Talk:Turks in the United Kingdom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Turkish Cypriots

Turkish Cypriots are by constitutional definition of Republic of Cyprus are native people of Cyprus. Addressing them "people from occupied part of Island of Cyprus" is totally ignorant and a false statement. Many Turkish Cypriot have roots in Limassol and Paphos.

I totally agree! Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Boris Johnson

"..didn’t come without effort." Hilarious. Jed keenan 15:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Population

Do these figures of population estimates include the Kurds of Turkey in them, I know that many people of the Kurdish community speak Turkish. Londium 01:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Young Turks

This paragraph is irrelevant to the article, holding no factual information, and untrue, as Turkey's fertility rate in 2007 was 1.89, not "3 or 4 children per family" as claimed.

"Turkish children do not face any more difficulty growing up in the UK than other nationalities, so therefore the section is not needed.consequently many young people are not encouraged to have interests outside of the home, especially young women, as the family do not want them to ‘stray’ i.e. become too westernised"

- this is untrue, and a sweeping generalisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrose vampire (talk • contribs) 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Old request now redundant given change of article name in line with convention for this type of article. Move to British Turk possible in future if reliable sources can be found supporting this name. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Turkish British → British Turks — It looks as though 'British Turks' is the commonest name for this group, rather than 'Turkish British'. A Google search for "British Turks" gets 9,000 hits [1]; although "Turkish British" gets 12,000 hits, almost all seem to be in unrelated phrases such as "Turkish-British negotiations" [2], so the number referring to the ethnic group is probably low. It therefore looks as though the page should be called "British Turks", but feedback would be helpful. —Cop 663 (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal

I suggest that Turkish community of London be merged into this article. As the London article states, 90 per cent of Turks in the UK live in London so the articles are essentially duplicates. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the Turkish community in London deserves its own article because of this fact. But most sources actually put it at around 75%-80% living in London and not 90%. Nonethless, there is a distinction between Turks in London and Turks living in Birmingham for example.Turco85 (Talk) 14:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood, but is there enough material on Turks in different British cities to make two articles sustainable? At the moment, the London article simply replicates the part of the main article that mention London. I don't see the point in that. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There is information on Turks in the UK but obviously not as much as there is on Turks in London (for obvious reasons)- for this reason I believe that it is important to keep the other article. Nonetheless, I'm willing to help improve this article because it is very limited right now.Turco85 (Talk) 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I support merger proposal. We can explain about this community in the article Turkish community of London. Just like, we explain about Jewish community of Istanbul in Jews in Turkey and Greek community of Istanbul in Greeks in Turkey. Takabeg (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the point in merging the articles? This time the majority of the Turks in the United Kingdom article will be talking about London Turks. Do you actually know anything about the British Turkish community? You seem to be trying to delete many articles and merging pages without even discussing them. Furthermore, the Turkish community is just as significant as the Pakistani community of London and the Indian community of London but I don't see you trying to merge these articles with its sister page of the United Kingdom. Turco85 (Talk) 12:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You have just outlined the point. Since the majority of Turks in the UK are in London, the two articles cover virtually the same topic. The difference with Indians and Pakistanis is that they are more spread across the UK, so articles on their presence in individual cities as well as the UK as a whole make more sense. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

But most academic material is titled Turkish community in London not the UK. London Turks deserves its own article purely for this reason. Surely, it does not make sense to talk about London Turks 90% of the time in an article dedicated to the entire UK.Turco85 (Talk) 15:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, we should have an article on Turks in London but not in the UK as a whole. It is perfectly acceptable for an article on Turks in the UK to note that the majority of that population lives in London, and then to focus primarily on the capital. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, most migrant groups in the UK tend to be concentrated in London, but we don't have a virtually empty article about their presence in the UK and a more complete one about them in London. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying that the Turks in London are so notable that they don't deserve an article? I honestly find this discussion shocking. We are not talking about any old ethnic group in London; we are talking about the Turkish community which has a very dominant presence here. Turco85 (Talk) 22:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mention notability. I'm arguing that we don't have enough material for two decent articles on Turks in the UK and we should instead focus on creating one. Since Turks in London can be covered by a Turks in the UK article, but not vice versa, it makes sense to merge the former into the latter. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Takabeg, what about the Jewish community of Amsterdam, Italians in Omaha, Nebraska, Greeks in Omaha, Nebraska; your argument is totally invalid. Britishturk (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I’m split on this decision. On the one hand merging the articles together will make the Turks in the United Kingdom article much better. However, the majority of work regarding the British-Turks is about London Turks. Furthermore, within a google search I typed Turks in… and the most popular suggests are as follows:

• Turks in Germany
• Turks in Europe
• Turks in London
• Turks in Bulgaria
• Turks in Cyprus
• Turks in Greece
• Turks in Albania
• Turks in France
• Turks in Turkey
• Turks in Australia

Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think the London Turkish community article should stay seperate at best. If we merge content from there into this, I don't think this article will really be about 'British' Turks anymore; the consistent mentioning of London everywhere in this article is inappropriate. Mar4d (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe we can place some of the London Turks info info the UK one. For example, the history section? Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The London article has expanded significantly since I suggested the merger and there is now a much better case for keeping it as an article in its own right. But that still leaves the problem of what to include here, without duplicating material. Moving the history section here would make sense given the lack of sources in this article's history section, but then people reading the London article will miss out on the history of the community. For that reason, I still support a merge. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriot migration section

I'm concerned that the Turkish Cypriot migration section is drifting off topic. For example, take the following paragraph:

As the island of Cyprus' independence was approaching, Turkish Cypriots felt vulnerable as they had cause for concern about the future of the island. This was first evident when Greek Cypriots held a referendum in 1950 in which 95.7% of eligible Greek Cypriot voters cast their ballots in supporting a fight aimed not at independence from the British but enosis, the union of Cyprus with Greece. Nonetheless, by 16 August 1960, the island of Cyprus became an independent state, the Republic of Cyprus, with power sharing between the two communities under the 1960 Zurich agreements. However, in 1963 inter-ethnic fighting broke out in Cyprus which continued until 1967, with Turkish Cypriots bearing the heavier cost in terms of casualties and some 25,000 Turkish Cypriots became internally displaced accounting to about a fifth of their population. The economic gap also widened the two communities, with Greek Cypriots increasingly taking control of the country’s major institutions. Thus, the political unrest in Cyprus after 1964 sharply increased the number of Turkish Cypriot immigrants to the United Kingdom.

Is all of that context really necessary? It isn't all included in the main British Cypriots article, and the detail about the independence referendum and Zurich Agreement belongs at History of Cyprus, not here. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to have this information in the article. We have to remember that not everybody knows the situation of Turkish Cypriots. Turkish Cypriot migration to the UK is based upon this historic perspective i.e. immigrating for political reasons during the ENOSIS ideology and EOKA period, and the economic gap is the main reason why TCs have come to the UK since the establishment of TRNC. We could remove the part about the Zurich agreement etc but I think it's good for readers who have no knowledge of subject to understand the main factos which affected Turkish Cypriot migration. Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need details such as the percentage of Greek Cypriots who voted for enosis though? If readers need more information, a link should be provided to History of Cyprus. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the fact that almost 96% of GCs wanted to united the island with Greece illustrates why the TC community felt politically vulnerable on the island. Don't you think? Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Some context is undoubtedly useful, but the problem is that we currently have more by way of context than actual material on migration. I would note that Turkish Cypriots feared the consequences of independence, mention that independence and the conflict, and then move on to discussing the actual migration. Also, the main article is British Cypriots so we should be using summary style here and placing more detail there, if anything. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We have to remember that there are two main types of TC migration. TCs who have immigrated with Cypriot passports (and who represented an est. 25% of Cypriots) and TCs who have immigrated with TRNC passports (est. 130,000); this is something which the other article lacks in- mainly because it does not mention much about the TRNC migration due to it being based on Cypriot (pass-port, i.e. Republic of Cyprus wise) migration. But I am willing to change sentences which need improving. I would however like to repeat my feelings towards keeping the political/historical perspectives as it gives the reader an understanding of why and when TC decided to come to the UK. Regards. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

65,000????

65,000 Turks in the UK? This has to be a joke right? Even an aricle by the Independant in 1996 estimated 300,000 Turks living in the UK. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/turkish-gangs-muscling-in-on-heroin-trade-1322026.html

Stating that the figure ranges from 65,000 is very misleading; especially since there are at least 200,000 Turkish Cypriots living in the country! Turco85 (Talk) 22:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a sourced figure. I agree that it's low, but I don't see any reason to suggest that the 200,000 figure is any more reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer it if we don't put the academic sources in the info box. It might seem bias on my behalf as I am part of the British Turkish community but other x in the United Kingdom articles seem to only place census figures and current estimates from organisations. We can still place (what I see to be a complete absurd figure) in the demographics section. But lets face it, when a person looks at these sorts of articles the first thing they see is the info box; some readers may not bother to look at the demographics sections which talks about 200,000 Turkish Cypriots in London alone and 100,000 smuggled Turks. And to conclude my moaning, it’s because academics keep repeating these stupid figures over and over again that we still don’t have a real number…as I showed in my last post, The Independent estimated 300,000 Turks in 1996. The community has grown since then not shrunk.Turco85 (Talk) 22:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think that community organisations' estimates are more reliable than academic estimates? Please see WP:RS, which states: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available". It may be the case that other articles don't include academic estimates in their infoboxes, but that's simply because no such estimates exist or they have not been identified by Wikipedia editors. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the organisation reference is more (or less) reliable. But it is probably much more up to date and much more realistic. How can there be 65,0000 Turks in the UK if there are 200,000 TCs and 100,000 smuggled Turks? As I previously said, as it is an academic source I don't mind if it's in the demographics section but I think it's misleading to have this in the info box. Maybe I'm being biased, who knows? Turco85 (Talk) 22:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The 65,000 figure clearly can't be correct if there are 200,000 Turkish Cypriots, but the point is that the latter may be wrong, which could make the former right. I agree that it's unlikely, but I don't see why the article and infobox can't report the range of estimates. Don't forget that the top of the range of estimates is 300,000, which seems more plausible. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I did some digging and found, via this, that the original source of the 65,000 figure is from 1999, and the figure itself is for 1995. I've therefore removed it as dated. The Yilmaz source actually gives a range of recent estimates, excluding the 65,000 figure that it mentions a few pages earlier, so this seems justified. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your help.Turco85 (Talk) 06:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to remove the academic sources from the info box. It is best to stay as neutral as possible. My only problem is the actual presentation of figures in the info box which I find to be a bit full-on at first glance. Maybe we should put the figures in bold or something. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that a few of us editors who regularly work on this type of article have settled on the current format for consistency. See for example Zimbabweans in the United Kingdom or Somalis in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand this consistency but this article clearly uses much more statistics. This community is unique in the fact that the Turkish community in the UK clearly come from more than one country (unlike Somalians or Zimbabweans). Hence, we are using 5 difference sets of statistics: the 2001 census, ons estimate, Turkish Cypriots figure, academic figures, and the organisation figure. On the contrary, other articles only use the census, ons, and organistion figures. I find this info box a bit overwhelming. There is just too much, don’t you think? I'm not sure if I have explained my concerns in an understandable manner. I apologise if I am confusing you. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could suggest which statistics you'd like removed from the infobox? You initially wanted to change the formatting but now seem to be suggesting that there is too much detail there. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I wish to change the academinc numbers to 250,000-300,000 because the most recent studies claim that there are 150,000 Turkish Cypriot nationals, 100,000 Turkish nationals and 50,000 Turkish-Kurdish nationals. Therefore, the ethnic Turks make up 250,000 (not including British-born) and 300,000 Turkish speaking (including the Kurds, but again not the British-born). See for example, Yilmaz (2005) and Laçiner (2008). WPC2011 (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be changed, the estimates are out-dated. A recent report, in 2008, by the Essex County Council says the following: "In 2001 it was estimated that there were around 180,000-200,000 Turkish speakers in Britain, a number which has increased to possibly 400000" [3].Turco85 (Talk) 17:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for that. I shall change the academic numbers then. WPC2011 (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Feedback?

Hi wiki users, I just wanted to see if any of you have any feedback on how to improve this article further. I am back at uni now so I wont have as much time to spare on this article. Nonetheless, I will try my best to continue with this interesting project. Any comments so far on the recent developments of the article? How can we improve it further?. Kind Regards to all. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if you could expand the Ottoman migration further. Maybe find some stats on how many immigrated to the UK? There are numerous documentaries that can be found on YouTube about Ottoman Turks who still live here. Many cannot speak Turkish and are fully integrated but still identify themselves as Turks. Here's one video for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCSxG3szB1A&feature=related Turco85 (Talk) 17:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I have expanded the Ottoman section a little today. Hope you find it useful.WPC2011 (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Growing Turkish community in Somerset?

I just came across an article [4] which says that there is a growing community in this region. There are plans to double the size of the 'Yeovil's mosque'. Does anybody else know more about the community here? Turco85 (Talk) 11:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)