Talk:Turkish people/Archive 2

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

Who are Turks ?

Hi !

I was reading the article. I am confused of who the Turks are. Author said that Aremians, Greeks, and Kurds live in Turkey. Hımmm, If there would be no Turks living in Turkey, why would we call Turkey for the country ? Should we call something else for it ?

No, the article states that before Turkic tribes arrived there were Greeks, Armenians, and Kurds in Anatolia. This is historically accurate. Genetic tests have shown that most Turks are related to the people around them and the PRELIMINARY conclusion would be that most Turks are descendents of converts to Islam who adopted the Turkish language from a group that was quite mixed when it arrived anyway. This does not mean there are no Turks. Turks are a people today and well defined. This is only an explanation of their ancestry as a whole. Hope this helps to clarify things. Tombseye 18:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Turkish Prejudice

I am afraid this article serves as a platform for the bigots to bolster their hate mongering against the Turks. I would like to give the author the benefit of the doubt that this was not his intention but he cannot escape the blame for this shoddy article where the references do not support the claims made therein which renders the article a pure speculation and not fit for an encyclopedia. The article itself claims that it is a "debate" and therefore not an encyclopedic item.

Defining the Turkish ethnicity as a mixture of Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, etc. ethnicities begs the question whether these ethnicities are distinct and pure. For example Herodotus thinks that Hellenes are the descendants of Pelasgians a Pre-Indo European people Pelasgians which separated from the main body and increased to a multitude of nations by the voluntary entrance into its ranks of numerous tribes of barbarians.) It is known that the first indo-european elements in Asia Minor dates back to1900-1700 BC in the western Asia Minor and 1300-700BC in the east. Before that aboriginal peoples of Asia Minor spoke a non IE language. Michael E. Weale · Levon Yepiskoposyan et al. In their article named "Armenian Y chromosome haplotypes reveal strong regional structure within a single ethno-national group" find that not only different Armenian populations are different from each other but also there is a high degree of gene import into the Armenian populations. (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Weale-HG-01-Armenia.pdf) The Wikipedia article Genetic insights into the background of the Kurds describes the genetic contribution of different peoples in the Kurdish populations.

What makes the Turkish case in the authors view different is that supposedly there was no Turkish element in Asia Minor prior to 1071 and the Central Asian Turkic groups could be used as a test group to prove the non-Turkishness of the Turkey's population. Since it is not possible to find pure Greek, Armenian and Kurdish test groups to test the Turkey's populations against, the main premise of the article is un-testable and unscientific.

This kind of fallacy is called “non-sequitur” that is conclusion does not follow the argument. (That is according to your argument Turks might as well be the descendants of Zulus and not Greeks as claimed; you need to test your argument not some other argument.) Besides Wikipedia is not supposed to be the place for sophomoric debates. I repeat my request for speedy deletion of this article. AverageTurkishJoe 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no intent to promote hate mongering against the Turks. What genetic testing HAS found is that most people cluster with their neighbors. That's all this is. We know from the historical record that Anatolia was inhabited by Greeks, Armenians, and Kurds when Turkic tribes arrived. The contention is that the majority of Turks are descendents of converts to Islam who adopted the Turkish language and in addition groups from the Balkans, Russia, Arab countries, and Jews also arrived, most of whom adopted a Turkish identity over time as they mostly intermarried with locals. This is just a historical overview. In turn, one can read about the background of the various peoples and come to the realization that they are varied too. The point though is that language-wise and culturally there were people in Anatolia and a cultural shift took place. Yes, I'm the one who added the article on the Kurdish genetic background. We can actually remove the genetic question and even focus on the linguistic one, but the point is that there is strong evidence that the Turks of Turkey are not, for the most part, descendents of Central Asian Turks. I don't see what is wrong with pointing that out for people who otherwise think the Turks are all invaders when in fact most are native to Anatolia and simply changed their language and religion (as no doubt their forebears did when Greek colonists took-over and Armenians moved into the east and Kurds lived in the southeast etc. I don't agree that deletion is the answer. We can do a re-write and explain things better. What I've just explained is NOT a non sequitur as the historical background and genetic testing show that most Turks are native to Anatolia. There are no records of massive genocide by invading Turks and there are records of conversions that took place thanks in part to the efforts of the sufis. Couple this with the majority of Turkish genes that do not cluster with Central Asian Turks and you have solid evidence. Tombseye 19:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


"Turkish people" as an article title is a rather ambitious and misleading if the intention to express continuity of the gene pool of autochthonous populations in Asia Minor. Especially when the Turks article redirects to this (Turkish people) article one thinks that there is a special political agenda here. I would expect and article titled "Turkish people" or "Turkish Ethnicity" would concentrate the cultural and linguistic elements of ethnicity (folk music, fables, legends, genesis legends, beliefs, superstitions etc.) While there is a wealth of material to talk about in the subject of "elements of Turkish Ethnicity"; this article seems to be only concerned about a single issue: "people of Asia Minor did not speak Turkish before 1071", a statement of which the burden of proof is strictly on you. We are just going to have live with the fact that there is no genetically distinct IE population and the distribution of the human genes display a continuous variance all the way from Europe to Asia.
Just to destroy a myth please see the Turkish Kipchak soldiers In Western Asia minor in 838 CE in the following links. (http://www.amoriumexcavations.org/siege.jpg , http://www.amoriumexcavations.org/Site.htm)AverageTurkishJoe 17:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Apparently an important part of the Bizantian army was composed of ethnic Turks and they were figting the Muslims Mamluk army which was dominated by Kipchak Turks. Also the Kipchaks were employed as the police force all the from Constantinople to Jarulsalem. No wonder why so called "Turkification" of Asia Minor was so fast and so complete.(Also note that even the name of the "Thema" system is itself a loanword from turkish "Tumen", a military unit of 10,000 soldiers)
The Roman army of this period(800s) was characterised by the numerous mercenaries who served both the Emperor and the several thematic strategoi. The Turkic peoples of the Eurasian steppe, like the Khazars, the Patzinak (Pechenegs) and the Cumans (Kipchak), were included in the army under the status of foederati and employed mainly as mounted archers. Russ (Scandinavians), Slavs, Normans, Italians, Germans and even Arabs and Seljuk Turks, among many others, were employed either singly or in ready-to-hire units.
The Themes system was developed under Constans II and Constantine IV (although some attribute it to Heraclius) in order to face the constant threat of the Muslim Arabs who had taken Syria, Egypt and Mesopotamia in the 7th century. Thus, the first themes appeared in the Eastern provinces, which were both the richest and most emperiled.
The Hetaereia ("Companions") regiments, although including Greeks, were mainly composed of Khazars and Pharganos (from the Fergana Valey, in Central Asia), all of them of Turkic stock, and also Maghlavitae, which were probably Muslims from the Maghrib.

Sources:

  • http://www.imperobizantino.it/content/view/168/2/
  • Translations and Reprints from Original Sources of European History, Vol. VI:4, Willian Fairley, University of Pennsylvania Press, n.d.
  • Comnena, Anna; translated by Dawes, Elizabeth A.. The Alexiad; London: Routledge, Kegan, Paul, 1928
  • Dennis, George T. Byzantine Heavy Artillery: The Helepolis; Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 39, pp. 99-115; De Re Militari online, 1998
  • Dennis, George T. The Byzantines in Battle; Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 39, pp. 165-178, De Re Militari online, 1998
  • Heath, Ian, McBride, Angus (ill.). Byzantine Armies 886-1118; Osprey Publishing (Men-at-Arms 89), 1979
  • Nicolle, David, McBride, Angus (ill.). Romano-Byzantine Armies 4th - 9th Centuries; Osprey Publishing (Men-at-Arms 247), 1992
  • Nicille, David, McBride, Angus (ill.). Attila and the Nomad Hordes; Osprey Publishing (Elite 30), 1995
  • Treadgold, Warren T. Notes on the Numbers and Organizations of the Ninth-Century Byzantine Army; De Re Militari online, 1980

AverageTurkishJoe 19:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have adjusted the terminology to reflect that Anatolians when the Turks arrived were Greek-speaking due to a Hellenization process as well. I think that's a valid point. The overall impact of mercenaries though is misleading as it's difficult to determine how much of an impact thousands of people would have on a population of millions. This same is true with Turkic warriors. Obviously, small groups came, mostly males who married local females, over a period of centuries etc. There are often two histories to understand though. One is about military events, rulers, and other prominent peoples and then there are the masses who aren't written about. Since many believe that Anatolians were only part Greek, while most were Hellenized following Alexander's conquest, it is important to note that this is rarely mentioned as the history of the region is related through the rulers. Thus, my point is that military events do not equal population replacement unless coupled with mass genocide of local populations as took place in Central Asia when the Mongols arrived there. Tombseye 20:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Turks are herdsmen-pastoral warriors which is likely to have Demographic impact unlike the all male soldiers in barracks. Please see the "Yuruks before Seljuks in Asia Minor" section I just added. AverageTurkishJoe 03:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Inanna wrote:

Yes,my english is not well(cause of many reasons as way of thinking and very diffrent language classes).However i can understand what's going on.If you make his advertisement so much,he will become very famous for sure.Although he degraded the Turkish identy,he is still free.Dont talk about freedom of speech if you want.Because i know how these things go in europe and america...

Were you alive in 1915? Anyway,i trust my state's history foundation.We have offered armenia to set up a common commission about this issue.But armenians who were spoiled by someone refused that immediatley.Besides,i use my brain to think what happened.I have posted something for you in my discussion page.You still couldnt reply it...

Armenians are running riot by provacation jewish lobby in USA.Let me tell you an explainition of jews in canada:

"We have provoked armenians in many periods of history, We spread this issue by our strong media in the world, We have trained the young armenians in our camps in palestine by the help of CIA, We named this organisation ASALA and we have sophisticated them about guns and explosives, We sold weapons to this organisation which we produced and earned money, We made problem that to Turkey to divert and keep it our control, ... We have created a vengance sense at all armenians in the world against Turks, We have showed what armenians had done to Turks as Turks have done to armenians and made bleed that bruise again, We recommended armenians to offer lands and indemnity money from Turkey, Our target was not to give lands to armenians, They had already their own state and lands, Even they didnt know how to use their lands, The lands where we offered the name of armenians from Turks,were the lands of great israel state's in future,actually..."

That's the reality.My aim is not making anti-semitism.I am just trying to show the truth.

24 april of each year,Turkey says USA not to recognize the so-called genocide.Then you say that's a work of lobby and offer us to make happy the jewish lobby in USA.By this way they can offer something from Turkey about israel...


Let's come to nations in Turkey.They have always kept their language and religions.We have only assimilated them for military and they died in wars.If we would like to destroy them,we could do this in our best period easily.

Kurdish issue:

Nobody has asked what the americans think about politics of Turkey.You are one of the last state who should talk about this.I mean it doesnt interest you.For puerto rico; what changes if they stay there or not? America(continental) is new world.No history,no spiritual importance,not a home of a nation.Even you are not a nation(racially)...

So why did you found a kurdish government in north iraq and terrorist PKK's flags are everywhere? Answer: USA wants to set up a second israel against Turkey.However we took precautions about this.You are not the only clever in this arena...

All we know USA thinks to occupation of Turkey.You try to collect all neighbours of Turkey(iraq,syria,iran and founding bases in armenia...).After all,we are a nation who is 11,000 years old.We are the only nation who were never ruled by others in all history.We have too much experience.I mean nothing happens to Turkey...

Well i am not paranoid.You government try to make you paranoid against muslims by el-kaide.Do you really believe that 3-5 men in mountains could explode a bomb in the middle of istanbul or new york.Of course not.El-kaide is only a name.I really wonder why all terrorist are from Pakistan.May the reason Pakistan is one of the best allies of USA? So what happened el-kaide? You occupied afghanistan.Couldnt you find usame bin ladin yet? Too strange...

-Inanna-

Inanna, you say your aim is not to make "anti-semitism" but what you wrote here can be interpreted as anti-semitism. Your mention of non existence of "el-keide" damages your credibility a great deal. Let's keep on the topic and stop the "hate talk". AverageTurkishJoe 13:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


I am saying what i think and this is the discussion page.Everybody should share their opinions and everybody should respect this.It is not "hate talk",it is opinions and reality for me.If i will be banned,doesnt matter.I never impressed myself.Besides,they are doing Anti-Turkish propagandas and force us to accept that.Is this justice then?

-Inanna-

I think it's extremely naive to believe that the Turkish government has never lied or done anything wrong. There are no governments or people on earth who can claim that. I would also add that Armenians tend to overlook the role of Armenian rebels which may have prompted harsh Turkish reprisals though. As for Kurdish separatists, well we can agree to disagree on that one as I still support the self-determination of peoples. You do realize that not all Jews work together or think the same way. A professor at UCLA who happens to be of Jewish religion (by birth anyway) named Stanford Shaw has written a number of books about Turkey and is married to a Turkish woman and I actually knew his daughter at UCLA and he was actually one of the staunch defenders of Turkey against Armenian claims that it was genocide rather than reprisals. Frankly, lumping any group together in terms of how they think does constitute a form of prejudice. All Jews don't even support Israel or US foreign policy (see Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Howard Zinn etc.), so your whole point about some collusion sounds a bit bizarre frankly. Well, if Turkey is a nation that is 11,000 years old then you must support the idea that most Turks are not from Central Asia as well. As for the US wanting to occupy Turkey, I'm really not sure why the US would want to since Turkey does whatever the US govt. asks anyway. The US tends to go for military occupation when its policies are challenged. You're just kind of making things up with that don't you think? You really missed the point I was making. Americans fought a Civil War to keep the country together once. That will not happen again. Most of us don't want to force people to remain a part of our nation. And for the record the former Czechoslovakia broke up and they have quite a bit of culture and common history. The Israeli issue is not really related to the Kurdistan issue. The US backed Israel in part due to the pro-Israel lobby and in part due to Cold War dynamics as well as what some people perceive as US 'interests'. What that has to do with the Kurds I don't quite know. I back the efforts of the Palestinians to have a state and apply the same to any other peoples. Not really sure what you're getting at here. I don't support the war on terror and don't believe all Muslims are the same. You really don't know very much about the US actually. We have a large population that is against the war in Iraq, does not believe everything our government tells us (unlike yourself as it seems that you believe everything your government tells you without question), and the Al Qaeda tangent is strange on your part. Al Qaeda is, supposedly, a loose group of independent cells with some connections that, I admit, the US govt. tries really hard to establish (as they tried with Iraq even though the evidence was really flimsy) ties that don't exist for their own purposes though. And that's a really absurd thing to say that all terrorists come from Pakistan. Perhaps you didn't notice that most of the terrorists from 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and that the bombings in Spain were by North Africans or that the people involved in the London bombings and attempts were Pakistani-British and Somalis. That doesn't sound like they're all coming from Pakistan. You could have made a better case by alluding the US-Saudi alliance, especially in terms of the 9/11 aftermath.
Here's the other difference. I don't relate everything Turkey or the govt. of Turkey has done to all Turks. Meanwhile, you seem to be laboring under the illusion that all Americans are responsible or support what our govt. does and says. You seem okay with criticizing others, but don't seem to take anything criticism back. That how it is then? The Turkish govt. does no wrong and everyone else is out to get them? Sounds pretty paranoid to me. Tombseye 19:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that the article comes close to saying "Turks are rootless bastards" without actually saying it. Anti-Turkish prejudices go back a millenia it is nothing new. Turks were instrumental in creating the European (Western) identity; Europe created its self identity as the antithesis of the Turks. So I don't think this is a recent secret conspiracy against the Turks. It is pretty much socially accepted and practiced out in the open. Nobody is shunned for saying bad things about the Turks. History books are full of this prejudice. This article is just one of them. AverageTurkishJoe 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The intent is not to say that Turks are rootless anything though. The article makes it a point that the Turks of Turkey are largely a product of cultural assimilation. This can also be applied to Algeria where most Arabs are Berbers who adopted the language and switched their religion from Christianity to Islam. This does not imply anything prejudicial. I do agree that Turks are often demonized unfairly though. And I also agree that the Armenian genocide requires more context in terms of what may have prompted Turkish actions. Also, read Stanford Shaw's work History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey and you'll find that not everyone in the West seeks to depict Turks in only a negative light. Academic views tend to be more nuanced and debate is welcomed, not excluded. Popular opinion though is shaped by political interests though yes. America has a lot of Armenians and Greeks who aren't fond of Turkey and do try to promote an unrealistic portrayal of Turks, but this can only change if everyone tries to better understand matters, both historical and otherwise. Tombseye 19:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Of course jews will support Turkey.We are training israeli army and pilots under difficult weather conditions.We are one of the first states who recognized israel state.We aren't doing these due to we love jews so much.Let me tell you darling;

Israel is a small state but like an american state.Their enemies arabs are millions of.Israel is in fight with syria(especially),iraq and iran(who are our enemies).Our ones of the worst enemies syria is spending all her money to military against israel and cant develop as economic.Israel spends too much money for arms also.They were sucessful in past against arabs.Because arabs had just saved from colonization and their population was not so much.Now they are 150 millions.Israel will never be able to grow anymore.Let we say if they did that.They can never take over control on arabs.We really support them because until a small american state israel lives,there will never be stableness in middle east and there will be under our control.

Do jews love Turkey?So how will you explain israel is training kurdish terrorist in north iraq? Besides,i have read talmud.I know their (dream)state's boerders and i have information about their tactiques...

Almost all jews in Turkey marry with Turks as well.I can understand their cooperation with Turkey against armenians because armenians hate jews more than everything as greeks.

You cant deny that USA doesnt have eye on Turkey.We have the %70 of bor minerals in the world what is future's energy resource.We live on oil and natural gas ocean as Shell's CEO's said.However,problems never end in the eastern Turkey.At first armenian and now kurdish.Our lovely allies never gave us technology while USSR was helping us.These are not coincidences.Besides,Turkey is based on the world's most important geo-politic area.

Let's come to muslim terrorist issue.When ETA or IRA does terror,you dont call them catholic terror.US try to show muslims as terrorists because after Soviets has demolished,a big threat was ended.USA couldnt find anybody to sell weapons.She needed a new big threat for the world."Muslim"(as you call) were good for this job.I am not saying these dut to most of my people are muslims.I am saying what i see.

Terrorism could never win anything at Turkey in all history.If who(europe,america or anybody) supports terror or train terrorist,she will pay this too difficult.Look at france! They were the center of ASALA terrorists.However,Turkey sent her secret nationalist men to paris and cleaned all these scums.Nobody could understand that it was done by Turkey.France is the biggest supporter of armenians at the moment.Even they declared this year as "armenian year".They will pay what they all did to us.We found the victims of France in history.They have killed about 1,5-2 million arabs in algeria.They already didnt like them.Now,they will hate french people more than everything.There are millions of arabs in france.Only 2-3 blacks ravaged there.We have 400,000 Turks in france.Can you image what will happen when we provoke algerians against france.This will be end of her.Eeehh...they shouldnt have played with Turks.I am sorry but they will burn...

I reccomend you stop keeping PKK terrorists and set up kurdish government in north iraq.We dont have any other 300 billion dollars to spend and loose 70,000 women and children again.We can do everything against that.Our plan is already going very well,actually...

-Inanna-

I really can't comprehend where your going with the Israel thing, but I was trying to relate to you to not link all Jews to Israel and not that I am fond of Israeli policies or actions. Many people argue that rather than Israel being a US 'state' that it is the US that does what Israel wants, but that's not really the point here. As for all the people who hate other people etc., I'm again at a loss as to how to respond to that. I'm going to guess that Armenians don't all think the same either and saying who they all hate and don't hate is a bit of a stretch.
Turkey's the world's most important geopolitical what? Come on. A bit full of ourselves aren't we? There is no single most important area in the world really. It's all a case by case basis. The US looks to safeguard its interests everywhere in the world, including Turkey, but frankly I don't know where that line of thinking is headed either.
They will pay for what they did to you? Scums? They will burn? What are you talking about? Can you try to make sense and discuss the issues of this page. Your other views are frankly strange and do not translate well into English.
You do realize that terrorism can be state sponsored and conducted by nation-states as well as organizations right? No of course not. I don't understand your PKK reference either. I'm NOT supporting terrorism, but the right to self-determination of all peoples. Clearly, we aren't understanding each other as this language and cultural barrier is bigger than I initially thought. Tombseye 20:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi I would like the anti-Turkish bias removed from this article

What do the harems have to do with the Turkish people? It is not as if a significant part of the Turkish population is descended from the harems.It just sounds like people who have a dislike for Turks are posting irrevelent information just to remind people of the negative aspects of Ottoman Turkey. DivineIntervention 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just editted some of the article with more relevent and useful information. DivineIntervention 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Your edits are mainly good ones. I made some minor adjustments and it is actually correct to state that when we say Greek it should be clear that these were mainly Hellenized Anatolian peoples such as remnants of Hittites, Phrygians etc. The Armenian and Kurdish groups were probably small regional peoples in the east as well when the Turks arrived. Overall, I saw nothing wrong with your edits and I think this kind of collective working together helps the article. Thanks. Tombseye 20:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi the so called neutral

Khoikhoi you dont trick anyone. You are definantly someone who dislikes Turkey. I spent some time changing some pretty un-wikipedic statements in the article. You then go ahead and revert back. DivineIntervention 22:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I meant to revert someone else's edits but I accidentally reverted yours. I have changed it back. Sorry again. --Khoikhoi 23:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Khoikhoi's only aim is showing Turks and Turkey terrible...

Judging from Khoikhoi's other contributions, I do not think that his main objective is to villify the Turkish people or the citizens or institutions of Turkey. I would strongly advise against further accusations (unless you can provide some indication that suggests or proves that his contributions should in fact be considered tantamount to ethnic hatred).
You might eventually be blocked if it is determined that you are engaging in continued personal attacks, and as a consequence WP would then lose a (potentially) valuable source of information or perspectives. So take a deeeeeep breath and try to be more factual and specific in your accusations in future and let's work out a good article that is deemed factual and correct. //Big Adamsky 01:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry for jumping the gun, in future I will not take things like this personally. I apologize Khoikhoi but the main reason I lashed out at you is because I have encountered people that do habour hatred for the Turks, the Turks dont deserve this constant negative portrayal as neither does Iran which is like Turkey an enthnic mosaic of different peoples, the Turks are one of a variety of peoples and faiths I want to stand up for and try and eliminate the baises - (e.g. midnight express).
Does the word "turkified" which in my opinion is not very un-encyclopedic. This word is used by Greeks and Armenians to spread anti-Turkish propaganda have to remain right on the top of this artile?? Cant the whole issue be moved somewhere into the main part of the text (such as the section entitled "The Modern Turks). As for "turkified" this is in itself a harsh term which could be better rewritten/reworded. It ignores the fact that alot of the native population voluntary converted to Islam (in Islam the word revert is used instead of convert) and that alot of people adopted Turkish culture freely. Alot of the Greek speaking population of Asia minor were Hellenized minorities - a case in point is Paul the apostle (a Hellenized Jew). To be quite frank to say that most Turks were people who were forced to become Turks which is basically what Turkified means is derogative. DivineIntervention 02:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

stop redicting the page

TUrks and Turks of Turkey should be different article. PLease, stop redicting the page. I am sure, Khoi.. did it.

User:DivineIntervention, thank you for your addings.

It's not a matter of what you think is right, it's because most articles that link to Turks refer to the Turks of Turkey. --Khoikhoi 08:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
It is a matter what your purpose is. Turks and Turks of Turkey have many common points. HOwever, Oghuzs are only one of the Turkic tribes.
According to your opinion. It is NOT a matter of what you think is right for the page. You are a REVERT-FETISH. No more than that.
Also, i saw you can spell Turkish. Don't tell me that you are an American. You are a Kurdish.
Lol, your English is so bad I can't even understand what you're saying. How am I Kurdish? Why don't you go outside and play with your little friends. --Khoikhoi 08:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
If you dont understand my english, why don't we speak Turkish ? :),
Because I'm not Turkish. --Khoikhoi 08:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Puhahaha, you are so funny, ı didn't call you, Turk. You are a Kurdish. Well, without a doubt, you don't know that Kurds also can speak Turkish.
If we come back to redicting issue, There is a general page which has all information about Turks. Additionally, there is a page for Turkey too. The answer of the question why my browser is redicting to this page is because you want people to know what you wrote.

I am thinking of redicting the page to your userpage, so everybody can have knowledge what are your beliefs, values. --hybrid lily 08:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

For the last time, I'm not Kurdish. Ok, fine, let's play your little game. You're Chinese.
I already explained to you why the Turks page should redirect here. You obviously didn't read my comment. --Khoikhoi 09:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I explained to you what my opinion is. These pages should be seperated. Besides, I am telling you again, it's your opinion that Turks should be redicted to this page. Did you try to someone explain his/her opinion about it ? NOOOOOOOOOOOO, because you are so selfish.
Well, why not Chiniese, or Mongoloid Islamis terrorist. That is what you want people to know Turkey. Dont you ?
Also, If all Turks were converts of Armenians, Kurds and Greek, Why wouldn't you give me a chance to be convert of Chinese. --85.99.202.76 09:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)



Kokikoki is not kurdish but he loves kurds so much and training those terrorists in north iraq against Turkey.

-Inanna-

Wow, how stupid are you guys? Speaking of selfish people Hybridlily, isn't changing the picture to someone that you personally perfer considered selfish, last time I checked it was.
Another thing I just discovered is that you can't read. Where does this article fucking say taht ALL Turks are Armenian, Kurd, and Greek converts? --Khoikhoi 17:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Please, let's know why you want to see Orhan Pamuk. Have you ever read one of his book ? Let's discuss about his style.
Hahahahha, why don't you read the article ? The first paragraph...
Lastly, KEEP YOUR WATCH DOGS AWAY ! I know you have many of them who can do favor for you when you are blocked.
Puahahahha, Khoi.. you don't know any shit about Turkey. Istanbul is not the biggest city of Turkey. It has only the biggest part of the population. Hava a look at the map of Turkey.
The biggest city of Turkey is Konya.
I never thought I'd meet anyone that's never gone to school. -- Khoikhoi 17:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


Konya = 40 824 m2
Istanbul = 5 170 m2
Sources Cities of Turkey
Without a doubt, you dont know any shit about math. If I were you, I would spend my time to study on Math.
Okay, this argument is going nowhere and serves no purpose. Rather than throwing insults around, we need to discuss things. Clearly, there is a language barrier here though and a misinterpretation of a lot things said. By the way 'biggest city' in its connotation in English usually means population and not actual size. Thus, New York City is the biggest city in the US and not Los Angeles. I've adjusted the beginning paragraph to reflect the variety of Anatolians and as Big Adamsky tried to get through, let's assume good faith and stop making wild assertions here okay people? Tombseye 20:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


It wasn't ' the biggest ', it was ' the largest ' before I changed. No matter if you changed it as ' the biggest '. --85.99.147.107 22:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
This is an example of a language barrier. You don't understand English vernacular usage. Largest, when referring to cities, is still synonymous with biggest. Usually, people specify land area when talking about city size as most of the time the usage is a reference to population. Tombseye 22:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
You are saying that both ' the biggest ' and ' the largest ' have the same meaning vernacular usage. I am asking because you answered either with the same answer.

List of Kokikoki's Watchdogs

  • Eliezer
  • Pgk
  • Sam_Korn
  • Mrent
  • Can't sleep, clown will eat me
When Khoi is blocked by admins, he writes messages to his friends. If you look at these users pages, you will see that
Do me a favor and change the article. If I do it, I will be probably blocked.

--hybrid lily 18:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually have never left any comments on any of those users talk page's. See for yourself. --Khoikhoi 21:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
of course you deleted all the evidences. I saw it with my own eyes. --85.99.147.107 22:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


The last is much more better than the previous one. Now, I want to add more pictures which contains more than 4 pictures and Orhan Pamuk' on the page. If is it OK, I will do it

--85.99.147.107 23:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


You forgot Tombseye in "List of Kokikoki's Watchdogs"

-Inanna-


Thank you for expanding the picture, -Inanna-. It looks better now. --hybrid lily 23:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


I have worked so much on it.It had taken more than 4 hours of mine.Even i put traitor Orhan Pamuk but they still try to errase it(!)

-Inanna-


I have reaserached new things about Hürrem Sultan.She was not daughter of an orthodox family.She was jewish origin.Jews of russia,ukraine(and this area) are Turkic origin(Khazarian,Krymchak...).She was probably a "Krymchak".Besides,she had grown in Turkey since she was 10 years old and had Ottoman Culture...

-Inanna-

That makes even less sense. Russian Jews are not all Khazars first of all and secondly, what research are you talking about? Her name and her father's profession are mentioned in various books about her and I'm the only one referencing any of it. Tombseye 00:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Everybody knows her as jewish in here.Because she was so...and Tombseye,are you girl?

-Inanna-

Who is this everybody? I'd like to know. What's your source? Your contentions contradict everything about her including her Ukrainian origins. Aside from the Bulgarians reference you have yet to offer up any reliable references to anything except your own opinion, which given your track record, hasn't been all that reliable. Getting personal again are we? You realize you broke the 3 revert rule? How unfortunate for you. Tombseye 00:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)