Talk:Turkish people/Archive 3

message: OK, here are some of the contentious issues I see with the image (summarizing from previous discussion):
#Number of pictures in the collage. Can we come to an agreement on four since that's what other articles have?
#Orham Pamuk. Can we find a suitable replacement?
#Pictures of women. Can we find at least one woman to put in?
Did I miss anything? Again, I'm just trying to find some sort of compromise that will be acceptable to all parties here. howcheng  {chat} 21:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sezen Aksu, the one on the far right is a woman. --Khoikhoi 00:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sezen Aksu is a woman ? Her voice sure had me fooled(j/k).  Ajda Pekkan is probably more prominent than Sezen Aksu, but i wont be all dressed in black if Sezen is put up. Ataturk and Suleiman I are absolute musts. Halide and pamuk are both novelists. Let's have some variety. How about a sportsperson like Hakan Şükür or Naim Süleymanoğlu ?
I've a suggestion about voting for pictures. May be its better to vote for names.Its better to vote name by name than voting a group of names. Every people nominates for example 4 people. And then users vote 3 of them. After the voting time finishes (can be 7 days), 4 most voted peoples pictures can be put.--Ugur Basak 23:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, let me say that I'm cool with that suggestion since that jackass Altau/ -Inanna-  deleted my comments because they didn't like them. Tombseye 23:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image issues

message: Putting into place User:Ugur Basak's idea, I'm listing the suggestions made by User:Benne above here. Please add your own suggestions, comments, and votes (I'll add Benne's since they're all his(?) suggestions in the first place). Let's close this poll seven days from now (23:59:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image voting

message: #-Inanna- 7 February 2006
#Khoikhoi 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Suleiman the Magnificent|Suleiman]]

message: #-Inanna- 7 February 2006
#Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Atatürk]]

message: #-Inanna- 7 February 2006
#Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Halide Edip Adıvar]]

message: *his controversiality does not make him less well-known, he has written great books
#Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Orhan Pamuk]]

message: #-Inanna- 7 February 2006
#Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sezen Aksu]]

message: #Ugur Basak 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Fatih Sultan Mehmet]]

message: #Ugur Basak 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sertab Erener]]

message: #Pylambert 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nazım Hikmet]]

message: #-Inanna- 7 February 2006 She holded the most awards.
#Raki-holic 21:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hülya Koçyiğit]]

message: Please do not declare the results of the picture poll before hearing from everyone who voiced opinion on this page.
And please make a note that "Wikipedia is not a Democracy".  A statement cannot be proven or disproven by intimidation or consent.
AverageTurkishJoe 02:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is blocked at this time, and the people who usually get blocked edit anyway by changing their IP. --Khoikhoi 02:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the Poll make sure the people contributed are not locked out and cannot respond 

message: Someone please take the time to archive this page - I've not been involved in the discussion here so I don't know which parts are still relevant. SouthernComfort 01:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving very necessary

message: I don't have any problem with including in the picture anybody who was once citizen of Turkey or Ottoman Empire if the title means Turks of Turkey, People of Turkey etc. So Roxelena is okay with me.  I don't have an objection to Orhan Pamuk either. As a matter of fact we don't have to make the format of the Turkish people article similar to others. Jewish People and French people do not have pictures and number of countries do not have "people"  articles including American people for example.  Ziya Gokalp who was the intellectual force in defining "turkish nationalism"; he had Kurdish parents. So by your standard he would not make it to the picture but by his standards he would. Exclusion of Roxelena would be similar to exclusion of the "House of windsor" from the English people since they are Hapsburgs. Anyway picture debate is not at the top of my concerns in this article. 
I would like to know what is meant by "amalgamation". I know it is used as a metaphor for "melting pot" but you would agree that "melting pot" is also another metaphor. Do you mean some kind of a "hybridization" (crossbreeding or mongrelization) of the peoples? You would agree that this is quite offensive no matter what ethnicity one belongs to. That is ethnic and religious minorities in Turkey would also find it very offensive. If I were a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin I would have had a hard time to see the distinction between being called a "hybrid" and a "mountain Turk." Contrary to what you might think Turkish people do know their parents' origin and have no problem in saying I am Circassion, Kurdish, Laz, etc.  I would very much see the term "amalgamation" and the genetic argument removed.  Mongrelization is the more direct term. (and if and if you are claiming that Turks are mongrels the argument should be abundant with primary sources and direct quotes from reserarchers that say so, for obvious reasons.) 
The main problem arises from trying to define the ethnicity of the peoples by their genes while they themselves clearly declare what their ethnic affiliation is. This effort leads to another problem that different self-proclaimed ethnicities are genetically similar in Turkey and that genetic material in Turkey is close the neighboring countries and to Europeans. This is where the big jumping to the conclusion comes: "All peoples in Turkey must be mongrels and and the Turkish contribution must be small". (With only one research paper claiming this it looks like the author of this article is bearing witness to the trueness of their conclusion.) There are too many assumptions in this statement and this amounts to a "historic interpretation". 
(Correction: I read the Benedetto article again and that is not what they are claiming either so this claim is a POV of the WP editor, please read the 'Dienekes is no Historian' section below AverageTurkishJoe 16:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like some good information which I'll wade through as time permits. We can't include everyone who ever lived in the Ottoman Empire! I mean Rumi was an ethnic Tajik. How can one become a Turk just like that? Perhaps that would make more sense if we had an Ottoman people page. I think we have to draw lines such as newly arrived people, at the very least are a hyphenated people as we refer to in the US such as Chinese-American etc. Nor does it seem likely that someone like Rumi simply decided that he was no longer a Persian and had become a Turk simply because he moved somewhere else. That just opens up a whole can of worms. I'm not going to argue over the picture page, but including known non-Turks seems really problematic and is something we're trying to avoid on the other peoples pages. As for the historical information backing a replacement population, I think it can be included WITH the genetic information. The Country Guide on Turkey published by the US Library of congress actually refers to the genetic study showing 30% Central Asian admixture and it's discussed in numerous journals and is referred to without actual reference but allusion in Encyclopedia Americana. I have no problem with adding information, but definitely against removing pretty reliable information that adds another dimension just as your historical data does which shows where the 30% contribution comes from since that's a higher percentage than even in Azerbaijan which is closer to Central Asia. Tombseye 20:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offence to Tajik poeople but Mevlana's classification as Tajik would be very wrong. He became famous in Konya, he calls himself Rumi - (Seljuk Rum that is he is from Konya)  that is his own saying. He wrote in Persian (, Konya Seljuk leaders had persian names also). Besides, ethnic affiliation did not mean much to him:  He is ultimate peak of islamic sufism he preached unity all of people, the nature and God. This is another case where Mevlana refuses to be piegonholed, maybe he is just too great to belong to just one article. AverageTurkishJoe 22:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's insane! People don't change ethnicities just because they live somewhere or get famous somewhere. Is Arnold Scharzeneggar not of Austrian ethnicity anymore simply because he has American citizenship? What's the point of these articles if anyone can be any ethnic group they want or are seen by others as being. Rumi's not a Turk and he is a Tajik. He was born to a long established family from Balkh, spoke Persian as his first language, and simply moving to Anatolia does not change any of that. Sorry, but I can't even remotely agree with that assessment because frankly it makes zero sense. This frankly seems like a form of ultranationalism. No offense here, but the Nazis wanted to claim that the Doric Greeks and anyone of any historical note was a German. Gandhi preached a unity of all people as did Martin Luther King Jr. so how does that make Gandhi not an Indian and King not an African-American? Existential and metaphysical discussions aside, Rumi is not by any stretch of the imagination a Turk of Turkey. Tombseye 19:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you will notice upon a second read I did not say he is Turkish. I said he is equidistant (or equally close) to all ethnicities. There is not need to involve Nazis in the argument. AverageTurkishJoe 02:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is he equidistant? I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense. He's still a Persian. Fine, I take back the Nazi comment, but I don't at all support that he's 'equidistant' or anything other than what he was born as, a Tajik/Persian. Tombseye 05:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Historical Overview