Talk:Turk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turk article.
Article policies
WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
Disambig This article has been rated as Disambig-Class on the project's quality scale.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Turk:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

Contents

[edit] Comment

Someone who has no integrity is trying to replace this page with a hatred page about Turkey. I would like the Wikipedia staff to react to this.

[edit] Wild turkey

Please add the following to the Turkey section, since the page is currently protected:

Wild Turkey, A type of bird.

Actually, may want to edit domesticated turkey too - it's not just a type of food ;) Scott Ritchie 17:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

It is already there, as "turkey bird". Perhaps this would be clearer as "A large bird native to North and Central America and domesticated for food." --Macrakis 19:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Turks (mountains)

Also add: "The Turks" is a commonly used abbreviated title for the Maumturks chain of mountains in the west of Ireland --Red King 14:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article, so you can add it yourself. This article had been protected for 40 days. That's way too long. Shanes 14:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Explanatory version

After todays war of edit/revert, I chose the latest informative version as latest. Cleaning up is alright, but in my humble opinion the explanation for each of the nowadays three sections is very useful. Wim van Dorst 19:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Query

What, in the opinion of those who have worked on this page, would be the correct disambiguating link for "Turkish" in the context of ethnically Turkish inhabitants of European states (outside the borders of the Ottoman Empire or Republic of Turkey, depending on the time period)? Turkey and Turkic peoples are closest, but each is somewhat misleading, so I'd welcome any other suggestions. --Russ Blau (talk) 17:32, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd say that the Turkic people is too wide a scope. A Turkish man (in whichever country he now may happen to live) is (most generally) from the country Turkey. So, I'd opt definitely for the link Turkey. Coincidentally, the disambiguating terms Turkey were formerly included on this same disambiguation wikipage for elucidation of precisely this point. Should they be re-cooped? Wim van Dorst 19:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Turk

I'm not sure why Turk needs disambiguating. 99% of all uses of it should redirect to Turkic peoples. I'll move this page to Turkish and redirect Turk to Turkic peoples unless someone objects. Soo 18:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

  • You must be kidding: there are at least eight wikipages that Turk may refer to, which have nothing to do with Turkic peoples. So I strongly object to effectively doing away with this good disambiguating information. Wim van Dorst 19:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC).
    • May refer to? Yes. But how many people do you think link to Turk expecting the rapper or the chess engine? It would be far more sensible to redirect to Turkic people and then look through all the links, fixing those that are not correct. Soo 11:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Object to moving "Turk" as the mapping to Turkey (country) is not unique. Agree to separating out Turkic and Turkish to a new article (or simple redirect if you like, since those seem to be). --Red King 13:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Style

I have just made the page conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) (Sorry about putting the wrong link in the edit summary). This means that it is easy and efficent to use. This is the purpose of a disambiguation page. Piping and extra wikilinks detract from a disambiguation page's purpose. Please discuss this with me if you have any queries. --Commander Keane 10:25, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

The disambig page seems to have gathered some dupe links and messy layout since this cleanup, so I just made another pass. WikiWikiPhil 20:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic Turks

This is a discussion page. It's here that we discuss page content. Example: what's been going on with the Ethnic Turks wikilink. It's in. It's out. It's in. It's out. Editing isn't a game of football, let's discuss the changes we would like to make before implementing them.--Commander Keane 08:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ottoman Empire

A lot of articles that were linking to Turks I switched to Ottoman Empire (also Ottoman Turks, and Turkish people and Turkic peoples of course). Perhaps it should be added somewhere? TimBentley 05:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azeris are not Ethnic Turks

Azeris are ethnic Iranian who are Turkic speakers. Call the majoirty of Azeris Turks and they will get upset and angry. 69.196.139.250 02:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Azeris are Turkish ethnically. Lots of Oghuz Turks moved to west while seljukians and ottomans were making conquests at west (This west means "West to Altays") and this population moves made Azerbaijan and Anatolia Turkish -ethnically-. huseyinalb 26 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Azeri's are totally TURKS

Azeri's are a sub-clan of Turkish Oguz Turks as the Turks of modern Turkey. Their history, language and the physical appearance are exactly Turkish. And in their formal history it is told that they are TURK and descended from the Oguz Branch. They were settled in Iran at the Turkish Ruling Era of Iran, you seem to know less about Iranian History also. If u go on and check the ethnicity of Shah Ismail u will see that he was a Turk; and Karakoyunlu, later then Akkoyunlu States on Iranian lands were ruled by Turkish tribes. Here is a list of Turkish Tribes in Iran existing still in their borders: 1- Azeri's, 2- Derbent Türkmens, 3- Karapapaks, 4- Afşars, 5- Kaşkays, 6- Halaç Turkmens, 7- Hamse Turkmens, 8- Horasan Turks, 9- Shahsevan Turks. ( the list is taken from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/tr/0/0a/Turki_halklar.png ) Not only in Iranian history, you can also find ruling eras of Turkish Tribes in Chinese and Indian histories. And you should declare your name when you make any comment about issues like this. Drsecancan 11:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason

It's just to show what country they're from. What's so bad about it? —Khoikhoi 01:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

very simple. Because they dont have to be from Turkey. They can be in Germany for 4 generations and still be Turkish. Metb82 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Turks in Germany are originally from Turkey (and long before that the Altay Mountains). Turks don't originate from Germany. —Khoikhoi 01:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Then you should state it like that. You are saying inhabitants of Turkey Metb82 01:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
...Because most of them live in Turkey. —Khoikhoi 01:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
then you should state most of them. You cant generalize. It would be false Metb82 01:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I never said "all of them", now did I? I still don't see why you don't like the current version. It's a fact that most Turks live in Turkey, and they are the predominate group there. —Khoikhoi 01:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
"the predominant inhabitants of Turkey" sounds like they are only in Turkey. Metb82 01:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Not really. The Turkish people article says in the intro that they live in other countries, so it's not much of an issue. —Khoikhoi 01:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
it is an issue since saying only "predominant inhabitants of Turkey" sounds like they are only in Turkey. Metb82 01:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
How so? —Khoikhoi 01:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
coz the information that writes in the respective article does not give you a right to give an insufficient or misinformation in the previous link. You have to give a broader explanation first, then the respective article will enter the details. Metb82 01:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, how about "The Turkish people, originally from Turkey"? The only problem is that they are originally from the Altays, but oh well. —Khoikhoi 02:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Originally from Turkey is OK but the Altay part is largely disputed unless you are talking about Turkic people. . Metb82 02:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. —Khoikhoi 02:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turk is a broader term than Turkish

Turk means native member of any Turkic speaking grup of people (Turkic), where as Turkish indicates the person origniating from Turkey or has a Turkish citizenship.

A Turkish person ethnically speaking can be ethnic Kurd, Turk or Laz. A crimean Turk or Azerbaijani Turk may be citizen of Ukrine or Iran or Azerbaijan but considered to be a Turk.

Mehrdad 08:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Petty criminal

This is a disambiguation page, a page that lists articles connected with title. Recently added part about "petty criminals" should go to an appropriate article page. Such as a page about ethnic prejudices. Filanca 16:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 1911 Edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica about Turks,Yuruks, Kailars and Konariotes

see link

The first Turkish immigration from Asia Minor took place under the Byzantine emperors before the conquest of the country. The first purely Turkish town, Yenije-Vardar, was founded on the ruins of Vardar in 1362. After the capture of Salonica (1430), a strong Turkish population was settled in the city, and similar colonies were founded in Monastir, Ochrida, Serres, Drama and other important places. In many of these towns half or more of the population is still Turkish. A series of military colonies were subsequently established at various points of strategic importance along the principal lines of communication. Before 1360 large numbers of nomad shepherds, or Yuruks, from the district of Konia, in Asia Minor, had settled in the country; their descendants are still known as Konariotes. Further immigration from this region took place from time to time up to the middle of the 18th century. After the establishment of the feudal system in 1397 many of the Seljuk noble families came over from Asia Minor; their descendants may be recognized among the beys or Moslem landowners in southern Macedonia . At the beginning of the 18th century the Turkish population was very considerable, but since that time it has continuously decreased. A low birth rate, the exhaustion of the male population by military service, and great mortality from epidemics, against which Moslem fatalism takes no pre-cautions, have brought about a decline which has latterly been hastened by emigration

The Turkish rural population is found in three principal groups:

  • the most easterly extends from the Mesta to Drama, Pravishta and Orfano, reaching the sea-coast on either side of Kavala, which is partly Turkish, partly Greek.
  • The second, or central group begins on the sea-coast, a little west of the mouth of the Strymon, where a Greek population intervenes, and extends to the north-west along the Kara-Dagh and Belasitza ranges in the direction of Strumnitza, Veles, Shtip and Radovisht.
  • The third, or southern, group is centred around Kailar, an entirely Turkish town, and extends from Lake Ostrovo to Selfije (Servia). The second and third groups are mainly composed of Konariot shepherds. Besides these fairly compact settlements there are numerous isolated Turkish colonies in various parts of the country. The Turkish rural population is quiet, sober and orderly, presenting some of the best characteristics of the race. Apostolos Margaritis 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)--3210 22:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The term "Turkic" is not realistic

--- the word "Turkic" is used since the late 1950's in European culture, and it was first created by USSR governments of those dates. Simply the word was used to seperate the Turkish Clans and emphasize they were not descended from the same origin, were just talking a language in similarities. The aim was to assimilate the Turkish population in the rule of USSR and to easy the resistance of their cultural behaviour. And also the term itself was translated in Turkish as "Turki", meaning not exactly Turk, similar to, looks like Turk. As in many topics of Wikipedia, some informations about Turkish Clans are open to dispute; as in Slavic Tribes article. Bulgarians are shown in Slavic origin and the former clans of Bulgarians as Kumans, Pecheneks are not mentioned to be Turk. But if you inspect further on the topic and go on for the links on those Tribe names you can clearly find out that they were Turkish Tribes and not Turkic; and you can get this information just by wikipedia again, which seems to be a big dilemma to me. Because they were Turkish "Boy" (= Clan ) fighting in the order of the ancient Seljuk Emperor Keykubat, and migrated towards the lands in Caucasia and then into the East Europe. Also it is clearly known that Turkish Tribes migrated towards Europe and founded the Empire of European Huns aswell. So shortly after all those arguments i want to make clear that the term "Turkic" means "Turk" and the term "Turk" does not only mean the ethnicity of Turkey's Turks, it covers all those tribes which said to be "Turkic". Turkey is a country founded after the Ottoman Empire and Ottoman Emp. was founded after Anatolian Seljuk Empire also which is the continuation of Great Seljuk Empire; all those empires were formed and ruled by several Turkish Tribes but dominantly the Oguz Turks who are a clan of Tukish Nation in ethnicity. I think this needs a correction by the way.--- Drsecancan 11:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You say "the word 'Turkic' is used since the late 1950's in European culture, and it was first created by USSR governments of those dates." This is simply not true. Max Muller used the word Turkic in his 1888 Gifford Lecture:
...the Turkic languages, most prominent among which is the Turkish itself, or the Osmanli of Constantinople. The different Turkic dialects, of which the Osmanli is one, occupy one of the largest linguistic areas, extending from the Lena and the Polar Sea down to the Adriatic (p. 332)
The OED defines Turkic as:
the Turkic branch comprises Eastern Turki or Uigur (including Jagatai and Turconian), West Turki or Seljúk and Osmanli, Kazan Tartar, Kirghiz, Nogai, Yakut, etc.
and its earliest quote is from 1859, a hundred years earlier than "the late 1950's". --Macrakis 22:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proper scope of disambiguation page

Please see the style guide for disambiguation pages. A disambiguation page is not intended as a reference list of "see also"-type links to related topics. This page should only link to topics that would be referred to solely by the title "Turk" or one of its variants. "Turkish coffee," for instance, isn't appropriate on this page because a user who is looking for that topic isn't likely to just type "Turkish" in the search box, nor is an editor likely to create a link that reads [[Turkish|Turkish coffee]] (at least not if they know what they're doing). --Russ (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on proper scope

Copied from my talk: "It was the long lasting format covering every single item related to topic "Turk". You can check thru the history... SEY01 12:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)"

Yes, and that's why the page was tagged for cleanup, since the long-lasting format was not correct. You can check through the history. -- JHunterJ 13:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)