Talk:Turkish people#GA reassessment

I recommend a change to the info box of this page. Update it with the newest information available. Also instead of directing you to the country of where said Turks live, it should redirect to a Wikipedia page of specifically the Turks who live in that country. (Example clicking on Macedonia in the infobox should in my opinion show you Macedonian Turks and not just the country of North Macedonia.) BulgarianSemite (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

could you also update the 'religion' in the infobox? it clearly negates the christian turks (like Autocephalous Turkish Orthodox Patriarchate or protestants)83.9.115.168 (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is the reason why an advanced editor Besogur reverted my version? Nifushi (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'll remove the excessive Chinese sources used. See WP:NONENG. Also see WP:Article size. Excessive Chinese etymology could also be WP:UNDUE.

:You are also adding too short, one or two sentence paragraphs, why? See MOS:PARA. Bogazicili (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Nifushi}}, I am also concerned about misrepresentation of sources. Where does "and people from Turkestan region" come from two sources in the text in this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_people&diff=1284887348&oldid=1284752154]

:I have:

:Kushner: {{tq2|... peasant or nomad of Anatolia.}}

:Meeker: {{tq2|... to a Muslim Anatolian villager or a Turcoman nomad.}}

:Turcoman nomad may simply refer to Yörüks? Bogazicili (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Bogazicili I took Chinese translation from Göktürks. Contextually, it is kinda necessary to keep this in Göktürks as a historical reference but I see no problem if you want to remove it from here.

::Yörük is a coined term for Western Anatolian branch of Turcomans, created by the Ottomans to distinguish their Turcomans from Iran Shah's Eastern Turcomans.

::They are the same thing, and I believe Turcoman is a lot more widely used by Oghuz Turks during Ottoman Empire. Not every Turcoman is a Yörük but every Yörük is a Turcoman at the end of the day.

::From H. Inalcik's (2015) "Rumors and Truths of Otttoman Empire" p. 38

::{{tq|During Ottomans, collective term used for Turkoman tribes was "Yörük." Ottoman bureaucrats, concerned with distinguishing their own Turkmens from the Shah-loyal Kızılbaş Turkmens, adopted the blanket term "Yörük" for their Turkomans.}}

::That being said, "and people from Turkestan region" comes from study of Moosa Matti (February 1, 1988).{{Cite book |last=Moosa |first=Matti |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WYO1BqdvX9EC&q=donkey+turk |title=Extremist Shiites: The Ghulat Sects |date=February 1, 1988 |publisher=Syracuse University Press |isbn=978-0-8156-2411-0 |location= |page=430 |via=Google Books}} I read it from Anti-Turkish sentiment.

::Matti Mosa:

::{{tq2|To the Ottomans, "Turk" was a name that belonged to the people of Turkestan and nomadic hordes who roamed the steppes of Khurasan...}}

::I thought I read the same thing in Kushner's article. I will add Mosa's study now. Thanks for letting me know. Nifushi (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Your source is Extremist Shiites: The Ghulat Sects p. 430, a 1988 book. That is such a random page from a random source. It's not an overview source. Sources such as this [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002200949703200206] are specifically about identity in Turkey. I would say using such random sources such as Extremist Shiites: The Ghulat Sect in Turkish_people#Definition is WP:UNDUE. Please find an overview source about Turkish people, or Turkey, or Ottoman Empire.

:::We have the same issue with another one of your edit, when you added content using Ottoman Maritime Wars, 1416–1700 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_people&diff=1284887348&oldid=1284752154]. This also seems WP:UNDUE. Ottoman Empire was of course multi-ethnic but please find an overview source, such as history of Ottoman Empire, or a book specifically about identity issues in Ottoman Empire.

:::Given the issues above, I'll be reverting the recent changes. Given that you are a new editor, and we are already having so many issues, please make any further suggestions in talk page first before editing the article. Bogazicili (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}

I see that the Christianity and Judaism was probably 'deliberately' left out. I've reinstated it per WP:N. I also took the liberty of replacing the sources with Oxford per WP:RS. Also, Islam does not need to be detailed, hence it has already detailed in Religion in Turkey and Islam in Turkey. KarsVegas36 (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:No, it is important to note which sect of Islam. Secondly Turkish "Jews/Christians" aren't ethnic Turkish. This is not nationality infobox. The article mentions 0 thing about this. Beshogur (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::They are ethnically Turkish. I am one of them. In fact, the article mentions about this. You can check the sub-section on, Turkish_people#Definition. There is no 'genetic' Turkishness as you well know. What about Afro-Turks or Karamanlides? Even if that was the case, there are a ton of converts anyways. Both on Christianity and Judaism. KarsVegas36 (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Afro Turks aren't related to the Turkish people. Karamanlides origins are disputed, and they don't live in Turkey anymore. Stop coming with random information. {{tq| There is no 'genetic' Turkishness as you well know}} is nonsense because this article is not about Turkish citizenship, but ethnic Turks. {{tq| I am one of them}} yeah we don't work with "trust me bro" thing. Even if there are thousands, it's not prominent to add to the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::'Turkishness' isn't a ethnoreligious matter. This page covers people who lives outside of Turkey as well so 'they're not living in Turkey' isn't applicable.

::::As also stated in the Minorities in Turkey, a good chunk of Turkey 'descents' from some other 'ethnic' group. Afro-Turks 'are' Turkish with African descent. Hakan Şükür is a Turkish footballer of Albanian descent. Hedo is a Turkish basketballer of Bosnian descent. What you're basically saying is against the Article 66 of the Turkish Constitution. There 'are' Christians who are Turkish. It is not a 'trust me bro' kinda situation. Oxford clearly states it, as well as maany other publications which can be accessed in Google Books.

::::Who decides about 'it's not prominent to add to the infobox'? Show me the wiki-gods. KarsVegas36 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::This isn't a forum. There is a whole genetic section below. Also Afro-Turks isn't even mentioned here once. You don't even get the difference between citizenship and ethnicity. {{tq|Who decides about 'it's not prominent to add to the infobox'?}} read WP:NPOV. Beshogur (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::There are like 20 thousand Jews in Turkey and they are mainly Sephardic, not Turkish. So please stop with POV pushing and edit warring. Beshogur (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It isn't about the number, rather the 'importance'. Read WP:NPOV & WP:JDL KarsVegas36 (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Can you show me the page and quote? {{ping|KarsVegas36}} Beshogur (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili, as a follow-up to your comments on WP:ANI, I personally would support creating two different articles and not covering two different concepts within a single article, which would introduce significant ambiguity to this article. Aintabli (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:My initial response is that I disagree. WP:NPOV applies. We should add a section about citizenship and add current debates in Turkey. There is already Turkish nationality law article by the way.

:But I will need to consult more sources when I have time. Bogazicili (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:File:Ethnic-groups-France.png

:I don't think we need something for citizenship. What's the purpose? Turkish is an ethnicity. What are we going to put about citizenship? Famous Turkish citizens? Make a trivial list like old wikipedia. For example a sportsman of Circassian origin. It'll be pure trivial. Here we focus more on ethnic origins like it should. American/British examples are wrong, since those are nationalities. French is not really ethnic term either. French originally referred to various ethnic groups inhabiting there. Spanish is not an ethnic group, but Catalans are. Italian is not an ethnic group, but Sicilians are. It's comparing pears to apples. While Turkish is an ethnic group like Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian. Saying that Turkish ethnicity is based on how you feel is absurd. Beshogur (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::Of course Turkish is an ethnicity. But it may also refer to citizenship. Covering other viewpoints does not invalidate ethnicity viewpoint.

::Rather than personal opinions, we should look at sources:

::*[https://books.google.com/books?id=stl97FdyRswC Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East] have entries for "Turkic Peoples" (starting p. 707) and "Turks: nationality (people of Turkey)" (starting p. 720). p. 720:

:::{{tq2|TURKS: NATIONALITY ... Turks make up about 80 percent of the population; Kurds are the majority of the remaining 20 percent. There are also very small Azeri and Kabard minorities}}

::"Turkic Peoples" entry in above source would correspond to Turkic peoples in Wikipedia. "Turks: nationality" entry would correspond to this article and could be considered an overview source for this article. It mentions things like:

:::{{tq2|The constitution of the Republic of Turkey defines a "Turk" as any citizen of Turkey, thereby creating a distinction from the historical ethnicity of the Turkic people, which includes peoples across western and central Asia.}}

::Saying {{tq|Saying that Turkish ethnicity is based on how you feel is absurd}} does not make sense. There is the constitution of Turkey. It's not just a feeling, it's a law. Ethnicity is also often based on self reporting. For example, if someone has multiple ancestries such as Circassian, Turkish, etc, it's not up to you to define what their ethnicity should be.

::Here are the changes I'm proposing. The article would still mostly retain its current format:

::*Adding citizenship number (around 85 million) in addition to ethnic background number (60,000,000 to 65,000,000) for Turkey in infobox. Both citizenship and ethnic background numbers should be there.

::*I had mentioned adding a section about citizenship. This is already in Turkish_people#Definition. We can add a sentence or two about modern debates in Turkey:

:::[https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9780203118399/routledge-handbook-modern-turkey-metin-heper-sabri-sayari The Routledge Handbook of Modern Turkey], p. 288: {{tq2|A noteworthy change was also present at the discursive level. A debate was raised advocating a civic definition of Turkish national identity. According to this view, the basis of Turkish national identity should not be ethnic Turkish descent (Türk), but origin from the territory constituting the Republic of Turkey (Türkiyeli). Whereas the main aim of the initiative was to bridge the gap between the Turkish state and its biggest minority, the Kurds, ...}}

::*Adding a sentence or two in Turkish_people#Definition that Turk or Turkish may refer to Turkic peoples. Example sources: [https://nes.princeton.edu/publications/turks-world-history The Turks in World History] and Turks entry in [https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/ethnic-groups-of-africa-and-the-middle-east-9781598843620/ Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East]. Explain the concept of "Anatolian Turks" (source example: [https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/turkism-in-eurasia-9780755650309/])

::* Add a sentence about ethnic Kurds and other ethnic or religious minorities in definition section, similar to coverage in Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East.

::*Few other changes.

::In short, there are no issues with covering "different concepts within a single article". This is how it's supposed to be per WP:NPOV. We should just be careful about WP:Balance and WP:PROPORTION. As I mentioned, this article would still largely maintain its current format. It might also take some time for me to make all the changes I mention due to limited time and I'm currently focused on other articles such as Turkey. Bogazicili (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|does not make sense. There is the constitution of Turkey. It's not just a feeling, it's a law. Ethnicity is also often based on self reporting. For example, if someone has multiple ancestries such as Circassian, Turkish, etc, it's not up to you to define what their ethnicity should be.}} I didn't say nationality, I said ethnicity. Ethnicity is based on long lasting traditions and your origins, not on how you feel. Even Ottomans had ethnic censuses on the 17th century for example. If someone's Circassian and Turkish, then he's both. Beshogur (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::[https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/172792] It even existed during Mehmed II's time. His fetihname using various ethnic groups: türk, arab, belüc, halaç, karluk, kürt. Beshogur (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Also it's not minorities' fault that TR doesn't have ethnic censuses. For example Russia has ethnic censuses. We shouldn't be confuse ethnicity and nationality. Both are different things. TR is a state based on ethnic identity, but Syria (although claims to be an Arab republic, but its citizens are Syrians, not Arabs), Iraq, Iran, etc. isn't. Beshogur (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am not really interested in a WP:Forum debate. By the way, ethnic census is based on self identification. I doubt there is an ethnicity test in Russia.

:::::You can check in WP:RSN if Dergipark is a reliable source and add it into the article with due weight if necessary. Beyond that, I am confused by your response.

:::::Are you stating your personal opinion or are you objecting to my suggestions for changes into the article? If you have any objections based on WP:PAGs, we can proceed to WP:DR. If not, I'll be making those changes over time.

:::::There is no consensus (per reliable sources) definition of what Turkish is and the article should include different viewpoints per WP:NPOV.

:::::[https://www.routledge.com/Patterns-of-Nationhood-and-Saving-the-State-in-Turkey-Ottomanism-Nationalism-and-Multiculturalism/Al/p/book/9780367662646 Patterns of Nationhood and Saving the State in Turkey: Ottomanism, Nationalism and Multiculturalism], 4. Anatomy of a Nationhood: The Essentials of Post-Ottoman Turkishness section:

:::::{{tq2|While some policy-makers, intellectuals, scholars, and journalists promote the persistence of Turk or Turkish as applying to all citizens of Turkey—which has been the case throughout the Republican era—others prefer a change by abandoning the notion of Turk or Turkish and rather adopt Turkiyeli (people from Turkey) or a citizen of the Republic of Turkey.3 While the first group perceives the notion of Turk as a supra-ethnic civic identity, the second group considers Turkishness as an ethnic identity that excludes other ethnic communities in Turkey, such as the Kurds, Arabs, Lazs, and Armenians.4 This debate of whether Turkishness has been constructed as a civic or an ethnic or ethnoreligious nationhood subjugates the academic circles as well}}

:::::{{tq2|In this chapter, I argue that while approaching Turkishness from the civic versus ethnic dichotomy would be inconclusive and unproductive,6 there is an inherent inconsistency on the meaning of Turkishness in legal-institutional texts and its perception of it by different communities on the ground, most particularly the Kurds. In other words, first, there is no academic, political, or public consensus on the civic or ethnic content of Turkishness—and it is not possible to reach a consensus due to the paradoxical nature of the ethnic and civic dichotomy. }}

:::::Here's a journal article published on [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers Nationalities Papers]. [https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=28256&tip=sid It seems like a good quality journal]. [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00905992.2015.1087485 The article]:

:::::{{tq2|As Turkey has been debating a new constitution, the definitions of national identity and citizenship have become one of the most contested issues. While some defend keeping Turkishness as the only identity in the constitution, others argue for a change such as using the term Türkiyeli (people from Turkey) or adding Kurdishness besides Turkishness as the two main communities of the nation. Those who support the maintenance of Turkishness as the only national identity tend to argue that Turkishness represents a civic - or territorially and legally based - identity that is inclusive of ethnic identities such as Kurds, Albanians, and Arabs.
Others tend to perceive Turkishness as an ethnic identity and thus support either its removal or the adding of other ethnicities, primarily Kurdishness, in addition to Turkishness. 1}}

:::::So we need to include all viewpoints per WP:NPOV. We also need a demographics section, similar to Turkey#Ethnicity_and_language. That would include how people self identify, for example: [https://interaktif.konda.com.tr/rapor/if-turkey-were-100-people/10 If Turkey Had 100 People] (see Ethnic Identity Distribution tab).

:::::Right now we just have the statistics from CIA World Factbook in the lead along with Worldpopulationreview.com. The second is a poor source. And the first one should be supplemented with other sources such as KONDA and should be repeated in the article body.

:::::In short, the article is low quality and needs lots of work. Bogazicili (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I asked this before too. Tagged as vague, but was removed. Who's the Ottoman ruling class? What do these sources says? How do they claim to be Oghuz Turk if they don't identify themselves as Turks. If those aren't the Ottoman dynasty, what's the importance of it since Ottoman viziers were mainly of devshirme origin? Beshogur (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq| In the late 19th century, as the Ottoman upper classes adopted European ideas of nationalism, the term Türk took on a more positive connotation}} Ottoman uper classes seems ok, but want to know those 2 quotes. Beshogur (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hello, @Beshogur

::I added "However, they still claimed to be members of Kayi tribe of Oghuz Turks

:: and direct descendants of Oghuz Khan" part in that paragraph. I revised that sentence but it was reverted back to the old version. I recently read all the sources in that section and found "they didn’t identify themselves as Turks" in the article to be vague or misguided.

::In Kushner, David (April 1997), p-219 it says:

::{{tq|"Ottoman Turks, at least members of the educated elite, had two main foci of loyalty and identity during most of their recorded history. One was Islam, the religion adopted by the ancient Turks upon their contact with the spreading Muslim Empire and civilization. The other was the Ottoman dynasty and state..."}}

::As you successfully pointed out "Ottoman elite" could refer to devshirme Janissary chiefs or devshirme viziers not necessarily the dynasty itself. "Most of the recorded history" is also something we can't accept by WP:OR

::Ottomanid family claimed descent from Oghuz Khan, as attested by their historians. Both Bayezid I and Cem Sultan openly declared themselves descendants of Oghuz Khan.

::{{tq|"During Ottoman times, the millet system defined communities on a religious basis. In the early 20th century, the Young Turks abandoned Ottoman nationalism in favor of Turkish nationalism, while adopting the name Turks, which was finally used in the name of the new Turkish Republic."}}

::Turchia, meaning "the land of the Turks", had begun to be used in European texts for Anatolia by the end of the 12th century. {{harvnb|Agoston|Masters|2009|p=574}} {{harvnb|Howard|2016|p=31}} {{harvnb|Everett-Heath|2020|loc=Türkiye (Turkey)}}

:: This is clearly misleading.

::My suggestion is that we could revise it as follows:

::{{tq2|In the 19th century Ottoman Empire, the word "Turk" was used for settled Rumelian and Anatolian Turkish people meanwhile the term "Yörük" was used for nomadic Sunni Turkish tribes and "Turcoman" for Shia Turkish nomads. Ottoman dynasty identified as Oghuz Turks and claimed to be direct descendants of Oghuz Khan.}}

::We should also add this extra source for Yörük-Turcoman part.{{Cite book |last=Inalcik |first=Halil |title=Rumors and Truths of Otttoman Empire |pages=38 |quote=During Ottomans, collective term used for Turkoman tribes was "Yörük." Ottoman bureaucrats, concerned with distinguishing their own Turkmens from the Shah-loyal Kızılbaş Turkmens, adopted the blanket term "Yörük" for their Turkomans.}}

::And we could revise second part as:

::{{tq2|Before the existence of Turkish republic the names Ottoman Empire, Turkish Empire and Turkey were often used interchangeably, with Turkey being increasingly favoured both in formal and informal situations. During Ottoman times, the millet system defined communities on a religious basis. In the early 20th century, the Ottoman elites abandoned Ottoman nationalism in favor of Turkish nationalism and the term "Turk" and "Turkey" came to be used far more widely than Ottoman. This dichotomy was officially ended in 1920–1923, when the newly established Ankara-based Turkish government chose Turkey as the sole official name.}}

::I personally value @Bogazicili's opinion on this topic as he previously helped me a lot and significantly improved this section of paragraph.

::Nifushi (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I know, I added most part of Oghuz Khagan#Ottomans. But that's irrelevant. This "Ottoman ruling class". [https://www.google.be/books/edition/Area_Handbook_for_the_Republic_of_Turkey/qHUsAAAAYAAJ?hl=tr&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+ruling+classes+identified+themselves+as+Ottomans+rather+than+Turks%22&pg=PA166&printsec=frontcover another source]: {{tq|The ruling classes identified themselves as Ottomans rather than Turks}} since most viziers were of devshirme origin, why would they call themselves Turks. If the sultans said that, why wouldn't they call themselves Ottomans? Doesn't makes sense. For example Mehmed II era historian Neşri said how Murad I challenged Serbian despot by saying {{tq|I hope I can show him courage of the Turks}}. [https://www.sabah.com.tr/yazarlar/erhan-afyoncu/2019/05/26/osmanli-turkluguyle-iftihar-ederdi Afyoncu] has also many other examples. Beshogur (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Unless no objections, I'd like to change the citation style of this article to match Turkey. Short inline citation format for books and long reports with {{tl|cite book}} and {{tl|cite report}} templates. Full inline citations for everything else, such as newspaper articles. {{tl|harvc}} for book chapters.

Turkey has much better sourcing than this article. Matching citation styles would make transferring content easier. Bogazicili (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:There are also lots of travel books, such as Darke, Diana (2011), Eastern Turkey, Bradt Travel Guides; Kaplan, Robert D. (2002), "Who Are the Turks?", in Villers, James (ed.), Travelers' Tales Turkey: True Stories, Travelers' Tales; etc.

:These will be replaced by higher-quality sources in Turkey, such as books from academic presses. Bogazicili (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)