Talk:Iraqi Turkmen

Controversial, nationalist changes

A user, Turco85, recetnyl re-wrote the entire article. He or She must discuss these changes on this page as says Wikipedia policy. MamRostam03 (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Turco85 also deleted many good citation that were already in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MamRostam03 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi MamRostam03, my edits are based on what the sources say, it has nothing to do with nationalism. Please just stick to what the sources actually say instead of trying to make your own interpretations. I have only deleted edits which have no sources.Turco85 (Talk) 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

you have deleted several citations. more importantly, the narrative that you have invented is full of absract nationalist theories.

The second sentence "The term "Turkmen" for Iraqi Turks seems to have been created during the course of the discussion on the Mosul issue in the third decade of the last century, in order to isolate the Iraqi Turks from Turkey." is pure conjecture, and fights against all recieved conventional academia.

You could likewise just say "the term "Tadjik" for northern Persians seems to have been created during the course of the Soviet occupation" or you could echoe Gadzhafi and say "the term "Berber" is a creation of the Western imperialist to divide us from Arabs".

These are all existing theories, but they are not mainstream. So by all means include them, but don't state them as fact, as they are fringe, ethno-nationalist views. MamRostam03 (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

i guess you are not of Iraq, so let me inform you of something you might be confused by. None of the Turcomen here in Iraq speak "Istanbul Turkish" as a first language. The Kirkuk political party named "The Iraqi Turkmen Front" (funded by Turkey) makes newsletters and other publications in Istanbul Turkish, but it is not their native language. Their native language is Turcomen, then Arabic. The Turcomen people of Hawler (Erbil) are mostly assimilated, most of them is their first language is Kurdish - but none of them make any newspapers in Istanbul Turkish.

Another thing that might be confused by - and such thing is used by ITF propagandists - is that the censuses and estimates taken in the early 20th century are of a time which was influence by the Ottoman Empire, that's why many people such as British travelers think that their language and/ethnicity is "Turkish", because people wanted to a part of the "prestige" people - just as under the Ba'ath many Kurds and Turkmen and Christians wanted to say they were Arabic. this explains the vast difference in estimates. this reason plus slow assimilation with Kurds and Arabs. MamRostam03 (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for your reply. However, in order for your points to be included we need academic sources. Please ensure that you have citations to back-up your argument. Furthermore, please do not remove information which is sourced. I have written abit about their history in the intro which you completely deleted, what is your justification for that action? We have not actually used any citations from the "Iraqi Turkmen Front" so I'm not entirely sure what you mean there. I can only go by what the sources say, and when you revert my edits you are actually placing the article into a totally incorrect article which completely contradicts what the sources say. I look forward to your reply.Turco85 (Talk) 15:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Why you say one thing and do another? There is a perfectly good academic source, that you keep deleting, because it contradicts the worthless Turkish nationalist websites, that you keep restoring! MamRostam03 (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As for that sentence which you pointed out, I have currently removed it and I am now looking into the matter [by reading a range of sources] to try and establish whether it should or should not be included.Turco85 (Talk) 15:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding that sentence, I have found an article from the Hurriyet Daily News which states the following:

" In 1970 the Iraqi government called them "Turkomans" for purely political reasons, to cut off their links with Turkey."[1]

So it does seem as though there is a general belief that this is the case...Turco85 (Talk) 16:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Because you found something on a Turkish news website?! PLEASE! Use ACADEMIC sources. MamRostam03 (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much all the sources I have used are academic, I am merely trying to show you that this is a view held by quite a few authors. I really hope that your intentions here are sincere because I have spent a lot of time researching the Iraqi Turkmen and placing academic material here and you are just vandalising the article. I urge you to please read the sources and stop acting in this childish manner. I have tried to compromise with you by removing that sentence yet you still removed edits which took hours to research and write up. Are you actually willing to work together? Do you actually wish you help improve this article? or are you here just to sabotage it?. Turco85 (Talk) 18:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You are master of Orwellian Double-Speak. The article has a proper academic source stating the language Iraqi Turkomen speak (It's called Turkmen here, it's referred to as a variant of South Azeri in linguistics). The source is this: Hendrik Boeschoten. 1998. "The Speakers of Turkic Languages," The Turkic Languages (Routledge, pp. 1-15). You keep deleting it and replacing it with rubbish websites "http://www.globalsecurity.org" and "http://www.middle-east-online.com". They are NOT academic sources. They merely represent the ongoing confusing in public discourse and popular mind between what is "Turkish", "Turkic", Turkomen/Turkmen, etc. MamRostam03 (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And no one, anywhere, ever, in Iraq calls the Turkmen "Iraqi Turks" - that is a travesty of a name. You want to take the identity of a people who live in a different country, speak a different language, belong to different religious traditions, and claim them as your own (Republic of Turkey)? Obscene. MamRostam03 (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if you look at my edits you would see that I have used many more sources, including:

• Anderson, Liam D.; Stansfield, Gareth R. V. (2009), Crisis in Kirkuk: The Ethnopolitics of Conflict and Compromise, University of Pennsylvania Press (page: 43) (a source which you are still using)
• Ryan, J. Atticus; Mullen, Christopher A. (1998), Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization: Yearbook 1997, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (page: 92) (a source which you are still using)
• Nissman, David (5 March 1999), "The Iraqi Turkomans: Who They Are and What They Want", Iraq Report (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) 2 (9) (a source which you are still using)
• Bulut, Christiane (2000), "Optative constructions in Iraqi Turkmen", in Göksel, Aslı; Kerslake, Celia (eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages, Otto Harrassowitz Verlag (page: 161)

How is it that these sources are still being used then? Yet when it comes to a specific thing which you don't agree with you just delete it?Turco85 (Talk) 19:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What? I am not "using" any source. I am merely try to maintain the academic source that clearly states what language the Turkomen speaks. You keep deleting it. If you can't appreciate the difference between a academic work published by a academic press, and online, self-published sources, then you really have no place trying to contribute to a online encyclopedia. MamRostam03 (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you even read these sources that I have just listed then? Because all of them say they speak Turkish. Even the 1957 census recorded them as speaking "Turkish". I accept that they have a different dialect...even people from London compared to Brrighton have different accents...but all these sources say they speak Turkish. And the fact is that even when you are reverting my contributions you are still keeping these sources in the biblography, it just does not make sense.Turco85 (Talk) 19:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha. You really think you can deceive others as to what language the Turkmens speak by conflating "Turkish" with "Turkic"? HA! I LIVE IN IRAQ, i know what language my friends speak, they not speak Turkish! you can call me tomorrow and i will put you on the phone to my friend and you can try to speak Istanbul Turkish with him - he will not udnerstand. He speaks TURKMEN. MamRostam03 (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, I just Googled one of the sources you listed above, and, unsurprisingly for me, it confirmed what I am arguing.

"Iraqi Turkic: The Iraqi Turkic varieties of the "Turkmen belt" occupy an interesting intermediary position. They have a complex background and present a rather heterogeneous picture, displaying connections in various directions. The region has an ever-changing history of settlement with Turkic groups moving into the region in various waves from the early Muslim period on. It still has a high proportion of bi- or trilinguals with Arabic and Kurdish in various constellations...In a recent study (2000 a), Christiane Bulut discusses the classifõcation of the Iraqi Turkic varieties, comparing them to Anatolian and Irano-Turkic dialects of the Azerbaijanian and Afshar types. She concludes that the dialects originally display numerous features of the Afshar or Southern Oghuz group but also exhibit similarities with certain southeastern Anatolian dialects as those of Urfa and Diyarbekir. Turkish as prestige language has exerted profound influence on Iraqi Turkic. Thus, the syntax differs sharply from neighboring Irano-Turkic varieties. http://turkoloji.cu.edu.tr/DILBILIM/johanson_01.pdf

So yes, please use the Bulut source you listed above, for what she calls the "Iraqi Turkic" language. MamRostam03 (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you not realise that you just put "Turkish as prestige language has exerted profound influence on Iraqi Turkic" in bold? Have you actually read this paper? If you care to read Bulut’s thesis you will see on page 161 that they say the following:

• "Their cultural centre is Kerkuk. Turkish cultural life in Iraq has always been more or less suppressed".
• "Estimates of the actual Turkish population of Iraq vary a great deal".
• "Most Turkish speakers in Iraqi are bi- or trilingual".
• "As marriages between Turks and Kurds seem to be quiet frequent, many speakers have a mixed Turkish-Kurdish background and are fluent in both languages".

So seeing as you have just said [and I quote] "So yes, please use the Bulut source you listed above" it is ok to use it, right? Turco85 (Talk) 19:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The article does not say that Iraqi Turkmens use Istanbul Turkish - but you know this very well. You are just trying to trick outside observers by conflating "Turkish" with "Turkic". The article is in translation (from German), so for some reason doesn't use the term we use in English "Turkic". But it is very clear that it is not referring to Istanbul Turkish.

The title of this linguistics article is "Optative construction in Iraqi Turkmen" (p. 161)

It reads: "They grow up with Turkmen as their mother tongue" (p. 161)

"The Turkmen varieties" in Iraq show traces of both Ottoman and of Azeri Turkish. Written Turkmen is dominated by Ottoman Turkish, while the language is spoken differs considerably: it displays additional influences from Arabic, the official language of Iraq, and neighbouring Iranian languages such as Kurmanji and Sorani." (p. 161)

(notice she doesn't mention the word "Kurdish" lol)

This is the end of your intrigues Turco85. MamRostam03 (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm i was thinking why was this Talk page blank, then i round the "Archive 1" button on the top-right... and i see lots of crazy editing and arguing amongst Turks and anti-Turks - very prominent among them is Turco85. Everyone was arguing against Turco85, and a user by the name of "Kansas Bear" seems to have closed the case finally against him. then Turco85 conveniently "archives" the talk page, and comes on back to this article as if he is all innocent and not trying to deceive. Very, very shabby behaviour. MamRostam03 (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should read Help:Archiving a talk page: "It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers."

This is just yoou trying to diverge from our discussion. Before you said that we should use Bulut's article. I have shown you a range of quotes whereby they have said that the Iraqi Turkmens speak Turkish. Why are you still creating problems for? And are you actually reading any of the sources?Turco85 (Talk) 09:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppets

Just to clarify, User:MamRostam03, User:NahlaHussain2008, and User:KakaSur have all been blocked because these accounts are a sock puppet of User:Ledenierhomme.Turco85 (Talk) 21:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Languages of Iraq

The discussion concerning the nature of the language of the Iraqi Turkmens is taking place at Languages of Iraq. The linguistic evidence is irrefutable: they speak a South Azeri dialect, not Turkish. --Taivo (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet the community states otherwise... I don't think you are in a position to say what they speak when they themselves have declared Turkish as their offical language. Furthermore, the study in which the sock puppet above has been trying to use to support their view on the language clrearly states that the dialect is closer to Turkish than it is to Irano-Turic languages such as South Azeri.Turco85 (Talk) 23:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And FYI Ethnologue is just as bad (and unreliable) as Joshua Project...i.e. a religous organisation. It has not shown any research as to how it has come up with Iraqi Turkmen speaking south Azeri. I'd say the most researched work is that of Bulut who has actually taken the time to research the community.Turco85 (Talk) 00:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Look at Talk:Languages of Iraq and if you actually bothered to READ my contribution you would see THREE sources, not just Ethnologue. The linguistic sources are uniform--spoken Iraqi Turkmen is South Azeri. --Taivo (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have just checked your sources and page 5 of Hendrik Boeschoten (1998) does not say that Iraqi Turkmen speak South Azeri, it merely says Azerbaijani. I do read the sources you know... nonetheless, I'm happy to include this in the article but that does not give you the right to remove all sources that claim that they speak Turkish.Turco85 (Talk) 00:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Quote: "There is a Turkish- or rather Azerbaijanian-spaking" (emphasis added). That says exactly that the Iraqi Turkmen speak Azeri. We're not talking about the written language here (which we agree is Turkish), but the spoken language, which is a variety of South Azeri (Boeschoten doesn't distinguish North and South Azeri, but calls both of them Azerbaijanian). Actually, you have no LINGUISTIC sources that state that they speak "Turkish". You only have political or ethnographic sources, which are not reliable for linguistic statements when the linguistic sources uniformly call them South Azeri speakers. --Taivo (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be ignorant of what a linguistic source is and continue to list political and ethnographic reports as if they are reliable linguistic sources. The only linguistic source you have cited does not say that the Iraqi Turkmens speak Turkish. It says that they speak something between Turkish and Azeri. So let's see what we have 1) I have three linguistic sources that clearly place the language of the Iraqi Turkmens as a South Azeri variety, 2) you have one linguistic source that says it's something between Turkish and Azeri. In other words, you have absolutely no reliable linguistic sources that say their language is Turkish. You can throw away all those non-linguistic political and ethnographic sources since they are worthless when deciding linguistic questions. I'll make the issue simple for you: A geology book is a reliable source for geology questions, but not for weather questions; an astronomy book is a reliable source for questions about stars, but not for electronics; a history book is a reliable source for Charlemagne, but not for Justin Bieber; an ethnographic text (as you have provided) is a reliable source for culture, but not for language. When asking questions about language, you go to linguistics texts and only linguistics texts. --Taivo (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Linguistic Sources that place the Iraqi Turkmen language clearly in the (South) Azeri language and do not link it with Turkish:

• Lars Johanson. 2001. Discoveries on the Turkic Linguistic Map (Svenska Forskningsinstitutet i Istanbul). Online. Pages 15-16, "Iraqi Turkic": "A certain diglossia Turkish vs. Iraqi Turkic is still observable." (In other words, Turkish and Iraqi Turkic are different things), "She [Bulut] concludes that the dialects originally display numberous features of the Afshar or Southern Oghuz group but also exhibit similarities with certain southeastern Anatolian dialects as those of Urfa and Diyarbekir" (In other words, the primary features of Iraqi Turkic are not Turkish, but eastern Anatolian, which is most often linked more closely with Azeri than with Turkish, which is central and western Anatolian, not eastern)
• Christiane Bulut. 2000. "Optative Constructions in Iraqi Turkmen," Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages (Harrassowitz Verlag), pages 161-169. Page 161: "With regard to phonology, vocabulary, morphology, and syntax, the Turkmen varieties spoken in Iraq show traces of both Ottoman and Azeri Turkish. Written Turkmen is dominated by Ottoman Turkish, while the spoken language differs considerably..." (In other words, spoken Iraqi Turkmen is not Ottoman Turkish, but differs considerably including Azeri features. This article does not support calling Iraqi Turkmen "Turkish".)
• Hendrik Boeschoten. 1998. "The Speakers of Turkic Languages," The Turkic Languages (Routledge), pages 1-15. Page 5: "There is a Turkish- or rather Azerbaijanian-speaking part of the population of northern Iraq which is sometimes called 'Turkmen'." (In other words, the language of the Turkmen is Azerbaijani, not Turkish.)
• David Dalby. 1999/2000. The Linguasphere Register of the world's languages and speech communities (Observatoire Linguistique), volume 2, page 345-346, no Turkish dialects listed in Iraq, South Azeri dialects listed in Iraq, specifically around Kirkuk. (In other words, the Turkic language spoken around Kirkuk is South Azeri.)
• Ethnologue: "Called ‘Turkmen’, or ‘Turks’, in Iraq and Syria." (In other words, the Turkic language spoken around Kirkuk in Iraq and called "Turkmen" is South Azeri.)

--Taivo (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, for today, I have decided I will not be editing this article nor will I be discussing this issue. All I ask from you is to look at your comments and try to see that you are coming off a bit disrespectful towards me. Thus, for today, I wish to stop this debate in order for you to calm down. I wish for us to work together in a civilised manner. Edit-wars and disrespectful, rude or aggressive comments will not help us to resolve this issue. I would also like you to have a look at the state of the current version of the article, you have not even bothered to clean up the references and now there are 5 footnotes with invalid citations. Turco85 (Talk) 13:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I will quickly make a remark on your sources:

• Johanson (2001) page 16 says the following: "Turkish as prestige language has exerted profound influence on Iraqi Turkic. Thus, the syntax differs sharply from neighboring Irano–Turkic varieties." (i.e. it differs from South Azeri). Surely you cannot deny that the source says this?
• Bulut (2000) you have shown a quote which says that the language has traces of both languages. I have tried to write Turkish and South Azeri in the article yet you still removed Turkish. How can you delete every source which states they speak Turkish and then come to the discussion page and quote someone who states that there is in fact traces of Turkish and Azeri?
• Boeschoten (1998) this source is not reliable enough on its own because it is not a study on the Iraqi Turkmen dialect, it is simply one sentence in a 15 page thesis.
• Dalby (1999/2000) I have not been able to access this source as of yet. However, I would like to point out that I have found sources which state that Turkmen in Kirkuk stated "Turkish" as their first lanaguage in the 1957 census.
• Ethnologue. I am not a personal fan of Ethnologue, it is out-dated and does not show where it gets any of its information from. However, I am willing to use this source alongisde the others you have provided to show a balanced view.

In short I am willing to use all these sources, alongside the sources which claim they speak Turkish. We should show that different authors claim that they speak Turkish or Azeri. You should not be removing a bunch of sources just because you don't like what you see.Turco85 (Talk) 13:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You have made several leaps of logic in your comments above:

• Johanson and Bulut: no one is saying that Iraqi Turkmen doesn't have differences from Turkish, but that doesn't justify your effort to label it as "Turkish". The linguistic sources that categorize it say that it is Azeri and no linguistic sources say it is Turkish. Your "offer" to say that it is both is disingenuous. Your edited version said, basically, "It's Turkish, but a few people say it's South Azeri". That's false. Most linguistic sources state that it's South Azeri and a couple are equivocal and say it has features of both Turkish and Azeri. None say that it's Turkish.
• Boeschoten is, indeed, reliable because it's a linguistic source, especially since it's a linguistic source discussing the Turkic languages, of which the language of the Iraqi Turkmens is one. While I was clear that only linguistic sources are reliable, not ethnographic ones, you choosing which linguistic sources over other linguistic sources is cherry-picking, which you told me earlier "was wrong". But if Boeschoten alone was questionable, it's combined with Dalby and Ethnologue to show that Azeri is the prevailing linguistic consensus on where Iraqi Turkmen belongs.
• If you think that the way people answer questions on a census is valid evidence for linguistic affiliation, then I have some desert in Nevada to sell you. People cannot be relied upon to tell census takers what language they speak. It is unreliable data of the highest order. I work on a Native American language and if you ask the people what language they speak they respond with the name of their neighboring language--always. None of them claim to speak a different language (they do), they always claim to speak the neighboring language (which they don't understand very well at all, but claim "it's the same language"). They also make the claim ("it's the same language") of the neighboring language on the other side which is 100% mutually unintelligible. Census takers in the 19th and 20th centuries didn't even notice there was a different language there because the speakers consisting have labelled their language "incorrectly". Recently, in Assam, a similar situation was described in the press for a newly discovered language where it was just found that a group of people didn't speak the language they claimed to be speaking [2]. Why would the Iraqi Turkmen claim to speak "Turkish" to census takers in 1957? Because they thought Turkish was a higher prestige response than "Turkmen" or because they were writing Turkish (even though every single researcher says that the Iraqi Turkmen written language is very different from the spoken language) or any of a dozen other reasons why they would say "Turkish" instead of "Turkmen" or "Azeri" or "Kurdish" or "Persian" or whatever. Census results are completely unreliable as linguistic evidence. They are evidence of ethnographic identity or other information, but not of actual linguistic affiliation.

So you are left with authors who either say that "Iraqi Turkmen is a South Oghuz variety that shares features of Turkish and Azeri" (two sources that give precedence to neither, but make it clear that it's not "Ottoman Turkish") or "Iraqi Turkmen is (South) Azeri" (three sources). You have zero linguistic sources that place Iraqi Turkmen in Turkish. At the most they say it is Turkish-Azeri. If you want "inclusive language", then it must say something along the lines of "Iraqi Turkmens speak a variety of South Oghuz that shares features of Turkish and South Azeri. Linguistic classifications include it in South Azeri." At no point must Turkish be highlighted and in the template it should be South Azeri because that is where all the classifications place it. --Taivo (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, to sum up, it looks as though both of us are willing to use Bulut (2000) and Johanson (2001, 2009). I am still of the opinion that Boeschoten (1998) is not reliable enough because they have not actually done a study of the Iraqi Turkmen dialect they have merely written one sentence with no indication of how they have come to that conclusion. Thus, taking your view into consideration, we might as well use Karpat, Kemal H. (2004), "A Language in Search of a Nation: Turkish in the Nation-State", Studies on Turkish Politics and Society: Selected Articles and Essays, BRILL, p. 436, ISBN 9004133224:

In Anatolia, southern Europe and small areas of Syria and Iraq some 45 million people speak Ottoman Turkish (with some minor local and regional dialect variations). Today, this language is referred to as Turkish...

Furthermore, there is a difference between a source that says "Azerbaijani" and "South Azeri", it's not the same, if it was there would be no need for the term "South Azeri" to even be used. Therefore, please do not confuse to two in order to make your point. Turco85 (Talk) 14:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputed section 1

Old Version	Turko85's Version
langs= Azerbaijani dialect) also Arabic  · Kurdish	langs= South Azeri  · Turkish (often called the "Turkoman", "Turkmenelian", or "Turkmen" dialect) also Arabic  · Kurdish

I would like to make a point about Tavio's sources.

• I do not see Ethnologue as a reliable source, it is just as unreliable as Joshua Project (i.e. a religious website which tries to "reach out" the gospel to the "forgotten people").
• Dalby (1999) page 346 merely states that "azeri-S" is spoken in "Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, also Afghanistan"... it does not actually mention anything about Iraqi Turkmens. Like Ethnologue, it merely says that South Azeri is spoken in Iraq. This source does not actually say anything about the Iraqi Turkmen language...
• Boeschoten (1998) page 5 says the following: "There is a Turkish- or tather Azerbaijanian- speaking part of the population of northern Iraq which is sometimes called 'Turkmen', similar to the Yuruk tribes in the Balkans and in Anatolia". I consider this source to be Tavio's only reliable source out of the three they have provided. However, I have two points to make about this source; firsly, the author has not actually studied the Iraqi Turkmen and there is no evidence to show where the author has actually come up with this statement. Nonetheless, the author goes on to say that it is similar to the lanauge spoken in the Balkans (i.e. Balkan Turks) and in Anatolia (i.e. Turkey).Turco85 (Talk) 16:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of Ethnologue and Linguasphere doesn't matter one bit. What matters is that these are linguistic sources and not non-linguistic sources. If you actually pay attention to what Linguasphere says, while it doesn't specifically say "Turkmen", the only Turkic language it lists for Iraq is South Azeri and that in the area of Kirkuk (it calls that variety "Kirkuk" rather than Turkmen, but since there is no other Turkic speech community in Kirkuk. Then if you read the entry for Turkish you will find zero presence in Iraq. Thus three sources specifically state that the Turkic language of Iraq is "South Azeri". None of them say it is "Turkish". Every single one of your non-linguistic sources are irrelevant and must be removed. Only the linguistic references that I've cited above should be used. The only optional wording that I will accept for the template is "South Azeri with Turkish influence" or "South Oghuz variety, either South Azeri or South Azeri with Turkish influence." --Taivo (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not accept Dalby (1999)as a valid source at all. The fact that there is no mention at all of the Iraqi Turkmens in the sources suggests that this author might know nothing about the community whatsoever. At best it would be a source that could be placed alongside a much larger number of sources just to place the cherry on the cake. In my view, you seem to be misinterpreting sources.Turco85 (Talk) 02:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputed section 2

Old Version

Turko85's Version

The Iraqi Turkmens, Iraqi Turks, or Turks of Iraq (also spelled Turcomans, Turkomens, and Iraqi Turkmans) (Turkish: Irak Türkmenleri/Irak Türkleri) are the ethnic kin of Turks who mainly reside in northern Iraq. Most Iraqi Turkmens speak the South Azeri language and are the descendants of the Ottoman soldiers, traders and civil servants who were brought into Iraq during the rule of the Ottoman Empire.

The Iraqi Turkmens, Iraqi Turks, or Turks of Iraq (also spelled Turcomans, Turkomens, and Iraqi Turkmans) (Turkish: Irak Türkmenleri/Irak Türkleri) are the ethnic kin of Turks who mainly reside in northern Iraq. Most Iraqi Turkmens speak the Turkish language and are the descendants of the Ottoman soldiers, traders and civil servants who were brought into Iraq during the rule of the Ottoman Empire.

Absolutely not. The Turkmen do not speak Turkish and not a single one of the linguistic references say that. You have absolutely no linguistic references that make that claim. Actually read the linguistic references and you'll see exactly what the sources say. Iraqi Turkmen speak a South Oghuz variety that is either South Azeri with Turkish influence or South Oghuz with both South Azeri and Turkish influence. Not a single solitary linguistic source, including Bulut who has done the most recent fieldwork, says they speak Turkish. That is totally unacceptable and unsourced with reliable linguistic sources (none of your sources are even linguistic sources except for Bulut, which you don't cite here). --Taivo (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputed section 3

Old Version

Turko85's Version

Iraqi Turkmen speak the South Azeri languageAzerbaijani although the term "Turkmen" does not refer to, and should not be confused with, the Turkmen language spoken in Turkmenistan within a linguistic sense.

Iraqi Turkmen speak the Turkish language which is one of the official languages of the Kirkuk region. According to the 1957 census, Turkish was the mother tounge of 21.4% of the population in the Kirkuk province. The Iraqi Turkmen dialect is often called "Turkoman", "Turkmenelian" or "Turkmen", although the term "Turkmen" does not refer to, and should not be confused with, the Turkmen language spoken in Turkmenistan within a linguistic sense.

Absolutely not. Linguistic sources absolutely do not support calling the language of the Iraqi Turkmen "Turkish". Zero. None. If you want to clarify that the Iraqi Turkmen constitution names "Turkish" the official language and the Turkmen write in Turkish, that's OK, but it also must be clarified, as Bulut does, that the written language and the spoken language are not the same thing and that the spoken language is not Turkish. --Taivo (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Bulut's study? Bulut has clearly labelled the language "Turkish" on numerous occasions, take the first page for example, page 161:

• Most Turkish speakers in Iraq are bi- or trilingual; they grow up with Turkmen as their mother tongue and home language

• As marriages between Turks and Kurds seem to be quite frequent, many speakers have a mixed Turkish-Kurdish background and fluent in both languages. Arabic, as a third language…

• Until 1920…a strong influence of Ottoman Turkish.

• Presently, diglossia (Turkmen/Turkish of Turkey) is very frequent in educated circles, especially Kirkuk.

• With regard to phonology, vocabulary, morphology and syntax, the Turkmen varieties spoken in Iraq show traces both of Ottoman and of Azeri Turkish.

• Written Turkmen is dominated by Ottoman Turkish…spoken language…displays additional influence of Arabic…and neighbouring Iranian languages such as Kurmanji and Sorani.

• As their language is Modern Turkish (either in Arabic, Kurdicized Arabic or Latin script)….

  Turco85 (Talk) 02:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputed section 4

Old Version

Turko85's Version

Similar to Turkish Cypriots and Balkan Turks, Iraqi Turkmen have maintained their own vernacular, one which is close to dialects spoken in Diyarbakır and Urfa in south-eastern Turkey, as well as the Azerbaijani dialect. Nonetheless, it is the Turkish language and culture which has been prestigious and has exerted a profound influence on the Iraqi Turkmen; hence, their dialect differs sharply from neighboring Irano-Turkic varieties such as South Azeri.

Similar to Turkish Cypriots and Balkan Turks, Iraqi Turkmen have maintained their own vernacular, one which is close to dialects spoken in Diyarbakır and Urfa in south-eastern Turkey, as well as the Azerbaijani dialect. Some sources, such as Ethnologue, claim that the Iraqi Turkmen speak South Azeri; nonetheless, it is the Turkish language and culture which has been prestigious and has exerted a profound influence on the Iraqi Turkmen; hence, their dialect differs sharply from neighboring Irano-Turkic varieties such as South Azeri.

The Diyarbakir and Urfa dialects are not always classfied as Turkish. Perhaps this is your problem. "Turkish" is not necesarily coterminous with the borders of Turkey. The eastern Anatolian dialects are classified by some Turkic specialists as South Azeri dialects and not Turkish dialects. They are intermediary. Your continued pushing for calling the language of the Iraqi Turkmen "Turkish" is the problem here. There isn't any basis in linguistic literature for it. Their dialect doesn't "differ sharply" from South Azeri. I've read Johanson and he says no such thing. He clearly says that their South Oghuz variety is intermediate. --Taivo (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, to put it simply, I do not care what you think. All I want to see are sources that is it. This is the first time I come across someone who says that people in the borders of Turkey don't speak the Turkish language.Turco85 (Talk) 02:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You simply haven't read much on South Oghuz linguistics, then. The borders between South Azeri/Azeri vary from author to author and are almost never coterminous with the eastern border of Turkey. You are simply pushing Turkish nationalism. --Taivo (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

General Comments to Disputed Sections

Turko85's versions are simply unsupported in the linguistic literature as he continues to push the label "Turkish" onto the language of the Iraqi Turkmen. He has used various non-linguistic sources to back up this POV. The linguistic sources have two positions: 1) The language of the Iraqi Turkmen is South Azeri (3 sources including two classificatory schemes and one discussion of Turkic speech communities specifically); 2) The language of the Iraqi Turkmen is either South Azeri with heavy Turkish influence or an intermediate South Oghuz variety with influences from both South Azeri and Turkish (2 sources including one field worker in Iraqi Turkmen and one discussion of Turkic speech communities). There is no other position taken in the linguistic literature. The Iraqi Turkmen constitution states that Turkish is the official language, but this affects only written "Turkmen", not the spoken language. Not a single linguistic sources says that "Turkmen" is Turkish. I have offered several options above to clarify the Turkish influence, but except in the single case of talking about the written language (which is Ottoman Turkish), I will accept not a word that pushes Turkish as the primary speech of the people since there is not a single source which does this. Turko85 needs to learn the difference between a reliable linguistic source and ethnographic/political sources that are not reliable sources for linguistic facts. --Taivo (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Well what about the sources I stated above, you ironically avoided to reply back to that, i'll repeat it here: Karpat, Kemal H. (2004), "A Language in Search of a Nation: Turkish in the Nation-State", Studies on Turkish Politics and Society: Selected Articles and Essays, BRILL, p. 436, ISBN 9004133224:

In Anatolia, southern Europe and small areas of Syria and Iraq some 45 million people speak Ottoman Turkish (with some minor local and regional dialect variations). Today, this language is referred to as Turkish...

Is that reliable enough for you? Because Boeschoten (1998) is seen as reliable, according to you.Turco85 (Talk) 02:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No because it is not a LINGUISTIC source. You don't seem to know what a linguistic source is. --Taivo (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I do not, please enlighten me...Turco85 (Talk) 02:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverting back to last stable version until Talk Page discussion is completed

I have reverted the article back to the last relatively stable version before the recent dispute erupted. Once the current dispute is resolved then we can implement the changes. There were many non-linguistic changes that Turko85 incorporated that are not under dispute. I have no objection to him/her reediting these nonlinguistic changes, but I will object to any linguistic changes whatsoever before this dispute is resolved. --Taivo (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I may come across as a "soft" user, and someone in which you can walk all over, but I will not allow for this article to go back to the horrid state in which the sock puppets had placed it in. I am willing to discuss all issues which you have; I even waited for you to be unblocked before I edited this article again. Your last edit shows me that you are not ready to actually compromise nor are you interested in this actual topic of the Iraqi Turkmens, because if you were you would not revert the article to such an offensive state.Turco85 (Talk) 01:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between "compromise" where there are two valid linguistic points of view and both are presented and knuckling under to your unsourced pushing of "Turkish". I have offered several versions above which talk about "South Oghuz" rather than South Azeri. Indeed, South Oghuz is perhaps the most accurate term anyway. But under no circumstances has this language been called "Turkish" in linguistic sources. --Taivo (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have just given you numerous quotations above from Christiane Bulut (2000) and Kemal Karpat (2004) which states they speak "Turkish"; how can you still say that "under no circumstances has this language been called "Turkish" in linguistic sources"? How can you deny the fact that I have just shown you these quotations? I'm finding this discussion completely shocking. Do you suddenly go sightless when the word “Turkish” is written in these studies?Turco85 (Talk) 02:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You haven't read Bulut obviously. Bulut says no such thing. And Karpat isn't a linguistic source. Bulut clearly says that they speak a variety between South Azeri Turkish and Ottoman Turkish. That's not "Turkish" when she uses "Turkish" to refer to South Azeri as well--that's West Oghuz. --Taivo (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have placed "West Oghuz" as the language name, but you need to remove all those political/ethnographic references because they are totally irrelevant. --Taivo (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is Karpat not a lingustic source? The thesis is a lingustic one, is it not? Furthermore, Özkan, Nevzat (2009), "Irak Türk Edebî Dilinin Tarihî Gelişimini" (PDF), Journal of Turkish Studies, 4 (8): 89–107 whose study was based completely on the Iraqi Turkmen dialect also states that the language is modern Turkish.Turco85 (Talk) 02:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The Karpat reference is questionable since it's not clearly a linguistic article based on its title. The title indicates an ethnographic article. I have already modified the article text to reflect the fact that we are dealing with a West Oghuz variety that is intermediate between South Azeri and Turkish. That is the consensus of all the linguistic sources. Since I don't speak Turkish I cannot evaluate the source you just listed. But since Bulut calls it intermediate and her work is also entirely based on "Turkmen", then that is a reliable source that we can follow. --Taivo (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well why did you remove the section which citied Lars Johanson (2001)? That source clearly states the following:

• The modern Turkish influence was strong until Arabic became the new official language in the 1930s. A certain diglossia Turkish vs. Iraqi Turkic is still observable.

• Turkish as prestige language has exerted profound influence on Iraqi Turkic. Thus, the syntax differs sharply from neighboring Irano Turkic varieties.

Clearly this source, especailly the last quote, which in fact refers to Bulut (2000) suggests that the Iraqi Turkmen dialect actually differs from Irano-Turkic, i.e. South Azeri. Turco85 (Talk) 03:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As previously worded, the paragraph was POV-pushing and pro-Turkish because of its wording. I have reworded it to make it more neutral and remove the "It's Turkish, we all know it, but some poor sources think it's not" slant. It's still somewhat redundant, but acceptable with more neutral wording. And, by the way, "diglossia" itself means that two languages or at least two very different varieties of one divergent language, are involved. Therefore you are misreading the Johanson quote to make them speak Turkish where the actual meaning of his quote is that they speak Turkish in addition to "Iraqi Turkic". You are also ignoring parts of Bulut's paper that says Iraqi Turkic also differs from Ottoman/Modern Turkish. --Taivo (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the references to Turkish that are not strictly linguistic sources. All those "minority report", "CIA Handbook", and political reports are worthless for linguistics. Your only valid references for "Turkish" are Karpat (grudgingly) and the Turkish one you listed above. Bulut and Johanson are actually references that should follow "intermediate".--Taivo (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This article has gotten to be a real mess. I deleted the non-linguistic sources I noticed. Turko, Taivo is right: if there is controversy over what a language is, we need to reflect what linguistic sources say. That's a general operating principal of WP.

Taivo, I paraphrased Turko's quotations from Johanson. They did not seem unreasonable to me.

I also deleted a lot of the population data. Really, we're using the 1957 census? If that's the best we have available, then we need a section in the text to explain why, but it would seem there are more recent sources.

Now, will you both please agree here before reverting the article, and if you cannot, ask s.o. else for their opinion? — kwami (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry for the cryptic edit summary[3]. I was searching for one of the orphan references, and accidentally pressed the save button.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Today's tags

The article was tagged 3 hours ago but no discussion was added here, and the issues weren't obvious. I've removed two tags - the article clearly does not rely on a single source, nor is the tone too informal for an encyclopedia. We can discuss individual sources, we can discuss the wording of individual paragraphs or sentences, but those are not overall problems with this article.

POV issues must be spelled out clearly for that tag to stay.

As for COI, that must not be confused with editors who have a POV. Our page at WP:COI says " Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers." It's possible that an editor who has written a book or article on the subject might have a COI. It's important not to try to identify who an editor is in real life in COI discussions. We do block for identifying the real life identities of anonymous editors, and sometimes people don't understand how seriously we take that. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I sent him/her a message asking him to explain his objections.[4].--Toddy1 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a host of sources for the more trivial information, but the overall ethnicity-driven Nationalist narratives mirrors only one activist publication: Anderson & Stansfield, 2009. If you cross-reference the claims of Anderson & Stansfield with more established, mainstream work, you'll find that they often conflict - particularly on the more controversial issues.

Ok, here's a quick list of some of the problems....

• "According to the 1957 census, which is recognized as the last reliable census, as later censuses were reflections of the Arabization policies of the Ba’th regime" - this is not appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. Anderson & Stansfield don't cite who recognizes it as "the last reliable census". In fact, it's results have been hotly disputed for decades.

• "Turkmeneli" - this name is only used by fringe activists and political parties. It is not a recognized term.

• "the Iraqi Turkmen wanted Turkey to annex the Mosul Vilayet and for them to become part of an expanded state" - this is a huge claim, and I cannot find it anywhere in Anderson & Stansfield. I doubt the editor has the book in hardcopy, so I very much doubt the validity of this assertion.

• In the demography section, someone has referred to the Iraqi Turkmen as "Turks". Nowadays, "Turks" is used solely for Anatolian Turkic peoples of the Republic of Turkey and occupied Cyprus.

• The Demographics section also does a lot of arguing in favor of higher numbers than is accepted by the mainstream - not to mention the administrations in Baghdad, Erbil, and Kirkuk.

• "Anatolian Turkish has long been the prestige dialect among Iraqi Turkmen and has exerted a profound historical influence on their dialect," - an editor has cherry-picked this quote from a Turkologist called "Johanson", who also mentions Arabic and Azerbaijani as prestige languages in the Iraqi Turkmen continuum: "The modern Turkish influence was strong until Arabic became the new official language in the 1930s," and "It still has a high proportion of bi- or trilinguals with Arabic and Kurdish in various constellations."

• Someone then boldly quotes a fringe "congress" of the fringe Iraqi Turkmen Front political party, that states that "The official written language of the Turkmans is Istanbul Turkish, and its alphabet is the new Latin alphabet." Thereby contradicting the linguistic and academic sources above.

• The term "Turkmenelian" is then mentioned, without it ever being attested to in any reliable sources.

• The heading "Discrimination" is problematic. Every ethnic minority in Iraq has suffered "discrimination" - not every group has paragraph after paragraph detailing their grievances. The heading "Kurdification" is even more problematic. "Arabization" is an established term, but type in "Kurdification" into scholar.google.com or news.google.com or books.google.com, and you won't come up with much.

• The historical narrative of the "Dicscrimination" section reads like a political pamphlet. Which wouldn't be so bad if none of it was contested, but much of this is - especially the allegations leveled at the Kurdistan Regional Government. Here is just one example that shows how partisan the use of the Anderson & Stansfield book is. Page 64 reads:

"Arabization - commonly associated with the policy of removing Kurds from Kirkuk and the wider region.... the Turkmen community often claims - indeed believes - that it was affected to a far greater degree by the Arabization policy than was any other ethnic group, particularly because the Ba'th [sic] regime recognized that Kirkuk, far from being a city in which Kurds predominated, was historically Turkmen and remined firmly "Turkmen" in its cultural orientation...the Turkmens view that they were the principal victims of the policies of the Ba'th [sic] regime in the twentieth century Kikurk, and how they are now suffering - in an identical, if not even more extreme sense - at the hands of the Kurds."15

Now, I would love to see what kind of source Anderson & Stansfield for footnote 15. Nevertheless, even Anderson & Stansfield are not speaking in their own voice, they start with "the Turkmen community often claims - indeed believes". Yet whatever editor used this source, not only used Anderson & Stansfield as their authority, but used the narrative for Wikipedia's voice!

Of course the facts, as any student of Iraqi history knows, is that the Turkmen suffered nothing like the Kurds under Saddam. The Anfal campaign has been recognized as acts of genocide by the International Court in the Hague. There is not even the suggestion of any genocidal acts being committed against the Turkmen (at least not by any reliable sources).

• "The formation of the Kurdistan Region in 1991 created high animosity between the Kurds and Iraqi Turkmen, resulting in Iraqi Turkmens being victims of Kurdification." - Says who???!!! Most Turkmen in the KRG vote for Kurdish parties! The Iraqi Turkmen Front gets less than %1 of the popular vote.

• "Thus, the Kurdistan Region has constituted a threat to the survival of the Iraqi Turkmen through strategies aimed at eradicating or assimilating them". - Really? What do you think the KRG has to say to this accusation? How many Turkmen have been killed on ethnic grounds by the KRG since its inception in 1991? 0? Any at all?

• "The largest concentration of Iraqi Turkmens tended to be in the de facto capital of Erbil, a city which they had assumed prominent administrative and economic positions. Thus, they increasingly came into dispute and often conflict with the ruling powers of the city, which after 1996 was the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Massoud Barzani." - Can't find any of this in the source. It's plainly false anyway. Most Iraqi Turkmen in Erbil speak Kurdish as their first language, and vote for Barzani's KDP or Talabani's PUK.

• "sought to marginalize them from the positions of authority and to subsume their culture with an all-pervading Kurdistani identity." - no source. Hyperbolic language.

• "With the support of Ankara, a new political front of Turkmen parties- the Iraqi Turkmen Front- was formed on 24 April 1995.[67] The relationship between the Iraqi Turkmen Front and the Kurdistan Democratic Party was tense and deteriorated as the decade went on. Iraqi Turkmens associated with the Iraqi Turkmen Front complained about harassment by Kurdish security forces.[67] In March 2000, the Human Rights Watch reported that the Kurdistan Democratic Party's security attacked the offices of the Iraqi Turkmen Front in Erbil, killing two guards, following a lengthy period of disputes between the two parties.[67] In 2002, the Kurdistan Democratic Party created an Iraqi Turkmen political organization, the Turkmen National Association, that supported the further institutionalization of the Kurdistan Region. This was viewed by pro-ITF Iraqi Turkmens as a deliberate attempt to "buy off" Iraqi Turkmen opposition and break their bonds with Ankara.[68] Promoted by the KDP as the "true voice" of the Iraqi Turkmens, the Turkmen National Association has a pro-Kurdistani stance and has effectively wakened the ITF as the sole representative voice of the Iraqi Turkmens." - Again, all this reads like a ITF pamphlet. What is the KDP perspective? Why are we giving so much space to the ITF when they are a tiny, fringe party who nobody votes for?

• "Although some have been able to preserve their language, the Iraqi Turkmen today are being rapidly assimilated into the general population and are no longer tribally organized" - NOT found in source given.

• The "Present Status" section, again reflects the position of the fringe ITF. This quote "However, it never happened and the policies of Kurdification by KDP and PUK after 2003 (with non-Kurds being pressures to move) have prompted serious inter-ethnic problems." directly contraditions the sentence preceding it.

• Elections results are conveniently outdated (2005) and cherry picked to highlight the role of the fringe ITF.

In the 2009 Iraqi Kurdistan regional legislative election, the ITF polled just 7,077 votes, or 0.38% of the popular vote, winning 1 seat.

In the 2010 elections, out of the 50+ ministers appointed by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, only 1 went to a Turkmen belonging to the Turkmen Front. 5 or 6 others went to Turkmen belonging to the mainstream Kurdish or Arab parties, or the mainstream Turkmen parties (Iraqi Turkmen Brotherhood Party and the Islamic Union of Iraqi Turkoman of Jasim Mohammed Jaafar).

• "Notable Iraqi Turkmen" - says who? No sources given.

Twafotfs (talk) 09:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I find your comment a little to long to read at the moment (I will get back to it asap). But what I see here is mainly your own personal opinions. Do you have any sources which are actually rebuttable to the sections which you have quoted? Turco85 (Talk) 10:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

So did you read it or not? If so, I don't know how in the world I should possibly respond to your accusation... If not, I would encourage you to do so, before commenting in the future. Twafotfs (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

For example, you suggest that the 1957 census is not "the last reliable census", as many sources suggest; you have stated in your comment above that "it's results have been hotly disputed for decades", do you have sources which back-up your argument for this? What I'm trying to say is that for each argument which you have placed above, you should have sources which support what you are saying, otherwise it looks like a bunch of your own personal opinions rather than facts.Turco85 (Talk) 13:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, there are sources which call the Iraqi Turkmens "Turks of Iraqi": here are just a few examples,

Bulut, Christiane (2000), "Optative constructions in Iraqi Turkmen", in Göksel, Aslı; Kerslake, Celia (eds.) (eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages, Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, p. 161, ISBN 3447042931 {{citation}}: |editor2-first= has generic name (help):

• Accordingly, estimates of the actual Turkish population of Iraq vary a great deal: recent publications from Turkey estimate that there are about 3 million Turks in Iraq…

Bashkin, Orit (2009), "Stangers in Our Midst: Iraq's Others", The Other Iraq: Pluralism and Culture in Hashemite Iraq, Stanford University Press, p. 178, ISBN 0804759928:

• Other poems reflect on the meaning of being an Iraqi Turk For Mustafa Gokkaya (b.1910), this signified that his community was Muslim and that “my father is Turk, and the homeland [is] my mother”. For Re it Ali Dakuklu (b.1918), being part of “the Turks of Iraq” signified maintain brotherly relations with every nation, being united with Iraq, while speaking Turkish. Universal and local, Iraqi and Turkish at the same time, the Turkoman poets were willing to serve their nation yet unwilling to neglect their culture and their Turkishness.

ha-Mizraḥit ha-Yiśreʾelit, Ḥevrah (1987), Asian and African studies, Volume 21, Jerusalem Academic Press, p. 200:

• The Turks of Iraq: Similar to the Turkish communities in Greece and Bulgaria, the Turks in Iraq were part of the Ottoman population in the past, but unlike them have their origins in much earlier time , being the descendants of the Turcoman tribes who settled in the region from the ninth century onward...Complaints voiced by the press and various organizations spoke of increasing pressures exercised on the Turkish population by both the Kurds and the Iraqi authorities and of the choice presented then to the Turks of declaring themselves as being either Arabs or Kurds. There were also reports of the Iraqis not implementing the rights they themselves had earlier granted the Turkish minority, of the closing of Turkish schools…

Hay, Rupert; Rich, Paul (2008), Iraq and Rupert Hay's Two years in Kurdistan, Lexington Books, p. x, ISBN 073912563X:

• Increasingly there are ethnic Turks in parts of Iraq who fear the rise of Kurdish nationalism: The majority of the Turkmen people live in Kerkuk, which is considered the capital of the Turkmeneli...

Turco85 (Talk) 14:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it really necessary that you put those big obnoxious bordered quotes in to make your point? It makes it very difficult to navigate when replying.

At any rate...

Concerning your first rebuttal. I did not, as you put it, "suggest" that "the 1957 census is not the last reliable census". I said you need sources to justify such a statement, and that its results have been hotly disputed. There is debate over self-identification, over demarcation between Kirkuk the city and Kirkuk the region, etc. A quick Google search and I found a sample of some of this debate here: http://www.meforum.org/1075/who-owns-kirkuk-the-kurdish-case

Your second point of rebuttal, you try and find sources that refer to the Iraqi Turkmen as "Turks". You sort of succeed here, but it's not a very convincing case. First of all, you've cherry-picked the use of "Turks" in passing. With the first source, the title of the article is "Iraqi Turkmen" (the use of Turks in the body of the text could be easily explained away by translation). With your second source, the author is "quoting" some unknown person born in 1918. Your third source is easily explained away it being rendered in translation - I doubt the Hebrew language has the English-language differentiation of Turk-Turkic-Turkish. Your final source is not of an academic standard, so that can also easily be discarded.

Remember, if some sources contradict each other - unless they're of equal quality, surely we should go with the higher quality sources. If you type "Iraqi Turks" into books.google.com or scholar.google.com, you'll just get a few off-hand references (that have, suspiciously, been included in this article). Whereas if you type "Iraqi Turkmen/Turkomen", you will get hundreds, if not thousands of references. Twafotfs (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as no one has substantively addressed any of my other concerns (call for sources, inappropriate tone, etc), I am going to go ahead now and make some changes. Twafotfs (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Although it has been discovered that you are just another sockpuppet, I am willing to use this source. But like usual User:Twafotfs, or should I say User:Ledenierhomme, you have not read the sources properly. The source again supports what the article is currently saying [i.e. that the majority of Iraqi Turkmen are the descendents of the Ottomans] for example:

Talabany, Nouri (2007), Who Owns Kirkuk? The Kurdish Case, Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2007, pp. 75–78

• In his history of the various Iraqi provinces, Iraqi historian Abdul Majid Fahmi Hassan placed the Turkoman migration in the mid-seventeenth century when Ottoman Sultan Murad IV wrested the region from Iranian control. As Murad returned to Istanbul, he left army units in position to control the strategic route linking Baghdad and Anatolia; the Iraqi Turkomans descended from these troops.[3] Prominent Turkoman families in Kirkuk, such as the Neftçiler and Awçi, trace their ancestry to Murad's troops;[4] moreover, the prominent ethnic Arab Tikriti family also traces their presence in the region to Murad's soldiers and the sultan's gift of land in and around Kirkuk as a reward for their military service against the Iranians.[5].

Turco85 (Talk) 14:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by Twafotfs

I have looked at the recent edits of User:Twafotfs and strongly believe that this is indeed just another sock puppet of User:Ledenierhomme. Here are my resons why:

1) The fact that the Iraqi Turkmens wanted Turkey to annex the Mosul Vilayet has been deleted. Here are sources which support the fact:

Anderson, Liam D.; Stansfield, Gareth R. V. (2009), Crisis in Kirkuk: The Ethnopolitics of Conflict and Compromise, University of Pennsylvania Press, p. 61, ISBN 0812241762

• Certainly in the early twentieth century the Turkmen perspective was that the towns of the vilayet were part of the Ottoman region...This sentiment was particularly strongly felt in the 1920s, to the extent that the Turkmen community wished to see Turkey annex the Mosul vilayet...

Stansfield, Gareth R. V. (2007), Iraq: People, History, Politics, Polity, p. 72, ISBN 0745632270

• Following the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, they wished to see Turkey annex the Mosul vilayet and for them to become part of an expanded state.

Lukitz, Liora (2006), A quest in the Middle East: Gertrude Bell and the making of modern Iraq, I.B.Tauris, p. 151, ISBN 1850434158

• In the northern provinces where pro-Turkish sentiments were still strong, fatwas issued against the Hashemites ‘who dared to rise against the Sultan’ were coupled with demands for the return of Mosul vilayet to Turkey.

2) The manipulation of statistics For example: Jenkins, Gareth (2008), Turkey and Northern Iraq: An Overview (PDF), The Jamestown Foundation, p. 6

• ...most Western sources put the figure considerably lower at 2-3 percent of the population of Iraq, or 500,000-800,000.

note, User:Twafotfs had changed this to "Most Western scholars estimate that that Iraqi Turkmen make up 2-3% of the Iraqi population, or approximately 500,000-600,000" even though Jenkins (2008) was being used alongside this piece of manipulation of statistics.

3) The removal of Turkey being the main destination for Iraqi Turkmen migrants why was this removed, yet the same source is still being used?

Sirkeci, Ibrahim (2005), Turkmen in Iraq and International Migration of Turkmen, University of Bristol, p. 20 {{citation}}: External link in |title= (help)

• Most preferred migration destinations for Turkmen in Iraq are Turkey (38%) followed by Germany (21%), Denmark (8%), Sweden (6%). Turkey’s leading role is because Turkmen are ethnic relatives of the Turks and it may also be explained by geographical proximity to some extent. Over 50% chose European countries to achieve migration goals while only 7 percent fled to Middle Eastern countries (except Turkey) while 5% moved to immigration countries of Canada, USA and Australia.

Turco85 (Talk) 03:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Clearly Twafotfs is trying to remove any associations which Iraqi Turkmen have with Turks and I will not tolerate such manipulational edits. We must stick to what the sources say, simple as that.Turco85 (Talk) 03:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to note that Twafotfs is now blocked. Well spotted. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Template language information

Just because you got to revert all of twat's edits (and justifiably), doesn't mean you get to reinsert that unacceptable text in the template about language. The text that I restored is documented and referenced with reliable LINGUISTIC sources. Do I continually have to remind you that ethnographic sources are not in any way reliable sources for linguistic information? --Taivo (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I urge to to comment with a bit of respect please. I do not believe there is anything wrong with writing "Iraqi Turkmen dialect" in the info box, afterall it is their dialect. Your lingustic sources are still questionable given the fact that it is only Ethnologue which specifically says "Iraqi Turkmen speak S.Azeri" the other two sources do not actually say that Iraqi Turkmen speak S.Azeri. Furthermore the fact that we have a lingustic source which actually says the following: "Anatolian Turkish has long been the prestige dialect among Iraqi Turkmen and has exerted a profound historical influence on their dialect, to the extent that Iraqi Turkmen grammar differs sharply from that of other varieties of Azeri." (Johanson 2001, 16)... well the quote speaks for itself really does it not? And finally, I have messaged you on your talk page (see here) asking you about your views on the matter of the info box and your merely ignored me. Not to mention you did not seem to be bothered about changing the position of the language in the Languages of Iraq or Iraq articles.Turco85 (Talk) 15:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, which ethnographic source are you actually talking about?Turco85 (Talk) 15:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your link to their dialect is actually a link to this article. Also, their dialect does not "show traces" of Azeri, per RSs it is Azeri. — kwami (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ethnologue is not the only source, Turco, and you know it. We've discussed this before and you keep ignoring the linguistic comments. Johanson never says that it is not South Azeri, he says that it differs from "other varieties of South Azeri". The plain English meaning of that phrase is that the Iraqi Turkmen variety is South Azeri, otherwise "other" would be meaningless. I've already got compromise text in the template box "South Azeri or an intermediate dialect". Your text made it sound like the dialect was a mix of Turkish (first) and South Azeri (second). That's clearly NOT what Johanson says--he says that Iraqi Turkmen is South Azeri, with a lot of Turkish influence. And "prestige dialect" does not mean that's what people speak, it means that they try to use it when in formal occasions. It's akin to the situation in Britain--BBC English is the prestige dialect, so people try to sound like the queen when they speak on TV or in front of a crowd (with widely varying levels of success), but that's not how they talk around the dinner table with their families or the language kids use when they play. --Taivo (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And, Turco, adding your rejected text back into the template box without comment while reverting Twat's material (as it if were part and parcel of Twat's edits) does not engender "respect". I'll try to forget that sneakiness of yours in my further comments and assume good faith on your part again. --Taivo (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You're calling me "sneaky" and then saying you'll assume good-faith. I don't understand why you are trying to create such a negative vibe with me. I'm personally not the type of person to hold grudges and do not want to have a negative relationship with you. However, you must admit that the sources you have provided say the following:

• Ethnologue: "Azerbaijani, South... 600,000 in Iraq (1982)... Many read Arabic or Kurdish. Low literacy rate in South Azerbaijani... Called ‘Turkmen’, or ‘Turks’, in Iraq and Syria. There is little literature. Muslim."
• Dalby (1999): "azeri-S... [spoken in] Iran; Iraq; Turkey; Syria; also Alghanistan"
• Boeschoten (1998) "There is a Turkish- or rather Azerbaijanian- speaking part of the population of northern Iraq which is sometimes called 'Turkmen'"

The only source here which actually says anything about the Iraqi Turkmens speaking South Azeri is Ethnologue. The other two sources are debatable because Dalby (1999) does not mention anything about Iraqi Turkmens and Boeschoten (1998) calls the language Azeri not south Azeri. Therefore, the latter two sources do not support your argument. I am happy for the info box to stay in its current condition but not with Dalby (1999) and Boeschoten (1998) as they do not say Iraqi Turkmens speak south Azeri. Unless you find sources which actually plainly say this, then it should not be used. Turco85 (Talk) 17:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I would further like to point out that if you genuinely see Dalby (1999) as a justifiable source for this article then you should probably also see the following as acceptable too:

• Parker, Philip M. (1997), "Linguistic Cultures", Linguistic Cultures of the World: A Statistical Reference, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 23, ISBN 031329769X

"Turkish: Switzerland, Macedonia, Greece, Cyprus, Iraq, Bulgaria, Germany Turkey."

• Asher, R. E.; Simpson, J. M. Y. (1994), The Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, Volume 9, Pergamon Press, p. 4786, ISBN 0080359434

"Turkish is spoken throughout Turkey by about 45000000 people. Outside Turkey, it is also spoken in parts of Greece, Bulgaria, the former Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and the former Soviet Union..."

• Coşkun, Hatice (2010), "Embedding indirective (evidential) utterances in Turkish", in Diewald, Gabriele; Smirnova, Elena (eds.) (eds.), Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, Walter de Gruyter, p. 190, ISBN 3110223961 {{citation}}: |editor2-first= has generic name (help)

"Turkish, a Turkic language (Oghuz branch), is spoken by nearly 70 million speakers in Turkey and by more than 4 million in Western Europe, North America and Australia. Turkish dialects are also spoken is Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Macedonia, Iraq and Romania..."

• Underhill, Robert (1986), "Turkish", in Zimmer, Karl (eds.) (ed.), Studies in Turkish linguistics, John Benjamins Publishing Company, p. 8, ISBN 0915027356 {{citation}}: |editor1-first= missing |editor1-last= (help); |editor2-first= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |editor1-last1= ignored (help)

"Turkish is also spoken in small areas throughout the Balkans, notably in Greece, Bulgaria, and Macedonia; and on Cyprus. There is a Turkish-speaking population in northern Iraq, in the area of Kirkuk..."

These sources also say that Turkish is spoken in Iraq. Personally, I don't think that these should be used as the authors do not actually mention the Iraqi Turkmens per se. However, according to your logic these would be reliable sources, right? Turco85 (Talk) 19:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you forgot that Johanson also lists this as South Azeri as I carefully described above. His phrasing "other South Azeri" can only be interpreted in English as including Iraqi Turkmen in South Azeri. And I don't need to include Dalby (despite its evidence), because the evidence of Ethnologue, Boeschoten (who doesn't need to distinguish South and North Azeri for its evidence here), and Johanson is quite sufficient to demonstrate that the language of the Iraqi Turkmen is South Azeri. Since Boeschoten doesn't distinguish South and North Azeri, his evidence is just as good as Johanson's and Ethnologue's. It certainly isn't North Azeri that's spoken in Iraq. He groups them together, so saying that Azeri is spoken in Iraq is solid evidence. And Dalby's evidence is certainly not so generic as the throwaway comments you adduce as evidence above. Dalby doesn't say that South Azeri is spoken "in Iraq", he says it's spoken in the area of Kirkuk specifically--the heart of Iraqi Turkmen country. But I deleted the reference anyway for the sake of compromise. Boeschoten, however, stays because it is a sound reference. And if you want a third reference, Johanson is also solid evidence that the language of the Iraqi Turkmens is South Azeri. --Taivo (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So exactly why are the sources which I have listed above not good enough? are they not linguistic sources? I can show you more if you wish. As for your view that it does not matter whether "South Azeri" is stated or not, well it does matter. Clearly there is a difference, and if South Azeri is not written in the source then it should not be placed as a citation as it does not say South Azeri...simple as that. Can you show me the exact quote (and page number) whereby Johanson calls the language South Azeri? (because I don't seem to see it anywhere).Turco85 (Talk) 20:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it’s also worth pointing out the types of Azeri for you, so that you can see that it does matter that the author specifies the type of Azeri spoken:

• Garry, Jane; Rubino, Carl R. Galvez (2010), Facts About the World's Languages: An Encyclopedia of the World's Major Languages, Past and Present, University of Michigan, p. 52, ISBN 0824209702

"The Azerbaijani dialects are mostly divided into three groups: (1) Northern dialects in the Republic of Azerbaijan (2) Southern dialects in northwest Iran, and (3) East Anatolian dialects in Turkey."Turco85 (Talk) 21:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources which do not split Azeri into North Azeri and South Azeri are not nearly so uniform in their descriptions. See this description, for example, where, once again, "Turkish" is confined to Turkey and the dialects of Oghuz around Kirkuk (specifically mentioned) are grouped in Azeri. Here's an interesting source that says pretty specifically that the dialects around Kirkuk are Azeri. Indeed, that source alone contains quotes from about a dozen Iraqi Turkmen scholars who specifically say their language is Azeri or closer to Azeri. Pretty conclusive, although not an academic source, obviously. If you look at the map in this article, it clearly shows Kirkuk right in the middle of Iraqi Turkmen territory. So unless you're going to claim that the majority of Oghuz speakers around Kirkuk are not Iraqi Turkmen, then any source that states Azeri is spoken around Kirkuk (specifically mentioning Kirkuk and not just "Iraq") is a reliable source and relevant for this article. --Taivo (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So where is the quotation by Johanson? I have said this time and time again, I have no problem with "South Azeri" being written in the info box or the article, so long as the sources actually say it. If the source does not say "south Azeri" then it is misleading to place a footnote which gives the impression that the author says Iraqi Turkmen speak south Azeri (as long as you find sources which show this, it's fine by me). However, I find it strange how you are suddenly showing sources which you would probably call 'unreliable' if these articles said "Iraqi Turkmen speak Turkish"; after all, it was you who was criticising me beforehand that I was not using linguistic academic sources, therefore, the same rule should apply to you too. I could show you plenty of websites and news articles that say they speak "Turkish" but I don't see the point in that. To me it seems as though you are trying to downgrade the mention of Anatolian influences. I may come across as "nationalistic" or "sneaky" to you, but at the end of the day I'm the one who has filled this entire discussion page full of quotations from academic books and journals- though of course, all the sources I've shown must be wrong, right? Turco85 (Talk) 23:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You are simply being dense now, Turco. "Anatolian Turkish has long been the prestige dialect among Iraqi Turkmen and has exerted a profound historical influence on their dialect, to the extent that Iraqi Turkmen grammar differs sharply from that of other varieties of Azeri." (Johanson 2001, 16), straight from your quote above. As I pointed out, "other varieties" absolutely means that Iraqi Turkmen is one of the varieties of Azeri or else the word "other" is ungrammatical. Your demands are simply becoming childish wikilawyering now. You have exhausted your good will by refusing to recognize valid linguistic sources and closing your eyes to sound and unequivocal linguistic evidence simply because it doesn't back up your POV. The evidence is simply absolute and you have no valid counterevidence from reliable linguistic sources. I have provided ample academic linguistic sources that demonstrate it to any reasonable person. The text in the template box is 100% linguistically accurate. The difference between "Azeri" instead of "South Azeri" in the template box is trivial since the only variety of Azeri in Iraq is South Azeri. And, you will note, I didn't include that last source in the footnote, but simply pointed it out and I was the one who said, "it's not academic". --Taivo (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So now I'm childish as well, please continue with the name-calling, it's very friendly and helps us resolve these issues so much better. I genuinely wanted you to quote Johanson so that I could see if we were both discussing the same sentence! I agree with you that "other varieties" implies that it would be one of the Azeri varieties but as it does not specifically say south Azeri there is no point in putting it into the info box. As I've said before, I do not object to South Azeri being written in the info box (or the entire article) as long as the sources actually say it. This is the reason why I do not see Boeschoten (1998) as a reliable source; firstly, this source is not a study of the Iraqi Turkmen dialect; and secondly, it does not say they speak "south Azeri". I am fine with Ethnologue being used in the article as it is pretty much the only source that you have shown which actually says that Iraqi Turkmens speak South Azeri. Furthermore, you say that the sources that I listed above are "unequivocal linguistic evidence" yet just a few days ago you was expressing the importance Dalby (1999), though I appreciate the fact that you have removed that source now.Turco85 (Talk) 13:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that you were childish. I said that your demands for sourcing are. There's a difference between you personally, and a specific action which you are taking. This is getting ridiculous. You are simply demanding that we turn off our brains. I will try to make it very simple for you. 1) The sources unequivocally say that the Iraqi Turkmen speak a variety of Azeri or South Azeri. There's no debate over that in the linguistic sources. 2) Following ISO 639-3, in Wikipedia we divide Azeri into South and North. 3) The only variety of Azeri spoken in Iraq is South Azeri. 4) Thus, when a source says "the Iraqi Turkmen speak Azeri" that is exactly the same as saying "the Iraqi Turkmen speak South Azeri". It's not rocket science, Turco. In addition, the only Oghuz variety spoken around Kirkuk is that spoken by Iraqi Turkmen since they are the only Oghuz people living around Kirkuk. Therefore, if a source says that (South) Azeri is spoken around Kirkuk, then it is the Iraqi Turkmen who are speaking it. Just because we don't do original research in Wikipedia does not mean you have to turn your brain off when evaluating sources. I'm done with this discussion. The language section of the template is already compromised with the "intermediate variety" comment and that's as far as it needs to go. The evidence is unequivocal--the Iraqi Turkmen speak South Azeri. --Taivo (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I guess my demand for sourcing is quite strong, but this is mainly because we only have Ethnologue which actually says, in "black and wite" x speaks y (Iraqi Turkmen speak South Azeri). I genuinely do believe that it is important that we have the correct sources here, and the type of Azeri must be distinguished within the sources, this is why I still strongly believe that we should remove Boeschoten (1998). Taivo, in all honesty, would you see this thesis as "reliable enough" for the article if the author had merely said "Iraqi Turkmen speak Turkish" (and had not addded the "rather" part)? Because I do not think you would have, you probably would have also said that Boeschoten is not a suitable source as it is not a study of their language. I have also found another study by Johanson where they also say the following:

• Johanson, Lars (2008), "Azerbaijanian", in Brown, Keith; Ogilvie, Sarah (eds.) (eds.), Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World, Elsevier, p. 112, ISBN 0080877745 {{citation}}: |editor2-first= has generic name (help)

"They [Azeri dialects] are mostly divided into thre groups: northern dialects spoken in the Republic of Azerbaijan, southern dialects in northwestern Iran, and East Anatolian dialects."

Therefore, this would suggest that the Iraqi Turkmen dialect is smilar to East Anatolian ones. By using a source which just states "Azerbaijani", it gives the impression that the Iraqi Turkmen dialect is that of the Republic of Azerbaijan.Turco85 (Talk) 14:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I think we also need to actually work on the South Azeri article because it does not even metion that it's an Eastern Anatolian dialect; it actually says it's influenced by Persian... Johanson is being cited there yet the source is not Johanson, it's actually Encyclopedia Iranica. Clearly, there is a lot of misunderstanding about sourcing.Turco85 (Talk) 14:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm done with this discussion since you are simply being obstructionist and refusing to face the reality of the sources. You are refusing to use your intellect and are simply being a wikilawyer without a useful point. Does it really matter whether we write "South Azeri" or "Azeri"? No. If you have such a legalistic approach to sourcing, then we'll just change the wording to "Azeri" without the "South" in front. Will that satisfy you? "The Iraqi Turkmens speak a variety of Azeri". --Taivo (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well then you would be going against your view on Ethnologue wouldnt you? Of course it matters... I thought you were meant to be "an associate professor of Linguistics at a major U.S. university" (according to your user page). Maybe we should take this to mediation then, because you have simply not shown any further sources.Turco85 (Talk) 15:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope you realise that I have no problem with south Azeri being written in the info box, I have a problem with Boeschoten (1998) because it is not a study of the Iraqi Turkmen dialect nor does it say they speak south Azeri...I don't understand why you find it so hard to accept what the sources say.Turco85 (Talk) 15:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

transitional between Azeri and Ottoman Turkish?

How can Iraqi Turkmen be transitional between South Azeri and Ottoman Turkish? Isn't Ottoman Turkish a defunct literary standard? saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 01:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Later, the same source is referenced for the claim that it's transitional between South Azeri and Anatolian Turkish (that is to say, just Turkish). There's a difference between those two terms, Anatolian Turkish is a collection of spoken varieties while Ottoman Turkish is Persified Arabicized literary Turkish; both are essentially varieties of the same Turkish language (unlike South Azeri, which falls into the Azeri category of Oghuz/Turkmen languages). It would be great if anyone could take a look at the reference and see if it's being misquoted in any way.

This also smells of rotten nationalism to me - like Turks and Azeris are fighting over who can claim the Iraqi Turkmen as part of their 'nation'. Perhaps I'm a bit paranoid as a learner of Serbo-Croatian and Hindi-Urdu (where ignoring linguistic fact for the sake of your ideology is a national sport), though. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 01:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Iraqi Turkmen is South Azeri, but it's a South Azeri variety that tends to bend toward Turkish. Various Turkish nationalists have, indeed, tried to push the POV here that Iraqi Turkmen is Turkish because they write Turkish (not South Azeri). But their speech is South Azeri and linguistic sources back that up. You bring up a good point about Anatolian versus Ottoman. In reading the sources several months ago, I recall that they tend to reference Eastern Anatolian dialects, but with borrowed forms from Ottoman. (And, I seem to recall something about the written standard being Ottoman rather than modern Anatolian, but I'm not 100% certain.) --Taivo (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

POV

The article might look professionally written but a close examination will reveal gross POV pushing through manipulation of sources. One example I noticed is the manipulated figures of the census of 1957, real figures can be found here.[5] Another one was the "massacre" of 1924. The sources clearly states that this side of the story is narrated by Turkmen partisan sources[6] something not found in this article. A more contemporary and neutral narration can be hound here.--Rafy talk 16:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the 1947 census there were 50,000 Sunni Turkmens and 42,000 Shia Turkmens, summing makes up 2% of the total population.[7] Anderson & Stansfield used as a reference to 9% state instead that such figure is only found in Turkmen literature. Anyway if there were 83 thousand in Kirkuk were the vast majority of Turkmen reside, where would the other 500-600 come from?--Kathovo talk 09:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be great if contributors actually cared about this article completely rather than continuously obsessing about population figures. As the various footnotes of this article demonstrate, the last census which allowed the Turkmen to indicate their ethnicity was in 1957. In regards to the 1947 census, if these figures can be found in academic sources then by all means place it in the demographics section. Best, Turco85 (Talk) 18:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The population figures attract attention because 1) they are outrageously high, 2) they are stated on top of the article. 1947 census is cited by Hanna Batatu in The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq, p.60, undoubtedly the most authoritative work on the the post-Ottoman Iraqi society.--Kathovo talk 13:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't care less whether you think the population figures are too low or too high. We are meant to be neautral here that's what (N)POV is all about, not your own personal opinions. As I have said already, if you wish to place the 1947 census then by all means add it into the demographics section with reliable sources. If you have a problem with the 1957 census and the academics who site the 567,000 figure then I suggest you contact them rather than debating it with me. Best, Turco85 (Talk) 23:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Kurdification ??? please by example

there is no example of kurdification of turkoman people , this is a unfair accusation of kurdish people please remove that part.

Religion/Info Box

Footnote 10 says the following: "In short, Iraqi Turkmen are a unique ethnic group; they are predominantly Muslim and divided into two main sects: Shiites (40%) Sunnites (60%), and have strong cultural ties with Turkey."

Footnote 11 says the following: "There is similarly no reliable information on the religious composition of the Turkmen population. However, in addition to Sunni Muslims, a large number—perhaps even close to half—are thought to be Shiite."

Best, Turco85 (Talk) 00:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

No persecution?

We have recently opened two articles on Persecution of Yazidis by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Persecution of Assyrians by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Many Iraqi Turkmens are not Sunni Muslims and they also have been targeted by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Only today I listened to a commentary on CNNTürk TV that the international media "ignores" their sufferings. Do we also ignore this persecution here in WP? Are there any references to it in any article regarding Iraq? Should we add something here or where, if not here? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we should add information.--Torpaq (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Many Anatolian Turks calls themselves "turkmen"

So naming as a "iraqi Turkmen"is not a wrong thing.Also if u ask a İraqi Turkmen:

Sen kimsen? -who are you? Men Türkmenem -i am Turkmen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.252.56.158 (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Turkmen of Syria and Iraq are not the same as Turks

They are actually more closely related to Azeris/Azerbaijanis. They are Turkic (like the Turkmen of Turkmenistan or Uzbeks of Uzbekistan), not Turkish (i.e. Anatolian Turkish). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.188.124.34 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

iraqi Turkmens population % 13

İraqi Turkmens people % 13