Talk:Chepni (tribe)

Name

• "Chepni Turks" -Llc 1, Turkish book in English language
• "Chepni tribe" -Llc 3
• Turkey Chepnis -Llc 19
• Turkey Chepni -Llc 22
• "Chepni Turkmens" -Llc 0

Takabeg (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion ?

I think there are many sources about Chepni. chepni -Llc Takabeg (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, there are only 10-15 sources on your link (others are about somebody named Chepin) and they are not main sources. They just mention Chepni. I demand deletion as the creator and top contributor. I will mention Chepni on Turkish people page as I said. Case closed.-F.Mehmet (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Topal Osman

There are no evidence to prove his Chepniness (Çepni "Topal Osman" 0 result) Takabeg (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Name change

I will redirect this article to Turkish people page later but for now I'm changing the name (which I also named this article before) Chepni to more scientific one Chepni Turks, User.Takabeg even did not let me answer his questions above and reverted it quickly. But now I have sources.

Who is John F. Haldon?. Considered to be one of the world's most successful byzantinists. British historian, at Princeton University

John Haldon's Palgrave atlas of byzantine history: Chepni Turks, Chepni Turkmens (I have both new and old, English and Turkish versions of this book) and here is the photo from this book. ("Çepni Türkleri" is a direct translation of Chepni Turks into Turkish) As I said before, in English edition it is also Chepni Turks.

File:Çepniturks.jpg

Chepni Turks is not common name. Takabeg (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is your opinion. I'msure you did not even know the name Chepni before i introduced it here-F.Mehmet (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your favorite is not common name. You'd better read Wikipedia:Article titles, Wikipedia:I just don't like it, Wikipedia:Requested moves. Takabeg (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not my favourite. It's not your favourite that's all and it is a common name. By bolding your words, you can't show yourself right. Historians use it. You also removed my source about Topal Osman's origin, that's another topic to be discussed. But let us return what we are talking. As you know I started this article and I've, firstly, named it solely Chepni but I read all sources including Mr.Haldon's works and others (I can take their photos again if you don't believe me) and saw that was incomplete so I named it Chepni Turks again. I don't see anything wrong here. Chepni Turks are a part of Turkish people so what's wrong with the name? I don't understand your efforts to bring back the incomplete one. -F.Mehmet (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any favorite name(s). We must chose titlle in acoordance with Wikipedia:Article titles, Wikipedia:I just don't like it, Wikipedia:Requested moves etc. As you know "Chepni Turks" -Llc (1 result, in Turkish book written in English), "Chepni Turkmens" -Llc (0 result) are not common name in English language. "Chepni tribe" -Llc (3 results) is not common name. Common name of this tribe is + Turkey Chepnis -Llc (19 results) and/or Turkey Chepni -Llc (22 results). In this situation, we mustn't chose Chepni Turks as title of this article. If you don't have your personal favorite name, let's chose common name. Takabeg (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not all books are on the Internet and I know you don't have favourite names, Chepni Turks is not your favourite that is all. Chepni Turks is the most scientific title. Actually, you did not answer my questions. Bugünlük benden bu kadar, sonra tartışırız. -F.Mehmet (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Chepni Turks → Chepni – Dispute between two editors (Takabeg and F.Mehmet) about article content and title. I cannot comment because I have no knowledge of the subject, having become involved through a Speedy Deletion request. I hope this is the correct place for this discussion. Thanks. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary of dispute: The dispute is whether to name the article "Chepni" or "Chepni Turks". --Noleander (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please also read the editors' statements at User_talk:Baffle_gab1978#Help; feel free to copy them over if necessary. Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a "Requested Move" template, since that will guarantee that an admin will come along after a couple of weeks and (if the consensus says so) do the move. The RfC by itself may not get admin attention. --Noleander (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Move to Chepni - Google books has over 134 hits [edit: changed erroneous value to correct 134] for "Chepni" but only one for "Chepni Turks". That is a 134:1 ratio. Ditto for Google web hits. For example, the book "Tradition and change in a Turkish town" lists ethnic groups in Turkey, and uses the name "Chepni" (not "Chepni Turks"). Finally, the move from "Chepni" to "Chepni Turks" was done by an editor that tried to delete the article and redirect it to Turkish people, which suggests that there may be a POV motivation for changing "Chepni" to "Chepni Turks". Therefore, "Chepni" should be the title. --Noleander (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Of course it will hit more, because it is one word. Hitting more results on Google books does not show it is the rightest title. As I said above I have sources and not all the books are on the internet. (by the way some sources are not about chepni, but about chepin.) I am knowledgeable about this topic and I don't think it is the rightest because it is an incomplete title but thanks for your comment. The title can also be "Chepni clan".-F.Mehmet (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the word "Chepni" appears by itself 134 times in Google Books, always in the context of referring to an ethnic group. The phrase "Chepni Turks" appears one (1) time. The phrase "Chepni clan" appears zero (0) times. Here are some example sources from Google Books:

• Appearances of "Chepni" by itself:

-Tradition and change in a Turkish town

-The Turks: Middle ages

- Byzantium in the Near East

-The decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor

-Journal of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs

-The journal of developing areas

-Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain

[ .. several more not listed here ...]

• Only appearance of "Chepni Turks"

- The Turks: Middle ages

Since this is the English language WP, we must use the phrase most commonly used in English sources. If Turkish sources literally translate as "Chepni Turks" (and I dont know if they do or not) that is not relevant to determing which phrase to use in the English WP. --Noleander (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Chepni are normally a part of Oghuz tribes, now I want to give another example on Wikipedia Kayı tribe is another Oghuz clan, same as Chepni, see how they named it. I want any name to be chosen from; Chepni tribe, Chepni Turks or Chepni clan. Others would be not scientific. Only Chepni is not enough to describe the article. I will talk no more here since I think I've said everything and I've things to do in real world... Greetings and have a nice day.-F.Mehmet (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "Chepni tribe" appears 3 times in Google books. To recap the prevalence of the proposed article titles:

• "Chepni" (by itself) - 134
• "Chepni tribe" - 3
• "Chepni Turks" - 1
• "Chepni clan" - 0

The term "Chepni" by itself is far and away the most commonly used phrase in English to designate this ethnic group. --Noleander (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Move to "Chepni tribe"

Chepni without any other qualifying term is bound to appear more frequently. Likewise, if you searched for the term "Irish" (about 7,860,000 results) as opposed to "Irish people" (about 280,000 results) the former would return more sources but the relevant wikipedia article is entitled Irish people because it is more precise. When you actually go through the results of a search on Google Books for the term "Chepni" in the English language and excluding such terms as "Chepin" you get 96 results. Of these 61 do not actually refer to the Chepni in any form and are returns from Polish language dictionaries and the like. A further 10 refer solely to the village Chepni, not to the people or tribe. There are 13 references to "Chepni" (without the definite article). 8 of these references are qualified with other terms and contexts (“any one of the names of the major branches of the Oghuz Turks, like Qiniq, Avshar, Bayindir, Salur, Baya'ut, Chepni";“the Oghuz tribe called Chepni"; “concerning the actual tribal divisions of the Oghuz; only one tribe, the Chepni"; “Chepni and other Turkomans” (used twice); “(?Chepni) Turkomans"; “an important tribe”; "Chepni ... and other peoples"). There are a further 5 references to "the Chepni". 3 of these are qualified by other terms or contexts (one of number of “Turcoman bands”; one of number of “tribes and confederations”; "Turk tribe of the Chepni"). There is 1 reference to "the Chepnis" (an "outcast Turkish people") and 1 reference to "the Chepni peoples" ("and other Turkmen tribes"). There is also 1 reference to each of the following terms: "the Chepni tribe" ("Turks from the Chepni tribe"); "Chepni Turkomans"(returns 4 results on an individual search for this term); "Chepni Turcoman"; and "The Chepni beys". Although not returned on this search, there is also a reference to the "Chepni Turks".

As previously mentioned, the Chepni are a tribal division of the Oghuz Turks. There are 24 tribal divisions of the Oghuz Turks. Excluding the Chepni tribe, there are 5 wikipedia articles on these divisions: Kayi tribe; Bayat (name) (referred to as a clan in the article); Afshar tribe; Pechenegs (disambiguation line states that "This article is about the Turkic tribe"); and the Salur tribe. I would argue that these subdivisions of the Oghuz should be standardised on wiki pages so that their names are all listed as "tribes". This would follow wiki policy Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title on consistency in article titles where "titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles".

If the article title were simply to be changed to "Chepni" the reader would have no clear indication from the title that the article referred to a people or tribe and not to the village of the same name. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

@FiachraByrne: That is some good information. But it appears that in scholarly, secondary sources, the most commonly used stand-alone title for this ethic group is "Chepni" by itself. such as the sources:

-The Turks: Middle ages

- Byzantium in the Near East

-The decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor

-Journal of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs

-The journal of developing areas

-Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain

I see virtually no scholarly secondary sources that use "Chepni tribe" as a stand-alone title for this ethnic group. The uses of "tribe" you cite above are almost all incidental, within longer passages where the author is discussing other groups, or trying to make a point that these people are one of several ethnic groups. The word "tribe" carries very strong connotations, and we cannot introduce it into the title if secondary sources are not using it. For example, even articles on Native American groups do not use the word tribe, as in Navajo people, Apache, or Seminole. I suppose, as a compromise, Chepni people is an alternative, since that would not carry any loaded meaning like "tribe" or "clan", and is used in WP titles in situations like Irish people, Turkish people, and Navajo people. What do you think of Chepni people? --Noleander (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely opposed to Chepni people but I would like to hear from Mehmet first as he has access to the best (most recent and scholarly) secondary source.

You list 5 exemplary secondary sources.

Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain (1921). This source is dated and the word Chepni appears as part of a list with no clear context. I rather doubt, however, that this author would object to the use of the word "tribe" in this context.

The decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor (1971). Again, the term appears as a part of list and the context is unclear.

The Turks: Middle ages . Refers to the “Chepni peoples and some other Turkmen ‘’’tribes’’’

Byzantium in the Near East (1981). Refers to the the Chepni as one of a number of “Turcoman bands”

The Journal of Developing Areas (1976). This is the only source that really supports your position. “In Susurluk at least ten distinct groups are found, including local and Balkan Turks, Chepni, Turkmen, Georgians, Albanians, and Gypsies.”

I think that it is incontrovertible that the vast majority of the secondary literature describes and conceives of the Chepni as a "tribe". This is sensible as the Oghuz, of which the Chepni are a subdivision, are almost uniformly described as a "tribe" in the secondary literature. This term has a specific if contested meaning, a pretty good definition of which is provided on the wikipedia page Tribe. That is, a social group pre-existing state formation whose membership is defined through kinship. That is a more accurate description of what the Chepni are and how they might define themselves than simply "people".

To be honest, my first reaction when I see the word "tribe" would be to avoid it because it evokes a notion of "primitivism" or "backwardness". But I have to ask is that a reflection of my own prejudice of what it might mean to live partly within a social structure and social identity defined by kinship. There's nothing intrinsic to that which is actually "primitive" other than my own preconceptions. Similarly, you refer to the Native American tribes as defined as "peoples" on wikipedia. The more interesting point is that they are described as "Native Americans", in fact, given that most people belonging to these groups prefer the term "American Indian" or "Indian" (well, according to a survey anyway). One of the explanations I have heard of this is that at least the term "Indian" serves as a monument to European stupidity! I'm still ambivalent however because you're right in the sense that the term tribal is used as a shorthand for primitive, backward and savage; perhaps, though, avoiding the use of term and tip-toeing around its implications reinforces that belief? FiachraByrne (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with much of what you say. The connotations of the word "tribe" with backwards/savage is almost certainly why the WP articles on Native Americans never use the word tribe in the article title (although they often use "tribe" in the article body). Of all the choices for this article's title, Chepni people seems to be optimal. It (1) is not so mysterious as "Chepni" by itself; (2) avoids the backward connotations of "Chepni tribe"; and (3) is consistent with many other WP articles such as Irish people, Turkish people, and Navajo people. --Noleander (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I realise that which is why I'm wondering if my own instinctive preference for people or simply "The Chepni" does not indeed reflect prejudice and preconceptions about a tribe is (i.e. that a tribe is innately backward) and that refusing to use the term might just reinforce that prejudice (what is wrong, after all, with belonging to a tribe?). It kind of reminds me of a government report issued about the Traveller community in Ireland in 1963. They used the word "itinerant" because it was deemed to be less offensive than Traveller or Tinker. Travellers/Pavees hated the new term. You have to wonder whose sensibilities were being protected. Anyway, I'll reserve judgement until Mehmet swings by. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I welcome input from any and all editors. But bear in mind that user Mehmet is one of the two editors involved in the dispute that led to this RfC (the other editor was User:Takabeg). In fact, Mehmet was the editor that renamed the article from "Chepni" to "Chepni Turks" which, as far as I can tell, can be perceived as a very offensive rename ("Chepni Turks" appears to be a term that Turkish nationalists prefer to use). Mehmet also "demanded" deletion of the article, and wanted it merged into Turkish people. For those reasons, I would take Mehmet's advice with a grain of salt. --Noleander (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the name of any people has a political significance. Unfortunately there's no clear indication of what the Chepni would call themselves in English. I understand [Takabeg] and [F.Mehmet] have their points of view, but that's ok and doesn't necessarily invalidate their arguments. They just have to argue their positions rationally. Also, while there might be a clear political motive in underlining the fact the Chepni are Turkish it's not, I think, a contentious point as they are ethnically Turks. It's not like he's claiming the Kurds as ethnically Turkish. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any background knowledge specifically about the Chepni people (I'll call them for now), but the approach is a little confusing here, I propose a different procedure.

1. I think we should first establish whether we have enough sources to rely on choosing the name according to them, so we need a clear inventory of all sources. If yes (we think that we do have enough directly-related sources), we should list all possible results and mention all the names at the start of the article while referring to the most often cited name as "commonly used name" and using it as the title. If no, we should discuss and research which name is most reasonable to use, by also following Wikipedia's naming convention of similar pages.

2. I haven't spotted any references on this page other than the ones from the Google Books page, perhaps other offline references should be stated as well (if they exist). If we want to use the results page as a justification, it needs to have some extra filtering though. I've made some effort to filter out non-related articles and to keep only in English written articles, but it might still be incomplete, see [1]. There were instances of Chinese, Indian transliterations, a plant's name ("leitneria floridana chepni") and chemical and other non-related references which I filtered out, I tried to keep Anatolia and people related results.

3. If we are going to research what naming would be most correct and reasonable to use, let me inform you that the word "Turk" can mean both Turkic ethnicity and/or Turkish nationality. At some cases it can be very ambiguous, and this ambiguity sometimes does not matter for the author since Turkish is in the end also Turkic and Turk is used to refer to Turkic people. So in fact "Chepni Turk" would probably always be a reasonably correct naming, if the word Turk is used in relation to their Turkic origins, unless the people specifically reject to be referred to as Turk due to wanting to be seen separate from the Turkish and/or Turkic people. (if that is the case it needs to be clearly cited though)

Anyways, like I said, with this post I suggest first running an inventory for all topic related sources and then a vote whether we should decide the naming of the article according to these sources OR if we should look into reason and Wikipedia conventions. The reason behind this suggestion: there is no fixed Wikipedia rule for naming an article and I think this procedure would completely consider all important factors in a reasonable order for naming this article. I was asked to help out here and hope to have done so. Thanks. - EthemD (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Even in Turkish language, "Çepni Türkleri" is not common name.

• "Çepni Türkleri" 26 results
• Çepniler (includes Çepni) except "Türkleri" 2020 results

We must not chose the titles of articles by personal arguements, explanations and preferences. Takabeg (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@EthemD: Thanks for your input. (1) it is generally considered inapproprate in WP for one editor to ask another to contribute to a discussion that involves a dispute. User Mehmet asked you here to contribute to this discussion. That is prohibited by the WP:Canvassing policy. (2) WP does not use voting to make decisions. The Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion guideline explains that decisions are based on what outcome is most consistent with WP policies, regardless of the number of editors that vote one way or another. (3) The Chepni people are discussed adequately in scholarly sources, so there is no need for editors to use their own guesses as to the best title. We simply have to see what terms the sources say. There may be situations where the WP convention is to add a neutral word like "people" to the end of the title of an ethnic group, but loaded words like "tribe" or "clan" must be avoided (see WP:NPOV) unless the sources emphatically use such terms. It is becoming clear that Chepni people is probably the best choice. --Noleander (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interests. Most of all of determinations that you wrote above are well-directed. For example, "Chepni Turks" appears to be a term that Turkish nationalists prefer to use is fully accurate. How did you know this truth ? :)) But I think Chepni people ([2] 0) is not suitable. If we found any samples, we could have chose it. Furthermore Chepni is a very small tribe. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Chepni tribe may be appropriate if that is a commonly used term, and if is not perceived as biased or offensive. Chepni people - even though it is never used by academics - may be acceptable to avoid confusion in a title, as in Irish people or Navajo people, so that readers understand that the article is about a group of people. --Noleander (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we must avoid a "Wiki-vention" as possible as we can. Takabeg (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(1) I know what canvassing is, but I don't believe he invited me to the discussion purely to change the outcome of the discussion. Maybe he just followed my discussion on another page and thought that my input here would be useful too, there is no proof. You can't just 'assume bad faith', it's not Wikipedia policy consistent either, see Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. My input has still value, I've approached this discussion in a completely neutral way so please don't intimidate me Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. And please stop labeling people, that's totally unprofessional, Takabeg: calling me indirectly Turkish Nationalist Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks.

(2) I didn't mean vote as in literally 'vote', like polling, I mean as to decide by means of discussion, of course. And for your information, I would be staying completely out from this 'vote', I was just suggesting a clearer procedure as the current one seemed a bit vague and incomplete. If there was a fixed definite policy for naming the Chepni people then show it to me, and I will agree with it if you do. I am obviously suggesting this, like I said, since there is no definite way of naming and this discussion is being held. I thought I made myself clear.

(3) You seem to have the opinion that there is enough scholarly work to warrant a name, but as other people above have pointed out, there might not be, but exactly this is the purpose of what I suggested: a discussion of whether there is enough scholarly work to warrant the name change.

I can't believe and am disgusted by how intimidating the above responses were, while I really had good intentions in helping out. Besides, if I would've mentioned any of my personal opinions, that would be that "Chepni people" is a better and that "Chepni turks" is a bad choice too, but I didn't. I kept my own opinion out and just wanted to suggest a more neutral Wikipedia-policy-consistent and clear procedure. Thanks for the razor-quick consequent response from both of you though, so that I could respond to you on the same day. -EthemD (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Re canvassing: User:F.Mehmet should have solicited User:EthemD's opinion in a neutral manner. EthemD is not to blame for that.

@EthemD: Your search did not return any new sources than those already discussed on this thread.

The only printed source not available online of which we are aware is the Atlas in F.Mehmet's possession. I would prefer to see the use of term "Cepni" in a text (sentence) rather than a map from that author.

The clear convention established in the scholarly English language literature is to simply refer to "Chepni" (no definite article). The only problem with this term as an article title is that it is not clear what is being referred (a people or a place).

Most sources qualify this proper name by stating that they are a tribe, a band, group or people. In terms of their ethnicity they are referred to as Turkmen (Turcoman, Turkoman) or Turks and as a subdivision of the Oghuz Tribe (who are frequently referred to as the Oghuz Turks).

Regardless of which term is favoured by Turkish nationalists or other perspectives it would seem uncontroversial that the the Chepni are regarded as a Turkish (ethnicity) tribe and a subdivision of the Oghuz.

My own position had been to argue that the term tribe should be used as this is the most accurate description of the type of social unit to which the Chepni belong.

Tribe has been rejected in many similar articles, however, as a pejorative term indicating backwardness, primitivism and redolent of a certain colonial outlook.

I have also argued that the emerging standard for the wikipedia articles on the subdivisions of the Oghuz has been to use the word tribe as a suffix. However, there are only a small number of such articles and the term tribe has been inconsistently applied in any case.

The convention established for indigenous groups in the Americas is to refer to them simply by their proper name (e.g. "Commanche") or to use the suffix people ((e.g. "Sinixt people". Where the ethnic grouping is sufficiently well known the need for the suffix people has generally been dispensed with. A similar standard has been applied to African ethnic groups.

As this convention has already been largely established on the English language Wikipedia, I'm changing my previous suggestion and I'm now endorsing the change of this article title to Chepni people. The use of the term "people" while suggesting an ethnic group, is less precise than tribe or clan, but the Chepni can be so defined in the body of the text. This would not constitute a "wikivention" but would merely constitute a standard application of a suffix to a proper name for this type of article.

Move to Chepni people FiachraByrne (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Move to Chepni or Chepni tribe, Oppose to Chepni people and Chepni Turks. We must avoid a "Wiki-vention" (original research) as possible as we can. And Chepni is one of the Oghuz Turks like Kayı tribe, Afshar tribe, Salur tribe. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, none of the above could be considered 'wiki-ventions' as they have all been used in the secondary literature. If Chepni on its own is inadequate as this group is insufficiently known for readers to know that it refers to a people, group, tribe or ethnicity than a qualifying term should be added. The convention in the English Wikipedia is that the term "tribe" is generally avoided in article titles for the reasons outlined above. However if the term Sinixt people is used it does not mean that "people" is now part of the proper name for the Sinixt it just qualifies the proper noun so that the reader has some indication of what the article is referring to. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me add the fact that "Chepni peoples" currently gives 2 results (1 book) on Google books in English. - EthemD (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We know that. If we were going to go for the most frequently occurring term the article title would be "Chepni". Given how little known they are, among English speakers at least, the first question is whether it is necessary to add a qualifying term so that readers are aware that it refers to a social grouping and not, for instance, a geographical designation. If a qualifying term is needed there are no ideal choices. Thus, we have one reference to each of the following: Chepni peoples; Chepni Turks and Chepni tribe. In fact if we were going to go for the most frequently occurring term it would be the Chepni Turkomans. Unless we opt for Chepni we are not going to get good support for any choice from the secondary literature. Thus if a secondary qualifying term is to be added to "Chepni" it should indicate something useful about them (that they are a people, tribe, Turks, etc) but it should not be taken as their proper name, which is (the) "Chepni", but would indicate what kind of social unit is being referred to.FiachraByrne (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I understand that, I just wanted to restate that, since people shouldn't be under the impression that "Chepni turks" and "Chepni people" are unacceptable and "Chepni tribe" is more acceptable just due to the small difference in number of results. - EthemD (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It is probably time to start converging on a consensus. Can we agree that the two best title alternatives, all factors considered, are Chepni tribe or Chepni people? Between those two, I have no strong preference. Either one is better than Chepni Turks. --Noleander (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Mehmet indicated that either Chepni tribe, Chepni Turks or Chepni clan is acceptable. Takabet has indicated that either of Chepni or Chepni tribe is acceptable. Noleander has indicated that Chepni people or Chepni tribe is acceptable. EthemD indicated at one point that he preferred Chepni people to Chepni Turks but it is not clear what is his or her current preference. At this point I'll also accept my original choice which was Chepni tribe. Any objections to Chepni tribe? FiachraByrne (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. It seems to me like naming them "Chepni people" is the most suitable since "Chepni Tribe" does have a tendency to refer to non-civilized people, and since some of you think "Chepni Turks" is a politically motivated and biased naming (which I personally find absurd and made-up, since Turk does not necessarily mean Turkish and most likely relates to their Turkic origins). Thanks. - EthemD (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so it looks like we have narrowed it down to two: Chepni people and Chepni tribe. EthemD objects to Chepni tribe. Are there any objections to Chepni people? (By the way: for non-native speakers of English: the word "people" in this context is a very neutral, un-biased word that just means any group of persons). --Noleander (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No objection to Chepni people.FiachraByrne (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so it looks like "Chepni people" may be the best title overall. Not to say that it is perfect, but that it is most consistent with WP policies. --Noleander (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As there have been no further objections to Chepni people and it can be considered the consensus view. I'll proceed to move it now.FiachraByrne (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Original reserch

I'm very sad, because many users prefer to do original research. We cannot find and won't find the term Chepni people in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. We mustn't forget that we are here to provide accurate information to readers, not to invent new words and original terms for　compromise. Takabeg (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well we've all invested a lot of energy in this and this was the best compromise that we could come up with. There are very few secondary sources in English that talk about the Chepni. But I think you're attaching too much significance to the use of this word. When the terms Irish people, French people, German people, Ghanian people, Chinese people are used nobody thinks that the word "people" forms part of the proper name of the Irish, or French or Chinese. It just indicates that we're talking about human beings and the main body of the article can then refer to them as a tribe or simply the Chepni. Anyway, there is one reference to ["the Chepni peoples"]. It would be fairly standard way to refer to a social group in English and it is never wrong even if it is not you're preferred term.

I have to leave this topic now.FiachraByrne (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Source was prepared by Turk. I think it is Turkish original rearch. For now, I say OK. We have to change the title in accordance to Wikipedia:COMMONNAME in the near future. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@Takabeg: I'm sorry you are disappointed with the results of the RfC discussion. Consensus-building doesn't mean that everyone likes the outcome, it simply means everyone can live with the outcome. Even though you think "Chepni people" is not ideal, I hope you will agree that the RfC discussion was rational and considered all possibilities fairly. --Noleander (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry...

Hello, I am the person who started this article. I vanished about a year ago though. I am very sorry and I've been regretting I've started this article.

Because;

There are a few points I want to clear up before I vanish from Wikipedia forever.

1. Chepni is not an ethnic group or somewhat like that. The numbers stated in the infobox are made up by me. Chepni was only an ancient tribe as Takabeg stated. (like Kayı tribe...) And let me add that today, it is impossible to find anybody who identifies himself Chepni.

2. Most of the information I've written (like the so-called dialect or the numbers of people who live around the world despite being ancient (!)) are not correct and some of the references are made up by me. (I am really sorry.) :(

3. The image at the top of the page is originally taken from one of the Wikipedia users' upload titled "Turkish folk dancers" (or somewhat like that) and has nothing to do with the article. Also, people stated in "the notable people" section are only people from Black Sea region in Turkey. So Takabeg is right here again.

4. I don't know why I wrote such bullsh*t that caused harm to Wikipedia but after two years, I hope I shall be happy to solve this problem.

5. I am sorry for all these misunderstandings I caused and after correcting the information I'll vanish again.

Also, it would be appropriate to rename this article as "Chepni tribe" or just Chepni.

-Vanished1234 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Chepni

There are many Turks in Turkey and arround the World who said, they are Chepni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 15:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)