Talk:Iraqi Turkmen

Ethnologue/ "Leclerc 2014b"

Ethnologue states that there is "Azerbaijani, South" and "Turkmen" spoken in Iraq. It cites "Leclerc 2014b" to support this, which is actually this questionable source (you can also find this link on Ethnologue's bibliography page). Unfortunately, "Leclerc 2014b" does not provide ANY linguistic sources in its bibliography; rather, it uses mostly political/historical citations -- which raises questions as to why Ethnologue would use this as a "linguistic source". More questionable is the inconsistencies and incorrect claims; for example, at first the source says that Azeris form 4% of the population and then further down the article it changes to 5.9%. I have not found a single academic source supporting these claims. The source also claims that Turkmen form 1% of the population (yet official Iraqi statistics have placed the Turkmen as 9% of the population); and then the source says that "The Turkmen are Sunni", later then changing to "Sunni and Shiite Turkmens". Despite all these inconsistencies, the source claims that the Iraqi Turkmen speak Turkmen, and that this [imagined] Azeri community speak South Azerbaijani; it does not claim that Iraqi Turkmen speak South Azeri. For this reason, I have removed Ethnologue from this article. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, I want to mention that Ethnologue has a track record for citing incorrectly. It had previously claimed that there was 50,000 Turkish speakers in Bosnia. This was later corrected and the reply can be found on Talk:Turks in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Selçuk Denizli (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Selçuk Denizli: Ethnologue is not the only source that describes the Oghuz varieties spoken by the Iraqi Turkmen as being closer to Azeri than to Turkish (so does Doerfer and many others cited in the "Language" section). I do not understand why you are coming back to this issue after a rather exhaustive discussion here, which ended in quite a suitable compromise that you (among others) agreed to. In particular, I am curious as to your reasons for adding a whole sub-section on "Politicization" based on a single opinion by Bulut (whose opinion appears to be in the minority regarding the statements she makes about "Turcological literature" to begin with), which already violates WP:REDFLAG and WP:WEIGHT. Not only did you cherry-pick the information (Bulut does not say that publications from Azerbaijan are the only ones to classify Iraqi Turkmen dialects as Azeri), you also removed the word "often" from the quote, making it seem that any publication dealing with the Iraqi Turkmen that comes from Azerbaijan is necessarily politically biased. The section of "Politicization" is heavily POV in its current state; I suggest integrating it into the "Language" section. Parishan (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Find me one source that claims that Azeris make up 5.9% of Iraq's population and then we can talk further about Ethnologue. Otherwise I don't have time for all this Azeri nationalist nonsense. The article already uses the word "often" -- I haven't removed that: "Professor Christiane Bulut has argued that publications from Azerbaijan often use expressions such as...". I wont be wasting my time with you. But funny how this source is suddenly unreliable when many of you used Bulut in the past to claim that she called the language South Azeri (she probably saw the stupidity of Wikipedia and then decided to clarify herself furhter!). Bulut is hardly a "cherry-picking" sources; she has the most publications on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects! Also, Iraqi Turkmen scholar Professor Suphi Saatçi agrees that the terms used are politicized. Not a minority view. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, I don't see why you need to go on about Doerfer; it's already in the article (despite the questionable number of publications from Baku in his bibliography). That was part of the compromise. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Selçuk Denizli: I do not understand why are you taking this confrontational tone with me. Please familiarise yourself with WP:CIVILITY. I also do not know what you mean by "many of you"; there is only one of me, and I am trying to have a discussion here. If you think Wikipedia is "stupid", then I do not know what you are doing here in the first place. However, let us get on with the main issue:

1. I did not say Bulut was unreliable. I said that Bulut represents a minority opinion because no other source denies the link between the language of the Iraqi Turkmen and Azeri (which is what you are claiming here), and there are at least half-a-dozen sources that disagree with that statement. Dedicating a whole section to an exceptional claim based on a single article violates WP:WEIGHT. Bulut's reference can be kept but it should be integrated into the general language section, and it should be specifically noted that this is only her opinion because she clearly does not cite anyone to support the claim. If Doerfer has to go into the Language section, according to you, then why should not Bulut? The phrase "despite the questionable number of publications from Baku", incidentally, is an extremely POV thing to say - what is the scientific authority you rely on when you question an established scholar's choice of sources?
2. A good example of cherry-picking is the reference to Heidi Stein in the Language section, which is misinterpreted completely. On p. 244 of her article on modality in Irano-Turkic varieties, she mentions that from the point of view of the use of the optative mood, the Iraqi Turkmen dialect she studies is generally closer to Turkey Turkish than to Tabriz Azeri. This modest statement about a single grammatical instance is cited here as Stein generally claiming that "Iraqi Turkmen has greater proximity to Turkish of Turkey".
3. Saatçı does not say anywhere in his article that identifying the language variety spoken by the Iraqi Turkmen as Azeri is "politicisation", so you cannot lump these two arguments together. Saatçı is not a linguist and his opinion falls into the general discussion of the status of the Iraqi Turkmen people in Iraq that is addressed in the Post-Ottoman era section. The arguments advanced by Bulut and Saatçı do not even deal with the same issue; in fact, they contradict each other because Bulut insists that the Turkmen of Iraq call themselves and their language Turkmen (same page as the above reference), while Saatçı claims that the term "Turkmen" was artificially introduced in the 1950s. In any event, right now, the section looks very POV, making it look like the Iraqi Turkmen being equal to Ottoman Turks is the by-default opinion, and all dissent, however scientific, must be labelled as "politicisation". This was not part of the compromise; you added this section without addressing it in the discussion. Parishan (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You accused me of removing the word "often" when it is clearly there. Bulut has never denied similarities between the Iraqi Turkmen dialects and Azeri (nor do I). Both fall under Western Oghuz Turkic, so of course they have similarities! But that does not give Azeri nationalists (I'm not suggesting you are one of them) the right to portray Iraqi Turkmens (ethnically or linguistically) as Azerbaijanis. It's far beyond the reality in Iraq. Saatçı's comments about the use of the term "Turkmen/Turkman" is historically valid; prior to the military coup, "Turkish" was recognized as a minority language. This is fact, not an academic opinion. Wikipedia itself has so much potential, but unfortunately this article has suffered from a lot of Azeri nationalism; it has become very frustrating for me to witness this for almost a year now. Why is it so difficult to accept the reality? Iraqi Turkmen dialects vary region to region; they have unique characteristics as well as influence from Ottoman Turkish, Modern Turkish, and neighboring Azeri (from Iran not Azerbaijan). Selçuk Denizli (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I just want to point out the article on the Iraqi Turkmen singer Sinan Erbil to you (before I edit it). Some user decides to portray him as "fluent" in South Azeri and a singer of Azerbaijani music. Where are the sources? If you look at the history of the Turkmeneli TV article you would see that again someone said that the languages used are "Azerbaijani and Turkish", again totally out of touch with the reality (when the official website says Turkish and Arabic). Selçuk Denizli (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The alternative namings

What’s the point of constantly adding the same name in 5 different ways in the intro of the article? Even if they are sourced, then maybe using that logic we must add the alternative names of “Syrian war, syria war, war in syria, civil war in syria, etc” in the article for the Syrian civil war since there are articles that use these names. “Turkish-Iraqi minority” “Turkish-Iraqis” “Iraqi Turks” mean the same exact thing. Ridax2020 (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for finally taking to the talk page. This concept is common on Wikipedia and is not exclusive to this article. See, for example, Swedish-speaking population of Finland; Iranian Azerbaijanis; British Pakistanis; African Americans; Arab citizens of Israel; Moroccans in the Netherlands etc etc. The alternative names add clarity to an article and often include the redirect too.

It is particularly relevant here because the term "Turkmen" was only introduced by the military junta in the 1950s when the words "Turks" and "Turkish" were replaced for political reasons (see Professor Suphi Saatçi's article, the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization report, and the census). Further to this, including these titles allows the reader to fully distinguish Iraqi Turkmen from Turkmen of Turkmenistan immediately. Sseevv (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Are Iraqi Turkmens "native" of Iraq?

I think that the definition of "native" is very difficult to apply to any ethnic group, especially one such as the Iraqi Turkmen, whose ancestors in the vast majority came from Anatolia. It is clear that they belong to Iraq, as they have been living there for hundreds of years, but I don't think they can be defined as indigenous. In any case, there does not seem to be a consensus for this change, not least because the previous definition has very good sources. In general, I would like to remind that one cannot change a sourced sentence while keeping the same sources. Alex2006 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

They do not come from Turkey, they are natives in Iraq, just like Arabs Kurds Christians and the other peoples of Iraq. Proof of this is the language which is extremely different to Standard Turkish and resembles Azeri which is native to northwest Iran. This is in contrast to Syrian Turkmen, who are mostly Anatolian immigrants and their decendants who became Syrians, and their language resembles regular Turkish. The Iraqi Turkmen also have their own culture and dress, with their own villages, towns and cities in northern Iraq. A simple search of Iraqi Turkmen DNA results shows they come from northwest Asia (Mesopotamia). This means they are natives in Iraq. We cannot say everyone in Iraq is indigenous, but Arabs, Kurds, Turkmens and Assyrians are considered the native people there. This is overall a much better definition and would ask that we can please keep it. Shejsisijdwjdj (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that you changed a sourced definition. Alex2006 (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

That definition wasn't sourced, the later sentences are. I just changed the beginning and reworded it, to confirm they are an ethnic group of Iraq. 'Iraqis of Turkic origin' isn't a much better definition. It would be ideal to leave it as I have in my opinion. No sources have been removed. Shejsisijdwjdj (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it is clear that this sentence is sourced.

The Iraqi Turkmens  are Iraqis of Turkic origin who adhere to a Turkish heritage and identity.[1][2]

[1] and [2] cannot reference your version and the previous version. moreover, your change introduces a contradiction: how can an ethnic group native to one country identify itself with another ethnic group living in another country? If there is identification, there is identity. The Italians of Istria consider themselves Italian, and therefore are Italian, while the Italians of the canton Ticino do not consider themselves Italian, and therefore are not Italian, but Ticinese.Alex2006 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe your point is not entirely correct. Look at Arabs for example, there are Iraqi Arabs from Iraq but they still identify with Saudi Arabs from Saudi Arabia, on the basis of shared language and identity. It is the same case here. There are Turks from Turkey, Turkmens from Iraq, etc. and they all originate from their respective countries. Kind regards Shejsisijdwjdj (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

In agreement with @Alessandro57:. I have reverted back to the original sentence. The term "native" implies they are an indigenous people - which they are not. This term should not be used for Arabs or Kurds either. It would be like calling English Americans, Portuguese Brazilians, or French Canadians "natives" just because they have been there for hundreds of years due to migration from the centre of their empires. Sseevv (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Now updated to a more sensible introduction. Shejsisijdwjdj (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your edit for two reasons: 1) they live throughout the country. no need to say "mostly in the north" when this is already written in the following sentences. 2) you imply that Iraqi Turkmen are their own unique ethnic group which is misleading. It is like calling Turkish Bulgarians an ethnic group when they are Turks of Bulgaria. Same applies here. Sseevv (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

They are their own ethnic group... they have their own clothing, dialect, history, identity. I am a Turkmen myself. We are part of Iraq and a unique group, not Turkish diaspora, but we bear similarities to all other Middle Eastern peoples. Your pro-Turkish stance isn't entirely neutral, and I would please ask we keep this current edit. I would also advise you to look up the basic definition of an ethnic group: 'a community or population made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent.' Shejsisijdwjdj (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

As written some days ago, the main problem with this sentence is that it is sourced, and one cannot change a sentence using the previous references. Moreover, until a consensus has been reached, the stable version remains in the article. Regarding your last change, that Iranian Turkmens are an ethnic group is already mentioned (and sourced) in the introduction, we don't need to mention it twice. I don't understand why you want to remove the definition of Iraqis since they are citizens of Iraq.Alex2006 (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted to my version, this time with sources and references. Shejsisijdwjdj (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Very good. I added the adjective "Iraqi" as it is mentioned by Triana and Bassem (the two original sources of this sentence). Alex2006 (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear enough before, so I'll repeat myself: removing part of a sentence with sources on wikipedia without giving a rational justification is considered disruptive editing, and can be sanctioned by an administrator, especially since this article is subject to discretionary sanctions. The next removal will force me to report the author to an admin. Alex2006 (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

As written (and repeated) above the adjective "native" is not acceptable. None of the sources cited mentions it. Alex2006 (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

May I add, calling them an "Iraqi ethnic group" (when their ethnicity is Turkish) is wrong too and should not be reinserted. Sseevv (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Actually Iraq is a multi ethnic state (like Switzerland), so there is nothing as an Iraqi ethnos. The whole discussion here was surreal, and could take place only on wiki:en. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Needs serious attention from a neutral expert

Article constantly contradicts itself, and some of the sources offered are appalling. Because the topic is clouded by (a) very little access and attention paid for proper academic studies; and (b) nationalist garbage; whoever is brave enough to take it upon themselves to try and fix this article would be wise to follow this simple rule: if a substandard source contradicts an academic source, go with the latter and ignore the former, or else you'll never get anywhere in trying to make this article halfway sensible. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Revert re: Language (yet again, apparently)

In addition to the extensive academic sources cited by the editor "John Francis Templeson" on the talk page[1], I'd invite any neutral editor to read in full the entry on "Iraqi Turkic" found in Lars Johanson's Discoveries on the Turkic Linguistic Map, published by the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, 2001. (p. 15-16)

"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. It has belonged to different zones of influence, reigned by Omayyads, Abbasids, Saljuks, Mongols, Elkhans, Jalayirids, Aqqoyunlï, Qaraqoyunlï, Safavids and Ottomans. It has experienced repeated changes of prestige languages, particularly Arabic, Persian, and Ottoman. The modern Turkish influence was strong until Arabic became the new offõcial language in the 1930s. A certain diglossia Turkish vs. Iraqi Turkic is still observable.

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."

You can download the publication here: http://www.turkiclanguages.com/www/Johanson_Discoveries-1.pdf

I use this excerpt as an exemplar as it highlights the difficulty in attempting to strictly define a language/dialect that has received such little attention (as compared with the Arabic and Kurdish varieties found within Iraq).

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI, according to Ethnologue, Iraqi Turkmen is a South Azerbaijani dialect: https://www.ethnologue.com/country/IQ/languages

Please note that there's a request to recognize Iraqi Turkmen as a separate language (code tki): https://iso639-3.sil.org/request/2020-039

I guess the ISO 639-3 committee will make a decision in the next few months and this will solve our problem on Wikipedia :) A455bcd9 (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur:: could you please explain your reasoning here?

(and yes, Ethnologue is one of the best sources we have, so if reliable sources disagree then we have to mention the different options) A455bcd9 (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

So I suggest writing in "Languages":

A Turkic language, classified by scholars as either a dialect of Turkish or of South Azerbaijani. Istanbul Turkish is also widely understood and spoken. A455bcd9 (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: could you read the language section entirely please? Don't make OR based on ethnologue. Also I suspect OP is possibly a sockpuppet, this talkpage had previously similar posts. There is no seperate Turkic language of Iraqi Turkmens, so there is no need. Relation to Anatolian Turkish is explained very well with sources. Beshogur (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

According to the language section: "There are also linguists who have said that Iraqi Turkmen is closer to Azerbaijani,[67] placing the Kirkuk dialect as "more or less"[68] an "Azerbaijani Turkish" dialect."

"Don't make OR based on ethnologue.": how is that original research? Ethnologue (which is "the standard reference" according to some scholars) says that Iraqi Turkmen is a South Azerbaijani dialect: "[azb] Kirkuk and Arbil governorates: Arbil and Kirkuk and area between them (As Sulaymaniyah), Sar Qal’ah area near Diyala border; Ninawa governorate: Mosul area. Users: 2,400,000 in Iraq (2020). Status: 5* (Dispersed). Recognized language (2005, Constitution, Article 4(1)), constitutional term: Turkmen. Unevenly recognized except in Kurdistan Region. Alternate Names: Azeri, Turk, Turkmen. Classification: Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani." (source: https://www.ethnologue.com/country/IQ/languages )

So no matter our own opinion, there are different reliable sources which say different things and we should mention both.

(but again, Iraqi Turkmen will probably be recognized as a separate language soon so this will solve the issue) A455bcd9 (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the conclusion of Christiane Bulut's article:

"On the intra-Turkic level, Iraqi Turkman displays a characteristic mixture of eastern and western features, and a number of individual traces. Many developments have parallels with Anatolian or Iran-Turkic varieties, and some dialects seem to be very closely connected to the Bayat dialects of West Iran. As long as the criteria of classification for an independent southern Oghuz language group are still a matter of research, one could characterize the Turkic dialects of Iraq as a transitional dialect group, displaying linguistic features similar to both western and eastern neighbours. Yet, it should be stressed that despite its historical connections to both of the great written languages and dialect groups of the Oghuz branch, Iraqi Turkman is definitely neither Azeri or Iran-Turkic, nor Ottoman or Anatolian Turkish."

(source: http://www.bisi.ac.uk/sites/bisi.localhost/files/languages_of_iraq.pdf ) A455bcd9 (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Glottolog also classifies Iraqi Turkmen as "Transitional East-West Oghuz" (source: https://glottolog.org/resource/reference/id/34074 ) A455bcd9 (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Now you're on the right track fellas, keep going. Also from Bulut: "[Iraqi-]Turkic vocabulary displays a mixture of distinctively Azeri and Turkish features, reflecting the transitional situation between Anatolian and Azerbaijanian/West Iranian dialects." - taken from Haig, G. & Khan, G. (2018). The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia: An Areal Perspective. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. (p. 367)

And an early Johanson-edited book, from my 1998 copy (Johanson, É. Á. C. (1998). The Turkic Languages. United Kingdom: Routledge.), in a chapter written by one Hendrik Boeschoten, entitled "The Speakers of Turkic Languages", he writes, after speaking about the Azerbaijanian language: "Along the southern edge of the Turkic world we find, in the midst of a large sedentary population, groups of semi-nomads who have retained forms of tribal organisation. There is a Turkish- or rather Azerbaijanian-speaking part of the population of northern Iraq which is sometimes called 'Turkmen'... Oghuz peoples of Iran include the important and large confederation of the Qashqai... Besides the Qashqai, there are the Aynallu, and, in Afghanistan, the Afshar, who also speak an Oghuz language." (p. 5)

One more... Bulut, C; Johanson, L. Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas: Historical and Linguistic Aspects. TURCOLOGICA, 62, Harrassowitz Verlag, Germany, 2006. (p. 13-14)

"CHRISTIANE BULUT analyzes processes of syntactic copying exemplified by various means of relativization in Turkic varieties of "transitional" regions in East Anatolia, Iraq and West Iran. Long and extensive contacts with the Iranian languages Persian and Kurdish, have led these varieties to develop clause-combining means that differ considerably from the genuinely Turkic ones. On the basis of fieldwork data collected in a Turcological project at Mainz, the author tries to reconstruct earlier stages of the relevant code copying processes. Copying of relativization patterns is found in many contacts of Turkic with Iranian. Variations in these patterns indicate the varying relations between the dialects in contact.

The dialects in question belong to the Oghuz branch of Turkic and have developed in the influence sphere of the two major Oghuz languages: Azerbaijanian and Ottoman Turkish. They share numerous features that distinguish them from both types. The populations of East Anatolia, Iraq and West Iran were in close contact for centuries even after the establishment of the borders of the Ottoman and the Safavid empires. Due to the mobility of different Turkic tribes, the dialect borders do not coincide with the political ones. It is nearly impossible to set up classificatory criteria of general validity for this heterogeneous area. One common feature is a relatively strong Iranicization at all linguistic levels.

Iraqi Turkic has been influenced by the prestige languages Persian and Turkish. Different layers of contact-induced phenomena mirror the frequent change of prestige language. Most of the speakers of Iraqi Turkic know Kurdish and Arabic. Many have learnt modern Turkish via the mass media, which has led to a diglossia of Iraqi Turkic vs. Standard Turkish....

...The modern dialects dealt with in Bulut's paper show a high degree of Iranicization that can only emerge in a setting of intensive contact with a sizeable proportion of bilinguals. They are spoken outside of the sphere of influence of the Turkish and Azerbaijanian standard languages. Like in Old Anatolian Turkish, the close similarity to the copied Iranian system of relativization is due to the lack of a Turkic prestige language. The fully developed system of relativization in Old Anatolian Turkish texts implies that the copying took place in a similar setting before the Oghuz tribes arrived in Anatolia, probably in Seljuk Iran, where Persian influence was considerable... The preservation of the patterns throughout the Old Anatolian Turkish period shows the strong influence of Persian as a prestige language among the Turkic tribes in Anatolia before the emergence of the Ottoman Empire. The similarities in Old Anatolian Turkish and in the modern Irano-Turkic dialects may indicate that the dialects have preserved very old contact-induced patterns..."

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Better add a Turkish source...

Bilgehan Atsız GÖKDAĞ, writing in the International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture Education Volume 1/1 2012 p. 113-123, TURKEY.

"Abstract: The speech of the Iraqi Turkmens is classified among the Azarbaijani Turkish dialects. Iraqi Turkmen dialects are divided into two in accordance with transition of the consonants from “ŋ” to “v” and “y”. Legal status of the language of the Turkmens, who live there for 1400 years, is on the level of a local language. The Iraqi Turkmen speech, which is member of the South wing of the Eastern Oğuz group, is outstanding with its preserving many old Turkic elements. Hat is own phonological and morphological of the Iraqi Turkmen Turkish" - translation is lacking, obviously. The article goes on to describe and classify the Iraqi Turkmen dialects according to the conventional view of Eastern and Western (of the Euphrates), and highlights the complex historical waves of Turkic migration/invasion and Persian/Iranian cultural influence. All the while citing as authoritative of course, none other than our dear Christiane Bulut (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=GhOWr80AAAAJ&hl) - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@EnlightenmentNow1792: please avoid WP:TEXTWALL. It's really hard to follow. I'm not going to read everything now. Also, I think you forgot to sign some messages above so I'm not sure you were the author or someone.

My position is to write in the "Languages" section of the infobox:

Iraqi Turkmen dialect, Turkish, Minority: Arabic, Kurdish

In the sources cited in the article, I think no one disputes that there is an Iraqi Turkmen dialect. And no one disputes that it is different from Istanbul Turkish. And no one disputes that many Iraqi Turkmen also speak İstanbul Turkish in addition to their local dialect. The contentious point is about the status (language vs dialect) and classification (Turkish dialect or South Azerbaijani dialect) of Iraqi Turkmen. This question doesn't have to be detailed in the infobox as the academic opinions are discussed and well-sourced in the language section.

What do you think @Beshogur:?

A455bcd9 (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: I would suggest Iraqi Turkmen dialect and linking the languages section. Beshogur (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good do me. Feel free to implement it. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant lads! (sorry A455bcd9, I didn't know there was such a thing as a WP:TEXTWALL) EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I can see some conflation in the above discussion between the linguistic classification of Iraqi Turkmen and the sociolinguistic affiliation of its speakers. These two things should be strictly kept apart. Obviously Iraqi Turkmen is pretty distant from Istanbul Turkish, and may even have features which align it with other Oghuz varieties (including Azerbaijani). But as can be seen from various sources cited in the article (I hope correctly so), Iraqi Turkmen speakers have historically identified with Standard Turkish as literary language, and continue to do so, in spite of efforts in the Ba'athist period to cut these ties. Whatever the motives for a splitting out a distinct ISO-code may be (presumably the perennial issue of having a distinct code whenever the threshold of mutual unintelligibility among varieties is crossed), real-life sociolinguistic dynamics will probably not be affected by it. –Austronesier (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"Iraqi Turkmen speakers have historically identified with Standard Turkish as literary language": is that true? Iraqi Turkmen only recently (between end of 90s and 2005) switched to using (Istanbul) Turkish written in Latin script as a literary standard.

But anyway, what would you recommend doing? A455bcd9 (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

By the way, regarding the sources cited in the article, if EnlightenmentNow1792's comments below are correct, then I'm not sure we can rely on them and there's a big problem with this article... A455bcd9 (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: I am trying to get a copy or an excerpt from one of the older Turkish-language sources (Gülensoy 1981) before I will make a full comment on their comments. You may have noticed that several sources are dismissed out of hand for no good reason and not quoted. You may also have noticed their failure to recognize Türkiye Türkçesi as common designation of "Turkish" in the proper sense (a widely held POV in Turkey considers Turkic languages to be dialects of one (macro-)language, "Türkçe = Turkish", so e.g., Yakut is called Saha Türkçesi, Turkish Türkiye Türkçesi, and—bordering on the absurd—Chuvash "Çuvaş Türkçesi"). Note that even Bulut refers in one of her publication to Azerbaijani as "Azeri Turkish" (she is not very consistent with the nomenclature of the West Oğuz Ausbau-languages Turkish and Azerbaijani, so I wouldn't cite her for anything but linguistic classification). In spite of their ideology-driven terminology, Turkish sources are still useful, one just needs to be aware of the odd use of language vs. dialect. So if a Turkish source calls Turkic varieties in Iraq Türkiye Türkçesi Ağızları, this simply translates as "dialects of Turkish". –Austronesier (talk) 07:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier:"You may have noticed that several sources are dismissed out of hand for no good reason and not quoted." - Would you mind pointing out which several sources are these, Austronesier?

"You may also have noticed their failure to recognize Türkiye Türkçesi as common designation of "Turkish" in the proper sense" - I most certainly did not. And, in the "proper sense"? There is no "Turkic" or even "Turkish" proper - this is what exacerbates all the confusion, because in English, or in any European language, there is the term "Turkic" (cf. Iranic, lesser used outside linguist circles) to differentiate the "Türk dilleri" (literally: "Turkish languages") from the "Türk dili" ("Turkish language"). Whereas in Turkish, there is only "Türkçe" ("of Turkiye", the nation-state), and in linguistics, as you say, "Türkiye Türkçesi" ("Turkey Turkish" or, "Turkish from Turkey" - meaning, modern, partly reconstructed and fully standardized: Istanbul Turkish. What I pointed out as quite hilarious from Source 8, was that the author wanted to classify all Turkic dialects (Ağızları) as just different varieties of "Türkiye Türkçesi", including Iraqi Turkic/Turkmen, Syrian, Cypriot, etc. Terminology becomes an enormous problem in translation. So when translating from Turkish to English or from German to English or Swedish to English, etc, often "Turkish" is mistakenly used instead of "Turkic". And it's not just in the written word, or interlingual communication that this confusion arises. For example, the people whom academics and linguists universally refer to as Iranian Azerbaijanis or Iranian Azeris, because they mostly - until very recently - spoke Azerbaijanian as their mother tongue, are referred to within Iran, universally, as simply "Tork", not only in slang or colloquial Persian but by the "Turks" themselves (this, by the way, recalls the older usage and meaning of the term "Turk" in Central Asia and the Persianate cultural sphere as simply "nomad", even "bandit" and "barbarian" - indeed, the border protection towers along the borders of Iranian Khorasan were called, and still are called, "Turkoman Towers"). Indeed, among some (but not many) of the younger inhabitants of Iranian Azerbaijan, there has grown a pro-Istanbul pan-Turkic nationalism, in reaction to the quasi-totalitarian nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran and culturally dismissive attitude of the Persian prestige culture/language (an attitude that long precedes the IRI, and it must be noted that many high-level clerics are of Azerbaijanian-origin, including none less than the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamene'i himself. I'm told he has something of an accent, I can understand Persian somewhat, but not enough to detect it myself).

I have plenty more sources to add, I even have ones from actual linguists, dating back to the 1960s, who nonchalantly state citing no eividence at all, that Iraqi and Syrian Turkoman/Turcoman must be one and the same as the Turkmen of Turkmenistan, they're just not sure how or when they migrated! As recently as 1993, The Turkic Peoples of the World (ed. M. Bainbridge), one R.I Lawless was able to write:

The Turkmen (Turcoman, Turkoman) of Iraq are therefore not a single homogeneous people [true]. Some, perhaps the majority, originally came from Central Asia,[false, except in the sense that all Turkish people's originally came from Central-East Asia] while others came from Turkey and Iran... Some sources suggest that from 90 to 95 percent are Sunni Muslims[false]...The Turkmen language belongs to the south-western or Oghuz group of Turkic languages; it has close affinities to Azeri and the Turkish of Turkey and is heavily laden with Arabic and Persian loan words... There are dialectical variations between the language spoken among the Iraqi Turkmen and that of the Turkmen communities in Iran and the Soviet Union, but their spoken language has a basic unity and is mutually intelligible [utterly false!].

— R.I Lawless, "Iraqi Turkmen", The Turkic Peoples of the World, Routledge (1993)

This is all a long way of saying that it's a very confused and under-researched field, but you can be sure, by looking at the citations and at the work done my the Turcologia journal and its associated scholars (Bulut and Johanson) are the most authoritative. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Checking citations... gross misrepresentation of sources

I managed to squint my eyes and read through this gargantuan mess of an article, and arrived at the line: "Indeed, Iraqi Turkmens themselves (according to the 1957 census), as well as a range of linguistic sources, tend to view their language as a Turkish dialect (of Turkey)" Certainly no serious linguistic sources do, but yes, indeed, the 1957 census didn't list "Turkmen/Turkoman" as an option (it would've been an anachronism). At any rate, I click on this first source "Underhill, Robert (1986), "Turkish", in Slobin, Dan I.; Zimmer, Karl (eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics, John Benjamins Publishing, p. 8, ISBN 9027228760", check it out on Google Books... [1] it says nothing of the sort. The book has absolutely nothing to do with Iraqi Turkmen/Iraqi Turkic/Irano-Turkic or any other Turkic language, other than modern day Standard Turkish (of the Republic of Turkey). I'm quite confident that any random query of mine into any of the other sources, enlisted in support of a certain POV, will have been similarly misrepresented. Fixing this article is going to take many hours... ugh... EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, second one is the same. The source is: "Coşkun, Hatice (2010), "Embedding indirective (evidential) utterances in Turkish", in Diewald, Gabriele; Smirnova, Elena (eds.), Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, Walter de Gruyter, p. 190, ISBN 978-3110223965" and page 190 can be viewed on Google Books [2] where all the author does there is point out than Modern Standard Turkish is a Turkic language like, etc, etc, but this chapter is only concerned with the grammar of Modern Standard Turkish. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Third source: "Gülensoy, Tuncer (1981), Anadolu ve Rumeli Ağızları Bibliyografyası: Anadolu, Kıbrıs, Suriye, Irak, Bulgaristan, Yunanistan, ve Romanya Türk Ağızları, Kültür Bakanlığı, p. 7" - Google Books[3], obviously fraudulent again. Page 7 doesn't even reach Chapter 1, and the chapter on Irak ağızları ("Iraqi dialects") starts on page 99. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Fourth source: "Kirchner, Mark (2008), "Turkish", in Versteegh, Kees; Eid, Mushira; Elgibali, Alaa; Woidich, Manfred; Zaborski, Andrzej (eds.), Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, 4, Brill Publishers, p. 583, ISBN 978-90-04-14476-7" - Well, whaddaya know, I happen to have a copy of these tomes. Page 583 you say? Nothing. The only mention of the Iraqi Turks/Turkmens in this book and chapter at all is this sentence: "The disintegration of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War brought to an abrupt end Arabic/Turkish language contacts in most of the former provinces of the empire and resulted in a relatively rapid decrease in the use of Turkish words in all registers of Arabic. The remaining small number of Turkish-speaking minorities in Syria, and the so-called Turkmens of Iraq, have played only a limited regional role for the further transmission of Turkish loans into Arabic." (p. 589 in my 2011 edition) EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Fifth source: "Ercilasun, Ahmet Bican (2007), Türk Lehçeleri Grameri, Akçağ, p. 2004, ISBN 978-9753388856" - managed to download from some dodgy website, only to find out that the book has nowhere near 2004 pages (1013 the copy I found had). It's literally a grammar textbook. I wonder if someone can help me figure out who added these sources in? And perhaps what implements of torture we could impose upon them if they're still active on Wikipedia? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Seventh source (sixth one wasn't worth the trouble): "Timurtaş, Faruk K. (1997), Makaleler (Dil ve Edebiyat İncelemeleri), Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu, p. 243, ISBN 9751609151" - as far as I can make out (I can't read Turkish) the author does say something to the effect of, "Iraqi Turkish has been called a distant dialect like Balkan or Gaugaz, but it's not true, even if they show it is in Turkey's Turkish, these are of the West" or something. I'll leave it in because I can't make head nor tails or it. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Eighth source: "Akar, Ali (2006), "Ağız Araştırmalarında Yöntem Sorunları", Turkish Studies - Türkoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2: 46" - this is a fun one. Zero citations on Google Scholar, as it's published on "Electronic Turkish Studies", you can download it here [4]. The pertinent paragraph reads something like "If we accept the geographical limitation such as "Anatolia" and "Rumeli" when examining the dialects of Istanbul Turkish, under what name will we examine the dialects spoken in Cyprus, Iraq and Syria, which have experienced the same historical development as Turkish in Turkey? Therefore, we have to go for a naming that will include the Turkish dialects around Turkey in dialect studies.... Therefore, the naming of the dialects should be more general and inclusive, and the limitation should be based on the regions where Ottoman Turkish was dominant as a written language. Thus, the dialects of Turkey, the Balkans, Syria, Iraq and Cyprus should be combined within the term "Dialects of Turkey Turkish"." - that last phrase is "Türkiye Türkçesi Ağızları”, which I'm sure sounds much less stupid in Turkish than in translation. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Ninth source: "Karpat, Kemal H. (1984), "A Language in Search of a Nation: Turkish in the Nation-State", in Baeumer, Max L.; Scaglione, Aldo D. (eds.), The Emergence of National Languages, Longo Editor, p. 176, ASIN B000OV77HE" - Seemingly randomly selected. p. 176 has absolutely nothing to do with Iraqi Turkmen. They get more of a mention on p. 183, but this whole chapter is about the importance of establishing a standard Turkish to underpin the new state - a nation-state modeled after European nation-states. It has nothing to do with the linguistics of Iraqi Turkmen's mother tongue. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Tenth Source: "Asher, R. E.; Simpson, J. M. Y. (1994), "Turkish", The Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, Volume 9, Pergamon Press, p. 4786, ISBN 0080359434" - Thank god I have a (much more recent, 2005) version of this on hand. And it's an epic own goal. The entry on "Turkish" (at least in the 2005 edition) reads: "Turkish, the official language of the Republic of Turkey, is spoken by a large proportion of the Turkish population. There are also Turkish speakers in the Balkans, particularly in Greece, Bulgaria, and the former Yugoslavia, although there has been extensive population inflow from those countries into Turkey, and there is a substantial minority of Turkish speakers in Cyprus. There are Turkish-influenced Turkic dialects in Iraq in the region of Kirkuk, where the speakers are called Turkmen or Turkomans." Iraq isn't mentioned again in this entry. However, if you peruse on down to the entries on "Syria" and "Iraq", you will read respectively "South Azerbaijani speakers in Syria, referred to as Turkmen, form a community of 100,000..." and "Of the Altaic group, Azerbaijani and Turkman [Turkmen] are noteworthy. Azerbaijani is spoken mainly in the cities of Kirkuk, Arbil, and Rowanduz, as well as in towns and villages in the southeast from Kirkuk as far as Al Miqdadiyah, Khanaqin, and Mandali, and in several places in the Mosul region. The Turkomans are believed to constitute somewhat less than 2% of the population, and live along the border between the Kurdish and Arab regions. A number of Turkomans also live in the city of Irbil." - as poorly researched as those encyclopedia entries are, they certainly say the opposite to what they are cited as saying in the article.

Annnnnnnnd, I'm done. Have I made my point yet? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Additional quotes

Following the enumeration above, here are three additional quotes and a preliminary comment about one of the sources that I haven't got hold of yet:

• 1. Underhill, Robert (1986). "Turkish". In D.I. Slobin; K. Zimmer (eds.). Studies in Turkish Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 7–22.

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; and smaller groups, including Turkish-speaking Armenians, throughout the Middle East, particularly in Syria and Lebanon (p. 8).

• 2. Coşkun, Hatice (2010). "Embedding indirective (evidential) utterances in Turkish". In G. Diewald; E. Smirnova (eds.). Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 187–222.

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 in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Macedonia, Iraq and Romania. Azeri (spoken in Azerbaijan and Iran), Qashghai (Iran) and Gagauz (Moldavia) are close to Turkish (p. 190).

• 3. Gülensoy, Tuncer (1981). Anadolu ve Rumeli ağızları bibliyografyası: Anadolu, Kibris, Suriye, Irak, Bulgaristan, Yunanistan, Yugoslavya, ve Romanya Türk ağızlar. Ankara: Başbakanlık Basımevi.

I have requested a copy or an excerpt of that book. It's a bibliography, and from the snippet view we can see the section "Irak Türk Ağızları" right away starts with a bibliographical entry. So if this book contains any information about the "Turkic dialects of Iraq", we would probably find it in the introduction. I don't know what to expect, but assuming good faith on the side of the editor who compiled the sources, I can't see anything "fraudulent" here (and no-one should do so) before having access to the text.

• 4. Kartallıoğlu, Yavuz; Yıldırım, Hüseyin. "Türkiye Türkçesi". In A.B. Ercilasun (ed.). Türk Lehçeleri Grameri. Ankara: Akçağ. pp. 31–80.

Yes, it's "literally a grammar book" (or rather a collection of grammar sketches of 20 Turkic languages), but like the first two sources, it makes some introductory remarks about where the language that's the topic of the chapter (= Turkish) is spoken:

Türkiye, Irak, Suriye, Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti, Batı Trakya, Bulgaristan, Makedonya ve Kosova'da yaçayan Türklerle, Avrupa'ya, Arap ülkelerine, Amerika ve Avustralya'ya göç eden Türkler Türkiye Türkçesini kullanırlar
"Turks living in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, West Thrace, Bulgaria, [North] Macedonia, and Turkish migrants in Europe, Arab countries, America and Australia use "Turkey Turkish" [i.e. Turkish]" (p. 33).

Obviously, all of these sources only make passing mention of the Turkic varieties spoken in Iraq. Nevertheless, even though only in passing, they consider these varieties as part of the Turkish language. So basically, the disputed statement "a range of linguistic sources tend to view their language as a Turkish dialect" is not incorrect. Yet, there are two major problems:

1. This infomation shouldn't be combined with the preceding statement about "Iraqi Turkmens themselves (according to the 1957 census)". This is about linguistic self-identification, and needs a separate strong source.

2. The statement is selective. Although it does not say that all or most linguistic sources consider Iraqi Turkmen varieties as Turkish dialects (note the careful wording: "a range", "tend to view"), it omits the fact that some sources definitely do the "opposite" by assigning these varieties to Azerbaijani (Boeschoten in the 1998 Routledge volume quoted in the preceding section "There is a Turkish- or rather Azerbaijanian-speaking part of the population of northern Iraq which is sometimes called 'Turkmen'", and the "Iraq"-chapter in The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics). Not mentioning this is a far cry from a "gross misrepresentation of sources", but nevertheless cherry-picking.

As a remedy, I suggest to phrase the matter as follows (roughly):

• Iraqi Turkmen dialects have often been counted as dialects of Turkish,^{[Sources A, B, C...]} while some sources consider them Azerbaijani dialects.^{[Sources 1, 2, 3...]} In modern studies, they are described as a distinct Oğuz variety that shares features with both Turkish and Azerbaijani, and also displays characteristics that set them apart from both Turkish and Azerbaijani.^{[Sources i, ii, iii...]}

–Austronesier (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time to look at all these sources. Your suggestion is reasonable and seems to describe the situation in a clear and neutral way, backed by sources. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Austronesier, you've merely picked up on the confusion and inconsistency amongst non-specialists (and works in translation) over the terms Turkic and Turkish. For example, I have an academic article, very well researched, of very high quality, but that was written by Egyptians in Egyptian Arabic. In translation - and maybe even in the original, I haven't checked - it calls Iraqi Turkmen "Turkman Kurds". It would be extremely disingenuous of me to then insert "Turkman Kurds" as an alternative name in the lead for this Iraqi Turkmen article. It would be still worse for me to claim, on the basis of this obvious blunder, that the Turkmen of Iraq are, according to some sources, Kurds who have been Turkified, or something to that effect. Since this is such an under-researched and poorly understood topic - clouded by ethnonationalist concerns - if a non-specialist, non-academic source blatantly contradicts the scholarly consensus, then you have to discount it. Unless of course you can find sufficient, recent argumentation/documentation to show said fringe/contradictory view is actually widely held enough to warrant mentioning. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Which reminds me Austronesier, I thought I said it explicitly here somewhere but I can't find it.... anyway, you need to be especially careful when using Turkish-language (that is, Istanbul Turkish of course ;-) sources whether in translation or in the original. Turkish language publications often don't make any use of the term "Turkic", and just use "Turkish" (Türkçe) universally. See this disambiguation page for an example of how confusing this can be: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk%C3%A7e_(anlam_ayr%C4%B1m%C4%B1). The terms "Türk dilleri" (Turkic Languages) and "Türk" and "Türki" sometimes (though not always?) mean Turkic, but from what I can tell they are only used in specialist academic sources - and not with any degree of regularity at all. That's why I keep insisting that since there is such confusion and apparent contradictory information, it's best to cross-reference it with the scholarly consensus. https://scholar.google.com/ is useful here, look for the names and publications that have hundreds of citations. For example, J Kornfilt, 2018, Turkish and the Turkic languages, whose very first sentence warns: "A strict terminological distinction should be drawn between Turkic, the name of a language family, and Turkish, the name of a language." - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You can't find it among your own posts, because I was the one who explained it to you. And you don't have to cite the obvious: no academic English-language source conflates Turkic and Turkish; if it does, it's crap. But not so with Turkish-language sources, for well-known reasons (= pan-Turkism). I have explained above how to properly read such texts, including the quote from the chapter by Yavuz. FWIW, the other quotes are from sources in English (Underhill, Coşkun). –Austronesier (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

My bad! (although I take exception to your assumption that it was from you I heard it first!) My point is though, mistakes are made, especially in translation. So, you've nominated two sources there, Coşkun (I would bet he didn't write it in English originally, could be wrong) and Underhill. Well, Coşkun, like most papers from the last 20-odd years cites Johanson, repeatedly, more than any other scholar, from a total of six publications spanning four decades. Including 2000's Evidentials, which plainly states the scholarly consensus regarding the Iraqi Turkmen dialects. And Underhill, the source originally being publish in 1976 btw, and whom only appears to have published exclusively on the Turkish language, and no other Turkic language... What do you think is more likely? That the first is either a mistranslation, perhaps a nationalist insertion that deliberately contradicts the many authorities he cites? That Underhill wasn't really qualified (as many academic sources aren't on this issue) to make that categorization? Or, is it possible that perhaps Coşkun knows and Underhill knew something all the other scholars do not? And they just didn't bother to provide any evidence for it? Whaddaya reckon? What's your play here? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hatice Coşkun (I'm proud to say that my field has a much better gender ratio than many other disciplines, and not just starting with the 21th century) has written this article for a peer-reviewed volume with De Gruyter Mouton, based on a paper she held at an international conference. So there's little merit in speculating that this is a "translation".

Note that it's not all that deep. The whole thing of the statement discussed here is not about what Turkic varieties in Iraq are, but what scholars have written about them—admittedly mostly in passing. Lots of sources say that Turkish is spoken in Turkey and some neighboring countries without mentioning Iraq; a handful of sources say Turkish is spoken in Turkey, country A, country B... and Iraq. And very few sources sources explicitly (like Underhill) say "there are Turkic varieties spoken in Iraq, and they are Turkish dialects". Replace "Turkish" with "Azerbaijani", and you will get a similar picture. Understudied as these lects were until recently, I think that many authors were probably not strongly committed to their statements and simply repeated older claims. But: again, the whole thing is about what label has been used for Turkic varieties in Iraq in reliable sources, and it is simply wrong to say that no source has ever assigned them to Turkish. The article goes on in any case to say that the reality is more complex.

For the sociolinguistic reality we still need to closely review the sources, as A455bcd9 has pointed out before: what was the literary Dachsprache of Turkic speakers in Iraq in the 20th century? Ottoman Turkish? Johanson's notion of "diglossia" only works when assuming a dialect status for Turkic lects in Iraq, even when they are distant enough to consider them distinct form Turkish (cf. Swiss German, Chti French, Sylheti and many other "dialectized" languages in the world). –Austronesier (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I have closely reviewed the sources, years ago. There is a pretty solid consensus, that has remained unchallenged for at least two decades. I have simply been waiting, hoping really, that other editors would some day do the same, so we don't have to waste any more time going round and round with these silly arguments. I mean, the fact that you are actually still asking these questions ("what was the literary Dachsprache of Turkic speakers in Iraq in the 20th century?") and seem to think Swiss German or Ch'ti French are appropriate analogies to to draw to equate Iraqi Turkmen's relationship to Istanbul Turkish, reveals that you are a complete novice in this field. And yet you've written hundreds, thousands? of words arguing on the Talk page. To what end I have no idea. Again, why don't you just read the best sources first. You're doing this all backwards. Is this a Wikipedia thing? Shoot first, ask questions later? - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't have the time to closely review the sources at the moment. I trust @Austronesier: who is an experienced editor and a linguist.

@EnlightenmentNow1792:: it's hard to follow your comments here, please don't WP:TEXTWALL. For instance, why are we discussing the same subject in two different sections of this page? You're right though: some contributors may have pushed a non-neutral point of view in the past and voluntarily misinterpreted sources, but please WP:AGF and WP:NPA in this discussion. Comments such as "these silly arguments" and "you are a complete novice in this field" don't help if we want to have a civil and balanced discussion and make progress on this controversial topic.

Best, A455bcd9 (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

More fraudulent sourcing

This is the text I have just removed:

"Although they were recognized as a constitutive entity of Iraq, alongside the Arabs and Kurds, in the constitution of 1925, the Iraqi Turkmen were later denied this status...

Since the demise of the Ottoman Empire, the Iraqi Turkmen have found themselves increasingly discriminated against from the policies of successive regimes, such as the Kirkuk Massacre of 1923, 1947, 1959 and in 1979 when the Ba'th Party discriminated against the community. Although they were recognized as a constitutive entity of Iraq (alongside the Arabs and Kurds) in the constitution of 1925, the Iraqi Turkmen were later denied this status." (all sourced to p.72 of Stansfield)

I noticed immediately that it is riddled with historical errors and inaccuracies (the 1925 Constitution doesn't mention any ethnicity at all, the only thing it says is that Arabic will be the official language and Islam the official religion), but having just read these pages from this chapter of Stansfield's book, I also recognized instantly that it was impossibly that all these things were said on p. 72. Indeed, the 1925 Constitution isn't mentioned in the book anywhere at all. Neither is that list of "massacres".

Stansfield, in his book gives the "3 actors" (Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen) a section each, and the Wiki editor who inserted this material has synthesized content found in the "The Turkmen narrative of oppression" section (there is an equivalent one for the Kurds). Stansfield doesn't hold back from pointing out the inconsistencies in this "narrative". - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on basic WP policies (WP:AGF) and also our experiences with previously made assertions of "fraudulence", I suggest to reformulate the heading. Misreadings of texts may be the result of tunnel-visioned biased perception, but this does not imply wilful intent. I for myself decided not assume wilful intent when you dismissed sources for no good reason and failed to provide important quotes. Do cleanups where necessary (and I am sure they are necessary here), but do them in a collegial spirit. Take A455bcd9 as a perfect example of collaborative editing. –Austronesier (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Really? Why don't you just check the sources and see for yourself? If you can't obtain any of them, I'll furnish them for you. For example, you can view the full text of Stansfield and Anderson's work here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288788773_Crisis_in_Kirkuk_The_ethnopolitics_of_conflict_and_compromise You will see quite clearly, that the editor who inserted that text was engaging in fraud/deception/whatever you wanna call it. If it was once or twice, of course I wouldn't use such a term, and would WP:AGF. But clearly the same editor has done the same thing 10+ times by my count so far, and I'm only 1/3rd of the way through the article! - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Your POV pushing, EnlightenmentNow1792, is shocking. I'm going to be looking into this in the next few days.Sseevv (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have any objections to the content I've added/deleted/changed or the sources I've used, please be specific. Please don't do a drive-by revert of the many hours of painstaking work I've put in to improving this article, without stating specifically what your objections are. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

recent deletion of sourced material, without any stated justification or appeal to WP Policy/Guidelines

Beshogur and Sseevv, can you please state specifically, what your objections are to the vast amount of content I've created over many hours and weeks? Otherwise, it just appears deliberately disruptive and misleading (especially when your edit summaries don't even refer to the vast majority of the content you're deleting). EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur:, your recent revert is tantamount to vandalism, as it restores material that directly contradicts the reliable sources cited. You've also deleted a high-quality academic source. All without rationalization or engagement on this discussion page. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

EnlightenmentNow1792, you made significant changes without interacting with other users - and there is a lot of POV language in your edits. Talking about your changes by yourself on this page or on an edit summary is not enough. Please discuss point-by-point changes that you believe should be made here and work with other users before removing large chunks of the article. Cheers, Sseevv (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You do not "own" this article. You are not the "editor" of this article. You had two weeks to voice your objections to my edits - which I put in more than 10 hours of research and work into. Instead, you come back and revert them wholesale, while deleting a wide range of high scholarly academic sources, and replacing them with the random, low-quality sources that led to this article being of such low quality in the first place. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This mass revert [5] by Sseevv, removed the following high quality academic sources:

1) Bulut, C; Johanson, L. Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas: Historical and Linguistic Aspects. TURCOLOGICA, 62, Harrassowitz Verlag, Germany, 2006.

2) Bulut, Christiane. "3.5. Iraq-Turkic". The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia: An Areal Perspective, edited by Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2018, pp. 354-384. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-011

3) Jackson, P. (2002). "Review: The History of the Seljuq Turkmens: The History of the Seljuq Turkmens". Journal of Islamic Studies. Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. 13 (1): 75–76. doi:10.1093/jis/13.1.75.

4) Nevin Coşar, & Sevtap Demirci. (2006). The Mosul Question and the Turkish Republic: Before and after the Frontier Treaty, 1926. Middle Eastern Studies, 42(1), 123–132.

5) As well as the statement of clarification: "According to Christiane Bulut, Iraqi Turkman is neither Azeri nor Anatolian Turkish but "a transitional dialect group, displaying linguistic features similar to both".(Bulut, 2007. p.179)

- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no "time limit" on when an editor can call out disruptive editing and vandalism. It is you who has removed the work of other editors. Nobody owns the page - including you. Sseevv (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Is this article being improved by the mass reversions of edits

Should editors AGF and engage with the changes as they occur, instead of reflexively deleting them - and the sources - outright? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• An example of how sources are being deliberately misused, and contradict peer-reviewed academic sourceds. On the section "religion", the text reads: "The Iraqi Turkmens are predominantly Muslims. The Sunni Turkmen form the majority (about 60–70%), but there is also a significant number of Turkmen practicing the Shia branch of Islam (about 30% to 40%). Nonetheless, the Turkmen are mainly secular, having internalized the secularist interpretation of state–religion affairs practiced in the Republic of Turkey since its foundation in 1923. Moreover, the fact that the Turkmen mainly live in urban areas, where they deal with trade and commerce, and their tendency to acquire higher education, the power of religious and tribal factors inherent in Iraq's political culture does not significantly affect the Turkmens."

This is all sourced to here [6] and here [7] which actually, typically say the exact opposite of what the text reads. For example:

"About 60 percent of Turkmen are Shia Muslims, while most of the remainder is Sunni, although roughly 1 percent are Catholic." (Al Jazeera)

"As for the current population of the Turkomans in Iraq, there seems to exist a consensus among Western sources. According to them, the population of the Turkoman people living in Iraq does not exceed 2% of the overall Iraqi population. Most of these sources rely on the statistics provided by the Iraqi government." (Bilken University paper)

"Another Turkoman estimate, by Mustafa Ziya, the former representative of the Turkmen National Front in Turkey, claims the current Turkoman population in Iraq to be around 2,600,000 making up 10–12% of Iraqi population. The population in and around Talafer, the biggest city within the Mosul province, is around 1,000,000. Arbil has a Turkoman population of 300,000. The centre of Kirkuk has 350,000 Turkomans, while the environs of Kirkuk have 650,000 Turkomans. Lastly, Baghdad has 300,000 Turkomans." (Bilken University paper)

"Even though approximately 30–40% of the Turkomans belong to the Shi’a sect, they do not share the political vision of the Shi’as in Iran or those in the southern parts of Iraq." (Bilken University paper)

"Since 2014, thousands of Turkmen have signed up to fight against ISIL, including with the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), a group of predominantly Shia militia [backed by Iran] that have provided vital momentum to Iraq’s war effort but have been also repeatedly accused of committing human rights abuses." (Al Jazeera)

"There is no alliance unifying Turkmen - they've all made alliances with other political parties, and so there is no representation of the Turkmen as Turkmen. - SAAD SALLOUM, BAGHDAD-BASED ADVOCATE FOR MINORITY RIGHTS." (Al Jazeera)

"It seems that the overwhelming majority of the Turkomans have internalized the secularist interpretation of state–religion affairs, as has been mainly practised in Turkey since the foundation of the modern Turkish Republic." (Bilken University paper)

"When ISIL swept through Tal Afar, it fuelled sectarian tension in the city pitting Sunni Turkmen against Shia Turkmen, who were expelled en masse. It is unclear whether those taking part in the violence will reintegrate post-war alongside the group’s victims, if and when they return." (AL Jazeera)

This nationalist and sectarian selectivity makes the reliance on peer-reviewed, academic sources all the more essential.

- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle please discuss here as your previous changes were reverted.

It's hard to follow you. For instance, how do you want to rewrite the above paragraph? A455bcd9 (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Please look again at the citations on each sentence in the paragraph.

• Al-Jazeera is only cited for the statement about the Christian minority, but not for the above quoted passage from the article. The placement of the citation doesn't suggest otherwise.
• The above-quoted passage is based on two sources: most of it echoes Oğuzlu (2004), an article from a peer-reviewed journal published by Taylor & Francis; only the first bit (which gives a percentage of 40% Shiites and 60% for Sunnis) is based on chapter by Jawhar from a book published in 2010. Oğuzlu (2004) doesn't appear to be mispresented (as should be clear from the quotes listed above), in fact, the passage follows the paragraph on pp. 313-314 quite closely.

If you consider Oğuzlu to be a "partisan" source because of his affiliations to Turkish Universities (then Bilkent University, now Antalya Bilim University), please provide other and more recent peer-reviewed sources to update the picture. We should not make major revisions to the text only based on Al-Jazeera. –Austronesier (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:A455bcd9, extremely difficult to follow this discussion. Sseevv (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not want the low-quality and inaccurate Oğuzlu source (contradicted by high-quality academic sources) or the Al Jazeera source used. I prefer to use only high-quality peer-reviewed academic sources that reflect the current state of scholarship - and include fringe views only if they are mentioned as fringe views. For a start, I would like the 5 academic sources Sseevv removed in his initial mass revert [8] to be restored:

1) Bulut, C; Johanson, L. Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas: Historical and Linguistic Aspects. TURCOLOGICA, 62, Harrassowitz Verlag, Germany, 2006.

2) Bulut, Christiane. "3.5. Iraq-Turkic". The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia: An Areal Perspective, edited by Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2018, pp. 354-384. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-011

3) Jackson, P. (2002). "Review: The History of the Seljuq Turkmens: The History of the Seljuq Turkmens". Journal of Islamic Studies. Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. 13 (1): 75–76. doi:10.1093/jis/13.1.75.

4) Nevin Coşar, & Sevtap Demirci. (2006). The Mosul Question and the Turkish Republic: Before and after the Frontier Treaty, 1926. Middle Eastern Studies, 42(1), 123–132.

5) As well as the statement of clarification: "According to Christiane Bulut, Iraqi Turkman is neither Azeri nor Anatolian Turkish but "a transitional dialect group, displaying linguistic features similar to both". (Bulut, 2007. p.179)

- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove the original article. If you want changes made, then you go by wiki policies and discuss your issues here and reach a compromise if one is needed. I'm going to assume good faith for now, but if you continue edit warring I will request for page protection, report your behavior, and follow up on the concerns of other users who have suggested you are a sock puppet.

As for the peer-reviewed article written by Oğuzlu, you haven't provided any legitimate reason for its removal. It's an academic article in a notable journal published by Routledge. What is the problem with it?

Also, you say you want 5 sources restored. Well, source 1 and 2 are in the article. As for source 3, it doesn't make a single mention of Iraqi Turkmen so irrelevant really. In fact, why don't you quote us the exact sentence from page 75-76 of this book review; I'm reading it right now and don't see anything about the term "Turkmen" in the 10th century. It appears you are misrepresenting sources, and that you think book reviews are better sources than academic, peer-reviewed, journal articles.

So please don't be surprised that your excessive edits, deletion of previous sentences, and removal of academic references will be considered vandalism and thus be challenged. Sseevv (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

To address your final point, the sentences already make it clear in Iraqi_Turkmen#Language that the dialects have their own unique characteristics, and that they are influenced by several Turkic languages. Why do we need to keep repeating it? Furthermore, Christine Bulut's arguments on the Iraqi_Turkmen#Politicization of the terms has already been dealt with in length too. Sseevv (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I added back the sentence that was deleted without reasons despite a consensus ("According to Christiane Bulut, Iraqi Turkman is neither Azeri nor Anatolian Turkish but "a transitional dialect group, displaying linguistic features similar to both"), probably by mistake given the high number of edits/reverts.

Furthermore, Austronesier, after carefully reviewing all the sources, suggested on November 12 (see the discussion above) to replace the whole paragraph (from "Indeed, Iraqi Turkmens themselves" to "features similar to both") on classification (which is hard to read) with the following sentence:

Iraqi Turkmen dialects have often been counted as dialects of Turkish,[Sources A, B, C...] while some sources consider them Azerbaijani dialects.[Sources 1, 2, 3...] In modern studies, they are described as a distinct Oğuz variety that shares features with both Turkish and Azerbaijani, and also displays characteristics that set them apart from both Turkish and Azerbaijani.[Sources i, ii, iii...]

I agree with this change. Should I implement it? A455bcd9 (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@EnlightenmentNow1792:: I think some of your proposed changes make sense but I can't follow you when you edit everything at once.

As there's no consensus on your changes, per WP:BRD we have to discuss :) So please start a new section here about ONE paragraph from one section that you would like to change. Please write:

• The current version
• Your proposed version
• Your reasoning
• The sources.

You can write the sources in a collapsable table to make it easier to read your message:

{| role="presentation" class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" :::::::::| <strong>Sources</strong> :::::::::|- :::::::::|

I hope that this way, we can move forward and discuss changes paragraph by paragraph, section by section. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, the Iraqi Turkmen did in fact declare "Turkish" as their mother tongue in the last census in 1957/58, so I disagree with removing a sentence which shows what they self-identified with. The article already makes it clear that the Turkmen dialects have their own unique characteristics (as do all Turkic dialects!), some say its closer to Anatolian Turkish others say closer to Azerbaijani Turkish. It's already covered in the article, so what exactly is the problem here?

Sorry I made a mistake when I explained Austronesier's proposition. Please see his comment from "20:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)" above. He suggested to separate the paragraph in two: one about ethnic self-identification, because as the source you linked says: "In that census people were asked for their mother tongue. That is not identical to their ethnic affiliation, of course, but the question was apparently perceived as one of ethnicity rather than of language per se, as the quaint categories ‘Hebrew’ and ‘Chaldaean and Syrian’ indicate". And another paragraph about the linguistic classification (dialect of Turkish vs dialect of Azeri vs language of its own). It makes sense to me and I agree with the proposed version. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Every edit I made, I gave a specific and explicit justification in the edit summary. I spent many, many hours going through the first 20%-30% of the article to try and bring it up to encyclopedic standards - and I introduced numerous academic sources heretofore not included (I have many more on hand). For all that work to be "undone" wholesale, making it incumbent on me to start again or else repeat every single edit, in order to justify it for the sake of one single editor (Sseevv) indicates to me that my time would be best served elsewhere.

There is a clear scholarly consensus on the language/s and ethnic origins of the Iraqi Turkmen people, and there is a clear attempt by the Republic of Turkey-backed political parties such as the Iraqi Turkmen Front to - despite being a obvious minority as far as the votes and interests of the Turkmen people themselves are concerned - try and portray the Iraqi Turkmen as essentially Anatolian Turks, loyal to Istanbul, and separated from the Republic of Turkey by mere historical accident. This has been demonstrated to be false time and time again, from every conceivable scholarly source, but since Wikipedia users seem to have a hard time distinguishing between high-quality academic sources and partisan/nationalist/fringe ones, articles like this remain in a permanent state of disarray.

I shouldn't have to justify "why" I've included a statement cited to a high-quality source, it should be incumbent upon the "editor" removing it.

Without such a simple principle in place, there's really no point in editing at all, as any random "editor" can repeatedly delete sourced material without consequence, and it just becomes a nonsensical, mob-rule WP:BATTLEGROUND. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

This is how Wikipedia works per WP:BRD: when there's a disagreement, we discuss.

I'll try to go through some of your edits. In the meantime, it would be amazing if you could start a new section here about ONE paragraph, with just: 1/ the original paragraph 2/ your proposed version 3/ your justification (in a few sentences) 4/ the sources in a collapsable graph.

I'm sure we can quickly make progress that way. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD does not justify mass removal of sourced material.

"it would be amazing if you could start a new section here about ONE paragraph, with just: 1/ the original paragraph 2/ your proposed version 3/ your justification (in a few sentences) 4/ the sources in a collapsable graph."

If you look back at my edits, I've already done that. You're asking me to repeat everything again, for the sole benefit of one editor who reverted many hours of painstaking work - without any justification or appeal to Wiki policy.

Why would I waste more time, when at any moment the aforementioned editor can simply revert all my work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_bias#The_CHOPSY_test) and replace it with low-quality sources, rubbish sentences, and self-contradictory claims? (as I've cited above re: Sunni/Shia %) - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm against the edit made in the info box and have reverted back to the original. Why is it that when it comes to Turkmen you just write the dialects (and completely omit the use of modern Turkish in schools/media), but then only say "Arabic" and "Kurdish" and remove those dialects? To avoid edit wars, we reach consensus on the talk page then edit the article. Cheers, Sseevv (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"and completely omit the use of modern Turkish in schools/media" - First of all, what is "modern Turkish"? Second, this is only true of the Turkey-backed and funded ITF "schools/media". The vast majority of Turkmen in Iraq and the KRG go to mainstream schools where the primary language of instruction is Arabic and Kurdish respectively. Just like the vast majority of Turkmen in Arab Iraq and the KRG vote for political parties other than the ITF (who gained a grand total of less than 20,000 votes Iraq-wide in 2021, and 1,545 (out of 11,472) of the Turkmen-interest-party votes in the 2018 KRG elections). In other words, 1 seat in Baghdad, 1 seat in Erbil. They are a clear minority. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I've left the other edit with Christine Bulut quote. It is pretty much repetition, but anyway. Sseevv (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Sseevv I reverted your edit. A consensus (among 4 contributors, not just 2, without any opposition) on the infobox was already reached above (unfortunately due to the many comments it's hard to find it...). If you disagree, please explain your reason here and let's find a consensus. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, Mesopotamian Arabic, Sorani, and Kirmanji are not mentioned in the article (and the infobox is often a summary) and are not sourced. A455bcd9 (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi A455bcd9, I hope all is well. I've included standard Turkish to the infobox as it is used in education, literature and media. Backed up by Lars Johanson (2021). Sseevv (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"Adoption of the Turkish alphabet" - one of many countless examples of fraudulent sourcing

The text reads:

"In 1997 the Iraqi Turkmen Congress adopted a Declaration of Principles, Article Three states that "the official written language of the Turkmen is Istanbul Turkish, and its alphabet is the new Latin alphabet."[49] By 2005 the Turkish language replaced traditional Turkmeni, which had used the Arabic script, in Iraqi schools.[52]"

One can check the Shanks source online here and see that it says no such thing: https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Education_and_Ethno_Politics/zI74CgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

And Bulut's chapter "Iraqi Turkic" I cannot find online, but I have a copy myself and can quote page 357 in full, again it says no such thing:

3.5. Iraq-Turkic

Christiane Bulut

1. The Turkman of Iraq

The Turcophone populations of Iraq call themselves Turkman, and their language Turkmanja. Iraq-Turkic is spoken by groups sandwiched between the Kurdish regions to the north and east and Arabic-speaking areas to the south. The speech communities are situated in a number of separate areas, villages and towns within a belt stretching from Tal‘afer in the northwest to Ba'adra in the southeast (see Fig. 1) Most larger cities, such as Kirkuk and Arbil, have a mixed, mainly Turkic-Kurdish population. An important group of Turkman is also found in Baghdad. The migration in recent years, which was caused by the Arabicization policy of the Baath-Party and subsequent wars and civil wars, has considerably changed the ethnic map of Iraq. Moreover, many villages and traditional environments of the Turkman, such as the old quarters within the citadel of Kirkuk, have been destroyed in recent years. Established in the aftermath of WWI, Iraq is one of the new nation states of the Middle East whose borders cut through the traditional areas of settlement of various ethnic groups, its multi-ethnic and multi-lingual character partly also reflecting its Ottoman or Iranian heritage. The Turkman of Iraq form the third largest community in Iraq, after Arabs and Kurds; yet, they have been denied the official status of a minority. Due to the repressive policy against the minorities that commenced with the foundation of the new nation state Iraq and was enforced under the regime of the Baath Party after 1968, it is difficult to give precise population figures. In the late 1970s Buluç (1980) estimated that about 750,000 Turkman were living in Iraq. Based on various statistics from pre-colonial data and the last official census conducted in Iraq in 1957, Fischer (1993) arrived at an estimated number of 600,000 for the year 1989, which then amounted to 3.3 % of the total population of Iraq (18.27 million in 1989). This would imply that of today’s total..."

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I just check this and you are wrong. If you really have a copy of the book you have either missed it, or you are deliberately trying to fool us. Here is a link to the book. I'll be keeping a close eye here. Sseevv (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the cited text from Bulut (2019) is on p. 357 "In 1997, the Iraqi Turkman Congress adopted a Declaration of Principles, Article Three of which states that: ‘The official written language of the Turkman is Istanbul Turkish, and its alphabet is the new Latin alphabet.’", whereas the long quote above is from p. 354. Why would you even look at page 354 to check a citation from page 357? Again, the bombastic claim of "fraudulence" is flatulent. –Austronesier (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)