Wikipedia

Talk:Turkish people/Archive 8

< Talk:Turkish people
Latest comment: 12 years ago by 88.64.182.125 in topic Info box #1 and question
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Talk Page Archive

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Archive 10 has been created with a link at right. Archive 11, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Turkish people/Archive 11" 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) 21:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Turkish culture and folklore

Article Image

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Old version "SomeFamousTurk.png" contains images from non-free sources. In addition, used images are aligned wrongly. I suggest its removal. New version "TurkishPeople.png" are made of public domain pictures. Kaygtr (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally prefer the current image: File:TurkishPeople.png. Though we can improve this image further.Justinz84 (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Too few women

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is only one woman depicted. Are there more well known women who can be placed in it? - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Turks in Infobox

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The infobox must be reviewed. Turks in West Europe are usually citizens of Turkey working as foreign workers (Gastarbeiter). But most Turks in Bulgaria, Greece, Iraq etc., are not citizens of Turkey. If Turk is defined as citizen of Turkey ( the first sentence of this article), then Turkish speaking communities in ex Ottoman lands should not be tabulated together with citizens of Turkey working in foreign countries. (At least a distinction must be made in the table) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about Turkish citizens. If it was then Kurds and other ethnic minorities such as Greeks, Armenians and Jews would also be mentioned. This article is about ethnic Turks. Turks in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Iraq, Kosovo, Macedonia and Romania are ethnic Turkish people.Justinz84 (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Defining Turks on the basis of ethnicity is very difficult. Of course mother tongue is a criterion. But defining Turkish speakers is also problematic. BecauseTurkish is member of a wide language group of at least 30 languages (so called Turkic) which includes Azeri, Turkmen, Tatar, Gagauz, Uighur etc. Some languages of this group are mutually intelligible. Should mutually intelligible languages also be groupped as Turkish ? If not, which measure should be used to define a Turkish speaker ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not about Turkish speakers either... you don’t have to know the language to be a Turk. Turkish people are people who identify themselves as such. For example, I'm Turkish Cypriot and have lived most my life in the UK and US. I don’t speak the Turkish language fluently nor do I have Turkish nationality but still regard myself as a Turk. Hence, there is a difference between ones ethnicity and nationality. This can also be seen in many census’ whereby Turkish minorities such as those in Bulgaria, Macedonia and Kosovo have claimed to be a Turk in the last census... Moreover, many Turkish immigrants from Turkey living in countries such as Germany and the Netherlands are becoming German/Dutch citizens but this does not make them any less of a Turk nor their children.Justinz84 (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Image in the info box

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

The current image is ridiculous! Showing people like Hadise is a total joke! We should be showing Turks who have actually contributed to this world. I have created an image; 2 rows so far, I was thinking that we do a third row with people of today e.g. Hakan Şükür, Tarkan, Tansu Çiller, Hülya Koçyiğit etc.

Anyway, this is what I have created so far:

File:Famous Turkish people.png

This image consists of the following people:

Turco85 (Talk) 15:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this Turco85! I'll put it in the info box now. What about adding some olympic winners such as Ramazan Sahin, Ayhan Sureyya, Naim Süleymanoğlu or Halil Mutlu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinz84 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have just realised that the image is a bit big. So I am going to remove the last two images; so it wil be 7 in a row rather than 8.Turco85 (Talk) 15:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Another image was already created. This image is made of non-free source images, so I am not sure about adding it.

File:TurkishPeople.png This one is better. Kaygtr (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


Personally, I prefer the one which Turco85 has created. It has an equal amount of Turkish men and women who have contributed to society. The second image has too many politicians and seems a bit stereotypical with all those images of sultans. Turco85 is going to add one more row to the image so please feel free to give your suggestions. I agree that Orhan Pamuk should be in the image Justinz84 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Kaygtr, not all those images that you have used is in the public domain. Its very likely to be deleted soon.Turco85 (Talk) 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Mahmud Kahghari should be replaced by another figure. He was not from Turkey/ Ottoman Empire and therfore does not fit into this article "Turkish people". --Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The image with sultans and more people from the history is far better. the current one has: -too much people from after the time of Ataturk -i dont think that Feriha Tevfik is really one of the most important Turks -i dont think that Turhan Bey is really one of the most important Turks - Nigâr Hanım and Tevfik Fikret as Turkish poets dont sound really like one of the most important Turks those and others in the image, were they known throughout the world?? I think that Ottoman sultans are more important, ofcourse you dont have to add all the sultans but Osman I, Mehmed II, Suleyman I and Abdulhamid II should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.21.37 (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fatih, Kanuni, Ataturk

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Fatih, Kanuni ve Ataturk resimde en basta yer almali. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

are some users just plain stupid?

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Seriously this is getting annoying now. If users want to change the image in the info box then be my guest... as long as all the images are actually in the PUBLIC DOMAIN! Also, you keep changing the population figures of Turks in the countries they live in as well as the rest of the information on this article because you keep repeating characters. Please stop changing the ENTIRE article to an earlier point in history just so that you can add an image!Turco85 (Talk) 19:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia; what you think of dictators or dictatorship or promoting/not promoting turkish people does not matter much. Fatih, and Kanuni changed the course of the history and they happen to be turkish whether you like it or not. Wikipedia does not have a mission to fight monarchy and bourgeoisie and fight for the suffrage of turkish women. Editorial decisions based on such concerns are expressly prohibited in Wikipedia. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
AverageTurkishJoe, is it you who keeps repeating characters? If you want to change the image then please just do that. Stop changing the entire article as you are removing all the new information which is contributed by other users. As for your views on who should be in the image please discuss this in the section above (section: Image in the info box). As you can see there is already a discussion on having a third row in the image. Justinz84 (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
No it is not me. (You can see who is making changes in the edit history.)AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks at other users such as "are some users just plain stupid?" Aregakn (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Well it would be great if some users would refrain from keep vandalising this article.Turco85 (Talk) 17:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I move this page to "Turks", please? 67.124.202.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

No. Kavas (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Origins

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

All people pages like Russian people, etc has origin section. The origin section of this page, coming from History of the Turkish people should be rewritten for sure, but this section should not be removed. Kavas (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

POV

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Turkish citizen and ethnic Turkish are different. But in this article the Turkish citizens are shown as the ethnic Turkish. Takabeg (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Turkish citizen (Türk vatandaşı, Yurtdışında Yaşayan Türk Vatandaşları) is the citizen of the Republic of Turkey and includes many kind of ethnic groups, Kurdish, Zaza, Laz and son on. And this group doesn't include some ethnic Turkish group who doesn't have Turkish citizenship. We can use numbers in this list for Turkish citizen (Türk vatandaşı). But these number are invalid for Turkish People (Türkiye Türkleri).

Turkish people (Türkiye Türkleri) is one of the ethnic groups of Turkic people. For example, about 55 million Turkish people lives in Turkey.

In this article will we write about which one ? Now there are serious problems in this article. We have to solve them. Thank you.

Takabeg (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Turkish people do not have to be from Turkey! What are you talking about, Turkiyeli Turkler??? What about Turkish Cypriots? they are Turkish but not from Turkey!Justinz84 (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
We use the term Türkiye Türkleri for the ethnic Turkish living outside Turkey, for example ethnic Turkish in Bulgaria. We use the term Anadolu Türkleri for the ethic Turkish living outside Anatolia, for example ethinc Turkish living in Rumelia of Turkey. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No we do not use the term Anadolu Turkleri for Bulgarian Turks. We simply use the word Turks- why not check the Bulgarian census. It says nothing about Turkey Turks. The same goes for other countries. Turkish minorities living in Bulgaria, Cyprus or Rumelia settled in these countries before the Republic of Turkey was established! We are not from Turkey but we ARE Turkish!Justinz84 (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The old name was Osmanlı Türkleri today we use Türkiye Türkleri. See sources. Türkiye Türkleri isn't equal to Türkiyeli. Takabeg (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
And by the way, CIA is no longer used in this article. See previous discussion on this matter.Justinz84 (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

CIA 70 - 75 %

KONDA - 55,000,000.

Helen Chapin Metz, ed. Turkey: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1995. Turks Turks 80-88% is too old (1995).

Please don't exaggerate the number of ethnic Turkish. Thank you.

Takabeg (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In Turkish language Türkler means not only ethnic Turkish (Türkiye Türkleri), also Turkic people (Türk halkları), Turkish citizen (Türk vatandaşı, Türkiyeli) etc. It's very ambiguous term, maybe you know. Takabeg (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And pleas don't use Yurtdışında Yaşayan Türk Vatandaşları for ethnic Turkish. These datum are related with Turkish citizens including other ethnic group from Turkey. About 30 % of them are not ethnic Turkish. Takabeg (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is on the Turkish ethnic group. And since this is the English language wikipedia, we use the English words for these things, although the Turkish words can be included as a side-note. Ashmoo (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Again you are wrong in the Turkish language we say the following Turkic groups like this:
  • Turkish= Turkler (hence the saying 'ne mutlu Turkum diyene' (How happy I am to be Turkish)... we do not say 'ne mutlu Turkiyeli Turkum diyene' (How happy I am to be a Turkey Turk)
  • Azeri= Azeriler
  • Kyrgyz= Kırgızlar
  • Turkmen= Türkmenler
  • Uzbeks=Özbekler

Justinz84 (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You have said in your last edit summary that We know that they are not only from Turkey. Cyprus, Iraq, Bulgarıa. Stop Vandalism. So if you know why are you still calling them Turkey Turks? Your reference proves nothing.Justinz84 (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

original research

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Justinz84 persistently tries to use the datum for Turkish citizen (including non-Turkish ethnic group, for example Kurdish, Zaza, Laz ets.). Maybe for him all of Turkish citizens are Turkish people. Now we must consider that original resaerches are included in this article. We must solve these serious problems. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources which state that Kurds, Laz, Armenians, Jews etc etc etc which are included in the figures are only stated in the source for the German Turkish population. Nonethesless, the latest figures (2010) state that There are 3.5 million people of Turkish origin living with us in Germany. (http://www.london.diplo.de/Vertretung/london/en/03/__Political__News/Westerwelle/Tuerkei__Seite.html)Justinz84 (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The source does need updating. I think we should add this source to the info box and remove the footnote of 4 million. Regards.Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Iraq

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

A, B, C are not Identifying reliable sources. They are political and ideological sources. Why Identifying reliable sources were removed ? Why ideological sources are prefered ? Takabeg (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is widely accredited that the Turkish population in Iraq is undervalued due to the community living in the oil-rich Kirkuk. Many academic sources state this.Justinz84 (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Please add many academic sources and remove these ideological sources. Takabeg (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok. We can add both the low and high academic estimates. Would you like to discuss which ones are reliable before editing the article?.Justinz84 (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
For example, Bill Park (2005) in Turkey's policy towards northern Iraq (page 36) states that Ankara and the Iraqi Turkmen Front claim 3 million whereas the CIA states 500,000. The source also illustrates how Turks feel discriminated due to the Kurdish influx.Justinz84 (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Mustafa Kibaroğlu, Ayșegül Kibaroğlu and Talât Sait Halman (2009) in Global security watch--Turkey: a reference handbook (page 165) also clarifies this.Justinz84 (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

CIA

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

CIA World Fact Book is considered as one of the Identifying reliable sources. We can use it too. Takabeg (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if you read previous discussions you would see that I was in favour of using the CIA source. However, it was users of Greek origin who opposed to it causing a non-stop edit-war until the page was protected. Ironically, given the fact that you see CIA as a reliable source, you will see that they refer to Turkish people are Turks and not 'Turkey Turks'.Justinz84 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
CIA World Fact Book is Identifying reliable sources. In every article it is used. We don't have to ask other users to use it. In English we don't use Turkey Turks. In Turkish we use Türkiye Türkleri. Understand ? Takabeg (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
If you asked a Turkish Cypriot in the Turkish language are you a Türkiye Türk they would say no. Again, a person does not need to be from the Republic of Turkey to be Turkish. Of course the majority are descendants from Anatolia but that is all it does not make them a Türkiye Türk it just makes them a Türk.Justinz84 (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Shall we use CIA World Fact Book ? If you want, I'll ask Greek users. Takabeg (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Did only User:Athenean reject the reliability of CIA World Fact Book ? Other users ? Takabeg (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
To be honest I cannot remember. I would have to look into the archives but I do believe that this user was one of them. The only thing confusing me now is that before you was arguing that the number was 55 million due to the Konda report. Now you want to use CIA which would place the figure between 53,763,866 (70%)-57,604,143 (75%). Can you please find more references stating that ethnic Turks make up 70%-75% of Turkey's population?Justinz84 (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Konda

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

KONDA also Identifying reliable sources. This is more precise than others. Why you remove this source ? Please stop vandalism. Please. Takabeg (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This source states that in 2006 there was 55 million people who identified themselves as ethnic Turks (page 26). So is the current figure of 58 million for 2010 really unrealistic?Justinz84 (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No. Its your original research. Takabeg (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
So you are saying that in the last 4 years the ethnic Turkish population has not increased at all?. The Library of Congress estimated a total of 57,514,400 ethnic Turks in 2008. (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Turkey.pdf page 9)Justinz84 (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
We use it too in this article. Takabeg (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
We must use the datum of CIA World Fact Book. That shows the demographic structure after "Kurdish overture". Takabeg (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In short, the percentage of ethnic Turkish in Turkey is 70% - 80%. Takabeg (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a variety of sources stating that ethnic Turks make up 70% of Turkey's population? Because the majority of sources clearly and traditionally state around 80%.Justinz84 (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Traditional datum must be updated. Takabeg (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well if you can find a variety of reliable sources then of course it should be updated.Justinz84 (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Konda indicates 76%. 72,561,312 x 0,76 = 55,146,597.12 Takabeg (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

edit warring

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

Is now stopped for the next four days while the page is protected. If you do not think you can reach a consensus pursue some form of dispute resolution. After the protection expires, keep in mind that the only exception to the policy on edit warring is the reversion of blatant vandalism, anyone who engages in multiple reverts or other edit warring behavior can expect to be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Beeblebrox. I hope this dispute will be resolved soon!.Justinz84 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I hope too. But it's difficult because some users confuse Turkish citizen and ethnic Turkish and try to exaggerate the number of ethnic Turkish. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Takabeg, I find your comment to be a little hypocritical. Lets take other ethnic group articles into consideration:
  • Bulgarians: according to Suman Gupta and Tope Omoniyi (2007) in The cultures of economic migration: international perspectives (page 58) '...statistical figures for short term emigration (6 months to 1 year) are: Bulgarians 80%, Turks 12%, Gypsies 6%, others 2%. Of populations involved in long term emigration 81% are Bulgarians, 13% Turks, 2% Gypsies. Labour migration is divided as follow: 77% Bulgarians, 12% Turks, 8% Gypsies'.
However, if we look at the Bulgarians article we can see that they use the following sources:
  • demo.istat.it. (Italy) which currently gives a population of 40,880 Bulgarian citizens.
  • Federal Statistical Office of Germany (Germany). But academic sources also state that there is a large Bulgarian Turkish population. e.g. Michael P. Smith and John Eade (2008) in Transnational ties: cities, migrations, and identities (page 173)
  • It should be noted that the majority of the sources on that article are from The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria. However as Nikolaĭ Genov and Anna Krŭsteva (2001) in Recent social trends in Bulgaria, 1960-1995 (page 73) point out '...the Bulgarian nation includes all foreign members of the Bulgarian diaspora yet excludes ethnically different citizens who were born and have lived in the country [Bulgaria] for centuries'.
  • Greeks. Many Western Thrace Turks are under the term Greeks and can be found in the majority of the European Greek communities (as well as the US). See for example Cem Şentürk (2008) West Thrace Turkish's Immigration to Europe.
However, if we look at the Greeks article we can see that they use the following sources:
  • Federal Statistical Office of Germany, which states that 294,891 are Greek. But as many source will again show us thousands of Turks are also under this title e.g. Richard Clogg (2002) Minorities in Greece: Aspects of a Plural Society (page 84)
  • It should be noted again that the majority of the sources on that article are from the Hellenic Republic Ministry of Foreign Affairs or others sources which lead to nowhere e.g. the source for Belgium.
For example, Jane K. Cowan (2000) in Macedonia: the politics of identity and difference (page 106) notes the presence of Albanaians and Turks being part of the Macedonian diaspora in North America.
If we take a loook at the article Macedonians (ethnic group) demo istat (Italy) is again used and so is the Federal Statistical Office of Germany, and Statistik Schweiz for Switzerland; all countries with large ethnic Turkish communities.
These are just a few examples. I can give you many more if you wish.Justinz84 (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is there is some inflation using not-the-best of sources, as in many other ethnic group articles. In cases where the number of Turks in a country is uncertain, typically the maximalist estimate is used, often based on a dubious source, and no lower estimate is included. Let's discuss the figures for each country on a case by case basis:

  • Turkey: If we take Justinz's "ethnic Turks" criterion, the figure of 58,000,000 (80% of 72.5 m) is slightly problematic, though it is not too bad. While it commonly accepted that Kurds make up about 20% of Turkey's population, not everyone in the remainder is an "ethnic Turk". Albanians, Bosnians, Greek Muslims, Laz, Arabs, Georgians, Hemshins, Circassians and many others. While most of the above groups have assimilated, they are not ethnic Turks. For me, the most reliable source on the issue is a recent study by Turkish academics that was commissioned by the government and published in Milliyet [1]. This is a major study, the result of many years of work by serious academics, and commissioned by the Turkish government itself. For me, this is by far the best source on the distribution of ethnic groups in Turkey, and it gives a figure of 55 million for ethnic Turks of Turkey.
  • Iraq: The figure of 3 million is a gross overestimate, and the sources used are inadequate. New World Communication Inc., UNPO, KerkukNet, these are not reliable sources. KerkukNet is in fact a Iraqi Turkmen advocacy website. I don't know much about Amikam Nachmani's book as it is unavailable online. Given the situation in Iraq and the difficulty of obtaining accurate ethnic demographics, my hunch would be to go with the CIA factbook and US State Department (at least they have people in the country). Both give a figure of 500,000, which is in line with what I have seen widely quoted in the media. The figure of 3,000,000 is well over 10% of the total population, and I have never seen it quoted in a reliable source.
  • Germany, France, and other Western European countries: Takabeg is correct in pointing out that many of the individuals listed as Turks in Western European countries may in fact be ethnic Kurds. If we use the 20% estimate for Kurds in Turkey and crudely apply it to Turkish communities in Western Europe, the figure of 2,800,000 million Turks in Germany becomes less than 2,300,000. Justinz, you need to be consistent. You can't claim that some of the people listed as "Greeks" in Germany are in fact Turks of Western Thrace (who make up only 1-2% of Greece's population), while ignoring the fact that many "Turks" in Germany and other countries are in fact Kurds (who make up 20% of Turkey's population).
  • United States: Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, Turkish Society of Rochester are not reliable sources. The US Census is by far more reliable. Use it, and only it. It includes "Turkish ethnicity", so I don't see why we need those other (low quality) sources.
  • Australia: Same problem as the US. The Australian census includes ethnicity, so it should be used instead of the low quality sources currently used.
  • Greece: The sources used, e.g. "Western Thrace Minority University Graduates Association" are advocacy groups, hence highly partisan and unreliable. Since the Bulgarian census information is used for Bulgaria, I don't see why the Greek census results can't be used for Greece. I had entered it as a source earlier, but someone falsified it with a bogus source.

The figure for most of the other countries (Cyprus, Bulgaria, etc...) seem ok on first inspection. Though there are still some problems with some of the sources used, there has been a noted improvement over older versions of the article, and I believe with a bit more work we can iron out the last problems. Athenean (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, I sincerely thank you for your views. I’ve been waiting for a reply from anybody because the article will be available for editing again soon and this discussion seems to be going nowhere.
  • The figure of 55 million does not seem unrealistic to me at all. Though in previous times when I have tried to use the Milliyet website as a form of referencing many objected as they saw it to be biased (ie pan-Turkish). But lets not forget that groups such as the laz are unfortunately usually put under the heading ‘kurds’. So although many people maybe put under the heading ‘Turks’ [though to be fair they have either been Turkified or have assimilated] the remainder are actually named under the label ‘Kurds’.
  • Regarding Iraq, many academic sources merely state that the Iraqi government places the figure at 500,000 whereas the community itself places the figure at 3million. Academics themselves seem to avoid making their own estimates and merely just state that there is a statistical dispute.
  • Can you actually find references stating that Kurds make up 20% of every western European country? I’m sure that you could not. Many of you seem to forget that Kurds in Europe do not just come from Turkey. Many are also from Iraq, Syria, Armenia and Iran...
  • As for Western Thrace Turks, they make a significant part of the Greek community in Germany. This is a fact, one which can be found in a variety of sources. The smallest estimate of the community is 12,000. If Greeks are a population of 350,000 in Germany, at least 3.5% of them would be ethnic Turks. Yes Turks make a small percentage of Greece’s population, but that is only because so many of them have left or have lost their citizenship.
  • I find it ironic that you do not find the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History as a reliable source yet you find the Milliyet source reliable. It’s laughable. Again if you are to read sources on the migration of Turks to the US many are from the Balkans as well as from Turkey. In fact, recent Turkish migration to the US was 15,000 Turks from Russia.
  • I would also like to bring to attention some of User Takabeg’s intentions. On his/her talk page they have stated the following under the section ‘Turkish people’: ‘...In this case we remove Turkish descent Bulgarians, Meskhetian descent Georgians and Russian and so on. Do you understand me ?’; they are clearly trying to decrease the ethnic Turkish population, right? Athenean, how would you feel if I tried to remove the Greek Cypriot population or the Greeks of Albania from the Greeks article? Who is Takabeg to decide that suddenly the Turkish minorites in Bulgaria and the former Soviet Union shouldn’t be in the article? Moreover, Takabeg has also shown an interest in Joshua Project! I wonder why? We all know the reason. This user has clearly dug their own grave.
  • You can all play the Kurdish card as much as you like. I for one do not deny that Kurds have also emigrated from Turkey to Europe. But Kurds have also immigrated from Iraq and Syria. Moreover, Turkish minorities have immigrated to Europe; e.g. the overwhelming majority of Turks in the UK are actually Turkish Cypriots; Western Thrace Turks have mainly immigrated to Germany and the Netherlands; Bulgarian Turks to Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. Ahiska Turks to the former Soviet Union. This is all in academic journals and textbooks.Justinz84 (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to add in my previous post that in the footnotes it does state that the figure for Germany 'includes ethnic minorities from Turkey but does not include ethnic Turkish minorities outside of Turkey'. Academic sources places the Kurdish population in Germany at around 500,000. There is around 4 million people of Turkish origin in Germany placting the ethnic Turkish population at around 3.5 million.Justinz84 (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
We must compare with the official numbers of Turkish citizen abroad. And we must not use this chart for Turkish people. Takabeg (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
We do not need to 'compare' anything. Sources which state the number of Kurds included in the Turkish population can be used. The source you have just provided is only about Turkish citizens and says nothing about the amount of Turks or Kurds.Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
No. Not only Kurdish population but many groups are included in Turkish citizen. This article are written about ethnic Turkish isn't it ? Kurdish, Zaza, Laz, Arab emigrants from Turkey are not ethnic Turkish. OK ? Now Turks in Bulgaria, Kosova, Rumania etc. are ethnic Turkish, Turkish Cypriots are ethnic Turkish, Iraqi Turkmens are ethnic Turkish. Kurdish, Zaza, Laz, Arab etc. and non-Turkish citizen - ethnic Turkish people must not be shown in same table. the official numbers of Turkish citizen abroad can be used in the article Turkish citizens abroad. Takabeg (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The majority of figures currently used are not based on Turkish citizens. Many of the sources include the number of Turks who are born in the host countries and who many even have differenct citizenships in its estimates. Not all Turks have Turkish citizenship. If the sources do not clearly state that the numbers inlcude Kurds etc then I don't see the problem.Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
In English Wikipedia most of articles related ethnic Turks (diaspora, population, Turks in X) are too ethnocentric. Approaches in the article de:Türkeistämmige in Deutschland (in German Wikipedia) is more encyclopedic. In that article we can use datum about Turkish citizens. Takabeg (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll give you an example. In the source that you have provided by the T.C. Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı it gives a population of 423,471 Turkish citizens living in France. It is important to remember that these figures are for 2006. However, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2008) shows us that a further 110,000 Turkish citizens have taken French citizenship between 1997-2006. Therefore, there are at least 533,471 people who have had Turkish citizenship at one point in France. So trying to decrease a figure of 423,471 due to the fact that not all Turkish citizens are Turks is wrong. I would prefer to see sources which either say that the population includes other ethnic groups or their actual population.Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Önemli olan diğer etnik grupları kalmamak. Bu madde etnik Türk hakkındadır. Ona göre uygun kaynaklar seçilmelidir. Türk vatandaşları ayrı konu ve Türk vatandaşların sayısını gösteren kaynakların bu maddede kullanılması mümkün değil. Takabeg (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes I agree with you but trying to judge the number of Turks by looking at how many Turkish citizens live outside Turkey is unjustifiable. For example, there are 16,000 Turkish citizens in Azerbaijan according to this source... maybe there are some Kurds in this population, but that does not mean there is less than 16,000 ethnic Turkish people in Azerbaijan. There are actually over 100,000 ethnic Turkish people due to the Ahiska Turks being deported from Georgia in 1944. I hope you understand the point I am making. Unless the source actually says that Kurds or other minorities are included in the figures which are currently in the info box I cannot support you with your argument. Regards.Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some other questions

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

While this might not be the main problem with this article at the moment, could someone to explain why was this source about the number of Turks in Iraq removed? It's both a neutral source and the only one identifying the number to be about half a million, so its obviously relevant and approptiate for this article. Also a "failed verification" tag was removed from this source. The source doesn't contain the information it's claimed to contain (5 million Turks in Iraq) so removing the tag is quite disruptive. Kostja (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Kostja, if you look in the 'Iraq' section of this discussion page you will see that I have already suggested that we use this source.Justinz84 (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
At first we have to remove these ideological claims: A, B, C. These are not Identifying reliable sources. Takabeg (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Ibrahim Al-Shawi says They add up to 150% of the population of Iraq. The extra 50% is propaganda and hot air! Takabeg (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Well it seems as though you are all in agreement with this. We will place both figures using the sources discussed in the above section. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Range will be shown. For example 300,000 - 3,000,000. With only neutral identified sources. Takabeg (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Page 47 of this source gives a population between 300,000 to 3,500,000.Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Olabilir. Ancak (disputed) ekleriz. Propaganda siteleri kaldırırız. Zaten Kürt yönetimi (belki de ABD de) az göstermek ister, Irak Türkmen milliyetçileri ve Ankara fazla göstermek isterler. Değil mi ? Takabeg (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes I also think this as well. Either side could be exaggerating. I think we should just add both figures together. But we need to remove the footnote of 5 million because I could not find this in the source. Regards.Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverting figures

Latest comment: 13 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

I have reverted the figures which were placed because we still need to finish this discussion. Adding those figures again will not solve the problem. Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So far we are all in agreement with the population figures for Iraq so I shall change this now. Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
And we must use CIA World Fact Book. Takabeg (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
And I indicated datum about Turkish citizen. Now we have to find datum about ethnic Turkish and replace them. Takabeg (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Lets please discuss everything through the discussion page. Your last actions did not help the situation. Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Why is Germany disputed for? You said nothing before. The footnote states there are 4 million Turkish people. I have added that close to 500,000 are Kurds! That makes the ethnic Turkish population around 3.5 million. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
We can place both figures for Turkey. No need to say it is disputed. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
You said OK about adding (disputed). Iraqi Turkmen nationalists count Arabs whom they hope to remenber Turkmenness. You know. Takabeg (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
We must replace datum abou Turkish citizen (Turkish people, Kurdish people, Zaza people, Laz people etc.) with ethnic Turkish. Otherwise this article will continue to cheat readers. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
We don't need to actually write 'disputed' in bold letters. Readers will be aware that it is disputed anyway.Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind having the figure 55 million for Turkey but can you remove the Milliyet reference and place another source please? It seems unfair that we can use it here when other users have opposed to it when they thought it was biased before. Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
As you know both of them are propaganda. We must explain it. So we need to add the sign of (disputed) or (propagated). Takabeg (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
We can place something in the footnotes instead. The Info box is looking really messy at the moment. I think were figures only place the amount of Turkish citizens e.g. Italy we should have a footnote saying something like This figure only include Turkish citizens which may include other ethnic minorities from Turkey. However, it does not include Turks who have been naturalised or born in the host country; nor does it include ethnic Turks who were born outside Turkey. What do you think? Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
No. Most of datum are related emigrants by country. In this article we white about ethnic Turkish who is one of the Turkic peoples. Kurdish people in Turkey (and emigres), Zazas in Turkey (and emigre) etc. And these minority consist about 30% of total population of Republic of Turkey. They are neither Turkish people nor Turkic people. If we use datum about Turkish citizen, this article will continued to be Ethnocentric. We must not provide faked information. Our children want to exaggerate the numbers of Turkish people, we know. But here is not a forum but encyclopedia. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkish descent

Then why don't you provide me with the sources which just state the ethnic Turkish population then? If you can't then we should just do what I have suggested. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that a footnote would be better. It needs to be made clear that although the figures which just use Turkish citizens include ethnic minorities from Turkey it does not include the ethnic Turks who have been born or naturalised in these countries. Furthermore, the figures do not include ethnic Turks who have been born in other countries such as Bulgaria, Cyprus, the USSR, Greece and so on. Turkish minorities who immigrate to Western Europe are not listed as Turkish but as the whatever citizenship they have e.g. Bulgarian, Greek, Macedonian and so on. Turco85 (Talk) 09:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, since we are in agreement I will add a footnote. Regards.Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The info box

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The total population was written between 55-70 million. How is this possible when 55 million alone live in Turkey? I have removed this ludicrous statement.

  • Turkey I'm happy with.
  • Germany I'm happy with.
  • Iraq I'm happy with.
  • Bulgaria I'm not happy with. The population is at least 800,000. We are currently using a census which is 10 years old.
  • France happy with but I have a few more sources to add e.g. http://fr.novopress.info/55474/l%E2%80%99appel-d%E2%80%99erdogan-aux-turcs-de-france-devenez-francais-pour-mieux-rester-turcs/
  • Austria I'm not happy with because this figure is not about Turkish citizens. There is around 120,000 Turkish citizens in Austria not 300,000. The 300,000 includes ethnic Turks who have been naturalised and born in Austria.
  • Australia I'm happy with but I would also prefer a footnote.
  • Greece I'm not happy with. Where is the reference claiming that there are 80,000 Turks? All three sources say 150,000.
  • Switzerland the majority of Swiss Turks have been naturalised. So even if this figure is about Turkish citizens, many ethnic Turks have not got Swiss citizenship. I think we should use a different soure.
  • Italy I'm definitely not happy with. Though this figure includes all Turkish citizens, it does not include ethnic Turks who have been naturalised or born in Italy. Furthermore, there is a large Bulgarian Turkish population in Italy... and what about the Turkish community in Moena who have been living there for centuries?
  • Norway happy with but again would prefer a footnote instead.

Turco85 (Talk) 09:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well can you please provide the refernces? Regards.Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok will do. Just give me a few days as I am working on other articles at the moment. I have just included the Turkish population in Syria to the info box. It's a reliable academically published source and I have included both the low and high estimates so there should be no problem I hope. Turco85 (Talk) 11:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Origins

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This section is poorly written. We need to improve this section please.Turco85 (Talk) 10:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In what way? Is it poorly written in English or does the section have historical errors? The part of the section where Xiongnu was mentioned was borrowed from Xiongnu page. The "Turkicness" of Xiongnus can be discussed, but there is an academic claim that Xiongnus were grandfathers of Turks. But, I do not think there's any historical error in the section starting with Göktürks. The books of Bernard Lewis, Halil İnalcık and J. P. Mallory is used. Kavas (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Syria

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a big problem with the figure of 750,000-1,500,000 in the infobox. The source used refers to Kurds in Syria, for which 750,000-1,500,000 seems eminently reasonable. However, this is nonsensical, as Kurds aren't Turks. From what I have seen in the literature, most sources do not even mention any ethnic Turks in Syria. Athenean (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No the reference states the following on page 112 Suriye’deki Türklerin nüfusları tam olarak bilinmemekle birlikte Türk kaynaklar, 750 bin ile 1.5 milyon arasında değişen tahminlerde bulunmaktadır. English translation: The total population of the Syrian Turks is not known for certain however estimates suggest between 750 thousand to 1.5 million. It goes on to say that many have been Arabanised and therefore the population may actually be higher. Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The usage of 'Turkiye Turkleri' is WRONG

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

If we say Turkiye Turkleri we are only referring to people from Turkey. Turkish people are just Turkler i.e. Turks. A person does not have to be born in Turkey to be Turkish. Some users have to stop trying to create a term which is not real and stop confusing us with other Turkic groups!

In the Turkish language we say the following Turkic groups like this:

  • Turkish= Turkler (hence the saying 'ne mutlu Turkum diyene' (How happy I am to be Turkish)... we do not say 'ne mutlu Turkiye Turkum diyene' (How happy I am to be a Turkey Turk)
  • Azeri= Azeriler
  • Kazakhs= Kazaklar
  • Kyrgyz= Kırgızlar
  • Turkmen= Türkmenler
  • Uzbeks=Özbekler

Furthermore, if we take other groups into consideration e.g. Germans who are from the Germanic peoples, they do not call themselves Germany Germans! Just Germans.. the same applies here.


Justinz84 (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Another example, we do not call Turkish Cypriots Kibris Turkiye Turkleri we call them Kibris Turkleri!.Justinz84 (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Turkish= Türkler
  • Azeri= Azeri Türkleri
  • Kazakhs= Kazak Türkleri
  • Kyrgyz= Kırgız Türkleri
  • Turkmen= Türkmenler
  • Uzbeks=Özbek Türkleri

The problem is this usage. What about adding Kibris Turkleri to the translation section? Kavas (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's better than before but I still think it would be best just to say Turkler. Furthermore, saying that modern migration to western Europe began in the 1960s is also wrong. For example, Turkish Cypriot migration to the UK started in the 40s and 50s. Justinz84 (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have just realised something else as well, how would someone who knows no Turkish at all understand what 'Türkiye Türkleri, Girit Türkleri, Kıbrıs Türkleri, Bulgaristan Türkleri, Batı Trakya Türkleri, Rodos Türkleri, Kosovo Türkleri, Makedonya Türkleri, and Romanya Türkleri' even means? one would probably think that all these terms refers to all Turks which again is wrong. e.g. not all Turkish people are from Kosovo or Romania...Justinz84 (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree, I don't see the ponit in writing all these names. A person in their right mind would obviously know this anyway. Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a Turkish translation, a non-Turkish person does not know Turkish by definition. I write these names because "Türkler" means in Turkish all Turkic groups, including Azeri Türkleri, Kazak Türkleri, Kırgız Türkleri, Türkmenler, Özbek Türkleri, Uygur Türkleri, Kırım Türkleri, Kazan Türkleri, etc. But, Turkish name excludes Azeri Türkleri, Kazak Türkleri, Kırgız Türkleri, Türkmenler, Özbek Türkleri, Uygur Türkleri, Kırım Türkleri, Kazan Türkleri. Have not you heard Kazan Türkleri? Kavas (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
One would not probably think that all these terms refers to all Turks which again is wrong. e.g. not all Turkish people are from Kosovo or Romania if she/he reads that Turks of different regions have different names in Turkish in the article. Kavas (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It is possible to move these names to a footnote, as introduction of an article should be small, but deleting these names is not a good idea, Türkler in Turkish has a wider usage than "Turkish" in English. Kavas (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest a footnote. But you have forgotten a few names such as Turks in Syria etc. Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Turks in Syria, Turks in Iraq: Türkmen. Kavas (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Turkmen refers to people from Turkmenistan. The communities in Iraq and Syria are sometimes called 'Turkoman' and 'Turkmen' but they were mainly Ottoman Turkish migrants. They are Turks not Turkmen as many sources would clearly show you. You have also forgot to include the Ahiska Turks; if you are not going to include all the names then I don't think that any of the others should be used either. Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the list of names. There are around 500,000 Turkish Cypriots, 400,000 Western Thrace Turks and over half a million Bulgarian Turks in Turkey... They are not Turkey Turks are they? and what about those who came to Turkey from Yugoslavia? Turco85 (Talk) 21:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Usage of Türkiye Türkleri is not wrong. But there are some usages of Türkiye Türkleri in Turkish language. 1. Turkish people (Ethnic Turkish living in Turkey) + Turkish minorities in the former Ottoman Empire, 2. Turkish people (Ethnic Turkish living in Turkey). Takabeg (talk)

Takabeg, I understand what you are saying but think about it, there is around 400,000 Bulgarian Turks, 400,000 Western Thrace Turks and 500,000 Turkish Cypriots- to name but a few who are in Turkey. From papers/journals that I have read some Bulgarian Turks in Turkey are excluded just like Turkish settlers are excluded in Cyprus by the Turkish Cypriots. Turks in Turkey is much more diverse than you think... And to name the whole Turkish people as Turkiye Turkleri is even more wrong. But I would like to ask you why is the Turkish Cypriot population not written in the Turkish version of this article but the populations in Bulgaria and Macedonia are? Turco85 (Talk) 22:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is Türkler includes and Turkish name excludes Kazak Türkleri, Kırgız Türkleri, Özbek Türkleri, Uygur Türkleri, Kırım Türkleri, Kazan Türkleri. So, Türkler is different from Turkish people which has the meaning of being from Turkey now or many years ago. Adding all names that is used in Türkçe for "Turkish" people is a good idea and I oppose the removal of these names and will fix this in near future. Kavas (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Current image is totally WRONG!

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The current image is totally wrong, because it shows only turks who lived in 20th and 19th century, but Turkish history started much earlier and there were already Turks before the 19th century.

Some say above that there are too few women and others say too much sultans, but you can't change the history! Turkish women didn't had a big influence on the Turkish history, Turkish men were more important and famous.

The greatest Turkish Ottoman sultans should be added because they changed the history of the Turks and the name of the Turks, they can't be ignored. Example Osman I was the founder of a big longlasting world empire you can't ignore him! Kanuni was feared by all Europeans the greatest Ottoman sultan, you can't ignore him either. Or Mehmed II the conqueror he conquered Constantinople. A very important city that almost wasn't taken before! Sultan Abdulhamid II should be added too because he made the empire strong again. I know those are too much sultans but those were one of the most important Turks. For example Sinan the architect of some big buidings (including the mosques of sultans) could be added too, he is not a sultan. In short Ottomans are also Turks and the Turkish nation was at is greatest during the Ottoman times. The first image is better!!!! The people in the current image are all after Ataturk, 'the modern turks'. I don't say do not add those people, but the sultans are far more important.

I think that the one who made the current image really hates Ottomans, sultans and muslims. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.21.37 (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I think we should add a few sultans with good images. But stating that Turkish women have not contributed to Turkish histroy is completely absurd. We can maybe add two new rows; 1 'Ottoman' row and 1 'modern' row of people who are still living today. I support the view that we should have an equal number of men and women. Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the point?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What is the point in having a section for Architecture, Arts and calligraphy, Music and Literature? What has this got to do with the Turkish ethnicity? Surely it should not be in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.115.109 (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

About That Info Box

Latest comment: 13 years ago25 comments5 people in discussion

Please. Whoever is editing the infobox, stop deleting the estimates for Turks in the United States. A couple of quoted online sources are given for the 500,000 number. They are online local history encyclopedias not providing references for those figures, but fine let's let them stand. But the 190,000 self-identified Turks in America figure is from the American Community Survey, which is run by the US Census bureau. *Please* leave that figure to at least let the readers decide between the two estimates. Deleting verified and sourced information because you dislike it is dishonest and violates quite a few wiki principles. Thanks.Konchevnik81 (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the 190,000 figure is already written in the footnotes anyway. We have to remember that thousands of Ahiska Turks have come to America in the last 5 years I doubt the US bureau has included them. Turco85 (Talk) 21:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thousands? How many thousands? Source please. The 190,000 figure is from the US Census, which is ultra-reliable. There is no way it should be in the footnotes. Rather, it is the poorly sourced and dubious figure of 500,000 that should be in the footnotes. Athenean (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Ditto for Australia. The 2006 census [2] (download the excel worksheet) says 59,000 (and that includes those with ancestry, not just those born in Turkey), yet the article only uses a figure of 150,000, which is only casually mentioned once in passing in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, without any explanation of what the figure includes and how it was obtained. Athenean (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh no! here comes Athenean again trying to put the Turkish figures lower again! haha. You're one to talk when you keep an eye out for the figures in the Greek article. But if you do a google search you will find material of Ahiska Turkish migration- an estimated 15,000 recent migrants. I think the 2010 census (which will be published soon) would be considered 'ultra reliable' not this source. There are more references which gives an estimed 500,000 than the one reference which estimates 190,000.Turco85 (Talk) 10:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
And by the way, there is an estimated 25,000-40,000 Turkish Cypriots in Australia (again do a google search and you will see for your self) plus an estimed 150,000 Turkish citizens (which fyi does not include Australian-born Turks).Turco85 (Talk) 10:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
A lot of talk, a lot of numbers, but no sources. "Plus an estimed 150,000 Turkish citizens (which fyi does not include Australian-born Turks)"? Did you just make that up or what? Where are those "other" references that give an "estimed" (sic) 500,000? One more question: Out of all those hundreds of thousands or Turks everywhere, how many of them are actually Kurds? Try to answer without trolling this time. Athenean (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The sources have been listed a million times on this discussion page (as you should know). I've had enough of this population war/debate. All you seem to ever do is try and decrease the Turkish population; you do nothing else on this article. I can't be bothered with edit wars or you... decrease the populations all you like, it does not change the reality. Furthermore, you can play the Kurdish card all you like, but the majority of Turkish Kurds are in Germany as sources would tell you. Unlike the Greeks article we have a footnote here which says which articles include all Turkish citizens. But the fact that between 25,000 and 40,000 Turkish Cypriots live in Australia makes it quite unlikely that there are 60,000 Turks overall- and you know it.Turco85 (Talk) 18:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm a Turk so I must be making it up right? Here you go: http://www.sydney.cg.mfa.gov.tr/AmbassadorsMessage.aspx
I didn't say that, you did. As for the link you are providing, it's just a message by the Consul General of Turkey. Do you know what a WP:RS is? The link you are providing is not. Anyway, since you seem to take everything so personally and try make everything personal (your above post is nothing more than a bunch of ad hominems and WP:OR), I won't continue this with you, but will do the only thing left to do in such situations: Turn it over to the community. WP:FTN is a good one. But if you must know why I have an interest in this article, few other articles about an ethnic group suffer from such gross number inflation. I mean, the numbers in the infobox don't even add up to the claimed figure of 70 million (try it with a calculator). The US census isn't good enough for you. The Australian census is not good enough for you. The Greek census isn't good enough for you. What else do I need to say? Athenean (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
So the Turkish consulate is not reliable? Australian articles also give this number e.g. http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Old-foes-new-friends/2005/04/22/1114152326767.html and http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv--radio/the-delights-of-turkish-talkback/2006/12/13/1165685687151.html Twist my words as much as you wish. I'm not going to argue with you or bother having an edit-war either. Turco85 (Talk) 20:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Done [3]. Athenean (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I honestly don't see what your problem is, in the fringe theories section you have written the following 'any attempt to discuss this on the talkpage is met with personal attacks' when I'm actually saying to you that I don't want to argue or have edit-wars. As for the rest of what you have written here are my responses:
  • Germany: You wrote 'The lower figure from the census is ignored'. What lower figure? What census? That reference only include Turkish citizens. It is not a census. It does not include Turks who have been naturalised or who have been born in Germany.
  • Iraq: This has been disputed on this discussion page already and it was agreed that both figures should be used. Why are you trying to make problems again? What is wrong with having both figures? We are trying to stay neutral here.
  • UK: Well in 1996 The Independant estimated 300,000 Turks http://www.independent.co.uk/news/turkish-gangs-muscling-in-on-heroin-trade-1322026.html and by 2005 a further 100,000 Turks had come to the UK http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/gang-held-over-smuggling-100000-turks-into-britain-510591.html. 500,000 sounds quite reliable.
  • US: You wrote 'Until recently, the only figure given was 500,000', that's a lie. The 190,000 was actually written in the footnote as well.
  • Greece: Calling the Turkish community 'muslims' shows your political ways. A Turks in Greece does not have to be a muslim. Having said that, it was you who place the 80,000 figure without even placing a reference!
You go onto say 'Here's what I propose...use the census data and only the census data, as is standard practice in all other ethnic group articles'. Now today I went onto the Greeks discussion page and noted that its info box has a lot of problems. e.g. The figure for the UK (which by the way uses The Independant; oh dear that's not a census figure is it?!) writes 400,000-500,000 even though the reference only states 400,000. You have obviously seen my comments on the discussion page (as you have said that I am 'retaliating') yet you have done nothing to correct the Greeks info box which clearly shows your intentions! Turco85 (Talk) 23:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The Greeks infobox will be corrected in due time. If it is corrected, will you agree to my proposal to include only census information for countries for which census information exists: (US, Germany, Australia, Greece) and leave larger estimates for the footnotes? Regarding Germany, this [4] is from the census, and it's official. I'll also let you know that in Greeks we use the figure of 1.38 million because that is from the US census, even though 3 million claim Greek ancestry, but that figure is in the footnotes. As for Australia, if you had actually bothered to look at the census, you will see that the figure of 60,000 includes both Turkish citizens and Australian citizens of Turkish ancestry. Also, Greeks does not use nationalist POV sources like "Association of Turkish Students of Western Thrace". Perhaps this is the reason why this article is full of tags, but Greeks is a GA. Athenean (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
You are confusing census' with foreign population estimates. The last German census was in 1987. The reference you are providing only includes people with Turkish citizenship which is misleading. Regarding countries which have an actual recent census e.g. Bulgaria, FYRM etc of course I don't mind if the figure is included (in fact they already are included). This is the reason why I have not bothered to change anything that you contributed. I don't mind if both census figures and estimates of the actual population are placed together. But I don't think higher estimates should be placed into footnotes otherwise we would have footnoes which go up to z.Turco85 (Talk) 23:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll give you an example on how using just census figures can be misleading. According to the 2001 UK Census there were 35,169 British residents born in Greece but that does not mean there are only 35,169 Greeks in the UK. Turco85 (Talk) 23:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to respond concerning my initial issue with the US figures. Turco85 says that the US census figures are probably wrong since "thousands of Ahiska Turks" have moved to the US in the past 5 years. First: the Ahiska Turks page states that there are an estimated 13,000 of this community in the US. 190,000+13,000 does not equal 500,000. Second, the "Encyclopedia of Cleveland History" and the Turkish Society Rochester New York page are not dating their estimates, nor citing their sources for their figures, nor stating that these numbers include any putative influx of Meshketians. If there IS some sort of massive Turkish immigration occurring, then please provide a reference. Otherwise such a claim is OR. Ideally some sort of reputable statistical study should be cited for a figure that is attempting to make Turkish Americans one of the largest overseas Turkish communities in the world. But I am not asking for these figures to be removed, merely that a census figure from 2008 be included as a counter-balance. The American Community Survey is conducted every year. (The 2009 numbers on ethnicity just came out). The results for ethnicity are self reported by respondents, so the 190,000 number includes anyone of whole or partial Turkish ancestry. This is a government number produced by reliable statisticians and survey methods. To completely ignore such a number makes a mockery of what wikipedia is supposed to stand for. Please include such figures in the infobox. If maximal figures are included as well, then fine, let the readers judge the sources. But to hide official statistics is misleading. Thanks.Konchevnik81 (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Konchevnik81, I agree that both should be used. However, I think it's a little unfair to say that we have been 'hiding' this source. In fairness it was always in the footnotes. Having said that, I do not object to it being in the info box either. But we have to remember that it is not a census... the US census was held in 2010 and will be published in 2011. This source is merely government estimates. US citizens do not do a survey every year claiming their ethnicity. This is only done once every ten years. Turco85 (Talk) 22:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The source may have been in the footnotes, but not putting the number in the infobox is misleading to the casual reader. Such a reader would assume that the higher estimate is an accurate, widely accepted number, while in fact official government statistics enumerate a much smaller number. Just to be clear, the American Community Survey isn't just a "government estimate", but an "ongoing statistical survey sent to 250,000 households monthly." US citizens are required by law to complete the survey, and yearly results are published by the Census Bureau. In fact, the 2009 figures just became available, and the figures for the 2009 Turkish American population are here. The population is still around 190,000. My personal opinion is that these numbers are more reliable than the unsourced 500,000 number used in the other two internet sources cited. However as long as we are willing to split the difference and keep the ACS figures in the infobox, I think that's an acceptable compromise (it's how the Turkish Americans infobox is shown). If there are any further suspicions over the ACS number, great: then it's necessary to add another source explaining exactly why that number is suspect. Otherwise, if the Turkish population in the US is in fact 3 times larger then government statistics state, someone needs to tell them to get busy: I live in a major US metro area, and I can't for the life of me find any decent places serving cacik, ayran and adana kebabs! :) Konchevnik81 (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I partially agree. However, I must insist that figures taken from sources that do not meet WP:RS should be removed, not just tolerated. Sources like the Turkish Society of Rochester are just self-published websites, without any editorial oversight or fact checking. Whoever created that website can put any figure he/she wants, and no one will say anything to him/her. A source is considered reliable if the author is a well-known individual in a field, or a reputable publisher. The sources used to claim 500,000 for the US ("Encyclopedia of Cleveland History" and "Turkish Society of Rocherster") are not. As such, the figures obtained from them should be removed, until such a time as a reliable source is found that claims a figure of 500,000. Ditto for the UK: The figure of 500,000 is taken from the Federation of Turkish Associations [5], another self-published source. Whereas academic sources give a figure of 125,000-300,000 [6] [7], and The Independent, a reliable source, gives a figure of 300,000 [8]. The academic sources are far preferrable and should be used instead. Athenean (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I find it amusing that you find the 500,000 estimate of Turkish Americans by the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History as an unreliable source. If you type 'Encyclopedia of Cleveland History' in the wikipedia search engine you will see that there are 2,145 results! Athenean, I have come to the conclusion that you pick-and-choose what you see to be a reliable source based on whether you are statisfied with the estimates. Turco85 (Talk) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History seems to be reliable enough to warrant the high end estimate (as long as the census figures are . I do wish they cited where they get that figure from, because I doubt that the authors themselves did a statistical analysis of ethnic backgrounds in the US. It would be good to know where the figure comes from originally. Konchevnik81 (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello again Konchevnik81! I understand what you are saying but even the US estimate cannot be correct, it is only an estimate not a census. i.e. the US census was in 2010 and it is still not published. The current US estimate which we are using is just a prediction from the 2000 census. Nothing more, nothing less. Probably the most well know academic on the Turkish Americans subject Ilhan Kaya also gives an estimate of around 500,000 in many of this journal articles.Turco85 (Talk) 07:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The only way to solve the problem is to ban all greeks form turk related articles and vice versa, because both think wikipedia is the place for their stupid ultra nationalist racist thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.171.62 (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I actually don't have a problem with Greek people so I think your thought is utter rublish.Turco85 (Talk) 16:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there a debate here? Last comment was on October, 21. Kavas (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Fatih, Kanuni

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

The picture has to depict Fatih, Kanuni also. These two guys are great poets besides being History making Emperors. Not including them is making a mockery of Wikipedia. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi AverageTurkishJoe, can you place the images that you wish for us to add into the image on this discussion page please? Turco85 (Talk) 17:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I have already argued this point in March 2006 Talk:Turkish_people/Archive_5 and there was a decision at that time to include Fatih and Kanuni in the picture.AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but can you show me which image in particular you would like me to add? Do you have a preference on a certain image? If you do please place them here so I can add them into the montage picture. Turco85 (Talk) 23:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, what do you thik of this image?

File:Famous Turkish people 3 rows.png

This image consists of the following people:

  • First row, left to right:
    • Ertuğrul Gazi - Father of Osman I, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. He was the leader of the Kayı clan of the Oghuz Turks.
    • Mihrimah Sultana - Ottoma Princess
    • Suleiman the Magnificent - Ottoman Sultan, best know for being the longest-reigning Sultan of the Ottoman Empire.
    • Huerrem Sultan - Valide Sultan.
    • Mehmed II - Ottoman Sultan best known for the conquest of Constantinople.
    • Durru Shevar - Ottoman Princess, first woman to inaugurate an airport
    • Mahmud II - Ottoman Sultan best known for the extensive administrative, military and fiscal reforms he instituted, which culminated into the Decree of Tanzimat.
  • Third row, left to right:

Turco85 (Talk) 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Except for Ertugrul Gazi, the first row doesn't exist of ethnic Turks. Especially Roxelana (Hurrem Sultan)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.193.225.243 (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Is "Çerkez Kızı" Hadise Turkish? Kavas (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
When Hadise represented Turkey in the esc 2010 she called herself 'a Turkish girl' in many of her interviews. She cleary sees herself as a Turk. But I think we should replace Hadise with someone else. She is just a singer. Ahmet Ertegun has contributed greatly to the music industry in the US...Justinz84 (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind either. Please write your suggestions so that I can include or remove certain people from the image.Turco85 (Talk) 11:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Literature

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Do we need birthdays of poets, etc in this page? Kavas (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

All unnecassary (and uncited) stuff has been moved to suitable pages. Kavas (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Population in Cyprus

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

According to the New Cyprus Party website (Gr:Κόμμα Νέα Κύπρος Tr:Υeni Kıbrıs Partisi) '...the population in the north is reaching 500,000 and is continually rising...' http://www.ykp.org.cy/index_eng.php?subaction=showfull&id=1201210170&archive=&start_from=&ucat=6& —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.15.241 (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Too high wrt other sources! Kavas (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source: http://www.cyprus-mail.com/opinions/turkish-cypriots-and-settlers-puzzle in hindsight it is not too high at all. Turkish Cypriots make 18% of Cyprus's population (2009 est 195,000) but the Turkish settlers from Turkey outnumber the Turkish Cypriots so there would have to be at least 200,000 people from Turkey for them to outnumber the Turkish Cypriots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.15.241 (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If Turkish Cypriots make up 200,000 people and Turkish settlors outnumber them [which most academic sources do argue] how is this too high?Turco85 (Talk) 11:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Number inflation in Turkish People

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Shall we discuss problems related with Number inflation in Turkish People, here or there ? Takabeg (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Any discussion of any article should be discussed on its discussion page.Justinz84 (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Although this subject has already been discussed above (see 'About That Info Box').Justinz84 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Justinz84, I suggest you have a read through my user talk page to see Takabeg's intentions.Turco85 (Talk) 11:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Huerrem Sultan ?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

She was not ethnic Turkish. She was only an Ottoman. Takabeg (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, she is not a Turk. She is from Ukraine! Can we place someone like Nene Hatun or Safiye Ali? Justinz84 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Yea that's fine. Just let me know who to replace these people with. I don't check this page everyday so feel free to message me.Turco85 (Talk) 23:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Condensing

This topic I think can be condensed into another page or maybe revised to where this page is not at huge.

Editor for Wikipedia 00:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpross123 (talk • contribs)

Turks in Bulgaria

This "Extra & Gorter 2001, 415" shows number of 1 500 000 turks as of 2001, if is true ok then put it in the page, but this is not true, Turks in Bulgaria are 750 000 by current census as of 2001 www.nsi.bg/Census_e/Ethnos.htm ; www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bu.html. The source of census can't be used along with "Extra & Gorter 2001, 415" with interval, beacuse the two sources are in conflict, the first shows 750 000 turks and shows that the other people in the country are counted not as Turks, the second shows 1 500 000 turks and that means, the second gets 750 000 people, that were counted in census not as Turks. If you want to use not very reliable sources like this "Extra & Gorter 2001, 415", use it in countries with big population like UK, US, but not in countries with small population like Bulgaria, you get in the turkish ethnos big part of the population, that's not good, beacuse the turks in BG really have smaller number in the population.

24 November 2010

23 November 2010

22 November 2010

21 November 2010

19 November 2010

21:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone with more knowledge about the subject than me might want to take a look at this set of edits by User:Samitesonite. The material added is unreferenced and I sense that some of it may be questionable. The edits have been partially reverted but most of the changes remain. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

!?

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hey User:Kavas What's this ?

What is

Türks name refers to two distinct entities both the confederation of medieval Inner Asia, Kok Turks and the Turks of modern Turkey. ?

You must not compose with your POV.

Because we cannot find such sentence in the source shown for this sentence.

Source sais:

The Kök Türks are not to be confused with the Turks of modern Turkey - though the latter claim the former as ancestors.

If you want you can find other sources.

Takabeg (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding plagiarism is a must: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism Kavas (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We cannot find your explanation in the page 37 of that book. If you attempt to to help the reader not to confuse them, you must find other sources.

You have to avoid plagiarism: [9]. Kavas (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyway that source is not appropriate to sentence that you composed. I recommend you to find other sources. OK ? Takabeg (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Population

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Joining the discussion now, I would be interested to find out why User:Takabeg is deliberately removing chunks of sourced material from the article without a proper explanation [10]?. Atabəy (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I removed them and transferred to article Turkey. Numbers don't show the population of this ethnic group, but the population of all ethnic groups of Turkey. Takabeg (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, the reference clearly says "identify themselves" which means people who call themselves "Turk", i.e. Turkish people. Unless you can furnish a proof of being a better expert on the subject, or produce other figures disproving the fact, there is no reason to remove the reference along with such a large chunk of sourced material. Atabəy (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Ethnic Turkish people is not same with Turkish citizens. Sources show the number of Turkish citizens. It's easy. Takabeg (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, then you should put an effort to identify and cite those sources before replacing them with your original research claims. Kindly review WP:OR and WP:POV before editing. Tagging of articles is not a substantial basis for removing sourced information without proper discussion and consensus. Atabəy (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Population

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The population is wrong, because Turkey's population as of December 31, 2009 is 72,561,312 persons.You can take a look at the page of TUIK(Turkish Statistics Foundation) http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?tb_id=39&ust_id=11. Also at [[11]] the Turk population in Turkey as July 2010 is 77,804,122 persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyasyilgor (talk • contribs) 18:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Why always double the number of Turks

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I don't understand why people want to exaggerate the number of Turks. I see that there are two Turks who change it and double the number of Turks in diaspora countries. What do you wins really to double the number of Turks? This article is about ethnic Turks, and not people who are Turkish citizensdamn00 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

They gain what others gain by decreasing numbers without any references. They just play a Wikipedia game. Kavas (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am Turk and I am really disagree that there would be 55 million ethnic Turks in Turkey and 500 000 Turks in each EU country, or 200,000 Turks in Saudi Arabia. They take the numbers out of thin air. Those numbers are a huge fake numbers, they just want it like that to scare off enemies. But Wikipedia is a source for fact and not for person who came here and edit articles by their nationalistic view. [User:damn00|damn00]] (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 feb 2011 (UTC)
Working mechanism of Wikipedia doesn't restrict nationalists to change articles according to their national view if they cite sources. We have edit wars if there are two different nationalist views on an article. Moreover, if users change the page without citing sources, that's called a vandalism, someone should waste time reverting their last action. It should be more appropriate to critize rules of Wikipedia, not nationalist Wikipedians. See Larry Sanger. Kavas (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Genetics

Some idiot keeps vandalising the article by changing referenced figures. The referenced data is "12 million native Anatolians before Turkic invasion", and this guy will change the number to "5". And he will double the Turkic migrants from 1 million to 2.

Uralic Theory

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some historians claim that Turkish people has some Uralic stock because Kypchak (Mamluks) absorbed into local Turkish population of Anatolia in the crusade and Mongol invasion era. Kypchaks has mixed Ural and Altaic stock. Assimilated Bulgars and Khazars also has some Uralic stock with their Altaic origin. There are sources about Mongol invasion in Crimea and this sources also tell us Uralic people of Crimea has moved into local Turkish population of Anatolia. Ural-Altaic Mamluks also moved from Levand into Anatolia, these two facts significantly increased Anatolian population.--Huckillberry (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Genetic relations of European nations.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:Genetic relations of European nations.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


Ethnic Turks and citizens of Turkey

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

1. In the template, somebody confuses the Ethnic Turkish people with the citizens of the Republic of Turkey. This failure is traceable to Systemic bias and lack of WP:NPOV. The template must be "investigated" and "improved". Furthermore, contens have a strong tendency toward the official point of view of the Republic of Turkey. For example, sections of history were written under the influence of the official historiography of Turkey. I think this isseu is related with [[Systemic bias]] Thank you.


Some of problems on template:

Japan - about 10,000 ? (is the number of the citizen of the Republic of Turkey) "Japonya Türk Toplumu (Turkish Community of Japan)" (in Turkish). Embassy of Turkey in Japan. http://www.turkey.jp/tr/konsoloslukjaptoplum.htm. Retrieved 2008-06-11.

Norway - 16,000 (is the number of the citizen of the Republic of Turkey) Statistics Norway. "Persons with immigrant background by immigration category and country background 1 January 2010". http://www.ssb.no/innvbef_en/tab-2010-04-29-04-en.html. Retrieved 2010-05-04.

Italy - 17,650 (is the number of the citizen of the Republic of Turkey) Statistiche Demografiche ISTAT. "Resident Population by sex and citizenship (Middle-East Europe)". http://demo.istat.it/str2009/index_e.html. Retrieved 2010-10-27.

Canada -

43,700 (is the number of the ethnic Turks) Canada's National Statistical Agency. "Statistics Canada". [12]VNAMEF=. Retrieved 2008-07-09.

50,000 (is the number of the citizen of the Republic of Turkey) Turkish Embassy (Ottawa Canada). "TURKISH - CANADIAN RELATIONS". http://www.turkishembassy.com/II/O/Turkish_Canadian_relations.htm. Retrieved 2010-03-19.

Sweeden - 70,000 (is the number of the citizen of the Republic of Turkey) Murat, Sedat (2000). "Immigrant Turks and their socio-economic structure in European countries". İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. Archived from the original on 2008-06-26. [13]. Retrieved 2008-07-09.

Saudi Arabia - 200,000 (is the number of the citizen of the Republic of Turkey) Karpat, Kemal H. (2004). Studies on Turkish Politics and Society: Selected Articles and Essays. BRILL. ISBN 9004133224, p. 12..

Takabeg (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Famous Turkish people 4 rows.png Nominated for Deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:Famous Turkish people 4 rows.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Beren-Saat as Fatmagul.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:Beren-Saat as Fatmagul.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Karamanoglu.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:Karamanoglu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Improvements required.

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is in need of a major clean-up. I wish to start improving the article soon, is there anyone else who would like to help me with this challenge?Turco85 (Talk) 16:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Changing the article name from "Turkish people" to "Turks"

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think it would be better to change the name to "Turks". Reasons being, Turkish people actually refers to all citizens of Turkey and would include Kurds, Jews, Zazas, Armenians, Greeks etc (as well as Turkish minorities such as Bulgarian Turks, Turkish Cypriots, etc.) whereas the term "Turks" generally refers to the actual "ethnic" group. For example, if one looks at a description of the dempgraphics of Turkey, they would see that the ethnic categorisations are as "Turks" [rather than "Turkish"], "Kurds", "Armenians" etc. whilst the population as a whole are referred to as "Turkish". Furthermore, if ones looks at the offical census' of countries such as Bulgaria, Macedonia, Iraq, Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Romania, Montenegro...etc.etc. the Turkish community in all these census' refer to the Turkish population as "Turks". Turco85 (Talk) 16:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Waterfront houses on the Bosphorus.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:Waterfront houses on the Bosphorus.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

TURKS IN ALGERIA ??!!

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

On the table which informs Turkish Population by Country,a user had put Algeria and told that 700k to 2 million Turkish People live there,however, the reference he had included is on Turkish language (which I am fluent of) ; does not support that claim ,therefore "Algeria" section of the table should be removed from the page.Also,according to all the researches and census',there is a small minority of Turkish population(about 1k to 6k) live there that consists the workers or businesses there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommymert (talk • contribs) 04:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A certain user appears to be going across all articles to do with Anatolian Turks and Turkey and inflating their numbers and significance to a ridiculous level.... unfortunately no one seems to be monitoring these dark corners of Wikipedia! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAYousefSaanei (talk • contribs) 20:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


Here is the quote:
Turkish Embassy in Algeria (2008), Cezayir Ülke Raporu 2008, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, p. 4.

...Bunun dışında, büyük bir bölümü Tlemcen şehri civarında bulunan ve Osmanlı döneminde buraya gelip yerleşen 600-700 bin Türk kökenli kişinin yaşadığı bilinmektedir. Fransız Büyükelçiliği, kendi kayıtlarına göre bu rakamın 2 milyon civarında olduğunu açıklamaktadır.

And here is a weblink to the report, in case you cannot access it from the the Embassy's website: [14]Turco85 (Talk) 02:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
You think that is an appropriate source for such a serious, seemingly incredible piece of information? Moreover, this perhaps highlights the problem of interpretation I mentioned before. It says "of Turkish descent", without specifying part or full Turkish descent. For example, many millions of Americans claim Irish descent, but it's hardly appropriate to refer to the worldwide population of "Irish People" as over 100,000,000 because of "descent" claimed in the USA, Australia, Canada, Argentina, etc. I'd encourage you to take a second look at 1) some of your sources; and 2) the way you are interpreting them. Thanks. GAYousefSaanei (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Info box #1 and question

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

this people are ethnically ottomans not turks. so it would nicer if you put turkish people not ottomans. and why you remove Kıvanç Tatlıtuğ? And are there any turkish population in finland? 88.64.182.125 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_people/Archive_8&oldid=791789182"