Wikipedia

Talk:Turkish people/Archive 12

< Talk:Turkish people
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Athenean in topic So what's the reason?
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

So what's the reason?

Latest comment: 10 years ago157 comments11 people in discussion

This chunk of text was deleted ([[1]]) because "genetic makeup doesn't mean continuation of culture and ethnic identity from "ancient civilizations". That's true, and no one disputes that, neither does the text that was deleted. If this isn't why "the text is disputed", Proudbolsahye, what is? It's actually pretty standard to talk about history of an ethnic group's territory that occurred before the modern identity emerged. For example, our page on Mexican people talks about Toltecs and Olmecs and Aztecs, Spanish people mentions Roman and pre-Roman history, and so on. --Yalens (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yalens, your argument and questions are discussed and investigated in above sections. There simply is no consensus reached on the issue and from the looks like it, I highly doubt there ever will. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing above that addresses Yalens' concerns. Only similar frivolous arguments that were used to delete reliably sourced relevant material. Athenian and Alexikoku also said Hitites had nothing to do with modern Turks, according to their POV. This is a straw man argument. This "read above" response seems part of Wikipedia:I just don't like it behaviour to circumvent WP:NPOV. Cavann (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
"See above" argument has nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT. I merely pointed out to Yalens the ongoing debate about the frivolous claims that Turks are primarily descended from Ancient Anatolians and Thracians. The sources you use do not reflect this. Only one source, Yardumian, uses such terminology but is only cited ONCE. The other sources refer to Ancient Anatolians AMONG others as descendents of Turks. It is hard to even point out that modern academics have reached a consensus on the claims. You are taking a small portion of what the sources say and making highly controversial attempts of excluding these social factors. Due to your persistent WP:OWN behavior, the article is now going to lose its status as a GA and is now going to page protection. Very unfortunate. But like I said, I think a RFC would at least help this issue get solved. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

When I look above, I mainly see (when I filter out all the tangents) people protesting at the page allegedly saying that Turks "are" Ancient Anatolians, even though (1) the text never says that they are exactly Ancient Anatolians or that they have cultural/ethnic-conscience continuity, (2) the page does already say that their ancestry also includes neighboring peoples and Central Asians, (3) regardless of what certain people think scientific sources actually DO say that Turks are mostly descended from the indigenous people of the region, which include Greeks and Armenians as well as the list of Ancient peoples. While certain editors may argue that the continuity with the Ancient populations is disrupted by the former two, scientific sources have explicitly stated that the latter ("Anatolia's Iron Age populations", etc) are also included. Forgive me if I missed anything, I also have a life and I don't tend to spend hours reading wikipedia talk pages, I hope you all can understand... --Yalens (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyhow, I'd recommend that the material be placed back in, but, as a compromise, "primarily" should be replaced with "in part". I hope we can all agree that at least that can be put on the page. --Yalens (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, why is "in addition, another study looking into HLA genes allele distributions indicated that Anatolians did not significantly differ from other Mediterranean populations" deleted? --Yalens (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Yalens, I agree. "In part" is what were trying to replace "primarily" here with. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Arnaiz-Villena et al. also make the same claim, and it is cited 51 times; it's a source which was also removed through frivolous reasons. Yardumian et al. is a review article and contains numerous other sources that also make the same claims with respect to Paleolithic and Neolithic populations such as Comas et al 1998. Furthermore, your reverts are wholesale reverts such as deleting info about Hittites. Is anyone disputing Hittites lived in Anatolia? Again, you are giving straw man reasons to delete relevant material. First it was "no cultural continuity." Now you are saying 'frivolous claims that Turks are primarily descended from Ancient Anatolians and Thracians.' The deleted text says 'Various genetic studies suggested that these indigenous populations form the basis of modern Turkish population today.' Word "indigenous" is also used by sources such as Cavalli-Sforza. These nonsensical reasons to delete relevant material are indeed part of a Wikipedia:I just don't like it behaviour to circumvent WP:NPOV.Cavann (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
@Proud:That's great. But what about what was deleted though? It said a lot more than that. The only part of it that even refered to that is "various genetic studies suggested that these indigenous populations form the basis of modern Turkish population today", which is actually true (that they say this). If you have other sources, we can say "various genetic studies say they form the basis, while others dispute this", but the correct approach isn't simply deleting references to the what the studies say. And what about the other parts?--Yalens (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Yalens, I made a quick suggestion here which would improve the sentence in lead and be perfectly in line with all sources. [2]
However, the problem remains that very brief info about Hittites, other, etc are still being tried to eliminated from the page for some reason. Cavann (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the material about the Hittites should not be removed, as it is relevant, but I hope that maybe these things can be at least partly assuaged by compromising around by not asserting "primarily" as Wikipedia's opinion, but rather the opinion of "various genetic studies" (and if the page is going to assert something, saying "in part"). Despite the fact that the page doesn't actually say it, I think some users think the page is saying that Turks are Hittites, and this might mollify that somewhat... hopefully. --Yalens (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You're taking one little edit-summary and trying to justify my entire argument through it. There's no general consensus reached about including Hittites as part of the early genetic makeup of Turks. The question remains as to terminology at this point. Arnaiz-Villena got fired from his job as an editor for the bold claims he had about genetics and you are still here trying to say hes reliable. Even WP:RS finds him controversial. Changing predominately to in part wont change the worlds image of what Turks ought to appear. Instead we can reach a consensus for once and end this discussion. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you clearly state what the beef is, other than talking about "the consensus"? --Yalens (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Antonio Arnaiz-Villena did not get fired for "bold claims he had about genetics." Stop straw man arguments, and outright inaccuracies. Cavann (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
"in part" may not be supported by sources. For example, Cavalli-Sforza's book [3], which is an excellent secondary source source. The following text is already quoted in the article:
So, I suggest, "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times, which transitioned into Roman/Byzantine rule.j[›][71][72][73] Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups."
New part in bold. Now it would be perfectly in line with all sources, including the journal articles here [4]. Cavann (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the page should say "x-source says this" or "various sources say y" rather than "y is true". That's just my general philosophy for all pages with POV disputes, because it makes Wikipedia more of a distant observer to disputes. In my mind, "predominantly" implies "in part", but I"m not sure there'll be much point since as Proud says, the dispute isn't really about that... it's a bad compromise and isn't worth trying anymore. I wish they'd say what it is about. Perhaps they don't want to?--Yalens (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yalens the dispute is something you have already highlighted. It is the terminology of the article which needs to be changed to properly reflect current academic consensus. Once that is done, the Hittite issue will be addressed according to the changes. If indeed the word "partial" is used, then a long mention of Hittites MAY be pointless. As of now, the initial argument is the correct the terminology, then we can go from there. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Academic consensus is hard to measure, but we have a lot of sources here that note Turkish descent from indigenous populations. If you have other ones saying otherwise we can mention that too. Also, looking at the page, I don't see any "long mention" of the Hittites. It's pretty terse. --Yalens (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, I'd like if you'd specify what this "terminology" that should be corrected is. --Yalens (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just fully protected this page for three days. Please discuss the matter instead of edit warring. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Proudbolsahye is making things up, similar to how he used frivolous straw man arguments when he was edit-warring. The sources are clear: [5] (5 of em here) and other ones like [6], [7] (book, p.243) Cavann (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
All sources say pre-Seljuk populations are the main contributors to present day population, therefore this is my suggestion:
Proudbolsahye made this suggestion in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard [8]
That sorta equivalency is not in line with ANY of the sources. Eg, Hodoğlugil et al says only 9-15% is Central Asian [9] Cavann (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes while other sources say even more than that (see: here. So I think we are clear that as Wikipedia users we are in no way responsible of coming to our own scientific conclusions as to what Turkish most genes are by picking out sources we find responsible for our personal taste. That very same study you pointed out also says that most significant overlap of genes are not European nor Central Asian but Middle Eastern. As you may know, Turkey is made of different types of people and each have their own genetic history and makeup. Its really important that we distinguish this. Also, another proposal is to add the sentence I proposed but to later separate these claims under a case-by-case basis in the genetic history section. For example, "A study conducted in 2001 claims that....", that is of course if the source is reliable. But looks like WP:RS doesn't believe so. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Well duh. Did you think Ancient Anatolians were majority European? You are aware Anatolia is not in Europe, right? The text says "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area..." and Hodoğlugil et al says at least 73%-85% of Turkish ancestry is European AND Middle Eastern.
And we are not coming to our conclusions, we are paraphrasing sources, such as Cavalli-Sforza and journal articles. Suggesting some sorta 50-50 equivalency, such as your proposed text, is falsifying sources, on the other hand. Cavann (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hodoğlugil et al is 2012. What 2001 source are you talking about that "WP:RS doesn't believe so"? Cavann (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I was giving an example about a 2001 source. I pointed out to you that other studies claim that a significant portion of Turkish genes derive from their central Asian ancestors. So here's what I propose..."Studies show, modern Turkish people partly descend from Turkic peoples and indigenous groups of people including Ancient Anatolians and Thracians" (unsourced)

In the genetics section we can outline what these studies are, if of course the studies are reliable and don't serve undue weight. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Really, I've seen estimates in sources as low as 2-4% Central Asian contribution to Turks. And really, the Central Asian haplogroups Turks have aren't unique to the region (for example, Greeks have been shown to have C at 1% and Q has been found in Armenians and Levantines, Armenians have N, blablabla). I'm not saying that this is what the page should be saying (I don't think it should say that), but really. Even the high-end 30% estimate is still a minority of invader contribution. There really is a consensus I see that a lot of language replacement has happened here. As it should- a high population area invaded by a small group of nomads who impose themselves as rulers and try to spread their religion (and culture) is a recipe for elite-dominance language/culture replacement. This isn't my view or any other individuals' its what source after source I've read has been saying: Cinnioglu, Yardumian (even though he's Armenian, judging by the name? It's notable that even he says it, despite it going against the doctrine of his country's nationalism), Wells, etc...--Yalens (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Completely agree. The fact that Proudbolsahye is still suggesting a 50-50 equivalency, and emphasizing Turkic people by putting them at the beginning of that sentence, is so POV, it is actually laughable. When combined with edit warring and this users edit history, this seems like Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.Failure or refusal to "get the point" is wasting time. Cavann (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Noone here is suggesting a "50-50" resolve to this problem. Regardless of what constitutes the majority or minority of Turkish genetic makeup, we can all agree that thethese various genetic overlaps are all in part what constitute modern Turkish genes. some studies say 2% while others say 30%. So in order to further outline what these studies claim, it must be outlined in a case by case explanation of each (not all) studies regarding Turkish genes. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, its good that we agree (though I would say a listing of every study is a bit in-depth). But what about the text that was deleted? I still haven't gotten a clear explanation about what was wrong about every part that was deleted.--Yalens (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the key here is to avoid quantitative terms like "primarily" and "predominantly". The literature makes it clear that the genetic landscape of Anatolia is extraordinarily complex, hence it is impossible to determine who is "primarily" descended from whom. I would propose something along the lines of "Being a land bridge between Europe and Asia, Anatolia has been subject to numerous population movements throughout history. As a result, its genetic landscape is complex and varied. The modern Turkish population descends from indigenous Anatolian groups, neighboring peoples, and Turkic tribes from Central Asia". I would also propose that this info be in the "Genetics" section, and not repeated in the History section. Athenean (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
As far as the text that was deleted (I guess you mean the History section), I am ok with mentioning major Anatolian peoples like the Hittites, however, not minor Neolithic stuff like Hacilar. Also, we shouldn't repeat the whole "descent" thing in the History section. In the genetics section we can of course go into more depth and mention individual studies, I don't see anything wrong with that. Athenean (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, then, with regard with to the deleted text, why don't we restore everything except Hacilar, like you said? That works for me. Can we request an end to the lock at least for this?--Yalens (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, not quite the whole text except Hacilar. Also not the genetics stuff: "Various genetic studies suggested that these indigenous populations form the basis of modern Turkish population today,[76][68] with the "genetic continuity of Anatolia’s Iron Age populations into the Seljuk, Mamluk and Ottoman eras.". Not only do I disagree with the sentence because it is too strongly worded, but also it has no place in the History section, this sort of thing belongs in the Genetics section. Otherwise ok. What say you about my proposal? Athenean (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Well that actually is what the sources say. If you want, we could change "various" to "some", as that's less assertive. I'm not sure I understand what the problem with them being in the history section too is- perhaps you could explain? If there is a good reason, I could support leaving that to the genetics section. --Yalens (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Because the sentence is clearly about genetics, so it should be in the genetics section. Otherwise we are repeating the same information over and over throughout the article. But the sentence is too strongly worded as well. The "basis" of the modern Turkish population is diverse: Turkic tribes and neighboring peoples (Kurds, Greek Muslims, Armenians, Caucasian peoples that migrated to Turkey in the 19th century) are also part of the "basis" of the Turkish population. See my proposal above. And besides the only source that explicitly supports such a strong wording is Yardumian, none of the others do. Athenean (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
"The modern Turkish population descends from indigenous Anatolian groups, neighboring peoples (Greeks, Armenians, others), and Turkic tribes from Central Asia" is not in line with sources as it gives a false equivalency between 3 components. Read WP:Verifiability. The literature makes it clear that the locals is the primary source. It's highly unlikely that you know the basis of the Turkish population better than Cavalli-Sforza or Yarmunian, etc. Cavann (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The sentence is factually correct. The modern Turkish population is descended from all these groups, is it not? The literature does not "make it clear" that the "locals" are the primary source. The only source that does so is "Yardumian". By the way, Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians and others are also "locals": They had been inhabiting Anatolia for thousands of years before the arrival of the Turkic tribes. Especially the Armenians and Assyrians, whose ancestral homeland is eastern and southeastern Anatolia, respectively. Your definition of "locals" is highly chauvinistic (only "Turks" are "local", everyone else is a "foreign"). Athenean (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, Greeks have some African too, everyone has at least 1+% something. Yet you do not give equivalency to these. In wiki terms, that would be WP:UNDUE. All humans also descend from Africans.
All sources quoted above (5 of em) and Cinnioglu and Cavalli-Sforza consider impact of Turkic speakers minor.
So, Besides Yardumian, few examples: Arnaiz-Villena (text above), Cavalli-Sforza ("The number of Turkish invaders was probably rather small and was genetically diluted by the large number of aborigines"), Cinnioglu ("The haplogroup-specific variances may reflect potential associations with Upper Paleolithic, Holocene and agriculturalist processes"...."Minor genetic influence of Turkic speakers"..."During the Bronze Age the population of Anatolia expanded, reaching an estimated level of 12 million during the late Roman Period (Russell 1958). Such a large pre-existing Anatolian population would have reduced the impact by the subsequent arrival of Turkic speaking Seljuk and Osmanlı groups from Central Asia."), etc.
No source says something like "The modern Turkish population descends from...neighboring peoples (Greeks, Armenians, others)". Adding "Greeks, Armenians, others" is WP:OR, and laughably POV, since you and Alexikoku are Greek, and Proud and Yarevanci are Armenian. Why not Adygean people? Those were the closest to Turks in Hodogglugil et al. This random list will not work.
So your suggestion is, as I said, not in line with sources. All sources say pre-Turkic populations are the main source. This should be clear. The rest is WP:OR, or simply made up. pre-Turkic populations mean: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times, which transitioned into Roman/Byzantine rule." Cavann (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Who ever said I was Armenian? Stop separating Wikipedia users off ethnic grounds. Consider this a warning. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to fill in the gaps and state that Turks descend from these indigenous ethnic groups. No one here denies this. But at the same time, no one here denies that fact that central Asians constitute the genetic overlap as well. History has proven this, let alone the science. Therefore, the proposal Athenean has placed forth makes the most sense. If you want to talk about all these studies case by case, it can all go in the genetic section. No problem with me and others here for that matter. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
You are not filling any gaps. Cavalli-Sforza already said "aborigines" in his "History and geography of human genes" book, which is pretty much the best secondary source [10] Cavann (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and case by case studies can be outlined in the genetics section along with the various representation of their claims. It really isn't harmful towards what you want to achieve with this article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's already the case in genetics section. The lead should summarize tho. All sources say pre-turkic populations are the main source. Hence that is the summary. The sentences you or Athenian suggested are WP:OR or are simply not supported by sources. That cannot be a summary. That would be POV-pushing. Cavann (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
"Summary"? According to who? You? You are in no position to make such generalizations. That is up to the reader to decide, not the Wikipedia editor. Look...just because Athenean exemplified "neighboring peoples" as Armenian or Greeks or Kurds doesn't necessarily mean his proposition should be disregarded outright. Those are just examples used to direct users as to what "neighboring peoples" actually mean or who they are. Not all the sources say "primarily" and in fact most of them say "among others" as a way to describe genetic overlap. So in order for us to be clear of generalizations made on our behalf, its best to go with saying that Ancient Anatolians, neighboring peoples, Turkic tribes, and etc. are all part of the genetic code. The extent of the overlap shall be provided in the genetic section with conclusions to each study provided and explained thoroughly. I don't mind an expansion of the genetics section as well. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary according to sources. You are in no position to make up sentences that are not supported by any source. No source gives equal weight to 3 components. Athenian or your suggestion, therefore, do not comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cavann (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have cooled down a bit, so I will risk my neck and voice my opinion. For the lede, I suggest to strike out the word "primarily" and add the word "also" to make "Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups, but their ancestry also includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples." This still gives precedence to the continuity without stressing the point unduly. For the History section I suggest to leave it mostly as it is now, only possibly adding a few more details to underline the complexity of the population development in the area, but not adding "the genetic stuff" in that section. This can be used to expand the Genetics section, where much of it already is mentioned. Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Athenean's proposal (diff). It is neutral and does not give undue weight to some contradictory genetic studies. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
At the time when the Tirkic tribes settled in Anatolia it was simply part of the Byzantine empire, an area inhabited mostly by Byzantine Christians, i.e. Greeks, Armenians, Asssyrians, Kurds etc. I suggest this fact to be taken into account. The Turkic people turkified and islamicized most of them and later mingled with them. Yes, undoubtedly the local component constructed the overwhelming majority in this ethnogenetic scenario. Jingiby (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I support TU's proposal as a great idea for a compromise that fairly represents all parts of Turkish ancestry.--Yalens (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
There is no compromise in TU-nor's proposal. Striking out "primarly" resolves nothing because the rest of the text continues with giving undue weight to some controversial genetics interpretations which imply the same thing. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
O.o "Primarily" and "predominantly" were previously among the main complaints. And you say they're controversial, yet I haven't seen a single academic source specifically criticize any of the studies with regards to their statements on Turks.--Yalens (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It is not constructive just to avoid terms "primarily" and "predominantly" leaving the rest of the text with exactly the same meaning.
  • Diff.... gene studies of the past still can only produce implausible conclusions. "Critics of Cavalli-Sforza's work have increased in recent years, and critics of new gene studies of the past have always been active..." - Pamela Kyle Crossley (2008). What is Global History. Polity. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-7456-3301-5. Retrieved 2 September 2013..--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, again, Antidiskriminator's input is irrelevant, as there are many more sources other than Cavalli Sforza. And it's so vague. Has anyone criticized conclusions of Cavalli Sforza about Turkish people? Cavann (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

TU-nor's proposal sounds fine. Cavann (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No...Independent studies have their own independent conclusions. If we are here making conclusions by collecting these studies and drawing commentary from them, that will be OR on our part. No one here is giving equal credit to each and every variable involved in the genetic overlap of modern Turks. So in order for us to get passed the whole, "but it's is not supported by sources" dilemma, Atheneans proposal shall be considered but more importantly, left UNSOURCED. There is no harm in that. The specifications of each of the studies will be outlined in the genetics section. That simple. Like I said from the beginning, no one here is giving equal credit to each variable by using Atheneans proposal, the sentence does not come out that way anyways. It says in part but no one here is defining what that part actually is, until it is further outlined in the genetic section. Therefore, this should be explained through the case by case studies in the genetic section. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
You have not showed one study that suggests pre-Turkic populations are not the main source. What independent studies? And you wanna leave the statement unsourced? LOL. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Consider this a warning. Cavann (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
This study [11] for one, shows Turks clustering with Central Asian populations. I do not have time right now, but will look for more. Jingiby also makes a very important point. At the time of the Turkish conquest, anatolia was inhabited by Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, Laz, and others. This is hidden away, leading us to believe that the current Turkish population consists of Hittites that somehow "leapfrogged" all the population movements between Alexander's conquest and the Turkish conquest. As far as the lede, the only difference between my proposal and Tu-nor's is the "but also". My proposal gives more weight to the ancient Anatolians by placing mentioning them first, and the Turkic tribes last. I think that is fair. As far as the history section, I'm glad we all agree to keep the genetics stuff out of there. Athenean (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The study you linked, Mergen's, aside from being based on only 75 individuals, shows Turkish DNA in a cluster with Turkic-speaking central Asians but also British people (in the same cluster).--Yalens (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I was just gonna say that. As for Jingiby's point and your other point, I had suggested this text:
We can merge this with Tu-NOR's suggestion. Ie:
This avoids a random WP:OR list about who the neighboring populations are, or who were the ethnicities in Byzantine Empire.Cavann (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this would be in line with wiki policies and a good compromise as it removes the "primary" which at least previously seemed to be the main point of contention. --Yalens (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
If you look at my latest proposal, I do not mention specific peoples ("Greeks, Armenians", etc...), so as to avoid riling up Turkish nationalist sensitivities, who don't like that, even though many Turks are actually descended from Greek and Armenian converts to Islam. Athenean (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to go about WP:CHERRYPICKING a study after another and drawing my own set of conclusions from them because that's not what we should do as Wikipedia editors. You're creating your own list of studies and saying that they all say "primary" however, there is no source that places those very same studies under the very same context you propose. I have and others repeatedly said that due to the complexities of the region and observance of various social and historical events, all these variables do make up a part of the genetic overlap. There's no denying this. You can debate all you want as to the extent of each of these factors but that is something that should be highlighted in another section of the article. Some study says this is a primary variable while other studies say that it is moderate, etc. etc. These are descriptions that should be outlined further on in the article. As for sourcing, yes it needs to be left unsourced. Especially if it is in the lead since, "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." But above all, it should be unsourced because conclusions should be drawn upon the case by case examination by the reader and not by us. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, you are making up studies. Which study says contribution of pre-Turkic populations are "moderate"? Tu-NOR's suggestion dropped the word "primary." And as I said, the lead should summarize the sources. Whereas you are making up studies. We cannot include input of imaginary studies in the lead. Cavann (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Dropping the word primary and replacing it with nothing makes it even worse. It makes it seem like that's those are the ONLY variables that make up the modern Turkish genetic overlap. This study, for example, [12] provides a different story to the equation which is almost neglected in the article. Therefore, instead of searching and hunting for studies, we can have them all highlighted in the genetic section while leaving the sentence unsourced (in which case in should be under WP:MOS). Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
We've actually already talked about this 2001 paper. While 30% is indeed much higher than most of the other estimates, it remains in minority. As for putting mentioning the results of each paper on the topic, we have a separate page Genetic history of the Turkish people for that. We can't go into huge amounts of detail involving haplogroups and sequencing and genetic drift that will send the heads of people who just came for the ethnic group spinning, we just have to summarize the general idea- which all of them say is that the Turkic invaders constituted a minority (whether its 2% or 30%) of the ancestors of the modern ethnic group, and the rest were culturally and linguistically assimilated through elite dominance.--Yalens (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. That study is contradicted by newer research and other articles. It is contradicted by review articles and secondary sources. However, even if it weren't, 30% is still a minority contribution. Even that study does not justify Athenian or your wording. Cavann (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Better to exchange the "but" with "and", leaving "...descend from these indigenous groups, and their ancestry also includes ..." T*U (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Nope, that suggests a false equivalency. In wiki terms, it's UNDUE weight. Cavann (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Nothing undue in saying "A, and also B" when both A and B are true. T*U (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
In genetics, it is A to Z. All European groups include small African mtDNA for example African_admixture_in_Europe#Haplogroup_L_lineages_frequencies, yet we do not say these groups descend from A, B, C, and Africans. And when you go back far enough, all humans descend from Africa. Both A and B are true, but all sources say A is the predominant part. This cannot be ignored. Cavann (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I have requested WP:DR, since we seem to be going around in circles.Cavann (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

According to this source [13], between a third and a quarter of Turkey's population is descended from Balkan and Caucasus muslims that migrated to Turkey during the late 19th and early 20th century. Definitely not "primarily indigenous Anatolians". Athenean (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is worth mentioning, probably in the history section (genetics studies haven't really referred to this much as far as I can tell). However, we should note that "between a third and a quarter" of Turkey's population is still a minority (even if that is a really high estimate), and this probably isn't exclusive descent either as the migrants have intermarried extensively with native Thracian and Anatolian Turks. There's the case of the ultimate origin of these migrants, and the story there is mixed. The "Turks" of some regions like Crete do in fact seem to be mainly Turkified locals (or in some cases, Muslim Greeks who still spoke Greek)- for most of these, they're already covered in "neighbors". With regards to other regions like Bulgaria, I've read things telling a different story, of (with exception of Pomaks) a massive Turkish colonization from densely-populated Anatolia (i.e. making the case of migration more like, say, post-French Algeria in a certain sense), which would mean these Turkish migrants shared at least some of the ancestry of their Anatolian co-ethnics. --Yalens (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, on second inspection, it seems to already be there. --Yalens (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
@Athenian: Thrace is in Balkans, in case you did not notice. The text also does not say "primarily indigenous Anatolians". Please look up Quotation mark. We do not usually misrepresent a text and put it in quotation marks in English. The current text says: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j[›][71][72][73] Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups,[68]k[›][74][75][76] but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples." And I already suggested dropping "primarily" as a part of a compromise.Cavann (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Why are you repeating yourself? Why so insistent on the Thracians? It is also true that Armenians, Assyrians, and various Semitic, Kartvelian and Iranic peoples "have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times." Greeks have also been inhabiting Anatolia since at least 1200 BC. Athenean (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
We can't possibly mention all the groups that have inhabited Anatolia since ancient times. I am against mentioning individual groups (e.g. Thracians) in the lede, therefore I propose "The modern Turkish population descends from the various populations groups that have inhabited Anatolia throughout history, neighboring peoples, and Turkic tribes from Central Asia. And stop playing the "sources" card, will you? Cavalli-Sforza, Cinnioglu and Russell do not support your wording, only Yardumian does, and Arnaiz-Villena is unreliable. Athenean (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I think more precise is to replace the phrase neighboring peoples with Ottoman Muslim refugees and immigrants. Jingiby (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course those sources support my wording. Cavalli-Sforza says: "The number of Turkish invaders was probably rather small and was genetically diluted by the large number of aborigines." Cinnioglu references bronze age population. Your suggested wording is, again, giving a false equivalency and is not in line with sources. Cavann (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
@Jingiby: "neighboring peoples" is better in my mind because there are more sources from neighboring peoples other than Ottomon Muslim refugees (and immigrants may make some people think of modern day phenomena): for example Circassians weren't ever really part of the Ottomon empire nor could their expulsion really be called "immigration", while during Ottomon times there was other ways that neighbors entered the Turkish ancestry than just the post-Ottomon migrations (interethnic marriage, devshirme, etc...).--Yalens (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Apart from the exact wording of this part, a mention to the Thracians is still unsupported, due to lack of sources. It was probably based as wp:synth.Alexikoua (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
How does talking specifically about Ancient Thracians relate to the previous discussion? Maybe you can start a separate thread about Thracians? I don't really think its really that important to the issue. --Yalens (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Do not manipulate the discussion! Thracians lived on the territory of modern Turkey, as in Balkan, as well as in Anatolian part. Where is the problem? After a migration during the second half of the second milleniun and the first centuries of the first millennium the Thracians were settled from the Black Sea to the neighbourhood of Axios, and from the Aegean Sea to the Transdanubian lands. They starddled the Sea of Marmara, and had a foodhold also in Troad and in Bithynia. The Cambridge ancient history. 3,2. “The” Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and other states of the Near East, from the eighth to the sixth centuries B.C. John Boardman, Iorwerth E. S. Edwards, N. G. L. Hammond, Cambridge University Press, 1991, ISBN 0521227178. pp. 591-622. The Thracian Chersonese is an typical example. Jingiby (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason to shout. Per Wikipedia:Civility "editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." The proposed wording ("various populations groups that have inhabited Anatolia throughout history") is neutral and the best compromise which would avoid future edit wars and synthesis (like synthesis used in the article about Bulgarians).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
We are getting fed up by your POV pushing and how you ignore reliably sources to make up your own UNSOURCED statements. Cavann (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thracians

The sources are clear on this one, if one can understand basic English:

"The Thracians migrated to south-eastern Europe in the 7th millennium. After the 12th century, they also settled in Asia Minor, especially in Bithynia and the Troad, with the Brygi becoming ancestors of the Phrvgians. Although the Phrygians lost much of their ancestral roots, the Bithynians retained their Thracian culture."[14]

The source says Phrygians and Bithynians are Thracian. More sources:

"The genetic proximity with Balkan populations may probably be the result of the long-term interactions between Anatolia and Balkan regions since at the latest the Early Iron Age, as attested by linguistic, archaeological, mythological and biological studies.9, 10, 26, 32 This might be a genetic signature of the Phrygians originating from the Balkans, who filled the political hiatus in Central Anatolia left by the Hittites from the 10th century BC onwards." [15]

Alexikoua had a weird claim about Phrygians not being Thracian. It doesn't matter if they lost their ancestral culture, they originate in Thrace and sources say they are Thracian. Cavann (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You still have to prove that Phrygians were Thracians (the quote says nothing about what you want to claim). For one more time the source says the Bryges (not Thracians) were ancestors of the Phrygians. Unfortunately I can do nothing about your extreme pov in this case. It appears that you need to read about the historical background of the Bryges, who were not Thracians too (feel free to read the relevant wiki article first).Alexikoua (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I have also to note that the fact that Prygians originated from the Balkans is completely irrelevant with the extreme wp:pov that they were... Thracians. No wonder, apart from a wrong source (which points to the Bryges not Thracians) there is nothing more to present so far.Alexikoua (talk)
Again, if you do not understand what this sentence "The Thracians migrated to south-eastern Europe in the 7th millennium. After the 12th century, they also settled in Asia Minor...," means ask someone else what it means and get help with English.Cavann (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The part you provided now doesn't even mention the word "Phrygian"... I've kindly advised you to read about the background of the Bryges and Phrygians, who are of course not Thracians, as you wrongly pointed above using sarcasm.Alexikoua (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:IDHT and Bryges and Phrygians are not the only Thracians. Cavann (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:OR, about Bryges and Phrygians still no source provided about the so-called 'Thracian claim'. In fact they both are treated as different tribes than the Thracians.Alexikoua (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems that this wp:or concert is still active. Thracians, as pointed above were one of several tribes and their mention isn't justified in lead, next to Ancient Anatolians.Alexikoua (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Have we all forgotten that Turkey includes Southeastern Thrace? Of course part of Turkey's territory was inhabited by Thracians... regardless of whether they include Phrygians (who by the way can also count as "Ancient Anatolians" given their geographic position). --Yalens (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Alexikoua seems like he cannot comprehend basic English. Besides the sources above, this is pretty clear: "The history of Turkey encompasses, first, the history of Anatolia before the coming of the Turks and of the civilizations--Hittite, Thracian, Hellenistic, and Byzantine--of which the Turkish nation is the heir by assimilation or example."
Enough with the disruptive deletion of reliably sourced info. Cavann (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Even if we include Eastern Thrace the inclusion of Thracians is a non-representative one in a region in which dozens of people had a more profound cultural impact. I.e. sentence is still extreme wp:or, and no wonder the vast majority of users in this talkpage concluded that we have to get rid of that word from lead. Otherwise we should include Cimerians, Persians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Phrygians (who were not Thracians), etc, etc. Alexikoua (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Go argue with reliable sources. Cavann (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Nope, the present form is completely wp:or, so there is no reason to stay.Alexikoua (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Relevant policies: Failure or refusal to "get the point" and competence is required. Go argue with US Library of Congress Country Profile source as to why they have not included "Cimerians, Persians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Phrygians (who were not Thracians), etc, etc." It's also funny you want Persians mentioned in the lead since their invasion was like a blink of an eye, given the scope of history. Cavann (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
PS: Yet another source: "After the collapse in c.1200 BCE of the Hittite Empire, which dominated Anatolia in the second millennium BCE, the Thracians settled around the Sea of Marmara and further inland in Anatolia, establishing the kingdom of Phrygia with its capital at Gordion." Source: The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, Volume 1, p.100 Cavann (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems you still don't get it and yet you support just an extreme point. Another example: "Phrygia fell victim, c. 695, 695, to an invasion from the north by the Cimmerians, who occupied large areas of Anatolia," The Routledge Handbook of the Peoples and Places of Ancient Western Asia. But you still insist to include Thracian, but exclude dozens of people of an unknown reason. Guess according to your rationale I need to add Cimmerians to lead right now...Alexikoua (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Simply invading an area (with an unknown number of invaders) is different from living there for a long time and being the lay population. Thracians lived in Thrace, of which a chunk is now Turkey, regardless of whether they included Phrygians, so of course they are relevant to the lead. The rest of the list is either includable in "Ancient Anatolian civilizations" (i.e. Phrygians) or not relevant enough because they're just foreign rulers.--Yalens (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Cimmerians are Ancient Anatolians. [16] They are already covered. Cavann (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Suppose you are kidding me, the specific lists covers also Dorians, Teucrians, Paeonians, and no wonder (from your link)... "the Cimmerians, like the Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Turks, clearly originated from outside Anatolia,". Again your are still into deep wp:or territory. Either we include all or none of them.Alexikoua (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
What is this equation of Cimmerians with Thracians in importance? Cimmerians invaded in the 7th century BC, and then dissappeared, but Thracians were the lay and dominant population of Thrace until they were assimilated during the Roman Era. You can't call that the same thing. --Yalens (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, Thracians were geographically restricted to the inner regions of eastern Thrace and part of Bythinia. Cimmerians dominated a major part of Anatolia. Not to mention Romans, who dominated the entire area for centuries, Byzantine Greeks for almost a millennium and Greeks in general who made up 14% of the Anatolian population before 1921 with a historical background of ca. 3 millennia. Thus, the mention of Thracians as a representative people of the history of Turkey isn't representative one and a product of extreme wp:synth.Alexikoua (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
@Alexikoua: Are you arguing that Dorians are Ancient Anatolians? Cavann (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
@Cavann, I've just refuted your argument that Cimmerians were "Ancient Anatolians", by quoting the source you mentioned... Your link containted a list of several non-indiginous people that moved and inhabited Anatolia, i.e. Cimmerians, Romans, Greeks.Alexikoua (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
And now you are claiming Romans and Greeks all moved to Anatolia? There is a difference between an entire tribe migrating, and roman invasion. Cavann (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Nope, I claimed from start that the Thracian claim is simple wp:or and so far has been nothing decent presented to object this point. As I pointed above Greek and Roman impact on the region was far more significant than Thracian.Alexikoua (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Take it to dispute resolution. I do not want to repeat myself. Kevin (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
A couple notes: it seems Alexikoua has conceded the Thracian presence in Bithynia. Anyhow, I suggest we replace "Thracians" with "ancient inhabitants of Thrace" or "ancient Thracian populations", such that we can avoid this pointless dispute and also treat Thrace the same as Anatolia...--Yalens (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Aren't they the same thing (Thracians = "ancient inhabitants of Thrace")? Kevin (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) The Thracians were but one of dozens of peoples that have inhabited what is now Turkey throughout the ages. I don't see why they should get special mention in the lead (article body is fine). Athenean (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Because of sources and more than a third of Thrace is in Turkey (Eastern Thrace). Kevin (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Meaningless. Eastern Thrace only makes up 3% of modern Turkey. And this article is about the Turkish ethnic group, not Thrace. 01:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
and houses 12% of current population of Turkey. Ancient Anatolians are mentioned, so should Thracians. Kevin (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
In addition to the 12% of Turkey's population, there's the other parts of Thrace in Bulgaria and Greece that formerly had large Turkish populations which migrated to Turkey (although a portion still reside in these countries), some to parts outside Thrace. @Cavann: while Thracians were obviously the overwhelming majority of Thrace's population, others did exist (i.e. Greeks, especially in coastal areas, etc...). Making the wording more vague captures them too and removes at least some of Alexikoua's complaints (i.e. that Greeks who lived on Turkey's territory aren't as much included). --Yalens (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The 12% of Turkey's population residing in Thrace are not Thracians, nor can anyone claim that that 12% are the direct lineal descendants of the ancient Thracians. Most of that 12% resides in Istanbul, and most of Istanbul's population are in fact immigrants from Anatolia, not to mention one third of Istanbul are Kurds. Athenean (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Duh. Also Thracians themselves migrated into Anatolia. It's there because it is one of the main groups in "Prehistory, Ancient era and Early Middle Ages" period in what is now Turkey's history. This is relevant to Turkish people, because Turkish people descend from these groups. Eg:

The Early Iron Age in Central and West Anatolia is characterized by the kingdom of the Phrygians (10th to early 7th century BC), followed after its collapse by the Lydians....This might be a genetic signature of the Phrygians originating from the Balkans, who filled the political hiatus in Central Anatolia left by the Hittites from the 10th century BC onwards.

[17] Kevin (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Thracians were one of many tribes migrated in Anatolia, and off course this doesn't justify that they need special mention in the lede. In fact there is no source to support that; either they stay together with Romans, Cimerians (who are not Ancient Anatolians [[18]]), Greeks, Phrygians (who were a distinct tribe in historical times, with distant ancestral links with Greeks and Thracians [[19]]) etc or we remove them. Morevoer, I find also Yalens' proposal ok.Alexikoua (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Great, so unless anyone objects, can we implement my proposal ("Thracians" -> "ancient populations of Thrace") and consider this dispute over? --Yalens (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Now I think we are getting somewhere. Something like "ancient populations of Thrace and Anatolia", adding neighboring people and Turkic people, with no "primarily" and preferably no "but also". --T*U (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I still suggest Ancient Anatolians since it is linkable, altho the article is really short now. "Ancient populations of Balkans" would be preferable to ancient populations of Thrace.Cavann (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, "ancient populations of Anatolia and Thrace", is ok, npov, while wp:or and synth are avoided.Alexikoua (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
@Cavann: Nope, I do not think so. "Ancient Anatolians" is too narrow and excludes peoples from Alexander the Great and after (according to the definition in the lead of Ancient Anatolians). "Balkans" is in my opinion far to broad end includes peoples that have minimal relevance or none. The formula "Thrace and Anatolia" conveys the message that the people who have been living in today´s Turkey (= Anatolia and part of Thrace) through the ages are a major source for today´s Turkish people. Isn't that exactly the point you want to make? Regards! --T*U (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
You have stated too many personal opinions. In Wikipedia, we are interested with reliable sources, not personal opinions of editors. Read the sources first and then come up with suggestions for wording.
1) Various sources mentions Balkans specifically. Eg:

More particularly, a genetic affinity of Sagalassos with Anatolian and Balkan populations has been revealed by our study (Figure 2, Figure 3, Supplementary Tables 8 and 10), suggesting a relatively similar background of the maternal gene pool in these populations. The affinity with current Anatolian populations, suggests that the same historic and demographic events that shaped the mtDNA pool of Sagalassos, might have left a genetic signature in the modern Turkish populations.

[20]. Mentioning Balkans would also be more in line with historical events, such as when millions of refugees settled into Turkey during the collapse of Ottoman Empire.
2) It is weird you think Ancient Antolians is too narrow. As for the period after Alexander the Great, this was my suggestion: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times, which transitioned into Roman/Byzantine rule.j[›][71][72][73] Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups." "Ancient populations of Anatolia" is too vague, and it might suggest that the period after Alexander the Great has the same impact on Turkish population today with the period before him. Various sources such as Yardumian et al is specifically against this notion (and it is a review article). Therefore you should describe what happened, a transition into Roman/Byzantine rule, rather than WP:OR synthesis.
3) So, this is my suggestion: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and ancient Balkan peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times, which transitioned into Roman/Byzantine rule. Modern Turkish people descend from these indigenous groups, but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples."
Cavann (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is under a section titled "Thracians" (I'm not reprimanding anyone, I'm just trying to keep this on topic so we can get at least somewhere, even if only incremental). Cavann, do you specifically object to referring to "ancient populations (or etc) of Thrace" rather than "Thracian peoples"? Personally, I'd like to say the "ancient populations of Anatolia and Thrace" formula works pretty well for me. As for Balkan, I don't really think this applies as that would potentially include peoples like Illyrians and Dacians who didn't touch Turkey. How about "Various peoples including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and peoples of Thrace have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times, which transitioned into Roman/Byzantine rule. Modern Turkish people descend from these indigenous groups, but their ancestry also includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples." --Yalens (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Cavann (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Non-starter. It's really the same thing as the current wording. Athenean (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again, a good secondary source is Cavalli-Sforza, which Athenean uses as well (User_talk:Cavann#Spiteful_revert), and is backed by newer research and primary sources in this case:

The Turks are also defined by the country of origin. Turkey, once Asia Minor or Anatolia, has a very long and complex history. It was one of the major regions of agricultural development in the early Neolithic and may have been the place of origin and spread of lndo-European languages at that time. The Turkish language was imposed on a predominantly lndo-European-speaking population (Greek being the official language of the Byzantine empire), and genetically there is very little difference between Turkey and the neighboring countries. The number of Turkish invaders was probably rather small and was genetically diluted by the large number of aborigines.

p.243

migrations front the Anatolian region are more likely to be responsible for the genetic gradient observed in the first synthetic map (sec. 5.1 I). In particular, he cited the expansion of the Turkish people during the growth of the Ottoman Empire. But more reccnt migrations are less likely to have a detectable genetic impact, because the local population density of the earlier inhabitants is very high in recent times compared with most situations of immigration. Moreover, armies of invaders are usu ally relatively small minorities, who rarely settle in conquered country. Evcn in the case of the invasion of Hungary by the Magyars. which was certainly of greater relative demographic weight than the Turkish expansion and was certainly followed by settlement (sec. 5.6), it has been laborious to find specific genetic traces, which turn out to be at the limit of detectability (Guglielmino Matessi et al. 1990). On the basis of present knowledge, Turks seem to have been relatively unsuccessful in making their genetic presence fell, even when they occupied modem Turkey, coming from the East. By contrast, the genetic gradient in Europe of people originating from the Middle East is of dramatic magnitude and regularity across the whole continent. It is not just limited to the Balkans. The consideration of demographic quantities suggests that the present genetic picture of the aboriginal world is determined largely by the history of Paleolithic and Neolithic people, when the greatest relative changes in population numbers took place.

p. 299 Source: The History and Geography of Human Genes

So I suggest something like this: "The area now called Turkey has been inhabited since the Paleolithic, including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations and peoples of Thrace, which transitioned into Roman/Byzantine rule starting in Late Antiquity. Modern Turkish people descend from these indigenous groups, but their ancestry also includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples." Cavann (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Cavalli-Sforza is of course a reliable source, but he is almost 20 years old. I just had a look at Hodoglugil 2012, perhaps the latest study on the subject. They do not give the ancient Anatolians preferential treatment, rather, they state that Turks are genetically closest to Middle Eastern and European populations rather than Central Asians, which makes sense.

Turkey has experienced major population movements. Population structure and genetic relatedness of samples from three regions of Turkey, using over 500,000 SNP genotypes, were compared together with Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP) data. To obtain a more representative sampling from Central Asia, Kyrgyz samples (Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan) were genotyped and analysed. Principal component (PC) analysis reveals a significant overlap between Turks and Middle Easterners and a relationship with Europeans and South and Central Asians; however, the Turkish genetic structure is unique. FRAPPE, STRUCTURE, and phylogenetic analyses support the PC analysis depending upon the number of parental ancestry components chosen. For example, supervised STRUCTURE K equals 3 illustrates a genetic ancestry for the Turks of 45% Middle Eastern (95% CI, 4249), 40% European (95% CI, 3644) and 15% Central Asian (95% CI, 1316), whereas at K equals 4 the genetic ancestry of the Turks was 38% European (95% CI, 3542), 35% Middle Eastern (95% CI, 3338), 18% South Asian (95% CI, 1619) and 9% Central Asian (95% CI, 711). PC analysis and FRAPPE/STRUCTURE results from three regions in Turkey (Aydin, Istanbul and Kayseri) were superimposed, without clear subpopulation structure, suggesting sample homogeneity. Thus, this study demonstrates admixture of Turkish people reflecting the population migration patterns.

Bottom line, the current population is very mixed, the result of numerous population movements through the ages. I thus propose The area now called Turkey has been inhabited since the Paleolithic, including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations and peoples of Thrace, and has been subject to numerous population movements throughout the ages. Modern Turkish people descend from indigenous groups, neighboring peoples, and Turkic peoples. I have place indigenous groups first, and Turkic peoples last. I don't see the point of mentioning the transition to Roman/Byzantine rule at this point, it is unclear what demographic impact it had. It did have a major cultural impact, in that Anatolia was fully Hellenized by the late Roman period. That should of course be mentioned, though not necessarily here. Athenean (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The population movements Hodoglugil 2012 talks about are Turkic population movements. p. 128:

The Anatolian peninsula (present-day Turkey) connects the Middle East, Europe and Asia, and thus has been subject to major population movements (Grousset, 1970; Guvenc, 1993; Findley, 2005b).

Grousset, R. (1970) The Turks and Islam to the thirteenth century. pp. 141–170. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press
Guvenc, B. (1993) Turklerin Kimligi: Kim Bu Turkler? (Identity of Turks: Who are the Turks?). pp. 19–52. Ankara: Kultur Bakanlıgı.
Findley, C. V. (2005b) Islam and empire from the Seljuks through the Mongols. pp. 56–92. New York: Oxford University Press.
Given that we already added Turkic people into the sentence, it is redundant.Cavann (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
@Athenean: Saying Hodoglugil disputes a relationship with "Ancient Anatolians" isn't really correct because he doesn't even discuss that (he mainly discusses the relationship to Central Asians, which he represents with Kyrgyz). I think Cavann's compromise is good for the lede. --Yalens (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I never said Hodoglugil "disputes a relationship with "Ancient Anatolians"". Where did I say that? All I said was that they do not give the Anatolians preferential treatment, in fact they do not even mention the ancient Anatolians, rather, they state that Turks are closest to Middle Eastern and European populations, which makes sense. I think the fact that they ignore the ancient Anatolians is significant. Which compromise wording are you talking about? "The Anatolian peninsula (present-day Turkey) connects the Middle East, Europe and Asia, and thus has been subject to major population movements"? I don't think anyone in their right mind would dispute that Anatolia has seen major population movements throughout the ages. That doesn't resolve the issue of the descent sentence. Athenean (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


If this article is to be a GA, the various population movements that have contributed to the moderrn Turkish population should be mentioned. We have Phrygians, Cimmerians, and Greeks in early antiquity, Galatians in later antiquity, forcibly resettled Slavs in the early Medieval Period, Turkic tribes in the 10th and 11th century, Balkan and Caucasus muslims in the 20th century. And these are just off the top of my head, I am probably missing many others. All of which can easily be sourced btw. Athenean (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we can draw anything from his lack of talking about Ancient Anatolians because his job was to determine the contribution of Central Asians. Claiming that the omission is significant for me is a step too far, because it would've been off-topic for him to mention it in a paper that mainly dealt with the effects of a population movement millenia after they were historically relevant. Yes, we all agree that Turks being closest their Mid-Eastern and European neighbors makes the most sense. I'm sorry, I suppose I should've specified that I was talking about this one (Cavann's most recent):
As for all these other migrations, in fact a lot of them are already covered: Phrygians and Greeks are covered in the term "Ancient Anatolians", while post-Ottomon Muslim migrations are explicitly mentioned. As for Cimmerians and Galatians, and I suppose Kaskas and so on, I don't think we should detail all of them, unless you want to seriously change that part of the page. The ancient history section is pretty short right now, and if you were to fill it doing that (in so-and-so BCE the Cimmerians migrated, then the Galatians came blablabla), to be fair we'd have to talk about all the other things that went on (Hittite Empire, for one) besides than people playing musical territories.--Yalens (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
@Athenean:There needs to be a conjunctive (", but"), instead of a list, given what secondary sources like Cavalli-Sforza says, which are not disputed by newer research (I would say Hodoglugil supports it, but it doesn't spell it out). A list is misleading, because it may give false equivalency (ie: unnecessarily vague despite the sources), whereas the primary component is "aborigines." No source disputes this.
So my suggestion: The area now called Turkey has been inhabited since the paleolithic, including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations and peoples of Thrace. Modern Turkish people descend from these indigenous groups, but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples (Balkans and Caucasus), and Turkic peoples.
This covers almost everything, with exceptions like Galatians. We cannot cover every single thing in the lead. And I'm against open-ended and undefined "major population movements." What is major? I may not consider Galatians major. Also people have no idea what Anatolia is (at least in North America), so readers may get confused about what these "major population movements" are. In the source where it comes from, it is the Turkic people, which is covered. Cavann (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem I have is that "ancient Anatolian civilizations and peoples of Thrace does not cover other indigenous groups that have significantly contributed to the modern Turkish population, e.g. Turkified Kurds [21] and Armenian converts to Islam. Remove "these" before "indigenous groups", and throw in "Middle East" along with Balkans and Caucasus and we may have a deal. Fine regarding the Galatians, though they should be mentioned in the body text. Athenean (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Those are covered by "neighboring people." Urartu could also be considered Ancient Anatolian. Kurds might have Ancient Anatolian too since they did not magically appear. If there are no "these", what are the indigenous groups? And again what Middle East? It is a big place, I don't think Turkish people have that much Egyptian or Saudi in them. Ancient Anatolians themselves include West Asian background. And while millions of Muslim refugees arrived from Balkans and Caucasus, there was no mass migration from Middle East. We can change "neighboring peoples (Balkans and Caucasus)" to "neighboring peoples (e.g., Balkans and Caucasus)." Cavann (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Are Armenians in the "neighboring people" category? I provided two sources that talk about at least a few hundred thousand Armenians being Turkified during and after the genocide. It is yet to be revealed how much Armenians contributed to the formation of the Turkish people.
What is the connection of Urartu (and its people) with the Turks? Urartians were long gone before the first Turkic tribes invaded Anatolia. Eastern Anatolia was mostly Armenian by the 1st century BC. I smell original research here. --Երևանցի talk 04:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Armenians are obviously a neighboring people and they are also part of the Caucasus (South Caucasus in this case) region. One could also argue that they also constitute part of the ancient category, as it's pretty clear they've lived in Eastern Anatolia for at least two millenia. They're covered. Also, try to assume good faith regarding Urartians. Don't assume someone's saying something they aren't necessarily.--Yalens (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Armenians lived in Eastern Turkey (Western Armenia) until 1915 when they were forcefully removed from their ancestral homeland and murdered en masse. I don't think anyone here believes that a date as recent as 1915 is by any means 'ancient'. Armenians have roots in Anatolia all the way back to the days of Urartu. Yet, they have continued living on their lands until 1915, which doesn't make them 'Ancient' anymore. Hence, they are as indigenous to Anatolia as the Euphrates river. Same goes for the Kurds as well. Armenians were forcefully Turkified as early as 1915 and during the early days of the Republic. Which reminds me...why are we neglecting Turkification here? Turkification is a very important part of the formation of the Turkish identity and its modern genetic components. So I suggest we get our categorizations correct before we proceed with these amendments. I also suggest we add more context as to how and why a modern Turkish man has Armenian/Greek DNA in him/her. After all, is not so that his "ancestry" includes that of Turkic peoples? Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
So is Van in Anatolia? What about Erzurum? If yes, then Armenians are not a neighboring people, but an indigenous people of Anatolia (and the Caucasus). Which of my statements was not in good faith? Try not to make unnecessary accusations in an already heated discussion, please and thank you. I still need Cavann's reply. --Երևանցի talk 04:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not interested in forum-like discussions. If "ancient Anatolian civilizations and peoples of Thrace does not cover other indigenous groups that have significantly contributed to the modern Turkish population, e.g. Turkified Kurds", then "neighboring people" does. That doesn't mean they are not indigenous, just that they are not ancient Anatolian civilizations or peoples of Thrace. The lead doesn't specify if Armenians are indigenous to the area or not, nor it should. This is not the Armenian people article. You can go ahead and specify Armenians are indigenous to the area in Armenian people.Cavann (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
"Neighboring peoples" does not adequately describe who the Armenians and Kurds are in relation to proposed sentence. Armenians and Kurds are indigenous and therefore NOT neighboring peoples. You cannot brush aside this fact. Anyhow, the way of solving this problem is simple. Removing "these" from the sentence will greatly lead to less misunderstanding and lead to a general consensus we all have been looking for. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Why do we care "Armenians and Kurds are in relation to proposed sentence" in this article? The primary component of Turkish people is paleolithic and neolithic per Cavalli-Sforza, which predate modern Armenian and modern Kurdish ethnicites. Also there is a "including" there. This discussion is getting funny. Cavann (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Cavalli-Sforza is not the only person that does research into Turkish genes. Other scientists do so as well. As far as I can tell, this isn't Cavalli-Sforza's article, but that of Turkish people. Simply neglecting the fact that indigenous Armenians and Kurds don't constitute a significant part of the genetic overlap among Turkish people is by far what makes this discussion "funny". Serious findings support the fact that there are "high genetic matchings" between Armenians and Turks and NOT Urartians and Turks. Separating the Turkish genetic code by including that of only ancient Anatolians neglects this fact. Nevertheless, I don't mind whether such findings should be mentioned in the article, but the wording of this sentence is simply wrong. Armenians are not neighbors just because Armenia is a neighboring country of Turkey since 1991 or something of that sort. They are a indigenous people that are very much tied to Anatolia. In fact, by the time Turks arrived into Anatolia, most of those "Ancient civilizations" did not even exist. Armenians and Kurds inhabited eastern Anatolia. Turkification took place and modern Turkish DNA has thus been transformed and became as such. To reiterate: removing "these" when it comes to Turks being descendants of ancient Anatolians will solve this matter. I agree with Atheneans proposal which best suits my position. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
"share similar genes" does not necessarily mean Turks descend from those group, it may mean mutual interaction, or some shared similar ancestry, or both. And I fail to see how the wording suggests that they are not "a indigenous people that are very much tied to Anatolia." "these" refer to paleolithic and neolithic. Ancient Anatolians include all neolithic, and then some till Hellenization.
Finally, it is UNSOURCED that indigenous Kurds and Armenians have as much impact on Turks today with paleolithic and neolithic. Therefore, getting rid of "these" suggests false equivalency.Cavann (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

By all means, I am not saying Armenians should be added to the sentence. But if Turks are magically descendants of Ancient Anatolian genes through Turkification in the aftermath of the Seljuk invasion of the 11th century, they can also magically be descendants of Armenians who are not only an ancient civilization, but an indigenous one as well. So when you mean Hellenization, do you mean under Alexander the Great and the Seleucids? Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's more like Armenians are "magically descendants" of whomever it was there in paleolithic and neolithic, some of which is shared with Turks.Cavann (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I asked a sincere question, when you mean Hellenization, do you mean under Alexander the Great and the Seleucids? Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
If you are not interested in forum-like discussions, then why reply? Don't you contradict yourself? You said Those are covered by "neighboring people." and then you said Urartu could also be considered Ancient Anatolian. What's the connection here? Armenians are clearly an indigenous people of Anatolia, (which you don't seem to acknowledge), thus they don't fall under "neighboring people" category. Again, I'd like to hear your explanation on Urartu. What do they have to do with anything? --Երևանցի talk 05:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a big problem here with the definition of "Ancient Anatolian" civilizations. We are using the definition of the Oxford Handbook of Anatolia ("Everything from the Neolithic to 323 BC"), and then using Cavalli-Sforza to claim that the modern Turkish population descends from the Neolithic inhabitants, therefore Turks descend from ancient Anatolians. This is WP:SYNTH. Using one source's definition to interpret the findings of another. If you want to stick with Cavalli-Sforza, you have to state that they descend from Neolithic populations, as he does, not ancient Anatolians. There are studies that show that the Indo-European speaking ancient Anatolians themselves were post-Neolithic invaders who imposed their language on non-Indo European speaking populations, much like the Turks did several thousand years later [22] [23]. According to academic consensus, Indo-European languages originated north of the Black Sea in the Neolithic. Therefore, calling "ancient Anatolians" "these indigenous groups" is problematic. Athenean (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no such consensus actually, and some theories suggest it was actually Anatolia. Plus various Ancient Anatolian civilizations, such as Hittites, may have their roots in Neolithic, such as the proto-Hitite language. Nevertheless, I like more precise statements. So:
The area now called Turkey has been inhabited since the paleolithic, including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations during the neolithic period and peoples of Thrace. Modern Turkish people descend from these indigenous groups, but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples (e.g., Balkans and Caucasus), and Turkic peoples.
So, various Ancient Anatolian civilizations starting during the neolithic period, but not all.Cavann (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course Hittites and others are "Ancient Anatolians", as they were established in Anatolia in the Ancient era. It doesn't matter where they came from before that. After all, that is when Anatolia built up the population density that permitted later migrations to be only dent its existing structure (as for to what degree Hittites intermixed with the pre-Hittite, Hattic, population, we don't know, but even if this were the case, who then would the Hittites be but assimilated natives?). Anyhow, I support the new wording.--Yalens (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
@Yalens: I never said or even implied that the Hittites were not "Anatolians", only that there is work that shows they may not be indigenous to Anatolia (as well as the other speakers of Anatolian languages - according to the Kurgan hypothesis). To then claim that modern Turks are descended from "these indigenous" groups is then wrong (particularly if we take into account that the Thracians, Cimmerians, Ionian Greeks were not "indigenous" either. In fact possibly the only "indigenous" peoples are the Hurrians and Hattians). Unfortunately it seems we are going around in circles. My arguments are ignored (e.g. regarding the WP:SYNTH that is going on), and it seems there is an unbrdgeable distance between our proposals. I only see two solutions: Requesting formal mediation, or avoiding discussion of the whole descent question in the lede. Athenean (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_people/Archive_12&oldid=1136387117"