This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Turkification 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 |
Archives: 1 |
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's " European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out! |
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Turkey's " Turkey 1,000 Challenge", which started on September 19, 2016 and is ongoing. You can help out! |
This article was nominated for deletion on July 28 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This has as much to do with Turkification as the Holocaust has to do with Germanisation. They are completely different concepts. A more accurate form of Turkification that was endorsed by the Ottoman Empire was the Janissary system. This has been argued ad nauseum without consensus, and frankly, it's completely original research; or, argued through speculation based on specific individuals, which constitutes an inductive fallacy. The article gives one the impression that all Turkified individuals were forced, which isn't necessarily true, either. "Genetic testing" does not prove the nature of that change. Turkification means cultural assimilation, it does not mean executions, nor does it imply force. - Rosywounds ( talk) 18:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The last and most significant "INVASION" was of Turkish, as millions of nomads rushed into the area —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.101.210 ( talk) 13:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I highly doubt that there were "millions" of Turks rush into Anatolia. the actual number is probably some ten thousands. Nomad people have less population as herding the animal requires large area of land and productivity level remains low. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.216.240.165 ( talk) 14:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I added the population estimates for nomads 1 year ago. No need to thank me. Buhedyar ( talk) 15:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I have added the tags, Sciencereview, Unencyclopedic, Neologism to this article. There has been a long discussion about this article. A number of editors gave up on this article for the reasons that these tags stand for. Not having these tags gives the impression that this article is undisputed which is not the case. AverageTurkishJoe ( talk) 04:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I can' find this term in the Dictionaries. For me it is defined for the first time in Wikipedia. That's why I think it is a neologism. As for its not being encyclopaedic, the author of this article thinks that the term "Turkification" is definite enough that it deserves its own Wikipedia article but the term "Turk" itself is not definite enough (or imprecise sic.)
Could the term be isolated from whether or not Turks brought Central Asian genes to Asia Minor? That is if the current occupants of Asia Minor were 100% Inuits would it change the meaning of the term "Turkification"?
The definition of the term is a totology; it is devoid of any cultural context: Something that was not X becomes X. Very much like liquefaction,compactification, emulsification etc.
It sounds to me as if it is derived by induction using the phonetic rules of the English language. (there is no term as "Germanification" because it literally does not sound right, and not because German's did not have a policy of cultural assimilation of minorities in German Culture. (I don't know whether they did or not but what I know is that phonetical rules do not generally reflect in political and cultural movements.) "Germanization" phonetically sounds better; but the fact that it sounds better does not mean that there was an actual political movement of "Germanization". (again I don't know if there was one.)
Can an inanimate object become "Turk"? I would think not. (Because Turk means a turkish person.) "Turkification of Anatolia" is probably the most common way this term is used. Then "Turkification of Anatolia" is not properly explained by the definition in this article since Anatolia is an inanimate object.
Number of books and articles written in the last fifteen years use the term "Turkification" without giving any proper definition of what the intended meaning is. Listing these books and articles as references really does not help define the term unless a frame of reference is established beforehand. I would think that this is exactly what this article is doing: setting a frame of reference so that the term "Turkification" in those articles will be interpreted in this frame of reference. Whereas the "Framers" of Wikipedia thought that it should work the otherway around. Interpretation should be done in the "Secondary sources" and Wikipedia should be the "Tertiary source" that is "an Encyclopeadia." That is why I think this article is not Encyclopeadic AverageTurkishJoe ( talk) 06:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9504E3DA103BEE3ABC4152DFB3668383609EDE
That should give an end to some of the arguments here.
94.66.45.195 ( talk) 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)NotSoAverageIonianJoe
I don't know that there's much from there, but I think the two topics are very similar and that a merger would be a good idea, mostly because the other page doesn't have sources and compiling the two would be well worthwhile for someone researching the topic.
This article should discuss its actual title which is the process of cultural assimilation of non-Turkish ethnoreligious groups in modern Turkey. Not discus the "Genetic testing of language replacement hypothesis in Anatolia, Caucasus and Balkans". Someone should clean this article and start from scratch.-- Rafy talk 22:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
This article was written under the POV of Turkish nationalists and needs an entire make over. Most of this article can be directly merged and added to the Turkish people page. Turkification by definition is "a term used to describe a process of cultural change in which something or someone who is not a Turk becomes one, voluntarily or involuntarily." Grant it...the first sentence in the introduction of the article does state this, however, the process of cultural assimilation is no where to be found. If a consensus is reached, I am going to delete the "Appearance of Turks in Anatolia" and "Genetic testing of language replacement hypothesis in Anatolia, Caucasus and Balkans". Please vote either oppose or support. Thank you. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 01:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I am oposing for now, because I do not understand your agenda. Jingiby ( talk) 10:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
a) The "Genetic testing..." can be shortened and the reader can be directed to the relevant article with a link. However, this section cannot be completely deleted, as it is very very relevant. Actually, most of the genetic bibliography includes some reference to the cultural/lingual shift to "turkishness". Other relevant articles are the Cryptochristians and Devsirme. (b) Turcification happened mostly before the emergence of turkish nationalism (late 19th c.). In ottoman period meaned shift of religion (Christian or Jew to Muslim) and shift of language (to Turkish). (c) There was no real "voluntary" turkification, as the turkified persons had to chose between poverty or even extinction and survival. (d) I could include a short paragraph to christian martyrs who died in this way: They were forced to become Turks and they refuse or, they had been turkified and decided to re-convert to their original religion, and eventually were executed.-- Euzen ( talk) 18:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Macedonian nationalism arose in the second half of the 19th. century, but until 1912 it was propagated only by a limited group of intellectuals. There is no data some of them to was turkified. Jingiby ( talk)
I expected to read something about the expansion of Turks throughout Central Asia starting in the early centuries AD. Does this page specifically pertain to Ottoman Turkification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.195.227 ( talk) 22:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This section is rather lengthy and includes interesting material that is sourced. However, none of the sources appear to be Turkification and its not clear why it's been added to this article. Turkish people has a section about this, but I see there is also a main article Genetic studies on Turkish people and would propose merging this section into that article. Seraphim System ( talk) 02:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Wrong. The language replacement hypothesis is disregarded these days. There was replacement, and there was ethnic mixing. Cinnioğlu's study is irrelevant as he only counts East Eurasian haplogroups as "Central Asian" and completely ignores haplogroups such as J2, R1b, R1a, K which are found in great amounts in Central Asia. Besides his source is outdated. I have a more recent study (Heraclides et al 2017) that talks about Turks' haplogroups. And in that study the Turks are described as a hybrid population of Anatolians, Turkics and ex-Ottomans (Balkans etc). Also an autosomal dna study in 2014 (Can Alkan et al 2014) explicitly mentions that there's a significant East Asian element in Turks. Plus, the study mentions that calculating the contribution of Central Asians is very difficult for we have no samples from Medieval Anatolia (Seljuk era). People should stop posting outdated studies to prove their point. The page itself is useless I admit, because we know little about the Seljuk Turks' genetic make up. Hence we can't talk about Central Asian genetic contribution. And relying on outdated studies is also wrong. For they're outdated and those studies are debunked by recent studies (like Wells' study, which was debunked by Can Alkan et al 2014, Heraclides et al 2017 and even Berkman et al 2006 which explicitly mentions that there was no elite assimilation in Anatolia and language was not enforced. I'm waiting for a recent autosomal study which clearly talks about genetics of Seljuk era Turkmens, Byzantine era Anatolians and modern Turks to delete those outdated studies or lump them together in a sentence which starts with "outdated studies". Buhedyar ( talk) 20:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
. [discussing Turkish and Azeri genotypes] ...This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic languages, originating in the Altai-Sayan region of Central Asia and northwestern Mongolia (31), were imposed on the Caucasian and Anatolian peoples with relatively little genetic admixture — another possible example of elite dominance-driven linguistic replacement.
as well as the extinction of the local Anatolian languages- ok, but a significant part of this was a consequence of Hellenization. From reading this, I would assume it was a consequence of Turkification. There is WP:OR in the section, where the studies are loosely connected to issues about genetic makeup and linguistics. So the analysis of the primary sources is not based on secondary sources, and that is why it is WP:OR. If genetic studies are in fact used to prove or disprove hypotheses about Turkification as you suggest, then we should include only that secondary analysis, and not our own to avoid introducing (subtle) errors and misleading content to the article. Seraphim System ( talk) 04:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
language and not by biological factors). Seraphim System ( talk) 05:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Anatolians do not significantly differ from other Mediterranean populations, indicating that while the Asian Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance (language and religion), the genetic significance is lesser detectable- this is true, but there is no source that says "genetics" was part of Turkification. I don't even think I can argue that it is WP:FRINGE because I have not been able to find even one source for it.
If Turkey was Turkified in 1071, why did it have to be "ReTurkified", well you're using different definitions of Turkification and confusing things, the first being the transition to a Turkish national identity and the second being the removal of some vestigial non-Turkish elements from the national culture, which are very different phenomena and unfortunately have the same name. But I can tell both of us can see past the semiological confusion in that sentence, so why use that as an argument? Last I remember Cinnioglu states pretty much that the majority of the genome appears native so there was a case of linguistic and cultural replacement (read Turkification). However I have lost access to his paper. I do have access to Wells. As I quoted above, Wells says the same thing. So no, this is not OR. I've noticed a lot of Turks get defensive about this on wiki, and make it sound as if they're being singled out. That isn't true. Wikipedia also has discussed related hypotheses (with varying degrees of support) of linguistic and cultural replacement with regards to certain Slavic speaking peoples, English people (which if this were a "bad thing" would be shocking given the known Anglocentric bias of English Wikipedia), Azerbaijanis, Romanians, and various others. -- Calthinus ( talk) 17:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
you're using different definitions of Turkification and confusing things, the first being the transition to a Turkish national identity and the second being the removal of some vestigial non-Turkish elements from the national culture- I posted eight sources last night. I have not been able to find any sources that support this definition of Turkification, and I posted several sources to show why this a problem. I am busy also, but I still took the time to do this. I have not been able to find any secondary sources that support your confused arguments, and I find your arguments are confusing me because they seem to contradict what is in the majority of WP:RS. I don't know if you mean different elements of the post-Empire Turkification, or if you are trying to make an argument that Turkification occurred under the Ottomans - it would really be better if you post secondary sources to support your comments, because talk comments obviously don't follow the same standards for academic rigor and precision that academic publications do. Seraphim System ( talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
In spite of its overwhelming diversity, most citizens of the Republic of Turkey are firstlanguage Turkish-speakers and consider themselves ethnic Turks. This was not the case during the early Middle Ages and the time of the Byzantine Empire. Although we are able to identify four successive Turkic empires, Islamicization, and post-World War I nationalization as the essential steps toward ethnic homogenization, from historical texts alone we cannot determine to what extent mass migration from Central Asia and Siberia is responsible for Turkish dominance in Anatolia today. To assess the extent of gene flow from lands east of the Caspian, we examined the patterns of genetic variation in Turkic-speaking populations from Anatolia to Siberia. This analysis allows us to build the case for incommensurable, long-term, and continuing genetic signatures in both Anatolia and Siberia, and for significant mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome divergence between the regions, with minimal admixture. We supplement the case against mass migration with correlative archeological, historical, and linguistic data, and suggest that it was irregular punctuated migration events that engendered large-scale shifts in language and culture among Anatolia's diverse autochthonous inhabitants.
Turkification, or Turkicisation (Turkish: Türkleştirme), is a cultural shift whereby populations or states adopted a historical Turkic culture. And we're also not trying to falsify Turkish identity or anything like that, because as you yourself have said, like almost all ethnic identities which have existed long before the advent of genetic testing, it has nothing to do with genes. But genes do lend insight on, as I keep reiterating, the debate about the means by which Turkification occurred. -- Calthinus ( talk) 22:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
irregular punctuated migration events that engendered large-scale shifts in language and culture among Anatolia's diverse autochthonous inhabitantsis covered by the majority of sources. We can give some background on this based on the source, but not too much. Seraphim System ( talk) 22:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
From
WP:SYNTH - Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.
If an editor asks me to show multiple sources for something, I do it. This is not something that should be edit warred about. Please post multiple sources here so we can have a discussion instead of edit warring.
Seraphim System (
talk) 01:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Despite his efforts at Antoura, it is believed by various scholars, that at least two million Turks have at least one Armenian grandparent.— this is not even within the ballpark of an accurate summary of what the source actually says. The source says "the process of Turkification was a clear attempt at ethnic cleansing...There is another element to consider in the discussion of Armenian orphans" — yes, the source is deliberately avoiding using this type of pushy language because of the sensitivity of the topic. Something like this (an accusation that the families were part of the ethnic cleansing for raising their children as Turkish) would not require only two sources, it would require maybe 7 or 8. Unless you have those sources, please do not restore it, there are reasons why a high quality source like this chooses its words deliberately and carefully. Seraphim System ( talk) 03:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
He began the process of reversing the Turkification process by having the Armenian orphans recall their original names. Despite his efforts at Antoura, it is believed by various scholars, that at least two million Turks have at least one Armenian grandparent.— Armenians in Istanbul today speak Armenian, they have religious instruction at school. The source says there was a historical policy of ethnic cleansing, another possible interpretation is that it was unsuccessful because so many Armenians still live in Turkey today. Time and again when the Armenian community speak for themselves that is what they say. Who are our editors to change this, and without a source? This is an extremely controversial thing to add to an article. Fortunately, Etienne has already struck the "Despite this" part so with some more tweaking we should be able to reach a consensus. Seraphim System ( talk) 10:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To my knowledge, Persians never lived in Anatolia, and they barely inhabit the western part of their country (which was the case for centuries, western Iran was inhabitated by different Iranic groups, now it's inhabitated by Azeris and Kurds). And I fail to find any evidence of Persians forming a visible minority in Anatolia. No Persian towns, no Persian cities, no villages. So when I deleted the Persian claim part some dude undid what I deleted. In this section we try to find a source that Anatolia was inhabitated by Persians as well before the Turkish conquests. If I prove that Persians weren't a visible minority, i'll delete the Persian part. Buhedyar ( talk) 20:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
So there were only a small number of governors and elites coming to Anatolia? Might as well we should mention "Mongolian minority" when we talk about Iran's history. After all, Mongolians sent their leaders and commanders to Iran. Even soldiers. The only relevant page you posted is Carians having Iranic names, which can be linked to "Persian settlers". However that needs more explanation and solid evidence. I myself have an Iranic name and I'm not a Persian. Also there were no Persians before the Turks in Anatolia it seems. If we're talking about Achaemenids. The Turks came to Anatolia in late 1000s (AD) and Achaemenids were around in 500 BC. Which proves my point that Persians were not a visible minority in Anatolia. Buhedyar ( talk) 21:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Why don't we also mention Neanderthals? They also lived in Anatolia.
What i'm talking is a sizable Persian minority that lived in Anatolia before the Seljuk conquests. By before the Seljuks I mean the Byzantines. If you can't prove that there were Persians before the Seljuks in Anatolia i'll delete the Persian part. Buhedyar ( talk) 17:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
So all we have is some odd claims about a Persian minority in Eastern Anatolia in 600 BC. Backed up with no solid evidence (census, tax records etc)
Let's assume that this is true, then show me any evidence of Persian minority in Anatolia between 600 AD and 1066 AD.
There was no Persian minority in Anatolia in those years. "Persian buildings" are also not an argument as it was the conquerors who built these buildings. There are also Ottoman hamams in Hungary, yet no visible Turkish minority. Buhedyar ( talk) 22:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of disruptive edits, Kansas Bear, I know of your edits that you made. Like this for example
/info/en/?search=Battle_of_Hazir
"7.000" soldiers really? The original page said 70.000. And those "ancient estimates" have the same source as "modern estimates".
All I'm asking is a solid evidence. And even that is useless for we're talking about population of Anatolia between 600 AD and 1066 AD. Buhedyar ( talk) 23:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I'm still waiting for solid evidence. Something written in Achaemenid era Persian. Cambridge and Oxford are not "undeniable". Unless their claims are backed up with solid evidence (tax record, census, military records, anything).
Anyway, i'll be waiting until someone provides the source I mentioned. Until that day i won't talk about Persians. Don't worry I won't touch Persians either. That part will stay. Buhedyar ( talk) 01:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but unlike the Persian claim the evidence comes from Ottoman tax records. The Ottomans recorded everything and also calculated how many nomads there were in Anatolia. Unlike the Persian claim, the numbers are exact and the location of the Turkic nomads is known.
But the observations of Ibn Said can be discussed. However he's the only source we have about Seljuk era nomads and their numbers.
By the way, what "POV" are we talking about here? I never do anything without backing it up with evidence. Buhedyar ( talk) 02:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
For I started the discussion, I suggest deleting this part of the page. Buhedyar ( talk) 03:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Seraphim System: : sorry for deleting the last comment, i use twinkle and several comments were made at the same time, therefore i guess the gadjet crushed the last ones. cheers.--- Wikaviani ( talk) 14:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
If a source from 2002 is debunked by a source from 2014, then wouldn't that make the study false? Apparently the answer seems to be controversial, the basic logic can't be applied to genetics even though it is also science.
now let's look at outdated studies
A 2002 study concluded that Turks do not significantly differ from other Mediterranean populations, indicating that while the Asian Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance (language and religion), the genetic significance is lesser detectable.[120] A genetic research from 2001 has suggested the local Anatolian origins of the Turkic Asian peoples might have been slight.[121] In 2003, DNA results suggested there was no strong genetic relationship between the Mongols and the Turks people despite the historical relationship of their languages.[122]
Okay so these studies were conducted when we didn't know much about genetics. As a matter of fact, the study that Cinnioğlu conducted in 2004 is also full of flaws as in classifying haplogroup N as non Central Asian (though I don't believe such classifications, the "middle eastern" or "european" haplogroups can also be found in Central Asia. haplogroups predate modern ethnic groups. This is why you can find J2 in Xinjiang and in Italy even though there was no Uyghur migration to Italy or vice versa.) but a study that conducted in 2017 uses the same data as classifies it as East Eurasian (though I also noticed some flaws in that study as well). Also, lack of AUdna studies
Now let's look at modern studies
http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/18/015396.full.pdf
Previous genetic studies have generally used Turks as representatives of ancient Anatolians. Our results show that Turks are genetically shifted towards Central Asians, a pattern consistent with a history of mixture with populations from this region https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236450/
The weight for the migration event predicted to originate from the branch ancestral to East Asia (presumably Central Asia) into current-day Turkey was 0.217 (21.7%) http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12607764/index.pdf
Moreover, results pointed out that language (Turkish) in Anatolia might not have been replaced by the elites, but by a large group of people. Therefore, it can be concluded that the observations do not support the elite dominance model of Renfrew (1987 ; 1991). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179474
it should be noted that modern Turks are a hybrid population, comprising of the original Anatolian stock, Turkic people (i.e. of Central Asian ancestry), as well as other ethnicities from regions comprising the former Ottoman Empire.
though the metu one is a bit outdated, it is one of the few studies from 2000s that debunk the Turkification by elites myth. Anyway, pretty much any study that's made after 2012 debunks the myth of Turkification by Turkic wizards with superior language teaching skills.
Second study is also misunderstood by a lot of people, since it does not use the term "CENTRAL ASIAN" but "EAST ASIAN". In 2014, there was no reliable Seljuk/Ottoman era Turkmen samples. But in 2018 we got 2 samples. I tried to add them but for some mysterious reasons, they were deleted. Not sure if I tried to add them to this page but here we go
Check page 43 or let me post the link for you
https://i.imgur.com/X5TQRlI.png
also page 44, for detailed information
https://i.imgur.com/RiSHdlC.jpg
So basically the Ottoman era Turkmens were around 20-40% Asian and they clustered with Central Asians. Whereas in most genetic studies Armenians and greeks and hellenized anatolians show little to no East Eurasian dna. Whereas for Turks this rate seems to be around 10% and 21.7% (somewhere between) based on my observations and Alkan's study. If we were to use basic math, we could see that a 10% East Eurasian Turk would actually carry around 25% to 35% Central Asian heritage and for a elite domination to happen, the elite impact should be below 10% according to METU study I posted. In other words, Turkic (Turkmen) impact isn't limited to culture and language only, but it also includes genetics as well.
The studies I posted from 2014, 2017 and 2018 seems to go along with the historic works. ALSO, I don't know if any of you read this before but with other works too.
And when Archbishop Palamas came among Greek Christians in Asia Minor, who might be considered his own people, he observed with some wistfulness – but also some admiration – “the Christians and the Turks mixing with each other, going about their lives, leading and being led by each other...”
History of the Ottoman Empire - Douglas A. Howard
There is every reason to suppose that intermarriage took place rather extensively from the very beginning of the Turkish occupation of Anatolia and for several centuries thereafter. Anna Comnena speaks of the offspring of such unions as mixovarvaroi, and the twelfth-century Balsamon refers to their curious practises. When the Greek historian Nicephorus Gregoras passed through Bithynia en route to Nicaea in the middle of the fourteenth century, just one generation after the conquest of Nicaea, he observed that the population consisted of Greeks, mixovarvaroi (Graeco-Turks), and Turks. Thus intermarriage of Muslim and Christians at every level of society played a very important role in the integration and absorption of the Greek Christian element into Muslim society.
The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century - Speros Jr. Vryonis
In Turcomania there are three classes of people. First, there are Turcomans; these are worshippers of Mahommed, a rude people with uncouth language of their own. They dwell among mountains and downs where they they find good pasture, for their occupation is cattle-keeping. Excellent horses, known as Turquans, are reared in their country, and also very valuable mules. The other two classes are the Armenians and the Greeks, who live mixed with the former in the towns and villages, occupying themselves with trade and handicrafts.
The Travels of Marco Polo, Volume 1
Speaking of greeks, I think Anatolian greeks should be considered as greek speaking Anatolians rather than greeks. Because genetically most of them are just greek speaking Anatolians with Western Anatolians having some greek heritage. Presence of 'many greeks', should be 'presence of greek states and elites'
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201718
Fallmerayer hypothesized that the Hellenization of the Peloponnesean Slavs was accelerated by the transfer to the Peloponnese of Hellenized populations from Asia Minor. We tested this hypothesis by comparing the Peloponneseans with three Greek-speaking populations of Asia Minor: a western-coastal population sample extending from the Propontis in the north to Alikarnassos (Bodrum) in the south; a northern population from Pontus, that is, the coast of Black Sea and the Asia Minor interior corresponding to the current northern Turkey; and a central Anatolian population from Cappadocia. All these populations are separated from the Peloponneseans by PCA http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/18/015396.full.pdf
Here is the problem: If a study is debunked by a recent one, it basically has no value. In my opinion most of them should be deleted if the data is no longer reliable and most importantly if it clashes with recent findings, then they are not only old studies but also misleading.
Buhedyar (
talk) 15:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Jeppiz: We better watch this article for future sockpuppetry and block evasion by him. [9] [10] -- Wario-Man ( talk) 19:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Hurri and Nairi communities living in Anatolia and speaking Armenian were not included in the city of Byzantium -- 78.174.231.102 ( talk) 12:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The Vatandaş Türkçe konuş section is in comparison to other phrases fairly over sourced. It has two phrases and 13 sources. while there is also a separate article of the Citizen, speak Turkish! campaign. The campaign is rather well known, I'd like to remove some citations and keep about two per phrase. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 10:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Beshogur, I provided a reference that covers how the Arabs of Turkey have been affected by Turkification. Why have you deleted it? Konli17 ( talk) 12:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
This section has problems, similar to Archaeogenetics_of_the_Near_East#Turkey. Most sources are primary sources, so most of the section needs to be re-written with secondary sources. Bogazicili ( talk) 15:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be nothing regarding the Turkification occurring in Afrin, Rojava, which is still an active situation even. After Turkey's invasion into Afrin via operation Operation Olive Branch Turkey has been changing names of buildings and locations, teaching local children Turkish and there is evidence of making them display the Grey Wolves hand symbol [1] [2] Article completely void of all that is happening involving the Syrian civil war and Rojava regarding Turkification.
With various military operations (too many to even name) and forces stationed inside the Kurdistan Region, Turkey is now essentially occupying parts of the region and areas in the guise of fighting the PKK. This results in projecting soft and hard force and also influence in the region, one angle turkey plays is attempting to create a pro-turkish turkmen organisation. [3]
I propose the section header "history" be changed to something more appropriate so content like this can be added and also actual Turkification can be understood. TataofTata ( talk) 14:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
References
User @ Beshogur: can you explain your unjustified edit? You removed sourced content of secondary literature and restored a version with multiple issues, including original research. I hope this was a mistake. The relevant citations are from Lee & Kuang as well as Savelyev & Jeong: [1] & [2] (these are even open excess, you can just read...). Also pinging @ HistoryofIran:. If you dont bother to read, I will give you one of the most relevant quotes just here....
Finally, we suggest that the Turkicisation of central and western Eurasia was the product of multiple processes of language diffusion85 that involved not only originally Turkic-speaking groups, but also Turkicised (Indo-European) groups. That is, the earliest Turkic groups first Turkicised some non-Turkic groups residing in Mongolia and beyond. Then both Turkic and ‘Turkicised’ groups Turkicised non-Turkic tribes residing in the Kazakh steppes and beyond. Through multiple processes, including the Mongol conquest, the members of the extended Turkic entity spread the Turkic languages across Eurasia. They Turkicised various non-Turkic peoples of central and western Eurasia, including those in the Central Asian oases. Importantly, the Turkmens, who were themselves made up of both original Turkic and Turkicised elements, reached Anatolia and Turkicised the local populations, who have now become ‘Turks’.
The two papers are full of usefull content, so any removal and restoration of a Turkish nationalist version is highly questionable. 178.115.235.178 ( talk) 05:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Turkification 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 |
Archives: 1 |
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's " European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out! |
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Turkey's " Turkey 1,000 Challenge", which started on September 19, 2016 and is ongoing. You can help out! |
This article was nominated for deletion on July 28 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This has as much to do with Turkification as the Holocaust has to do with Germanisation. They are completely different concepts. A more accurate form of Turkification that was endorsed by the Ottoman Empire was the Janissary system. This has been argued ad nauseum without consensus, and frankly, it's completely original research; or, argued through speculation based on specific individuals, which constitutes an inductive fallacy. The article gives one the impression that all Turkified individuals were forced, which isn't necessarily true, either. "Genetic testing" does not prove the nature of that change. Turkification means cultural assimilation, it does not mean executions, nor does it imply force. - Rosywounds ( talk) 18:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The last and most significant "INVASION" was of Turkish, as millions of nomads rushed into the area —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.101.210 ( talk) 13:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I highly doubt that there were "millions" of Turks rush into Anatolia. the actual number is probably some ten thousands. Nomad people have less population as herding the animal requires large area of land and productivity level remains low. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.216.240.165 ( talk) 14:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I added the population estimates for nomads 1 year ago. No need to thank me. Buhedyar ( talk) 15:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I have added the tags, Sciencereview, Unencyclopedic, Neologism to this article. There has been a long discussion about this article. A number of editors gave up on this article for the reasons that these tags stand for. Not having these tags gives the impression that this article is undisputed which is not the case. AverageTurkishJoe ( talk) 04:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I can' find this term in the Dictionaries. For me it is defined for the first time in Wikipedia. That's why I think it is a neologism. As for its not being encyclopaedic, the author of this article thinks that the term "Turkification" is definite enough that it deserves its own Wikipedia article but the term "Turk" itself is not definite enough (or imprecise sic.)
Could the term be isolated from whether or not Turks brought Central Asian genes to Asia Minor? That is if the current occupants of Asia Minor were 100% Inuits would it change the meaning of the term "Turkification"?
The definition of the term is a totology; it is devoid of any cultural context: Something that was not X becomes X. Very much like liquefaction,compactification, emulsification etc.
It sounds to me as if it is derived by induction using the phonetic rules of the English language. (there is no term as "Germanification" because it literally does not sound right, and not because German's did not have a policy of cultural assimilation of minorities in German Culture. (I don't know whether they did or not but what I know is that phonetical rules do not generally reflect in political and cultural movements.) "Germanization" phonetically sounds better; but the fact that it sounds better does not mean that there was an actual political movement of "Germanization". (again I don't know if there was one.)
Can an inanimate object become "Turk"? I would think not. (Because Turk means a turkish person.) "Turkification of Anatolia" is probably the most common way this term is used. Then "Turkification of Anatolia" is not properly explained by the definition in this article since Anatolia is an inanimate object.
Number of books and articles written in the last fifteen years use the term "Turkification" without giving any proper definition of what the intended meaning is. Listing these books and articles as references really does not help define the term unless a frame of reference is established beforehand. I would think that this is exactly what this article is doing: setting a frame of reference so that the term "Turkification" in those articles will be interpreted in this frame of reference. Whereas the "Framers" of Wikipedia thought that it should work the otherway around. Interpretation should be done in the "Secondary sources" and Wikipedia should be the "Tertiary source" that is "an Encyclopeadia." That is why I think this article is not Encyclopeadic AverageTurkishJoe ( talk) 06:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9504E3DA103BEE3ABC4152DFB3668383609EDE
That should give an end to some of the arguments here.
94.66.45.195 ( talk) 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)NotSoAverageIonianJoe
I don't know that there's much from there, but I think the two topics are very similar and that a merger would be a good idea, mostly because the other page doesn't have sources and compiling the two would be well worthwhile for someone researching the topic.
This article should discuss its actual title which is the process of cultural assimilation of non-Turkish ethnoreligious groups in modern Turkey. Not discus the "Genetic testing of language replacement hypothesis in Anatolia, Caucasus and Balkans". Someone should clean this article and start from scratch.-- Rafy talk 22:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
This article was written under the POV of Turkish nationalists and needs an entire make over. Most of this article can be directly merged and added to the Turkish people page. Turkification by definition is "a term used to describe a process of cultural change in which something or someone who is not a Turk becomes one, voluntarily or involuntarily." Grant it...the first sentence in the introduction of the article does state this, however, the process of cultural assimilation is no where to be found. If a consensus is reached, I am going to delete the "Appearance of Turks in Anatolia" and "Genetic testing of language replacement hypothesis in Anatolia, Caucasus and Balkans". Please vote either oppose or support. Thank you. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 01:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I am oposing for now, because I do not understand your agenda. Jingiby ( talk) 10:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
a) The "Genetic testing..." can be shortened and the reader can be directed to the relevant article with a link. However, this section cannot be completely deleted, as it is very very relevant. Actually, most of the genetic bibliography includes some reference to the cultural/lingual shift to "turkishness". Other relevant articles are the Cryptochristians and Devsirme. (b) Turcification happened mostly before the emergence of turkish nationalism (late 19th c.). In ottoman period meaned shift of religion (Christian or Jew to Muslim) and shift of language (to Turkish). (c) There was no real "voluntary" turkification, as the turkified persons had to chose between poverty or even extinction and survival. (d) I could include a short paragraph to christian martyrs who died in this way: They were forced to become Turks and they refuse or, they had been turkified and decided to re-convert to their original religion, and eventually were executed.-- Euzen ( talk) 18:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Macedonian nationalism arose in the second half of the 19th. century, but until 1912 it was propagated only by a limited group of intellectuals. There is no data some of them to was turkified. Jingiby ( talk)
I expected to read something about the expansion of Turks throughout Central Asia starting in the early centuries AD. Does this page specifically pertain to Ottoman Turkification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.195.227 ( talk) 22:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This section is rather lengthy and includes interesting material that is sourced. However, none of the sources appear to be Turkification and its not clear why it's been added to this article. Turkish people has a section about this, but I see there is also a main article Genetic studies on Turkish people and would propose merging this section into that article. Seraphim System ( talk) 02:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Wrong. The language replacement hypothesis is disregarded these days. There was replacement, and there was ethnic mixing. Cinnioğlu's study is irrelevant as he only counts East Eurasian haplogroups as "Central Asian" and completely ignores haplogroups such as J2, R1b, R1a, K which are found in great amounts in Central Asia. Besides his source is outdated. I have a more recent study (Heraclides et al 2017) that talks about Turks' haplogroups. And in that study the Turks are described as a hybrid population of Anatolians, Turkics and ex-Ottomans (Balkans etc). Also an autosomal dna study in 2014 (Can Alkan et al 2014) explicitly mentions that there's a significant East Asian element in Turks. Plus, the study mentions that calculating the contribution of Central Asians is very difficult for we have no samples from Medieval Anatolia (Seljuk era). People should stop posting outdated studies to prove their point. The page itself is useless I admit, because we know little about the Seljuk Turks' genetic make up. Hence we can't talk about Central Asian genetic contribution. And relying on outdated studies is also wrong. For they're outdated and those studies are debunked by recent studies (like Wells' study, which was debunked by Can Alkan et al 2014, Heraclides et al 2017 and even Berkman et al 2006 which explicitly mentions that there was no elite assimilation in Anatolia and language was not enforced. I'm waiting for a recent autosomal study which clearly talks about genetics of Seljuk era Turkmens, Byzantine era Anatolians and modern Turks to delete those outdated studies or lump them together in a sentence which starts with "outdated studies". Buhedyar ( talk) 20:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
. [discussing Turkish and Azeri genotypes] ...This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic languages, originating in the Altai-Sayan region of Central Asia and northwestern Mongolia (31), were imposed on the Caucasian and Anatolian peoples with relatively little genetic admixture — another possible example of elite dominance-driven linguistic replacement.
as well as the extinction of the local Anatolian languages- ok, but a significant part of this was a consequence of Hellenization. From reading this, I would assume it was a consequence of Turkification. There is WP:OR in the section, where the studies are loosely connected to issues about genetic makeup and linguistics. So the analysis of the primary sources is not based on secondary sources, and that is why it is WP:OR. If genetic studies are in fact used to prove or disprove hypotheses about Turkification as you suggest, then we should include only that secondary analysis, and not our own to avoid introducing (subtle) errors and misleading content to the article. Seraphim System ( talk) 04:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
language and not by biological factors). Seraphim System ( talk) 05:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Anatolians do not significantly differ from other Mediterranean populations, indicating that while the Asian Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance (language and religion), the genetic significance is lesser detectable- this is true, but there is no source that says "genetics" was part of Turkification. I don't even think I can argue that it is WP:FRINGE because I have not been able to find even one source for it.
If Turkey was Turkified in 1071, why did it have to be "ReTurkified", well you're using different definitions of Turkification and confusing things, the first being the transition to a Turkish national identity and the second being the removal of some vestigial non-Turkish elements from the national culture, which are very different phenomena and unfortunately have the same name. But I can tell both of us can see past the semiological confusion in that sentence, so why use that as an argument? Last I remember Cinnioglu states pretty much that the majority of the genome appears native so there was a case of linguistic and cultural replacement (read Turkification). However I have lost access to his paper. I do have access to Wells. As I quoted above, Wells says the same thing. So no, this is not OR. I've noticed a lot of Turks get defensive about this on wiki, and make it sound as if they're being singled out. That isn't true. Wikipedia also has discussed related hypotheses (with varying degrees of support) of linguistic and cultural replacement with regards to certain Slavic speaking peoples, English people (which if this were a "bad thing" would be shocking given the known Anglocentric bias of English Wikipedia), Azerbaijanis, Romanians, and various others. -- Calthinus ( talk) 17:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
you're using different definitions of Turkification and confusing things, the first being the transition to a Turkish national identity and the second being the removal of some vestigial non-Turkish elements from the national culture- I posted eight sources last night. I have not been able to find any sources that support this definition of Turkification, and I posted several sources to show why this a problem. I am busy also, but I still took the time to do this. I have not been able to find any secondary sources that support your confused arguments, and I find your arguments are confusing me because they seem to contradict what is in the majority of WP:RS. I don't know if you mean different elements of the post-Empire Turkification, or if you are trying to make an argument that Turkification occurred under the Ottomans - it would really be better if you post secondary sources to support your comments, because talk comments obviously don't follow the same standards for academic rigor and precision that academic publications do. Seraphim System ( talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
In spite of its overwhelming diversity, most citizens of the Republic of Turkey are firstlanguage Turkish-speakers and consider themselves ethnic Turks. This was not the case during the early Middle Ages and the time of the Byzantine Empire. Although we are able to identify four successive Turkic empires, Islamicization, and post-World War I nationalization as the essential steps toward ethnic homogenization, from historical texts alone we cannot determine to what extent mass migration from Central Asia and Siberia is responsible for Turkish dominance in Anatolia today. To assess the extent of gene flow from lands east of the Caspian, we examined the patterns of genetic variation in Turkic-speaking populations from Anatolia to Siberia. This analysis allows us to build the case for incommensurable, long-term, and continuing genetic signatures in both Anatolia and Siberia, and for significant mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome divergence between the regions, with minimal admixture. We supplement the case against mass migration with correlative archeological, historical, and linguistic data, and suggest that it was irregular punctuated migration events that engendered large-scale shifts in language and culture among Anatolia's diverse autochthonous inhabitants.
Turkification, or Turkicisation (Turkish: Türkleştirme), is a cultural shift whereby populations or states adopted a historical Turkic culture. And we're also not trying to falsify Turkish identity or anything like that, because as you yourself have said, like almost all ethnic identities which have existed long before the advent of genetic testing, it has nothing to do with genes. But genes do lend insight on, as I keep reiterating, the debate about the means by which Turkification occurred. -- Calthinus ( talk) 22:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
irregular punctuated migration events that engendered large-scale shifts in language and culture among Anatolia's diverse autochthonous inhabitantsis covered by the majority of sources. We can give some background on this based on the source, but not too much. Seraphim System ( talk) 22:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
From
WP:SYNTH - Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.
If an editor asks me to show multiple sources for something, I do it. This is not something that should be edit warred about. Please post multiple sources here so we can have a discussion instead of edit warring.
Seraphim System (
talk) 01:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Despite his efforts at Antoura, it is believed by various scholars, that at least two million Turks have at least one Armenian grandparent.— this is not even within the ballpark of an accurate summary of what the source actually says. The source says "the process of Turkification was a clear attempt at ethnic cleansing...There is another element to consider in the discussion of Armenian orphans" — yes, the source is deliberately avoiding using this type of pushy language because of the sensitivity of the topic. Something like this (an accusation that the families were part of the ethnic cleansing for raising their children as Turkish) would not require only two sources, it would require maybe 7 or 8. Unless you have those sources, please do not restore it, there are reasons why a high quality source like this chooses its words deliberately and carefully. Seraphim System ( talk) 03:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
He began the process of reversing the Turkification process by having the Armenian orphans recall their original names. Despite his efforts at Antoura, it is believed by various scholars, that at least two million Turks have at least one Armenian grandparent.— Armenians in Istanbul today speak Armenian, they have religious instruction at school. The source says there was a historical policy of ethnic cleansing, another possible interpretation is that it was unsuccessful because so many Armenians still live in Turkey today. Time and again when the Armenian community speak for themselves that is what they say. Who are our editors to change this, and without a source? This is an extremely controversial thing to add to an article. Fortunately, Etienne has already struck the "Despite this" part so with some more tweaking we should be able to reach a consensus. Seraphim System ( talk) 10:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To my knowledge, Persians never lived in Anatolia, and they barely inhabit the western part of their country (which was the case for centuries, western Iran was inhabitated by different Iranic groups, now it's inhabitated by Azeris and Kurds). And I fail to find any evidence of Persians forming a visible minority in Anatolia. No Persian towns, no Persian cities, no villages. So when I deleted the Persian claim part some dude undid what I deleted. In this section we try to find a source that Anatolia was inhabitated by Persians as well before the Turkish conquests. If I prove that Persians weren't a visible minority, i'll delete the Persian part. Buhedyar ( talk) 20:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
So there were only a small number of governors and elites coming to Anatolia? Might as well we should mention "Mongolian minority" when we talk about Iran's history. After all, Mongolians sent their leaders and commanders to Iran. Even soldiers. The only relevant page you posted is Carians having Iranic names, which can be linked to "Persian settlers". However that needs more explanation and solid evidence. I myself have an Iranic name and I'm not a Persian. Also there were no Persians before the Turks in Anatolia it seems. If we're talking about Achaemenids. The Turks came to Anatolia in late 1000s (AD) and Achaemenids were around in 500 BC. Which proves my point that Persians were not a visible minority in Anatolia. Buhedyar ( talk) 21:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Why don't we also mention Neanderthals? They also lived in Anatolia.
What i'm talking is a sizable Persian minority that lived in Anatolia before the Seljuk conquests. By before the Seljuks I mean the Byzantines. If you can't prove that there were Persians before the Seljuks in Anatolia i'll delete the Persian part. Buhedyar ( talk) 17:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
So all we have is some odd claims about a Persian minority in Eastern Anatolia in 600 BC. Backed up with no solid evidence (census, tax records etc)
Let's assume that this is true, then show me any evidence of Persian minority in Anatolia between 600 AD and 1066 AD.
There was no Persian minority in Anatolia in those years. "Persian buildings" are also not an argument as it was the conquerors who built these buildings. There are also Ottoman hamams in Hungary, yet no visible Turkish minority. Buhedyar ( talk) 22:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of disruptive edits, Kansas Bear, I know of your edits that you made. Like this for example
/info/en/?search=Battle_of_Hazir
"7.000" soldiers really? The original page said 70.000. And those "ancient estimates" have the same source as "modern estimates".
All I'm asking is a solid evidence. And even that is useless for we're talking about population of Anatolia between 600 AD and 1066 AD. Buhedyar ( talk) 23:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I'm still waiting for solid evidence. Something written in Achaemenid era Persian. Cambridge and Oxford are not "undeniable". Unless their claims are backed up with solid evidence (tax record, census, military records, anything).
Anyway, i'll be waiting until someone provides the source I mentioned. Until that day i won't talk about Persians. Don't worry I won't touch Persians either. That part will stay. Buhedyar ( talk) 01:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but unlike the Persian claim the evidence comes from Ottoman tax records. The Ottomans recorded everything and also calculated how many nomads there were in Anatolia. Unlike the Persian claim, the numbers are exact and the location of the Turkic nomads is known.
But the observations of Ibn Said can be discussed. However he's the only source we have about Seljuk era nomads and their numbers.
By the way, what "POV" are we talking about here? I never do anything without backing it up with evidence. Buhedyar ( talk) 02:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
For I started the discussion, I suggest deleting this part of the page. Buhedyar ( talk) 03:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Seraphim System: : sorry for deleting the last comment, i use twinkle and several comments were made at the same time, therefore i guess the gadjet crushed the last ones. cheers.--- Wikaviani ( talk) 14:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
If a source from 2002 is debunked by a source from 2014, then wouldn't that make the study false? Apparently the answer seems to be controversial, the basic logic can't be applied to genetics even though it is also science.
now let's look at outdated studies
A 2002 study concluded that Turks do not significantly differ from other Mediterranean populations, indicating that while the Asian Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance (language and religion), the genetic significance is lesser detectable.[120] A genetic research from 2001 has suggested the local Anatolian origins of the Turkic Asian peoples might have been slight.[121] In 2003, DNA results suggested there was no strong genetic relationship between the Mongols and the Turks people despite the historical relationship of their languages.[122]
Okay so these studies were conducted when we didn't know much about genetics. As a matter of fact, the study that Cinnioğlu conducted in 2004 is also full of flaws as in classifying haplogroup N as non Central Asian (though I don't believe such classifications, the "middle eastern" or "european" haplogroups can also be found in Central Asia. haplogroups predate modern ethnic groups. This is why you can find J2 in Xinjiang and in Italy even though there was no Uyghur migration to Italy or vice versa.) but a study that conducted in 2017 uses the same data as classifies it as East Eurasian (though I also noticed some flaws in that study as well). Also, lack of AUdna studies
Now let's look at modern studies
http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/18/015396.full.pdf
Previous genetic studies have generally used Turks as representatives of ancient Anatolians. Our results show that Turks are genetically shifted towards Central Asians, a pattern consistent with a history of mixture with populations from this region https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236450/
The weight for the migration event predicted to originate from the branch ancestral to East Asia (presumably Central Asia) into current-day Turkey was 0.217 (21.7%) http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12607764/index.pdf
Moreover, results pointed out that language (Turkish) in Anatolia might not have been replaced by the elites, but by a large group of people. Therefore, it can be concluded that the observations do not support the elite dominance model of Renfrew (1987 ; 1991). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179474
it should be noted that modern Turks are a hybrid population, comprising of the original Anatolian stock, Turkic people (i.e. of Central Asian ancestry), as well as other ethnicities from regions comprising the former Ottoman Empire.
though the metu one is a bit outdated, it is one of the few studies from 2000s that debunk the Turkification by elites myth. Anyway, pretty much any study that's made after 2012 debunks the myth of Turkification by Turkic wizards with superior language teaching skills.
Second study is also misunderstood by a lot of people, since it does not use the term "CENTRAL ASIAN" but "EAST ASIAN". In 2014, there was no reliable Seljuk/Ottoman era Turkmen samples. But in 2018 we got 2 samples. I tried to add them but for some mysterious reasons, they were deleted. Not sure if I tried to add them to this page but here we go
Check page 43 or let me post the link for you
https://i.imgur.com/X5TQRlI.png
also page 44, for detailed information
https://i.imgur.com/RiSHdlC.jpg
So basically the Ottoman era Turkmens were around 20-40% Asian and they clustered with Central Asians. Whereas in most genetic studies Armenians and greeks and hellenized anatolians show little to no East Eurasian dna. Whereas for Turks this rate seems to be around 10% and 21.7% (somewhere between) based on my observations and Alkan's study. If we were to use basic math, we could see that a 10% East Eurasian Turk would actually carry around 25% to 35% Central Asian heritage and for a elite domination to happen, the elite impact should be below 10% according to METU study I posted. In other words, Turkic (Turkmen) impact isn't limited to culture and language only, but it also includes genetics as well.
The studies I posted from 2014, 2017 and 2018 seems to go along with the historic works. ALSO, I don't know if any of you read this before but with other works too.
And when Archbishop Palamas came among Greek Christians in Asia Minor, who might be considered his own people, he observed with some wistfulness – but also some admiration – “the Christians and the Turks mixing with each other, going about their lives, leading and being led by each other...”
History of the Ottoman Empire - Douglas A. Howard
There is every reason to suppose that intermarriage took place rather extensively from the very beginning of the Turkish occupation of Anatolia and for several centuries thereafter. Anna Comnena speaks of the offspring of such unions as mixovarvaroi, and the twelfth-century Balsamon refers to their curious practises. When the Greek historian Nicephorus Gregoras passed through Bithynia en route to Nicaea in the middle of the fourteenth century, just one generation after the conquest of Nicaea, he observed that the population consisted of Greeks, mixovarvaroi (Graeco-Turks), and Turks. Thus intermarriage of Muslim and Christians at every level of society played a very important role in the integration and absorption of the Greek Christian element into Muslim society.
The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century - Speros Jr. Vryonis
In Turcomania there are three classes of people. First, there are Turcomans; these are worshippers of Mahommed, a rude people with uncouth language of their own. They dwell among mountains and downs where they they find good pasture, for their occupation is cattle-keeping. Excellent horses, known as Turquans, are reared in their country, and also very valuable mules. The other two classes are the Armenians and the Greeks, who live mixed with the former in the towns and villages, occupying themselves with trade and handicrafts.
The Travels of Marco Polo, Volume 1
Speaking of greeks, I think Anatolian greeks should be considered as greek speaking Anatolians rather than greeks. Because genetically most of them are just greek speaking Anatolians with Western Anatolians having some greek heritage. Presence of 'many greeks', should be 'presence of greek states and elites'
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201718
Fallmerayer hypothesized that the Hellenization of the Peloponnesean Slavs was accelerated by the transfer to the Peloponnese of Hellenized populations from Asia Minor. We tested this hypothesis by comparing the Peloponneseans with three Greek-speaking populations of Asia Minor: a western-coastal population sample extending from the Propontis in the north to Alikarnassos (Bodrum) in the south; a northern population from Pontus, that is, the coast of Black Sea and the Asia Minor interior corresponding to the current northern Turkey; and a central Anatolian population from Cappadocia. All these populations are separated from the Peloponneseans by PCA http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/18/015396.full.pdf
Here is the problem: If a study is debunked by a recent one, it basically has no value. In my opinion most of them should be deleted if the data is no longer reliable and most importantly if it clashes with recent findings, then they are not only old studies but also misleading.
Buhedyar (
talk) 15:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Jeppiz: We better watch this article for future sockpuppetry and block evasion by him. [9] [10] -- Wario-Man ( talk) 19:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Hurri and Nairi communities living in Anatolia and speaking Armenian were not included in the city of Byzantium -- 78.174.231.102 ( talk) 12:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The Vatandaş Türkçe konuş section is in comparison to other phrases fairly over sourced. It has two phrases and 13 sources. while there is also a separate article of the Citizen, speak Turkish! campaign. The campaign is rather well known, I'd like to remove some citations and keep about two per phrase. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 10:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Beshogur, I provided a reference that covers how the Arabs of Turkey have been affected by Turkification. Why have you deleted it? Konli17 ( talk) 12:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
This section has problems, similar to Archaeogenetics_of_the_Near_East#Turkey. Most sources are primary sources, so most of the section needs to be re-written with secondary sources. Bogazicili ( talk) 15:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be nothing regarding the Turkification occurring in Afrin, Rojava, which is still an active situation even. After Turkey's invasion into Afrin via operation Operation Olive Branch Turkey has been changing names of buildings and locations, teaching local children Turkish and there is evidence of making them display the Grey Wolves hand symbol [1] [2] Article completely void of all that is happening involving the Syrian civil war and Rojava regarding Turkification.
With various military operations (too many to even name) and forces stationed inside the Kurdistan Region, Turkey is now essentially occupying parts of the region and areas in the guise of fighting the PKK. This results in projecting soft and hard force and also influence in the region, one angle turkey plays is attempting to create a pro-turkish turkmen organisation. [3]
I propose the section header "history" be changed to something more appropriate so content like this can be added and also actual Turkification can be understood. TataofTata ( talk) 14:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
References
User @ Beshogur: can you explain your unjustified edit? You removed sourced content of secondary literature and restored a version with multiple issues, including original research. I hope this was a mistake. The relevant citations are from Lee & Kuang as well as Savelyev & Jeong: [1] & [2] (these are even open excess, you can just read...). Also pinging @ HistoryofIran:. If you dont bother to read, I will give you one of the most relevant quotes just here....
Finally, we suggest that the Turkicisation of central and western Eurasia was the product of multiple processes of language diffusion85 that involved not only originally Turkic-speaking groups, but also Turkicised (Indo-European) groups. That is, the earliest Turkic groups first Turkicised some non-Turkic groups residing in Mongolia and beyond. Then both Turkic and ‘Turkicised’ groups Turkicised non-Turkic tribes residing in the Kazakh steppes and beyond. Through multiple processes, including the Mongol conquest, the members of the extended Turkic entity spread the Turkic languages across Eurasia. They Turkicised various non-Turkic peoples of central and western Eurasia, including those in the Central Asian oases. Importantly, the Turkmens, who were themselves made up of both original Turkic and Turkicised elements, reached Anatolia and Turkicised the local populations, who have now become ‘Turks’.
The two papers are full of usefull content, so any removal and restoration of a Turkish nationalist version is highly questionable. 178.115.235.178 ( talk) 05:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)