Talk:Pan-Turkism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wrong map

The map is wrong. It shows as turkish populated areas, areas that do not have any turkish populations, such as the Greek islands of the Aegean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed broken links

Mostly referring to planned? Kazakh Cyrillic-to-Latin switch. Most of them were broken. 24.87.32.50 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Improve

I have tried to import a picture from the German entry - something does not work out here - can anyone help? Refdoc 13:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

from Vfd

On 5 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pan-Turkism for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 16:14, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

TÖMER

Tömer makes linguistic researchs on Turkic languages and also teaches them but it is not related with a political plan of uniting Turks. It also makes researches on English, German, French, Italian, Russian, Arabic, Japanese, Contemporary Greek , Chinese, Bulgarian, and Dutch, Hollandaca and teaches them. Tömer--Hattusili 08:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Difference between Turkish and Turkish Cypriot

Give me some reliable sources about this. Wikipedia is not place for gossip. Like "a woman said that.... etc"

I'm Turkish Cypriot, it's little intonation. Like between US and Biritish English even less that them.

Sorry, but the BBC is a very reliable source. I would trust them over your claims which are dubious anyway. -- Clevelander 13:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
There are less then 100 different words between Turkish and Turkish Cypriot. See;http://www.cypnet.co.uk/ncyprus/people/cypturks/language.html This source is referensing popular Turkish Cypriot linguist Mustafa Gökçeoğlu's "Kıbrıs Ağzı" book. BBC also reliable but can't as well as linguistic researches. Sincerely --Zaparojdik 20:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
And just how is this (pro-TRNC) website more reliable than the BBC? -- Clevelander 18:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't be funny! This is a book about Turkish and Turkish Cypriot. Zaparojdik 23:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
BBC isn't more reliable than a book research about Turkish and Turkish cypriot, as you see there are about 100 different words and mostly taken by Greek. Please don't revert it anymore, this is POV Zaparojdik 12:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, imagine I'm the man who is settler in Armenia and BBC advertisers interview with me on the street about what I think Armenization, I say that Armenians are Christianized Turks and BBC publishing it as " A man said that Armenians were Christianized Turks" I'm as real as the woman and I'm a common person like the woman who says there are large difference between Turkish and Turkish Cypriot, it would be realiable source than a linguistic book? Your behaviour is actually funny. Zaparojdik 17:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Armenians are Christianized Turks? Please don't make me laugh. Look at the Armenian language and history and nowhere will you see any sort of Turkic influences. Your above statement makes absolutely no sense at all, yet you feel that you have the right to call my behavior funny. If anything, I would find your behavior amusing and even immature (reverting credible sources, writing in all caps, and reverting articles even after you've violated the 3RR). -- Clevelander 20:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Dont want to butt in, but I think he was being sarcastic when he said that Armenians were christianized turcs, he was trying to compare with an other idea to show that it was as senseless, even though I dont know what it was, I havent been following the discussion.. Dont bang up on the guy because of his english :))) Baristarim 22:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
ah, ok... Well, I dont want to get involved in this discussion, but that woman might have been referring to Kurds who have also immigrated from the southeast.. Coz it seems weird to me in a way that there is such a difference between Turkey's Turkish and TRNC Turkish, I mean, I have been there, there was a slight accent, not much more.. Now that I think about it, I am sure that that woman was referring to Kurds. Many Turks still are not aware of the diff between Kurds and Turks.. In any case, just throwing it out there, dont want to get involved :))) Baristarim 22:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
That's what baristarim explained what I mean... Zaparojdik 23:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Pan-Turkism Live!

It is striking how objectionable our Turkish friends are finding the sourced information regarding the mutual intelligibility of the Turkish dialect of Cyprus and standard Turkish. Considering that Greeks happily admit that the Greek dialect of Cyprus is usually mutually incomprehensible to speakers of standard Greek and Britons happily admit that the English dialect of Lowland Scotland are even more mutually incomprehensible, I can only think of pan-Turkism rearing its ugly head yet again right in our midst. I think this demonstrates who should not be editing this article if they care about the neutrality of Wikipedia.--Tekleni 22:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Its getting to the point of ridiculousness. The same User's are active in starting revert wars in other articles too, putting in pan Turkish POV.Khosrow II 22:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me but have any of you read what I wrote above about the Kurds? There have been a lot of Kurds that have moved to Cyprus, and she could have been referring to one of those.. Also, have you been to TRNC? I have, and I am telling you the only difference that exists is a slight difference in accent.. Gees, Khosrow, have u actually been to TRNC or speak Turkish? Turkish of Turkey and TRNC is like the English of the US and Canada.. Baristarim 23:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought: Maybe the mutual intelligelibility of mainland turkish and cypriot turkish is dependent on the level of education (and hence mastery of the language) of the people involved. That is definitely the case with different dialects of persian. I mean that "mutual understanding" is a relative word. Another example is Danish and Norwegian. They are different languages but mutually understandable! best wishes Arash the Bowman 09:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Its funny really. There are some nationalistic Kurds who claim the same thing about Kurdish dialects, while objective and sensible Kurds (I have met them) agree that Kurdish dialects are very different from each other to the point where its hard to comprehend sometimes. Its the same with Dari and Persian, although they are the same language, I sometimes cant even understand what an Afghan is saying. Why do you have such a problem with admitting something like this? Too nationalistic?Khosrow II 23:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting, Baristarim... Do u have any source about the actual number of the Kurds in TRNC? cause in no related article is there any info about non Turks in there... it is presented as 'homogenous'. if there are a lot of Kurds, it must be noted, don't u think? btw, u do not know to whom that woman was refering to... u only "suppose"... Hectorian 23:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Kozie kozie :)) I am not nationalistic, TRNC is right next to Turkey, and their Turkish is similar as English of America and Canada is.. I don't understand why you guys are pushing this so much, I am not supposing Hector, I have been there, why the hell would I be lying when I said there is only a slight difference in accent?? This is seriously not cool.. There have been Turkish Kurds that immigrated there, I am not the one who is saying don't include the number of Kurds!! ??!! Why are u assuming that? If you have any sources about the number of Kurds in TRNC, please mention it, I have no problem with that.. I don't have any sources about that either, so what do you expect me to do?? As for Kurdish dialects, Zaza and Kirmandji are practically two different languages, I am not denying that most Turkic languages are not mutually intelligible right now, but for Cyprus I will have to disagree - If you think that I am lying when I say that I have been there and there was not much difference, that's your problem.. I cannot comment on the similarities of Greece's Greek and Greek in Cyprus, since I DONT know Greek.. You will never see me going around writing they are extremely different since I dont know, this debate is seriously a lame edit-war just to get back at Turks (for whatever weird reason) Baristarim 23:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not say that u do not want to include numbers for the Kurds in TRNC, i asked if u have any source for that. Please, understand that it is the first time here in wikipedia that i hear someone saying that not all TRNC are turks... I knew it from before, but never someone admitted that. I do not know turkish either, but since there is a BBC source, i can't see why i should not believe it... BTW, Greece's and Cypriot Greek have varying degrees of intellegibility, depending on the persons, the ages, their educational backgraound, the time, the topic of discussion, etc etc... The same thing happens in all standard languages-dialects, so i can't see why Turkish Cypriot should be different... Hectorian 23:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Edit conflict :) Hectorian, on the other hand, I can admit the fact that maybe in the last thirty years TRNC Turkish has evolved so that it is very similar to Turkey's Turkish where as maybe fifty years ago there was a bigger diff.. You see, I am not being unreasonable.. This could be true.. BUT, on the other hand, again, such a thesis has to be backed up by a lot more than the statement of one woman to a BBC free-lance journalist on the street.. Both TRNC Turkish and Turkey's Turkish are extremely close by nature and grammar, so there has to be a really serious research undertaken to point out the evolution that it has undergone, especially considering the fact that Turkey's Turkish has changed a lot in the last seventy years as well.. That's all I am saying.. As for Kurds in TRNC, they are mostly settlers from the southeast, economical migrants mostly, I know that there are quite a few of them in TRNC, Turkish cypriots used to complain a bit when I was there :)) But there is this whole other argument about Turkish Kurds and assimilated Kurds and blah blah :)) Things can get rapidly complicated :)) Baristarim 23:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a Turkish Cypriot, i understand and so do 99% of Turkish Cypriots. The idea that some pov pushers here will use the interview of some (one presumes confused) woman to represent me and my fellow Cypriots is unnaceptable. --A.Garnet 00:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

True.. It seems to me really weird that BBC quoted this without considering if that woman was referring to a group of Kurdish migrants that she ran into on the street.. I mean, when I actually read the BBC interview, I was really surprised and baffled.. People in Trabzon have a bigger accent (compared to Istanbul Turkish) than TRNC Cypriots!! I have to say to all the non-Turkish editors (you might not believe it if you dont want to), but there is really a negligable diff between TRNC Turkish and Turkey's Turkish, so much that I would not be able to make out a Turkish Cypriot than an Izmir resident.. Baristarim 01:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I also would like to say a word to some other editors that have contributed to this talk page, particularly Clevelander and Khosrow, please don't brush aside what Turkish users are saying by calling them dubious claims.. I have tried to explain and a Turkish Cypriot has confirmed that such difference is negligable, I fail to see why you are not assuming good faith.. I mean, I don't understand how we are supposed to prove that such diff is negligable. There is a bigger diff between Texan English and New England English, pls consider what I have said in my posts above.. Btw, the BBC article only talks about settlers from Turkey, so therefore it doesn't mention the difference in accent stricto sensu.. It is true that there might be a diff between TRNC Turkish and the language of some settlers since they maybe Kurdish, it is not the same as saying TRNC Turkish is different than Turkey's Turkish.. Baristarim 01:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The only reason we bring up things like pan Turkism and false claims is because you guys dont bring up sources. BBC is a credible source.Khosrow II 02:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
True. if it is so obvious, why there aren't sources supporting it? since recently there is a "source expedition" going on in many articles, an academic source should be provided to contradict BBC. Hectorian 05:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the BBC is a credible source. The journalist has so much dignity that she does not attempt to generalize on the basis of the one woman she interviews. Wish the same standards could go for wikipedia. Bertilvidet 20:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
BBC is definitely a credible source, I never said that it wasn't.. But, what I have said is that, in the BBC interview it is not clear if she was referring to Turks from Turkey, or Kurds from Turkey, she was only referring to settlers from Turkey.. BBC doesn' claim that there is a diff between TRNC Turkish and Turkey's Turkish.. I mean, seriously people, why all the animosity? Ask any Turkish user on Wiki, they will say that diff is negligable and there is a bigger diff between Trabzon Turkish and Istanbul Turkish than TRNC Turkish and Turkey's Turkish.. I can see Hectorian's claims that there could be sources to prove this, but we cannot put a source on every thing, such as sky is blue, New York is in the US etc.. Please have some common sense.. As I said, please don't brush aside what we are saying by calling them false claims, dubious claims.. That is also not cool.. I mean, I really do sense an attitude of getting back at.. This issue is not even a controversial one!! Please let's save our time and energies to "hot" topics... Baristarim 23:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This is what i also believe: we cannot source everything... Lets have that in mind regarding all articles, please... But since the issue has arosen here, and since it is claimed to be so "obvious", why can't someone just get a source? I can find sources stating that Sicilian language is an Italian dialect, or maybe sources that it is a seperate language... Aren't there any sources saying that Turkish Cypriot is identical to standard turkish? btw, once more noone knows to whom that lady was refering to! Couldn't she been refering to settlers from Trabzon, instead of Kurds? If Trabzon turkish is diff enough from Istanbul's and Istanbul's identical to Izmir's and Izmir's close to Turkish Cypriot, this would make sense... Hectorian 00:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This looks like a case of WP:POINT. --A.Garnet 10:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It may be, or it may be not... The fact is that i am trying to find sources for this article as well. Regards Hectorian 17:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys who says Turkish dialect of Cypriot is a completely different langauage are really have no idea. If they can speak Turkish, they could know the difference but I guess they can't. They wouldnt say such a ridiculous thing if they can anyway. The difference in Cypriotic dialect is just a slight accent. I spoke and listen so many Cyprus Turks and I can speak Turkish, I can say that it is just about accent. And if u wanna talk about something u HAVE TO KNOW something about the subject. I completelely aggree with Baristarim. "A friend form Turkey" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.54.109 (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Are these people actualy saying Anatolian Turkish and Cypriot Turkish are different. They are virtualy the same. I can't believe this, please go to northern cyprus... Please first read these sources than blow your trummpet about BBC. *Erdoğan Saracoğlu (1992). Kıbrıs Ağzı: Sesbilgisi Özellikleri, Metin Derlemeleri, Sözlük. K.K.T.C. Millî Eğitim ve Kültür Bakanlığı. ISBN 975-17-1015-4.

  • Yıltan Taşçı (1986). Kıbrıs Ağzı Dil Özellikleri. Lefkoşa: Akar Yayıncılık.

Tugrulirmak (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

I've reverted to previous version by Mardavich. The reasons are the following: nothing in this article saying something about the idea starting by the Crimean Tatars. on the contrary, it talks about Kemalistic theories. as such, and since turkey is still a state will active kemalistic views, the word was does not fit. Enosis and Megali Idea were irredistic theories, in the same way as Greater Hungary, Greater Serbia, Greater Albania, etc. Pan-Turkism is different, based allegedly on race, and as is treated. Hectorian 17:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC) To Hectorian

  • You can find support in the article itself- İsmail Gaspıralı- lives before young Turks. See Encylopedia Britannica for roots also.
  • Sun Language Theory rejected by Pan-Turkists and Turanists( They are different movements but shares some oppinions). See, Zeki Velidi Togan, scholar in Turkey and in Vienn on Turkism, Hazarians. Left Turkey due to Sun Language Theory. And his assistant Nihal Atsız left Univercity carier. Nihal Atsız was a member of radical Greywolf movement.He was judgeted in 3 may 1944 due to Pan-Turkism, among many others. He was penaltied for prison for 1 and half year.
  • If we discuss about Radical Nationalist movements then "Enosis" and "Pan-Hellenism/Megali Idea" also must be take place on this article. If you have some oppinions abot them put your oppinions directly to the related article. Who say that these movements are finished/ended. Who was Makarios and Grivas, do you remember them. When they live at ancient times or at the 30 years before. How many politic parties/movement are in Greece.Are all of them democratic, liberal or not. You know the reality very well.

Regards Mustafa Akalp 17:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, why don't u source that Ismail guy? never heard of him, but if he has anything to do with the Crimean Tatars, add the reference, and, trust me, i never remove cited info (especially not from credible sources like Britannica).
  • These 2 scholars left Turkey and uni carrier cause of not supporting the 'Sun language theory'?! are u sure we are not saying the same thing? id est theory supported by the government who takes it for granted? as for Nihal Atsız, why was he convicted? cause of his support to this theory? sorry, but i doubt...
  • 'Enosis' and 'Megali Idea' were not 'Pan-Hellenic movements'... They were political movements different from Pan-Turkism. the first refered to annexation of Cyprus by Greece, the second to annexation (or liberation, by some) of western anatolia by greece... Not to unite all the territories that Greeks inhabite/inhabited/conquered/controlled in their entire history! see the diff, please. I do know about Makarios and Grivas, tough i wasn't even born then... They were talking about Greece and Cyprus, not about the restoration of Byzantium! There are different cases, don't mix them up... There are far-right parties in Greece, as they exist in every multi-party country. They are "playing" according to democratic rules... None of them openly seeks something like 'Pan-Hellenism' (a term not used in that concept anyway...). The term Pan-Hellenism is perfectly equal to 'Pan-Greece' (see PASOK for example). On the contrary, the term 'Pan-Turkism' has a wider meaning, and the its ideology is actively supported by the Turkish state (there is info for that in the article).
Regards Hectorian 18:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Kemalism is not pan-turkism, they are not the same thing.. There is a huge difference, what comes up when kemalism is mentioned is always the revolutionary ideals of the republic and not turanism.. I know that some people might confuse this, especially certain europeans, but most people in turkey don't see kemalism and pan-turkism as being related.. Pan-turkism is not supported actively by the Turkish state, since assuming such would confuse closer cooperation with certain states (like francophonie), and outright unification theories.. Every country supports communities in other countries that speak its language (or close to it, whatever u prefer), but that doesn't mean that they are actively supporting the reunification of all these countries under one flag.. There are no parties, except MHP, in Turkey that give outright support to such re-unification theories - assuming the opposite is not being able to understand the political dynamics of Turkey!! I mean, Turkey also wants to join the EU, so what exactly is Turkey trying to do then?? :)) Please, use some common sense, Turkey (or the Turkish state) is not out to form this weird pan-turkist empire.. Modern closer cooperation and linguistic cooperation boards should not be confused with ideals of a century ago (and neither should pan-turkism be confused with geopolitical chess-games - where certain countries support certain movements in other countries just for their own political gain in bilateral or global relations - kinda like what happened with Ocalan :)) - Greece was never supporting the PKK because it was in love with the Kurds, it was just a geopolitical game, no?) So saying that Turkish state actively supports pan-turkism is the same as saying Greece is pan-Kurdist.. See what I mean? Baristarim 19:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Greece never supported ther PKKs activities. That Ocalan was hiding out in a Greek embassy was a coincidence.--Tekleni 19:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Greece did not surrender Ocalan to a state where the death punishment was still active! Syria, Russia, the Netherlands, Italy did the same, no? So, saying that Greece supports PKK because she did not gave Ocalan to Turkey when he was on greek soil, is simply a "firework" to attract attention... Hectorian 19:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


If bin Laden was caught in Greece or Turkey, for example, would they not extradite him to US because of death penalty reasons? I don't think so :)) Geopolitics.. In any case, let's drop the Ocalan comparision for now, it is true that it can be a firework to attract attention and is a useless debate... Baristarim 20:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Barış, be reasonable. According to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (or that's what some people say), it is not allowed for Greece to extradite anyone to a country (such as Turkey) where someone would be subject to torture and/or the death penalty. Don't think Greece is like Turkey which ignores all international treaties.--Tekleni 21:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear Hectorian,
  • Please read article carefully firstly. If there is no source about Ismail Gaspıralı whu you keep is the article to support your oppinions.See "Qutation" section of article.
  • I am Leftist in politically and I am against any fanatic movement. Please read about "Sun Language Theory". At the beginning of Turkish republic there was a nationalist movement to create a nation in modern sense from Ottoman "Millet"/"Ummet". (Ottoman empire never regards the peoples in the ethnic base. There was peoples, in different religions not nations. People aware of their ethnicity to create nations after 1789 in the Europe also.) This movement begins to clean some words from turkish which ther are assumed as foreign words. (Language used in Sarai and among entelectuels-ottoman language-, are different than peoples language-turkish).This was necessary at the beginning to create union between people and entelectuels. With the help of these movements, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk realized the alphabet change from arabic to latin. This was also necessary for the sovereignity of secularism against radical-islamic movements.And also was necessary to lift up of the reading-writing ratio among people. The movement of cleaning the langue from foreign words had approached to a foolish level. They were invented some words (assumed turkish) in place of removed old ones.No body understanded these words. Then, we can see the intelegency of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk at that point. He suggested the "Sun language Theory" which assumed as a nationalist approach by natinonalist at the first stage. This story continued 4-5 years. Main idea is, all languages comes from same root , and Turkish is the center of this language.(The first man looked the sun and say "Aa" as a first word, so called as sun language).Some scholars came [see list]

to Turkey for workshop on this matter, some reports created [see report]. This works stopped the cleaning the language and inventing new ones.Since no need to clean language any more if the origin of all words is Turkish!. In 1937, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk draw back the theory and stopped the all works of commissions.It was a great manoeuvre to stop the stupid movement on language.And also a new Enstitude, Turkish Language Enstitude established to control all unnecessary attempt on language. Some clever scholars like as Zeki Velidi Togan( Born in caucasia, studied on Hazarians, Turkish and history-brought to light the "Hazaria/Bulgaria Journey notes" of Ibni Fadlan in Meshed-Iran) left the university and Turkey due to these works. Also Nihal Atsız (See Qutation section) left his carrier. Pan-turkish movements prohibited. Many of then Judgeted in 1940s. Turkey has no any official Pan-Turkism movement after that time. But some parties share this oppinions like as Nationalist Movement Party(MHP) which Greywolfs are the young supporters of that party.This party has a radical vote ratio app.4-5%. During Elçibey-Azerbeican time, this party was a member of the government coalition. for a short period.No body knows the truth about the relation blowing of Elçibey and members of that party.(But this effect is not more than effect of Greece in Cyprus at 1974).
Now,Turkey has relations with other Turkish countries in a clear-modern manner. We have the same roots ethnically and in language.(a turkish intelectuel can understand the language in these countries, some fully, some partly).

  • Enosis and Megali Idea; you have your oppinions on them.But sources can not support you.


Mustafa Akalp 20:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

U know what i meant about 'Megali Idea' and 'Enosis', for i have explained on your talk page... If u wanna list them here, u will also have to list all the articles from the category 'Irredism'... Pan-movements of the kind of 'Pan-Turkism' are movements like 'Pan-Slavism', 'Pan-Celticism', etc, id est movements that cover an area more than a single ethnic group (Slavic or Celtic peoples in that case, compared to Turkic peoples in this). If u list 'Megali Idea' or 'Enosis' or 'Greater Hungary', is like implying that 'Turkic peoples' are also one nation, which they are not-and this is a Pan-Turkish thing to do. As for the language staff that u mentioned, i have to say that it was interesting enough, however i cannot accept that Kemal did not support Pan-Turkism, or at least abandoned it in 1937... I mean, saying not to clear up the language cause all the languages come from Turkish is even more Pan-Turkistic than i ever imagined it would be! not to mentioned that it has no linguistic, historic, etc base... And also, adopting another alphabet to deal with illiteracy, doesn't make much of a sense... Quite the contrary, i guess, cause those who new to write in the arabic alphabet, would also be illiterate... Apropos, the Arab states do not have to change their alphabet too, in order to educate their whole population! other steps should be made... I did not know that a party somehow linked with the Grey Wolves ever took part in a governmental coalition, but i know for sure that the Grey Wolves always make their appearance in various matters (and u know well on what matters i am refering to...). so, for the time being, Pan-Turkism is still alive in Turkey, whereas, 'Megali Idea' has died. Much regards Hectorian 23:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Soviet vitriol

Marlow4, there is a huge difference between "anti-Soviet vitriol" and those historical facts that happened during Soviet times, which were a continuation of the previous, "Imperial" internal policies aimed to dismember contiguity of the territories of the ethnic groups, disband their cultural and educational traditions, and re-write history. Because these genocidal actions were executed cowardly and covertly, using a threat of Pan-Turkism as a political cover to antagonise neighbors into "us" vs "them" polarities, these historical facts are essential for a balanced Pan-Turkism article in respect to deceitful use of Pan-Turkism tool for achieving colonioal chauvinistic ends. You've done good balanced editing, please attend this portion again with an eye to preserving the factual contents, istead of white-washing the negative historical developments as a factless "Anti-Soviet vitriol". Barefact 23:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletions of Russian/Soviet pertinent facts

Khoikhoi, please attend again the "deleted duplicate info already mentioned above", to avoid deleting facts that are not "already mentioned above". This is a very essential information, because while Pan-Turkism was not taken as a state policy by any state, the opposite, i.e. anti-Panturkism was and remains an active overt and covert policy in Russia, Iran, and China. Please see the above comment, these policies not only impact the present, but try to hide and re-write the past.Barefact 23:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It is already mentioned above. You can see the sentence "to discredit the national-liberation idea of Türkism in the eyes of the Russian population..." in the Name section. Besides, the information didn't seem to be appropriate for the section. It's only supposed to be about Criticism, and it seemed to go over the history of Pan-Turkism in general. Perhaps you could move the info to the History section instead? BTW, words like "national-liberation" are POV, because not everyone saw it that way. Khoikhoi 08:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is Uzbekistan grey, as well as huge chunks of Turkmenistan?

Farrokh is not an Iranian scholar, he is a western scholar, born in Greece to Ossetian and Azeri parents. He has only spent 2 years in Iran his whole life, and that was to do research.Hajji Piruz 14:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

MHP Grey Wolves

I brought this discussion from the other talk page (Turkic peoples). I think It is relevant here too. sorry to interrupt. I try to find a workable sollution. I have in no way sympathy for the Grey Wolves. Not at all. But I think that we should not hide the truth, how painful it might be. The far right Grey Wolves/ MHP do have some support in Turkey and they do have their proxies outside Turkey. Speculatively we can say that some source of finance is funding them. It is of course not true that a majority of Turks support them but they have some sympathy within the far right extremist circles in turkey and their supporters elsewhere. I think the picture of Turks with the sign of Grey wolvs should be accompanied by such a text that this phenomenon is not pervasive but neverthles does exist. --Babakexorramdin 19:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC) --Babakexorramdin 19:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Origins of Turkic peoples

I have moved the controversial section "The political pan-Turkic movement is linked with parallel development of theories of the origin of Turkic peoples, with some linguistic theories about the Ural-Altaic languages and with some theories about ancient archeology, e.g. the origin of the Sumerians as being early Turks.[13][14] The Kemalist movement in Turkey to "clean" the Turkish language from foreign (mostly Persian and Arabic) influence and particularly the Sun Language Theory, introduced by Kemal Atatürk himself,[15][16] can all be seen as part of this same intellectual climate. Yet," to the discussion page, because it brings present politics into historical facts and uses ambiguous language like "some linguistic theories" and "some theories about ancient archeology", while there is nothing ambiguous about linguistic research and archeology. Barefact (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity in question

This article is definitely a POV and needs a major re-writing. E.g.:

Pan-Turkism is a political movement aiming to unite the various Turkic peoples into a modern political state, a confederation, or an economic union closely resembling that of the European Union. In what way? In just being a confederation? This passage makes me think you guys are being nice to EU and want a portion of generally positive associations which usually come with it.

The term "Pan-Turkism" was coined by the Russian Tsarist secret service at the end of the 19th century to discredit the national-liberation idea of Turkism in the eyes of the Russian population, by attributing to Turkism aggression and expansionism traits inherently incompatible with it. This is ridiculous!

[4] Rafael Khakimov, "Taklid and Ijtihad", Russia in Global Affairs, Dec. 2003 is a POV, too. There is no way one could take it as an objective source.

Basically the article is aggressive towards some parties (mostly Russia) and oblivious towards others (Armenian-related issues are not covered at all).

What I think should be added: 1. What Pan-Turkism has to do with Islam. There are different viewpoints, as far as I know. Some claim Islam should be accepted as an integral part of the whole programme, some insist on a totally secular model. 2. Armenian genocide (or whatever you call it) must be at least mentioned. Enver Pasha credited here as one of the founders of the movement is responcible for that massacre. 3. Far-right extremist organisations (namely, Gray Wolves) as proponents of similar ideas.

Please, consider my points; hopefully, we can work out a fairly objective article on the subject.
AlpinePascia (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for content you feel ought to be added, please be bold. For example, to bring in a relation between Pan-Turkism and Islam or the Armenian genocide, you need a reliable source that gives such a relation; otherwise, we get so-called original research. If you see sources cited that are not reliable, you can tag the citations with {{Verify credibility}}. If you see dubious statements that lack a citation, you can tag them with {{Citation needed}} or {{Or}}. Challenged statements that remain unsupported by citations from reliable sources may be removed.  --Lambiam 21:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Atatürk

Atatürk is not Pan-Turkism.Key persons should be removed from.

  • Not recognize any borders, a state in the world as to combine all the Turks, is a goal not be reached. M.K.Atatürk[2]

Sorry for my terrible English.I don't know English.--78.163.200.70 (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

New Edits

Nepaheshgar, please, follow WP:AGF and WP:BATTLE, your edits are clearly a response to discussion on Pan-Iranism and you're inserting absolutely irrelevant matters to the subject. Atabəy (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Young Turks are known as pan-Turkism and pan-Turanism and also I am adding many valid sources. Their guiding princicple and political principle was pan-Turkism. So obviously its result is very relevant to the article. Many many many... souurces. Note pan-Turanism/pan-Turkism and Genocide get about 500 google books hit. There should be a section on historiography and etc too. Dersim ethnocide and etc. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You put Zia Gokalp in one article in the introduction of pan-Turkism and a critical source in the introduction of pan-Iranism. Does that show bias or what? Do you really and honestly believe anyone can assume WP:AGF after that. I do think however the critism section on pan-Turkism needs work. I thought you were going to edit it unbiasedly and that is why I said I won't touch the article for two days. However, this has changed after seeing some poor edits.
Also the Armenian, Greek, Assyrian, and Dersim ethnocide sections need work but they are acknowledgened to be a product of young Turk movement, Turkism and Turkic nationalism in general. So they are completely relevant as the ideology itself brought about these occurences. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yagmurlukorfez Sources are english and related with the content.Please don't edit this page. Kasparjust (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

for possible future readers

I have edited this article and made it more comprehensive and added information on young Turks (referencing their adoption of pan-Turkism) and referenced the extermination of various natives of Anatolia [1]. I might be out of Wikipedia in 3 months for a long trip and if the edit is vandalized, you can check it here [2] at this date. Thanks. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Definition

The definition from Britannica seems neutral.

Three sources were put on by user Neftchi but they did not mention Pan-Turkism and one source was from an ideologue which cannot be used for the opening sentence. Devereaux Robert is the translator not the writer. So putting him as an author rather than a translator is not correct. The second book does not mention pan-Turkism in the page but Turkism. So that is synthesis. Anything with a "Pan" is a political concept foremost. For example Islamism can be a cultural, philosophical concept or whatever, but when a pan is added it is political concept foremost. The Islamism part of it contains cultural, philosophical and etc. stuff, but the pan-Islamism makes it a political movement foremost. Note there is also a definition by Melson also : "Pan-Turkism, a xenophobic and chauvinistic brand of nationalism that sought to create a new empire based on Islam and Turkish ethnicity". But that was not put in the introduction as the definition. "Freedom" is also a loaded weasel word (for example PKK in some books might be an organization for freedom and other places it might be a terrorist organization, but either way both are weasel words) and should not be included in the introduction. Just like xenophobic and chavinistic brand of nationalism (which is actually sourced) is not in the introduction. This is supposed to be an Encyclopedia not anything else.

So the definition from Britannica as an Encyclopedia seems very neutral. So a non-load definition is by Britannica and is neutral. Else an author has defined it as: "Pan-Turkism, a xenophobic and chauvinistic brand of nationalism that sought to create a new empire based on Islam and Turkish ethnicity" (note he says Pan-Turkism and not any word that is related it to by synthesis to it) and just like his opinion is not the intro, one cannot have Ziya Golap in the intro as defining a concept (both because he is not an academic expert and because he has not used the word Pan, which makes it a synthesis). You can say pan-Turkism is the political extenstion/manifestation of Turkism but you cannot violate WP:synthesis and connect the two. That is why Ziya Gokalp and that other source were removed. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Allaged claims of genocide

This article is written to address the ideology of pan-turkism however what we can see in this article is the alleged actions of them. These actions have already been addressed in concerning articles. I have opened this to disscussion abd if not addressed I will need to revert the changes. It is important to note that these things were added without a disccussion.(Sorry I can't sign due to me being on a phone) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 21:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no viable reason to remove the Criticism section, which is thoroughly referenced. Weasel words of "alleged" indicate the hostile POV towards that section which is correctly sourced and is directly related to the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been stable for a long time and one cannot remove it without discussion. However, CUP party was based on Pan-Turkism and thus it is very relavent to the current article. These are not alleged, Robert F. Melson, "The Armenian Genocide" in Kevin Reilly (Editor), Stephen Kaufman (Editor), Angela Bodino (Editor) "Racism: A Global Reader (Sources and Studies in World History)", M.E. Sharpe (January 2003). pg 278: "Concluding that their liberal experiment had been a failure, CUP leaders turned to Pan-Turkism, a xenophobic and chauvinistic brand of nationalism that sought to create a new empire based on Islam and Turkish ethnicity." ..."It was in this context of revolutionary and ideological transformation and war that the fateful decision to destroy the Armenians was taken. ".

Criticism of pan-Turkism (like any other ideology such as communism [3]) is very relavent to the article.

Here is another source: "Indeed how could we begin to under the Holocaust without an analysis of Nazism, or the Armenian Genocide without Pan Turkism?"(Larry V. Thompson, "Lessons and Legacies IV: Reflections on Religion, Justice, Sexuality, and Genocide", Northwestern University Press, 2003) [4]. pp 32.

"Believing the Armenians and Greeks to be parasites, Gökalp and the other pan-Turkists strove to rid their society of this Christian bourgeois element"[5]

"The Ittihat Terraki began its programme of Pan- Turkism with the Greek deportations of May, 1914" [6]

It is true that these Genocides have their own article in Wikipedia, but the CUP's pan-Turkism for commiting these genocides. The current sections are very small and then they link to the main article. So there is no policy violation. --108.18.222.120 (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant Subjects

Genocide or Nazis is not related with Pan- Turkism. These may be mentioned but shouldn't invade the article. Please have a look at Zionism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism and Greek Megali Idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megali_idea. None of the similiar concepts has any arguable additions. The article consists of views on the matter. It surpasses the main subject. Thanks.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. Those genocides and massacres are related to Pan-Turkism. So we don't remove them. Sorry. --Zyma (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
"You"? It's a voluntary project. Owned by every singleperson. And should examine until truth is revealed. Half of the article includes genocide blames. Pan-Turkism wasn't that popular in history. Ottomans officials declared that they're not Turks. People know it for 20-30 years from now. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
That's your personal claim. Provide your RSs and wait for the other editors' opinions. But remember you can't remove those contents from this article. They are accepted by the other editors and if you want edit this article, you should aware of NPOV rule, otherwise your edits will be marked as problematic. Zyma (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Zyma It's not about resources, it's about reason. The article attacks and blames pan-Turkism. It's just an idea but covered with nazizm and Armenian politics. It's a matter of appropriate location. Non- Pan Turkism claims occupies more than the main subject. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a total of 252 lines in this article. 24 lines are about the genocides (armenian, greek, assyrian). That's 9.5% of the total. You mentioned the article is about armenian politics but the part about armenians is 2 lines. This is obviously not a science article. Pan-turkism is politics and some think that it effected the politics of Turkey back in WW1 and they provide references. Vmelkon (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There isn't any improvements on the article. It can't be a "Blaming Pan-Turkism" page. Encyclopedia means giving information, not cursing the people. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Merged theree sections and named it Genocide connection, as "genocide" title means nothing. There was little content for seperate headings. It surpasses the main article. See: Section headings Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Article titles--Kafkasmurat (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nazi crime was a result of Pan-Germanism but there is no word about it. Wikipedia run by rasist admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.126.252.89 (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable and fake sources.

User:Kasparjust Stop restoring to unreliable sourced sentences. Given sources are Russian web sites and not reliable. Most of them have nothing to do with the content.

Here is the sources:

  • Speros Vyronis, Jr., The Turkish State and History: Clio Meets the Grey Wolf. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies. 1991.

-This one is about the political group called Grey Wolves in Turkey. It has nothing to do with identification of Scythians, Partians, Wusun's or etc. There is not even a page number or quotation from the book.

-This one is from a news site. It's about the Kazakh President's new book.

  • Talat Tekin

-This is not even a source!

  • [http:// s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/42TurkicAndSumer/ZakievGenesisSumersEn.htm Mirfatyh Zakiev Origin of Türks and Tatars]

This is a Tatar scholar's book. Again, It has nothing to do with Pan-Turkism and those mentioned ancient folks. Referance is from another unreliable internet site.

All of them are from different Russian internet sites and according to wikipedia's policy, these are not reliable sources. You need a serious academic sources for such heavy claims. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it's diatribe from some primitive PKK troll. How can something like "Turkey is a chauvinist country" seriously make it to an encyclopedic entry? And as reference: a Russian blog, are you joking? -- 188.23.150.167 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Criticism among Turkic peoples"

There is a subsection named "Criticism among Turkic peoples" which reads: "Some Turkic people consider that Pan-Turkism is a Turkish fascist policy that aimed to settle Turkish migrants in other Turkic-speaking countries and Turkey is a chauvinist country that performed many genocides and forced assimilation of ethnic minorities.[1] They resist Turkish policy to dominate in other Turkic-speaking countries.[1]" It is written in Russian language by a person named Ринат К. All it says about him is that he is an ordinary citizen. The post of an ordinary guy on a website even the identity of whom is unknown is not an encyclopedic source. I am removing the subsection.--Cfsenel (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Пантюркизм как идеология фашизма

About Nihal Atsız

@User:Kansas Bear Sorry my bad. Atsız's statements about his hair style and Hitlerism/Nazism claims in the Orkun journal 25 May, 1951, 34th print. I found pdf document on internet. I'm quoting from his article, it's in Turkish. I can't translate the whole text:

Hâmit Şevket bunları biliyor mu? Bilmiyorsa benim Hitlerizme tâbi bir adam olduğuma nereden hükmeder? Saçlarım benzermiş... Bu ahmakça iddia yıllardan beri birçok budalalar tarafından aleyhimde delil gibi kullanıldı. Hattâ evimde Hitlerin resminin asılı olduğu bile söylendi. Ben, dışardan gelmiş hiç bir fikri kabul etmeğe tenezzül etmeyecek kadar millî gurur ve şuura sahip olduğumu, içtimaî mezhebimin Türkçülük olduğunu vaktiyle yazarak ilân ettim. Daha ne yapabilirim. Saçım Hitlerinkine benziyormuş diye beni Hitlerci sanacak kadar budalalık gösteren binlerce, belki on binlerce zavallıya ayrı ayrı mektup yazamam ya...page94

He refuses all the Nazism claims. You can get help for the transtlation if you wish.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

He can "refuse" all he wants. Nihal Atsiz is not a reliable source about Nihal Atsiz. Athenean (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean "Nihal Atsiz is not a reliable source about Nihal Atsiz." ? Are you just trying to be funny or you can verify your statement? there are claims about a person and that person refusing those claims. We have a first hand rejection statement, you can't insist on the opposite way.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Intellectual honesty is not something I expect from someone like Nihal Atsiz. He can deny all he wants, but he did espouse Nazi ideology, it's documented in academic sources and it belongs in the article. Athenean (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
So, you are admitting that you are judging this stuation with your personel thoughts about him. Which means you are baised on this case.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
That would be like Hitler saying that he was an advocate for human rights, or Talat Pasa proclaiming himself as a democratic liberal, in which they did. We need third party sources to verify what kind of person Atsiz was. Considering that he was a nationalist, at a time when nationalism essentially meant fascism, his sympathies with Nazism is not surprising. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
You are also interpreting things. "He was a natioanlist so his sympathies with Nazism is not surprising" is not an objective point of view as you can realize. Comparing one incident with theoretical other ones is also absurd (such as Hitler and Talat Pasa) Btw, you didn't revert back your restoration, so this discussion is pointless now.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me explain something to you. Nihal Atsiz does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for being a reliable source. Therefore, he cannot be considered a reliable source for anything, including Nihal Atsiz. North Korea calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", but as we all know, it is neither democratic nor a republic. How do we know this? Because we have reliable sources that tell us this. The Nazis called themselves "National Socialists", but as we all know, they weren't socialists. How do we know this? Because we have reliable sources that tell us this. Similarly, Nihal Atsiz didn't call himself a Nazi, but we have reliable sources that tells us he is. Unless you find reliable sources that directly contradict this, this discussion is indeed over. Athenean (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The situation is work differently in this case, we are talking about a person and his political views. His statements about himself are something notable. I just checked and some 3rd party sources described him "nazi advocater" or etc. So okay, these claims can stay but if these are will stay, we have to also mention his opinions about his political views. It cannot be one sided.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
By removing information in the article about his sympathies with Nazism, your actions go against what you just said above. Your edits alone have proven that you did not want two sides of the story elaborated in the article, but rather attempt to introduce one side, which just so happens to be the side you find suitable for all the wrong reasons mentioned above. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, this article is not about Nihal Atsiz, it's about Pan-Turkism. Introducing such a speech by him is much more relevant for an article about him, rather than an article about Pan-Turkism. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes 28.07.2016

1) Not all pan-turkists adopted Nazi ideology. Only those who supported Germany as it stated in source. 2) In the source Zakiryanov does not state that Obama has turkic origin. He says that in 17 century B. C. Kenya was under the rule of asian nomads, and, as he says "That is why I am willing to concede thought that Obama carries turk blood in his veins" (И поэтому я вполне допускаю мысль, что в жилах Обамы течет тюркская кровь). If asian nomads were in Kenya in 17 century B.C., Kenian and Turks (decender of asian nomads) may have some common parent. The paragraph was about acient nomads in Kenya from Asia. He mentioned Obama just as an example of repesentative of Kenyan people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yomagrey (talk • contribs) 10:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pan-Turkism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Anchors in section headings

What are the anchors in these section headings, I have not seen them in other articles before? Dilbilir (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pan-Turkism/Archive_1&oldid=1064266242"