Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

The populations should change to give more accurate and correct data please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.172.59 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific please? If you can provide sources it would help. Thanks. Turco85 (Talk) 10:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Turkish populaitons world : 75,000,000-85,000,000

Turkey : 58,000,000-62,000,000  % 78-84

Germany : 3,500,000-4,000,000

Iraq : 2,500,000-3,000,000

Syria : 1,500,000-2,500,000

Bulgaria : 750,000

France : 500,000-600,000

United kingdom : 500,000

USA : 500,000

Netherlands,Cyprus,greece,macedonia,canada,austria,belgium,russia.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.69.7 (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "Although numerous modern genetic studies have indicated that the historical Anatolian groups are the primary source of the present-day Turkish population" which is then followed by the references of earliest traces of Turkic people. The phrase in the beginning tends to give an impression of Turks back then have (in a greater sense) nothing to do with Turks in Turkey, while the opposite is true. Being a Turk is not determined by genetics only but rather with culture, maternal tongue and sense of national loyalty. Just like Greeks and Armenians are Hellenized Anatolians like Hittites, Phoenicians, Assyrians and so on, but yet no one is less Greek by it. So this sentence in a general context is misleading and should be mentioned in "Genetics" (in this same article) which deals with genetics only and not with determination of identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.132.22 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about Turkic people, it is about TURKISH PEOPLE. Hence ancestry is relevant. Cavann (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The modern Turks are regarded as descendants of the Oghuzes, with ofcourse interaction with other gene pools. This does in no way mean they are not related anymore, DNA isn't the only factor which determines in a broader sense ones identity. You're deliberately making off base false reasoning's ripping everything from its context. This is pure your own concept, while in ethnology they never evaluate based only on ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.132.22 (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The text does not say they are not related. Learn to read. Cavann (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The text does say that, "Although numerous modern genetic studies have indicated that the historical Anatolian groups are the primary source of the present-day Turkish population" what does that mean ? giving an impression like genetics means everything and the only thing that must be taken in account when tracking relations of populations. And also you're drawing a way too black and white picture of the Turkish gene pool, Turks have interacted with way more people then just Anatolians. Like how many Persians didn't they intermarry in the ages of the Seljuqs when a great deal of Persians moved in to Anatolia, let alone Turkish tribes before conquest of Asia minor were also divided into Europoid and mongoloid types. Like the Cumans and Kipchaks were Europoid they to have been assimilated into Oghuzes. Even, just only recent in the 1930's two million ethnically slavisized Turks seeked refuge in Turkey and assimilated into Turkish gene pool while at that time the whole Turkish population was only 12 million, this also has a big impact. If you track this from the 18th century until 1930 this number even rises to 5 to 6 million. The chart in Wikipedia Genetic history doesn't also support these simplistic claims :

J2=24% - J2 (M172) Typical of populations of Caucasus, the Near East, Southeast Europe, Southwest Asia with a moderate distribution through much of Central Asia, South Asia, and North Africa. R1b=14.7% -Typical of Western Europeans, Eurasian People, and typical of Uyghurs in the Central Asia [22][23] G=10.9% - Typical of people from the Caucasus and to a lesser extent the Middle East. E1b1b1=10.7% - Typical of people from the Mediterranean J1=9% - Typical amongst people from the Arabian Peninsula and Dagestan (ranging from 3% from Turks around Konya to 12% in Kurds). R1a=6.9% - Typical of Central Asian, Caucasus, Altaic people, Eastern Europeans and Indo-Aryan people. I=5.3% - Typical of Central Europeans, Western Caucasian and Balkan populations. K=4.5% - Typical of Asian populations and Caucasian populations. L=4.2% - Typical of Indian Subcontinent and Khorasan populations. N=3.8% - Typical of Uralic, Siberian and Altaic populations. T=2.5% - Typical of Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, Northeast African and South Asian populations Q=1.9% - Typical of Northern Altaic populations.

Only E1b1b1=10.7% - Typical of people from the Mediterranean, would be Anatolia specific. The potentially J2, R1b, G, R1a and I. Most of these are shared by almost any Europoid and some of these by Central Asians, Middle East etc. Hence, its impossible and based on assumptions how European genes were assimilated into Turkish gene pool. Unless its being guided with reliable historical documents which deal with mass delocation of populations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.132.22 (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No sources were provided. Only original research and POV. Jingiby (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Could we add there Lefter Küçükandonyadis, the legendary Turkish national football team player, on his first anniversary of passing away... Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hayır, Lefter etnik olarak Türk değil Rum. (No, Lefter is not an ethnic Turk but Rum.), Şahin Alpay, "Lefter", Milliyet, 26 August 1997. Takabeg (talk)

I have not asked anything to Mr Alpay. I know there are many people like me here and I am speaking to them. In other words... --E4024 (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Users' POVs cannot change anybody's ethnicity. I recommend you to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy. Takabeg (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed this category since it is vague and seems to be original research, and since Turkey is officially secular (and most Turks live there). Cavann (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Turks are overwhelmingly Muslim, so I don't see what's wrong with the category. There is nothing "vague" about it either, seems like just a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Athenean (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"Muslim community" could be something ruled by Islamic rule. Cavann (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"could be" is not a valid reason to remove the category. Athenean (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No one thinks that "Muslim community" could be something ruled by Islamic rule. As for these "Islamic countries" category can be used. The purpose of this category is clarified in the category purpose. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

I think he means Turkish nation isn't in the scope of this article. Kavas (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

Done. Kavas (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"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)

Reverting even the most simplest of things. I urge you here to stop this, Cavann. --Mttll (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Thanks QatarStarsLeague! Cavann (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

...in fact her ethnic background is a matter of debate. Many argue that she is Albanian or from the Caucasus. I will remove her image without any further objections. Proudbolsahye (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Changed. The images can be exclusive, but the text needs to be inclusive, including all viewpoints. Cavann (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a myth set up within the legal framework of the Turkish Republic and particularly its constitution. Unfortunately, it has now spilled into Wikipedia. Just because someone has Turkish citizenship does not make one a "Turk". In fact, some have even been prosecuted and eventually assassinated in Turkey just because they said that they are "Armenian". Please let us not have this nonsense spill into this encyclopedia. We all know that there is a stark difference between ethnicity and citizenship, which is a common understanding in the western world. I will remove without objection. Proudbolsahye (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Leave it. I'm getting sick of everyone trying to push their POV in this article. Official definition should be there. There is also further explanation.

"During Ottoman times, the millet system defined communities on a religious basis, and a residue of this remains in that Turkish villagers will commonly consider as Turks only those who profess the Sunni faith, and will consider Turkish-speaking Jews, Christians, or even Alevis to be non-Turks.[90] On the other hand, Kurdish-speaking or Arabic-speaking Sunnis of eastern Anatolia are sometimes considered to be Turks.[91] The imprecision of the appellation Türk can also be seen with other ethnic names, such as Kürt (Kurd), which is often applied by western Anatolians to anyone east of Adana, even those who speak only Turkish.[90] In recent years, centrist Turkish politicians have attempted to redefine this category in a more multi-cultural way, emphasizing that a Türk is anyone who is a citizen of the Republic of Turkey.[92] Currently, article 66 of the Turkish Constitution defines a "Turk" as anyone who is "bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship." Although, since 1960s, the Kurdish nationalism has re-emerged.[93] Currently, a new constitution is being written, which may address citizenship and ethnicity issues.[94]" Cavann (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Interpretations of Turkish citizenship, whether they be legal or historical, can go into the body of the article but not into the lead. Currently, a highly controversial and utterly non-nonsensical sentence such as "The Turkish people, or the Turks (Turkish: Türkler), are citizens or natives of Turkey, and their descendants..." ultimately presents an argument that is highly controversial in not only international law, but in Turkish society today...to say the least. This lead does not even mention a word about Turks being people that belong to a certain ethnic group. The Russian people, Greek people, Poles, and etc. articles all refer to those people as an ethnic group. A certain Turkish Republican rhetoric has engulfed this article and needs to be removed. I propose changing the first sentence back to its original language:

The Turkish people, or the Turks, (Turkish: Türkler), are an ethnic group primarily living in Turkey, and in the former lands of the Ottoman Empire where Turkish minorities have been established. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Support this wording. Excellent point. Athenean (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked at GA ethnicity articles, and then found British people. Russian people and Poles are not GA. Greek people cannot be an example to Turkish people, given that Greece is very homogenous, and I am not interested in the region, besides Turkey.Cavann (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the GA reviewer may or may not have overlooked these claims. There needs to be a further reassessment with the nomination. There are serious flaws when it comes to this article. If these problems are met, I'll be more than happy to keep the article in its current status as GA. Proudbolsahye (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this wording, if "Turkish nationality law, which regulates current Turkish citizenship and nationality, is based primarily on the principle of jus sanguinis." also stays. Cavann (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I propose...reinserting "The Turkish people, or the Turks, (Turkish: Türkler), are an ethnic group primarily living in Turkey, and in the former lands of the Ottoman Empire where Turkish minorities have been established." as the first sentence in the lead. You can discuss citizenship and race on the basis of jus sanguinis in the body of the article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What "citizenship and race"? Cavann (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Jus sanguinis or "right of blood" refers to racial or ethnic characteristics as determinants. If Turkey practices this as a form of citizenry and ethnic relations (you might call national), it must be explained in the body of the article. However, it should not the first sentence of the article. I am now changing the first sentence to its original wording. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Cavann (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Issue resolved. Proudbolsahye (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will remove the article from the list then. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not resolved. See Talk:Turkish_people#2.2B_millenia_time_gap_.28Hittites_at_the_first_paragraph_of_the_history_of_Turkish_people.3F.29. Cavann (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe the is talking about this specific section. The first sentence of the lead has changed. This section ("Turkish citizens are not Turkish "people"") may be removed. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No he is not. Read the entry in third opinion page. This specific section is solved, but not the Talk:Turkish_people#2.2B_millenia_time_gap_.28Hittites_at_the_first_paragraph_of_the_history_of_Turkish_people.3F.29 one.Cavann (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion is only suitable for disputes with only two editors involved. There seems to be more than two here so I will leave you to it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Alexikoua removed this, [1] saying "source doesn't say this, it says only about Byzantine era population". Yet the source talks about "aborigines," ie: "indigenous groups" in the text.

“

The Turks are also defined by the country of origin. Turkey, once Asia Minor or Anatolia, has a very long and complex history. It was one of the major regions of agricultural development in the early Neolithic and may have been the place of origin and spread of lndo-European languages at that time. The Turkish language was imposed on a predominantly lndo-European-speaking population (Greek being the official language of the Byzantine empire), and genetically there is very little difference between Turkey and the neighboring countries. The number of Turkish invaders was probably rather small and was genetically diluted by the large number of aborigines.

”

L. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza; Paolo, Menozzi; Alberto, Piazza (1994). The history and geography of human genes. Princeton University Press. p. 243.

I will be adding this source back. Cavann (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cavann. Jingiby (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Its not about genetics, its about ethnicity which somebody declare, culture, language, citizenship... Genetically there is a "little difference" between all people on the world.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Read British people, another GA, where they talk about where they descend. Cavann (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I did. It says: "it is possible that future genetic studies of ancient and modern human DNA may help to inform our understanding of the subject" but "early studies have, so far, tended to produce implausible conclusions from very small numbers of people and using outdated assumptions about linguistics and archaeology." That is written in 2007. Your source is from 1994. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance. Are you going to eliminate every similar source on Wikipedia based on that sentence? Plus Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's book is a very solid source. "Cavalli-Sforza's The History and Geography of Human Genes[4] (1994 with Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza) is a standard reference on human genetic variation." Plus there are sources later than 2007 in the article. Cavann (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You yourself refulted your position when you pointed to the link which emphasize that gene studies of the past still can only produce implausible conclusions. "Critics of Cavalli-Sforza's work have increased in recent years, and critics of new gene studies of the past have always been active..." - Pamela Kyle Crossley (2008). What is Global History. Polity. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-7456-3301-5. Retrieved 2 September 2013.. I suggest you to WP:DROPTHESTICK here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That response would have been more relevant if there weren't 5 other sources. I suggest you to read WP:Reliable. Cavann (talk)`

I did. It says Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. None of the sources you presented here directly support your assertion. I suggest you to read Don't shoot yourself in the foot essay.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we are having a WP:Competence issue here.

Eg: "This analysis allows us to build the case for incommensurable, long-term, and continuing genetic signatures in both Anatolia and Siberia, and for significant mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome divergence between the regions, with minimal admixture. We supplement the case against mass migration with correlative archeological, historical, and linguistic data, and suggest that it was irregular punctuated migration events that engendered large-scale shifts in language and culture among Anatolia's diverse autochthonous inhabitants." [2]

Cavann (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Antid.. A cheap attempt to support a theory of national autochthony. A have also to note there is nowhere in the article stated that pre-Turkish (11th c.) Anatolia was predominantly Greek and Armenian speaking [[3]].Alexikoua (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the article?

"After Alexander the Great's conquest, the area was Hellenized.[74]"

"Nonetheless, the Turkish language and Islam were introduced and gradually spread over the region and the slow transition from a predominantly Christian and Greek-speaking Anatolia to a predominantly Muslim and Turkish-speaking one was underway.[101]"

"Although the Ottomans were only a small principality among the numerous Turkish beyliks, and thus posed the smallest threat to the Byzantine authority, their location in north-western Anatolia, in the former Byzantine province of Bithynia, became a fortunate position for their future conquests. The Latins, who had conquered the city of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, established a Latin Empire (1204–61), divided the former Byzantine territories in the Balkans and the Aegean among themselves, and forced the Byzantine Emperors into exile at Nicaea (present-day Iznik). From 1261 onwards, the Byzantines were largely preoccupied with regaining their control in the Balkans.[109]"

And some more. Info about Greeks/Byzantines is way more than Hittites.Cavann (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

There can be a brief mention of pre-Turkish Anatolia (under the relevant title), but this should be limited to ca. a couple of centuries before 11th century, in order to describe the situation in Anatolia just when (and a little before) the first Turkish tribes arrived. In no case can this goes back to the Bronze Age... 2 or 3 millenia before...

Dont you see the incosistency? The 1st paragraph is about antiquity in Anatolia and the following one (just in the same section) mentions the first Turkic tribes in central Asia... Alexikoua (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a Good Article, it needs to be comprehensive. See: Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria

"The above quote is under "INCEPTION AS A NATION" for the chapter "Turks: nationality." Your arguments are getting even more bizarre. Cavann (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)" Cavann (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your source is little better than a travel guide. It is very generalist in nature, and it is just one source after all. The way the article received its GA status is questionable. The reviewer didn't make a single comment or suggestion. Nothing, he just passed it, just like that. Even though the article is plagued with problem with POV problems (a strong primordialist/nativist current), not to mention ridiculous number inflation using dubious sources in the infobox. When I have more time I will ask for a reassessment of the GA status, and we will see just how much of a GA the wikipedia community thinks of it. You also seem to think that the fact that the article is for now a GA means that it is not to be edited by others and that you WP:OWN it. Wrong on both counts. Athenean (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I come up with peer-reviewed journal articles and encyclopedias; you come up with imaginary "majority of literature." Do you have a review article, that goes over this literature?

Oh, and please do. The more eyes on this article, the better. Cavann (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid this is WP:IDHT case. You yourself refuted your own position when you pointed to the link which says (in 2007) that gene studies of the past still can only produce implausible conclusions. I presented 2008 work written by Pamela Kyle Crossley who clearly say "Critics of Cavalli-Sforza's work have increased in recent years, and critics of new gene studies of the past have always been active...". This author continues: "The vast majority of the genetics (including Cavalli-Sforza) have emphasized that there is no scientific basis for a concept of "race" ... and so much less a scientific basis for "national" identities. Yet in his publications he and his team normally use racial and national terms to describe their populations. This raises the question of circular reasoning...Anthropologists and historians of culture would respond that racial and national categories are obviously not objective, but are "social constructions" - controlled by general patterns of group thinking and public expressions... For population genetics such as those working in the Cavalli-Sforza mode, making a contribution beyond what anthropologists and cultural historians have already surmised would seem to require transcending the ideologically charged and a priori subjective vocabulary of race and nationality.". Please WP:DROPTHESTICK.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What link are you talking about? And what are you talking about? All these sources, including those later than 2008, do not lose legitimacy solely based on what "Pamela Kyle Crossley" "clearly say"s. You do not make any sense whatsoever.

And what "race and nationality"? I am the one who added "The Turkish people, or the Turks (Turkish: Türkler), are citizens" which is being discussed in the section below. Do you actually have any idea what is going on? Did you think I said "Turks are a race"? Your comments are bizarrely irrelevant. Cavann (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship in English. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I am aware. Bizarrely irrelevant again. Cavann (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You first bolded citizenship and now you proclaim it irrelevant. Your editing here is tendentious and disruptive. Have you considered disengaging? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I should, because I don't think you have WP:competence. You are the one who mentioned "race and nationality" and then assumed citizenship implies race, because nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship in English. You are the one who assumed quote from National Museum Wales in British people was talking about all relevant studies, instead of only about early work that Oppenheimer cited to support his opinion about British people. You are the one who assumed some quote from Pamela Kyle Crossley invalidates all research in this area. You are the one who confuses descent and background with race, or racial theories. I will not be responding to you bizarrely irrelevant comments that are completely nonsensical. And yes, your comments are irrelevant, because none of what you said is relevant to what is being discussed about the text of the article. Wikipedia is not a forum. Cavann (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

My comments present assertions supported by scholarly sources which refute your position based solely on Cavalli-Sforza source. The link you pointed to presents scholarly opinion about all "early genetic studies of the past" not Oppenheimer's work. Work of Pamela Kyle Crossley does not refer to "all research in this area" but only to "a contribution beyond what anthropologists and cultural historians have already surmised" otherwise it would be transcending the ideologically charged and a priori subjective vocabulary of race and nationality." Your claim that I "assumed citizenship implies race" after I explained that Nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship in English is just another blatant misinterpretation. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

My position is not solely based on Cavalli-Sforza. That seems to be one of your other bizarre assumptions even though I already pointed out other sources before, some of them as late as 2011. Cavann (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your position is solely based on C-S because none of the sources you brought directly support your assertion per wp:reliable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Another bizzare statement. I already a gave you a quote and link to a 2011 journal article in this discussion.[4]. There are more sources in the text of the article as well.Cavann (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion here seems to be very similar to the one I have brought up before. Like I said, this is Turkish Republican rhetoric that is highly controversial and needs to be treated as such. Turkish laws regarding citizenship are opinionated descriptions of citizenship and race but is never a fact set in stone. Neither are the authors and writers that present it as a fact. Citizenship and race in Turkey is a HUGE problem. Many politicians have tried to solve the issue through legislative reform but failed miserably (See here). Others, like Hrant Dink, have even been prosecuted and eventually assassinated in Turkey just because they said that they are "Armenian". Please, let us not present these notions as fact, but as a highly controversial and ever so problematic issue for the country. Proudbolsahye (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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 encyclopedia would ever have a map of the Hittite Empire in an article about the Turkish people. This is like an asylum taken over by a madman. --Mttll (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If by asylum, you mean reliable sources, sure. And by encyclopedia, you prolly mean 50-year old print ones that you got from a newspaper. Cavann (talk) 18:35, 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)

LOL, you learn to read first before throwing around words. Various sources start with prehistory, Hittites, etc, (books, US Library of Congress country profile, etc) when they are starting history of Turkey. Turkish people also mean citizens of Turkey. Cavann (talk) 19:35, 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....

”

If the paragraph is not restored, I'm reporting this at ANI. Cavann (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly for that reason the paragraph has no place in this article. I don't see the word "Turkish" (or similar terms) in pre-11th century Anatolian history. Moreover, an inclusion will be also inconsistent with similar article about ethnic groups, for example Germans (pre-Germanic Germany is excluded), Serbs (pre-Slav Serbia excluded), Russians (same).Alexikoua (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

In general and since the article is about an ethnic group, not a state, bibliography focused on ethnology is helpful. For example this one The Turks in World History. No wonder, the only reference to the Hitites is in p.208, but refers to 1930s ultranationlist theories ("fantastic theories"). This isn't history as explained above.Alexikoua (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The above quote is from a chapter for Turks in an encyclopedia. It's weird you do not see the the word "Turkish". This article is about Turks/Turkish people. Cavann (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's weird you see a similar term in this text prior to 11th century Seljuk invasion. I'm sorry I can't help you much on that. Off course pre-Turkish Anatolia isn't part of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The above quote is under "INCEPTION AS A NATION" for the chapter "Turks: nationality." Your arguments are getting even more bizarre. Cavann (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The Hittitea have NOTHING to do with the inception of the Turkish nation. Stop adding irrelevant material to this article. This isn't the article on Anatolia. Athenean (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Read relevant reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place to push your POV. Cavann (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. That is just a low quality generalist source that conflates Turkey with Turkish people. The majority of the literature on the subject does not include Neolithic sites into the "inception of the Turkish nation. Gobekli Tepe? Catalhoyuk? You must be joking. Threatening other editors and repeating yourself like a broken record will get you nowhere, only to a well-deserved block (by now). Athenean (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please remain civil ("repeating yourself like a broken record"). Where's this "majority of the literature"? Here's a secondary source, that is it is peer reviewed:

“

It also offers us a most parsimonious, if not unanticipated, explanation of Turk ethnogenesis: the vast pre-Turkic-speaking populations of Anatolia and Siberia came to be called Turkish or Turkic due to various large-scale language- and culture-shifts beginning in the European Middle Ages and not ending until the early twentieth century.

”

Source: Yardumian, A.; Schurr, T. G. (2011). "Who Are the Anatolian Turks?". Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia. 50: 6. doi:10.2753/AAE1061-1959500101 Cavann (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! ...beginning in the European Middle Ages. One more reason to exclude this bizarre Hettite claims.Alexikoua (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL. You missed the "the vast pre-Turkic-speaking populations of Anatolia" part. That's why a paragraph is appropriate.Cavann (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

So what? pre-Turkic populations from the Middle Ages. You don't believe that the Hittites were still living in a region that witnessed multiple population movements in the meantime right?Alexikoua (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess English is not your first language. That is not what the quote says. It says the cultural shifts occurred starting in middle ages.Cavann (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

At which point the "vast pre-Turkic population of Anatolia" was no longer Ancient Anatolian, but largely Greek-speaking, Armenian-speaking, Kurdish speaking, etc...Thank you for showing the wikipedia community how your point is self-defeating. Athenean (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Hellenization, Greek language, Byzantines, etc are already mentioned in this article. I'm not leaving that out. But you are trying to push your POV, by trying to exclude that paragraph about Ancient Anatolians.Cavann (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Gobekli Tepe, Catalhoyuk, the Hattians and Hittites are irrelevant to this article. What does the fact that Catalhoyk may be the "first ever city" have to do with the Turkish people? This is not a travel guide. The Hattians and Hittites were long extinct as distinct identities before the arrival of the Turks. A brief mention that Anatolia was under the rule of the Byzantine Empire and inhabited by Greek-speakers and Armenian speakers is all that is needed. By the way, most of your oh-so reliable sources for that section consist of travel guides, e.g. Lonely Planet and the The Rough Guide. So much for that argument. Athenean (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"By the way, most of your oh-so reliable sources for that section consist of travel guides" is a laughable comment, coming from someone who edit wars and removes content based on personal opinion. Those sources offered a quick summary, but I can also use "The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia." Talking about sources, you did not even bother to link the source for FreedmanMyers, be more careful when you are copy and pasting. And none of the sources talk about culture extinction.

And please do not repeat yourself, the rationale of "Gobekli Tepe, Catalhoyuk, the Hattians and Hittites" were provided by reliable sources, including a peer-reviewed journal article. Mentioning these info in few sentences is not UNDUE. Deleting all that and expanding info about Byzantine rule, when it is already mentioned so many times in the rest of history section is so ridiculously POV, I think you are trying to help me with your future Arbitration case, just like when you are warning others about "rv WP:IDONTLIKEIT removal of relevant, reliably sourced information" when you -yourself- are doing the same.[5] Cavann (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Cavann: There is no need to express extreme wp:own activity. In case of travel guides we should be very carefull. By the way why you are using Wikipedia:WIAFA as an excuse to revert (again)? The specific article isn't in fa status. Since you didn't liked the section split of two irrelevant (both geographically and chronologically) paragraphs, a more complex title is needed. Moreover, you don't believe that 6th century Gogturks were part of Bronze Age/Ancient history right?[[6]]Alexikoua (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, this turns to be quite childish: 2nd blind revert in zero time [[7]]. What's the pov? Using the term pre-Turkish for Ancient/Bronze Age Anatolia? I don't thing that this is the pov problem in this case... Alexikoua (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

How can it be FA if it doesn't comply with FA criteria? My goal here is to improve articles. Cavann (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Cavann: You need to explain why its funny when Ancient/Bronze Age Anatolia is termed "Pre-Turkish Anatolia". Moreover, why you add the Thracians again and again? They aren't mentioned at all inside +they mainly inhabited the Balkans. Also note that the way you can't explain your actions can easily mean that you just perform blind reverts as part of an extreme wp:own strategy.Alexikoua (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I gave my answer here [8]. As for Thracians, unless you noticed, Eastern Thrace is in Balkans, and many Thracians did expand into Anatolia [9] [10]. They are currently not mentioned in the article, because of Athenian's deletion of reliably sourced relevant material.

Once again, if you do not have the WP:competence, do not make edits about things you do not know. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Read the subject-matter, and then make informed edits.Cavann (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Completely unhistorical additon since according to this rational an addition of ca. 30 population groups should be added below the section title. Should I name them? (Cimmerians, Persians, Akkadians, Ancient Greeks, Arabs, Romans, etc...). By the way, what do you mean reliably sourced relevant material? Because secondary sources (contrary to travel guides and poorly cited non-academic tertiary sources) you mentioned above can't be considered as such, feel free to check wp:rs.Alexikoua (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

We have to choose most relevant links. Were they centered in today's Turkey's borders? Eg: [11] was centered around Edirne; Phrygians, who came from Balkans, had their capital in Gordium. However, you are right. Byzantines had their capital in Istanbul, so a link is warranted in that case.

As for the rest of what you wrote, read my answer to Athenian: 'Those sources offered a quick summary, but I can also use "The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia."' Cavann (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Due to the above mentioned problems, I believe a GA reassessment is necessary. Please vote for your support or disapproval along side with your reasons. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment says " it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review; it is usually simpler to renominate it. If some time has lapsed since a delisting or fail it is better to renominate.....Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered." No mention of poll or voting or community reassessment on the article's talkpage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that 3 out of the 6 gan criteria aren't ok, but this is a personal opinion. As I see the nominator was quite quick in his comments and hadn't even mentioned how it passed all criteria. Alexikoua (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way the couple of weeks period has passed, since according to this page various issues have been continuously raised since ca. 1 month.Alexikoua (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about this. Significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks so the reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Another major issue is the lack of full citations, i.e. page numbers (or quotes in case of web pages), supposed to be fundamental for a ga nomination. There are still several cited journal articles which didn't say a word about the claimed facts.Alexikoua (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

sources refer to Algerians who may be of Turkish descent, not modern Turkish people living in Algeria (of which I would guess there are very few, not millions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.15.132 (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Athenean deleted this saying, "rm Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, unreliable source." [12] Antonio Arnaiz-Villena's work could have been criticized, but it is still a peer-reviewed journal article that has not been retracted. And it is not being cited here to support any of the relevant controversies (ie, it's not being cited to say something about Greeks). I made an entry in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cavann (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And now the verdict is in. Let's hope you will respect it. Athenean (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Enough with the "genetic continuity" stuff. Inserting it in every section is getting old, and is nothing more than POV-pushing by repetition for effect. There is a genetics section for that, repeating it in the history section is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing at this point. The history section should be a history of the Turkish people, not a repeat of the history section Turkey. It appears some users have difficulty distinguishing between the two. Athenean (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Genetic stuff is for Genetic section. Prehistory section gives background (Hittites, etc). One sentence 'Various genetic studies suggested that these indigenous populations form the basis of modern Turkish population today,[76][68] with the "genetic continuity of Anatolia’s Iron Age populations into the Seljuk, Mamluk and Ottoman eras."[68]:18' is there to explain relevance. Indeed, enough with POV-pushing, and edit-warring.Cavann (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, genetics stuff in genetics section, history stuff in history section. So no need for a genetics sentence in the history section. Athenean (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. That is why a paragraph about genetics is not in history section, only a sentence to explain relevance. Cavann (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"To explain relevance". Whatever. You just want it repeated over and over for effect, just like you want it in the lede, even though no other ethnic group articles mention "descent" in the lede. Athenean (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Very well, your continuing edit-warring and POV-pushing leave me no choice but to ask for a GA reassessment. Stability and neutrality are key characteristics of a GA. The way the article was moreover promoted to GA without a single modificiation or reviewer comment was always suspicious. Athenean (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Hopefully, we will see more neutral editors here. I have notified QatarStarsLeague that you filed this reassessment, levying serious accusations against him, calling his promotion "highly dubious." Cavann (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I have also notified users Proudbolsahye and Antidiskriminator, who had earlier expressed similar concerns regarding the article's GA status. Athenean (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

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, [13] [14] 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)

Nice research, friend! Dig deeper, I guarantee you'll find even more interesting stuff. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, don't forget to look at my achievements. I'm really sad you didn't say anything about them. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course the article should say that Turkish people at least have a huge level of descent from native peoples of Anatolia (Greeks, Armenians and the Anatolic peoples before them, Phrygians, etc) as modern science has now determined that they are indeed indigenous. If the article didn't say this, there would be a problem. I'm sorry that the scientifically proven truth is disturbing to certain nationalist viewpoints, but really, science is science. --Yalens (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody here argues the fact that the Turks are genetically not much different from neighboring ethnic groups and are largely descending from the indigenous peoples. It's not hard to see that their appearance is no much different from the Armenians or the Greeks. My point is that genetics should not be the lede. Genetics does not affect anything in reality. Turks are not bearers of the culture of those indigenous peoples, but they are bearers of the culture of the Turkic peoples who migrated from Central Asia.

Some users who are desperate to prove the nativity and the "genetic continuity" theory of the Turks are including maps of the Hittite era, which has no connection to the modern Turkish people whatsoever. Its inclusion makes me wonder who has nationalistic aspirations here. Interesting how the fact that most of eastern Turkey was inhabited by the Armenians since at least 6th century BC to 1915-1920 (for almost 2,5000 years!!!) and not even one word is written about that. No wonder why Turkey still denies the genocide. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The lead should summarize the article. We are not supposed to leave out information just because editors such as yourself do no like it. Talking about "nationalistic aspirations," you are the one who supports violence to create United Armenia.[15] Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Cavann (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL I thought you didn't have time for me? What has changed? Aren't you afraid to waste your time on me? And why did you leave out the genocide part? Or maybe that's a far-right aspiration too, huh? Oh yeah, I forgot that cherry-picking is one of your hobbies. My mistake. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum. I am not sure how Armenian Genocide relates to the lead of this article. Cavann (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yalens seems to be the one who has revived this discussion. Eastern half of Anatolia was inhabited by Armenians for 2,500 years. If you don't see how it relates to this article then I suggest you do some research instead of "wasting" your priceless time on useless forum-like discussions as you describe. Have a nice day! --Երևանցի ^talk 20:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Urartians are already mentioned in the article and there's more stuff about Armenians in genetics section. But, sorry, we cannot say "Eastern half of Anatolia was inhabited by Armenians for 2,500 years" or how millions of them died in Armenian genocide in the lead. This is not the Armenian people article. Cavann (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What do Urartians have to do with the Armenians? Why can't we? Did the Armenians appear in the Armenian Highland just now or what? Or Hittites are more relevant, because they are already gone? Ever read of thousands of Armenian orphans being taken by Turkish, Kurdish families and raised as Turks and Kurds? Armenian women taken into harems and their children raised as Turks? Crypto-Armenians? Experts, journalists, historians talking about hundreds of thousands of Turks of Armenian descend? Armenian churches being used as mosques? Oh, that's not relevant to the Turks at all. When did I say we should mention the genocide in the lede? Armenians have been a major part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries. The Armenians civilization was wiped out from Turkey in 1915, their cultural heritage largely destroyed, their properties confiscated and that's not even relevant. For example Uğur Ümit Üngör states that "the construction of an étatist Turkish 'national economy' was unthinkable without the destruction and expropriation of Armenians." That's irrelevant too. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow you fail massively. If Turks wre descended from Greeks and Armenians they would still not be indigenous to Anatolia as Greeks and Armenians have migrated to this region from their original homeland. In fact, the dissapearance and complete anihalation of Hittites and Urartians is due to Greek and Armenian colonization.

Here are some sources

• Norman M. Naimark, 2002 [16]
• Daniel Goldhagen, 2010 [17]

There has earlier been raised questions about one sentence in the lede, but it was not followed up at the time: "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." I see some problems here.

• primarily vs. in addition to. If we take in addition to literary, it actually says that they descend from neighboring people and turkic people and, in addition, from indigenous groups (making the indigenous groups less important or at best equally important, but not more important). Even with a weaker interpretation of "in addition to" (taking it to mean "as well as" or just "and") it highlights that they descend from various groups and does not imply that any of the groups are significantly more important. Combining this with "primarily" does not make sense. If all the sources agree that the indigenous groups are most important, it could be stated as primarily combined with but also or similar. If all the sources agree on the diversity, it could be stated with in addition to (or as well as) without the word primarily. But you cannot have them both in the same sentence.
• despite is a tricky word. It reminds me ofvanish Ripley's Believe it or not: "Contrary to popular belief..." It is rather argumentative and suggests the message: "This should come as a surprice to you". But there is nothing surpricing in the fact that a mixture of population groups end up speaking a language that is not necessarily the language of the largest group. My earlier edit was reverted without any comment, possibly "by accident" together with other reverts. I try again.

Regards! --T*U (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think primarily and in aAchaeans of the ddition to are clear, but we can change it to but also, if it is confusing to some readers. As for the second part, the change you are suggesting is making the text less coherent. "They speak a Turkic language, which was adopted by the local populations who predominantly had spoken Indo-European languages." When were they speaking Indo-European languages, 50 years ago?? Why are we mentioning Indo-European languages if we are talking about the present. The time frame is more clear as one sentence. That paragraph is also like an historical overview, so switching to present is -again- making the paragraph less coherent. Actually two sentences make it better now. Cavann (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The specific part is quite problematic. So, another question is why Turkish people descend only from these people that lived in Turkey before (Ancient Anatolians & Thracians), while they do not also descent from the rest of the people that lived before the 11th century (citations don't claim something like that).Alexikoua (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way the 'page needed' tag, is placed in order to add the precise page where the claimed fact is found. Instead of disruptively removing it, it would be more civilized to carefully check the citation journal template (This Ancient Anatolian&Thracian ancestry +exclusion of all other population groups is really childish).Alexikoua (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Cavann, in the journal template there are both "pages" & "page" options. So I'm kindly asking you to fill the page option too, per pn tag (that's supposed to be important for an article to become ga).Alexikoua (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

[18]. Cavann (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's see the very first line from Wikipedia:CITATION:

A full citation fully identifies a reliable source and, where applicable, the place in that source (such as a page number) where the information in question can be found.

Bingo. This means in case its impossible to give precise page numbers (or alternatively quotes) we have a huge wp:or concernt and all this fringe theory will soon go.Alexikoua (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"where applicable". If you are having issues, given that English is your second language, try Wikipedia:Mentorship. Cavann (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

In this case they are needed. I wish you good luck in searching (Someone can easily assume that the claimed facts are nowhere to be found, so as a desperate attempt of disruption we have the weak argument that pages and quotes are not needed... quite childish). Full citation please!Alexikoua (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You asked for page numbers for Yardumian et al, even though its abstract supports the sentence, and even though I have quoted that abstract in this talk page [19]. I think you have enough warnings now. I will be taking this to Arbitration next time.Cavann (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(ignore trolling) Actually every single citation from no. 68 to no.74, lacks precise page numbers. I have to note that the poorly established argument that "journals don't need pages" is something a serious wikipedian should avoid. In general, removing the necessary tags can be easily described as an aggresive way of vandalism.

No wonder Yardumian doesn't claim that Turkish people came only from "Ancient Anatolians and Thracians" excluding all other populations that lived in Anatolia (i.e. Greeks, Armenians, due to obvious reaons). I assume that the same way of large-scale falsification of references occurred in the rest of the sources which lack the necessary pagenumber.Alexikoua (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Verifiability, something I kindly ask to respect:

Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)... as in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You acted in a disruptive manner. The citations were perfectly fine, as other editors have pointed out here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Specific_page_numbers_for_journal_articles_needed.3F. You could have asked for it in the talk page, yet you edit-warred in the article and gave me a frivolous warning in my talk page.[20]

I see you have no experience with journal articles. Yardumian et al. does talk about Ancient Anatolians throughout his article. That is why exact page numbers for journal articles are absurd, unless there is a quote, because sometimes you use information in multiple pages.

Still, as a courtesy, the quotes and page numbers are below. I also included where Yardumian et al. talks about "Anatolia’s Iron Age populations." Once again, your disruptive behaviour, accusations of source falsification, and etc are noted.

However, I should also thank you for your intransigence. I had completely forgotten about the section “Turks HLA profile reflects that of ancient Anatolians” in Arnaiz-Villena et al. It'll be an excellent source for my planned expansion of prehistory section.

Cavann (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's good you are finally convinced after you've been clearly instructed by multiple users to give the necessary information. No wonder we have the same conclusions, since you are still on wp:or territory. Characteristically, the additional info you provided doesn't even mention the word "Thracian". On the other hand what the references state is that modern Turks are not clear ancestors of the Turkic tribes moved to Anatolia, but a mix between them and all the people that lived in the region from Antiquity to medieval ages. Thus, the lead and the correspodent parts should change respectivelyAlexikoua (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yardumian et al. and Arnaiz-Villena et al. are clear. The lead is also clear, as it does not say Turks are purely Ancient Anatolian. Yardumian et al. also talks about "Anatolia’s Iron Age populations," (1200 BC – 500 BC) which would include Thracian immigrants like Phrygians, who had their capital in Gordium in the 8th century BC. Do not change the lead based on your lack of understanding of the text or issues.Cavann (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thracian immigrants like Phrygians? Well, that's another wp:or concert here. For future reference Iron Age populations in Anatolia include also Cimmerians, Ancient Greeks, Phrygians (generally accepted as non-Thracians). Not only the so-called Anatolian linguistic group.Alexikoua (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Anatolians are not just Anatolian linguistic groups. Phrygians are Thracian.[21]. Any similarity to Greeks is covered by "but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples." Greeks are a neighboring people in case you have not noticed. However, Greek presence prior to iron age was limited, since Alexander's conquest was in 334 BC. And Yardumian et al. and Arnaiz-Villena say that Hellenization was also done through elite-dominance language replacement, so their genetic influence was limited too. So we cannot put Greeks to "various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j[›][71][72][73] Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups" part.Cavann (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The link you gave above says nothing about Phrygians being Thracians [[22]], it just states that Phrygians lost much of their ancestral roots, i.e. Phrygians are not Thracians.Alexikoua (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

In fact Phrygians might share some very distant roots with Thracians, same with Greeks [[23]].Alexikoua (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph starting with "The Thracians migrated to..." is pretty clear. Again, if you are having English issues, ask someone for help. Cavann (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

...and this paragraph states that... they lost much of their ancestral roots, i.e. Phrygians are not Thracians. For future reference Thracians and Phrygians are different people (unless you still believe in Strabo or 17th century historical books). In case no serious objection is provided this part will soon go as wp:or.Alexikoua (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL. What part of this do you not understand?

"The Thracians migrated to south-eastern Europe in the 7th millennium. After the 12th century, they also settled in Asia Minor, especially in Bithynia and the Troad, with the Brygi becoming ancestors of the Phrvgians. Although the Phrygians lost much of their ancestral roots, the Bithynians retained their Thracian culture."

Do you not understand that "they" refers to "the Thracians." Btw Bithynians were also in Anatolia.Cavann (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

... to the Thracians not the Phrygians, who lost much of their ancestral roots as you noted. Seems the one with poor knowledge of English is you. Feel free to go again to the wp:rs noticeboard, if you are not convinced in this talkpage as usual.Alexikoua (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Since no single argument is presented so far (apart from the extreme or point that Phrygians are Thracians), I see no reason why this part should remain.Alexikoua (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Arguments were presented and are clear. Failure or refusal to "get the point" is not a valid reason to change the text. Cavann (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this argument is about a moot point. Whether Phrygians "are" Thracians is debated by researchers, but that debate isn't really relevant to this page. I find the sentence to be good. Phrygians, while they may or may not be "native" to the area, can be included in "Ancient Anatolian civilizations" by dint of the fact that they lived in Anatolia, while the rest of Turkey was inhabited by Thracians. We could also throw in Greeks I guess (in the case of Ionia, they'd been there for awhile). --Yalens (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, if we are to include every minor Anatolian people, we should also include Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, and others, since they have been inhabiting Anatolia for millennia and have contributed to its genetic makeup. Athenean (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Assyrians is a stretch (they inhabited only the very southeast rim), but all of the peoples except Thracians can be grouped under "Ancient Anatolians". --Yalens (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems we are all in agreement that Thracians, as a representative people that deserve to be mentioned in lede, need to be excluded. If they were connected with the Phrygians that's not part of the lede of this article. Nevertheless, based on the poor arguments presented above someone can easily conclude that they are not connected.Alexikoua (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

His article says that he's an Iraqi Turkmen. Here's a source from a Turkish govt agency. [24] Should he stay in the infobox? --Երևանցի ^talk 04:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

His image was deleted. Problem solved! --Երևանցի ^talk 05:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

He is Turkish.

“

BIOGRAPHY Ihsan Dogramaci: A Remarkable Turk, by Sir Horace Phillips. Bishop Wilton, York, England: Wilton 65, 1997. xiv + 106 pages. Index to p. 108. ?12. Reviewed by Howard A. Reed ... Dogramaci was born into an affluent Ottoman Turkish landowning family in 1915. His father, 'Ali Dogramaci Pasha, was mayor of Erbil. 'Ali Pasha later represented his Turkmen constituency in the Iraqi Senate under the British mandate in Baghdad

”

[25] Cavann (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This debate shouldn't matter. The photograph was a copyright violation. Which begs me to ask...how did this article ever become a GA?! There were texts and photographs which were all copyrighted material. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The pic was not here until recently, but the text in architecture is a big problem. Cavann (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What do some have against this opening statement? --Mttll (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Turkish people constitutes an separate ethnic group and forms the largest part of the Turkish nation, but it (the nation) consists also from other ethnic and linguistic groups as Kurds, Pomaks, Greek Muslims, Arabs, Circassians, Albanians etc. The last ones are not a Turkish people, but are part from the Turkish nation. Jingiby (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The current article, as the introductory part explains, is about the ethnic group, not the state and the people that have Turkish citizenship. The above mentioned linguistic & ethnic groups do not belong to the Turkish ethnic group, as pointed in several sections above.Alexikoua (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is this listed in GA articles when its clear it did not get a proper review Talk:Turkish people/GA1? It should be delsited ASAP to not confuse our readers. Will let others comment before delisting. -- Moxy (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought that was a proper review? Cavann (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A normal review address the problems from the past and current problems including format, sources, images etc.... as seen at Talk:Canadians/GA1 it takes lots of work and time usually. I see this is a bigger problem - moving the topic to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#User:QatarStarsLeague -- Moxy (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact it was nominated for community reassessment back on 22 September, and that review is still open. I've transcluded the review below. Pyrotec (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. However, note that the reassessment was filed during an edit war, and some issues are under dispute resolution (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Turkish_people) Cavann (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted per consensus and the neutrality warning banner the article has carried since September, indicating serious instability. Khazar2 (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)}

• The article was promoted to GA status without a single reviewer comment or modification. Just like *that*. This is highly dubious, I have never seen an article be promoted to GA in this fashion.

• For many sources ([26] [27], and many others), no page numbers are provided. When this is brought up in the talkpage, it is met with belligerence, contempt, and hostility [28].

• The article is plagued by a very persistent and ubiquitous Anatolianist/indigenist POV. Sources are misquoted/misused to push the POV that the modern Turkish people are the direct, lineal descendants of the heterogeneous collection of peoples known as the Ancient Anatolians. Unreliable sources such as Antonio Arnaiz-Villena are used throughout. The same info is repeated over and over for effect (e.g. the lede, then the history section, then the genetics section, for good measure). The editor responsible for this POV pushing is extremely belligerent, arrogant, incivil, and obdurate, it is impossible to reach an agreement with him in the talkpage. He only makes tactical withdrawals to return later with full force. This has been going on for several weeks and shows no sign of abating.

• • The "Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups" claim uses as a source the controversial work of Antonio Arnaiz-Villena which has been the recipient of severe criticism by the academic community [29].

• • Of the sources used to claim "Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups" in the lede, only the Yardumian source explicitly does so. The others do not. Roseer et al. only states that Turks "are between the Armenians and Greeks", Cinnioglu et al. only state that "The variety of Turkish haplotypes is witness to Turkey being both an important source and recipient of gene flow." Wells et al. state that "This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic languages, originating in the Altai-Sayan region of Central Asia and northwestern Mongolia (31), were imposed on the Caucasian and Anatolian peoples with relatively little genetic admixture—another possible example of elite dominance-driven linguistic replacement. ", but in this context it means all the inhabitants of Anatolia (Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, in addition to Ancient Anatolians, not the ancient Anatolians per se. To infer that"Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups" using these sources is source manipulation on a major scale.

• • The genetic impact of the settlement of millions of Balkan Muslims and Caucasus Muslims is ignored, we are led to believe that modern Turks are the direct lineal descendants of the Bronze Age populations, even though the statement most strongly supported by the literature is simply that "The genetic composition of Anatolia is extraordinarily varied and complex" (e.g. Cinnioglu et al.).

• Population number inflation in the infobox. Sources are misquoted/misused, for example regarding the number of Turkish people in North Africa (Egypt, Tunisia , Algeria). For other countries, (USA, Australia), reliable sources such as national censi are relegated to a footnote or removed entirely, replaced by wild overestimates from Turkish newspapers and advocacy groups. Athenean (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• The use of non-neutral words like "However" and "Furthermore" is widespread throughout the article when demographics or genetics are concerned.

• Several other users have asked for a GA reassessment [30]. Athenean (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• The controversy regarding genetics has been going on for weeks now, and shows no sign of abating. The article has been subject to edit-warring for well over the past month, a POV tag has been in place for quite some time now, in summary the article fails both the "neutrality" and "stability" criteria. Athenean (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Cinnioglu et al. also talk about Bronze Age Population, which supports the statement. Arnaiz-Villena et al. also supported the statement, which you randomly took out,[31] even though it is a peer reviewed journal article that has not been retracted. And controversy about Arnaiz-Villena was not relevant to any of the statements in this article. And even tho Arnaiz-Villena is the principal author in the first study in question, there are like 10 more other authors. Yardumian et al. is a review study and includes numerous studies. Other studies like Rosser et al. and Wells et al. are being cited in conjunction with other sources, since they say Turkic people did not replace locals. Cavann (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"Locals" means anyone who was inhabiting Anatolia prior to the Turkic conquest. This includes Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Arabs, Laz, Assyrians. You can't take a statement to the effect of "The conquering Turkic tribes did not replace the local population" to mean "Modern Turks are descended from ancient Anatolians". As far as I can tell, the only source that explicitly backs that claim is Yardumian, which, even though a review, has been cited only once. As far as Arnaiz-Villena, I hope that the case is closed following the result of your post to RSN. Athenean (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: It is quite weird that Athenean are calling these sources [32] (e.g., Arnaiz-Villena et al., Yardumian et al.) [33] ( "Turks: nationality", Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East) "unreliable." Genetics section talks about ancestry in greater detail. Prehistory section is about relevant historic info, such as Hittites etc. The part of it in question is only one paragraph.[34] One sentence, 'Various genetic studies suggested that these indigenous populations form the basis of modern Turkish population today,[76][68] with the "genetic continuity of Anatolia’s Iron Age populations into the Seljuk, Mamluk and Ottoman eras."[68]:18', is there to explain relevance, about why we are talking about Ancient Anatolians, etc. I had looked at various GA ethnicity articles, and kinda emulated British people (e.g., British_people#Ancestral_roots) before I improved Turkish people article.

Frankly, this looks likes an abuse of GA reassessment process. Besides his various personal attacks against me here, Athenean is bringing this assessment during an edit war.Cavann (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Stability and Neutrality are key elements of a GA. Currently this article has neither. There has been a POV template there for a while now, and you have been edit-warring ad behaving in WP:OWN fashion for several weeks now. Athenean (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You have got to be joking. This looks like a personal attack page ("The editor responsible for this POV pushing is extremely belligerent, arrogant, incivil, and obdurate, it is impossible to reach an agreement with him in the talkpage. He only makes tactical withdrawals to return later with full force. This has been going on for several weeks and shows no sign of abating.") in addition to moving a content dispute here, rather than any serious attempt to improve Wikipedia. I will ignore the discussion here until neutral third party editors get involved. Cavann (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I welcome that this review request may bring neutral editors to Turkish people article, so they can have a look at the issues and sources. However, your reassessment request is still appropriate, as you filed it during edit warring [35], even though you were warned in the article talk page that "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate." [36] Cavann (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Per reassessment criteria this is appropriate since "If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.". Actually per talkpage discussion the article was never close to stability the last 3 months.Alexikoua (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I knew this was coming. The article has a lot of problems that must be sorted out before being accepted as a GA status article. The nominator and the reviewer made almost no note of this. The Talk Page highlights much of these problems in addition to Athenean's concerns outlined here. First and foremost, claims from sources written by controversial academics who have rarely been referred to and are almost unheard of in today's academia were used to make bold and controversial claims. These claims and sources are already being examined by the WP:RS community so I am not going to lay them out here. Continuous edit-warring and problematic edits have severely tarnished this articles stance as being a GA article. If the article needs reassessment, I believe all editors involved with the concerns raised in the talk page of the article to reach a consensus or to somehow involve non-involved editors/admins to help them do so. We can't have this going on forever. As for my opinion, I support a reassessment of the article as a GA. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the article in and of itself, I should note that many diffs from 2009 were plagiarism additions by User:thetruthonly. I'm not sure how much of his revisions remain in the article, since there has been a very large number of edits since, but they will have to be reviewed on google books for this to remain a GA. His diffs are here: (+6070)(+975)(+747)(+1322)(+1761)(+794)(+6800). Wizardman 18:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Only material in diff 794 remain (in architecture). I'll fix it once the article gets out of page protection.Cavann (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Went ahead and rewrote. It's unsourced unfortunately since I found an old clean revision, so that will have to be fixed once the article is unprotected. Thanks for looking them over. Wizardman 19:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It does look as though there are some real problems here. Looking back over how some of the sources and stats have been used raises some real questions for me, and the sources I'm able to easily check aren't backing up the cited claims being made. I'd support a reassessment. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Some issues are in dispute resolution Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Turkish_people. I would welcome a reassessment after this. Cavann (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Original research, as concluded above, and falsification of the given sources are noticeable, even from the lede. I've initially asked for full citations (quotes/pages), since I couldn't find where was that written in the references. No wonder, I can conclude with certainty now (after full citations have been provided) that the problematic issues are too obvious, so a delisting will be unavoidable, in case no major rewording and restructuring takes place soon.Alexikoua (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple copyright violations concerning the status of images as pointed here [[37]]. This leaves me no doubt to ask for speedy delisting.Alexikoua (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - This article has serious issue with NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE because of undue weight given to some interpretations of the genetic researches. That is why it also does not meet (at least) fifth GA criteria because it is not stable due to ongoing dispute about this issue. Note: I am one of involved editors who expressed more than once my, I believe, valid concerns about this issues and supported my position with scholarly secondary sources clearly presented at article's talkpage. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - There's more copyright violations. A photograph from the main body of the article has recently been removed due to copyright violations (see here). Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

And? Where is the copyright violation now if that image has been deleted? The image used to have "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" licence in Commons btw. Kevin ^(talk) 01:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations were there when the GA review was conducted. This means that the review did not take into consideration the copyright status of photographs and texts along with other issues that have been aforementioned. That's why we are here for a reassessment. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• De-list - ASAP its clear a proper assessment was not done to begin with. Also clear that the article is not even close to stable. -- Moxy (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

“

While adding footnotes is helpful, adding too many can cause citation clutter, which can make articles look untidy in read mode, and unreadable in edit mode. If a page has extra citations that are either mirror pages or just parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to its reliability while acting as a detriment to its readability.

”

“

The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

”

There is no reason why there should be 8 citations in just two sentences, especially in the lead. The same sentences are in 'Prehistory, Ancient era and Early Middle Ages' and 'Genetics' sections. --Երևանցի ^talk 14:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone make a collage in a single picture including notable people, like in the other nationality articles. The current one looks too basic. By the way, I will gladly help to any request. User:KazekageTR —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)