Talk:Turkish people/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Turkification is neglected

I do not see a single description of Turkification in the article. All genetic studies which make it appear as though Turks magically descended from Ancient Anatolians needs to be placed under the context of Turkification and especially in respects to genes. There are many sources that talk about this. This is an enormous part of the history of the Turkish/Turkic people that has largely been neglected in the article. Omer Gokcumen states this here:

In addition, the Turkification of Anatolia, i.e., the establishment of Turkic languages as lingua franca, occurred in different intensities and in different contexts, since the cultural interaction between different indigenous peoples and Turkic speakers were non-uniform. Thus, it is highly probable that the Turkic genetic contribution is much higher in certain localities of Anatolia than others. These complex dynamics of political, cultural and genetic interaction cannot be possibly revealed through studies without historical depth.

This article has major problems indeed. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This 2008 source has been cited only 1. You were against Yardumian et al source, because of low citation number, even though it is a 2011 source.[1] Cavann (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I never said that we were to use this as a source. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Then do not clutter the talk page with quotes from sources you do not intend to use. There are already lots of issues. Cavann (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I see no turkification description too. However, we should focus on this part in order to keep the article in ga state.Alexikoua (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think this is a topic of debate? If you want sources, here they are...

The “Turkification” of Anatolia took centuries. Turkish nomads from Central Asia and the Steppe migrated to the Near East over a period of centuries.

[2] *2013* publication

The same processes appeared during the Turkification of Anatolia and the Balkans. The Anatolian territories, which the Seljuk sultans had appropriated by jihad, formed ghazi states which attracted an influx of semi-nomad Turkoman tribes. The society of these "frontier states" was dominated by the Islamic concept of holy war and the prescriptions of the shari'a concerning infidels and their property. The ghazi spirit and the demographic impact of Turkish immigration in Anatolia and the Ballkans sustained the expansion of the Muslim population. Consequently, the demographic map of the provinces of Thrace and Aydin was totally changed in the fifteenth century by the massive immigration of Muslims who, by then, formed eighty percent of the population.

[3] (cited 5 times)

"A very interesting phenomenon of nationalism was the Turkification of Anatolia, which occurred in the eleventh to fifteenth centuries during the conquest of Anatolia by the Turks."

[4] (cited 36 times)

"It opened the Anatolian pasturelands to the Turkic nomads and led to the Turkification of Anatolia, the establishment of the Ottoman Empire..."

[5] (cited 158 times)

By these migrations, the Turcomans contributed to the Turkification of Anatolia.

[6]

The Turkification of Anatolia and the corresponding decline of Hellenism was one of the most important demographic and cultural changes to take place in the Middle Ages.

[7] (cited 56 times)

The process of Islamization, which implied Turkification over the long run in Anatolia and, to a lesser extent, in the Balkans, must naturally be studied against the background of migrations and conversions.

[8] (cited 248 times)

Turkification of Anatolia is the positive result of Turkish emigration movement through "conquest" and "leakage into".

[9]

This excludes the Turkification of non-Turkish minorities in the late Ottoman Empire (i.e. Armenian Genocide and Greek Genocide). Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I only checked the first source in google scholar, and it wasn't even cited by anyone. Again, please do not clutter the talk page. Turkification can be in the article with good sources. Cavann (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If you refuse to check the rest, I can do it for you.

Note: the first source is a 2013 publication. Nevertheless, its information is verifiable with other RS sources such as those above. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you checked, but I note you pretty much copy and pasted the sentence in Turkey article, without attributing it in the edit summary. Your edit is also sloppy. In the same paragraph, there is this: "The Seljuk Turks began migrating into the area in the 11th century, starting the process of Turkification of these indigenous groups, which was greatly accelerated by the Seljuk victory over the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071....... However, it was the Seljuk Turks who brought Turkish language and Islam into Anatolia in the 11th century." Turkification should have been added after the second sentence. Cavann (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not "plagiarism" when you copy-paste from one article to another. See here. As for the edit, it needs to be done. No where in the article does it mention Turkification. I'm planning to add much information Turkification once the protection is over. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Yes, you can copy parts of one Wikipedia article into another, but you must link to the source article in your edit summary"

You pretty much copy and pasted the sentence "The Seljuk Turks began migrating into the area in the 11th century, starting the process of Turkification of these indigenous groups, which was greatly accelerated by the Seljuk victory over the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071.[74]" in Turkey without linking in edit summary.

As for the info, as I said, I'm not against it, but you put it in the wrong place.Cavann (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

First you complain about "plagiarism" now you're complaing that I didn't have an edit-summary. Make up your mind please. Clearly, you read the rules after I pointed them out to you. Yes, I will add information on Turkification once the protection is over.Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism includes copy and pasting material without attributing. You should have attributed in your edit summary. That is what I said the first time. Cavann (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it's from the Turkey article...no doubt about that. If any issue arises in terms of the edit-summary, I'll provide information accordingly and be more than happy to direct anyone who wants to learn where its been attributed from. However, there's even bigger problems with this article that needs to be addressed. Poking my edit-summary with a stick isn't going to fix them. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If your aim is to improve the article, do not copy and paste and "dump" content. The copy and paste you added makes the paragraph less coherent. Another issue is the next time you copy and paste within Wikipedia, link it in edit summary Cavann (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No one here is "dumping" content. I think I made a pretty legitimate effort in placing some sort of context to an otherwise unexplained background about how indigenous Anatolians "magically" became Turks. If you think repositioning the sentence will thereby improve the contextual basis of the sentence, by all means do it. But this information must be expanded once the protection is over. In fact, a whole new section may have to be added to the article as well. Turkification is a significant part of the history of the Turkish people. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Where did you get "the genocidal campaigns against both minorities" [10] in Bjornlund, M. (January 01, 2008). The 1914 cleansing of Aegean Greeks as a case of violent Turkification. Journal of Genocide Research, 10, 1, 41-58. The source is clear:

Seen from the vantage point of observers in the major harbour city of Smyrna (Izmir), and in Constantinople (Istanbul), the Ottoman capital, CUP policies of group persecution began in earnest with the attempted ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Greeks living along the Aegean littoral..........In 1914, the aim of Turkification was not to exterminate but to expel as many Greeks of the Aegean region as possible as not only a “security measure,” but as an extension of the policy of economic and cultural boycott, while at the same time creating living space for the muhadjirs that had been driven out of their homes under equally brutal circumstances.

Cavann ^(talk) 16:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's good that you made the necessary changes with respect to Greeks, but you have falsified yet another source in this edit. Your edit read: "Non-Turkish minorities, such as the Armenians during the Armenian Genocide, and the Greeks during various campaigns of ethnic cleansing and expulsion, experienced policies of Turkification" [11]. Your source [12] says:

The two main pillars of this policy,which can be characterized as the government’s “population and resettlement policy,” were as follows: the first entailed the “cleansing” of Anatolia’s non-Muslim (which basically meant Christian) population, who were considered a mortal threat to the state and even described as a “cancer” in the body of the empire; the second was the assimilation (read: Turkification) of all of Anatolia’s non-Turkish Muslim communities.

So Turkification does not refer to Armenian Genocide, it refers to attempts at assimilation, which failed according to your other source [13]

The fact that Turkification may be neglected does not excuse you from falsifying sources. I do not have to engage with you in talk pages of corresponding articles so that you wouldn't falsify sources. I gave you the relevant policies and ARBCOM warnings. Please review your behaviour and make adjustments if necessary. Cavann ^(talk) 21:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not "falsified" any sources. I suggest you reread the quote from Akcam's book. If you want a more detailed explanation as to how and where Taner Akcam supports the fact in the book that one of the key intentions of the Armenian Genocide was to Turkify or homogenize the Empire of non-Turkish elements, please refer to the talk page of Turkish people under the section "Turkification is neglected" section. That way we can have a broader discussion. My talk page isn't a place to dispute content. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Armenians were not Turkified since they resisted assimilation. They did not become Turks. Yet the current text makes it sound they were Turkified ("During this period, a policy of Turkification of non-Turkish minorities took place under the government of the Committee of Union and Progress"). That is absurd. And I have to fix every single thing, because apparently you cannot read the sources you are putting. And you have falsified Bjornlund 2008 and Akcam 2012. Cavann ^(talk) 02:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No, Armenians suffered from forceful assimilation under the overall goal of Turkification during and after the Armenian Genocide. Akcam supports this fact as do many other writers and researchers. There are many cases in which Armenians did in fact become Turkified. And regardless of that fact, the intentions of the Young Turk government were clear, as Akcam states in the preface of the book you accuse me of "falsifying", "Taken in their entirety, Ottoman and Western archives jointly confirm that the ruling part CUP did deliberately implement a policy of ethnoreligious homogenization of Anatolia that aimed to destroy the Armenian population." These aren't my words, they are the words of a Turkish historian. If you continue to have issues with the content, as I have already said, refer to the talk page of the article. I will help address your concerns. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed CUP had that policy, but that was a policy of cleansing, not a policy of Turkification (defined as assimilation in p.29). That is what you are falsifying. Akcak 2012 does not define Turkification as destruction of a population in that source, where as you cited it to support that contention. Cavann ^(talk) 05:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[[Wiki

I'll remove the page number since the entire contextual basis of the book attests to the fact that one of the main goals of the Armenian Genocide was to homogenize the Empire under Turkification. This contextual basis is supported by peer-reviewed sources such as:

Other works about the end of the empire that have opened up previously unexplored topics include Fuat Dündar's study of the use of statistics in Young Turk demographic engineering, Ryan Gingeras's social and political history of the ethnic violence that riddled the southern Marmara region of western Anatolia in the first two decades of the twentieth century, and Taner Akçam's fine-grained empirical account of the genocidal consequences of late-Ottoman Turkification policies on the empire's Armenian and Greek populations.73
Mikhail, A., & Philliou, C. M. (2012). The ottoman empire and the imperial turn. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 54(4), 721-745.

The source references the same book I have used as a source under its own ref #73: Fuat Dündar , Crime of Numbers: The Role of Statistics in the Armenian Question (1878-1918) (New Brunswick : Transaction Publishers , 2010); Ryan Gingeras , Sorrowful Shores: Violence, Ethnicity, and the End of the Ottoman Empire (Oxford : Oxford University Press , 2009); Taner Akçam , The Young Turks' Crime against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire (Princeton : Princeton University Press , 2012).

Also, newspaper sources such as:

Mr. Akcam, who holds an endowed chair at Clark's Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, has written another book that provides additional evidence that Turkish leaders at the time pursued a policy of "Turkification" and "demographic engineering" to cleanse their nation of Armenian Christians. Mr. Akcam, however, isn't betting that the new book, "The Young Turks' Crime Against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire," is going to change the position of the Turkish regime, even though it culls information from 600 Ottoman documents that have been, until recently, restrictively archived in Istanbul.
Kush, B. B. (2012, Sep 05). Making a case. Telegram & Gazette.

And of course, Taner Akcam himself in the preface of the very source:

Taken in their entirety, Ottoman and Western archives jointly confirm that the ruling part CUP did deliberately implement a policy of ethnoreligious homogenization of Anatolia that aimed to destroy the Armenian population.

So in order to not limit the source to just one page, I will remove the page number so that Akcam's work in its entirety shall be respected under the contextual basis that not only Akcam supports, but other sources as well. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the wording issues. If you want to add Turkification to this part "During World War I, the government of the Committee of Union and Progress continued with population policies to homogenize the population of Anatolia, which effected non-Turkish minorities, such as the Armenians during the Armenian Genocide and the Greeks during various campaigns of ethnic cleansing and expulsion" you have to take out Akcak 2012 and 2005 as sources, since his definition is different. You may also wanna add a qualifier since definition of Turkification is different in Akcak, Jwaideh, and Samuel than Rummel's. Cavann ^(talk) 23:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we put Cahit Arf in the people box

There is already a wiki article on him and he seams much more relevant than some of the artists in the box — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.166.56 (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If someone can make a collage like this English_people, he can be the 21st. Cavann ^(talk) 21:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)