Talk:Iraqi Turkmen

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ethnologue/ "Leclerc 2014b"  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Needs serious attention from a neutral expert 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  as a perfect example of collaborative editing. –Austronesier (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More fraudulent sourcing 

message: :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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: 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:
EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, the cited text from Bulut (2019) is on p. 357 , 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)
thread_title:  "Adoption of the Turkish alphabet" - one of many countless examples of fraudulent sourcing