Talk:Turks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Turks/Turkish[edit]

The page must redirect to the Turkish people article for the following reasons:

  • The demographics of Turkey describes ethnic Turkish people as Turks...
  • Turkish minorities in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Kosovo, Romania, etc. are referred to as Turks in the census's (not 'Turkic' or 'Azeri'...).
  • There is a difference between Turks and Turkic just like Germans [i.e. German people] and Germanic!

Turco85 (Talk) 19:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is Greeko-Turkish POV. The term Turks refers to Turks the Heaven (present day Uyghurs, Yugurs and Uzbeks). Those Osmanturko-Greeko-mixblood "Turkish" people used the name "Turk", but they're not. Even the Western Turks (Onoq) does not belong to the Turk proper. --58.83.252.56 (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with the "Osmanturko-Greeko-mixblood" people as you call them, being called "Turks" by everyone else, if a) their "mixblood" includes Osman Turk as you concede; b) they still today speak a Turkic family language? You say in your summary that they stole the name "Turk", yet you admit they are descended from Osman Turks, so obviously they acquired the name "Turk" and their Turkic language, through inheritance by descent, not by theft. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are (half-)Turkic, but not Turks:
  1. The Turks are of long-term significance since their name are used by most Turkic peoples (but no one like Osman Turkish people claim to be "Türk" except for Ili Turki)
  2. Their language is Turkic (though mixed enormous amount of European words), but not Uyghuric. The Turks speak an Uyghuric language (Old Turkic language).
  3. The Turks believe in Tengerism, or at least Islam with Tengerism characterestic, while the Greeko-Osman believe in Islam with European characterestic - deviated from the Turkic nature (so they're only half Turkic, the other half European).
  4. Redirecting Turks to Turkish people is somewhat similar to redirecting Mongols to Kalmyks (Kalmyks speak a Mongolic language), or redirecting Hittites to Englishman (Englishman speak a Indo-European language), or redirecting Bulgars to Bulgarians (Bulgarians call themselves "Bǎlgar").
  5. Throughout the history, no one Turkic tribe dare claim to be Turks (eventhough their closest relative, Uyghurs, did only call themselves East Turks), but the Greeko-Osman claimed that, because their homeland are too far away from the homeland of majority Turkic peoples. They're Europeanized, and they realized that the main difference between them and majority Europeans was they're Turkic, fully ignored the main difference between them and majority Turkic peoples.
Being called "Turks" by everyone else? No. Only Greeko-Osman call themselves Turks, others call them Turkish, or Osman Turks. You may redirect Osman Turks to Turkish people, but Osman Turks is not Turks (as Swiss Alemannic Germans is not Germans). Turks do/did not use Latin --58.83.252.64 (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is common usage in English? Turks and Turkish people are synonymous in common usage. Without better evidence, the term should remain a redirect to Turkish people. If there is evidence of ambiguity, it could redirect to the the disambiguation page Turk. older ≠ wiser 16:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning Gokturks is of long-term significance, and thus should be the the object of redirect. BTW, "Turks and Turkish people are synonymous in common usage", any evidence? Turks and Gokturks are synonymous is more common. --58.83.252.64 (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the evidence of ambiguity in English usage? older ≠ wiser 16:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence of "Turks commonly refers to Turkish in English" so there's ambiguity. Doesn't need evidence when counterexamples are enough. --58.83.252.64 (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant evidence that Gokturks is ambiguous with Turks. That seems to me a novel claim. older ≠ wiser 16:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By searching Ashina and Turks together, they're ambiguous, by long-term significance, Turks should be redirected Gokturks. --58.83.252.64 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, see the common usage: "Turks" -Wikipedia. --58.83.252.64 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is abundant and easy to find evidence of ambiguity between Turks and Turkish people. For example, [1] older ≠ wiser 16:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In these books, "Turks" means Turkic peoples, and "Turks in Turkey" means Turkic peoples in Turkey. --58.83.252.64 (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not clear from what I see on the results. And for the record, it may be better to change this to redirect to the disambiguation -- I see no reason for it to redirect to Göktürks. older ≠ wiser 16:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear. So that't your "evidence" that Turks=Turkish? --58.83.252.64 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be right that Turk in English can also refer to eastern Turks, so therefore the English term is ambiguous an a redirect to Turk (a disambiguator page) would be in order. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps to Turkic peoples is fine, nevertheless Gokturks is of long-term significance. --58.83.252.64 (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page "Turk" would be more neutral since it's a disambig and covers all the bases equally... besides, it's the exact same term, only that this one is a plural form, so that's actually where it should have been all along... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For common usage in English, we can look at English-language dictionaries. Random House defines "Turk" as follows:
noun
1. a native or inhabitant of Turkey.
2. (formerly) a native or inhabitant of the Ottoman Empire.
3. a Muslim, especially a subject of the Sultan of Turkey.
4. a member of any of the peoples speaking Turkic languages.
5. one of a breed of Turkish horses closely related to the Arabian horse.
Merriam-Webster, on the other hand, puts speakers of Turkic languages first, and natives of Turkey second. This difference of opinion appears to support the position that there is no primary topic; that is, no one of these usages is sufficiently predominant in English that we can presume that usage is what a reader is looking for when they search for "Turk" or "Turks".
Unfortunately, that leaves us with several hundred other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Turks" that now need to be fixed. Help in this effort would be appreciated. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turks to Turkish people[edit]

If one looks at a range of census' they will see that the term "Turks" is used to refer to the Turkish people and not all Turkic people as a whole. For example:

  • The 2010 Russian Census [2] refers to Turkish people as merely "Turks". Other Turkic groups are placed by their ethnic name (i.e. Azerbaijanis, Turkmens, etc.)

Furthermore, if one looks at some of the Turkic cenuses this pattern still occurs, for example:

  • The 2009 Kazakhstan Census [3], which is a Turkic nation also refers to the Turkish people as "Turks". Other Turkic groups are written down by their known names (i.e. "Kazakhs", "Uzbeks", "Uyghurs", "Tatars", "Azerbaijanis", etc.)
  • The 2009 Kyrgyzstan Census [4] also refers to the Turkish people as merely "Turks", whilst again the other Turkic groups are differentiated by their ethnic names (i.e. "Kyrgyz", "Uzbeks", "Uigurs", "Tatars", "Kazakhs", "Tajiks", etc. see here for English translation: [5])

Turco85 (Talk) 12:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All you've demonstrated above is that some sources which originate outside the English-speaking world use the word "Turk" to mean "people who self-identify as ethnically affiliated with the inhabitants of Turkey." That does not change the fact that other sources in English use the same word to mean other things as well, and does not establish which (if any) of these usages is primary. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can continue with offical census' if you wish. What about the 2001 Ukrainian Census [6], that also refers to the Turkish people as "Turks" whilst other Turkic groups are written by their ethnic names (i.e. "Turkmens", "Uzbeks", "Uigurs", etc.). And it is not about "self-identifying as ethnically affiliated with the inhabitants of Turkey" because it is not about citizens, it's about the Turkish ethnicity. If one reads journals regarding "Turks in Germany", or "Turks in the United Kingdom" which ethnic groups will they be refering to? Obviously the Turkish ethnicity. Turco85 (Talk) 12:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't wish. You can continue this all day and all night, and all you are proving is that one usage of the term exists, which doesn't disprove that other usages exist.
I frankly roll my eyes whenever people start to argue that "my usage (or this source's usage) of term X is right and everyone else's usage of term X is wrong" because disambiguation on Wikipedia is not about determining the "correct" usage, but only about determining whether term X is ambiguous and whether it has a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about who is "right" or "wrong", it's about what the sources actually say. One does not have to be "from Turkey" to be part of the "Turkish people". Hence, the Turkish minorities are referred to as "Turks" as well, see for example the 2001 Croatia census [www.minorityrights.org/download.php?id=122] or the 2002 Macedonia census [7]. The terms "Turkish people" and "Turks" are synonymous.Turco85 (Talk) 12:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Turco85, it seems we have a failure to communicate. A look at the article history shows you have been edit warring heavily for many years to keep this ambiguous redirect pointed only to Turkish people. Yet we have already a disambiguation page Turk which covers the exact same thing (including the "Turks Island"), and as has been pointed out repeatedly it turns out, redirecting there would greatly assist our editors and robots to get all the links to here disambiguated. Since this dispute has been ongoing for so many years, it looks like it may have to go to a "redirects for discussion", discussion. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Til. Turco85 is just not hearing what others are saying. Yes, there are sources that use "Turk" to mean Turkish people. Fine, show me a list of them longer than this page. That does not change the fact that other sources use the same term to mean other things, including sources that older ≠ wiser referred to in the previous section. You can show me 500 or 500,000 sources that refer to "Mercury" as a planet, but that doesn't change the fact there is also a metal called "mercury." --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the fact that you say that "you [as in I] have been edit warring heavily for many years" is a bit harsh as I have only ever edited this page 4 times in 2 years! Maybe it would be best to take this debate to mediation. I have no objection to cooperating with other users. But I actually feel the same way towards R'n'B right now. I have shown sources here which differntiate between different Turkic groups [i.e. a range of census'] and which shows that Turks and Turkish people is synonymous. I understand that "Turk" can have other meanings, that is why I have not redirected that to the "Turkish people" article.Turco85 (Talk) 14:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But Turks (with the s) can also have several other meanings in English all over the world, from geographic references in the Caribbean Islands to Ireland. And inexplicably, these are already covered at Turk (without the s) while you insist that the ambiguous term "Turks" (with the s) redirect only to your preferred meaning among several. This defies logic, but if it is going to mean endless edit warring, (I should have said from you and other editors going back to 2005) then an RFD would indeed be better. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but the disambiguation of "Turk" could be placed in a Template:About within the Turkish people, couldn't that resolve this issue? I think the comparison of "Turks" and "Mercury" is not that reasonable (given that Mercury has a range of very notable meanings)... though Turks could be compared with say the term Jew but that in itself redirects to the ethno/relgious article with a Template:About disambiguation of "Jew (disambiguation)".Turco85 (Talk) 15:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are 3 competing positions that keep edit warring in the dispute going back to 2005. 1) Those who feel Eastern Turks are the only "true" Turks, and that Western Turks have no right to the name, such as our anon editor above; 2) Those who feel Western Turks are the only "true" Turks, and that Eastern Turks have no right to the name, such as Turco85; and 3) Those who feel the disambig page Turk explains everything neutrally enough already, including additional meanings of "Turks" in English. This third choice would also help editors and robots to disambiguate with one click, on the pages that link to Turks now. Only (3) seems to take a bird's eye view of the football field (NPOV), while (1) and (2) seem to be looking at it from the position of one of the "teams" or the other (ie "Turkic" vs. "Turkish". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a minute, I would never say that x is a true "Turk" and y is not. Gosh! please refrain from such assumptions. First you state that I've been heavily edit warring here for years, even though I've made only 4 edits, and now this... come on, cut me some slack. What I am saying is that the term "Turks" is mostly used to refer to the Turkish people... and I have even shown this by illustrating that even Turkic countries generally call the Turkish people "Turks" within their offical censuses. I think that "Turks" should be redirected to the Turkish people for this reason only, not because I think that they are the so-called "true Turks"... The Turk disambiguation should surely be enough to place all other terms which could be put in the a Template:About at the main Turkish people article. Turco85 (Talk) 16:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kurgan stelae of Türks as recognized by all Turkic peoples.
The old Türks are undoubtedly the original real Turks, and of long-term significance. After the Türks, many Türkmen peoples (include the Bozoks) accepted the term "Türk", but they're not Turks in the narrow sence (they are Turkic people in a wider sense). The Osman people, lived together with the Hellenic people, found they're different from those Greeks, and broadly called themselves "Türk". This has nothing to do with what Türks really to be. --Shamans of Tengri 16:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that everyone are "true Turk" is right in the broader sence, i.e., everyone are (half or full) true Turkic (even the modern Bulgarians). But only Kok Turks are real Türks, others not (even the modern Uyghur-Yugur-Uzbek descendants, not). I'm not claiming Turkish people are not true Türks (broaderly), but they're not true Türks (narrowly). --Shamans of Tengri 17:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relations[edit]

Shamans of Tengri 17:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A non-Turkic ethnic call may call any Turkic-speaking people who call themselves "Turk" Turks in their demongraphic statistics.
  • And when a Turkic ethnic doesn't like the term Türk call any Turkic-speaking people who like the term "Türk" Turks in their demongraphic statistics.
  • In neither sense "Turks" means solely Turkish people. Some people say Turkish minorities are refers as "Turks" (and use it as a point in favor of Turks=Turkish people), but "Turks" here include all people who call themselves Turk.
  • There're altogether three "Turks": Turks (narrow), Turks (broader), and Turks (census)=those who use/like the term "Turk" among Turks (broader). Turkish people belong (but not equal!) to the latter two. --Shamans of Tengri 17:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that placing an image here is a form of "proving" your view to be valid? Well it is not. As for everything you have written above, I don't know if I should be insulted or whether it's a mere joke. Would you be able to supply a range of sources which back up everything you have said. Your views do not have the mertis required to justify such an action. Turco85 (Talk) 17:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This whole discussion about who is a Turk (true or otherwise) and who is not is completely irrelevant. For purposes of disambiguation, we only care about who (or what) are called "Turks," whether or not anyone else considers the use of this name to be correct or not. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that offically, "Turks" are regarded to be the "Turkish people" according to offical censuses; this has even been illustrated by the Kazakh census and the Kyrgyz census. The Russian census (as well as the Soviet censuses) also segregate the Turkic groups by their names, the Turkish people again being referred to a simply "Turks".Turco85 (Talk) 19:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that

  1. Officially, there is a group called "Turks", and many Turkish people are classified as "Turks". But no evidence shows that Turkish people are the only people who're classified as "Turks". The fact is all people who fill "Turks" are classified as "Turks", though many Turkish people fill that.
    1. Indeed, if an Englishman live in a non-UK state (such as Mongolia or something like that) fill "English", then he's an "English" in census, but if he fill "British", then he's a "British" (no one will ask whether he is an English or Scots).
    2. Similarily, if a Kazakh fill "Kazakh" in Uzbekistan census, they he's a "Kazakh". If he fill "Turks", he's a "Turk" then (no one will ask whether he is a Kazakh or Kirgiz).
  2. What's more? "Official" does not equal "common". State of Palestine can be abbr. to "Palestine" officially, but Palestine does not redirect to State of Palestine.

Turks should redirect to Turkic peoples, in the same way, Arabs redirects to Arab people, any other redirection will be considered a misuse of this website.

Ismet Dere (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy says it should redirect to the disambiguation page Turk, since there are also a lot of other ambiguous meanings for "Turks" apart from Turkic peoples as you can see from Turk, including islands in the Caribbean and Ireland, among others. This has already been discussed ad infinitum. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is appropriate to redirect to primary usage of the term, that is Turkic people, other uses are periphery. For example, Einstein redirects to Albert Einstein, Arabs redirects to Arab people

Ismet Dere (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created disambiguation page for the term Turks to avoid continuous and thoughtless dispute. Jingiby (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for these unilateral actions. Please try to work with other editors. Once again, this has been discussed at extreme length and the only proper target for this page is to redirect to the existing disambig Turk. The claim for Turkic peoples, or according to others Turkish people, or some other target, is heavily disputed. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Til. When the previous discussion has degenerated into a dispute about whether or not this term should redirect to an existing disambiguation page, how can you imagine that creating a new disambiguation page (largely duplicating the existing one) will "avoid" further dispute? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With this logic, Einstein should not redirect to Albert Einstein and Arabs should not redirect to Arab people. This looks like biased behavior. Ismet Dere (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Logic you say? Flawed analogies such as the ones you mention are a hallmark of logical fallacies. We aren't discussing anything here but the disambiguation page Turk, and it would be totally bad logic to force this page to be consistent with some other unrelated situation that exists elsewhere on wikipedia. It's always easier to point to "other stuff" as a supposed predecedent or a fait accomplis while demanding some vaguely similar principle be applied here, than it is to explain why it would be logical here in the first place. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is what 'fair' is, in my opinion, same rule applies to all. I demand that you fix Turks or Arabs and Einstein and Germans vs..vs.. else, you are completely biased. Ismet Dere (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that your analogies are flawed, because none of those are true parallel situations. None of them involve any controversy or dispute. This situation does, because there are people who are just as adamant that this should redirect to Turkish people or what have you, and we have a perfectly good and neutral disambig at Turk where it should continue to point since Turks is an ambiguous term. "Arabs", "Einstein" or "Germans" are not the names of island chains anywhere AFAIK, if they were, it might be a little more analogous, but argument by analogy and precedent is still a bad way to do logic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turks should redirect to Turkic pepoples[edit]

Turks should redirect to Turkic peoples for the same reasson Einstein redirects to Albert Einstein and Arabs redirects to Arab people and Germans redirets to German people. Ismet Dere (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NO BIAS!! Turks should redirect to Turkic peoples[edit]

I demand that article Turks should redirect to Turkic peoples for the same reason Arabs redirects to Arab people and Germans redirets to German people. Ismet Dere (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making unilateral demands and tendentious editing is more likely to get you blocked than to achieve your objective. Establish consensus for your change. If there is no consensus, then you may need to accept that. older ≠ wiser 15:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The teenagers of Wikipedia have taken their Turkish hate to the next level[edit]

Every single use of the word Turks in the entirety of Wikipedia now take you to a disambugation page where you have to sort through rappers, obsolote army units, villages in Scotland, songs, and the animal turkey to find what the term is used 99% of the time for, the Turkish people. This has to be a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.193.224.8 (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turks&oldid=1146784963"