Talk:Demographics of Turkey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.

Archive: 1

Contents 1 In transit from Turks: 2 5 million Turkish citizens are of Albanian descent ? 3 an article based on Turkish government's propaganda 4 "Almost anti-Turk" ! 5 Recent edits 6 1923 Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey 7 Syriacs (also called Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans) 8 Just another orientism article 9 Articles purpose 10 Pointless data 11 Peoples of the Caucasus in Turkey 12 Strong POV

[edit] In transit from Turks:

The Oghuz tribes gained dominance in the region not by their high populations but their superiority in warfare. So, initially Turkic people lived as a minority in many regions that they first captured. Anatolia, which was formerly a part of the Roman Empire, was (and still is) especially an ethnically very mixed region. It is, therefore, impossible to speak about a pure Turkish race in the tangled ethnic mix of Anatolia. Moreover, many tribes has accepted the Turkish race as their ethnical identity and Turkish language as their native language in the past centuries. In Turkey, it is not surprising to notice blond and blue-eyed individuals within the dominant black-haired, Mediterranean-looking mass. For this reason, it is not only difficult but also scientifically inappropriate to classify people in Turkey as those coming from Turkic origin and others. In this context, the genuinely Turkic people are individuals named as Central Asian Turks (including Tatars), most of whom have possibly come to the region by Mongol invasion long after the initial Oghuz tribes conquered and mixed with the local population. Proving this difficulty, there are as many classifications as the number of scientific attempts to make these classifications. Turkey is not a unique examle for that and many European countries (e.g. France, Germany) bear a great ethnic diversity. However, this ethnic diversity does not prevent in the long run a person living in France or Germany to accept his/her ethnic identity as French or German, just as it does not in Turkey. It can be concluded that it is the very ethnic identity an individual feels to belong to that really counts rather than the language he/she is speaking or the ethnic root he/she has descended from. So, the immense diversity observed in the published figures for the percentages of Turkish people living in Turkey (ranging from 80 to 97%) totally depends on the method used to classify the ethnicities. Complicating the matter even more is the fact that the final official and country-wide classification of ethnical identities of Turkey has been performed on 1965 and many of the numbers published after that time are gross estimations (but surprisingly demonstrated as sheer facts). Some classifications based on the spoken language is also invaluable, because in the mixed society of Turkey many Kurdish people are speaking Turkish as their first language and many Turkish and Arabic citizens are speaking Kurdish as fluently as Turkish or Arabic.

It is mandatory to take into account all these difficulties and be cautious while evaluating the ethnic groups. A possible list of ethnic groups living in Turkey could be as follows (based on the classification of P.A.Andrews (1), however this book is more like a review and depends on other people's publications):

A)Turks: Kirghiz, Karapapaks, Turkmens, Kazakhs, Kumuks, Yoruks, Uzbeks, Tatars, Azerians, Balkars, Uighurs, Karachays.

B)Kurds

C)Zazas

D)Arabs

E)Georgians

F)Laz

G)Balkan origined groups (Bulgarians, Serbians, Croatians, Rumenians and Bosnians): These people have migrated to Anatolia during the Ottoman Era and have accepted Turkish-Muslim identity.

H)Minorities: Greeks, Jews, Armenians.

I)Others: It is well known that very small groups of people from Germany, Poland, Estonia, Sudan and Somali are also living within the territories of Turkey.

1.Andrews, Peter A. Ethnic groups in the Republic of Turkey. Wiesbaden: Reichert Publications, 1989.

see:

Turkic languages

Turkish language

Ottoman Empire

Turkey

Turkic Peoples:

Gokturks

Khazars

Uighurs

Seljuk Turks

[edit] 5 million Turkish citizens are of Albanian descent ?

An exercpt from a BBC article

Turkey not only sees the Balkans as its backyard, but is itself home to an estimated 5 million ethnic Albanians. According to sociologist Nukhet Sirman of the Bosphorous University in Istanbul, many Turks are only now beginning to discover their Balkan roots.

Here's the link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/11/98/crossing_continents/374751.stm

Your thoughts on how this bit of info should be integrated into the article ?

It is yet another moronic article with full of overstatements about Turkey's demographics and Turks "discovering" this or that about themselves. In Turkey there are "of course" 5 millions of Albanians, then 5 millions of Bosnians, 5 millions of Georgians, 5 millions of Abhazs, absolutely surely another 5 millions of Circassians, etc. etc. According to such BBC-esque mathematics, there is just no Turk in Turkey!. There is no worthwhile info in the article to integrate into the article--Jensboot 16:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] an article based on Turkish government's propaganda

I'm quite appalled to read in this article The so-called genocide of Armenians, Greeks, Syrians, and Assyrians and some other niceties over the treatment of minorities, coming just from the Turkish government's propaganda literature. This article (at least its parts about minorities) doesn't meet the requirements of a neutral encyclopedia. --Pylambert 09:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you expect? Most sensible people have not got the energy to fight nationalists. I for one totally agree with you but I don't have the energy to patroll these pages for Turkish propaganda, just see what happened at Adana.--Wiglaf 12:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but there is another possibility, block some people from wikipedia, it would seem wise for the Turkish nationalist vandal operating only on controversial pages to add nationalist nonsense: Adana, Armenian Genocide, Kurds etc. (just have a look at his 'contributions'). I hope if all sensible people keep watch on some pages it will be possible to eradicate these vandals. I already do it for Movement for Rights and Freedoms, Muttahida Qaumi Mahaz and Alawite (and some others, including in the French and Dutch wikipedias), but I agree with you that it can become somewhat boring. Well, that's the way wikipedia works, adding and correcting... --Pylambert 14:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I block people, such as Isarioglu, when discover that they remove information despite being warned. However, I can only block them for shorter periods of time, and I am not allowed to block them if I am in a content dispute with them. Anyway, in Isarioglu's case, I don't think it would help much since he only edits at Wikipedia every once in a while.--Wiglaf 19:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Almost anti-Turk" !

User:Jensboot added disputed accuracy and lack of neutrality banners afetr my extensive additions to the article, unde the pretence that "The current state of the article is almost anti-Turk POV". I strongly disagree, furthermore such banners, in my opinion, may only be added if the reasons are exposed on the discussion page, which is not the case. If User:Jensboot has any observation to make on the lack of accuracy or of neutrality of my modifications (which are based on scientific sources and critical analysis of other sources), let him put them on, this discussion page. I have been very careful not to fall into the traps of Turkish and anti-Turkish propagandas, so altogether Turkish, Greek, Armenian as well as Assyrian nationalists may not like the present version of the article because it expooses facts, sometimes disturbing.
As User:Jensboot didn't appropriately back the addition of the litigious banners, I take them away. It is too easy just to write that "The current state of the article is almost anti-Turk POV", it is not enough under wikipedia's standards. --Pylambert 08:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I'm appalled by the injurous insults and aggression by Pylambert.

I'm explaining one by one the edits:

1) I replaced the ambigious "traditional-style mosques" with "mosques" since what is "traditional" or "modern" style in mosques is not very understandable. Only "modern" mosque which became famous as far as I remember is the Faisal Mosque but such designs didn't take off. Local style, or the in the case of immigrants, the dominant style in the original country, seems to be more used.

2) On the statistics section, it was given a very large interval estimates of percentage without backed by data and stated that "(there are no official figures)" without backed by data. On the contrary, *there are* official figures. The 1965 census do provide statistics about the primary languages and knowledge of the languages. Therefore it is not correct to say there aren't official figures and there is no reason not to incorporate these data into the interval estimation of ethnicities. In order to estimate, data must be used, and without data, it is pure speculation. If there is data, therefore it must be used. Pylambert inserted to the article the phrase "Linguistic censuses in countries like Turkey are however subject to controversies." without properly stating what are these. Also the dictum "countries like Turkey" is incredibly discriminatory, Orientalist and then unashamedly POV.

2bis) All the ethnicities stated in the article have their proper language, and a prominent part of the self-identification is by primary or secondary usage of the language. Therefore an estimation can very well incorporate the lingustic groups and stats. It will be good to list the relevant percentages according to the last census in the article.

3) I used "source" instead of "reference". In general, I prefer to preserve the word "reference" for sources with very wide consensus upon. It is a rather stylistic issue.

4) Oğuz instead of Oghuz since thanks to development of the UTF charsets as the browser standard, we can now see in the browser the exact word so original form of the word can be now written.

5) "A a matter of fact" > "As a matter of fact". A typo correction.

6) Added "Islamic" to "jizya" since it is so. It is not an Ottoman invention. I added the portion "to enter professions reserved for Muslims", since in classical Ottoman era, some professions and branches of 'esnaf' were reserved for Muslims and non-Muslims were not permitted to do these or to enter the relevant 'maestranza' unions for these professions. It must be stated in the article. I left stated the Devşirme link and but removed the portion previous to it for a more NPOV, since it wasn't limited to non-Muslims to provide manpower to the Ottoman army, on the contrary Janissaries were a small contingent of Ottomans. The sipahis, timariots, bashibozuks thus bulk of the army and navy was drafted among Muslims in the same manner with Janissaries but without any benefits, privilegied status and hierarchical hope. I feel that too must be stated in the article for a more balanced view. Without it, the paragraph would be biased. Sufferings were just common. Most accounts only Devşirmes but not obligations on others. I suspect whether the conversion was a prominent method for avoiding Devşirme system since being a reaya wouldn't mean less taxes or exemptions from service obligations. I remember reading somewhere the non-muslim families prefered to send their children away or make injuries to their children to prevent their selection.

7) I removed the bundle starting with "It is remarkable that Hamshenis...". The article is about the general demographics of Turkey so its correct place is the "Hamshenis" or an article like "Ethnic Groups in Turkey". Otherwise for a more NPOV, every ethnicity there would be needed to be allocated a paragrapgh in the main article like "It is remarkable that Romaniot Jews...", "It is remarkable that Askhenaz Jews...", "It is remarkable that Lezgis..." etc. ad infinitum, which would make the article unreadable.

8) The next paragraph was too much Original research which is against current Wikipedia policy. It is stated in the article about the book and the author in the Wikiquote [1] that the book didn't gather any attention. Therefore so it is not meaningful to say it provides a good illustration of a trend.

9) I added to "following Zevi's example" to paragraph dealing with followers of Sabbatai Zevi, since he had instructed his followers to do so, and himself converted to alleviate the pressure from Rabbis and Ottoman authorities.

10) I added "Slavonic" to before "blond haired..." since a blond hair-blue eyes are mostly some indicator of Slavic origin in Turkey.

11) "Emire" > "Empire" A typo correction.

12) I added "confessional" to refugees from Central Europe. I listed Russians who escaped to Turkey from the persecutions in XVIIth century of the Russian Orthodox Church due to religious differends. They are returned to Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution. However I wasn't able to remember the exact name (something like Nekrasovites or Nedrasovites...). I also added anti-Bolshevik Russians who fled to Turkey after the Revolution, due to their deep impact on the urban culture in Turkey. I added "(and Turkic)" to distinguish Turkic and non-Turkic Muslims fleeing from persecutions. I replaced "conquered" with "invaded" since "conquer" is quite a POV word. I added "Kirghiz"s who fled from Afganistan as well.

It was Nekrasovites. `'mikka (t) 06:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

13) "Hamshenis" are given a separate bullet point it seems from their article that they are distinct from Armenians despite sharing some common points.

14) I corrected the spelling of "Polonezköy".

15) I added "laïque" since secularism in Turkey is rather associated with that word and notion insead of "secular".

16) The next paragraph was dealing with religious minorities not ethnicities so since Alevis encompass people both Turks and Kurds ethnicities, so is replaced "Sunni and Alevi Kurds" with "Alevis" having problem in religious issues. (Sunni creed has the dominant religious majority in Turkey)

17) I replaced "very authorative sources" with "sources" for a more NPOV.

18) The main problem is that Turkish Alevi clercs are not paid thru the state. The minority religious authorities are left autonomous in the management of their religious affairs by the Treaty of Lausanne and they collect themselves money from their believers by some forms or other(like the Kashrut approval levy of Jews by the Chief Rabbinate, the church donations etc.).

19) There is no ministry for religious affairs in Turkey but a presidence. I corrected that also the translation in the parantheses. It previously read (Turkish Diyanet Foundation) which is a separate organization, not the part of the state.

20) "alrealy" > "already". A typo correction.

I believe in Stefan Zweig style editing. Like he said in the World_of_Yesterday (Die Welt von Gestern), the author may in manuscript have thousands of pages, but to reach the final form, it must be continuously condensated, its internal structure must be brought consistence, in contrast of adding, enlarging, deepening every issue. So in Wikipedia, of which we are the collective authors, our duty is as much of cutting the non-sense and relegating side matters, details to other articles as adding new information. Since the hypertext gives the miraclous ability of linking and refering to other articles and easy access (in contrast of Zweig and other paper-bound authors), and the wiki that of creating new articles, we must be bold and take the advantage of these to establish high quality articles. Jensboot 10:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Answers:

• points 2 and 2b Linguistic, ethnic or 'race' censuses conducted by highly nationalist states, be they 'Oriental' or 'Western' (typically irrelevant Orientalist categories) are always subject to the natural suspicion of promoting the nationalist values of the government (including in this case the Turkish Derin devlet - 'Deep State') and minimizing the numerical importance of the minorities. The Minority Rights Group report of 1985 (by Martin Short and Anthony McDermott) gave an estimate of 19% Kurds in the population of Turkey in 1980, i.e 8,455,000 out of 44,500,000, with the preceding comment 'Nothing, apart from the actual 'borders' of Kurdistan, generates as much heat in the Kurdish question as the estimate of the Kurdish population. Kurdish nationalists are tempted to exaggerate it, and governments of the region to minimize it. In Turkey only those Kurds who do not speak Turkish are officially counted for census purposes as Kurds, yielding a very low figure.'. In Turkey: A Country Study, a 1995 on line publication of the U.S. Library of Congress, there is a whole chapter about Kurds in Turkey where it is stated that 'Turkey's censuses do not list Kurds as a separate ethnic group. Consequently, there are no reliable data on their total numbers. In 1995 estimates of the number of Kurds in Turkey ranged from 6 million to 12 million.' out of 61.2 million, which means from 10 to 20%. And higher percentage (between 20 and 25%) can be found elsewhere in various sources. Kurdish national identity is far from being limited to kurmanji language, as many Kurds whose parents migrated towards Istanbul or other big non Kurdish cities mostly speak Turkish, which is one of the languages used by the Kurdish nationalist publications.
• point 7 The passage about Hamshenis is important, 'It is remarkable' can be replaced by 'An exception is the Hamshenis'. As a matter of fact, there is another one, the Pontic Greek-speaking Muslims. These two groups are exceptional because they consist of people converted to Islam but who retained the language of their Christian ancestors whereas most other converts gradually adopted the Turkish language after islamization.
• point 8 Jensboot refers to a wikiquote article that had recently been modified several times, and ultimately suppressed by the administrators on October 8. The Encyclopaedia of the Black Sea is considered as a valid source on the Turkish wikipedia (see the articles linked to tr:Özhan Öztürk, where they apparently have got Turkish or Turkish-speaking contributors not influenced by nationalism and its propaganda. See also http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/First_encyclopedic_dictionary_of_the_Black_Sea_released . He is not the only Moslem Turkish author with Greek, Laz or Armenian ancestry who opened the intellectual debate about these questions, other known writers are Ömer Asan and Selma Koçiva.
• point 10 This remark is purely racist in the XIXth century mode, physical traits linked to a specific origin. I brings nothing to the article. Should dark-haired brown-eyed individuals among 'Slavic people' be characterized as
• point 13 Hamshenis are just descendants of Armenian Christians who were islamized in the XVIIIth century (see e.g. the article about them), their dialects belong to the Occidental Armenian dialects, there is thus no reason to separate both groups in the classification based on languages or language families.
• point 15 It would be useful to add that the Turkish term is 'laik', based on the French concept.
• point 18 This is not true: the Treaty of Lausanne only mentions the ('Greek') Orthodox and Armenian churches, thus not encompassing others Christian or non Christan denominations. The problem is thus not at all limited to Alevi clerics, it also exists for the various Assyrian churches e.g.
• points 1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 14, 17, 20 are just detail non problematic modifications
• points 6, 9, 12, 16 are justified modifications

--Pylambert 20:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1923 Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey

1923 Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey is a huge demographic event. It should be mentioned in this article.

[edit] Syriacs (also called Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)

Benne, himself a nationalist Syriac/Assyrian, replaced all occurrences of Assyrian or Assyrians by Syriac or Syriacs, which is not the usual denomination for these ethnic groups, in Turkey or elsewhere. There is a discussion on this subject at Syriacs/miniproject. In Turkish, the ethnonyms are Süryani, Keldani and Asuri (or Nasturi), referring to the churches as well as to the ethnic groups in fact, but the usual denomination in English or Russian for all these groups is Assyrians (in French, also "Assyro-chaldéens"). --Pylambert 10:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Where did you get the idea of me being "nationalist" and a "Syriac/Assyrian"? I can assure you, I am neither. I kindly ask you not to rush to conclusions, nor judge too hastily. Please read my comments on Talk:Syriacs/miniproject.

Indeed, the Turkish name is Süryani, which is the equivalent of the Syriac self-appellation Suryoye/Suryāye. In English, the name Syriacs is often used to represent this name.

Within the group, there is a dispute about the name. It is true, many identify themselves as "Assyrians", but a considerable part prefer to use the name "Arameans", again others call themselves "Chaldeans". Please, see the Syriacs article for some more information about this issue.

It is incorrect to translate Süryani as "Assyrian", since that name is Aşuri in Turkish. Arameans are called Arami in Turkish, and Chaldeans Keldani.

The term Nasturi --translated in English as "Nestorians"-- refers to a religious division within the group, and should be avoided. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 11:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with that: The Turkish name is not Süryani, as you probably know religion (din) is mentioned on the Turkish identity cards, and it is either Süryani or Keldani or Nasturi, but all three terms are religious, not ethnic or ethnonational. The correct ethnonym is Assyrian, as used e.g. in the USSR (and successor states): Aisor, and by most scholars. The members of these ethnic groups usually call themselves by the religious denomination. I won't begin an edition war with you, but I certainly disagree with your modifications, Syriacs is never used in scientific artiucles or books refering to contemporary Assyrians or Assyro-Chaldeans. I will however modify one error: Arabs and Assyrians belong to the same Semitic language family, just like Georgians and Laz. --Pylambert 11:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The identity cards of Turkey indeed mention religion, but (if I remember correctly) not denomination, just Hıristiyan.

The name Suryoye/Suryāye is used by people from both the West Syriac and East Syriac traditions, also by many people calling themselves "Assyrians". See for example the forum on www.suryaniler.com, or (on the same site) an article about the name (in Turkish).

In English, "Syriacs" has been coined as an equivalent for this name, since its original translation "Syrians" has become ambiguous due to the foundation of the Syrian Arab Republic. Often, a combination like "Syro-Aramean" or "Assyrian/Syriac" can be seen. By the way, I have the impression that in francophone countries, "Syriaques" has become more common as well. But please also note that "Araméens" is used as an ethnonym, e.g. on the site of the Arameans in Liège, Belgium. Another site I would like to mention is the Aramaic Democratic Organization.

With all due respect, who are we to determine what is the correct ethnonym? On Wikipedia, "ethnic group" is defined as "a culture or subculture whose members are readily distinguishable by outsiders based on traits originating from a common racial, national, linguistic, or religious source." (I added italics.) Therefore, I think it is perfectly correct to call Suryoye/Suryāye (and hence Süryani, Syriacs, and Syriaques) an ethnonym.

It is not my purpose to push for one particular name, but if we want to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, all sides should be heard. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 13:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

---

the name assyrian is not appliable to the name of Syriacs, due to the facts that the assyrian nation is mainly accepted by the nestorians, and not the others (few chaldeans and orthodox) accepts assyrianism. For the aramean term, it is mostly melkites,maronites, orthodox(jakobites) and some chaldeans. Now the problem as one can see is that these group depending on their natural geografical location choose an identity that suit for them. But still both of these wings exclude eachother when they speak of assyrianism or arameanism. The syriac word is from the word Syrian wich is currently use by arabs from the syrian state. Syriac identity is appliable to all wings, no political wing (assyrians nor arameans) can deny that they are suryoyo or suryaye, wich means Syrians->Syriacs. therefore the most accurate name to identify the people is Syriac name. and the others should be considerd as political parties with differente agendas of the same people.

shlome// Michael 22:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just another orientism article

I am seeing ethnicty as a term invented to replace the term "RACE" which has no scientific value in the century we live in. It is ridiculous to classify citizens of a country talking the same language and sharing the same culture. I think Western people, who give meaning to their lives by being anti-something, are insisting that Turkey is much more monolithic than most of the EU countries just to feel better about themselves. Worthless article.

[edit] Articles purpose

What is the point of having 3 articles explain the same thing. People of Turkey, Turkish people and this article talk about the same thing! --Cat out 01:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless data

I noticed sections such as "Current trends in situation of minorities" on this article which has litle to do with demographics.

What happens to Med TV has nothing to do with demographics. See: Demographics of the United States for a real demographics article.

--Cat out 01:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peoples of the Caucasus in Turkey

No merge. Demographics of Turkey is about general demography. Its main purpose is not to list all the ethnic groups in Turkey. On the other hand, Peoples of the Caucasus article is about the geographical distribution and a classification of these peoples in Turkey and the content of the term Caucasian people. Behemoth 05:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strong POV

I started pointing out discrepancies and POV statements in the article, however it turned out that it would be longer than the article itself. POV, biased and irrelevant information is all over the place. Just in the introduction part of the article, in the second paragraph; Turkey has been officially secular since 1924. Although 99% of the population is at least nominally Muslim, there are people who insist on being labeled as atheists, a peculiarity unknown in most other Muslim countries where this is at least socially unacceptable, and often a legal offence and a one-way ticket to jail for apostasy. I don't see what the bold part has to do with demographics of Turkey. It's basically claiming an injustice pratice in some other countries other than Turkey.

or the paragraph starting with; Ethnic groups: Turkish 80-92%, Kurdish 7-20% The Minority Rights Group report of 1985 (by Martin Short and Anthony McDermott).. The numbers presented in the subtopic are not even repeated in the explanation part, are not cited nor there are any information from Turkish government sources (which, I believe, must have something to say about the demographics of the country it is the government of)

"Ethnicity in Turkey" topic is basically claiming that a handful of Oguz Turks came to Anatolia, oppressed the native people for centuries and finally disappeared in thin air. Check out the phrases like It is, therefore, absurd to speak about a "pure Turkish people", even more in the tangled ethnic mix of Anatolia. or Islam spread slowly over many generations either through voluntary or forced conversions; many poor families chose to become Muslims in order to escape a special tax.. which is succeded by similar phrases alleging how people were assimilated.

I'm not even detailing the part under the "Current trends in situation of minorities" topic, as first of all I don't understand what the term 'trend' could refer to when you talk about stituation of minorities. Following lines contain irrelevant information as well. DeliDumrul 00:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody disagreed upto now. I'm tagging the article. DeliDumrul 20:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why tag the article at all? Just fix it! -- Cjensen 21:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Slant-eyedEast Asian looking people? Isn't that almost racist? This article is very poorly written. Please clean it up.