Talk:Turkish people/summary

Sources

Using census's is fine but we are using them with academic sources to establish a neutral position. One may want to only show the low figures whilst another only wanting to show high estimates. Having both estimates is the best thing to avoid edit wars. Please see prior discussion on Talk:Turkish people.Justinz84 (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, while the number of Turks living in Turkey based on ethnic ground, almost all of the sources, Turkish minority's number in a country based on citizenship they hold, regardless of their ethnicity. (Kurd, Zazaki, etc.) This should be clarified.

Arrangement of numbers

Please remember that the numbers should be going in descending order (i.e. arranged from largest population to the smallest). Where two countries have the same population it should be placed in alphabetical order (i.e. there are 500,000 Turks in a number of countries, this should be placed alpabetically: France, United Kingdom, United States).Justinz84 (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Turks in Bulgaria

An anon has been deleting the academic source which claims that 1.5 million Turks live in Bulgaria. I have provided some references here to prove that other sources also claim that the population of Turks has increased since 2001:

• Novinite, Bulgaria's largest English-language news provider, says the following: 'At present the ethnic Bulgarians in Bulgaria are estimated at 5 million, the ethnic Turks at around 1 million, and the Roma at 1 million...' ([1])
• Academic Turhan Cetin (2008:249) has said the following in his thesis 'It is safe to assume that today a population of 1,780,000 Turks is living in Bulgaria'. ([2])

Justinz84 (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A newspaper article is not a valid source for such an information. As for Cetin, due to his obvious bias, this entry should be presented only as a footnote and only properly annotated. Kostja (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

And what is your excuse for the estimate given by Extra & Gorter? The fact of the matter is that the ethnic Bulgarian population is decreasing. On the other hand, many ethnic Turks who moved to Turkey after 1989 have come back to Bulgaria. Furthermore, ethnic Turks generally have more children than Bulgarians. Justinz84 (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The World Directory of Minorities says the following: 'Although 900,000 or 10% of the Bulgarian population is a commonly accepted figure, some observers believe that there may be up to 1.5 million'. ([3])

And why is Cetin bias for? Because he's Turkish? Well the article by Novinite is Bulgarian!

Justinz84 (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Novinite might be Bulgarian but the figure is given by a very dubious researcher who also claims that there are going to be 500,000 Bulgarians in 2050. I suggest you read Wikipedia's section on reliable sources before inserting this link.

I was unable to find such a statement in the book by Extra and Gorter, therefore I'm removing it until you provide evidence that the figure is actually in the book.

Of course Cetin is biased. To give his source as much weight as other sources would be giving it undue weight.

As for the World Directory of Minorities, their figure is obviously dated to before 1989. Kostja (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

And what about Novinite? They published the article this week. You are clearly trying to find any excuse to remove the high estimates. May I remind you that since 2001 many who were forced to moved to Turkey have returned. Justinz84 (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources news articles should not be a preferred source on academic topics, as in this case. This is especially true in a case like this when they claim that their information comes from official sources, when that is undeniably false - see here: [4]. Therefore, at the very least the actual research article should be used in this article and not a dubious representation in the media.

About the returning Turks, about a third of them returned by the end of 1989, but many more left due to economic reasons in the 90's and many have gone to Western Europe recently (see here and here, for example). You need to actually provide a source that Turks have been returning to Bulgaria since 2001. Kostja (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I find this discussion to be so typical! Then why do so many users insist that we use the Milliyet article (which est. 55 million Turks in Turkey) when all the other source est 58 million! Even if Turks have not returned [which they have] their birth-rate is still higher than ethnic Bulgarians. If you take another look at the Bulgarian cenus website you will see that they forecast that the Bulgarians population will decrease dramtically.Turco85 (Talk) 16:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop with your manipulations, provide a reliable source for the number, source from newspaper is not reliable for such information. And Novinite say Roma are estimated at 1 million and Turks at *around* 1 million, which is not precise staten number and may mean as census shows 800 000 or somewhere there, that is supported by the population growth Novinite shows- there will be 1.2 million ethnic Turks in 2050 and 1.5 million in 2100, with population growth like this the Turks of course can't grow from 750 000 to 1 000 000 for 10 years. Pensionero (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please illustrate my "manipulations"; none of the users here have a problem with the other sources which are from newspapers. Novinite is Bulgaria's largest English-language newspaper, and cites Bulgaria's Center for Demographic Policy. I see nothing bias here, especially since the 2001 census is also in the template. Here is a list of articles which uses Npvinite as a source [5] Turco85 (Talk) 12:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

See here for Wikipedia's treatment of the usage of news media as sources. This seems to be exactly the kind of topic were an actual scientific publication is preferable as a source, so if an actual article published by that mysterious center can be found, it could be used as a source. Kostja (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Justinz84 provided an academic source (see above); do you also object to using that? I asume that you will. Turco85 (Talk) 15:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that all of you contribute to the Bulgarians article, should we be removing the newspaper aticles used for some of the population such as the community in Turkey?Turco85 (Talk) 15:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course I object to the so called academic source. Apart from its obvious pro-Turkish bias, the author demonstrates an appalling ignorance for what is supposed to be his area of expertise. For example, he mentions censuses of 1943 and 1962, which simply do not exist, claims that there were 1,250,000 Turks in 1985, a year in which no such information was collected at all and claims that 3,300,000 persons had their identities changed in 1984, which is so absurd that it can only be called an outright lie.

It's interesting that you mention the Bulgarians article, as recently dubious information based on the same "Novinite" news-source was rejected by all the established editors of the article: [6]. So yes, a newspaper is not always a reliable source, especially on an academic topic. Kostja (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please direct me to that discussion? In the Bulgarians article the Milliyet newspaper is being used. In accordance with your view that should be removed too. The Bulgarian census was 10 years ago, the ethnic Turks clearly have a higher fertility rate than ethnic Bulgarians (due to mainly social factor and living in rural regions) the idea that the population has stayed the same for the past 10 years is ludicrous. In fact, accroding to the 2001 census, fertility rate was as follows: Bulgarians=1.1; Turks=2.1-2.3; Roma 3. Being a Bulgarian yourself I’m sure you would know about the demographic situation there and how the (ethnic) Bulgarian population is decreasing… whether you want to admit this phenomena is another story. Some academic sources which you might want to have a look at if you want more info: [7] [8] [9] Turco85 (Talk) 23:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is here. The Milliyet article is more acceptable, as there is no official information about ethnicity in Turkey. The article in "Novinite" on the other hand is rather dubious and is any case only a newspaper reproduction of a source which seems unavailable. It has also been attacked for being absurd and politically oriented: article by the chairman of the International center for minority research and cultural interactions.

As for the population decline of the Bulgarian population that is not an issue of the current discussion. The natural population growth of the Turkish population is positive, but it's not very high - about 0.27%, according to a 2000 study, which also lists their fertility rate as 1.62 (where did you get those figures, incidentally?). This population growth is certainly not enough for one third population increase in 10 years, especially considering the high emigration rate.

In any case, population figures can't be based on speculations but on reliable source, which this one is not. Kostja (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

For the Bulgarians article, unlike Bulgaria Turkey have not ethnicity census. If you think Milliyet 600 000 is not honest or reliable you can discuss removing it, but do not place anymore this 1 000 000 from this source, as you see below it has been attacked as absurd and politically oriented- article by the chairman of the International center for minority research and cultural interactions.Pensionero (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits on Syria.

I have reverted the edit made by Tommymert because blogs are not a reliable source. Ironically, this unreliable source states the following: "Yakın zamanlarda verilen tahminler ise 500.000, 1.000.000 ve 1.500.000 arasında değişmektedir." so I don't see why Tommymert is placing a blog as a source and then placing in the info box that there are 30-50,000 Turks in Syria when the source itself says 1 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.105.232 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic Turks and citizens of Turkey

In this template, somebody confuses the Ethnic Turkish people with the citizens of the Republic of Turkey. This failure is traceable to Systemic bias and lack of WP:NPOV. This template must be "investigated" and "improved". Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Japan - about 10,000 ? (is the number of the citizen of the Republic of Turkey) "Japonya Türk Toplumu (Turkish Community of Japan)" (in Turkish). Embassy of Turkey in Japan. http://www.turkey.jp/tr/konsoloslukjaptoplum.htm. Retrieved 2008-06-11.

Norway - 16,000 (is the number of the citizen of the Republic of Turkey) Statistics Norway. "Persons with immigrant background by immigration category and country background 1 January 2010". http://www.ssb.no/innvbef_en/tab-2010-04-29-04-en.html. Retrieved 2010-05-04.

Italy - 17,650 (is the number of the citizen of the Republic of Turkey) Statistiche Demografiche ISTAT. "Resident Population by sex and citizenship (Middle-East Europe)". http://demo.istat.it/str2009/index_e.html. Retrieved 2010-10-27.

Canada -

43,700 (is the number of the ethnic Turks) Canada's National Statistical Agency. "Statistics Canada". [10]VNAMEF=. Retrieved 2008-07-09.

50,000 (is the number of the citizen of the Republic of Turkey) Turkish Embassy (Ottawa Canada). "TURKISH - CANADIAN RELATIONS". http://www.turkishembassy.com/II/O/Turkish_Canadian_relations.htm. Retrieved 2010-03-19.

Sweeden - 70,000 (is the number of the citizen of the Republic of Turkey) Murat, Sedat (2000). "Immigrant Turks and their socio-economic structure in European countries". İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. Archived from the original on 2008-06-26. [11]. Retrieved 2008-07-09.

Saudi Arabia - 200,000 (is the number of the citizen of the Republic of Turkey) Karpat, Kemal H. (2004). Studies on Turkish Politics and Society: Selected Articles and Essays. BRILL. ISBN 9004133224, p. 12..

Takabeg (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Footnote F in the info box clearly says the following:

"This figure only includes Turkish citizens. Therefore, this also includes ethnic minorities from Turkey; however, it does not include ethnic Turks who have either been born and/or have become naturalised citizens. Furthermore, these figures do not include ethnic Turkish minorities from Bulgaria, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, Iraq, Kosovo, Macedonia, Romania or any other traditional area of Turkish settlement because they are registered as citizens from the country they have immigrated from rather than their ethnic Turkish identity."

We cannot just make up figures. If you find sources which show just the ethnic Turkish population then by all means place the sources here so we can use them. However, I would like to point out that "ISTAT", "Statistics Norway" etc. are used in most ethnic info boxes. I would appreciate it if you write this in all articles that shows just the amount of citizens. For example, Bulgarians uses the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria and Greeks uses the "Hellenic Republic Ministry of Foreign Affairs" for most of its population estimates which only states citizens and thus would also include other groups.Turco85 (Talk) 17:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The ethnic Turks consist 70-75% of population of the Republic of Turkey. So this template is a gross exaggeration. Takabeg (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg, just provide the sources please. Thank you. Turco85 (Talk) 18:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

According to footnote 1, the population of Turkey was 73 million and 55.484 million were "Turks"; thus, that would mean that ethnic Turks make up 76% of the total population.Turco85 (Talk) 20:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Why dont't you use CIA factbook ? Takabeg (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if I remember correctly it was you who insited on using the Milliyet and Konda sources. According to CIA the total population of Turkey is 78,785,548; it suggests that Turks make up between 55,149,883 (70%) to 59,089,161 (75%). You say that the figure for Turkey "is a gross exaggeration", even though we are using the sources that you insisted upon. Furthermore, you now wish for us to use CIA which places a higher estimate; will you now suddenly say that CIA is not reliable? Turco85 (Talk) 17:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A Country Study

Turkey: A Country Study (Turks in Helen Chapin Metz, ed. Turkey: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1995.) was published in 1995. Too old and out of date especially for demographic datum. Meybe we can use these information for writing history of Turkey. Takabeg (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. A 1995 does not represent Turkey as it is today, plus there are pleanty of more recent sources which can be used.Turco85 (Talk) 20:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Stubbornness of users to accept that there are other estimates regarding Turks in Bulgaria

It's time to finally sort this out. I am not against using the Bulgarian census, but we must accept that there are other estimates as well. We need to find a compromise here, and soon.Turco85 (Talk) 13:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, if one looks at the current history of Turks in Europe, you will see that there is clearly users trying to show a lower representation of the minority. Although the 2011 census clearly states that the Turks made up 8.8% of the population, there has been a minor edit war whereby one users keeps changing this to 8%. I think it's time users start being more mature and actually accept what the sources say rather than trying to make up your own interpretations.Turco85 (Talk) 13:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with most alternate sources is that they are unreliable and/or outdated. For example, the 1.5 million Turks in Bulgaria claim first appeared before 1989 and has been repeatedly mentioned ever since, despite the massive emigration in this period. That doesn't really make sense. Kostja (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced with your argument. I mean let's take a look at the Bulgarians article, there the info box suggests that 280,000-300,000 Bulgarians live in the U.S, yet the last US census showed that only 55,489 people claimed that they are Bulgarian. Now I'm not one that believes that census' give an accuarte picture of the true number of any community... but within this template, you insist that only the Bulgarian census should be used. It feels like double standards to me. Clearly there are sources, which are indeed recent, that say that Turks in Bulgaria form about 1-1.5 million. I don't see why you deny this. Turco85 (Talk) 12:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I was not the one who inserted this figure on that page, so I don't see why you are mentioning it here. None of the sources you have given are recent or reliable. All the sources claiming 1.5 million Turks simply copy the old Turkish propaganda figures from the 80s without even adjusting for the large emigration since then. Kostja (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering that you have contributed to the Bulgarians article 70 times and that you are the 7th most active on that article see here it is a very important point to make. You obviously have double standards. Where is your proof that they are "copied by Turkish propaganda". Your argument is completely flawed... unless you can show evidence (i.e. sources) that state that your claimes are correct, I will be reverting your edit. I'll give you a day to see if you are willing to co-opearte and if you contiune this way, we might as well take this to mediation. Merely arguing that it's from "Turkish propaganda" is not going to help you on wikipedia. All we are interested in is what the sources say.Turco85 (Talk) 12:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't inserted those figures, so your claims of double standards are irrelevant. And yes, anyone claiming 1.5 million Turks in Bulgaria after 1989 is simply copying the Turkish claims of the 80s and likely knows little about Bulgarian Turks.

One of your two sources is a clearly unreliable article, whose use has already been discussed above. The other is from 1996, obviously outdated. Kostja (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't care if you have not inserted those numbers, the fact is that you are turning a blind eye to it. As for the 2 sources I placed here, Novinite published that article in november 2010, hardly outdated... whilst the academic source, Brizic & Yağmur, was published in 2008. Where an earth are you getting 1996 from? Neither of these sources mention 1996. Unless you can back-up your arguments with citations, I'm just not interested. Ae I said before, I'll give you a day because I do not like edit-wars and wish to give you some time.Turco85 (Talk) 12:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The article in Novinite is not reliable, as has been explained at length above. The other source clearly is based on a book by Balim, published 1996. Kostja (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The citation of Balim 1996 is regarding the 300,000 Turks who arrived in Turkey in 1989. As for Novinite being unreliable, well it's being used by about 365 other articles on wikipedia (see here). I suggest you try and come up with a stronger argument because so far your argument is very weak. I'll come back here tomorrow. Have a good day.Turco85 (Talk) 13:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

So I need a reply from you. You can just remove sources by arguing "they are not reliable" and then not providing any sources yourself to prove otherwise. It would be nice if you would try to reach a compromise with me, otherwise I might as well take this dispute further.Turco85 (Talk) 14:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Listing extinct Anatolians as related ethnic group

I don't see the logic behind it. Please help me understand. --Mttll (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Having received no reply, I'm removing them. Please don't re-add them without mentioning your argument here. --Mttll (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The other user avoids discussion and imposes personal view (POV). --E4024 (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion in on Turkish people Cavann (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Nationality vs Ethnicity

Please add here at least one notable Turkish citizen, who is not an ethnic Turk, like Ara Güler. We (I am from Turkey) all have the same nationality. Lefter Küçükandonyadis may ethnically be a Greek but he represented Turkey as any other player, well much better than most, in the Turkish national football team. Please let us not let WP discriminate Turkish citizens. We may always add their ethnicity in articles, but only after first stating that they are "Turkish people." --E4024 (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If Turkish citizens are added, this template won't be used in Turkish people. Turkish people is related with ethnic Turkish people (Turks). I think we'd better change the title Turkish people to Turks and/or Turks in Turkey, and newly open the article Turkish people which covers Turkish citizens. But numerous users opposed this attempt. Takabeg (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Figures in North Africa/Middle East

There is an inflation and fictional numbers in the countries of this region because it is almostly entirely refernced by sources with authors - ethnic Turks. They haven't got neutral point of view and are biased and therefore are not reliable, for instance in the case of Syria they are inflated because they differ in thousands from the figures of the American sources. I added the census figures and independent sources where they miss, but they were deleted without explanation and replaced again. The Turkish claims for North Africa are opposed to the general consensus, which is that the ethnic make up of these countries is 98-99% Arab-Berber and 1-2% other, for instance you can check first in CIA the World Factbook or Demographics of Algeria/Tunisia, etc. So the selected people as Turks here actually do not speak Turkish language as according to the statistics over 95% speak Arabic as mother tongue, they even don't know that they are Turks nor declare themselves as such, but are selected as such in the most respected source on the web(Wikipedia) just because some ethnic Turks claim that they are such. So this is a serious lie and must be corrected with reliable sources in accordance to the methods of Wikipedia, which requires the information to be verified by external sources. Such big lies are claimed for Tunisia where is said that one fourth of the population are Turks. Why then all these people there speak Arabic and not Turkish as mother tongue? It would be very ridicilous to say that one fourth of the population of a country are victims of assimilation and Arabization. Only including the Turkish ancestry, some of the figures are visibly inflated because for instance there is no way one fourth of the Tunisians to declare Turkish descent, this is simply a lie and impossible, small part of the Tunisian people have in mind Turkish identity for their ancestry and most of them must have forgotten what they are according to the lie, if you go in Tunisia you will see that there is no such massive number of people with Turkish self-identification there, but there is no need for this cause CIA already says that the ethnic makeup of Tunisia is Arab 98%, European 1%, Jewish and other 1%, not to mention that 99% speaks Arabic and that the Turks must be less than 1%. At all in any country the Turkish sources are used but the independent sources miss and the infobox definetely needs a revision. And I am asking on what grounds after I introduced the reliable figures they were deleted and replaced with the Turkish figures without explanation, what is your reason for deleting the census numbers? I suggest to find census figures and where they miss to replace with neutral sources, below I am listing what I found for the countries of the region to show the difference between views of the general consensus with and the Turkish claims with Systemic bias and lack of WP:NPOV

Syria - Western estimation: 100,000 (Phillips, David J. (1 January 2001), http://books.google.com/books?id=54gyRnhIugkC&pg=PA301 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)) - 200,000 (AFP (31 January 2013), Turkmen in joint battle 'for Syria democracy')
Percentage of ethnic groups: Arab 90.3%, Kurds, Armenians, and other 9.7% CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html
Turkish estimation: 750,000-1,500,000( {{citation}}: Empty citation (help))

Iraq - Western estimation: 500,000-800,000 ( {{citation}}: Empty citation (help))-2,080,000 ( {{citation}}: Empty citation (help))
Percentage of ethnic groups: Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian, or other 5%(i.e. Turkish less than 5% or less than 1,590,000) CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iq.html
Turkish estimation: 3,000,000( {{citation}}: Empty citation (help))

Jordan - Western estimation: Arab 98%, Circassian 1%, Armenian 1% (i.e. Turkish less than 1% or less than 64,820) CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/jo.html
Turkish estimation: 60,000 ( {{citation}}: Empty citation (help))

Lebanon - Western estimation: Arab 95%, Armenian 4%, other 1% (i.e. Turkish less than 1% or less than 41,315) CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/le.html
Turkish estimation: 80,000

Saudi Arabia - Western estimation: 120,000 ( {{citation}}: Empty citation (help))-160,000 ( {{citation}}: Empty citation (help))
Percentage of ethnic groups: Arab 90%, Afro-Asian 10% (i.e. Turkish less than 1% or less than 269,395) CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html
Turkish estimation: 200,000 ( {{citation}}: Empty citation (help))

Azerbaijan - National census in 2009: 38,000 The State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Population by ethnic groups, retrieved 2012-01-16
Western estimation: 100,000( {{citation}}: Empty citation (help))

Egypt - Western estimation: 100,000 ( {{citation}}: Empty citation (help))
Egyptian 99.6%, other 0.4% (citizens - 2006 census) CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/eg.html
Turkish estimation: 1,500,000( {{citation}}: Empty citation (help))

Libya - Western estimation: 80,000 ( {{citation}}: Empty citation (help))
Percentage of ethnic groups: Berber and Arab 97%, other 3% (includes Greeks, Maltese, Italians, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Turks, Indians, and Tunisians) CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ly.html

Tunisia - Western estimation: Arab 98%, European 1%, Jewish and other 1% (i.e. Turkish less than 1% or lesss than 108,358) CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ts.html
Turkish estimation: 500,000 ( {{citation}}: Empty citation (help))- 2,400,000 (Zaman, Türk işadamları Tunus’ta yatırım imkanı aradı, retrieved 27-03-2013 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)Haftaya Bakış, vol. 7, Bakış Basın Yayın Organizasyon, 1998, p. 35)
Mother Tongue: 9,000,000 speaking Arabic , 11,000 French, Turkish even not listed i.e. it has less than 10,000 speakers Ethnologue http://www.ethnologue.com/country/TN/languages

Algeria - Western estimation: Arab-Berber 99%, European less than 1% (i.e. Turkish less than 1% or less than 380,878) CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ag.html
Turkish estimation: 500,000-3,300,000
Mother Tongue: 26,000,000 speaking Arabic , 10,200 speaking French, Turkish even not listed i.e. it has less than 10,000 speakers Ethnologue http://www.ethnologue.com/country/DZ/languages

Some further European countries:

Kosovo - National census in 2011: 18,738
current figure: 30,000-50,000
Bosnia and Herzegovina - National census in 1991: 267
Turkish estimation and current figure: 50,000 or 18726% higher than the census shows have a look!
Republic of Macedonia - National census in 2002: 77,959
Turkish estimation: 200,000 estimated in the 90s, prior to the census
Romania - National census in 2011: 28,226
Turkish estimation: 80,000, estimated in the 2008, prior to the census

While not all authors of Turkish ethnicity are biased and unreliable, I do agree that there is major number inflation going on in this article. The figures for North Africa are perhaps the most outrageous example, but there is also number inflation for most countries in the template. Athenean (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the above keeps going on about "Western estimation" is an echo of User:Ledenierhomme a sockpuppet who has been vandalizing pages regarding the Turks in North Africa on numerous occasions, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ledenierhomme/Archive. The fact remains that all these countries in the info box have a range of sources to back its placement here. Obviously the Turkish minorities in North Africa would be greater than that of the Balkans considering they did not migrate in their millions as muhacirs after WWI like the rest... Turco85 (Talk) 16:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Mimar Sinan was not an ethnic Turk

Mimar Sinan was not an ethnic Turk therefore he does not belong in this template. Turkish people refers to people who are:

The Turkish people, or the Turks, (Turkish: Türkler), are an ethnic group primarily living in Turkey, and in the former lands of the Ottoman Empire where Turkish minorities have been established.

...As stated in the lead of Turkish people. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I just realized. You should have replaced it with another image, rather than complete blanking tho. I fixed it now. Cavann (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)