Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
I think the problem here is that Cavann is mixing up [[Turkey]] and [[Turkish people]], which are different topics, and hence why they have separate articles. [[User:Athenean|Athenean]] ([[User talk:Athenean|talk]]) 21:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC) |
I think the problem here is that Cavann is mixing up [[Turkey]] and [[Turkish people]], which are different topics, and hence why they have separate articles. [[User:Athenean|Athenean]] ([[User talk:Athenean|talk]]) 21:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
:Source:Stokes, Jamie; Gorman, Anthony (2010), "Turks: nationality", Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Infobase Publishing, ISBN 143812676X. Pages: 721-722 |
|||
:{{cquote|INCEPTION AS A NATION |
|||
Archaeologist have discovered some of the oldest |
|||
known human structures, a series of ritual |
|||
or temple sites, in southern Anatolia. Dating |
|||
from 9000 or 8000 b.c.e., structures at Gobekli |
|||
Tepe and other places are believed to have been |
|||
built by preagricultural cultures and include |
|||
some of the earliest representations of human |
|||
and animal figures ever discovered. Bronze Age |
|||
technology also came to Anatolia early, and the |
|||
peninsula was one of the centers of early civilization |
|||
from the fourth millennium b.c.e. In |
|||
the third millennium b.c.e. Anatolia was part |
|||
of the Akkadian Empire, the world’s earliest |
|||
known empire, and seems to have been an important |
|||
source of metals for its Mesopotamian |
|||
overlords (see Akkadians). |
|||
The greatest indigenous civilization to |
|||
arise in Anatolia was that of the Hittites, |
|||
which thrived from the 17th to the 14th centuries |
|||
b.c.e. and enjoyed a revival between about |
|||
1200 and 700 b.c.e. This was supplanted by the |
|||
Lydian Kingdom (see Lydians), which was then |
|||
conquered by the Iranian Achaemenid Empire |
|||
in the sixth century b.c.e. (see Achaemenids; |
|||
Persians). Conquest by Alexander the Great in the fourth century b.c.e. was followed by rule |
|||
under the Seleucids (see Greeks) and eventual |
|||
incorporation into Roman territory (see |
|||
Romans) in the second century b.c.e. Parts of |
|||
Anatolia were ruled by the Romans and their |
|||
successors, the Byzantines, for over a thousand |
|||
years until the 15th century c.e. Other parts of |
|||
Anatolia, especially in the south and east, were |
|||
ruled by a succession of colorful and powerful |
|||
kingdoms including the Armenians, the Seljuk sultans of Rum (see Seljuks; Turkic Peoples), |
|||
and the Ilkhans. |
|||
The movement of Turkic peoples into Anatolia |
|||
began in the 11th century c.e. following |
|||
the defeat of Byzantine forces by the Seljuks at Manzikert in 1071....}} |
|||
:If the paragraph is not restored, I'm reporting this at ANI. [[User:Cavann|Cavann]] ([[User talk:Cavann|talk]]) 23:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:21, 29 August 2013
Turkish people is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
On "Turkish Nation"
According to the definition by the state of Turkey, "Turkish Nation" (Türk Milleti) exists. But, this is different concept (political concept) and one of the Turkic peoples is explained in the this article. I think description of nation has to be removed and if need, the article Turkish Nation can be created. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- The following quotation from an academical research explains the issue: The word "Turk" or "Turkish" is used for two different meanings: first, it is a name for the people who migrated from Central Asia to Anatolia, and chose to make this land their country. Second, it is also used as term of national identity for the people living in Turkey. The Turkish national identity defined in the Turkish Constitution is a legal conception, not an ethnic one. You can check the article from this link of pa.edu.tr. It is better that a nation stays in the introductory statement. Thank you. ModulaX6 (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- We should remember the meaning of the nation: Nation can refer to people who share a common territory and government (for example the inhabitants of a sovereign state) irrespective of their ethnic make-up; that is, a nation state. In the same way, Turkey is also a nation state, and all the people (whatever their ethnicity are) are defined as "Turkish" in the Turkish Constitution. Thanks. ModulaX6 (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- The following quotation from an academical research explains the issue: The word "Turk" or "Turkish" is used for two different meanings: first, it is a name for the people who migrated from Central Asia to Anatolia, and chose to make this land their country. Second, it is also used as term of national identity for the people living in Turkey. The Turkish national identity defined in the Turkish Constitution is a legal conception, not an ethnic one. You can check the article from this link of pa.edu.tr. It is better that a nation stays in the introductory statement. Thank you. ModulaX6 (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Why ?
Why are you (editors editing this article) only adding information about politics, demographics? The editors here removed cultural information on Turkish people, but did not rewrite the paragraph. Are you planning add "culture"? Kavas (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I did not remove anything, feel free to add it if it is concise and sourced. Cavann (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
grammar check
"Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups, in addition to neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples, despite speaking a Turkic language, which was adopted by the local populations who predominantly had spoken Indo-European languages." Is the sentence properly written? Kavas (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. Seems to me like maybe it is Cavann who should learn English before suggesting others to do so. --Mttll (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:OOA
Reverting even the most simplest of things. I urge you here to stop this, Cavann. --Mttll (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Turkish people/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 15:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Fascinating article! Review will proceed soon. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a marvelous work. Both the images and the prose pass. I have never reviewed an article of this volume in which there are no issues to be allayed. Excellent nomination, and a congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
POV?
I'm getting the impression that this article is trying to convince its readers that Turks are native to Asia Minor. Turks are bearers of the Turkic culture, not Anatolian. They are indeed, genetically, far from the "pure" Turkic people such as Turkems, Uzbeks and Kyrgyz, but that doesn't change the facts that Turks are Turkic people and culturally, have nothing to do with the ancient Anatolians. The sentence "Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups" isn't clear enough. One can think that the Turks are just the modern form of the ancient Anatolians, like Italians are of the ancient Romans, which isn't really the case. --Երևանցի talk 00:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right. You can't find another source who approaches the Turkish people like the lead of this article does. This is just a one-man POV show of User:Cavann. --Mttll (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- This article apishly asserts that Turkish people are native to Anatolia, and originally of ancient indigenous people of Anatolia such as Greeks and Armenians. If so, it means that Anatolia is the motherland of today's Turkish people. In my opinion, the article's intro should be changed. Turkish people is a different ethnic group descending from Turkic tribes migrating to Anatolia, but not a total mixture of Greeks, Armenians etc as it's claimed as a hypothesis in the article's intro ridiculously. In fact, it's not scientific, just includes POV of a few jagged editors. Indigenous people of Anatolia left Turkey with Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, and Tehcir Law. By making Turkish people the mixture of Armenian and Greek means nothing than asserting that Turkish people are the owner of Anatolia. 141.196.81.85 (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- In the article this claim is sourced with 7 (!) academic sources. If any other claims with respectable references are available, feel free to discuss them in talk page, instead of criticizing the well-sourced information in such manner. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- You can give 100 academic sources. The problem here is the tone and the POV wording. --Երևանցի talk 17:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I ignored this nonsensical crap, do not take that as permission to disrupt this article. Take your "concerns" to the likes of US Congress of Library sources, and Cavalli-Sforza, and journal articles. Cavann (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like to ask you to use a more appropriate language. Read my comments over. I don't dispute the reliability of the given sources. The way this article is written is what makes it biased. It is trying to convince the reader that Turks are native to Anatolia, which isn't the case. --Երևանցի talk 20:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Find reliable sources, and quote them. I am not interested in opinions or interpretations of far-right nationalistic types, such as yourself, [1] [2] or what you imagine the article is trying to "convince readers". This will be my final response to you, unless you find reliable sources to "set the tone" you want. I'm not here to waste my time. Cavann (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like to ask you to use a more appropriate language. Read my comments over. I don't dispute the reliability of the given sources. The way this article is written is what makes it biased. It is trying to convince the reader that Turks are native to Anatolia, which isn't the case. --Երևանցի talk 20:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- I ignored this nonsensical crap, do not take that as permission to disrupt this article. Take your "concerns" to the likes of US Congress of Library sources, and Cavalli-Sforza, and journal articles. Cavann (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- You can give 100 academic sources. The problem here is the tone and the POV wording. --Երևանցի talk 17:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- In the article this claim is sourced with 7 (!) academic sources. If any other claims with respectable references are available, feel free to discuss them in talk page, instead of criticizing the well-sourced information in such manner. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- This article apishly asserts that Turkish people are native to Anatolia, and originally of ancient indigenous people of Anatolia such as Greeks and Armenians. If so, it means that Anatolia is the motherland of today's Turkish people. In my opinion, the article's intro should be changed. Turkish people is a different ethnic group descending from Turkic tribes migrating to Anatolia, but not a total mixture of Greeks, Armenians etc as it's claimed as a hypothesis in the article's intro ridiculously. In fact, it's not scientific, just includes POV of a few jagged editors. Indigenous people of Anatolia left Turkey with Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, and Tehcir Law. By making Turkish people the mixture of Armenian and Greek means nothing than asserting that Turkish people are the owner of Anatolia. 141.196.81.85 (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Moderm Turkish people aren't Ancient Anatolians.
Moderm Turkish people mostly descent: Albanian, Serb, Macedonians, Bulgarian, Crimean, Circassian, Georgian, Laz, Kurd, Zaza, Arap, Cretan and Mongol-Nogai were islamised made by Ottoman Sultan(Caliph). Now they call themselves (Pseudo)Turks.
What happened to the indigenous people of Anatolia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adana_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zilan_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersim_Massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.169.73 (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
2+ millenia time gap (Hittites at the first paragraph of the history of Turkish people?)
A really wonder whats the meaning to mention the Hittites, and other Bronze age info about Anatolia, as part of the history of the Turkish people. For sure there is a huge time gap (some millenia) before the first presence of Turkish people in that region.Alexikoua (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I can only assume that this is just part of an ulranationalist autochtony theory, which has no place, for sure, in this community.Alexikoua (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Read the sources. It is interesting that you deleted an entire paragraph based only on your assumptions. Cavann (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, by encyclopedia, I mean any kind of encyclopedia. As for reliable sources, all they say is that modern Turkish people partially descend from pre-Turkish Anatolians in terms of genetics. How do you go from that to inserting a Hittite Empire map into an article about Turkish people when there is over 2 thousand years gap between them? By being insane of course. --Mttll (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- (ignore trolling) Exactly, not a single reference confirms that there is an ancestral link between Hittites-Bronze Age/Ancient Anatolia populations and Turkish people, especially when we have a huge time gap this is completely science fiction. This isn't the history of Turkey but of the Turkish people. So, in case no serious mainstream reference is provided to confirm it, this paragraph gets out as an extreme case of wp:synth, wp:or, wp:pov.Alexikoua (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- The only relevant fact I see in mainstream bibliography, is that this was an unhistorical theory (national myth) "According to the Turkish myth, the Hittites were bonafide "Turks"!. The tiny Ottoman state was the catalyst of a titanic rebirth! it meant the reawakening of the Hittite Turk gloriously returning as the Ottoman Turk.". There is no serious argument in order to add this as real history.Alexikoua (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- This gets even more problematic since the users that contributed to this article, choose specific groups of peoples that lived in the are of modern Turkey, (Hittites etc.), but on the other hand population such as the Anatolian Greeks or Armenians, who lived in the past in this region, are not even part of this strange mix of populations.Alexikoua (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that Cavann is mixing up Turkey and Turkish people, which are different topics, and hence why they have separate articles. Athenean (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Source:Stokes, Jamie; Gorman, Anthony (2010), "Turks: nationality", Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Infobase Publishing, ISBN 143812676X. Pages: 721-722
“ | INCEPTION AS A NATION
Archaeologist have discovered some of the oldest known human structures, a series of ritual or temple sites, in southern Anatolia. Dating from 9000 or 8000 b.c.e., structures at Gobekli Tepe and other places are believed to have been built by preagricultural cultures and include some of the earliest representations of human and animal figures ever discovered. Bronze Age technology also came to Anatolia early, and the peninsula was one of the centers of early civilization from the fourth millennium b.c.e. In the third millennium b.c.e. Anatolia was part of the Akkadian Empire, the world’s earliest known empire, and seems to have been an important source of metals for its Mesopotamian overlords (see Akkadians). The greatest indigenous civilization to arise in Anatolia was that of the Hittites, which thrived from the 17th to the 14th centuries b.c.e. and enjoyed a revival between about 1200 and 700 b.c.e. This was supplanted by the Lydian Kingdom (see Lydians), which was then conquered by the Iranian Achaemenid Empire in the sixth century b.c.e. (see Achaemenids; Persians). Conquest by Alexander the Great in the fourth century b.c.e. was followed by rule under the Seleucids (see Greeks) and eventual incorporation into Roman territory (see Romans) in the second century b.c.e. Parts of Anatolia were ruled by the Romans and their successors, the Byzantines, for over a thousand years until the 15th century c.e. Other parts of Anatolia, especially in the south and east, were ruled by a succession of colorful and powerful kingdoms including the Armenians, the Seljuk sultans of Rum (see Seljuks; Turkic Peoples), and the Ilkhans. The movement of Turkic peoples into Anatolia began in the 11th century c.e. following the defeat of Byzantine forces by the Seljuks at Manzikert in 1071.... |
” |