Talk:Demographics of Turkey

Comments

guys there's gotta be more polish people in turkey, long long time ago a lot of polish people came to ottoman empire. there's even a area called polonezköy which means "polish village"? any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.10.149 (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer

Is this "disclaimer" really encyclopedic? Khoikhoi 08:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking :) I think that info (or its equivalent in the Turkey article) should be merged to either under minorities or some other section. Baristarim 08:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Phew! I was just perusing the article and there are way too many weasel words here and there. Some cleanup is neccessary :) Baristarim 09:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I don't think there should be anything titled "disclaimer" as if Wikipedia is presenting some sort of possibly libellous third-party quote, however I suppose that there needs to be some kind of explanatory paragraph/sentences that cover that particular facet of the issue. I agree with Ottoman's reasoning that Turkish citizenship laws (and a lot of social and republican structures) are modelled after the French model, and present important and interesting takes on the issue of citizenship that would need to be explained so that readers can understand the issue better. However, I also think that Demographics of France article overdid it by placing a huge paragraph titled "disclaimer" on top. French people tend to be sensitive about this as much as the Turkish people (maybe more so :)) since there are philosophical parallels in how those identities were created, so I will abstain from editing the French article since I don't want to start an edit-war with the French editors but that disclaimer shouldn't stand alone, but rather be integrated into the intro or a relevant section in a way.

I suppose this can make a good case for systemic bias since some countries can forge and apply a unified national identity without practically no-one raising any eyebrows, but when it comes to another country many people find it offensive for some reason even though the underlying philosophical argument for such an application of national identity is extremely valid in context. I suppose if Turkey were as rich as France it wouldn't have those sort of problems :)) c'est la vie I suppose... Baristarim 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Bias originates without the emphasizing the major fact. An ideology (so the followers of the ideology) that separate people into sections (by the way there is no limit where to terminate the division, "I'm a ... However ... also has xxx and yyy, AND not all xxx are alike, not all yyy alike ... continious 4 ever) would like to ignore the major policy regarding demographics and for that person even a mention of the policy is a bias (this is how I perceive the people reject the disclaimer). If we look at the people who want to remove the disclaimer, they disclaimed that they prefer to see people; "not as people" but people that has a form of property, (talk like me, walk like me). In a page about classifying people, if the major data originates from CIA which is not the original institution DIE (by the way Turkey = Republic of Turkey, not a random location) if you do not mention why the state do not generate the data (the original state wants to promote the idea that people a like) produces a bias regarding the "data in the page". In a way not giving disclaimer is promoting the CIA data. I claim these people are biased against the Turkey and biased for the CIA. PS: I'm not against ethnicity but I'm against removing the note that informs about ethnicities. Thanks OttomanReference 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Name

Why is this page titled "Demography of Turkey", while the standard naming convention here is "Demographics of [country]"? Static Sleepstorm 19:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

black-haired Mediterranean Turks?

Who says that "...black-haired Mediterranean" are called Turks? Can you give are source?

Afro Turks - Afrika Kökenli Türkler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

black-haired Mediterranean Turks?

Who says that "...black-haired Mediterranean" are called Turks? Can you give sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilhanli (talk • contribs) 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Statistics

The statistical breakdown of minorities living in Turkey is over twenty years old and thus considerably out-of-date. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.36.125 (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups in Turkey

• Turkic groups:Turks(Balkan Turks,Anatolian Turks),Kumyks,Crimean Tatars,Karachays,Balkarians,Nogays,Karakalpaks,Azeris
• Balkan groups:Turks(Balkan Turks),Bosniaks,Greeks(Grecian),Bulgarians(Christian & Pomak),Albanians
• Anatolian groups:Turks(Anatolian Turks),Greeks(Pontic Greeks too),Roma,Kurds,Armenians(Hamshenis Armenians as well),Assyrians,Arabs
• Chevneburis:Georgians
• Caucasian groups:Inguish,Chechens,Abazas,Abkhazians,Adyghes,Laz

J87

U.S. data from the Ethnologue: Languages ​​of the World organization PA St. Andrews - compared to 2001

Ethnic origins in Turkey:

86.21% of Turkish

Kurdish 8:36%

Circassian 2.14%

Arab 1.63%

Zaza 0.53% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Easily the worst article I've seen in a while

I'm afraid I'm forced to remove large parts of this article mercilessly. I'm sorry, but "demographics of Turkey" isn't about Y-Haplogroups or native American theories. This article badly needs to be deconstructed and reconstructed.

-- Mttll (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC) --

The only thing that looks fine is religion section. I seriously need help: Please translate KONDA study and add it to this article.

-- Mttll (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC) --

Can somebody please update the basic date from TUIK? I am having difficulty finding the exact page.

-- Mttll (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How come NOBODY participates in this discussion and still dares to mass revert?

1. Of all demographics of X country articles, this is the only one that starts with Y-Haplo info as if it means anything.

2. Theories like Native Americans (people who came from Asia to America 12,000 years ago) being Turkic has no place in this article.

3. Mongoloid or Mongoloid-Caucasoid hybrids becoming Caucasoids? Really?

Now the question is this: Is Wikipedia supposed to reflect well-known, academic, mainstream information or those crappy racialist forums?

- Completely outdated linguistic census result from 1960s which is distorting the article's layout.

- Look at this classification:

Turkic-speaking peoples: Karakalpaks, Turkmens, Kazakhs, Kumyks, Yörüks, Uzbeks, Crimean Tatars, Azeris, Balkars, Uyghurs, Karachays. Indo-European-speaking peoples: Kurds, Zazas, Armenians, Hamshenis, Greeks Semitic-speaking peoples: Arabs, Jews, and Assyrians Caucasian-speaking peoples: Georgians, Lazs, Circassians, and Chechens Other Muslim groups originally from the Balkans (Bulgarians, Albanians, Macedonians, Serbs, Croats, Romanians and Bosniaks): These people migrated to Anatolia during the Ottoman Era and have been assumed to accept Turkish-Muslim identity. Cossacks in Turkey (mostly left Turkey by 1962) Others: There are small groups and individuals from all over the world living in Turkey, either remnants of past migrations (there is for instance a village near the Bosphorus named Adampol in Polish, Polonezköy, "the Polish village", in Turkish) or witnesses of contemporary mass migrations towards the European Union and its periphery (there are also illegal migrants camps with thousands of Africans and others intercepted while trying to embark, or swimming from the wreckage of overpopulated small boats, for the Greek or Italian shores)

The first four is linguistic and the next is religious. Since when can't a Muslim be Turkic-, Indo-European etc etc speaker? Completely nonsensical. What's more, Indo-European is extremely large family should definitely be divided into Slavic, Iranic etc in an ethnic classification.

- The minority section should focus on the fact that the only recognized are Jews, Armenians, Greeks and develop from there. There are misconceptions about this issue. And the other info belongs to Secularism in Turkey article.

Please discuss, if you care. Write your objections. DON'T mass revert. Add particular parts if need be. DON'T repeat Wikipedia's codewords to me, I'm fully aware.

-- Mttll (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's not how it works here. You can't come here, delete lots of sourced information from the article and then require others to prove discuss the return piece-by-piece. It's definitely your responsibility to convince other editors that something isn't good in the article.

Among the problems with your edit are:

Removal of sourced table with the numbers of first- and second- language speakers of various languages of Turkey. Imho it's absolutely relevant to this article.

Wikipedia isn't bound by Lausanne treaty so other minorities like Circassians, Laz and Kurds should be described in no less detail.

You've simply removed "60% of women wear the headscarf or hijab in Turkey." although this too was referenced. This I can't understand at all.

So, please take one issue (like DNA research) at a time, propose something about it at the talk and try to establish a consensus. Alæxis_¿question? 19:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

:: You've simply removed "60% of women wear the headscarf or hijab in Turkey." although this too was referenced. This I can't understand at all.

I can't understand it either, because I did no such thing. I expect an apology for false accusation.

:: Removal of sourced table with the numbers of first- and second- language speakers of various languages of Turkey. Imho it's absolutely relevant to this article.

Well, it's terribly outdated, and more importantly, distorts the article. You're right, maybe I shouldn't have deleted, but replaced with a better one.

:: Wikipedia isn't bound by Lausanne treaty so other minorities like Circassians, Laz and Kurds should be described in no less detail.

Well, there are two different sections: Ethnicity and minorities. Ethnicity describes all ethnic groups living in Turkey. Why should "Minorities" do the same? The concept of minority in Turkey, at least officially, is bound by Treaty of Lausanne. Are you saying Wikipedia should ignore this fact? Are you joking?

-- Mttll (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I will apologise if I'm wrong but in your version of the article there are no such words as hijab or headscarf. Try to search for them yourself. I'll answer the rest later. Alæxis_¿question? 05:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The table was made in 1984. I've added this year to the article to make it clear to the reader. But unless you've got a newer table I think this one should stay. I'd also move it to the 'Ethnic Groups' section.

Regarding the 'Ethnic groups' and 'Minorities' section I'd merge them, but I'm ok with two sections as well. What don't you like in them? Why have you deleted all the info about Kurds, Laz and Circassians that was in the Ethnic Groups section?Alæxis_¿question? 05:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

:: I will apologise if I'm wrong but in your version of the article there are no such words as hijab or headscarf. Try to search for them yourself.

It was removed by another editor, with the IP of 88.245.64.90. And here's the proof: [1]

The table was made in 1984. I've added this year to the article to make it clear to the reader. But unless you've got a newer table I think this one should stay.

My objection is technical. Can't you modify the table so it doesn't distort the page.

What don't you like in them? Why have you deleted all the info about Kurds, Laz and Circassians that was in the Ethnic Groups section?

Because the starting sentences and classification of ethnic groups were nonsensical. I was going to readd them as the article is reconstructed.

-- Mttll (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry then

So, the real problem was with the beginning of the 'ethnic groups' section. What don't you like there and what do you propose to add/remove? Alæxis_¿question? 17:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems in this article. I tried to correct them one by one, you guys had to insist on mass reverting. Now, I'll do the same, but this time I'll delete only when it's clearly necessary, not as a precaution. If you have objections, please go ahead and discuss about the particular edit. PLEASE DON'T MASS REVERT.

-- Mttll (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Where's the previous consensus?

I fail to see any discussion in talk page about the changes I've made. It seems the article as it is now isn't a result of a consensus, but a large number of individual edits. I say the article is terrible and I'm using other "Demographics of X country" articles as reference.

Now the most important question is: DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY? If so, go ahead and let's discuss. Or are you just for some weird reason acting like mass revert warriors?

I'm fully aware that Wikipedia functions through consensus, but I'm also fully aware that Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold in making changes and discourages conservativeness which makes people believe they own the article.

-- Mttll (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is getting extremely annoying. I modified and deleted only when absolutely necessary and still people mass revert what I have done? Will you please come and discuss your objections here?

Here's a few things:

- The article should discuss Turkish people, not Turkic people (see these articles please) as a whole. Of course, additional Turkic people can be mentioned, but before my edit Turkish people wasn't mentioned at all, which is completely ridiculous. What's more, the part about Turkic people discusses phenotype like stupid racialist forums and mentions (without a source) NATIVE AMERICANS, WHAT THE HELL? Wikipedia is supposed to be based on mainstream, common knowledge, reliable sources, not fantasies!

- CIA World Factbook gives an estimate about Kurds in Turkey, but doesn't say explicitly about Kurdish-speakers which is something different from Kurds.

- The numerical figure about Circassians was unsourced.

- This article is about modern Turkey, right? Then what's the point of a picture from 1870s? Unnecessary at best, harmful/misleading/counterproductive at worst.

- That certain classification (Turkic, Indo-European, Caucasian, Muslim (?), Cossacks (?!?!), Other) is nonsensical. Cossacks are Indo-European/Slavic. Muslim is a religion, there is nothing stopping a Muslim from being a Turkic, Indo-European, Caucasian, Cossack etc.

PLEASE DISCUSS THESE AND DON'T EDIT WAR

Some of them are plain obvious, some of them are debatable, but you keep mass reverting, I'll be forced to revert that. Please revert particular parts and write your arguments.

-- Mttll (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems that you mean well, but you are trying to do way too much with each edit. The article grew over many months, a little at a time, contributed by intelligent, well-intentioned people, and to mass revert their work, as if you know so much better, doesn't go over well. Try reverting a specific passage, waiting a few days to see if there are any objections, and then move on to another passage. And if you really know so much better than everyone else, then you should use your real name, with your credentials listed on your user page, so that the rest of us can feel more comfortable with your edits.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Genetics

What has Genetics to do with the Demographics? There is another article Genetic origins of the Turkish people. Jingby (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right. It has no place here. I have taken the liberty. --Mttll (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Lezgi

Isnt there a small number of Lezgi also in Turkey? Driven by the Czarist Russian expansion in the Caucuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.118.177 (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

ethnic group

The Turkish people, are a nation (millet) in the meaning of an ethnos (Halk in Turkish), defined more by a sense of sharing a common Turkish culture and having a Turkish mother tongue, than by citizenship, religion or by being subjects to any particular country.

I removed this. I don't think wikipedia is any position to define the identity of the Turkish people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.3.239.126 (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Languages spoken ?

I didn't quite understand the table Languages Spoken. According to the table the total no. of mother tongue speakers was just over 31 million in 1984. The graph in the very same page shows that the total population of Turkey in 1984 was about 52 million. So what happenned to the remaining 21 million? All non speakers ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The source is from 1984 while the data is from 1965 or so as far as I know. --Mttll (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to drop the table of languages from this article and refer people to the Languages of Turkey article especially since the table in that article has more up-to-date info. Integrate any discussion of languages into the discussion about the groups that speak them. --Erp (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

somebody put this in the actual article

There is no mention of Asia minor Greeks along the black sea coast. Usually referred to as Rumcha in Turkish.

I did a google search for Rumcha but didnt find it. maybe we need a native speaker to translate from the turkish wiki. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Afro-turks

why this article doesnt disscuss about afro-turks as part of minority ethnic group in Turkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.10.159.31 (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

ZAZAS=KURDS!

im zazaki speaker kurd .zazaki is dialect of kurdish language!pls edit page!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.179.151 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Zaza people is a little İranian people living in Turkey.They re not Kurdish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.166.177.239 (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Birth per woman 2010

The birth per woman 2010 in Turkey was 2.18 and not 2.31

here the link: http://www.indexmundi.com/turkey/total_fertility_rate.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.13.185.126 (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Indexmundi does not appear to be a very precise source as their numbers for many countries are often off by some margin. Turkstat claims that the TFR for Turkey in 2009 was 2.06. They have not yet released any numbers for 2010. Indexmundi and the CIA Factbook (which this article heavily uses) seem to purely rely on estimates, which have to be recalibrated over time to prevent them from steadily becoming less accurate.The Tollan (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Description of this article...

Ends with a sentence which makes no sense whatsoever: "There are more than 1 million people of non-Turkish descent, about 1 million of whom are foreign residents." There are about 14 million Kurds ALONE in Turkey! Somebody should be ashamed! No link at the end of this claim, nothing...stupid, just stupid. Do not edit 'till you double-check or don't write anything at all. Miljkovicmaster (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)miljkovicmaster

Articles like this tend to accumulate bits and pieces (and this article could do with a good overhaul, should we use the Turkish government figures and/or the CIA World Factbook [which I suspect uses the government figures for some items], have we properly cited every fact, etc). I removed the sentence you cited as 'Turkish' could mean either from a Turkic speaking people or born in Turkey (aka not immigrants or foreign residents) so is vague. In addition even if the latter is what is meant I'm sure a certain percentage of immigrants have become Turkish citizens (or else the sentence is redundant). --Erp (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Kizilay Square.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kizilay Square.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Armada Tower Ankara.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Armada Tower Ankara.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:BUTTIM Bursa Turkey.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BUTTIM Bursa Turkey.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Lev Ist Tur 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lev Ist Tur 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Serps In Turkey

"...55 million ethnic Turks, 9.3 million Kurds, 3,000,000 Serbs, 3,000,000 Zazas" 3 million Serbs? I didn't see anything about Serbs in source link. I don't meet any Serb in Turkey. Better to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.183.82 (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

How was that table "POV"?

Eagerly waiting for an explanation. --Mttll (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of POV (the editor who said so admitted to being mistaken), but the study is misused, as has been explained to you in Talk:Turkey. Athenean (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how. Regardless, I will be re-adding it with a more descriptive title of what it really is:

In 2006, 47,958 adults in Turkey have identified themselves in an unguided survey conducted by KONDA (published by Milliyet in 2007) as in the following table:

Identity groups used in the survey	Total %	Identity categories said by subjects	Total %
Turkish	81.33	Turkish	81.33
Local identity	1.54	Manav	0.59
		Laz	0.28
		Turkmen	0.24
		Region name in Turkey	0.22
		Yörük	0.18
		Anatolian Turkish tribes	0.03
Other Turkic	0.08	Tatar	0.04
		Azeri	0.03
		Central Asian Turkic tribes	0.01
Of Caucasian origin	0.27	Circassian	0.19
		Georgian	0.08
		Chechen	0.004
Of Balkan origin	0.22	From Balkan countries	0.12
		Bosniak	0.06
		Turkish from Bulgaria	0.04
Immigrant	0.4	Muhacir	0.22
		Balkan immigrant	0.16
		Region name abroad	0.02
Muslim Turkish	1.02	Muslim	0.58
		Muslim Turkish	0.44
Alevi	0.35	Alevi	0.35
General definition	0.36	From Turkey	0.23
		World citizen	0.12
		Ottoman	0.01
Kurdish and Zaza	8.61	Kurdish	8.61
		Zaza	0.41
Arab	0.75	Arab	0.75
Non-Muslim	0.1	Armenian	0.08
		Greek	0.01
		Jewish	0.004
		Assyrian	0.004
Romani	0.03	Romani	0.03
From other countries	0.05	European	0.02
		Asian	0.01
		Russian	0.01
		Iranian	0.004
		American or African	0.004
Citizen of Turkey	4.45	Citizen of Turkey	4.45
Total	100		100

Feedback please. --Mttll (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Semantic games with the title is not going to cut it. Raw data is not suitable for an encyclopedia, particularly seeing how the source itself gives an adjusted figure of 15.7% for the Kurds. Athenean (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The world doesn't revolve around Kurds. This is a published table of how adults in Turkey self-identify in an unguided survey. You need stronger arguments against it. --Mttll (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's raw data, as you have been told 20 times now, and thus unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Repeating yourself and pretending not to hear isn't going to change things. Athenean (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who keeps repeating himself. It's the kind of raw data the surveyors chose to feature and publish. As long as it's presented by a perfectly accurate title of what it is, it's suitable for Wikipedia. --Mttll (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As already discussed in Talk:Turkey#Percentages of ethnic groups in Turkey this table is raw data the surveyors did publish along with their actual results. The Ethnic Identity Distribution in Turkey table in section 4.3 of the study contains the relevant result of this study. If you want to add a table from this study, then add this table from section 4.3. Lumialover2 (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure. Do we have a practice in WP of publishing such sizable tables from private companies? To the best of my knowledge such prominence is only granted to official, national censuses. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"...at times, especially in the past..." ?

What does this mean?

"The word Turk or Turkish also has a wider meaning in a historical context because, at times, especially in the past, it has been used to refer to all Muslim inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire irrespective of their ethnicity."

"...at times, especially in the past..." but less so in the future?

This should be edited to: "The word Turk or Turkish also has a wider meaning in a historical context because, at times, it has been used to refer to all Muslim inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire irrespective of their ethnicity."

All historical contexts are in the past. I would have edited, but it looks like many edits on this page get reverted. 70.74.191.229 (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Map in Kurdish is not accurate

Gaziantep, Kilis and Northeastern Anatolia Kurdish population(except Iğdır) is not true. And also Iğdır's Kurdish population started to rise in 1990's because of internal emigration so it's not historical — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.159.9 (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish population , migration Multiply. (Gaziantep -Kilis - Adiyaman- K.maraş - Malatya-Elazığ -Erzincan -Erzurum- Kars and Ardahan) Turkish majority. ( Şanlıurfa-Mardin ) Turkish - Kurdish -Arabs . Bingöl ZaZa , Tunceli Zaza - Turkish

Kurds who fled Iran-Iraq war from 1988 Halabja : 60.000-120.000

Kurds fleeing the 1.Gulf War 1991 : 460.000 [2]

Kurds who fled civil war in Syria : 400.000 Syria civil war [3]

ISIS terror Yezidis fled : 100.000 [4]

Kurdish population in Turkey: Kurdish population in Turkey before 1980 was around 9-11%. Iran-Iraq war of Halabja,First Gulf War,Gulf War 2,Syria civil war Began to increase, Today, the Kurdish population in this migration has reached 14-16%