Talk:Turkification

message: This has as much to do with Turkification as the Holocaust has to do with Germanisation. They are completely different concepts. A more accurate form of Turkification that was endorsed by the Ottoman Empire was the Janissary system. This has been argued ad nauseum without consensus, and frankly, it's completely original research; or, argued through speculation based on specific individuals, which constitutes an inductive fallacy. The article gives one the impression that all Turkified individuals were forced, which isn't necessarily true, either. "Genetic testing" does not prove the nature of that change. Turkification means cultural assimilation, it does not mean executions, nor does it imply force. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The section was removed but restored with edit summary: agree, it's a POV edit. But try to change it instead of deleting it. And maybe add something more to the article: Turkification was not simply ethnicide--it was voluntary assimilation. We all agree, I presume, that this was not a cultural change in which Armenians became Turks. In other words, this was not an instance of Turkification. As such it does not belong in this article. How then are we supposed to "try to change it" so that it belongs in this article? Replace "genocide" by "language courses"? By the way, there are already 670 other Wikipedia articles that refer to the Armenian Genocide; I don't think we urgently need one more.  --Lambiam 22:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now I see the reasoning, I concur--it doesn't belong. But why isn't there something here about the many refugees ethnically cleansed from the Caucasus, Greece, Bulgaria, etc. who voluntarily assimilated into a Turkish identity? Why are you guys letting the Turk-haters take over this article like they've taken over so many others? It's not enough to just delete bad stuff--you have to write good stuff. Where is the discussion of Ataturk's Turkishness policy, of the population exchanges? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see above, I have proposed a segmentation into historic periods that would give such discussions a natural place. However, no agreement was reached; other editors prefer to group according to ethnicity – which makes it impossible to turn this article into something encyclopedic.  --Lambiam 20:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Armenian Genocide

message: : Not to forget that the GENETIC CONTRIBUTION is the most important act to do to ensure a peaceful religious/cultural conversion. It is obvious it has occured, and therefore must be mentioned.  
The last and most significant "INVASION" was of Turkish, as millions of nomads rushed into the area —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.101.210 (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: genetical contribtion is important

message: I have added the tags, Sciencereview, Unencyclopedic, Neologism to this article. There has been a long discussion about this article.  A number of editors gave up on this article for the reasons that these tags stand for. Not having these tags gives the impression that this article is undisputed which is not the case. 
AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the neologism tag, since that clearly doesn't apply (see my edit comment). For the other two tags, please be specific, regarding the sections that contain syntheses of primary sources, and regarding exactly in what ways the article is unencyclopedic (WP:NOT provides a rather lengthy list, and it's hard to know which points you think apply to the article). Thanks! --Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sciencereview, Unencyclopedic, Neologism 

message: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9504E3DA103BEE3ABC4152DFB3668383609EDE
That should give an end to some of the arguments here.
94.66.45.195 (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times 1918 article containing the term 

message: This article should discuss its actual title which is the process of cultural assimilation of non-Turkish ethnoreligious groups in modern Turkey. Not discus the "Genetic testing of language replacement hypothesis in Anatolia, Caucasus and Balkans". Someone should clean this article and start from scratch.--Rafy talk 22:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkification or genetic studies! 

message: I expected to read something about the expansion of Turks throughout Central Asia starting in the early centuries AD. Does this page specifically pertain to Ottoman Turkification?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.195.227 (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No discussion of Central Asian Turkification? 

message: If a source from 2002 is debunked by a source from 2014, then wouldn't that make the study false? Apparently the answer seems to be controversial, the basic logic can't be applied to genetics even though it is also science.
now let's look at outdated studies
A 2002 study concluded that Turks do not significantly differ from other Mediterranean populations, indicating that while the Asian Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance (language and religion), the genetic significance is lesser detectable.[120] A genetic research from 2001 has suggested the local Anatolian origins of the Turkic Asian peoples might have been slight.[121] In 2003, DNA results suggested there was no strong genetic relationship between the Mongols and the Turks people despite the historical relationship of their languages.[122]
Okay so these studies were conducted when we didn't know much about genetics. As a matter of fact, the study that Cinnioğlu conducted in 2004 is also full of flaws as in classifying haplogroup N as non Central Asian (though I don't believe such classifications, the "middle eastern" or "european" haplogroups can also be found in Central Asia. haplogroups predate modern ethnic groups. This is why you can find J2 in Xinjiang and in Italy even though there was no Uyghur migration to Italy or vice versa.) but a study that conducted in 2017 uses the same data as classifies it as East Eurasian (though I also noticed some flaws in that study as well). Also, lack of AUdna studies 
Now let's look at modern studies
http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/18/015396.full.pdf
Previous genetic studies have generally used Turks as representatives of ancient Anatolians. Our results show that Turks are genetically shifted towards Central Asians, a pattern consistent with a history of mixture with populations from this region
''
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236450/
The weight for the migration event predicted to originate from the branch ancestral to East Asia (presumably Central Asia) into current-day Turkey was 0.217 (21.7%)
''
http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12607764/index.pdf
Moreover, results pointed out that language (Turkish) in Anatolia might not have been replaced by the elites, but by a large group of people. Therefore, it can be concluded that the observations do not support the elite dominance model of Renfrew (1987 ; 1991).
''
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179474
it should be noted that modern Turks are a hybrid population, comprising of the original Anatolian stock, Turkic people (i.e. of Central Asian ancestry), as well as other ethnicities from regions comprising the former Ottoman Empire. 
''
though the metu one is a bit outdated, it is one of the few studies from 2000s that debunk the Turkification by elites myth. Anyway, pretty much any study that's made after 2012 debunks the myth of Turkification by Turkic wizards with superior language teaching skills.
Second study is also misunderstood by a lot of people, since it does not use the term "CENTRAL ASIAN" but "EAST ASIAN". In 2014, there was no reliable Seljuk/Ottoman era Turkmen samples. But in 2018 we got 2 samples. I tried to add them but for some mysterious reasons, they were deleted. Not sure if I tried to add them to this page but here we go
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2018/05/08/science.aar7711.DC1/aar7711_de_Barros_Damgaard_SM.pdf
Check page 43 or let me post the link for you
https://i.imgur.com/X5TQRlI.png
also page 44, for detailed information
https://i.imgur.com/RiSHdlC.jpg
So basically the Ottoman era Turkmens were around 20-40% Asian and they clustered with Central Asians. Whereas in most genetic studies Armenians and greeks and hellenized anatolians show little to no East Eurasian dna. Whereas for Turks this rate seems to be around 10% and 21.7% (somewhere between) based on my observations and Alkan's study. If we were to use basic math, we could see that a 10% East Eurasian Turk would actually carry around 25% to 35% Central Asian heritage and for a elite domination to happen, the elite impact should be below 10% according to METU study I posted. In other words, Turkic (Turkmen) impact isn't limited to culture and language only, but it also includes genetics as well. 
The studies I posted from 2014, 2017 and 2018 seems to go along with the historic works. ALSO, I don't know if any of you read this before but with other works too.
And when Archbishop Palamas came among Greek Christians in Asia Minor, who might be considered his own people, he observed with some wistfulness – but also some admiration – “the Christians and the Turks mixing with each other, going about their lives, leading and being led by each other...”
History of the Ottoman Empire - Douglas A. Howard
There is every reason to suppose that intermarriage took place rather extensively from the very beginning of the Turkish occupation of Anatolia and for several centuries thereafter. Anna Comnena speaks of the offspring of such unions as mixovarvaroi, and the twelfth-century Balsamon refers to their curious practises. When the Greek historian Nicephorus Gregoras passed through Bithynia en route to Nicaea in the middle of the fourteenth century, just one generation after the conquest of Nicaea, he observed that the population consisted of Greeks, mixovarvaroi (Graeco-Turks), and Turks. Thus intermarriage of Muslim and Christians at every level of society played a very important role in the integration and absorption of the Greek Christian element into Muslim society.
The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century - Speros Jr. Vryonis
In Turcomania there are three classes of people. First, there are Turcomans; these are worshippers of Mahommed, a rude people with uncouth language of their own. They dwell among mountains and downs where they they find good pasture, for their occupation is cattle-keeping. Excellent horses, known as Turquans, are reared in their country, and also very valuable mules. The other two classes are the Armenians and the Greeks, who live mixed with the former in the towns and villages, occupying themselves with trade and handicrafts.
The Travels of Marco Polo, Volume 1
''
Speaking of greeks, I think Anatolian greeks should be considered as greek speaking Anatolians rather than greeks. Because genetically most of them are just greek speaking Anatolians with Western Anatolians having some greek heritage. Presence of 'many greeks', should be 'presence of greek states and elites'
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201718
Fallmerayer hypothesized that the Hellenization of the Peloponnesean Slavs was accelerated by the transfer to the Peloponnese of Hellenized populations from Asia Minor. We tested this hypothesis by comparing the Peloponneseans with three Greek-speaking populations of Asia Minor: a western-coastal population sample extending from the Propontis in the north to Alikarnassos (Bodrum) in the south; a northern population from Pontus, that is, the coast of Black Sea and the Asia Minor interior corresponding to the current northern Turkey; and a central Anatolian population from Cappadocia. 
''
All these populations are separated from the Peloponneseans by PCA
'''
http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/18/015396.full.pdf
Here is the problem: If a study is debunked by a recent one, it basically has no value. In my opinion most of them should be deleted if the data is no longer reliable and most importantly if it clashes with recent findings, then they are not only old studies but also misleading.Buhedyar (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: To give a short answer to a long question: no. A study from 2014 does not "debunk" a study from 2002 just because the results are different, and no academic would even dream of making that claim. It is very common in genetics to find conflicting results, as virtually no studies compare more than a few genes. This does not mean that other results are "debunked". Jeppiz (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is common in genetics to find conflicting results, because genetics today are very different from genetics 20 years ago. Genetics today are cleaning the mess that the outdated studies created in the past because we had very little understanding of genetics. Now science is correcting itself. Cinnioğlu did not even know that haplogroup N had East Asian origins in 2004. Also, by basic logic, let's say I wrote a book about how the first coin was invented in X land based on current historic evidence. 20 years later, archeologists find a coin that predates the first X coin by 200 years. Would that mean my book about X coin being the first is still legit? By your logic, it is because history is apparently also producing conflicting results.Buhedyar (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's make this simple: please provide the source that says that the previous is "debunked". As long as it's only your interpretation, we are not removing it. Jeppiz (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear that this person hasn't read anything that I posted. He asks me to repost the things that I already posted and thinks I didn't post them or they are not included in the links. So i'll discard his personal feelings towards science, or towards Turkish people, apparently the studies are also my own "personal interpretations" when one study openly says Therefore, it can be concluded that the observations do not support the elite dominance model and apparently the studies that imply a big Turkic impact don't go against the studies that claimed small Turkic impact. Too bad I don't have a WP like shiny link. Since he's referring to himself as "we", I suppose there is more of you. Who is next? Please read more than 2 lines this time. Buhedyar (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Now this person called  should be banned from this page since he contributes nothing and he continues to attack me and threaten me with a ban. All I'm asking him is to debunk any of what I said and I will stay put. If he cannot debunk any of what I said THEN it means I'm right and I have the right to edit the page. I had a discussion about Persians 1 year ago AND when I was proven wrong (partially, time period wasn't given, my point still stands though), I didn't do any change. It is clear that this guy has no idea about how to read a text or how to discuss with a person online. If someone spent his precious time posting links about history and genetics, I'd bother to read and reply. Instead I get "warnings" for posting sources and threats and literally one line replies as if it's an insult. There is a reason why people do not take Wikipedia seriously anymore and users like him are contributors to this fact. I recommend a sitewide ban of Jeppiz from all Turkish related pages since he fails to logically explain his points and fails to explain why I'm wrong. Mostly because he didn't read any of what I posted and has a bias towards Turks or scientific facts. If it's the latter then what can I say? How do we teach people to respect science? Imagine if this discussion were about the solution of 2x2. Buhedyar (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

text: I watch it too.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fossilized studies 

message: Hurri and Nairi communities living in Anatolia and speaking Armenian  were not included in the city of Byzantium
--78.174.231.102 (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voluntary Assimilation 

message: The Vatandaş Türkçe konuş section is in comparison to other phrases fairly over sourced.  It has two phrases and 13 sources. while there is also a separate article of the Citizen, speak Turkish! campaign. The campaign is rather well known, I'd like to remove some citations and keep about two per phrase.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  section Citizen, speak Turkish!  

message: Beshogur, I provided a reference that covers how the Arabs of Turkey have been affected by Turkification. Why have you deleted it? Konli17 (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit is an orginal research. Beshogur (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beshogur is right here, Konli17. This article definitely should go down as an original research and never be viewed as a reliable source to make references to. --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 14:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent blanking 

message: This section has problems, similar to Archaeogenetics_of_the_Near_East#Turkey. Most sources are primary sources, so most of the section needs to be re-written with secondary sources. Bogazicili (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed all genetic studies that were primary sources, let me know if there are any issues. Bogazicili (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic section 

message: There seems to be nothing regarding the Turkification occurring in Afrin, Rojava, which is still an active situation even. After Turkey's invasion into Afrin via operation Operation Olive Branch Turkey has been changing names of buildings and locations, teaching local children Turkish and there is evidence of making them display the Grey Wolves hand symbol https://www.syriahr.com/en/116896/https://twitter.com/LindseySnell/status/1378020055699628034 Article completely void of all that is happening involving the Syrian civil war and Rojava regarding Turkification.
With various military operations (too many to even name) and forces stationed inside the Kurdistan Region, Turkey is now essentially occupying parts of the region and areas in the guise of fighting the PKK. This results in projecting soft and hard force and also influence in the region, one angle turkey plays is attempting to create a pro-turkish turkmen organisation. https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/growing-controversy-over-turkeys-invasion-of-northern-iraq-633064
I propose the section header "history" be changed to something more appropriate so content like this can be added and also actual Turkification can be understood.TataofTata (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkification is still an on going process and the section of "history" seems more to bury everything than actually account it properly