Talk:Turkish people/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Turkish as in nationality or ethnicity?

Guys,the introduction at the beginning of the Turkish people page talks about Turkish people as a nationality,not ethnicity.But the rest of the article talks about Turks as an ethnic group.Even the population figures says 58 million in Turkey,so that implies ethnicity.Then you have DNA on them too.If its nationality,then you cant talk about their DNA,because then it can include citizens of Turkey who of Chinese,German,Arab,Kurdish ethnicity.--60.50.77.237 (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page Archive

Archive 7 has been created with a link at right. Archive 8, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Turkish people/Archive 8" and the link added to the template on this page's code. For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Thetruthonly (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Emre aydin dayan yalnizligim.ogg

The image File:Emre aydin dayan yalnizligim.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Turkish language reform was a hoax!!!???

First of all forgive me dear wikiuser brothers for my bad English

I dont understand anything

The language reform was made to make our language more Turkish

But according to these genetic maps

File:Haplotype middle east.jpg

File:Genetic Race by Haplotypes.jpg

Turkey population is consisting of about 30%of persons with Arabic Haplotype "J" and about 25%of persons with Aryanid Persian Haplotype "R" and very few persons(not even 1%)with Turk Haplotype "C"

Also we are culturally and racially more closer to Persians and Greeks than central asian Turks

Humanbyrace (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Too bad there is nothing about Cyprus! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 01:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Inflated figures and Inclusion of distinct groups

I have noticed that this article has inflated some numbers for example the UK figure which stands far below that. In addition in Iraq and Syria there are Turkmen not Turks which are classified in their respective articles as distinct turkic groups. Added to that the numbers quoted in those articles are quoted in this is their upper limit (Turkmen of Iraq) and for the case of Syrian Turks they are quoted 50% higher. This is a great deal of irregularities and inaccuracies. Whitemagick (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

Please take your comments to the discussion of Template: Turkish ethnicity. 86.158.57.177 (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively you can read the discussion set forth in achieve 6. It is important to realise the distinction between Iraqi Turcoman and Syrian Turcoman with the Turkmen people. The Turcoman’s generally come from the Seljuk Empire and to a lesser extent from the Ottoman Empire and hence they are not from the ‘Turkmen people’. If you also look at the Turkmen people article is does not classify Iraqi or Syrian Turks as ethnic Turkmen’s I hope this helps you understand. Thetruthonly (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Iraqi Turkmen are Turkish people! Infact on December 23rd (2008) the Turkish language became an official langage of Kirkuk (you can find the source here: http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=94167. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.25.15 (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference anon. This should be added into the 'language section'. Thetruthonly (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottoman Architecture

This section of the article is extremely in poor quality compared to the rest of the article. I will be making improvements as of today and invite others to help contribute. Thank You. Thetruthonly (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You should also change the time-line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.25.15 (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Must be said that ottoman architecture had been "taken" from Byzantin architecture(look at the common architectural style in Turkey mosques which are like a "copy" of Aya Sophia

Humanbyrace (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The first sentence does state this: '...Ottoman architecture, influenced by Seljuk, Byzantine and Islamic architecture'. I dont think there is any need to go into depth about the Persians, Arabs or the Greeks- that should all be emphasised in the main article of ottoman architecture. Thetruthonly (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Great job on the architecture section, nicley done by adding information on the Seljuks aswell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turco85 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

History

What's the purpose of the first part of the "History" section? It seems to be short summary of the following sections. As such, it is useless and should be deleted. Tājik (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the first paragraph is important. Maybe we remove the rest? Turco85 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that any of it is important, because everything is mentioned in the following paragraphs in detail. Tājik (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Turk is not ethnic and removing false claims

I have removed false claims that Syria have a population of 1,5 million Turks and Iraq have 2,5 million Turks, that's no doubt nonsense. Turk is not even a ethnic gorup. --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean Turk is not ethnic group?!--Mttll (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Distinguish "Turkish" from "Turkic"

It would be nice if we could do this somewhere in the lead paragraph for people who are looking for one rather than the other, possibly in both this article and the Turkic peoples article. 96.251.75.240 (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Aşk-ı Memnu.jpg

The image File:Aşk-ı Memnu.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Image File:Turks.jpg nominated for deletion

I've just noticed that a user called Vanjagenije has nominated this File:Turks.jpg for deletion. See here [1]. Please help to try and save the picture by finding source and licence information. It is the first picture in the article. WillMall (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable sources

Added verifiable sources [2], as discussed on several talkpages as well as on W:FTN. Ellipi (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Image File:Turks.jpg nominated for deletion

I've just noticed that a user called Vanjagenije has nominated this File:Turks.jpg for deletion. See here [3]. Please help to try and save the picture by finding source and licence information. It is the first picture in the article. WillMall (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Best thing to do is to ask wikipedians in the wiki project Turkey discussion page.Turco85 (Talk) 16:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

New population estimates by CIA

The new estimate for the population is 76,805,524 (as of 2009). 80% are Turkish therefore I have changed the figure to 61,444,419. Maybe we should round the figure to 61,400,000 to make it look neater what do you all think? Justinz84 (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

71.5 million as of December 31st 2008, according to the Turkish Statistical Institute. This would be in agreement with most figures I've seen out there. The CIA figure seems a bit on the high side. --Athenean (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I have found some references stating some where along the lines of over 75 million [4][5][6][7][8] Turco85 (Talk) 23:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The BBC? internetworldstats? surveysampling.com? None of these are trustworthy. The Turkish statistical institute is far more trustworthy on this matter, wouldn't you agree? --Athenean (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Don’t get me wrong, I am not stating that we should actually use them. However, what this shows is that there are many references now stating 75 million + coming from the UN stats etc. When you think about it, it’s not that much of a surprise, since immigration to other countries is not as common anymore. Although Turks are moving mainly to the Americas now. There is also political factors which would influence this figure e.g. since the AK party won the elections they have been encouraging Turkish people to have larger families... many are also getting benefits from the government when doing so. Then there is the sociological factors as well, the population is very young (around their 20s) which is when most Turks would have children. I suggest that we keep the CIA (for now at least) since that was the reference being used for the 2008 estimates anyway. Justinz84 has actually done a good job yesterday regarding the population figures so thank you! Turco85 (Talk) 09:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I also want to thank both of you for trying to deal with all the heavy vandalism going on. It annoys me when people try to make the population figures excessively higher or lower than they really are; especially since it won’t actually make a difference in reality! This article has the potential to be a GA but unfortunately people only seem to care about the population of the Turks rather than the content of the article which is a real shame! I think it’s important that we keep a look out for distrustful, nationalistic and pessimistic editing because it is this which creates all the arguments… Justinz84 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Turkish diaspora population in Germany

According to [9], p. 182, approximately 1/3 of Germans of Turkish national origin are ethnic Kurds. So, the population figure of 2.8 million Turks in Germany should be adjusted to 2/3 of 2.8 million = c. 2 million ethnic Turks in Germany. Spacepotato (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Kurds in Germany are written in the Kurdish people article and are a population of 500,000 not 1/3 of the Turkish population. One reference alone is not enough to state such a claim... especially since the majority of Turks in Germany are now being born in Germany rather than Turkey. It is irrelevant to this article because this is just about Turkish people and all the references cited here specifically state only about the Turks. Turco85 (Talk) 23:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

German sources are based on national origin rather than ethnicity. So, the figure of 2.8 million in the source will include ethnic Kurds. As for the Kurdish population in Germany, the Council of Europe estimates it at 700,000 to 800,000 [10], in rough agreement with 1/3 of 2.8 million. Spacepotato (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not really the appropriate place to discuss the Kurdish population. That is to be done in the Kurdish people article. The reference you provide only states that 'from 70 to 80% of them came from Turkey' not that 1/3 is Kurds. Hence, only around 500,000 would be from Turkey anyway not 700-800,000. I see no reason why anything should be changed, especially since this 2.8 million do not actually include all the Turkish descendants anyway and has not actually specified the Kurds. Maybe if the references included Kurds as well than it would write 3.5 million immigrants from Turkey rather than 2.8 million Turkish people (there is a difference). I would also like to point out that the Turkish and Kurdish communities are no longer one anymore; they have gone their separate ways in Germany. You wouldn’t see Kurdish population figures also stating the Turkish population would you? German references clearly state this figure to be Turkish and therefore that is what it is. Turco85 (Talk) 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1. The 2.8 million figure includes all persons of Turkish national origin in Germany, whether ethnically Turk or Kurd, and also includes their descendants born in Germany. See this recent report Ungenutzte Potenziale: Zur Lage der Integration in Deutschland, pp. 18, 19, 26, 27 (the 2.8 million figure is given on p. 26.). This is why we must subtract the number of ethnic Kurds of Turkish national origin from this figure to obtain the number of ethnic Turks.
2. You are correct in saying that according to the Council of Europe reference, only 70 to 80% of the Kurds in Germany come from Turkey, giving between 500,000 and 640,000 Kurds of Turkish origin in Germany. But whether there are 500,000, 640,000 or (according to [11], p. 182) c. 2,800,000/3 = c. 900,000 Kurds of Turkish national origin in Germany, the 2.8 million figure is an overcount as regards the number of ethnic Turks in Germany, which will evidently be between 1.9 and 2.3 million. So, I suggest rounding this figure off to 2 million.

Spacepotato (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I can not read German. Can you provide me any other sources please? It would be helpful if you can find something which gives more certainty because now you’re suggesting a figure between 500,000 to 900,000. Not even the second source stated as high as 900,000. And why would we want to then round of 2.3 million to 2 million? Turco85 (Talk) 09:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have three main concerns about this discussion. My main concern is with the report by Rand, this is because it was published in 2004 and I have been trying to up-date the statistics to 2009 (or 2008 where 2009 figures have not yet been given) therefore we would be going a step back. Secondly, the Kurdish people article references are contradicting your references and therefore there does not seem to be any certainty or reliability as a whole on this subject. Thirdly, we must look at the ethical prospects of our discussion, we are talking about writing a figure which is not in the references we are providing, and hence it is as though we are ‘making up’ or estimating new numbers which in my view is unacceptable. Having one reference which states 1/3 of Kurds and than another stating 70-80% Kurds are from Turkey is also contradictory as the mathematics is once again ambiguous. Justinz84 (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

1. For another reference on the composition of the people in the 2.8 million figure, see Education in Germany (Educational Reporting Consortium, 2007), pp. 28-29. This again states that the 2.8 million is a count of persons in Germany with a migration background originating in Turkey, irrespective of ethnic group.
2. The two different fractions of 1/3 and 70-80% are not contradictory as they are measuring different things. The first is the number of Kurds in Germany of Turkish national origin, measured as a fraction of all people in Germany with Turkish national origin; the second is the number of Kurds in Germany of Turkish national origin, measured as a fraction of all people in Germany with Kurdish ethnicity.
3. The 900,000 figure is not from the second reference but is the result of multiplying the the 2.8 million figure by the fraction 1/3 from the first, RAND, reference. (This fraction gives the fraction of the population with Turkish national origin which is ethnically Kurdish.)
4. If you don't like the RAND reference, use the Council of Europe reference; or for another reference, see Turkey: Germany extradites 2 Kurdish rebels, International Herald Tribune, November 2007: "Between 500,000 and 600,000 Kurds from Turkey live in Germany".
5. One of the references in the Kurdish people article is the same Council of Europe reference I quoted above. The other reference, giving a lower figure, appears to be older, less detailed, and less reliable.
6. Although the estimates for Kurdish population vary, whichever estimate is used, we will compute somewhere between 1.9 and 2.3 million ethnic Turks in Germany. To one significant figure, then, the result must be 2 million. This is why I am suggesting rounding the number to 2 million.

Spacepotato (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not questioning whether there are 2.8 million immigrants from Turkey. I am asking for coherent references to clarify your actual argument. The reference you have now provided does not state for example ‘…only x amount of people are actual Turks’. Do you understand what I mean? That’s the references that we need not us making up our own estimates… what you are basically doing is totally non-academic. I will revert the last users contribution until this matter is solved. It seems as though they only signed up to do exactly what you are arguing and have done even worse on the Turks in Germany article. Turco85 (Talk) 00:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If there are 2.8 million immigrants from Turkey, and 500,000 of them are Kurds, then subtracting one figure from the other leaves 2.3 million ethnic Turks. This is no different from computing 80% of 76,805,524 to yield 61,444,419 (the figure for ethnic Turks in Turkey currently in the infobox.) Spacepotato (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a group of users active in this page that is determined to inflate the figures. The above point about the Turks in Germany is a valid example, as is their insistence on using the grossly inflated figures of the less-than-reliable CIA world factbook (76m) over those of the far more reliable Turkish Statistical Institute [12]. I propose to change to figure for Germany to what spacepotato is suggesting, and to replace the number based on the CIA world factbook with numbers based on the Turkish Statistical Institute. --Athenean (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Virtually for all Turks in Europe immigrant populations, Kurds, have been counted as Turks. For instance about 60% of those in Denmark come from northern Kurdistan (south and eastern Anatolia). There is a difference between citizens of Turkey/Anatolia, and ethnic Turks. See also this article specifically discussing Turkish immigrants in Europe. [13]. Ellipi (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comments carefully! I am not stating that Kurds have not come from Turkey. What I want are genuine and coherent sources which actually give us a figure for certainty. We have no right and are in no position to just make up any figures.

User:Ellipi, we actually used to use that reference on this article until other users complained that it was biased.

User: Athenean, you said that there’s a ‘…group of users active in this page that is determined to inflate the figures’. Are you serious? Do you not see that the Turkish people article needs to use 50 different references that state that there are x many people in x country in order for others to stop changing the figures? Whereas the Greeks article heavily uses the Hellenic republic and pages which cannot even be found (e.g. Brazil and Kazakhstan) Armenians uses Looklex encyclopideia and Armenian population in the world (can you believe it???), Kurds constantly uses The Kurdish Diasopra, and Jews constantly use the Jewish virtual library! And the list goes on and on and on… so please don’t say that we are trying to inflate numbers when you clearly see 50 DIFFERENT references... why don’t we use some Turkish ones? Why are they suddenly seen unreliable in the eyes of other people yet when it comes to different ethnicity articles 2 different citations is enough?... I have worked hard to find many of these and if all these references are not enough to show you that there are 70 million Turks than this would show that you may be the one who wants the figures changed to something which is not true- not me. I have showed you respect in all my comments and will carry on doing so but your comment really has upset me. Turco85 (Talk) 11:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Kurds constantly uses The Kurdish Diasopra>. That link used for Kurds diaspora in Kurdish people is outdated and gives the smallest numbers for Kurds. I agree with removing it. You also have used a biased Turkish link for population of Kurds in Anatolia which gives a very small figure for Kurds. Ellipi (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You all do realise that you’re creating a very rigid quarrel mainly because in Germany there are also Turkish Cypriots, Turkish Macedonians, Turkish Bulgarians, and Turks from Greece. They also form a large part of the Turkish population and are in their thousands… Turks have not just migrated to Germany from Turkey. I invite you all to explore the migration of them all into German. Especially Turks from Bulgaria [14] Thetruthonly (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There is probably more Turks from Romania than Turkish Cypriots in Germany because Romania used to have a Turkish population of 120,000 until the Labor Export Agreement. Justinz84 (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

But wont we be making things even more confusing by trying to find the population of all these immigrants as well? I say we just leave things how they are right now. Turco85 (Talk) 14:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What else am I supposed to think when I present you with the official Turkish census [15] and all I get is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Be offended all you want, but I don't think the CIA World Factbook trumps an up-to-date census conducted by your country's statistical institute. So to repeat myself, according to the Turkish Statistical Institute, the population of Turkey as of Dec 31st 2008 is 71.5 million. They don't come more WP:RS than that, people. The CIA Factbook is not WP:RS because it does not reveal its methods.--Athenean (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone actually care??

Does anybody actually care about this article? Nobody seems to actually contribute to the rest of the article. You all seem to just care about the Turkish population. But why? I don’t understand what is going on here. I knew this would happen once the Template would be deleted.Thetruthonly (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thetruthonly, sorry about this. Hopefully all this will go away soon and we can once again concentrate on the article. Justinz84 (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Turkey figures continued...

If you have problems with the figures in Turkey then create a new section on this discussion page rather than writing in the Turks in Germany section. I have reverted your contribution because CIA is used by almost every ethnicity article and therefore it is reliable enough for a 2009 estimate. Justinz84 (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's completely untrue. Every ethnic group article uses the national census for the number of people in the home country. The article on French people uses the national census to estimate the number of French people in France, the article on Russian people uses the national census, the article on Greek uses the national census...Shall I go on? Go ahead and have a look for yourself if you don't believe me. So why should Turkish people be an exception? Because the CIA estimate is far higher? You know full well that the national censi are more reliable as a source than the CIA factbook, and this article should be no exception. I'm actually improving this article by bringing in a better source.--Athenean (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the initiative to create a new section for yet another dispute. Justinz84 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Athenean, I said almost every ethnicity article uses the CIA which is true.

Articles using CIA is almost all of them. The ones however using it for the 'mother country' as I assume your putting it include:

• Germans
• English people
• Serbs
• Azerbaijani people
• Czechs
• Hispanic
• Han Chinese
• Bosnians
• Albanians
• Egyptians
• Austrians
• Bengali people
• Filipino people

Others using neither CIA or a census for 'mother country' or 'home country':

• Armenians- uses national master
• Jews- Jewish People Policy Planning Institute
• Spanish people- don’t state anything at all
• Swiss- hardly any references at all also error occurs on official statistics
• Japanese people- don’t even state a reference
• Moldovans- error occurs

Also you refereed to the Russian people, yet an error occurs on the citation!!!! You should maybe check next time.

I don’t understand some users here. You complain when we use Turkish sources and now you complain about this. Its time to make up your minds. If you want the Turkish Statistical Institute to stay (which is in fact 2008 figures) then we should also put the Turkish sources of Iraq and Syria back up as well. Otherwise we just leave it as how it is now.Justinz84 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, it all boils down to this: The Turkish census is a far better source than the CIA world factbook. I have yet to hear you address this simple matter. The only argument I've heard you make, is "You know, other ethnic group articles use the CIA world factbook, and so there is nothing wrong with using it here". First of all that is a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS-type argument, but also ignores the simple fact that the Turkish census is a far more reliable source than the CIA world factbook. As for other Turkish sources, surely not all are the same. The ones used for Syria and Iraq were nationalist websites. The Turkish census is a completely different story. Not only that, but it is also up-to-date (December 31st 2008, presented January 26 2009). So tell me, Justinz84, why are you so resistant to using the results from the Turkish census here? Why are you SO insistent on the CIA world factbook? What is the reason you just pretend the Turkish census doesn't exist? --Athenean (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Athenean, it is you who said ‘…So why should Turkish people be an exception? Because the CIA estimate is far higher?...’ I have found you 20 other articles without a census… I could find you more if you wish. You can’t first say to me that no other articles uses CIA and then when I show you that many do you suddenly change your mind again.

The reason why you don’t want CIA used is because it shows a lower end estimate for Greece. Because you think that I will request for the figures for Greeks in Greece to be lowered… well I have got news for you. Even one of your references states that there would be 9,993,600 Greeks in Greece see: [16]. And if CIA is ‘other crap exists’ then why do you use it in the Greeks article.

Regarding Iraq and Syria. Why were the references not reliable? They were academically published and we also used ‘western sources’. You all complained that Turkish sources are biased and nationalistic (which you have one again said right now) and that western sources should be used. Now we are using CIA, a western source and you say its not reliable again.

I will once again revert your contribution. You are extremely hypocritical within your arguments. You obviously do not really care about this article and seem to have other intentions. So please do not revert me unless we come to a common agreement. These edit wars are extremely childish… Justinz84 (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Justinz84, we are not here to talk about the Greeks in Greece. This discussion page is about Turkish people so please stick to the subject. However, I have just looked at the discussion page for Greeks and it does seem as though Athenean began to strike thunder once you pointed out what you did. Athenean, if this is the real reason why you are so against the CIA then it is quite a shame really. Especially since I remember you writing in the Template:Turkish ethnicity discussion page once and being aggressive towards the Turkish wikipedians before anybody even said anything to you… You obviously do not wish to create any mutual respect or common grounds and insist on being aggressive which is unfortunate for you.

There are clearly many articles using CIA as has been illustrated. I have never seen anybody object to using it before. I am actually shocked. I personally am not against using the Turkish Institute, however, as Justinz84 pointed out, why is it that we only use Turkish sources when others feel it to be appropriate, yet when it comes to the Turks in Iraq you all object to using Turkish sources.

It’s quite ironic because a Turkish source is being used in the Greeks article stating 15,000 Greeks yet we all know that in reality there is only 5,000. I personally do not want to get into all this however your hypocrisy really is frustrating and once this dispute is resolved I’m sure you will find something else to criticize.Turco85 (Talk) 13:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Justinz84, I asked you a simple question about sourcing, and you responded with nothing but insults and ad hominems. This shows you have nothing to say against my argument, and our discussion is concluded. And you *still* haven't answered my question as to what's wrong with using the Turkish census results. The crux of the matter is that the Turkish census is a far better source than the CIA World factbook. It's actually that simple. And by the way, those other turkish sources, aksiyon and mirora, were not academic or any such thing, but just nationalist websites. Now since this discussion is going nowhere, I will ask for outside mediation, since it is clear what's going on here. --Athenean (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well when you first asked me about articles using CIA for the ‘mother country’ you totally disregarded my answer. So I didn’t think you actually wanted an answer this time round. Nevertheless, my answer to you last question is that I also do not see a problem with the Turkish Institute. Why would I?

However, this article was using the CIA before the 2009 estimates and you didn’t seem to have any problems with it then suddenly CIA gives a higher estimate and you don’t like it. Even UN statists state that there is 75 million people in Turkey.

Regarding Iraq, we provided extensive academic references; e.g. the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (1997), the Jamestown Foundation (2008), Sirkeci (2005). Yes we also used Aksiyon, but what is wrong with that? The Greeks article uses Milliyet for the Greeks in Turkey. So I don’t see your point there.

Please illustrate my insults towards you. Maybe you might have felt offended by my last comment but I assure you there are no insults in my comments. I have only stated what is true. Justinz84 (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You *say* that you do not object to using the TSI as a source, but your edits prove the exact opposite. When I kept telling you that is a better source than the CIA, you just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and kept repeating your WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument about using the CIA being used in other articles. I also got involved here only recently, and don't know anything about which sources this article formerly used. But just because it used a lousy source in the past doesn't mean it should continue to do so in the future. In any case, the CIA world factbook provides an "estimate", whereas the actual census individually counts every person. For this, and this alone, it is a better source. Now, none of those other sources you mention (UNPO, Jamestown, Sirkeci,Aksiyon) meets the requirements for being considered a reliable source by wikipedia standards. And in any case, that is a completely different matter anyways. Each source should be evaluated on its merits individually, not all Turkish sources are the same. Now, both you and Turco85 are actually correct in pointing out that the figure for 15,000 Greeks in Turkey from Milliyet seems excessively high, and that 5,000 is closer to the mark, so I will take steps to correct that. Just so you don't think that "You are extremely hypocritical within your arguments. You obviously do not really care about this article and seem to have other intentions." --Athenean (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Athenean, I still object to your argument. You see, I don’t think you realize that to me this isn’t about the figures anymore; it’s the principle of the argument that has frustrated me. You first said ‘why should the Turkish people be an exception…’ but then, when you were shown that many articles use CIA your argument suddenly changed. I now have a question for you. Will you now go onto all the ethnic peoples articles using CIA which Jusinez84 has illustrated and state the same thing to contributors to those articles? If you don’t then I still object to your entire argument. The CIA was always used here and you never had a problem with it before; that’s why I have a problem with your argument now. Sure if no article uses CIA for the ‘home country’ (as you have called it) then nor should this… but this is obviously not the case.

You see, to me this really isn’t just about the figures anymore; because it is obvious that people just want the figures lowered e.g. first the Turks in Germany… and then when it was pointed out that thousands of Turks have immigrated from other countries nobody cared anymore… nobody wanted to research the subject anymore because it would probably mean that the figure would in fact be over 3 million… and now this argument… and after this there will be another… do you see my point? Your intentions may be to improve the article, and if it is then that’s great… but your arguments have been incoherent. Turco85 (Talk) 14:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I don't know if you noticed, but I changed the figures for the Greeks in Turkey from 15,000 to 5,000, which I think is more accurate. Just so you don't think I have ulterior motives. As far as the CIA factbook, I still think it is a bad source and should only be used as a last resort, when no other source is available. Clearly, that is not the case in this article. Now, I will look into those other articles that Justinz pointed out, and if I can find a better source than the CIA world factbook, I will replace it. Stay tuned. --Athenean (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I want to assume good faith (but this has to be a two-way thing) and it is for this reason why I have not reverted your contribution this time; at least until we are all fully satisfied and agree upon the conclusion of this discussion. I’m sure you can see that the point that I am trying to make is reasonable… Moreover, you can probably see why I am so frustrated; as the TheTruthOnly has pointed out, nobody contributes to the rest of this article, and it is always a debate about the Turkish population with many people stating ludicrous arguments. Turco85 (Talk) 19:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. I'll see what I can do. But do you agree with my central point that a scientific study that counts individual people one by one is preferrable to an estimate from a foreign intelligence agency? --Athenean (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Great to finally see some wiki love here! But I don’t think that reference is correct. The census is every 10 years and the next one is actually going to be in 2010. So if anything that is an estimate just like CIA. This doesn’t mean that I disregard either the CIA or the Turkish Statistical Institute; just wanted to clarify that neither of them is a census figure. Maybe we could put both figures into the info box?… though I find the UN estimates to be more realistic than CIA. I can’t wait till 2010 now! :P Thetruthonly (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well both sources are obviously a study. And as I stated before; I do not actually object to the Turkish Statistical Institute. However, as you rightly pointed out, why should any article be an exception? I am sure that probably all those ethnicity articles all have population estimates by the institutes of those countries but yet a large proportion of articles do use the CIA. And as TheTruthOnly has again recognised, it isn’t in fact a census… and I have no idea why the reference itself calls it a legitimate census. I personally wouldn’t find any reference 110% accurate… the Ethnologue languages reference, for example, is highly seen as a reliable source on wikipedia, yet I do not believe it to be so it is a highly controversial subject. Turco85 (Talk) 20:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Genetic origins of the Turkish people:What about Iranians and Turkicized Iranian migrations into Anatolia.

Genetic origins of the Turkish people:What about Iranians and Turkicized Iranian migrations into Anatolia.

Knowing that the Turkish language have thousands of common words and a very similar grammar with Iranian languages.

Also the Alevi and Azeri Turks(as Turkicized Iranians)have very similar phenotypes with Iranians and Armenians(while Sunni western Turks have similar phenotypes with Greeks).

And we know that due to mongol conquests hundred of Iranians fled to Anatolia(Mevlana Jelaleddin Rumi,Bektashi etc etc...)

Humanbyrace (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Alevi peoples in Turkey are the last converted people into the Islam, they were original Shamanist people living in the Anatolia, see: Yörüks. They have nothing to do with so-called Iranians that you talk about. I have never heard any Iranian tribe in Anatolia except "Acemler clan"...--195.174.9.187 (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

And Azeri people are not Iranian people, its your and Iranian perspective that frightened about 20 million Azeris in the country. Who were converted them into Turkish, Ottomans? Ottoman never ruled Azeri lands. Azeri peoples never ruled by anyone, they are the original Turkic peoples.--195.174.9.187 (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarging the genetic origins, the phrase "Research confirms the studies indicating that the Turkic peoples originated from Central Asia and therefore are possibly related with Xiongnu" is not supported by the attached references. References 113 and 115 simply say that some skeletons found somewhere in central Asia seem to be related to peoples living in today's Turkey. I believe that they possibly refer to the Tocharians or other caucasians who lived in central Asia. Ref. 114 is not a genetic study but a conventional historical web-site with no references. Most important, the above statement is contradicted by the following paragraph which says that the present day turks of Anatolia are indigenous and have very little genetic relationship with the mongolians. In fact this is the correct, since it is supported by numerous contemporary genetic studies. See Genetic origins of the Turkish people 91.140.91.172 (talk)!

Let's add Barış Manço

Let's add Barış Manço to famous people. --Kirov Airship (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Turkmenistan

What about Turkmenistan? there is no mention of it in 'regions with significant populations' section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.35.235 (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We need references first before we can put it into that section.Justinz84 (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

---

some people are confusing the historical facts with daily media coverage..history is not written acc. to day to day politics..according to this perplexed view, turkish people must have been started in 1923..what a shallow understanding ! ..probably acquired from football/soccer team supporting habits..

the Ottoman government lasted 624 years from 1299 to 1923, so it is still the main histrio-cultural body representing the turkish national identity..

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk: is the founder of the Republic and our national hero..however he was an Ottoman for the most of his life..actually he was a balkan turk, and an Ottoman general who has commanded Ottoman armies and has been a member of Ottoman general command..check his life ;

1881 - 1923 : 42 years, Ottoman Empire

1923 - 1938 : 15 years, Republic of Turkey

Halide Edip : she is wearing a scarf, NOT a veil..you need to have some english vocabulary, probably some turkish as well..

Halide Edip was wearing a scarf, just like Mrs.Latife Atatürk..this was the modern female outfit in the early 1920's..i am deeply sorry if that does not fit into the frame you have in mind about turkish women..you can't change the historical data..please use photoshop to modify historical pictures, before you add to YOUR album..but the originals will stay as they were taken for ever..

Orhan Pamuk is NOT an ethnic turk..check his biography about the origins of his family..

Mehmet Akif Ersoy : ethnic albanian, he has openly expressed

İlber Ortaylı : ethnic tartar..migrated to Turkey ,in 50's..i mean very recent..

singer Hadise : ethnic circassian

Alp Arslan : i do not know who could be considered more of a turk, if not Alp Arslan???..he was leading the most ethnically pure turkish population to date..

shame shame shame on this little kid who written the note below..but its of high documentary value abt how biased is this view..türklük üzerine ahkam kesiyor ama, türkün, türklüğün ne olduğundan habersiz şaşkın..okumadan alim, yazmadan katip..

the other guy, yes, we do not have a mozart or einstein, but we have farabi, ıtri, cahit arf and many outstanding scientists..but i do not expect you to understand this..

Nazım Hikmet is not a communist bastard..he is a poet of Polish descendants..

Kıvanç Tatlıtuğ : yes no one of you guys would object, because he is blonde and blue eyed, handsome and famous now in turkey..

---

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivrisinek (talk • contribs) 07:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I was shocked when I saw the pictures on the rigth. Nearly all of them don't represent Turkish people. Only two bodies (Ataturk and Orhan Pamuk) are Turkish, rest of them are Ottoman. And what about the the veil of Halide Edip? Shame shame shame. Please upload Halide Edip's modern photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.116.166 (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

i agree, besides they are all men!

Architect Sinan was a "devshirme". So he was not an ethnic Turk. I also think it is pathetic that Sevtap Erener and Tarkan and that insignificant film director had to be added to "famous turks". Germans can put Mozart and we have to put Tarkan, this is pathetic. And that film director...please remove him. He is a nobody. I still dont know his name. Orhan Pamuk, the only famous Turk, the only Turk who ever received a Nobel Prize. Yet most Turks think he is a traitor for admitting to the Armenian Genocide! Yet we are so pathetic, we still have to find pride in him in this page. -signed, a turk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.241.134.69 (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest there be only Ataturk and Orhan Pamuk to be put in the famous Turks. They are the only truly famous turks. Let's be serious and honest. We don't have a Mozart or an Einstein. It is pathetic to put on Eurovision winners, or NBA players. Americans dont put on their NBA players. Do you really want to compete with them in that field? Also remove that communist bastard Nazim Hikmet please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.241.134.69 (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm also disturbed by this. What is Hadise doing there? The only thing she's done for Turkey is represent the country at Eurovision. She doesn't even live in Turkey and most of her "foreign" fame is limited to Belgium since that's her home country. At least put someone like Sertab Erener there if you have to use a singer. Hadise is completely out of place. --Lilyserbia (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Haplogroup distributions in Turks of Anatolia and their striking similarity to Uyghurs in Western China

This section is POV. According to A Genome-wide Analysis of Admixture in Uyghurs and a High-Density Admixture Map for Disease-Gene Discovery Shuhua Xu and Li Jin 2008 a genome-wide analysis of admixture for two Uyghur population samples (HGDP-UG and PanAsia-UG), collected from the northern and southern regions of Xinjiang in China, respectively showed a substantial admixture of East-Asian (EAS) and European (EUR) ancestries, with an empirical estimation of ancestry contribution of 53:47 (EAS:EUR) and 48:52 for HGDP-UG and PanAsia-UG, respectively. Conclusion: This people (Uyghurs) are ~ 50/50 Europeid/Mongoloid admixture. This data is too far from the Turkish people DNA base. Jingby (talk)

Please, anonimous IP, provide any references about your statements, or I am going to revert this POV. Jingby (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont want to get involved in the Ethnogenesis and genetic links section of the article. However, it is way too long. Especially since there is a seperate article on this. Please shorten it. Justinz84 (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to remove the added double info from a sock. Jingby (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WTF!!!!

hey wikipedia, you wrote that Turkish People means, mainly as citizens of the Republic of Turkey but you wrote that there are only 61 million Turks live in Turkey???????????????? then you put the picture of İsmet İnönü to the famous Turks, who was a Kurd??? if you want to seperate the Kurdish People from the Turkish People (which you can't), you should delete the İsmet İnönü's picture(which you can't) also it is illegal because our founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk said that; "If you are living in Turkey , it means you are Turkish"

Are you understand what i say?

if yes, please write the truth if no , erase everything about this page because we don't want to see the lies!

--Canistan (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Canistan, ethnic Turks make up 80% of the population of Turkey. Also Ismet Inonu is a mix of both Turkish and Kurdish... it does not make him any less of a Turk is he is a mixture of both. Justinz84 (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the image has been changed so there is no more problems. Thetruthonly (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed temporarily, I would say, since Lilybaeum didn't declare the sources of that collage, and refused to amend it despite numerous requests, so he leaves no choice but to delete it. That is, unless someone here can identify all the people on the picture, find out where the picture came from, note them all down on the image description page, and give it an appropriate license compatible with all source images.
I don't mind using a collage here, and I have no opinion on the images displayed in the infobox, but the way it's done now, with no caption identifying the persons, is no improvement. Amalthea 23:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to help however I do not know everybody in this collage and therefore would not be able to identify all that is necessary. Maybe we should create a new file? Justinz84 (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Alp Arslan

By definition, Alp Arslan was "Turkoman" - not to be confused with modern Turkmen people. At that time, the Oghuz had not separated into various groups. Considering Alp Arslan a member of the "Turkish ethnicity" is like claiming that Phraortes was a member of the Kurdish people. Tajik (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

FACT: Alp Arslan was a seljuk. Hence, Today's Turkish people are related to him. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Alp Arslan isn't the same race as we Anatolians are. Read the last section in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.241.134.69 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

seljuk is a governmental definition, not an ethnic denomination..alp arslan was ethnically a turkoman / turkmen..both are the same word in history and today as well.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivrisinek (talk • contribs) 17:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

150,000 "Turks" in Greece? This is an arbitrary definition

This number (~130,000-180,000) corresponds to the total population of the Muslim Minority of Western Thrace (for the correct characterism, read again the relative chaptes of the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923), which includes various ethinicities, Turks, Pomaks, Bulgarians, Roma etc.. There is none number refering to each ethnicity, but the turkish ethnicity is believed to be the largest in this minority, counting about the 1/3 of the total population, which is obviously not equal to 150,000. Calling the whole minority "turkish" is not corresponding to the international agreements, nor to the true characteristics of the minority. This intervention has the target to restore the independent objectivity of Wikipedia, which cannot be vehicle for the promotion of policies of various states or governments.

I would also like to notice that the florina.org is the website of a weird political formation, without clear targets other than discovering "minorities", unable to accumulate more than 0.2% of the total vote in any type of elections, national or european, held in Greece. Thus, it is not even a serious source/citation, on which you can base this fake number. Even the HRW, that it is used as a source, it refers (unofficialy of course) to a number of 80,000-120,000. Without any sentiment of nationalism, which I hate irrespectively the side of its origin, even this report of HRW (unknown author) it is prejudiced, calling "discriminating policies of Greek State" the international agreement between Greece and the Republic of Turkey for the exchange of the populations.

The most important ingredient of peaceful relations is the truth. The most important ingredient of an independent encyclopaedia is also the truth.

Numbers

I think this thread was hi jacked by unreliable sources which have ballooned the number of Turks in each country by millions of times. Can the Turks not be carried away by extremist feelings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 08:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just fixed the figures. Please do not say things like that. If you look at this articles history, you will see that it is around this time of the year when Turks, Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians, Kurds and others love to produce propaganda on this article. For example, I remember last year when an anon insisted that the Turks in America account to 17,000 people. My point is, there are two extremes and we have to just be calm, work together, and look out for such vandalism. Justinz84 (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think population data need to be updated, there are sizable Turks in South Korea too. Also, I'm pretty sure there are more than 70 million Turks out there by now.--Korsentry 06:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Some clarifications regarding the infobox numbers

• 200,000 Turkish citizens (or ethnic Anatolian Turks) do not live in Uzbekistan.
• The "Turkic people" in Iran are the Azeris and Turkmens, and are already listed in the Azeri people and Turkmen people articles.
• The 500,000 "Turkmens" in Iraq are already listed in the Turkmen people article.
• The top reference for "61 million Turks" dates from 1995. We live in the year 2009, if you haven't noticed.

Pantepoptes (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

* I have removed Uzbekistan

* Iraqi Turkmen are not from Turkmenistan! They are Turks from the Seljuk and Ottoman Empire... they are like Turkish Cypriots and Makedonian Turks. Please do not confuse them with people in Turkmenistan. Turkmen means I am a Turk it has nothing to do with Turkmenistan.

* There are 75 million people in Turkey but only 80% are ethnic Turks. Justinz84 (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Justinz84, some questions for you:

• How do you define "ethnic Turks" after the "mass blending" (Devşirme system, etc) during the Ottoman period? We are "linguistic/cultural Turks" to be brutally honest, not "ethnic" (genetic) Turks, which is also supported by genetical studies. Therefore, every "linguistic Turk" (Turkish-speaker) who is a "citizen of the Republic of Turkey" (including the Afro-Turks, for example) should be defined as "Turks." And that includes the Turkish-speaking citizens of Kurdish origin, whose numbers have never been officially counted in the census polls, by the way.

• The Seljuks were Turkmens, and the Turkmens in Iraq live there since the Seljuk period. They are more "Turkmen" (also genetically more Asiatic) than the Turks of Anatolia, who have been mixed with other ethnic groups in Anatolia and the Balkans more thoroughly. That's why most of the Iraqi Turkmens have slanted eyes, while only the Yörük Türkmens in Turkey look like that. I know that, for political reasons (i.e. for the petroleum in Mosul and Kirkuk) we want to call them "Turks", which is not totally (morally) incorrect - but they are more correctly "Turkmens".

• Your reference for "61 million Turks" dates from 1995. A lot of things (numbers) have changed in the past 14 years, if you haven't noticed. Pantepoptes (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not have to give you a definition of what being Turkish is because it is already written in this article! A Kurd is not a Turk... That’s like calling Turks in Bulgaria- Bulgarians! The CIA clearly states 80% Turks and 20% Kurds. Please READ THE REFERENCES AND DO YOUR RESEARCH.

Iraqi Turkmen were not always called Turkmen it is part of Iraqis regime to isolate them from the Turkish people. Just like what Greece does by calling the ethnic Turks Greek Muslims. By saying ‘That's why most of the Iraqi Turkmens have slanted eyes…’ I can’t even take you serious… what has that got to do with academia!

My reference of 1995 only states that Turks make up 80-88% of Turkey's population it says nothing about 60 million or 70 million peoples. It is merely a reference to show the percentage of Turks (i.e. the demographic make-up)... if you did not understand the point in that reference then I will just remove it instead.

Furthermore, why are you removing the updated figures for Germany? Why did you remove the figures for Lebanon, Ukraine and Finland? You are vandalising this article without even realising! It seems as though you are just copy-pasting from the history section rather than actually looking at my contributions to the article. Justinz84 (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Some corrections:

• It is "estimated" (not "known" for sure) that around 20% of Turkey's population is of ethno-genetic Kurdish origin. But it is not known how much of these people (what percent) use the Kurdish language to communicate (even Abdullah Öcalan and most members of the PKK speak only Turkish among themselves.) Since "language" defines Turkishness more than anything else (apart from "citizenship" of the Republic of Turkey) it is important to note that Turkish is the sole language used by the majority of Turkey's Kurds, who mostly live in the metropolises of Western Turkey such as Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, etc (ethno-genetic Kurds are the majority in the Southeast, but the number of Kurds in Western Turkey is larger than the number of Kurds in Eastern Turkey.)

• The Iraqi Turkmens are the descendants of the Seljuk Turkmens and have been living there even before the capture of Anatolia in 1071 (the Turkmen presence in Iraq predates the Turkmen presence in Turkey.) However, it is important to note that the Iraqi Turkmens in Iraq and the Yörük Turkmens in Turkey and the Balkan peninsula use the Turkish language and not the Turkmen language. But they are ethno-genetically Turkmens and have more Asiatic features than the mainstream population of "Turks" in Turkey (who are predominantly Caucasoid.)

• The Turks of Turkey are a massive ethno-genetical mix between the Seljuk Turkmens (the forefathers of the Ottomans, who were also originally a Turkmen tribe under Ertuğrul Gazi and Osman Gazi) and the local (aboriginal) Anatolians, the peoples of the Balkans and the peoples of the Middle East. Therefore, there is no specific definition of "ethno-genetical Turks" who can be properly defined in Turkey, only "linguistical and cultural Turks" (a definition to which most Kurds also fit, because they also largely use Turkish as the sole language and are influenced by the mainstream culture of Turkey.) Kurds who use the Kurdish language are a minority. Pantepoptes (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Turks do not make up 100% of Turkey's population. Get this into your head please. If you keep on reverting my edits I will have to report you because you are clearly vandalising. As for Iraqi Turkmen, I suggest you read earlier achieves on this talk page. There is no point in keep having uneducated people making annoying assumptions. Turks in Iraq call themselves TURCOMANS... It is the Iraqi government who calls them Turkmen in order to isolate them from the republic of Turkey (mainly for political reasons...i.e. they live in the oil rich Kirkuk). Iraqi Turkmen are not migrants from Turkmenistan… yet you keep adding them into the Turkmen people article. That article is for people from Turkmenistan. Do you understand this?

Cool down... You obviously have difficulties in understanding what you read. The Turkmens exist in Iraq long before the first Seljuk Turkmens entered Anatolia in 1071. The Turkmens were in Kirkuk during the Crusades as well. The Turkmen presence in Iran, Iraq and Syria predates any Turkic presence in Anatolia by a century. Pantepoptes (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Turkish people are a mixture of history... but so is every of other ethnic group in this world! Kurds are not classified as ethnic Turks... why do you think they are trying to create a Kurdistan?! As a Turkish person myself I would love for there to be 85 million of us. But there isn’t. So stop doing this.

Finally why did you once agin remove the figures of Ukraine and Finland? Seriously, it is obvious that you are just copy-pasting an old format of the info box rather than actually observing what I have done and editing accordingly. I can tell by the layout and spacing of the info box. Justinz84 (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And please do not tell me that Abdullah Öcalan is a Turk. That is an insult to Turkish people! Justinz84 (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, Abdullah Öcalan perfectly fits the definition of "Turk", because he is a "Turkish-speaking citizen of Turkey" (which is the only definition of "Turk") who can't even speak Kurdish. Pantepoptes (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many Kurds in Turkey who only speak Turkish and can't speak Kurdish. They should be defined as "Turks", both morally, and especially constitutionally. Any argument against this is against the Turkish Constitution. Pantepoptes (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because somebody speaks a language it does not mean they are part of that ethic group LOL. I speak French but that does not make me French :P. Pantepoptes, you have to try and suggest ideas or talk about what you think is wrong rather than just reverting peoples contributions. Can't you see that Justinz84 added a lot of new information into the info box and you removed it all? Why did you do that? If your problem is with the Turkey and Iraq figures- then why are you deleting all the other information as well? And by the way, Turks in Iraq speak Turkish...so according to your theory that does make them a Turkish person then. Turco85 (Talk) 13:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the demographics setion in Turkey. Turco85 (Talk) 13:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Turks in Bulgaria call themselves "Türk". The Turkmens in Iraq call themselves "Türkmen". This is for a reason. While you are at it, also add the Azeris, Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Kyrgyz to the Turkish people article as well. Pantepoptes (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

OMG! You are even questioning Turks from Bulgaria LOOOOL. Your funny. Turco85 (Talk) 13:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you talk about this issue rather than reverting because you can be blocked for 24 hours. Due to the Three revert rule ("3RR"). Turco85 (Talk) 13:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately dyslexia is a common problem in Turkey. I'm telling you that the Bulgarian Turks are "Turks" and they call themselves "Türk". The Iraqi Turkmens are "Turkmens" and call themselves "Türkmen". What's so difficult to understand? Pantepoptes (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Whay are you questioning Turkish Cypriots for? I am a Turkish Cypriot and we are Turkish! You got that! Justinz84 (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You all have to calm down! lol. Pantepoptes, I think you have to stop making up your own facts... anything with sources to back up your arguments is welcomed. But so far, you have not presented any sources for anything. Turco85 (Talk) 13:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the Bulgarian census they are Turkish. Wiki articles mainly use Turks to define Turkish people. e.g. Turks in Bulgaria, Turks in the Netherlands, Turks in France, Turks in New Zealand etc. Other Turkic groups are not included in this. Example: Azerbaijani articles use: Azeris in Turkey, Azeris in Russia, Azeris in Armenia. Those from Tataristan use: Tatars in Romania, Tatars in Poland and so on... Turco85 (Talk) 14:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am also saying that the Bulgarian Turks are Turkish (they call themselves "Türk"). But the Iraqi Turkmens call themselves "Türkmen" (e.g. Irak Türkmen Cephesi, Türkmeneli, etc...) Pantepoptes (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

However, as I said before, the Iraqi Turkmens in Iraq and the Yörük Turkmens in Turkey and the Balkan countries use the Turkish language (and not the Turkmen language) therefore, they should be considered as Turks as well. Pantepoptes (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And now comes the conflict: A large number of Turkey's "genetic Kurds" speak only Turkish and identify themselves as "Turks" when you ask them. Many of these people look like Mahsun Kırmızıgül and are "obviously" genetic Kurds, but they see themselves as Turks, speak Turkish, and are raised with the mainstream culture of Turkey. How are you going to forcefully tell them that they are "Kurds" and not Turks? When a Turk of Albanian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Circassian, Laz, etc, descent reveals his/her ancestral origins, nobody cares. They are still regarded as "Turks" inside everyone's brain. But when a Turk of genetic Kurdish ancestry reveals this, he/she immediately becomes a "Kurd" (also due to the PKK conflict and its effects on the mindset of the Turkish people.) There has never been an official census figure on "how many citizens of Turkey consider themselves as Kurds." Given the fact that a large number of Turkey's genetic Kurds (an estimated 20% of Turkey's population) are Turkish-speakers and consider themselves as Turks, it's inaccurate to define the entire "20%" automatically as Kurdish. Bear in mind that "Turk" is a legal (citizenship) and cultural (language) identity, not a genetic identity. Pantepoptes (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Take the Fenerbahçe goalkeeper Volkan Demirel for example. He is obviously a "genetic Kurd", but he was born in Istanbul, speaks only Turkish, was raised with mainstream Turkish culture, and identifies himself as a Turk. Isn't it absurd and unfair to automatically add him to the "estimated 20%" in Turkey? How many people of that "estimated 20%" consider themselves as Kurds, anyway? Does anyone know? Pantepoptes (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My bad! I thought you was saying that Turks in Bulgaria and Cyprus are not Turks. I see your point about the Kurds... and of course many do see themselves as Turks, others see themseleves as Turkish-Kurds, and then you have another group who sees themselves as just Kurdish. So this is a pretty tricky thing to overcome. Regarding iraqi Turkmen, I agree that they should not be included in the Turkmen people artile. Mainly because they are also known as Turcoman, Iraqi Turks, Turks in Iraqi etc etc. There are obviously many who migrated to Iraq during the Ottoman period. Maybe thats why only 500,000 is seen as the official stats rather than 2.5 million which would include other Turks? Turco85 (Talk) 16:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But then are you not confusing Turkish ethnicity with Turkish citizenship? Ironically, the ariclt on Volkan just states that he is Turkish wheres as the artile on Ocalan only states that he is Kurdish (rather than Turkish of Kurdish descent). Justinz84 (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Turkishness"

This article's discussion of "Turkishness" contains the most blatant untruths (a.k.a. "lies"). The claim that Turkishness "Turkish: Türküm" is frequently misunderstood by those who fail to realize that it is not a description of ethnicity but a commitment to an 'imagined' nationhood of people living within the National Pact borders is actually admirable for the sheer boldness with which it asserts the obviously false. This would mean that "Turkishness" has nothing to do with the Turkish or Turkic ethnicity and extends to all citizens of the Republic of Turkey, including Greeks, Armenians, Kurds and Assyrians, equally. Nothing could be further removed from reality. "Turkishness" is, in fact, a remnant of Kemalist Pan-Turkism ideology which included national mysticist nonsense like the Sun Language Theory and which considered the Turks the almost superhuman founders of civilization. Of course this sounds all very embarassing now, to anyone except for diehard nationalist crackpots, and it sounds much nicer to portray this as a "frequent misunderstanding" rather than the sad-but-true history of Turkish nationalism. --dab (𒁳) 12:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

First and foremost, I can't believe they made a "hothead" like you an administrator. Your engine's water boils very quickly.

Second, the name "Turk" has been in use for centuries to describe the Muslim and Turkish-speaking citizens of the Ottoman Empire. Of course, due to the Devşirme system, along with the intermarriages with people from Southeastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, the Turks have become a largely (genetically) heterogeneous nation. "Turks" today are actually the Turkish-speaking Muslim descendants of the "Ottomans" (we are genetically "Ottoman" to be more correct) who were left within the boundaries of the Republic of Turkey that succeeded the Ottoman State in 1923. Therefore, "Turkishness" is more a definition of "citizenship" (of the Republic of Turkey) and "culture" (speakers of the Turkish language) rather than a "genetic" definition. Genetically, we are "Ottomans" to be more precise.

I believe you are from Israel. Let me tell you that the so-called "Jewish nation" is perhaps a thousand times more heterogeneous and mixed than the Turkish nation of today. Try comparing Ethiopian Jews with Polish Jews, for example. The "Israeli nation" is the real ideological joke, if you ask me. Pantepoptes (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

did you catch me revert-warring? Administrators need to have the restraint not to abuse their admin privileges, they are just editors like everyone else otherwise. I have simply pointed out a glaring problem in this article, if you think this is "boiling over" you have no idea of how real disputes on Wikipedia look like. Instead of indulging in amusing speculations about my person (at least we don't need to guess which nation you identify with, do we), you are expected to address the points raised, or else refrain from commenting. I do not understant how any of your comments about genetics are supposed to address the Kemalist oncept of 'Turkishness'. The statement that "you" are "genetically Ottomans" is simply surreal. Are you the pretender to the post of Sultan or something? --dab (𒁳) 13:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Two of my great-grandfathers were high-ranking Ottoman military commanders. They married my great-grandmothers in present-day northern Albania and in present-day northern Lebanon, which were Ottoman territories back then. And this is just my father's side. My mother's side comes from an Aegean island of the Ottoman Empire, in present-day Greece. I know who I am very very very very well, to its minimal detail. My paternal family tree is complete until the year 1188 AD. I even know in which Army Corps my great-grandfathers fought during WWI. You, on the other hand, stole a land from the Palestinian Arabs with an ideology called Zionism. The "Israeli nation" is nothing but an ideological sham and millennia-old irredentism. Pantepoptes (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I see Turkishness to be something which one sees themself to be. The Turks are a mixture of history... But I think this is probably the same with many countries. Turco85 (Talk) 16:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why this is so complicated. In modern context, Turk refers to a person who is from Turkey. Period. For Turks of TODAY, this does not have any real ethnic connotation. Period. Anyone who calls himself a Turk is a Turk. Period. Turkey today is very much a melting pot of numerous mostly Muslim nations and ethnicites which were driven out of their traditional to Anatolia while the Christian masses were exiting it. Turks have a different expression for ethnic Turkish, we say Turkic or example. I know, all very confusing or those who are keeping the "score"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.162.23 (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Cyprus or Northen Cyprus

Hello, in the article Turkish people, on the statistics about Turkish population in different countries, you show a flag of a country and the name to the side writes Northern Cyprus. But everybody know that such a country is not exist nominally and doesn’t recognised from any country expect Turkey. From none international organisation. The only legal country on the island of Cyprus is the Republic of Cyprus .That means that 260 000 Turkish people live in the Republic of Cyprus. Please make the correction!!!

Republic of Cyprus or Northen Cyprus

Hello, in the article Turkish people, on the statistics about Turkish population in different countries, you show a flag of a country and the name to the side writes Northern Cyprus. But everybody know that such a country is not exist nominally and doesn’t recognised from any country expect Turkey. From none international organisation. The only legal country on the island of Cyprus is the Republic of Cyprus .That means that 260 000 Turkish people live in the Republic of Cyprus. Please make the correction!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.230.115 (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see prior discussions on this matter. If we change this to the Republic of Cyprus, then this would mean that we would have to change the Demographics of Cyprus from 18% to 30% Turks. Furthermore, many other ethnic groups show unrecognised states e.g. Armenians uses the flag of Nagorno-Karabakh Thetruthonly (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Demographics of Cyprus is based on CIA information. Here Turkish information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.4.50 (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Added information about diversity of phenotypes amongst Turks

Hello there. I have added the following to the Turkish ethnogenesis section (and I will add it to the Turkish ethnogenesis page): "Andrew Mango describes the diversity of phenotypes amongst the Turkish people as follows: The Turkish nation took shape in the centuries of Seljuk and Ottoman power. The nomadic Turkish conquerors did not displace the original local inhabitants: Hellenized Anatolians (or simply Greeks), Armenians, people of Caucasian origins, Kurds, and - in the Balkans - Slavs, Albanians and others. They intermarried with them, while many local people converted to Islam and 'turned Turk'. They were joined by Muslims from the lands north of the Black Sea and the Caucasus, by Persian craftsmen and Arab scholars, and by European adventurers and converts, known in the West as renegades. As a result, the Turks today exhibit a wide variety of ethnic types. Some have delicate Far Eastern, others heavy local Anatolian features, some, who are descended from Slavs, Albanians or Circassians, have light complexions, others are dark-skinned, many look Mediterranean, others Central Asian or Persian. A numerically small, but commerically and intellectually important, group is descended from converts from Judaism. One can hear Turks describe some of their fellow countrymen as 'hatchet-nosed Lazes' (a people on the Black Sea coast), 'dark Arabs' (a term which includes descendants of black slaves), or even 'fellahs'. But they are all Turks."

I think it complements the article perfectly. 94.193.167.69 (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

how could you convert an extrimist orthodox Greek into Turkish? we dont talking about converting mp3 to mpeg4. so andrew mango may be a superstar but he doesnt know anything about Anatolia. Turks of Turkey are much more related to Hungarians and Uyghurs.--94.54.249.168 (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Genetics of Turkish people

some people are contributing their "top-level"!!! genetic knowledge around here but they dont know anything about genetics or genetic studies. turkish people are not mongoloid people and they are not converted "indo-european" people. its such a stupid idea that turkish people have mixed with local christian population.(that guy surnamed mango should write only for sun newspaper) in seljuk and ottoman era, it was not legal to marry of christians with muslims or muslims with christians. some people are questioning about the phenotype of real turkish conquerors of central asia, but they dont know about phenotype of turkish people are more connected with uygurs of cental asia and hungarians of hungary. i think some armenians and greek people around here want to show theirself with their endless genetic knowledge but they cant go so far by using their politics. --94.54.245.56 (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

@ 94.54.245.56 I put the Mango paragraph in

@ 94.54.245.56

I'm a British Turk (100% TurkogluTurk) and I put the Mango paragraph in, from a book I'm reading about Turkey he wrote. I want to learn more about our people racially, obviously since I'm a foreign Turk I don't know as much. I just find it interesting how some of our fellow people have fairer/blonde features and others darker or different features, in my own family and extended family there are a variety of different features. I mean how some Turks look white and other Turks don't look white. For example my sister could pass as English (brown hair, white skin, gray eyes), whereas I have darker features (black hair, brown eyes and bronze/olive skin).

Because my Turkish isn't up to an academic standard (ama Turkcem iyi, sadece bilgili seyler okumak zor geliyor) I find it hard reading Turkish sources so I'm stuck with the English ones. But if you could enlighten me please I want to learn more about our true racial nature. I think the English sources assume all of the whiter looking Turks must have come from mixing, they obviously can't accept the fact that maybe we've had such traits among our people since our ancestors roamed in Central Asia.

But I know how you feel about Greeks. They seem obsessed with the fact that we are Mongols. Just reply with good old "Since 1453" hehehe.

Anyway please share some information about the racial types/racial history of our people. Tesekurler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.167.69 (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You are not mongols, leastwise not all of you. You are mostly descendants of traitors who abandoned their Greek heritage, language and faith. Deal with it mongol boyz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.60.181 (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Image

Sinan isn't turk. He is Armenian or Greek. --Melik-Shahnazar (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither is Mehmet Akif who is of Albanian origin, nor Hadise who is of Circassian origin. Possibly there are more non-Turks on this problematic image. I remove it untill a more appropriate image is been found. Ellipi (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

these are such racist comments. according to this logic, no one in turkey would be called turkish! please stop thinking in racist terms and think of turkishness as a cultural identity. there is nothing wrong with being ethnically mixed with other nations. pretty much everyone in turkey carry some kind of non-central-asian genes, but this doesn't make us any less turkish.

Turks and Architecture?!

All historic accounts mention Turks as a race of marauders destroying here and there, burning this town and that city. The section under architecture, clearly explains that the ethnic Turks themselves had nothing to do with the so-called Ottoman [era] architecture, but it was a synthesis of of Mediterranean and Middle eastern architecture, i.e. a mix of Greek, Armenian and Iranic architects were responsible for it. So I strongly suggest to remove architecture section from this article.Ellipi (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is seriously immature. Sure they have been influenced by others but that has been stated in the article anyway.Justinz84 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I will not call it immature, but a flat out wrong-headed approach. EVERY culture has borrowed elements from others, forming an amalgamation and builds on it. To suggest that Ottoman architecture is not Turkish makes me laugh- I suggest you read about the life of Sinan, one of the great Ottoman architects. Read about his design of the Selimiye Mosque in Edirne, and maybe you will become more educated. I won't throw insults, but I encourage you to read more and discover more before making such assertions. I am convinced that the section most certainly will not ever be eliminated. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To add, I noticed that a majority of your contributions have been Kurdish ones. Wikipedia is not the place to fan the flames of Kurdish-Turkish enmity, and I would suggest that before you remove large sections of Turkish articles it be a consensus among users first. Otherwise, you may find yourself in a lot of trouble. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 22:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The article about Sinan clearly says he was a non-Turk. There was an Ottoman architecture but there was not a Turkish one. Turks were a nomadic tribe who moved to Anatolia. The architecture is a work of ethnic Greek, Armenian and Georgian architects. so it would be really odd to add Ottoman architecture (which happens sometimes nominally be called Turkish) to an article about ethnic Turks. Ellipi (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Who did Sinan work for? The Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was a Turkish state, therefore the architecture was Turkish in origin. Where else would you get the blue tiles of Iznik? That would be Anatolia. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 19:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the proposal. The section strictly talks about Ottoman architecture,. None of the architects mentioned are ethnic Turks. Moreover, I have never seen such a thing as "ethnic Turkish architecture" in the literature, only Ottoman architecture. I fail to see how this section belongs to this article, and feel that a merger with Ottoman architecture is appropriate. --Athenean (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So according to some of you, there is such thing as Greek/Armenian architecture but not Turkish! This is such a stupid discussion I can't believe the things I read sometimes. Ottoman architecture is still part of today's Turkish culture. Moreover, it's not like Mimar Sinan built all the Ottoman buildings! And let's not forget there is a difference between an architect and architecture.Justinz84 (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, neither the architects were Turks, nor the architecture was Turkic. Ellipi (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not support the proposal. To have an Ottoman state with its architecture without Turkish people being a significant part of it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The Ottoman Empire was a Turkish state- governed by Turkish people, fought for by Turkish people, protected by Turkish people, and yet in this architecture section, this connection is somehow invalid? I must cry foul on this- you cannot exclude Ottoman architecture from an article on Turkish people- it would leave a giant void. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 19:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right for the part involving fightings, killings, invasions, massacres, etc. but not the architecture. Ellipi (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, so you have exposed your true intentions for supporting this change by making such a statement. Read the above statement before you make a decision those who follow, for after saying that, your credibility has completely been shot to pieces. I was right about your Kurdish leanings affecting the opinion here... it is just not right to bring this slant here to a neutral place of knowledge. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 15:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sad that historical realities does not match with your nationalistic ambitions. For me history is important not nationalist nonsense; As I said before, history says that Turks were not men of architecture. Also please refrain from personal attacks. this is the second time you are personally attacking me on this page. So consider yourself warned. Ellipi (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"Ottoman" is essentially the name of a Turkish dynasty. It's possible to talk about a multiehtnic "Ottoman" concept, but that can only be secondary to the former meaning which is essential.

As for the proposal, I don't support, since architecture is a part of the culture of Turkish people. -- Mttll (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The dynasty of Ottomans, (probably) descending of Kayi Turkoman nomads from central Asia were Turkic; that's true. But we are not talking about a Turkic architecture, but Ottoman architecture, to which Turks were the ones who had the least to contribute, compared to ethnic Greeks, Armenians, Albanians, Georgians, etc. Ellipi (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. What I'm saying is that Ottoman isn't some kind of multiethnic rainbow coalition of Greeks, Armenians, Albanians Georgians etc. It's essentially a Turkish dynasty, like Romanov being a Russian one, Ming being Chinese etc. Trying to measure Turkish contribution to something that's Ottoman (which is, by definition, a subgroup of Turkish-/Turkic-ness) is fallacious. -- Mttll (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Were not Ottomans descendents of Kayi Turkomans? Had Kayi Turkomans any clue about architecture? Ellipi (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The very nature of the Ottoman Empire was to be inclusive as it was for centuries, that is true- I do not disagree in the least. However, if we were to follow your logic, then all of the Ottoman content except for the earliest of centuries under Ottoman control would be completely removed no matter what the section. You do realize that if this precedence was set, every bit of arcitecture in nations all over the world would need to be deeply scrutinized, and large bits of articles would have to be removed- a massive project. In essence, NO people could claim ANY architecture unless it was 100% bona fide, without question, their architecture; quite a ludicrous thought, hence the laugh I got when I first read about this. How was the construction financed? Where did the materials come from? Where did all of the consultation come from, or was it all on the creator? I cannot support this idea that every single creation be carved up and narrowly defined as in a vacuum- it is a waste of resources that could best be served elsewhere. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 15:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Throughout Ottoman era and even earlier Turks had the least to do with architecture. Ellipi (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Turkish architecture is not just something from the Ottoman era! The Auburn Gallipoli Mosque in Australia is a great example of Turkish architecture. Thus, I also oppose a merge. Justinz84 (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Auburn Gallipoli Mosque

Isn't that mosque built based on the Ottoman architecture? Ellipi (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That is because it is part of Turkish architecture! Hence the reason why this an important part of Turkish culture. Why shouldnt the Turks of today be influenced by their past? Are you telling me that this mosque is Greek/Armenian? If you are then I cannot take you seriously.Justinz84 (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Turks (who had no contribution to Ottoman architecture), cannot lay claim to Ottoman architecture. Ellipi (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, "Ottoman" is (almost?) always synonymous with "Ottoman Turkish", and very often with even just "Turkish" too. Therefore, your statement is fallacious. -- Mttll (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There was an Ottoman dynasty, and an Ottoman state. The Ottoman dynasty was of Turkoman (Turk) origins. There was also a multi-ethnic Ottoman state. None of these are synonymous with ethnic Turks. If they were synonymous we would have a single article for all three. Ellipi (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I have been trying to say... it just makes no sense whatsoever. Thank you! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 22:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So according to you, in the 623 years of Ottoman rule only Mimar Sinan contributed to Ottoman architecture. I honestly cannot take you seriously.Justinz84 (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

See list of Ottoman architectures. The clear majority (if not all) are non-Turks. Ellipi (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that just a laugh? Using Sinan as an example turned out to be a mistake, for my intentions were twisted to make the case for deletion or merging. I stopped responding because the discussion was going nowhere... I wonder how other users would react if Roman architecture was merged with Greek because it had heavy Greek influences? Could you imagine the trouble and consternation that would cause? Unbelievable. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 23:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to merge Ottoman architecture into Greek architecture. Ellipi (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In Classical architecture, one sentence sums it up perfectly: "Only Greek architecture in the time before Alexander (who died in 324 BC) carries an authentic, ethnic designation." In addition, "Most of the styles originating in post-renaissance Europe can be described as classical architecture" is telling as well- we all have borrowed from the past and other cultures, but to deny a people their credit for creations makes no sense. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 00:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's my point. Therefore Ottoman architecture cannot be expropriated by a certain ethnic group (such as Turks). Ellipi (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Religion of Turkish people

I have already fixed the religion twice now- it is majority Islam, without any dispute of fact. To include a small percentage of Atheism is not right- Atheism is not a religion! I think it is very simple in this case to leave it as "majority Islam". Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 15:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• RfC Comment. I agree with your reversion. All it says is "majority", leaving open that there are also minorities. An acceptable alternative would be to list all minorities as well, with percentages, and that approach should include atheism (as a classification with respect to religion, regardless of whether it is a religion) along with various minority religions. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Agree with above. You might also consider a reference to "secular Islam", which perhaps the editor in question is trying to drive at with his atheist insertion, i.e. Islam in Turkey is a very different Islam than, say Saudi Arabia; the majority of believers in Turkey might consider themselves secular or modernist Muslims, where in Saudi the majority trend is towards more conservative branches of Islam. --Whoosit (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Actually, I went to many different "X people" articles, and there were no percentages, no other religions but the majority, and especially no atheism, which to me is only represented with that high of a percentage in one study. I would like to hear the reasoning as to why it should be included, as it is not a religion. Should include is not adequate reasoning in my mind- I'm not trying to be obstinate; just that when you have a row labelled "Religion", it is meant for just what it says it is for. If this precedent is set, EVERY article would have to include an atheist percentage. I dunno, maybe infoboxes are evil.... LOL Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 16:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the easy answer is that it's a moot point if we just go with "majority", which is the way this discussion is heading. The more difficult answer is that if, hypothetically, we decide to list minorities, then the decision is whether to have a listing that does not, in effect, add up to 100% (regardless of whether, in fact, numerical percentage values are listed). An alternative would be to list "unaffiliated" in lieu of atheism etc. I realize that people have strong feelings about how religions are defined, but I think it best if Wikipedia remain neutral with respect to the "status" of disbelief, and the fact is that some percentage of persons are atheists, and this has the potential to be an interesting, notable, and verifiable fact. An imprecise analogy would be the listing of political parties in a given nation. One might, perhaps, list the major parties only, or one might list both major and minor parties, but then there might also be a percentage (perhaps sizable) of the population who do not register with a party or do not register to vote at all. Anyway, as I said at the start, this may be a moot point. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with just having the majority in the infobox. If there are official statistics for numbers of different religious attitudes including agnosticism or atheism, then these could be listed in the article. Infoboxes aren't very subtle devices for complex information, but not quite evil! Davémon (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Good call It says "majority" which makes it clear, 97-something % is a clear majority, and if you wanna start listing minorities, I'm pretty sure you'll every religion represented. It would get very clustered (and also somewhat pointy) to list every last Buddhist, Mormon, and JW-member in that group... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree by general Wikipedia article consensus, sorry. The style in the majority of articles of the "People of _place_" type list religious affiliation included in statistical data primary or more reliable data available for the statistic which is 95%+ in essentially all. I'm not arguing your numbers, just style. How is it done elsewhere? If only one religion is listed, there is no preceding word to quantify. If there is a preceding word like "majority" or "predominately", any other religions listed in primary source data are given. If there is an incredible overwhelming percentage (like in this case), the primary is split into denominations. In the case of Turkey, since there is substantial political complexity between denominations I might suggest you split Islam as it is presently given into Sunni, Alevi and Twelver. This would be safety, also, to avoid any possible later disputed. Any percentage besides these three were well under 1% which is a generic consensus for cutoff for basic statistics. Since the percentage of atheists is blow statistical notability, no one needs to get angry about it :)

So, my suggestion would be something like... "Sunni Islam (majority), Alevi Islam, Twelver Islam". Readers can still see printed below that the total is 95-99%+, but I'd rather play it safe by distinguishing like this since it's still entirely factually correct. Don't spark possible controversy where it isn't needed, I figure. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agree I agree that the majority is all that is needed in the infobox. Like it was previously stated, if you started to list all of the religions in Turkey, you would most likely have almost every religion listed. Sarahbethb (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

This article is for "Turkish people", not "Turkic people". If we add "Kaşgarlı Mahmut" the 11th century Uygur from Xinjiang in China, then why not also add President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan which is actually closer to Turkey? Also, among all the possible candidates, what's the point of adding a clown like Enver Paşa, the self-styled dictator who ruined the Ottoman Empire in just 10 years between 1908 and 1918? 151.57.202.150 (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

First off, the image is still on Wikipedia, so you can't just delete it and call it not worthy. Secondly, Turkish people can be from any century, and are not supposed to be just from a certain time period or geographic location. Lastly, Enver Paşa was not a clown, he just happened to disagree with Ataturk, and went off to the East to follow his own path. This does not make him any less Turkish, or any less worthy. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 19:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

The first sentence of the article says;

The Turkish people (Turkish: Türk), also known as the "Turks" (Türkler) are defined mainly as citizens of the Republic of Turkey.

However in geographic distribution section the number of Turks are 55,000,000, although number of citizens of Turkey is 71,517,100.--193.140.194.101 (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Turks as citizens of Turkey is the Kemalist civic nationalist definition. The article, though, is describing Turks as an ethnic group, people of Turkish cultural and linguistic descent. This is only a fraction of Turkey's population (excluding, for example, the Kurds) but including Turkish ethnic minorities in other countries (Bulgaria etc), hence the geographic distribution table. The lead should be corrected.--Ptolion (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)