Talk:Pan-Turkism

Armenian Genocide

Information about the Armenian genocide has been deleted from this article. It is relevent because the main figures who have started the genocide are pan-turkists and there are enough RSs about their roles. I'll be adding relevent information in the history section. Kevo327 (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Those are covered in their article. Are we going to add what everyone did? Beshogur (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

We can add a word or two for context for each person, such as who they where and the reason they are notable. This is applied in most all 'notable personalities' sections across Wikipedia because it removes the need for a reader to check each notable figure's article one by one, improving the article.Kevo327 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Why should we, they can visit the articles. Beshogur (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

By what I saw and checked, I think user Beshogur is right about and he has a good point. No need to post that about. 93.86.149.86 (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't get what's the issue other than this being a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. What I'm saying is done on almost all lists of notable personalities (NPs). Or do you suggest that we should patrol and systematically remove short descriptions from every list of NPs stating that "people can see the articles themselves" ? (Sarcasm, meant no harm) Kevo327 (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Or do you suggest that we should patrol and systematically remove short descriptions from every list of NPs stating that "people can see the articles themselves" ?, probably that's better. I do not know if there is any rule about that. Beshogur (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The role of the Turkish/Ottoman state in the genocide cannot be understated; if notable figures are present here, a brief mention would help to establish context. I would like present Armenian viewpoints on pan-turkism, but these are hard to locate in English or even French media (outside of a few French sources from Lebanon). I may dig further as the role of the Armenians in this discussion cannot be overlooked. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Turkic origin?

Turkish and Azerbaijani students are imbued with textbooks making "absurdly inflated" claims that all Eurasian nomads, including the Scythians, and all civilizations on the territory of the Ottoman Empire, such as Sumer, ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, the Byzantine Empire, to even further that Native Americans, pre-Columbus civilizations like Aztec Empire, Incan Empire and Maya civilization, to even Sub-Saharan Africa, were of Turkic origin.

Aside from the Eurasian nomads (and a bunch of cultures like Afanasievo, Andronovo etc.) we don't learn these people as if they were of Turkic origin. The source I gave here was 9th grade Turkish history textbook, which verifies my claim. If the link doesn't seem reliable (it's just a PDF file of the textbook), I understand, but I have to tell that the "information" above is false (except for the Eurasian nomads/Scythians). It is just the exaggerations, mostly promoted with the Turkish History Thesis, and nowadays with little to no believers. --Isvind (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A (supposed) 9th grade Turkish history textbook does not refute a reliable academic source. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

That "reliable" academic source claims that these are written in Turkish textbooks. And I showed a textbook that disproves this claim.--Isvind (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not how it works, please read my comment again, as well as WP:OR and WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

About the necessity of the "Criticism" section

Pan-Turkism is the goal to unite all the Turkic nations and it concerns Turkic nations as an ideology. Why do you need a section like "Criticism", where Armenian, Russian, Iranian and even American opinions are also present; while no other pan-...ism pages include such a thing? --Isvind (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Isvind: Wikipedia is not censored, if there is notable criticism from reliable neutral sources generally it is better if it's included. Also, other pan-ism article are unrelated, their lack or inclusion of "criticism" sections isn't subject to uniformity.- Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It is also important to note the French influence on this idea as France took over portions of the Levant after the war, further limiting Turkish influence in the region and contributing to the sense of "failure" if you will about the failed Ottoman state after WW1. I've found a decent French source and have added it to the article. The article notes how France dismembered the Arab part of the Ottoman empire, causing further shame to the Turkish state. Important as France turned Lebanon and Syria to their sphere of influence for the next 100 yrs or so. Oaktree b (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Historical Mechanisms: An Experimental Approach to Applying Scientific Theories to the Study of History

Hello @Isvind:, I'm going to ask you to explain your rationale here [1]. This is your second revision and removal of the sourced information, which is clearly stated in the last paragraph of 107 page, and in the start of 108 page of the book [2]. Kindly read WP:OR, and please stop edit-warring, as your account may be blocked if reported. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni:, I read this part. There is no mention of the civilizations/nations/areas I deleted. I didn't delete the ones included in the source. Please check again. --Isvind (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni:, in the source given it is written that we learn those people mentioned at school. Telling these were to make students think they were of Turkic origin is what the writer thought and not a certain fact. Besides, I took the word "implied" directly from the source, it doesn't represent my POV.--Isvind (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Isvind: The source explicitly says "Turkish pupils are imbued by history textbooks even today", there is no "implied" in that sentence. Again, OR and POV from you. Please stop edit warring, and read the warning message in your talk page. If you continue this disruptive pattern, your account will be reported.ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: I changed that word. --Isvind (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Andreas Boldt is a historian, and your attribution here is misplaced. When reverting yourself, please don't leave out the other parts you added. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni:In this case, the truth is Turks learn those peoples at school and being "imbued with the claims that they were of Turkic origin" is Boldt's inference. Should we accept it as absolute truth? --Isvind (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not about us accepting it as the "absolute truth". Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources, not what you or me accept or not. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, well. Good luck with these "reliable sources" that can claim anything they want, then.--Isvind (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

isvind, the civilisations and nations you deleted are mentioned elsewhere throughout the book, the aztecs on pages 171-172 for example. I think you should revert that edit too. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kevo327: As they are taught to be of Turkic origin or just mentioning?--Isvind (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

About the first paragraph on "Armenian history" section

Clive Foss's argument on how Armenian names are changed into Turkish and some other things doesn't concern all Turkic peoples and Pan-Turkism in general. It is only about Turkey's policies and Turkish nationalism, not Turkic nationalism. --Isvind (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Turkey's internal policies are on its own and unrelated to any sort of "Turan" ambition in general. BerkBerk68^talk 15:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Turkey's role and classification of its ambitions

Turkey never had the idea of "Turkic unification" as a state policy, that can be understood by Erdoğan's expressions about nationalism. How can we say that Turkey failed its ambitions over Turkic countries while it didn't even take it as a core ambition? BerkBerk68^talk 16:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Erdogans AKP is currently in a political alliance with the Nationalist Movement Party, maybe this gives you a hint. Maybe Turkey did not openly have an aim to create a new pan-turkic empire, but Pan-Turkists did have such an aim. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Its a coalition formed in 2018, before that AKP was completely against nationalism and its policies, we can see that by Erdoğan saying "We are a government that has trampled on every kind of nationalism" [1], and ofcourse, the AKP's ambition of allying Abdullah Öcalan at Solution process.[2] So we openly can't mention any sort of Pan-Turkism, or even nationalism policies on AKP government before 2018, and even if we say that so called "Turkism policies" of AKP started at the exact moment coalition was formed, 4 years is not enough time for a state to have significant influence(s) over 4 different sovereign nations. BerkBerk68^talk 11:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I know checked the article and nor the AKP or Erdogan are mentioned in the article. What's the issue? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

We are talking about the Turkish state's so called "efforts". Turkic nations are independent since 31 years and AKP is governing the Turkish state since 20 years. Governments before them didn't really care about Turkic influence either. So what is the logic of claiming that Turkey's efforts haven't met expectations while Turkey mostly didn't even have any efforts at all? BerkBerk68^talk 17:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

He is only part of the recent Turkish history. The broader history of the nation attempts to show "shame and a loss of honor" over the defeat in WW1; true or not, it's an interesting discussion to be had by presenting all view points. Oaktree b (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Afsharid Nader Shah's attempt

Encyclopaedia Iranica shows that Nader Shah attempted to create a Pan-Turkmen entity including Karluks, [3] which makes it more of a pre doctrine Pan-Turkic ambitions. section should be restored. BerkBerk68^talk 12:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Let me also add, strategic reasons doesn't change the fact that he wanted to create a common political entity. We can also see his adaptation of Turkmen identity by him helding Qurultai on Mughan plains at 1736. Qurultai is the name of Turkic and Mongolian traditional meeting. BerkBerk68^talk 12:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Pan-Turkism emerged in the 1880s per the sourced lede, which you have already been told. Iranica doesn't mention anything about pan-Turkism, you're just making up your own theories at this point, i.e. more WP:POV and WP:TENDENTIOUS. His motives were political per the source (which you have also already been told); "Nāder’s focus on common Turkmen descent likewise was designed to establish a broad political framework that could tie him, more closely than his Safavid predecessors, to both Ottomans and Mughals."

A quick glance at other sources also show no mention of pan-Turkism as well, even one directly arguing against it; "It would be anachronistic and misleading to read such an invocation of Turkish blood ties now as some sort of early ‘Pan-Turkism’, however. These 1736 articulations of the components of Nader’s idea of Iran were, rather, rough drafts of concepts that he would refine over the course of his 11 years in power with broad religious and political dimensions. A fuller articulation of his proposed religious innovations would be presented at the 1743 Council of Najaf, while his political reformulations would only take shape after his defeat of the Mughals and the rulers of Central Asia (see below)." - page 14, The Contest for Rule in Eighteenth-Century Iran: Idea of Iran Vol. 11 --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Pseudo-Turkology split

The topic should be moved to its own article, it takes up unnecessary space here. Blubluman (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Adakiko @Tweedledumb2 Blubluman (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to I would say generally, I have little knowledge on this subject as to whether it needs a split or not, perhaps maybe you can ask at WikiProject Turkey as they may know better then me Tweedle (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Where are those people who reverted my changes? Blubluman (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm one of them. Can you please elaborate on how it takes unnecessary space? Why do we need a new, very small size article with barely any views instead of simply having the info here? I think this info is still highly relevant to this article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I am another one, and just asking where we are and mentioning that it takes unecessary space isn't really a good argument for the removal.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Grey Wolves Gokturk Flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)