, Y. E.; Evgrafov, O.; Gilissen, A.; Glisic, S.; Gölge, M.; Hill, E. W.; Jeziorowska, A.; Kalaydjieva, L.; Kayser, M.; Kivisild, T. (2000). "Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language". The American Journal of Human Genetics 67 (6): 1526–1543. doi:10.1086/316890.
Cinnioglu, C.; King, R.; Kivisild, T.; Kalfoğlu, E.; Atasoy, S.; Cavalleri, G. L.; Lillie, A. S.; Roseman, C. C.; Lin, A. A.; Prince, K.; Oefner, P. J.; Shen, P.; Semino, O.; Cavalli-Sforza, L. L.; Underhill, P. A. (2004). "Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia". Human Genetics 114 (2): 127–148. doi:10.1007/s00439-003-1031-4. Under title “Minor genetic influence of Turkic speakers” “These new Y-chromosome data provide candidate haplogroups to differentiate lineages specific to the postulated source populations, thus overcoming potential artifacts caused by indistinguishable overlapping gene flows. The best candidates for estimations are Asian-specific haplogroups C-RPS4Y (Wells et al. 2001; Karafet et al. 2001; Zerjal et al. 2003) and O3-M122 (Su et al. 2000). These lineages occur at 1.5% in Turkey (8/523). Using Central Asian Y-chromosome data from either 13 populations and 149 samples (Underhill et al. 2000) or 49 populations and 1,935 samples (Wells et al. 2001) where these diagnostic lineages occur at 33% and 18%, respectively, their estimated contributions range from 0.0153/0.329 × 100=4.6% to 0.0153/0.180 × 100=8.5%. During the Bronze Age the population of Anatolia expanded, reaching an estimated level of 12 million during the late Roman Period (Russell 1958). Such a large pre-existing Anatolian population would have reduced the impact by the subsequent arrival of Turkic speaking Seljuk and Osmanlı groups from Central Asia. ” (p. 135) Arnaiz-Villena, A.; Karin, M.; Bendikuze, N.; Gomez-Casado, E.; Moscoso, J.; Silvera, C.; Oguz, F. S.; Sarper Diler, A.; De Pacho, A.; Allende, L.; Guillen, J.; Martinez Laso, J. (2001). "HLA alleles and haplotypes in the Turkish population: Relatedness to Kurds, Armenians and other Mediterraneans". Tissue Antigens 57 (4): 308–317. doi:10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057004308.x Under title “Turks HLA profile reflects that of ancient Anatolians”
Wells, R. S.; Yuldasheva, N.; Ruzibakiev, R.; Underhill, P. A.; Evseeva, I.; Blue-Smith, J.; Jin, L.; Su, B.; Pitchappan, R.; Shanmugalakshmi, S.; Balakrishnan, K.; Read, M.; Pearson, N. M.; Zerjal, T.; Webster, M. T.; Zholoshvili, I.; Jamarjashvili, E.; Gambarov, S.; Nikbin, B.; Dostiev, A.; Aknazarov, O.; Zalloua, P.; Tsoy, I.; Kitaev, M.; Mirrakhimov, M.; Chariev, A.; Bodmer, W. F. (2001). "The Eurasian Heartland: A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98 (18): 10244. doi:10.1073/pnas.171305098
|
His article says that he's an Iraqi Turkmen. Here's a source from a Turkish govt agency. [24] Should he stay in the infobox? -- Երևանցի talk 04:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
“ | BIOGRAPHY
Ihsan Dogramaci: A Remarkable Turk, by Sir Horace Phillips. Bishop Wilton, York, England: Wilton 65, 1997. xiv + 106 pages. Index to p. 108. ?12. Reviewed by Howard A. Reed ... Dogramaci was born into an affluent Ottoman Turkish landowning family in 1915. His father, 'Ali Dogramaci Pasha, was mayor of Erbil. 'Ali Pasha later represented his Turkmen constituency in the Iraqi Senate under the British mandate in Baghdad |
” |
What do some have against this opening statement? -- Mttll ( talk) 09:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Why is this listed in GA articles when its clear it did not get a proper review Talk:Turkish people/GA1? It should be delsited ASAP to not confuse our readers. Will let others comment before delisting. -- Moxy ( talk) 20:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I knew this was coming. The article has a lot of problems that must be sorted out before being accepted as a GA status article. The nominator and the reviewer made almost no note of this. The Talk Page highlights much of these problems in addition to Athenean's concerns outlined here. First and foremost, claims from sources written by controversial academics who have rarely been referred to and are almost unheard of in today's academia were used to make bold and controversial claims. These claims and sources are already being examined by the WP:RS community so I am not going to lay them out here. Continuous edit-warring and problematic edits have severely tarnished this articles stance as being a GA article. If the article needs reassessment, I believe all editors involved with the concerns raised in the talk page of the article to reach a consensus or to somehow involve non-involved editors/admins to help them do so. We can't have this going on forever. As for my opinion, I support a reassessment of the article as a GA. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 05:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Without commenting on the article in and of itself, I should note that many diffs from 2009 were plagiarism additions by User:thetruthonly. I'm not sure how much of his revisions remain in the article, since there has been a very large number of edits since, but they will have to be reviewed on google books for this to remain a GA. His diffs are here: (+6070) (+975) (+747) (+1322) (+1761) (+794) (+6800). Wizardman 18:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It does look as though there are some real problems here. Looking back over how some of the sources and stats have been used raises some real questions for me, and the sources I'm able to easily check aren't backing up the cited claims being made. I'd support a reassessment. Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
“ | While adding footnotes is helpful, adding too many can cause citation clutter, which can make articles look untidy in read mode, and unreadable in edit mode. If a page has extra citations that are either mirror pages or just parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to its reliability while acting as a detriment to its readability. | ” |
“ | The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. | ” |
There is no reason why there should be 8 citations in just two sentences, especially in the lead. The same sentences are in 'Prehistory, Ancient era and Early Middle Ages' and 'Genetics' sections. -- Երևանցի talk 14:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone make a collage in a single picture including notable people, like in the other nationality articles. The current one looks too basic. By the way, I will gladly help to any request. User:KazekageTR —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)