Talk:Turkish people/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Turkish people. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Definition

Before we start addressing people's concerns and disputes, it is very important to agree on definitions. Who exactly are "Turkish people"? I can think of two very reasonable definitions (please feel free to give alternative definitions):

Citizens of the country of Turkey
Turkic citizens of Turkey

There's obviously a difference, as the latter group does not include a lot of people (the Kurds, for example). Please explain which one of these definitons you agree with (or give alternative definitions) and why. I'm slightly in favor of the second definition since the name "Turkish" already has the word "Turk" in it and is hence biased toward Turkic people. Aucaman^Talk 13:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting for the editors who put together most of this article to respond first. AverageTurkishJoe 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the second definition - Turkic citizens of Turkey. The article for the first definition is Demographics of Turkey. --Khoikhoi 01:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not find "Turkish people" in the dictionaries but the definitions for Turkish, Turk and Turkic are as follows.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

----

Turkish

Noun

S: (n) Turkish (a Turkic language spoken by the Turks)

Adjective

S: (adj) Turkish (of or relating to or characteristic of Turkey or its people or language) "Turkish towels"

Turk

Noun

S: (n) Turk (a native or inhabitant of Turkey)

Turkic

Noun

S: (n) Turki, Turkic, Turko-Tatar, Turkic language (a subfamily of Altaic languages)

Adjective

S: (adj) Turkic (of or relating to the people who speak the Turkic language)

So one definition of the adjective "Turkish" or noun Turkishness is being related to or being characteristic of Turkey's people. What I understand then is that this article should be about "What distinguishes Turkey's people from other countries' peoples". Turkish language, literature, pop culture, folk culture, demoratic power sharing, transition to consumerism, school system, role of religion, role of military, role of TV, european unioun accession efforts etc. come to my mind. Which tells me Turkish people article should be an article of Sociology and not Biology. AverageTurkishJoe 06:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well there's a difference between "Turkish" and "Turkish people". The former is a general adjective; the latter is an ethnic group. It would be hard to prove that the Kurds living in Turkey are ethnically Turkish people. Don't you agree? Aucaman^Talk 09:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "Turkish people" is any different from "American people", "Canadian people" or "Indian people" in terms of its usage. So I don't think is used to refer to an "ethnicity". With its most common usage in he news, it refers to "people of Turkey". But I understand there is some ambiguity in the English term "Turkish people" as to what it signifies: "Turkish people" meant the Ottomans and their successors in English. The term "Turkish people" is an English term we are bound here with what it means in the English speaking world. A turkish citizen of Kurdish origin may not consider himself a "Turk" but nevertheless he is included in "Turkish people". An African-American would not consider himself an "anglo-american" but he/she is included in "American people". If we want to talk about "Turkic peoples of Turkey" the title should clearly spell this out so that reader will understand that they are about to read about Yoruk/Turkmens and Oguz tribes, their settlement process, their sagas, tamgas, tribal affiliations etc. AverageTurkishJoe 13:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well if what you're saying is correct, then this page should not exist the way it is. It should either be merged into Demographics of Turkey or People of Turkey. I wonder what User:Khoikhoi has to say about this. Aucaman^Talk 19:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

When people in English refer to the "Turks", they're usually refering to the Turkic inhabitants of Turkey, not the Kurds who live in Turkey, or the Assyrians living in Turkey. Yes, the subject of ethnicity is disputed in Turkey, but it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an article about the Turks. --Khoikhoi 00:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, no matter which definition you take, it looks like the information in the article are not really relevant. If you think the article should be about Turkic-speaking citizen of Turkey, then what we have here is too general (this is not about Turkic people of Turkey). If you think it should be about the citizens of Turkey, then as I said, the information should be merged into Demographics of Turkey and People of Turkey. In any case, I suggest we starting merging any useful information into these two articles (and maybe some into Turkic peoples) and replace this article with a disambiguation page. What do you guys think? Aucaman^Talk 01:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree about making this into a dab page. Perhaps we can make this more about the Turkic Turks of Turkey, but I think this page should stay. --Khoikhoi 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case this article has to be rewritten since most of the information here is not specific to just Turkic citizens of Turkey. Aucaman^Talk 00:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aucaman's analysis and his proposed solution. AverageTurkishJoe 02:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Khoikkhoi, you changed opening of this article to This article is about the ethnic Turks of Turkey. For information on residents or nationals of Turkey, see Demographics of Turkey. Refer to the disambiguation page Turk for other uses of the term. This is exactly what we are discussion here whether "Turkish people" means "Ethnic turks of turkey". I find this act deeply troublesome because you are dismising the conversation here and doing what *you* believe. The discussion is still going on. AverageTurkishJoe 19:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

When did I do that? Please point out when I changed it. --Khoikhoi 20:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my bad you just combined the NPOV and disputed tags but the first parag showed in the diff which i took as you did the change. Actually it was done by an anonymous user ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_people&diff=31640343&oldid=31640285 ). I wish that user would join in this discussion. AverageTurkishJoe 20:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The anon (70.122.73.105) is just Tombseye when he's not logged in. --Khoikhoi 20:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Update

There's already an article about citizens of Turkey: People of Turkey. Whenever you see the phrase "-people" it is referring to an ethnicity (like Persian people, Kurdish people, etc). Citizens of Turkey form a nationality. This article should be about the ethnic Turks of Turkey. Other information should be added to People of Turkey or Ethnicity in Turkey. Thanks. Aucaman^Talk 09:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In number of "-people" articles we see an explanation that the term is used for both the nation the citizens and ethnicity. Especially Russian people article makes this point explicitly:

The English term Russians is also used to refer to citizens of Russia, regardless of their ethnicity (see demographics of Russia for information on other nationalities inhabiting Russia); in Russian, this meaning is covered by the recently revived politically correct term Rossiyanin (Россиянин, plural Rossiyane). According to 2002 census, ethnic Russians make up about 80 % of the population of Russia [1].

Russians (Russian: Русские - Russkiye) are an East Slavic ethnic group, primarily living in Russia and neighboring countries.

The Germans (German: die Deutschen), or the German people, are a nation in the meaning an ethnos (in German: Volk), defined more by a sense of sharing a common German culture and having a German mother tongue, than by citizenship or by being subjects to any particular country.

The terms Finns and Finnish people are used both to refer to an ethnic group historically associated with Finland or Fennoscandia and to the present-day citizens or residents of Finland. Both terms may or may not be intended to include either Finland-Swedes (Finnish Swedophones), or Sweden-Finns (Finnish natives and immigrants in Sweden), or both, depending on context. Kvens (ethnic Finns in Norway), Tornedalians (ethnic Finns indigenous to northernmost Sweden) and evangelic-lutheran Ingrian Finns are typically considered to belong to the Finnish people. Karelians in the Republic of Karelia, or other Finnic peoples, seldom are.

The Italian people are an ethnic group primarily associated with Italy and the Italian language. There are almost 56 million autochthonous Italians in Italy, around 750,000[2] in Switzerland, around 28,000 in San Marino, as well as some smaller groups in Slovenia and Croatia. Their native language is Italian, including many dialects and variations while their religion is predominantly Roman Catholic.

I would think we need to make this point explicit in Turkish people article also. Otherwise we do not have the right to redefine the term in terms of what material we have at hand and on the condition that what other articles with related meanings are in existence. The ambiguity in the term does not lead to an ontological conclusion that object signified by the term does not exist. Nor we should strive to redefine the term with something that is known to exist. (This is similar to proof of existence of a "being" by using the "existence" as one of its attributes in its definition. This article is using he same logical device: the ambiguity in the term is used for the proof of non-existence. Thought the same ambiguity exists for almost all "-people" articles.) If we apply the same logic to "American pople" article are we supposed to write about the ethnic English people? Or as this article does are we supposed to write that there is no such thing called the "American people"? (Also note that there is no plural noun form for "English" so one has to use "English people" to refer to the plural form for the noun "English". Just like we cannot say "fishes -for purely phonetical reasons- we cannot say "Englishes".This leads to a usage pattern in English to add "-people" to make a plural form for other nationals or ethnicities. ) It should also be clear to us now that the difference between the term "nation" and "ethnicity" is not cut in stone and this fluidity is always accomodated.AverageTurkishJoe 01:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following opening statement both as the defininion for term "Turkish people". (This is modeled after the opening of the "German people" which I think works for "Turkish people" also.):

The Turks (Turkish: Türkler), or the Turkish people, are a nation in the meaning an ethnos (in Turkish: Halk), defined more by a sense of sharing a common Turkish culture and having a Turkish mother tongue, than by citizenship or by being subjects to any particular country.

If you have objections to this opening please discuss it here and list the reasons why. ThanksAverageTurkishJoe 23:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. But there needs to be an article about ethnic Turks or Turkey. Do you have a better name other than "Turkish people"? Regardless of what happens, we more or less know what these articles should look like - it's just the question of choosing the right titles.

Also, an ethnicity is defined by language and culture. What you're defining are the ethnic Turks of Turkey. Kurds of Turkey, for example, speak a different language and have a different culture. And you're right - some European countries, such as Italy, don't have sizable ethnic minorities, so that the concept of Italian nationality and Italian ethnicity overlap to a great degree. I don't think the same is true of Turkey.

Also, feel free to change the definition for now. But remember that any definition (such as the current one) is likely to be temporary until we arrive at a more unified solution. I'll try to read some the arguments again and try to formulate something reasonable. I tend to favor simple definitions. The problem with the German definition is that it's a little vague. (For example, are Austrians German? Are all citizens of Germany Germany? Are there non-German citizens who are German?) The same kind of vagueness can be applied to your definition: Are Azerbaijanis Turkish? What about the ones living in Iran? Are the Kurds of Turkey Turkish? etc. Aucaman^Talk 03:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This specific explanation of "Turkish people" leaves the Cultural identification to the individual himself. It does not impose a cultural identification based on genetics or citizenship. A Turkish citizen could identify with the Turkish people or Kurdish people, likewise a citizen of Azerbaijan could call himself/herself a Turk, Kurd or Farsi same goes with the Austrians with their cultural affiliation. "Are Kurds of Turkey Turkish? Turks and Kurds in Turkey are not burdened with the English terms "Kurdish" or "Turkish": if asked in their own language they would say "I am a Turk" or "I am a Kurd" or an honest "I don't know" if they are coming from a mixed family and their affiliation does not weigh heavily to either side. (Furthermore I claim that a definition in the same format would fit the "Kurdish people"also due to the definition's neutral (context free) nature it does not usurp what would more appropriately be attributed to other people.) If there needs to be an article about "Ethnic Turks of Turkey" why not choose the title "Ethic Turks of Turkey" for that article. (There already is an article called History of ethnic Turks of Turkey.) What amazes me is that people who show interest in editing this article do not seem to be interested in the discussion we are having here. The object of this discussion is not to find a temporary fix but to agree on something.AverageTurkishJoe 00:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It does leave it to the individual himself, but I'm guessing that most Kurds that live in Turkey DO NOT consider themselves Turkish. And most ethnic group articles aren't based on nationality - the Persian people article refers to a very specific group in Iran, one that makes up around 51% of the population. It does not refer to any citizen of Iran, such as the Azeris, Baluchis, or Kurds. What you said earlier about English speakers calling "Russians" anyone that lives in Russia is partly true. People often call a citizen of Russia a "Russian", but when other ethnic groups get involved, it gets different. People speak of the Chechens and the Russians, or the Tatars and the Russians. It seems that the term Russian can often be both a term of nationality or an ethnic group. It's all about context. --Khoikhoi 01:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The definition I used does not make any claims whether Kurds in Turkey consider themselves Turkish. It does not make any claims about any other identities at all. It does not refer to any citizenship either. I don't understand why would a Kurdish person be uncomfortable with this definition of Turks or Turkish people. (The Turks (Turkish: Türkler), or the Turkish people, are a nation in the meaning an ethnos (in Turkish: Halk), defined more by a sense of sharing a common Turkish culture and having a Turkish mother tongue, than by citizenship or by being subjects to any particular country.) If you can think of reasons why this may not be acceptable to Kurds of Turkey please list here.AverageTurkishJoe 03:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was in your definition. I just said that Turks in this case doesn't refer to citizens of Turkey. I think you said that this article should be about the citizens of Turkey, so that's why I said it. --Khoikhoi 03:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So you agree with the definition in the paragraph above? AverageTurkishJoe 03:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but an ethnos is the same as an ethnic group. --Khoikhoi 03:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Update2

I would support the following defition:

Turkish people (Turkish: Türkler) are an ethnic group defined by a sense of sharing a common Turkish culture and having a Turkish mother tongue. The majority of Turks live in Turkey, but there are sizable populations in Bulgaria, Cyprus, and other countries.

Let me know what you think. Aucaman^Talk 11:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The usage of Turkish people in the sentence: "Turkish people in Germany tend not to easily assimilate into German culture." tells me that this definition is not adequate considering there are about three million Turkish people live in Germany which is much more than that of Bulgaria. Turkish people are turkish people regardless where they live and what citizenship they hold. (This applies to other peoples also.)AverageTurkishJoe 13:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the second sentence to be more informative. That's not really part of the definition. We can add in Germany if you want. Do you have any other objections? Aucaman^Talk 14:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't include Germany because, according to this, they're only 2.4% of the population there. But like I said, we can add Germany in if you want. Aucaman^Talk 14:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know what is your objection to the definition in the form I proposed. You are saying the the large Kurdish population makes Turkey (and therefore Turks) different than Germany (and therefore Germans.) Is this the reason why you are removing the phrase "regardless of their location and citizenship?" (Or do you think that the term "German people" should be reserved for the citizens of Germany?) This does not make sense to me at all. If the reason you are doing this is that you find the explanation in German people article vague, this is exactly my point: quite a number of "-peoples" articles (including he German people article ) are devoting a lot of space to the ambiguity in the English term and the same ambiguity exists for the term "Turkish people" (the compound name not the flesh and bone people). The English language term "Turkish people" is used in number of contexts and in every usage, the signified object could be perceived a little differently. (And it has been made abundantly clear here that it is also perceived differently by different people. ) You will also notice that "German people" article ennumerates the ways the term "German people" can be used and what specific object it signifies in every usage. Ennumerating *where* Turks *are* in the definition is sidestepping the question. First and foremost we are trying to answer the question "What" 'Turkish people' or 'Turks' " refer to in various usages. (This is the definition of the term "definition" in the first place - not where or when but what.) I'd like to hear from you why the format of the definition for "German poeple" cannot be applied to "Turkish people." ThanksAverageTurkishJoe 02:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Also what is your objection to "Turkish people" being a nation and forming an "ethnos"? AverageTurkishJoe 04:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well one of the reasons is that Swiss Germans have nothing to do with the country of Germany and have been living independently for a long time. So to relate Germans to a single country is not accurate. The same is not true of Turkish people. Most of them have originated from the current country of Turkey or the Ottoman Empire. The Turks of Germany and Cyprus are both recent immigrant groups. The Turks of Bulgaria were also moved there by the Ottoman Empire. So most Turkish -speaking groups can be linked back to the Turks of Turkey. The same cannot be said of German people.

In any case, it is already understood from the definition that Turks don't have to live in a particular country to be Turks. If you compare the definition we had before with the new definition I'm proposing, you should agree that we've made a lot of progress toward addressing your concerns. I think we more or less agree as to who Turkish people are, and that's enough grounds for moving on. There are a lot more things to be done in this article. Aucaman^Talk 05:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto on the improvement and agree on the need to move on. But I just want to mention couple of things: To relate Germans to a single country is not accurate by the same token accuracy of relating "Türks" to a single country is questionable. I hope we can honestly and objectively address these issues in the article. More specifically the term "Türk" in Turkish as perceived by Turks may not overlap exactly with the term "Turkish people" and that there are people who would identify themselves as "Türks" who do not originate from Turkey and whether this has "Pan-Turkist" overtones and the reactions to Turkish/Turkic minorities identifying themselves as "Türks" by the host country goverments. I'd like to see the phrase about "where Turkish people can be found" moved from the definition to a section about settlements of the Turks. Thanks -AverageTurkishJoe 11:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Where's the phrase, "where Turkish people can be found"? Aucaman^Talk 15:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

but there are sizable populations in Bulgaria, Cyprus, and other countries. -AverageTurkishJoe 23:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well you can change anything you want as long as you're in line with the current definition. We can probably add a paragraph or two about history of Turkish people in these countries, but I don't have the time to do it right now. Aucaman^Talk 23:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

2.4% of the largest and most populous country in the EU, and the largest minority in the largest and most populous country in the EU certainly merits mention. However, one might want to make a distinction between settlement as a result of modern (post-war) immigration, and all other settlement. Therefore, a sentence could read "traditionally in countries proximate to Turkey, for instance in the Balkans, and these days also in other countries, especially Germany." (German, incidentally, has a good word for "immigration countries" (i.e. net receivers): de:Einwanderungsland).Adam Mathias 17:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We can add Germany, but besides that it sounds good in my opinion. --Khoikhoi 20:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

Based on the discussion I've seen in here, I've decided to unprotect the article and I hope I can count on everyone to not engage in edit warring. howch e ng {chat} 16:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I removed the {protected} template but didn't actually unprotect the page. It's open for editing now. howch e ng {chat} 07:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

There is a corresponding German article, de:Türken, distinct from "Turkic people". Adam Mathias 03:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Turks-Turkmens in the Middle East

Border cant change the ethnic origins.They are just living out od Turkey.They are called as "Turkmens" in Iran and Syria also because of political reasons.Those Turkmens in central asia and these are diffrent.There are "Azeri" population between them at least.If look CIA factbook, you will see that their language is Turkish.There are millions of Turks remained in iraq.That's why a solution couldnt found in Lausanne Treaty for Turkey's iraq border.However, i think some of them must have been assimilated so i'll decrease that number...Inanna 23:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all Turkic peoples have the same ethnic origins, but the Turks of Turkey and the Turkmen of Iraq are different people, just as the Chechens and the Ingush both have common origins, but are different people. I'm reverting back. --Khoikhoi 00:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Turks of Turkey and the Turkmen of Iraq are same poeple.They are called as "Turkmens" due to political reasons as i said.What you say is OK for Turkmens in central asia but not in iraq.If our border would be until northern parallel of iraq, they wouldn't be Turkmens...Inanna 00:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so the Kazkahs are the same as the Turks of Turkey as well? Why do they call themselves the Turkmen then? Read the Turkmen people article:

Like the Turks of Turkey and the Azeris of Azerbaijan, they are descendants of the Turkic peoples who migrated out of Central Asia in numerous waves starting primarily in the 9th and 10th centuries

They are related but not the same. --Khoikhoi 00:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

They are called "Turkomans" exactly but we call them Turkmens.Kazakhs live in central asia, not next to Turkey.Turks of Turkey and the Turkmen of Iraq are SAME.I am just looking for strong sources...Inanna 00:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You said that Turks can refer to any Turkic people. That's why they have the name "Turk" in their name. You want a strong source? Here's Britannica. --Khoikhoi 01:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you guys come back to "definition" section? We are discussing the definition of "Turkish people" and whether to change this article to a disambiguation page or rewriting it. We are discussing the semantics of the term "Turkish people" not the ontology of it. AverageTurkishJoe 02:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why we have a separate section for this. I don't see why I can't talk about two different things. --Khoikhoi 03:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, My mom`s side is from Musul Turkmens and my father side is from Damascus Turkmens. We consider ourselves and them all Turks. What is your point? I know that you are saying that because they live in different borders, but that does not make them different. I can even understand dialects of Turkmens on Iraq or Azeris. It is very sad to see that "we" are defined by others.

Hi, yes you're all Turkic peoples. All Turkic peoples are related to each other. "Turks" can either refer to the term Turkic peoples or simply the Turks of Turkey. I was saying to Inanna that she can't just classify Turkmens as being the exact same as the Turks of Turkey. The people have different histories and are different ethnic groups, even though along with the Kazakhs and Yakuts are all Turks. --Khoikhoi 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml

The researchers found that interbreeding between Europeans and Asians occurred much earlier than previously thought. They also found DNA sequences similar to those in present-day Turks, supporting the idea that some of the Turkish people originated in Mongolia.

--Eupator 03:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Image problem?

I see a lot of edits having to do with the pictures in the article. What exactly is the problem? Copyright problems? Aucaman^Talk 16:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

All the images except Sezen Aksu's image are known to be public domain images. I tracked down the publisher and the photographer of the image and attached the proper Copyright notice. I am also following up with the original publisher and the photographer to learn whether we have the right to crop the image and use it in a composite. Until that time the images appear side by side instead of a composite. Khokoi can better explain what problem he found with the Turks image (apart from the obvious image problem of the Turks :) -AverageTurkishJoe 22:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think you can use Image:Sezenaksu2.jpg as it is tagged with "fair use". As I'm told, you cannot use "fair use" images for decorative purposes. Image:Halideedip.jpg also needs a new tag it seems. Aucaman^Talk 06:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please point out the specific regulation that you think there is a non-conformace I will get the required permission from the copyright holders. -AverageTurkishJoe 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Iranian peoples

Merhaba, There is a dispute ongoing in the article Iranian peoples. Some Pan-Iranist users are changing the defintion of Iranian peoples (an unknown and not widely used term) from its linguistic meaning to linguistic, cultural and racial issues. According to their wrong defintion many people are labelled as Iranian, including parts of Turkish population. If you have time and are interested in the issue I ask you to join the discussion. Thank you very much. D iyako Talk + 22:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Same with Persian people. It's impossible to make any kind of edit and have it survive. Help would be appreciated. Aucaman^Talk 11:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture change again

I think that Fatih Sultan Mehmet (Mehmet II) should be in the picture. (Nothing against Halide Edip but thinking about it I cannot justify Fatih's not being in the picture.) I am proposing the picture change as seen. Thanks

.

(intentionally left blank)

.

-AverageTurkishJoe 07:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that looks great!! --Khoikhoi 07:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Two color and 2 monochrome pictures complement very nicely. The modern day people(Ataturk and Sezen Aksu) are in black and white, while the older historical figures are in color. very interesting picture. i like it Zoncel 10:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Haven't we done a votnig about that? I didnt suprised Khoikhoi(Women-Enemy Jew)... Inanna 05:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"Woman-Enemy Jew"? I have nothing against women and yes I'm Jewish. --Khoikhoi 05:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure...a nation who starts the day by praying "Our great god, king of the universe, thank you for you didn't create me as a woman..." Inanna 06:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? Are you talking about Israel? I've heard of only stuff like that in places like China. --Khoikhoi 07:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Arkadaşlar, bu "katliamların listesi" sayfasında sakız adasında yapılan soykırım 4 kat büyük bir rakamla verilmiş.Bize karşı uygulanan katliamlar da her fırsatta silinmeye çalışılıyor.Bu sayfayla ilgili yardımlarınızı bekliyorum.Teşekkürler...Inanna 14:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

İlgili linki verseydiniz daha ii olurdu--TuzsuzDeliBekir 20:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Chios Massacre--Kagan the Barbarian 12:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Mongols and Turks

I bored that issue, actually but let's terminate this;

Mongols had killed all the population and razed the cities where they occupied.Then they rebuilt them again.That’s the reason why there are only a few things at Central Asia which belongs to the Turkish Culture.Only Timur had killed 20 million Turks.For example; Mongols had massacred all the 75,000 Turks in Semerkant...

After all those events, the rest of the Turks at Central Asia had flee to the Anatolia.Millions of Turks were killed by Mongols.As i read a research of Hürriyet(Turkish newpaper who has the highest circulation), Mongols settled down Central Asia and raped thousands of Turkish Women.Therefore Turkish speaking people of Central Asia are descendants of Mongols and lost their “Turkish” identy...

There are 200 million Turkic people and 5 million Mongolians in the world.For example; We have ruled China for years, but we have never settled down there.Because their numbers were more than 100 times than ours.If we did that, we would be assimilated.However, Mongolians had never thought so.They settled in where Turks were majority and assimilated, but their numbers were quite big and they affected the “Turkish Ethnic Identity”...

Both Germans and Gyspies are speaking indo-european languages but i’m sure Germans aren’t gyspies...

Not only the Mongolians but even the Chinese people had flee to Central Asia.Chinese love to emmigrate.South Eastern Asia, Russia, Japan, US, Canada, Australia,...everywhere full of Chinese people at the moment.Even there are 42,000 Chinese immigrants in Turkey.That’s to say Chinese affected Turks in Central Asia as well...

Mongolians are yellow race.Ural-Altaic people were white race.It was proved by all scientists that Proto-Turks were white.I have already never heard that “Mongloid”(whatever it means) term which only greeks say.I think, it’s obvisous why greeks’re slandering Turks at this point.

Inanna 19:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Inanna, I think the terms you are looking for is "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid", not "White" and "Yellow"

Population numbers

The 1,700,000 figure for germany refers to citizenship not ethnicity ! Many Turks have german citizenship. The Turkish vote was instrumental in returning the SPD to power at 2002 election. Read this http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,374755,00.html

300,000 Turks with bulgarian citizenship live in Turkey after they were forced out by the thuggery of Zivkov and his cronies.These people werent counted in the census, because the census doesnt extend into turkish territory. Bulgarian Turks living in Turkey were allowed to vote at the last election.That explains why the Turkish party in Bulgaria(the MRF) got 12 % of the vote, while bulgarian census figures report that Turks number only 9.6 % of the population. They are well and truly citizens of bulgaria and exercise all their rights as citizens including the right to vote.

[Personal attack removed]

So then who counted the extra 1 million? If the gov hasn't, who has? A person went from door to door to see how many Turkish non-citizens of Germany are there in the country? Chaldean 05:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Its called an estimate. I guess by using your logic, we should say that NO kurds, georgians, albanians, arabs, pomaks, laz or assyrians live in Turkey since there are no official census figures for them. Citizenship isnt the same as ethnicity. Your figure includes non turks with Turkish citizenship as well.

Its commonly accepted that around 2.6-2.7 million ethnic turks live in germany. Go do a google search.I really dont have any energy to argue with people who harbor historical anti-turk biases. bye

If there are no census then an estimate can be accepted, but the German gov. has came out with this figure, so an estimate is not nessecery. Anyways you told me to do a google search and I clicked on the first thing: "2003 Britannica Book of the Year Turkish 2,110,000" http://www.serve.com/shea/gerks.htm

And besides, the website you provide says 2.5 million, and this incude KURDS in it as well, chop the kurds and you have 1.7 Chaldean 06:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Poor reasoning. Your site is not only outdated but self contradictory. How is the census number for those with Turkish citizenship equal to the number of ethnic Turks in Germany ? What about those Turks who have german citizenship ? Do they cease to be Turks ? Does the german citizenship process involve some kind of mind warping process that flushed out the Turkishness out of you

?

Sorry but thats extremely flawed logic. The previous number that you are trying to edit out has been here for MONTHS and no one has disputed it. What does that tell you ?

I found a source that gives a number in-between both of your numbers. Do you both agree? --Khoikhoi 06:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No can do

Why not? --Khoikhoi 06:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Here we have a very recent article that not only gives a figure for the number of Turks , but also exposes the climate of racism thats prevalent in germany. Lets call a spade a spade. 2.7 million Turks definitely do exist in Germany. Why do you insist on settling for a lower figure ? Im amazed at the zeal some people have when it comes to turkish affairs

Let's compare my source with yours. Mine is academic, and reliable. Yours is simply a news article which does not cite its sources. Just saying "2.7 million Turks definitely do exist in Germany" isn't good enough. What I'm trying to do is make a compromise between you and Chaldean - something that you refuse to do. --Khoikhoi 07:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, there are a few problems with your figure

Its dated 2003. Thats 3 years ago. The dw-world figure is dated 2006.
Since then, there has been immigration into Germany.
Turks unlike ethnic germans, have natural population growth
There are 3.5 million muslims in Germany. Are you saying that Kurds, bosniaks and albanians (who are the other major muslim groups in germany )together number over 1.4 million ?

[[3]] really looks professional alright. I could do up one like that on geocities in 2 hours. How do we know that Brittanica actually states that ? I could just as easily doctor up a 4 million number and put it up on my geocities say it comes from Brittanica and quote it. Please provide a link to the 2003 Brittanica book of the year or whatever its called which actually states that.

Revert all you want, but then the edit war will just continue... --Khoikhoi 07:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What is your issue with turks anyway ? What are you ? Armenian ? greek ? Kurd ?

Let me ask you something. I can show you bozkurt(grey wolves) nationalist sites which show that no Kurds exist in Turkey. Do you agree that we should slash kurdish population numbers by half to cater to the higher and lower(in this case -zero) estimates ?

I'm American, and I have nothing against Turks. I was just trying to resolve the conflict by giving an academic source. I wasn't trying to "slash the numbers". --Khoikhoi 07:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian/Greek genetic study

Since genetic studies are referenced on this page, and everyone is obsessed with this issue these days, I thought everyone might be interested in this one [4], which links Turks with other Mediterranean peoples, including Armenians and Iranians - but not Greeks, who are linked with sub-Saharan Africans. Enjoy. SouthernComfort 11:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

hehe thats funny. African Greeks and Armenian Turks(85.97.143.5 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC))

Verdiğimiz bütün rakamların kaynakları var.Bunu yapmak zorunda olmamamıza rağmen.Amaçları bizi olabildiğince küçük bir toplum göstermek.Sözde Türkiye'de 15 milyon da kürt varmış.Zaten değiştirenlerin hepsi bize düşman milletlerden olan insanlar.Hep birlikte yine en son verdiğimiz rakamlara değiştirelim.Birlik olamamamızdan istafade ediyorlar...Inanna 10:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Turks in Greece

According to the greece government and to the 2001 greek census,there is a muslim minority in Western Thraki that consists the 1,2% of the country's population(about 130,000).According to the Lausanne Treaty-Turkey is of course signatory-it is a religious minority,containing not only turks.The number 200,000 that was stated before,is an overestimation.moreover,it is supported by a link in turkish...(this is the English Wikipedia,and readers should be provided with sources that can be read by them,been at least partly in english).In addition,that site considers e.g. all Uzbeks,etc turkish,i mean it does not make any difference between Turkic and Turkish people,it is just an 'advertisment' of pan-turkism.So,it cannot be considered as a reliable source here.as i said above,the muslim minority of greece is not only made up of ethnic turks,but also of Pomaks(aka ethnic bulgarians of muslim faith),who make up about 30,000 according to Ethnologue[5],muslim roma and muslim ethnic greeks.Thus the number 90,000 is much more close to reality and is supported by a neutral link that i have also provided.--Hectorian 12:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you see the map in the web-site that source of "90,000 Turks in greece"? Please somebody revert that vandalism.Thanks...Inanna 15:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The website is Eurominority.and its sources have been used in various articles of wikipedia cause they are considered neutral.it is not my problem that u do not like the map...--Hectorian 16:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No they are not! Eurominority is a private POV propaganda website not to be take seriously - look at what they say about the Pomaks, that they speak "Macedonian" [6]. That's silly and we know it - they speak the Pomaci Bulgarian dialects! In this case however, if the figures are attributed to INTEREG (and they are), then they can be used IMO... --Latinus 16:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

That tag has been up there for quite awhile. What is being disputed exactly? Is it simply the population figures or are there other issues as well? SouthernComfort 17:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's why I deleted it. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you changed it to an accuracy tag. ;) Are there any issues that have not yet been addressed? SouthernComfort 18:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I have just replaced the tag with disputed. Since, some are still disscussing about population of Turkish people who live out of Turkey. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think there are too many countries listed in the box. I don't think other peoples articles have so many listed. One could move the bulk of those figures to a new article, like Turkish Diaspora or some other such name. SouthernComfort 18:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking again, I'd say that all figures below the United States, as long as they valid, should be moved to a demographics article. SouthernComfort 18:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you meant by other peoples pages. You are right. Unfortunately, you should consiider that after Ottoman Empire died, many of Turks who lived out of Turkey's border remained in which they lived. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This is very true, which is why I suggested a new article about the Turkish diaspora. That way the box remains neat and organized. A brief section should also be provided about Turks in other lands after the Ottomon Empire collapsed. The article could use a great deal of expansion about all of these things - it's about the Turkish people, after all. SouthernComfort 19:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. There are lots of them in Balkans, Cyprus, Arabia and so on. Well, lets start it.;)--TuzsuzDeliBekir 16:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Just remember that the word Diaspora is used for the immigrants or refugees.so,only the turks living in germany,france,the netherlands etc should be included.the turks that remained in parts of the former Ottoman Empire,should be mentioned elsewhere.i think that this article is the best place for that.--Hectorian 21:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It is just a bit conflict, we can change the name as community or something like that. Since, the idea is great. But thanks for your advise.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 16:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Expansion required

There is not enough data regarding Turkish culture - art, literature, music, cuisine, etc. Nothing too long, but brief summaries should be provided. SouthernComfort 03:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

I remember some time ago this article had a very loose definition of who Turks are. Now I see the definition has changed. Could we get an agreement on who these Turks are? Aucam an^Talk 00:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The definition in this article hasn't changed, however. It says in the 1st sentence, "The Turkish people (Turkish: Türkler) are a Turkic ethnic group sharing a common culture and language." Therefore, the current number in the article is correct - this article isn't about the Turkish nationality, but the Turkish ethnic group, which does not include Kurds. --Khoikhoi 00:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The definition of "Turks" has changed due to modernity. It is now more of a cultural/linguistic group than a racial/ethnic group. Let's see what some of the Turkish editors here have to say. Aucam an^Talk 01:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, even if we do go with your definition, the Kurds are still linguistically and culturally distinct from the Turks. The CIA says that Kurds make up around 20% of Turkey's population, so why is the number for all of Turkey's citizens correct as opposed to the number of ethnic Turks in Turkey? --Khoikhoi 01:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is already an article on the People of Turkey, as regards those who are citizens or residents of the Turkish state. And Turks are most certainly a distinct ethnic group - please read that article and the definition of what constitutes an "ethnic group." And as if it needs to even be stated, Kurds are not Turks. SouthernComfort 04:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the Demographics of Turkey article. --Khoikhoi 05:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been away from WP for some time, to my surprise , we are still talking about what is "Turkish ethnic group" disctinct from other Turkic etnic groups around the world and other non-turkish ethnicities within the national boundaries of Turkish Republic. I would assume that the other turkish editors like myself are tired going in circles on the same topic. Apparently some favor the ethno/linguistical elements and some racial and genetic line. It seems hard to come up with a rigid definition and the terms used are inherently fluid ( the same difficulty exists for other ethnicities also.) When left to the individual the ethnic affiliation has a definite answer; but searching for a universal definition seems to be futile. We already have enough information about this to write in this article. We do not need to be normative, just NPOV. If there are different opinions about Who the "Turks" are we just write them all here which fulfills the requirement for an article.

Since most of the discussion is centered around "Who turks are" we might want to include information from those who asked his question before and suplied their own point of view. (Although I am extremely interested in the history of the Hatti's, I believe the recent history has more relevant information then Hattis.) This was a hotly debated issue at the turn of the century. That debate was about what should be the unifiying elements among the people in the Turkish State. Still inclusion of the history of this debate and the opposing ideas may make good material for this article. AverageTurkishJoe 05:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

User:Globo is inserting anti-TRNC content into Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (diff). I'm not sure about the neutrality of his edits, so if you're interested in the topic, please come and join the discussion. -- ran (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hakan Sukur or the Pekinel sisters

We already have Tarkan and Sezen Aksu there. If we put in the Pekinels(thats two people), we'd have a disproportionate number of individuals representing Turkish music. Hakan Sukur is probably the most famous Turkish footballer of All time, and he's perfect to represent Turkish sport. Hakan's picture is also a frontal image, which is an added plus. And besides, if we put in the Pekinels, there'd be a female majority. Not good for Turkish male egos:) -- KSK 15:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest Güler Sabancı instead of Tansu Çiller. As such, business world would be presented as well, and still with a female person. --Cretanforever 02:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Your idea seems fine with me. We already have three other statesmen (Fatih Mehmet , Suleyman Kanuni and Ataturk). The lighting on Tansu Çiller's image is quite poor as well. Guler needs her own article. When I type in her name, all I get is Sabanci holdings, which is her company . She's certainly more than notable enough for it.--KSK 05:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Hakan Şükür was removed because he is of Kurdish ancestry (What's this nonsense?). I am a Beşiktaş fan but I will put Hakan's picture back. He sits well for various reasons. --Cretanforever 08:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol. nice idea. If you dont like anybody, you label them Kurdish:). User:Karaman is in all probability, User:Attaleian who insisted on replacing Sukur a day ago. -KSK 08:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not about i like him or not.Even i'm not keen on football.He is of Kurdish ancestry and he doesn't have a Turkish look so much.That's far from impartiality.

Picture of Hülya Koçyiğit is a very old-one.Karaman 08:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well thats exactly why we use that Hulya Kocyigit image. Because it captures her at the peak of her acting career, and shows her as how every Turkish movie fan remembers her. The one you put in has been overexposed to too much light. There are other major issues with it too (Dimensions, blending in with other images). Please dont take this the wrong way And btw, im not a Galata supporter:)-KSK 08:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

For the moment I have created a page for Güler Sabancı with redirect to Sabancı Holding. Later on, I will start an article on her. After all, she is one of the world's richest women. --Cretanforever 19:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Great.I replaced the Hakan Sukur image. The new one reflects his persona. He's wearing the Turkish team jersey and the captain's armband, which gives an indication towards who he is. The previous image was a dull front on pic, in which he had this really creepy smile:) No galata jersey in this one KSK 19:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

About the bit on phenotypical diveristy

This assertion is a bit too far fetched imo. Its extremely rare that you would ever come across a black african or black african looking person ever in Turkey. The only place you possibly could would be Istanbul and those would be immigrants or temporary workers and even those are a very tiny number. Why would anyone immigrate to Turkey when they could head over to the nearby prosperous EU countries anyway ? Blue-eyed blondes and east asian looking people are very visible in Turkey, but african or mixed african people arent - you just need to walk down a Turkish street. Yes, Im aware that Turks exhibit a huge variety of physical phenotypes, but this is really pushing it for sake of expounding that.

I think it's meant to refer to a tiny group who are the descendents of slaves brought to area by the Ottomans and were over the course of centuries integrated into the population and mixed in. It's rare and when I was in Turkey I saw maybe a handful who may have been new immigrants etc. I'd imagine if there are people with African ancestry it's rare and perhaps not visible since it was diluted as would be the case in other countries that had a slave trade. Tombseye 15:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ottomans never took slaves, nor did they ever make racial or ethnic discriminations. Ottoman "nationality" was given to any muslim citizen of the Empire, independently of his colour, language or ethnic origin. This means that black Arabs from the middle east or Northern Africa might have migrated to Anatolia as Ottoman citizens, but definitely not as slaves. Miskin 16:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, never took slaves? The Ottoman sultan gave Ibrahim Petrovich Gannibal to Peter the Great as a slave. We also know they kept slaves just from the paintings as well including eunuchs and domestic slaves (which was common). The Jannisaries were also white slaves of the Sultan. There are even books on the subject including Slavery in the Ottoman Empire and Its Demise, 1800-1909 by YH Erdem. Tombseye 17:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much war-prisoners qualify as slaves by the most recent definition of the word (based on racial discrimination). The Janissaries were a special case of forced assimilation and can hardly be described as slavery. Either way, there was in no case a racial or ethnic discrimination such as to imply that Asia Minor had had an influx of a certain racial type the way you describe it. Miskin 18:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Im not suprised at the level of orientalism in this article. Janissaries were a special military division and noble class of the Ottoman Empire, not slaves. Are US marines slaves of President Geoge W Bush ? Are the swiss guard slaves of the pope ?--Kilhan 16:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a lot of armenians before they were slaughered that shud be added--Northbay 04:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about peoples of Turkey, it's about ethnic Turks, which doesn't include Armenians. —Khoikhoi 04:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why did you say "Why would anyone immigrate to Turkey"?, well uh maybe because they want to, does it matter?, do you have something against African people? yeah its rare to see people of African descent in Turkey but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned.

Sigh*, here we go with the Armenians again... --Kilhan

Statistics in the infobox

I was thinking, shouldn't the numbers at the infobox be more based on census results than on independent websites? See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. What does everyone else think? —Khoikhoi 00:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I've thought the same, but we both know what happens when the numbers go down. Some of the info. such as from Cypnet doesn't look exactly reliable. Tombseye 00:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, now we have a chance to fix the numbers now that a certain Istanbuler who wanted to make the Turkic peoples superior to all other ethnic groups via Wikipedia is banned. ;) —Khoikhoi 00:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Man, that took long enough. Well, I agree that the stats should reflect the census or CIA factbook (not always dead-on but they've updated some stuff for 2006 recently) or the UN. Anything but some website from the UK written by Turkish Cypriot expats. Tombseye 00:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

We actually have other wikipedia articles being listed as sources. The references for Denmark and Sweden are....Demographics of Sweden and Demographics of Denmark =)) --Kilhan 08:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL, how reliable can you get? :p —Khoikhoi 08:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, what's the source of "Number of Turks in Mexico"? --Karaman 11:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Reordered and inserted verifiable data on Turkish population statistics

I redid the population stats and inserted sources for everything and tried to put in government sources whenever possible and tried to extricate the Kurdish population whenever feasible. The estimates are considerably lower than the 84 million+ as I could not find any verifiable information to add another 15 million to the Turkish population without adding what appears to be an inclusion of ethnic Kurds. Tombseye 18:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice job, don't forget about the geographic distribution section of the page, where many of the numbers from the infobox were moved. —Khoikhoi 18:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Crap. Seems redundant a bit. Quite the drastic drop in Turkish population figures though. I dunno where that 80+ mil. figures came from. Tombseye 18:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I dunno about how to go about this now. Some of the stats that put Turkish population figures higher come from 'statements' and the like, including embassies, but without any indication as to where the stats are derived from an official capacity. I mean some of the higher figures seem plausible as with Sweden, but others I dunno. Tombseye 18:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Kilhan reverted your edits, I guess his main concern is the numbers for Europe. Feel free to correct the numbers for non-European countries for now. —Khoikhoi 19:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Whats wrong with the "Rest of Western Europe" entry on thew infobox? It cuts down on the size of the infobox and emphasizes traditionally Turkish areas(like Cyprus, romania, macedonia etc) over immigrant ones like Austria, UK etc. Seems like a great idea to me--Kilhan 19:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's too vague. We need actual sources for each country rather than some lumping together that is difficult to verify. This article will never attain any semblance of being a good article if we just input arbitrary figures that cannot be supported by official censuses, international agencies, etc. That's why I started editing the section as the figures were grossly inflated. Tombseye 21:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Official Figures

Excuse me but these are official figures[[7]](2005, Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization Figures).

Turks in Turkey are called Turkmens as well.I know that Turkmens in Central Asia are another sub-group but Turkmens in Iraq are same with Turks in Turkey.

There are no Kurds in Turkey as for the laws of Turkey.Census is census.On the other hand, number of Greeks in Greece are population of Greece in [greeks] page though there are lots of people from other ethnic groups and there are no sources about it.--Karaman 23:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am repeating again; "2005, Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization Figures".Official Figures.So please do not remove them by your personal feelings.--Karaman 23:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

They're not my personal feelings, but simply presenting the Turkish POV on the stats violates WP:NPOV and is not ok. —Khoikhoi 23:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

They are "OFFICIAL FIGURES".So it cannot be POV and what about this[8]?--Karaman 23:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Greece has a population of 11,244,118, the number there of Greeks living in Greece is 10,435,420. They're Turkey's offical figures. Once again, read WP:NPOV, we can't have things biased towards the Turkish side. —Khoikhoi 23:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You cannot decide that by your own POV.So i can say that there are 5 million Greeks in Greece.And please do not delete the figures because it's vandalism.--Karaman 23:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's your POV (and the POV of the Turkish gov't) to say that there are no Kurds in Turkey. I didn't delete any figures, a lot of them are here. —Khoikhoi 23:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

These are the laws.There are 25 million italians in US but american government prefers to show them as 15 millions...Why those figures are out of the list? --Karaman 23:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

They're the laws of Turkey, which would make the article biased. And where'd you get the info about Italians? —Khoikhoi 23:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Not only italians and not only USA.Iran has been doing the same against Azeri people.However, there are not 15 million Kurds in Turkey.Kurdish speaking people were never more than %8 as for official data.Only 1,800,000 people used their votes for Kurdish party.--Karaman 00:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The CIA estimates that Kurds make up 20% of Turkey's population, and it's an offical government agency... And I'm not sure if you can determine the population of an ethnic group based on their votes for a party. —Khoikhoi 00:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the map of the section 'Geographical distribution' cause it is clearly false. I have no idea from which turkish nationalistic website it was uploaded, but it shows central and eastern Greek Macedonia, Thessaly, Epirus, the islands Rhodes, Chios, Lesbos, as inhabited by turks! Furthermore, it shows the whole (?) Turkey inhabited by turks (with only the south eastern part been mixed). In addition, it shows large territories of FYROM been ethnically turkish, and places in Bosnia and Armenia as well. It is a totally POV map, with no connect to reality... It is such a pity to see something like this been editted here... --Hectorian 01:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, my bad, I was the one who added it. :( I guess I didn't take a good enough look at it. —Khoikhoi 02:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

it's ok:). i removed it as a false map, no matter who added it...(no accusations against noone from my side) --Hectorian 02:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: the above User:Karaman has been banned indefinitely as a sockpupept of Inanna. See CheckUser report. —Khoikhoi 17:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll say one thing for Karaman, she sure is consistent with her use of illogical reasoning. Now we're to determine the number of Kurds by their voting habits? Geez, talk about a desperate nationalist. Tombseye 17:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL. "There are no Kurds in Turkey because that is the offical numbers". I forget what Inanna said to me one time about the Kurds, I think it was something like, "70% are assimilated, they are already Mountain Turks". Jesus Christ. —Khoikhoi 18:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Grouping

Khoikhoi has been adding this The Turks of Turkey can be broken down into a variety of segments and the majority of self-identifying Turks include four main groupings: Rumelian Turks who are mostly of Balkan origin, Anatolian Turks who compose the bulk of ethnic Turks found in Anatolia, (see history section) Central Asian Turks who remain a large segment of the population that has been moving to Turkey for centuries, and Eurasian Turks from Russia and the Caucasus such as the Tatars and Azerbaijanis who have more recent ties with Turkic peoples. These Turks share similar languages and cultures.

which is not true because according to it, the large segment of the population should be from central asia but its not true. They should be included in the Anatolian Turks because noone in Turkey has recent ties with Central asia other than Tatars,etc.., which are already explained below as Eurasian Turks. So it makes 3 groupings. Metb82 17:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You're misreading that. A large segment does not mean the majority. In fact, it could be re-written as a large minority instead. Tombseye 16:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

thats what im trying to say. The emigration from central asia that lasted for centuries, didnt create a different ethnic group in Turkey. They were mixed with the native anatolian tribes and today, the only people that are central asian Turks are the Eurasian Turks. The genetic testing also proves that, a %30 percent mixture of Turkic population over %70 Indo-european genetics. Metb82 16:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you and even the Turks who did arrive were largely from Turkmenistan and thus (according to genetic testing there) were largely Central Asian Iranians who had been turkified themselves by a small group which contributed 1/4 of their gene pool or thereabouts (along with Mongols one can assume). At any rate, I think we pretty much agree. Tombseye 01:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, can you expand on the tukification process of Iranians?

That is If this was the case was it a case of elite domination or the Iraninan populations or was it because the Turkic populations were greater in number and turkification was a naturally occuring? AverageTurkishJoe 14:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Osmanlis

I noticed that Osmanlis redirects to Ottoman Empire, but according to the Turks article at the Columbia Encyclopedia, I think it should redirect here. Same with Osmanli Turks. See the section:

The Osmanlis

In Asia Minor the sultanate of Konya was taken over, after the Mongol wave had receded, by the emirate of Karamania (see Karaman), but the Osmanli Turks completed the overthrow of the Byzantine Empire. A minor tribe and the last of the Turkish invading peoples, the Osmanli had been assigned (13th cent.) to the border area of the Byzantine Empire by their Seljuk overlords. It was largely this position as guards of a constantly contested frontier that allowed them to develop their highly disciplined organization, which in turn enabled them in the 14th cent. to make themselves masters of the ruins of the Seljuk empire in Anatolia. Their first historic ruler Osman I, gave his name both to the nation and to the dynasty that ruled an empire extending, at one period, from Vienna to the Indian Ocean and from Tunis to the Caucasus (see Ottoman Empire). The people of modern Turkey, which was founded after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, are called Osmanli Turks. The original Osmanlis had merged at an early stage with the Seljuks, and their descendants mixed extensively with Muslim converts from the many dozens of nationalities that made up their empire.

Now I'm aware that Ottoman Empire in Turkish is Osmanlı Devleti, that's why I'd like to see what others have to say before making the redirect. —Khoikhoi 04:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Also see the Osmanlı Türkleri article over at the Turkish Wikipedia, created by our friend Inanna. However, that article links to the Ottoman Turks page. So perhaps Osmanlis should redirect there? —Khoikhoi 04:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

How about both hedging bets and erring towards accuracy by having "Osmanlis" redirect to Ottoman, which is a disambiguation page covering all the bases? —Saposcat 19:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, looks good! Thanks. —Khoikhoi 03:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, the statistics of 1 million Turks in Syria is a joke. I removed this baised source, but it looks like its been put back on. Please show me a reliable source that says anything close top this number. There is no mentioning of 1 million Turks in the page Syria. Chaldean 02:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

U were right. someone had been trolling again... this is how this number first appeared (based on a 1906 census!!!!) --Hectorian 02:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I wouldn't be surprised if her next source comes straight out of the MHP. —Khoikhoi 03:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? i thought that all of her sources are/were/will be coming straight from them...;-) --Hectorian 03:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on now guys, no need to point and laugh :D Chaldean 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of jokes, I checked out the Russian census and it does not list a Turkish population at all. Just Turkic peoples of various types. Also, there will have to be some verification of Turkish-Mexicans, which I've heard of, but not sure of their numbers. Tombseye 04:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

For some Turkish users (no need to make an internal link again:p), all turkic peoples are turkish, (but all germanics are not germans, and all latins are not italians...). ohhhh.... and their number is always the highest estimation! never the middle one! (u know what i mean) --Hectorian 04:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha, yeah I know. I think whoever put it in didn't realize that there are web tools to translate Russian to English. I use them to read Russian sites myself so I just looked it up and found no mention of Turkish people in Russia. At this rate, I wonder when we'll get a listing of Turkish people living in Nigeria or Estonia as well! Sheesh. Tombseye 04:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, its correct that there are Turks(the ones associated with Turkey) in Russia - google "Meskhetian Turks". Meskhetian Turks declare themselves both as "Turks" and "Meskhetian Turks", whereas other Turkics (Tatars, chuvash, bashkort etc.) do it as Tatars, chuvash, baskort etc, not as "Turks". The azerbaijan entry is also for meskhetian Turks (who moved there primarily from Uzbekistan after being invited to do so by the azerbaijani government), so please dont delete it mistakenly beleiving it to be azeris who somehow declared themselves as "Turks". Thank you-Kilhan 16:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry

Turkish people defined more by a sense of sharing a common Turkish culture and having a Turkish mother tongue, than by citizenship, religion or by being subjects to any particular country. Is that a fact or opinion? The amount of time I spent with the subject of the article states the latter. --Cat out 19:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Turkish people defined more by a sense of sharing a common Turkish culture and having a Turkish mother tongue, than by citizenship, religion or by being subjects to any particular country I strongly agree with that description as definition of Turk does reflect the historical, cultural etc. ties. (cantikadam 14:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC))

You're right that Turkish identity is greatly based on ties to Turkey and Islam, but it isnt always the case. Within Turkey itself, you'd find that many people self-identify as belonging to multiple groups, such as being both Abkhaz and Turkish, or Laz and Turkish. Kilhan 16:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No no no...There aren't many people self identity as belonging to multiple groups. Circassian,geogian, Laz and abhaz populatiom of Turkey is not more than 3-4 percent. And They can call themselves what they want and they usually talk Turkish and their ethnic language(expect circassians, they usully talk only Turkish).

Of course kurds have the most population as an ethnic group(15 percent).
So nearly 80 percent of Turks has only one identity : Turk...

None of the ethnic groupings in Turkey are mutually exclusive. It's quite common for a person of adiga descent to acknowledge his/her adiga roots but yet feel Turkish at the same time. From personal experience, I'd say the most common form of self-identification is as part of an adiga subgroup within the greater Turkish super group. Despite what many outside observers may think, Kurds in Turkey are closer to Turks than to their "ethnic brethren" in Syria or anywhere else. A Kurd from southeastern Turkey would feel completely at home in an ethnic Turkish village in Bulgaria. The very same person would probably experience a culture shock in a Kurdish inhabited region in Syria. Kilhan 17:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

British Turks

Why is there no number for the British Turk population in the infobox? There must be more Turks in North London alone, than some of those countries. Does anyone know many people are Turkish in the UK?Marky-Son 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right – there are plenty of Turks in the UK (especially Cypriots). The reason those other countries are featured is probably because the Turks there are autochthonous (indigenous) communities. Berlin, Frankfurt, Cologne and Vienna each have more Turks than some of those counties listed, and those aren’t even whole countries but individual cities! --Kilhan 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Historic views of Turks

Met, it's true that racist, ignorant Europeans saw Turks as "barbarians" or "savages". Have you ever read Othello? They don't think so highly of the Turks there... You said that some saw them as "strong" or "powerful", but that doesn't contradict the satement. It would, however, if you can show me a source were Europeans said they were as civilized as them (I'm talking about historically, not today). —Khoikhoi 23:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

alright, similar things were thought about the Jews especially by Europeans also. Im adding that to the Jews page then but if it gets erased then this will have to be erased also. Metb82 23:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't, because I added a source. I can add 3 more if you want. —Khoikhoi 23:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

so you say you wont allow this in Jews page but allow it for Turks? i think thats completely racist. Metb82 23:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

When did I say I wouldn't allow it? I said I didn't want you deleting it from this page. —Khoikhoi 23:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Forget it, if an educated, architecture student in Turkey is this nationalistic, then it gives you an impression of the propaganda they are subjected to. I will revert the edit back to your one Khoikhoi if it is reverted back.

Dude, its not about being nationalistic. I admire Greek culture, i know that we took these lands from the Greek people. But everything has a limit. Insulting my ancestry(at least a part of it as you can see from my eyes thats appearantly Turkic) here will not get anybody anywhere. Unfortunately, in this world, if you are strong, you have a right for everything. Just like America invading Iraq. It seems that the Turks were stronger in those days and the past is past. It has been 600 years. Get over it.Metb82 22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't have anything to be ashamed of. We are a great nation, which lost an empire, now badly managed for decades and still struggling to rise on its feet again. We're also humans and people. You may say anything you want. Write anything you want. Do you really think the juvenile, uneducated reactions of some nationalist aspirants in Wikipedia show you that you're hitting a nerve? What are these legendary propagandas you claim to exist anyway? Do you mean anti-Turkish propagandas in Europe done by French, Armenians, Kurds etc? --Gokhan 04:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)