Jump to content

Talk:Iraqi Turkmen/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Requested Merger

It has been proposed that the articles of Iraqi Turkoman and Turkomans of Iraq be merged into this article.

Merge! abdulnr 19:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge under Turks of Iraq --Cretanforever 19:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, not everyone considers them to be ethnic Turks (of Turkey). Ethnologue even classifies their language as a form of South Azerbaijani. —Khoikhoi 00:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, Azeris are Turks too, get your facts straight!--Bunifa88 (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Iraqi Turkoman. Two articles about the same thing. --334 18:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Iraqi Turkoman or (probably better) Iraqi Turkmen. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 16:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the word Turkmen is that it usually refers to the people of Turkmenistan, a (relatively) unrelated group. --334 20:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes but Turcoman (and its variant spellings) has also been used to refer to the Turkmen of Turkmenistan. In any case, we're talking about Oğuz Turks, i.e. people that have been called Turks, Turkmens, Turkomans, etc, at various times and places. It wouldn't be Wikipedia's job to concoct a new distinction between "Turkoman" meaning the Oğuz Turks of Iraq, and "Turkmen" meaning the Oğuz Turks of Turkmenistan. If there's any real evidence of that distinction starting to be consistently made by native English speakers, then I'll withdraw my preference for the spelling Turkmen. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 00:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

It is not a very moderate and strong language.

I'm confused by this phrasing. Also, it doesn't sound like NPOV. -- Hex 02:31, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This quote just means that the language spoken by the Turkomans is not a strong language which means that there are not a lot of words belonging to them.


Sunni Muslims?

It is my imppression that most Iraqi Turkmens are Shi'a Muslims. I have lived in Iraq and I never met a Sunni Turkmen.

I agree with you as well, but I think they are fearly split between sunni and shia. Chaldean 17:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I´m a Sunni Turkmen and I´m born in Erbil. I also think that more than half of the Iraqi Turkmens are Shi´a. But between the Turkmens there isn´t a splitting in Sunna and Shi´a. --Iraqi 2 Death 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I can back up the claim, I'm also a Sunni Turkmen born in Kerkuk, and i can vouch there is a significant enough population of us in Kekuk alone to verify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.109.42 (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Turkomans of Iraq and Torkomans of Kara Koyunlu and Ak Koyunlu

  • There is a stunning similarity of accent between the dialects of Turkomans of Iraq, especially Shias, and those of Iranian Il-Baghdadi of Shahsavans of Tehran and Markazi provinces, as compared to other Turkic and Turkish accents; Iraqi Turkoman accent despite Arabization is even closer to Shahsavans than to Azari accent.
  • The use of word Tukoman both for those in Iraq and those who ruled as Qara Qoyunlu and AQ Qoyunlu Dynasties could also be an indicative origins of Iraqi Torkomans being from those Torkomans.
  • The norther part of Iraq and Baghdad most of the times were under the two Qoyunlu dynasties. Qara Qoyunlu being the Shia followers and AQ Qoyunlu being the Sunnis. In fact, they were rivals to each other and fighting each other.
  • A big part of Il-Baghdadi of Shahsavans and Qashqai Turks are indeed called Qara Qoyunlu, Naser Khan being one of them.

The points above makes me think that Iraqi Turkomans are indeed closely related to Shahsavans of Iran and descendents of Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyunlu Turkomans. Persian Magi 12:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey you are right. I´m from Erbil and I´m Turkmen and my Grandfather also told me that we are descendants of the Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyunlu . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.181.10.7 (talk) 12:07, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

The Figure

The number you gave, namely CIA, is already between the min and max figures. No need to append it. You can find the relevant numbers following the references. Chapultepec 00:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

in my oponion the us do not have a good policy in iraq against turkman people.protecting kurd people and not giving enough power to turkman people of iraq will cause a big civil war in iraq.turkman people must have their own autonomous government. giving power to kurd people and lallowing them to seprate iraq and teach kurdish language will destroy turkman .kurd never allow anyother ethnic groups in iraq to speak their own language.so conflict will happen between kurd and turkman.no one must forget that for thousand of years turkman people have been leader and governers of iraq ofcours before interferences of the uk and the us.

Title dispute

"The neutrality of this article's title and/or subject matter is disputed."

Is this still the case? The tag was added by 71.222.75.149 in May 2007 without discussion[1]

AndrewRT(Talk) 22:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Title

I also belive we should move this tite to another name like simply as "Turkomans". The current title may confuse thinking that this means Turkmens of central asia as Iraqi citizens. Balu2000 19:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Turkmen, Turcoman e.t.c is Türkmen in Turkish. It is the name given to the Muslim Oghuz (in Turkish Oğuz) Turks. You can just check Divan-ı Lugat-it Turk of Mahmud Kashgari. There are a couple of theories where the word came from ut this is not the topic. During the medieval age Turkmens became widespread. Some of them stayed at Central Asia and in the end they formed a state called Turkmenistan. Some of them migrated to Anatolia, Caucasia, e.t.c and they formed Turkey and Azerbaijan. And some of them became minorities in various countries like Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Afganistan, Iran, Iraq, e.t.c. Within time, Turkmen origined people of Balkans and even Turkey are called just Turk. In other parts they were explicitly called as Turkmen. Historically they are the same people. Täñritäg 14:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Wild exaggeration

The figure for turkic people in Iraq being over 300,000 is seriously stupid, let alone over two millions :). the whole of non-Arab non-Kurd population of Iraq including Armenians, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Persians, and others is 5% of Iraqi population (about 1,4 mil). Please note that addherents, ethnologue or similar websites are not accurate sources for demographics. Sharishirin (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should prove that adherents.com is a biased or inaccurate source by means of giving scientific/academic references before we remove referenced information from the article. Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it uses this funny link: http://www.unpo.org/tartu/express/ (of an absolutely non-academic website written largely by ultra-nationalist individuals) as source for its wild claim; please note that 2 million is 10 times bigger than 200,000! It's like to estimate population of Kurds in Anatolia something between 15 million to 150 millions!!It is in no way a good and encyclopedic estimate, just a nasty exaggeration and must be removed or else accuracy tag be added to the article. Sharishirin (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The link you have given does not work. Would you please provide a working link? Besides, the other figure, namely 222.000, is from a book written in 1986. So it is not an up-to-date reference. I will provide a link to that book for the moment. --Chapultepec (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually another funny point with this issue is that the link does not work! so they give us a non-available link for their claim. I'm fine with any estimate which put the number of Iraqi Turkman around a few hundred thousands. that is both realistic and can be cited with many sources. Sharishirin (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry the research was written in 1989, but the figure of 222,000 was taken in 1986. Here is the link. --Chapultepec (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that, but in fact they provided the author's name and the source beside that. And at the bottom of the web page it reads that the research is supported by East Haven University. So, nothing gives the impression that it was written by ultra-nationalist individuals. Additionally, we are not the ones here to make decision over the estimates, we should abide by the sources. --Chapultepec (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
East Haven university is another vague puzzle: http://www.easthavenuniversity.org/ . Both adherents.com and ethnologue are weak websites with regard to demographics and are written by priests or church-related organizations. I honestly recommend to stick with reliable sources like the book you provided above, and remove false data. Sharishirin (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
<<Additionally, we are not the ones here to make decision over the estimates, we should abide by the sources.>> Actually according to wikipedia policy exeptional claims require exeptional citiation, not just random pages on net. Sharishirin (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen it. But is there a rule that sources written by church-related organizations do not count? Here is an adherents.com link featuring adherents.com in TV News and Print Newspapers. So, for us to be able to understand whether adherents.com is just a random website, we should provide serious scientific/academic sources giving related information on that. Or else, we will be discussing here for ages in vain, and this is of course pointless. And the book I provided above is in fact an outdated source to be cited for population figures. --Chapultepec (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


As far as related to this article, judging by their source for demographics of Iraqi Turkman it cannot be useful here. That's what I'm saying. Sharishirin (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
And the book I provided above is in fact an outdated source to be cited for population figures. The book is from 1986, and even back then it tells us that Iraqi turkman are rapidly assimilated. So by this logic they must have become even a lower population than the lower than 2%' of Iraqi population mentioned there. Sharishirin (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course I understand what you mean. But what I say is, they are not a casual website, and they give the author's name and the source as reference. The source is neither Turkish nor Turkmen. Everything seems normal. --Chapultepec (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And did the author publish his work on an academic journal or magazine or website? Answer: No. So Again according to wikipedia policy only published material can be regarded as verifiable sources. Hence it stands inside OR circle. Sharishirin (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But as far as I know there are official census figures of Iraq from earlier decades giving the rate higher. --Chapultepec (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything supported by reliable academic sources is welcomed. Sharishirin (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What I read from the site is that the source was written by Jenny Gamming and it was published in Swedish Expressen, and it was taken from the UNPO website. So, I repeat my suggestion, if we can find a serious academic/scientific source stating that adherents.com is a biased, inaccurate, or a random website, then no problem for me. Discussing here for ages is pointless. As for the earlier Iraqi census figures, of course a research is needed to be able to find an online academic source. Now I have supplied a non-academic one, just for information. According to that, in 1957, the total Iraqi population was 6,300,000 and the Turkmen population was estimated to be 567,000, resulting in a 9% rate. They give Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Volume 24, Number 2, October 2004, pp. 309-325(17) as a reference. So, as you can see, the rates in fact differ a lot. --Chapultepec (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Swedish expressen is just a daily newpaper in Sweden like Sabah in turkey. Please read here: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources.
For population in past decades, I've no problem with it right now. What I've problem with it rigt now, is, the present-day population claimed in the article. Sharishirin (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It may be a newspaper, but it also took place at the UNPO website. So, I repeat my suggestion, if we can provide serious references criticizing adherents.com for its content, or casting doubt on its reliability, then I am ok, but so far I never heard something like that. Our discussion here is pointless. As for the present population, in fact it complies with the rate of 9 percent retrieved in earlier censuses. And our article already states that this is the maximum estimate. --Chapultepec (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

UNPO is not an academic website, and adherents.com's source for its claim is that UNPO nonsense. Obviously you are not serious in this discussion. For the time being I will add an accuracy tag. I will discuss this issue with admins tomorrow. Sharishirin (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, but there are lots of other articles using adherents.com as reference in Wikipedia. But if we can prove with serious academic sources that the site is not reliable, then there is no matter for me. And you can be sure that I have been very serious in every discussion so far. Good night. --Chapultepec (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You know you're just keeping saying adherents.com is reliable or not?! Have you ever read carefully the same adherents.com link you are pushing as a reliable source for your claim?! Read it carefully once again! It has following data for Iraqi Turkman population in 1990s, apparently from a better source (i.e. not UNPO):  ::"Iraq's population of 18.1 million people includes several ethnic groups. Arabs make up about 75% of the total, and Kurds--the largest non-Arab group--compose about 20%. Small numbers of Turkomans, Assyrians, Armenians, and Iranians also live in Iraq. " Source: Bratvold, Gretchen (ed). Iraq ...in Pictures (Visual Geography Series). Minneapolis, Minnesota: Lerner Publications Co. (1990), pg. 40. As you can see it puts number of all other non-Arabs non Kurds totally around 5%. :) Sharishirin (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me, but I think there is a misunderstanding. The website displays both sources for fairness. We know that there are conflicting sources and figures about the population estimate of the Turkmen. What they do is to display the two references, that's all. Meanwhile, I discern that you are somewhat tired or a little bit nervous. If you would like to, we can continue tomorrow. Everyone needs to rest. --Chapultepec (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm tired :). Have a good night! Sharishirin (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Good night! --Chapultepec (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

2 million Turkmans in Iraq? This is a false number, 2 million would mean almost 10% of Iraqi population, 1 in 10 Iraqis, and 1 in 3 people in Kurdistan.--Kurdo777 (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's definately OVER 3 million in Turkmeneli.Bunifa88 (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"However, estimates of their numbers vary dramatically, from 222,000[1] by western experts[2] to 2,000,000 by Turkish sources.[3][4]" The resources doesn't make it "western"! that's just rubbish. please take away the fact of sources origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunifa88 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! According to Inquiry Journal (1987 London) - Article: The Forgotteen Minority: The Turkomans of Iraq; In year 1957, there is an %8.94 (600.000)of Turkmens of Iraqi population. After more then 50 years, it must be raised, i think.. (It's also to find in the works of 'The Iraqi Revolution 14th July Celebrations Committee' - 1958 Baghdad) --Serhan (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Check this site as a source when expanding this article: http://www.unpo.org/content/view/2610/117/ and this http://kirkuk.us --Bunifa88 (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC) http://www.mideasti.org/summary/rethinking-iraq-sectarian-identities-turkmen --Bunifa88 (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Exaggeration

There are a lot of sources which explicitly say that Turkish estimates that put population of Iraqi Turkoman at millions are exaggeration and they are no more than 2% percent of the Iraqi population. The article suffers from heavy POV and OR. Ellipi (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Some more sources:
  • Turkmen scholars claim to be 10-15 of Iraq which seem to be excessive, Western and Iraqi estimates believe the figure be LESS than 5%. Source: Iraq: People, History, Politics, By Gareth Stansfield, Edition: illustrated, revised, Published by Polity, 2007 ISBN 0745632262, 9780745632261 (see page 71).
  • 1,2% of the population are Turkmen. http://books.google.com/books?id=focLrox-frUC&pg=PA218&dq=Turkmen+population+Iraq+cyril&lr=
  • There are 170,000 Turkmen in Iraq. http://books.google.com/books?id=kIBgqHWq658C&pg=PA150&dq=Turkmen+population+Iraq&lr=#PPA150,M1 Ellipi (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Says someone who doesn't even consider them as a distinct race, and is here to marginalize them. The oppressed becomes the oppresser, how sad! Back to topic, the basis for the erroneous estimates originates from various sources that provide false information regarding the Turkmen population. The United States uses two sources: the CIA’s World Fact Book and the Library of Congress. Both sources miscalculate the population of Turkmen in Iraq. Both sources represent the information gathered by the Saddam Hussein government, which sought to eradicate the Turkmen presence in this oil-rich and strategic region. Consequently, the American administration in Iraq does not see Turkmen as a significant group in the reconstruction process. --Bunifa88 (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
So sad! but actually this is reliable third-party sources which have more weight than our personal calculations. Ellipi (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable Iraqi Turks

Before adding notable Iraqi Turks to the list, please read Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people. Each entry must either link to a Wikipedia article for that person, or it must have a footnote to a reliable, verifiable source. Entries that do not, will be deleted. --Bejnar (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Pan-Turkish POV pushing

Editors need to stop confounding Turkic with Turkish and casting the (Azeri-speaking) Iraqi Turkmen as "Turkish" people in a way that is not done for Azerbaijani people. They are Iraqis who speak a Turkic language, not Turkish people nor part of the Turkish diaspora, they are not simply the same as the people in Turkey. Izzedine (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. There is a common confusion between Turkish and Turkic, but they are distinct. (Taivo (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
I'm trying to clean up some of the POV pushing. Article needs a lot of work. OmarKhayyam (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I have added academic references. The article needs a lot of work.Turco85 (Talk) 15:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:Takabeg and User:Turco85

The official number of this ethnic group in 1957 Census was 136,800 (2.16% of total population of Iraq)

H. Tarık Oğuzlu, "Endangered Community: The Turkoman Identity in Iraq", Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol. 24, No. 2, October 2004, p. 313.

But Fazıl Demirci claimed 567,000. And Ankara and Turkoman nationalists preferred this number to official one.

Fazıl Demirci, Irak Turklerinin Dünü-Bugünu¨(The Past and the Present of the Iraqi Turks), Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1991.

Erşat Hürmüzlü, "The Ethnic Reality of the Kirkuk Area", Iraqi Turkmen Human Rights Research Foundation, p. 2.

Scott Taylor, Among The Others: Encounters with the Forgotten Turkmen of Iraq, p. 28.

It was thought that Iraqi government at the time might have tried to show non-Arab ethnic groups, minimum. But today even in Turkey 136,800 is accepted as minimum number of Irak Türkmenleri.

According to WP:NPOV, in controversial cases, we need show all information and claims including. In short we have to show both official (136,800) and Demicri's claim (567,000).

But User:Turco85 insisted to remove official number, to exaggerate the number of this ethnic group. It's very wrong behavior and harmful to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a field of national propaganda but a neutral encyclopedia. Takabeg (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The under-estimated figure of 136,800 is written in the footnotes, with additional sources saying that a year later the Iraqi government admitted that the Iraqi Turkmen population was in fact 567,000.
  • Ershat Hurmuzlu says on page 3: 'The Iraqi government adjusted its numbers in response to the successful 1958 revolution and, in 1959, admitted to a Turkoman population of 567,000'.
  • Scott Taylor says on page 28: the Turkmen registry stood at 567000 — an increase of more than 400 per cent from the previous year's total...'
Takabeg, let me ask you a question, what year was the 1957 Iraqi census published, do you know by any chance?
It was you who provided all these sources, not me; your aim to down-play the figures backfired on you because you never read the sources properly. Turco85 (Talk) 14:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


Yes I typed "136,800". It's no problem. Because we know that issue.

"136,800" is official data of 1957 census. Kurds in Iraq accepted it but this is not their invention. Kurdish authority also want to use it.

"567,000" is not official data and but the number in the study of Fazıl Demirci. According to Demirci and Hürmüzlü, the number was fixed as "567,000". But we cannot prove　it and we cannot say that was corrected number. The Turkish government that uses this ethnic group as pawn for their Iraq policy. and Turkoman nationalists want to use it. Problem is that both Demirci and Hürmüzlü are pro-Turkic.

In this case, we must show these disputed number and in article. Thank you.

Takabeg (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Page 87 of the second source which you have now provided says the following: '1957 sayımının ilk resmi sonuçlarına göre 136 800 Türk bölgede yaşamaktaydı. Ancak bu sonuçlar 1958 darbesinden sonraki yeni hükümet zamanında düzeltilerek, yeniden yayınlanmıştı ki, bu defa ki rakamlar yani 567 000 rakamı gerçeğe daha yakın bir rakam olmuştu'. Again, you have failed to read the sources properly.
Answer this question. Do you know when the 1957 Iraq census was published?Turco85 (Talk) 10:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This section could equally well be headed 'Pro-Kurdish Behaviour of User:Takabeg.' Any interested onlookers are directed to my talk page to note this continuing debate. I have locked the page in the interim. Third party opinions very welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes it could (and probably should). Takabeg does this a lot, and I find it worrying, especially since they contribute so much to Wikipedia. See for example: Template:Kurdish population; Takabeg, has used a source which claims that Kurds makes 23% of Turkey's population. Most sources claim 20% at most. Furthermore, they used another source to place regions of Turkey into the template, that same source claimed that Kurds make up 13-15% of Turkey's population yet Takabeg did not show this in the template! [I have just change this and it will be interesting to see what happens...]. I know I'm going off-topic here, but what I'm trying to say is that Takabeg tries to pick-and-choose sources. If one also look at the Kurdish diaspora, these are the sources Takabeg used [2] before I contributed. I spent over a week trying to improve the article [which is evident in the history of the article] by placing reliable sources and I was not even thanked (not that I'm expecting it) but I was trying to show I was not an anti-Kurd and was basically trying to build a relationship. But now, I just can't deal with Takabeg anymore. Takabeg, is trying to have a debate over sources they provided themselves. Completely absurd and completely biased. Turco85 (Talk) 15:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is not the talk page about Kurdish population. But I can say I'm neither pro-Kurdish nor pro-Turkish, pro-Turkic. For example in Template:Kurdish population I had used joushua project. But some users cannot accept datum prepared by missionary. So I found other sources. In the result Kurdish population in Turkey increased than Joshua's. If there is disputed situation we must show both minimum and maximum. But some Turkish nationalists who try to exaggerate their population, seek to maximums and cannot accept alternatives. Moreover anti-Kurdish users can paste speedy delete template without appropriate reason. When they find people who try to stop Turkish biased unneutral edits, they assume they must be Kurdish people and attack articles related Kurdish people. Unfortunately　I've seen this tendency here. Takabeg (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Currently, I have placed 10 sources in this article which talks about the census (here are two more [3] and [4]). I have found a few more sources which I think users should observe. Although none of these sources talk about the 1957 census, I believe it is important to look at all the facts and research based on this community. I would also like to stress the fact that not all Western and Arab scholars place the Turkmen population at 500,000. In fact, if one observes these sources, they will see that in-depth research on this community [even by Western and Arab scholars] talk differently to a mere scholar who would cite CIA:
  • Ahmed Al-Hurmezi (2010-12-09) The Human Rights Situation of the Turkmen Community in Iraq (Middle East Online) [5]
Here the author gives a great introduction to those who are not familiar with this community. He also says the following 'their population size is more than 2 million of the total Iraqi population'.
  • Ryan, J. A. & Mullen, C. A. (1998) Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization: Yearbook 1997, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (The Hague: Kluwer Law International)
Page 92: places the Turkmen population at 2.5 million. This source also gives an in-depth analysis of the community.
  • Hashim, A. (2006) Insurgency and counter-insurgency in Iraq (London: Cornell University Press)
Page 377: the author acknowledges that Iraqi Turkmen make up the 3rd largest group in Iraq and estimates that the community make up 3 million today. This source is also great for expanding the demographics section. For example, on page 370, the author claims that the Turkmen make up 95% of the population in Tal Afar.
Another great read for a general introduction of the Turkmen community. The UNPO places the Turkmen population at 3 million.
  • Deliso, C. (December 20, 2004) The Forgotten Turkmen of Iraq (Antiwar.com) [6]
I would also like to make another point (let’s call it obiter dictum), it is widely accepted that Iraqi Turkmen make up the third largest group in Iraq. Thus, if we look at the article Assyrians in Iraq, the article claims that they make up 800,000; now I'm not saying that this is a fact, but Takabeg does not seem to have a problem with that article. Thus, if Assyrians make up 3% of the total Iraqi population, yet the Turkmen are the 3rd largest group, then it is literally impossible that the Turkmen population would have been 136,800 in 1957 or that the Turkmen would be less than 800,000 today. Turco85 (Talk) 13:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Takabeg, two questions for you:
1) When was the 1957 Iraqi census published? (This is the third time I am asking you this and you still have not replied)
2) Have you heard of the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf?
You can keep on repeating that I’m a crazy Turkish nationalist and an Anti-Kurd but my contributions prove otherwise. I use academic sources in all my contributions. You can keep crying 'Wolf!' but there will come a time when nobody will believe you anymore. I have said to you numerous times on your user page, we should be working together to improve articles not against each other. I try to assume good faith... I really do, but you don't seem to be willing to ever get along with me or even read sources probably! That's all I have to say to you. Turco85 (Talk) 14:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't understand. I'm interesting not only Turkey itself but also its cultures including Kurd, Zaza, Laz etc. In Turkey, minority issue was a kind of taboo. Maybe even today for some people it is taboo. Many years ago Kurdish people in Turkey was called a mountain Turk. Even today some people beleive the word There is no group named Kurdish. Various thesis about Kurds and other minorities were produced in Turkey. I generally use sources written in Turkish language by ethnic Turkish authors. But I also recognize researches and achievements of scholars of Kurdish and other minority groups. Especially about Kurdish issue (history, culture, language), it's difficult to find works by ethnic Turkish authors. So we have to use works by Kurdish authors. But for Turkish nationalist, the person who recognize and use their works, means Pro-Kurdish. To neutralize Wikipedia, issues must be evaluated from multi-viewpoints. You can be a Turkish nationalist outside Wikipedia. I have also friends of Nationalist Youth. But in Wikipedia, we mustn't behave only from our own point of wievs. Takabeg (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Takabeg, I couldn’t care less if you are pro/anti-Turkish or pro/anti-Kurdish. I don't care about your political views. All I care about are facts which are supported by academic sources! When was the 1957 Iraqi census published? (it’s the fourth time I'm asking you)Turco85 (Talk) 19:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Just based on prior experience, I found the edits by User:Takabeg in both English and Turkish Wikipedia to be excessively non-neutral with patterns of being excessively pro-Armenian and anti-Turkish/Turkic. You can look into some of Takabegs edits on other subjects such as this and this. I believe Takabeg's non-neutral view also impacts his edits/views in this article as it directly relates to the Turkic group in Iraq. Kurdish subject is only a detail. Atabəy (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not know much about this subject but here are two articles from the New York Times which also argues that the Iraq census has generally been corrupt:
Justinz84 (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect numbers

This claim is based on the 1957 where it claims that 600,000 turkmen were registered then. while ethnicity wasn't counted then. you can check the numbers yourself here. By the way anyone who lived in Iraq would not take the numbers given here likely. Rafy talk 00:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The source you have provided does not specifically say that ethnicity was not counted. The Christian Aid Program has merely placed some of the census information. This source shows that language and ethnicity were both used in the 1957 census (the numbers are only for Kirkuk city and the Kirkuk province). Turco85 (Talk) 00:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not denying that Turkmen made the majority ik Kirkuk prior to the discovery of oil. what i'm arguing here is the high percentages mentioned here. If you look for example at the 2005 elections you will notice that the turkmen parties scored less than 2% which gives a more reliable figure of approximately 3%-5%. Greetings. Rafy talk 16:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought that you was arguing that the 1957 census did not count citizens based on their ethnicity? We have to stick to what the census actually says. According to the article Iraq there are 31,234,000 people living in the country; if we take your view into consideration that the Iraq Turkmen make up around 3-5% that would still place the community at around 937,020 to 1,561,700. Thus, I think the best thing to do is leave the info box as it is. Turco85 (Talk) 17:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Well I still can't verify the figures since i can't find any publications about the 1957 census which by the contrary to what is stated on the article wasn't the latest census conducted in iraq. That would be in 1997, here again no documentation regarding ethnicities was published. And please don't get me wrong I don't wish to disregard Turkmen in this matter, I am merely curious since the figures are much higher than expected. Rafy talk 18:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
That's fine I welcome input on this article. As you have previously stated, the Iraqi census's have not generally been considered to be reliable. Nonetheless, most academics cite the 1957 census as it is considered to be the last reliable census. Turco85 (Talk) 01:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppets

I believe that there is a lot of fake accounts being used. I see a regular pattern whereby a totally new user deletes the information on Kurdification, changes the population estimates, and replaces anything that says Turkish to Azeri. Furthermore, this user who keeps opening new accounts does not read sources properly and removes a lot of referenced material. I check this article on a very regular basis. Edits which are not supported by a range of academic material will be removed immediately.Turco85 (Talk) 11:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


Turco85 should stop spamming wiki articles

Can this ultranationalist turkish cypriot wiki user Turco85 stop spam wiki articles with fake numbers and fake fact about iraqi turkmen. we are not 3 million where are only 350,000 iraqi turkmen in whole world and we are just "turk" just by by language but in genetic we share same blood as other Iraqi people. As iraqi turkmen we feel more with Iraqi people than with anatolian turks, please you don't know about us so stop write your nationalist view here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damn00 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I only contribute using a range of sources. BTW nice touch trying to act as an Iraqi Turkmen.Turco85 (Talk) 23:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No you are just here to spread your turkish ultranationalist propagada. I'm turkmen but far from your type. We share the same genes with the Iraqi people (go and study some genetics study about turkish people). Why do you write that we have become kurdificiation? Anatolian Turks are in fact turkification not all but most of them. You must accept that all Turks are not so blind and brainwashed as you ultra-nationalists who propagate facts and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damn00 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If you read a range of sources you would see that the Turkmen community have been Kurdified. Have a look at these if you wish:
You can call me a nationalist as much as you like... I use reliable sources when editing.Turco85 (Talk) 16:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

RELIABLE SOURCES? Nationalist, chauvinistic, crypto-fascist websites are according to you reliable sources???? This author at "Buzzle.com" believes the Kurds are part of some Jewish-Israeli-Freemasonic-AntiMuslim conspiracy to redraw the Middle East - that's a reliable source? And websites like Turkmen.nl? And "information" from 1950s sources? Please, I've been watching your behaviour for a while now, and you've finally prompted me to register and contribute (as I'm actually from Iraq (Erbil actually)) and know what I'm talking about. Your editing against consensus and inserting fantastic, wildly implausible information that has no connection to reality. PLEASE stop. NahlaHussain2008 (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if you look at the history of this article you will see that I have used the sources which other users have placed in the article. For example, this source was used in the introduction and says the following: 'The official written language of the Turkmans is Istanbul Turkish, and its alphabet is the new Latin alphabet'. Why was this source acceptable before, but not now? If this article keeps being vandalised by you, I will request for it to be protected. Turco85 (Talk) 14:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting reply. I notice you didn't refer to the disreputable nature of the sources in question which support your ludicrous fantasy that the Turkmen are misplaced Anatolian Turks! Look, as you may (or may not, probably not) appreciate, there is a lot of confusion surrounding minority politics in this country. I don't know how "David Nissman" is, writing in 1999 for the propaganda outlet Radio Liberty, but he was mistaken. Most Iraqi Turkmen don't even know the Latin alphabet, so how you could possibly deduce that "Standard Turkish" is thier "official written language" is beyond me. (And no, it's clearly not a reliable source, you will notice that he is relaying opinions of the "Iraqi Turkmen Front" - a fringe party that advocates autonomy and stronger ties with Turkey, but who only gets a tiny percentage of the Turkmen vote - in both Arab Iraq and Kurdistan.) NahlaHussain2008 (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that you "archived" this Talk Page. Convenient, as it shows you up for going against NUMEROUS editors who have pulled you up for spreading your ridiculous propaganda. You actually changed the name of the people from "Iraqi Turkmen" to "Iraqi Turks"??????!!!!! How can you expect anyone to take you seriously!? NahlaHussain2008 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
If David Nissman is writing 'for the propaganda outlet Radio Liberty' then why are you trying to place this source in the introduction for? Turco85 (Talk) 17:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Quit dodging the issues. I'm merely trying to ensure your inaccurate, anti-Iraqi preferred version is not preserved on Wikipedia. Surely you must know that the Turkmen do not speak Turkish??!?!?! NahlaHussain2008 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Here, it took me all of about 30 seconds on my rubbish dial-up internet to find a proper, scholarly source referring to the fact that they speak South Azere/Azerbaijani http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qdA1K3E66UgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA285&dq=Iraqi+Turkmen+language&ots=vuiXv1RLZT&sig=8S-NxEci6jPNjmdFeIDPr0jbXzg#v=onepage&q=Iraqi%20Turkmen%20language&f=false NahlaHussain2008 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Well why don't you have a look at these sources?

Turco85 (Talk) 17:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep..... and..... why did you post those? Neither of those sources state anything about the Iraqi Turkmen speaking the Turkish language..... You're displaying nothing but WILLFUL, DELIBERATE ignorance. If you care so much about this topic, at least take a few minutes to do some proper research. Hell, even call an Iraqi Turkmen and ask him! I can give you a phone number - by the way, he'll also tell you that Younis Mahmoud (of the Iraqi football team) is an ARAB from Kirkuk, NOT an Iraqi Turkmen. Which, again, everybody knows (have you seen him interviewed??) NahlaHussain2008 (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh so am I just imagining the fact that both these sources say ‘Turkish’. It must be my crazy nationalistic mind right? Please show a little respect. Turco85 (Talk) 17:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
OH MY GOD! You're confused yourself! You do realize that there are many "Turkish" languages - from Ottoman to Turkmenistani to Azeri to Uzbek and more. In English they generally say "Turkic" to avoid confusion, but some don't, especially older sources like the ones you've found. Here to help :-) NahlaHussain2008 (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Look on page 66 of that first source - it refers to the "Turkoman" language. I know it's confusing, but you need to get your facts right before you start blanket reverting of other users and deleting their SCHOLARLY (that is, NON-POLITICAL) sources. NahlaHussain2008 (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Here's another scholarly source. I'm putting it here because you'll probably just revert the article again! http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2009.00375.x/full - NahlaHussain2008 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you please calm down. Have a look at this source as well. The author also says that Iraqi Turkmen speak Istanbul Turkish:
A Glimpse of Iraq By Ibrahim Al-Shawi page 47 Turco85 (Talk) 17:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
"Istanbul Turkish"?!?!? LOL!!! How in the heck would Iraqis in Khurmatu speak "Istanbul Turkish"?! That's just a random, apparently very poorly written, book you've found. You need to learn to tell the difference between reliable and unreliable sources. Educate yourself on such concepts as "peer review", "authority", etc. NahlaHussain2008 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please enlighten me, what is a reliable source? I have shown you a range of academic sources.Turco85 (Talk) 18:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
No, you haven't, that's where you've gone wrong. Just because something is published in a book, or on a Website with a grand sounding title, doesn't make it a reliable source - MUCH LESS an "academic" one. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources for more advice. NahlaHussain2008 (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you are in the strongest position to judge a reliable source. I have provided a range of sources. You have only provided one source which is actually about Azeri's living in Iran. It seems as though there is no pleasing you (who I assume is a sock puppet of others who have tried to do the same on this article); if I use Western sources they are not reliable, if I use Turkish sources they are not reliable, if I use Arab sources they are still not reliable. It's ridiculous! I will take this dispute further if I have to because it seems as though you do not want to work as a team to improve this article. You merely wish to remove anything which says ‘Turkish’ in it. Turco85 (Talk) 18:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
W'allah! You haven't produced a single academic source which states that the Iraqi Turkmen speak the Anatolian Turkish of the people of the modern Republic of Turkey - because they don't! I have produced two, peer-reviewed, academic sources saying that the Turkomans speak a dialect most closely related to South Azeri/Azerbaijani. READ THEM. Or not. I'll quote them here. "Azerbaijan is more conventionally known as Turkmen or Turkoman" (Words of War: The Iraqi Tower of Babel, found here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2009.00375.x/full) and "In Iraqi Turkmen, a variety that has very similar features to Azerbaijanian, Turkic strategies are preserved to a higher extent than in Turkic of Iran; see Bulut (2000)." (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qdA1K3E66UgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA285&dq=%22Iraqi+Turkmen%22+language&ots=vuiXv2NIUN&sig=YjqHqTVYthGAdFEr8dCko9ILtLs) NahlaHussain2008 (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

i dont understand all this disscousions the turkmens of iraq are turks and the are related to turks of turkey arabs of libya and arabs of tunisia are related to arabs of middel east, some peopel dont want to accept that turkmens of iraq are turks,WHY ? should we now say that north africa is not populated by arabs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bekird (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This (scholarly, academic) article might clear up some of your confusion, if you have access to JSTOR: http://www.jstor.org/pss/4030981 NahlaHussain2008 (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I just found out what a sockpuppet is. Hah. Yeah, all of us are really one person..... NahlaHussain2008 (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Why all the Edit-warring and use of websites?

A simple google book search using "Iraqi Turkmen language" give these results[7].

A quick look would indicate that Iraqi Turkmen speak Turkmen language;

  • [8],"Most Turkish speakers are bi- or trilingual, they grow up with Turkmen as their mother tongue and home language."
  • [9],"They speak Turkmen, a Turkic language."
  • [10],"It(the Turkmen language) is used by 7 million people especially in Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.
  • [11], "The Turkmen language is spoken in Turkmenistan and in some parts of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.

Although this book[12], would indicate that Iraqi Turkmen are tri-lingual. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou Kansas Bear. You conveyed scholarly consensus in one post, what was taking me many more!!! I live in Iraq (I am mixed Yezidi Kurdish-Assyrian) and so was greatly annoyed by Turco's wild claims. Turkmen speak their own language at home, but are almost always a tiny minority in their schools and/or place of work where they will speak whatever the dominant language is in that area - Kurdish in Erbil or Arabic in Kirkuk (before the 2003 invasion, there are now Kurdish schools in Kirkuk). But NONE speak the Turkish language of the state of Turkey, or "Istanbul Turkish" as their first language!!!! NahlaHussain2008 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the first source says they speak Ottoman Turkish, Turkish and Azeri; the second says they speak Turkmen; and the last two sources is about the Turkmen language in Turkmenistan not the Iraqi Turkmen. Please be aware of the difference between Iraqi Turkmen and Turkmen of Turkmenistan...Turco85 (Talk) 20:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've locked this page down (again). I am disgusted with this edit-warring. Turco85, please explain what the basis of your arguments are in simple terms comprehensible to a New Zealander. This is because your arguments, according to the talkpage above which I'm reading, do not appear to have a basis in fact. Please explain yourself. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, NahlaHussein2008, Turco85, I could legitimately block both you for violation of 3RR. Do not violate 3RR; when an administrator comes to intervene in a dispute, an editor who violates 3RR in defence of his position is much more likely to be heavily sanctioned than one who does not. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Buckshot06, if you look at footnote 28 in the article (The Iraqi Turkomans: Who They Are And What They Want) you will see that a new user has used this source. Although it says that the Iraqi Turkmen are a mixture of Seljuks/Ottomans etc (which I also agree with), I decided to read the source and it says the following:
"Article Three of the "Declaration of Principles" clarifies how the Iraqi Turkomans perceive their linguistic kinships among the Oghuz Turks: "The official written language of the Turkmans is Istanbul Turkish, and its alphabet is the new Latin alphabet."
Thus, I placed this into the language section of the article. Today, I saw that this had been removed, yet this same source is still considered to be reliable and is being used in the introduction. Furthermore, users opening new accounts everyday seem to have a pattern of removing the Kurdification section (which was all referenced) and removing anything with the word 'Turkish' in it.
As you have probably realised by now, I usually edit using a range of source. As you can see above.Turco85 (Talk) 20:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you look at the introduction section you will see that it says the following: 'Estimates of their numbers vary dramatically, (in accordance with Iraq's assimilation policies no realistic and independent census results have been revealed regarding the Iraqi Turkmen population) from 500,000 by most western sources[19][20][21] to 4,500,000 by other sources.[22][19][23][24][25][26]' none of these sources say that there are 4.5 million Iraqi Turkmen. The majority say up to 3 million... it seems as though nobody is actually reading these sources or they are greatly misinterpreting them.Turco85 (Talk) 20:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Turco85, you need to contextualise your useage of controversial sources a bit. Maybe avoid saying 'The official written language is..' and say instead 'XYZ says the official written language is... Y, however this may not be applicable in all areas (even I can see that people south of Mosul are not likely to speak Turkish as it's spoken in Istanbul; it's likely to influenced by a number of dialects and Iraqi language groupings. Remember your anthropology training (if you have any) there's usually not just one ethnic group involved, and everybody seems to say these groupings are constructed and thus a bit fluid.)
Also KansasBear, NahlaHussein2008, what do you say to these claims? What do you think? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
All Turco has found is an article by some Westerner writing for Radio Liberty, relaying what some "Turkoman Congress", "declared" in 1997, that their language is "Istanbul Turkish". Some declaration that is.
There is an ethnonationalist political current, mostly restricted to the Turkmen of Kirkuk and the fringe party the Iraqi Turkmen Front (ITF, you can see their website at www.kerkuk.net) who are funded by Turkey and advocate a greater Turkish role in Iraqi affairs. If you go into the building of the Kirkuk Provincial Council and enter the offices of the Turkmen Vice-Governor, Ali Salih, as I have, you will see the Turkmen flag flying alongside that of the Iraqi and Turkish (that is, Republic of Turkey) flag. But he will speak to you in Arabic. And he will speak to his family and friends in Turkmen. As much as he looks up to Turkey, he can NOT speak "Istanbul Turkish"!
Turco will never be able to find a reliable source that states that the Iraqi Turkmens speak Istanbul Turkish, because such a notion is laughable on its face.


As to the 3.5million to 4.5million figures - I couldn't care less which maximum figure is cited, as again, no one would take these "millions" figrues seriously. Turkmen are only found in a select few places in Iraq, those self-identifying as Turkmen would number something like 300,000 - 600,000 I would guess. But there will always be crazy people throwing around crazy numbers to inflate their political/ideological goals. NahlaHussain2008 (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I did not actually place footnote 28 [i.e. Radio Free Europe] into this article, someone else did. In fact, if you look at my contributions you will see that I have mainly used the sources which other users have provided (e.g. Takabeg’s sources). As for 'NahlaHussain2008' (who I strongly believe is a sock puppet of others who open accounts and mainly contribute to this article such as user:Damn00 and user:LaoZi81, a confirmed sock puppet, where have they suddenly gone???) they are all talk and place one or two sources, most of which do not even support their claims. I am only one person, who is just using academic sources to contribute in this article (is this a crime? am I doing something wrong? because in my view the more academic sources the better!). I believe that this user has another agenda; as they have put it themselves, and I quote: '[I] couldn't care less which maximum figure is cited'. How can someone care so passionately about some aspects of the article and not other parts? In my view this dispute is ridiculous, and I have had enough of users speaking to me in such an abusive, disrespectful manner. This dispute will not be resolved until academic sources prevail over this political ideology which some users are trying to enforce. I believe that we should all work as a team (as I usually say) but I will not stand back and watch users delete work which is backed up by a range of academic sources.Turco85 (Talk) 18:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
According to this source [13], which has been used in this article before I ever step foot here, the 1957 census recorded the mother tounge as Turkish not Azeri. This source is still being used in this article, yet was deleted from the langugage section. It is totally absurd! Turco85 (Talk) 18:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it's because you're editing against the article's expert and RELIABLE and PEER-REVIEWED sources, against CONSENSUS, and most importantly, against REALITY
Right guys, thanks for your opinions. I am not interested in ideas about people being sock puppets, because I have the ability to lock this page permanently, if that's what it takes to stop you people editwarring. So it's now time to start coming up with drafted sections to change and re-change on the talkpage - see Talk:World War II for how this is done. Turco85, please write out here a compromise draft of the controversial section, and we can all take a look at it and give opinions. You should be able to copy out the wording/code from the article; if not, please tell me, and I'll bring any particular paragraph or other data here for you to draft and redraft. Kansas Bear, NahlaHussein2008, please stand back for 18 hours and let Turco85 construct his draft, just to avoid edit conflicts. Then you can come in and we can start doing the negotiations about the wording. By the way, this is the sort of thing they do in diplomatic negotiations every day - consider yourself gaining some experience!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, sorry I've just read this now. I have been busy with other projects outside of wikipedia. If you look at my last contribution you will see that the following was written:
Iraqi Turks have maintained their own vernacular, one which is close to dialects spoken in Azerbaijan and Urfa in south-eastern Turkey. Thus, as you can see the article already showed this. I don't see why I should have to write it all from scratch when everything is clearly referenced. Unlike the current version which is conflicting what the sources show. I would like to point out again that in the current version foot note 28 says the following: The official written language of the Turkmans is Istanbul Turkish, and its alphabet is the new Latin alphabet. Why is it that my contributions are 'wrong' when exactly the same sources which I have used are still in this article?
But OK, I'll do what you have suggest Buckshot06 but probably in the next week as I wish to contribute to other articles which I have neglected lately.Turco85 (Talk) 12:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see the quote for this reference;"Hendrik Boeschoten. 1998. "The Speakers of Turkic Languages," The Turkic Languages (Routledge, pp. 1-15)." concerning this sentence;"The language spoken by the Iraqi Turkmens is South Azeri, not the Turkmen language spoken in Turkmenistan.". --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

lol map omg -D-D-

its irqi kurdistan or southkurdistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.177.243 (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraqi_Turkmen/Archive_1&oldid=1238341858"