Talk:Turkish people/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

About the bit on phenotypical diveristy

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

I think it's meant to refer to a tiny group who are the descendents of slaves brought to area by the Ottomans and were over the course of centuries integrated into the population and mixed in. It's rare and when I was in Turkey I saw maybe a handful who may have been new immigrants etc. I'd imagine if there are people with African ancestry it's rare and perhaps not visible since it was diluted as would be the case in other countries that had a slave trade. Tombseye 15:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Ottomans never took slaves, nor did they ever make racial or ethnic discriminations. Ottoman "nationality" was given to any muslim citizen of the Empire, independently of his colour, language or ethnic origin. This means that black Arabs from the middle east or Northern Africa might have migrated to Anatolia as Ottoman citizens, but definitely not as slaves. Miskin 16:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, never took slaves? The Ottoman sultan gave Ibrahim Petrovich Gannibal to Peter the Great as a slave. We also know they kept slaves just from the paintings as well including eunuchs and domestic slaves (which was common). The Jannisaries were also white slaves of the Sultan. There are even books on the subject including Slavery in the Ottoman Empire and Its Demise, 1800-1909 by YH Erdem. Tombseye 17:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statistics in the infobox

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

Yeah I've thought the same, but we both know what happens when the numbers go down. Some of the info. such as from Cypnet doesn't look exactly reliable. Tombseye 00:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, now we have a chance to fix the numbers now that a certain Istanbuler who wanted to make the Turkic peoples superior to all other ethnic groups via Wikipedia is banned. ;) —Khoikhoi 00:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Man, that took long enough. Well, I agree that the stats should reflect the census or CIA factbook (not always dead-on but they've updated some stuff for 2006 recently) or the UN. Anything but some website from the UK written by Turkish Cypriot expats. Tombseye 00:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
We actually have other wikipedia articles being listed as sources. The references for Denmark and Sweden are....Demographics of Sweden and Demographics of Denmark =)) --Kilhan 08:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL, how reliable can you get? :p —Khoikhoi 08:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Reordered and inserted verifiable data on Turkish population statistics

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

Nice job, don't forget about the geographic distribution section of the page, where many of the numbers from the infobox were moved. —Khoikhoi 18:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah. Crap. Seems redundant a bit. Quite the drastic drop in Turkish population figures though. I dunno where that 80+ mil. figures came from. Tombseye 18:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I dunno about how to go about this now. Some of the stats that put Turkish population figures higher come from 'statements' and the like, including embassies, but without any indication as to where the stats are derived from an official capacity. I mean some of the higher figures seem plausible as with Sweden, but others I dunno. Tombseye 18:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Kilhan reverted your edits, I guess his main concern is the numbers for Europe. Feel free to correct the numbers for non-European countries for now. —Khoikhoi 19:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Whats wrong with the "Rest of Western Europe" entry on thew infobox? It cuts down on the size of the infobox and emphasizes traditionally Turkish areas(like Cyprus, romania, macedonia etc) over immigrant ones like Austria, UK etc. Seems like a great idea to me--Kilhan 19:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It's too vague. We need actual sources for each country rather than some lumping together that is difficult to verify. This article will never attain any semblance of being a good article if we just input arbitrary figures that cannot be supported by official censuses, international agencies, etc. That's why I started editing the section as the figures were grossly inflated. Tombseye 21:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Official Figures

Excuse me but these are official figures[[1]](2005, Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization Figures).

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

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

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

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

They are "OFFICIAL FIGURES".So it cannot be POV and what about this[2]?--Karaman 23:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ooops, my bad, I was the one who added it. :( I guess I didn't take a good enough look at it. —Khoikhoi 02:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
it's ok:). i removed it as a false map, no matter who added it...(no accusations against noone from my side) --Hectorian 02:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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

I'll say one thing for Karaman, she sure is consistent with her use of illogical reasoning. Now we're to determine the number of Kurds by their voting habits? Geez, talk about a desperate nationalist. Tombseye 17:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL. "There are no Kurds in Turkey because that is the offical numbers". I forget what Inanna said to me one time about the Kurds, I think it was something like, "70% are assimilated, they are already Mountain Turks". Jesus Christ. —Khoikhoi 18:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Grouping

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

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

You're misreading that. A large segment does not mean the majority. In fact, it could be re-written as a large minority instead. Tombseye 16:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thats what im trying to say. The emigration from central asia that lasted for centuries, didnt create a different ethnic group in Turkey. They were mixed with the native anatolian tribes and today, the only people that are central asian Turks are the Eurasian Turks. The genetic testing also proves that, a %30 percent mixture of Turkic population over %70 Indo-european genetics. Metb82 16:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you and even the Turks who did arrive were largely from Turkmenistan and thus (according to genetic testing there) were largely Central Asian Iranians who had been turkified themselves by a small group which contributed 1/4 of their gene pool or thereabouts (along with Mongols one can assume). At any rate, I think we pretty much agree. Tombseye 01:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Tombseye, can you expand on the tukification process of Iranians?

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

Osmanlis

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

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

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

Also see the Osmanlı Türkleri article over at the Turkish Wikipedia, created by our friend Inanna. However, that article links to the Ottoman Turks page. So perhaps Osmanlis should redirect there? —Khoikhoi 04:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
How about both hedging bets and erring towards accuracy by having "Osmanlis" redirect to Ottoman, which is a disambiguation page covering all the bases? —Saposcat 19:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, looks good! Thanks. —Khoikhoi 03:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

U were right. someone had been trolling again... this is how this number first appeared (based on a 1906 census!!!!) --Hectorian 02:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Lol, I wouldn't be surprised if her next source comes straight out of the MHP. —Khoikhoi 03:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Huh? i thought that all of her sources are/were/will be coming straight from them...;-) --Hectorian 03:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Come on now guys, no need to point and laugh :D Chaldean 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

For some Turkish users (no need to make an internal link again:p), all turkic peoples are turkish, (but all germanics are not germans, and all latins are not italians...). ohhhh.... and their number is always the highest estimation! never the middle one! (u know what i mean) --Hectorian 04:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Ha, yeah I know. I think whoever put it in didn't realize that there are web tools to translate Russian to English. I use them to read Russian sites myself so I just looked it up and found no mention of Turkish people in Russia. At this rate, I wonder when we'll get a listing of Turkish people living in Nigeria or Estonia as well! Sheesh. Tombseye 04:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Inquiry

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

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

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

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

Of course kurds have the most population as an ethnic group(15 percent).
So nearly 80 percent of Turks has only one identity : Turk...
None of the ethnic groupings in Turkey are mutually exclusive. It's quite common for a person of adiga descent to acknowledge his/her adiga roots but yet feel Turkish at the same time. From personal experience, I'd say the most common form of self-identification is as part of an adiga subgroup within the greater Turkish super group. Despite what many outside observers may think, Kurds in Turkey are closer to Turks than to their "ethnic brethren" in Syria or anywhere else. A Kurd from southeastern Turkey would feel completely at home in an ethnic Turkish village in Bulgaria. The very same person would probably experience a culture shock in a Kurdish inhabited region in Syria. Kilhan 17:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

British Turks

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

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

Historic views of Turks

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

alright, similar things were thought about the Jews especially by Europeans also. Im adding that to the Jews page then but if it gets erased then this will have to be erased also. Metb82 23:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No it doesn't, because I added a source. I can add 3 more if you want. —Khoikhoi 23:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
so you say you wont allow this in Jews page but allow it for Turks? i think thats completely racist. Metb82 23:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Forget it, if an educated, architecture student in Turkey is this nationalistic, then it gives you an impression of the propaganda they are subjected to. I will revert the edit back to your one Khoikhoi if it is reverted back.
Dude, its not about being nationalistic. I admire Greek culture, i know that we took these lands from the Greek people. But everything has a limit. Insulting my ancestry(at least a part of it as you can see from my eyes thats appearantly Turkic) here will not get anybody anywhere. Unfortunately, in this world, if you are strong, you have a right for everything. Just like America invading Iraq. It seems that the Turks were stronger in those days and the past is past. It has been 600 years. Get over it.Metb82 22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
We don't have anything to be ashamed of. We are a great nation, which lost an empire, now badly managed for decades and still struggling to rise on its feet again. We're also humans and people. You may say anything you want. Write anything you want. Do you really think the juvenile, uneducated reactions of some nationalist aspirants in Wikipedia show you that you're hitting a nerve? What are these legendary propagandas you claim to exist anyway? Do you mean anti-Turkish propagandas in Europe done by French, Armenians, Kurds etc? --Gokhan 04:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)