Talk:Syrian Turkmen/Archive 1

Population
Added the lower figure based on this source: Together with Armenians and Circassians, Turkomans form 1% of the Syrian population. Ellipi (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Today the community is estimated to be between 750,000 and 1,500,0000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.27.205 (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No population Syrian Turks haleppo-damascus-latakia population of Syrian Turks 1.500.000-2.500.000 ,% 8-10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.90 (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a claim which says 200.000 Turkmens in Syria. That claim is unreliable of now.mmedia.me which might be of prediction. However, most of the resources claims there are more than 1 million Turkmens in Syria. I've already added those resources in the article. If you claim those resources as unrealible, then I will also delete the claim 200.000 because now.mmedia.me is also a news agency like the others which claim more than 1 million Turkmens in Syria. World population Review seems more reliable: http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/syria-population/ which claims "The largest ethnic group (approximately 90%) in Syria is Arab, mostly classified as Levantine. Other major groups in Syria are Kurds (2 million), Syrian Turkmen (0.75-1.5 million) and Assyrians (0.9 to 1.2 million)." And that's another resource of academical studies on Syria: http://www.orsam.org.tr/tr/trUploads/Yazilar/Dosyalar/20121226_rapor14tum.pdf which includes the lists of all the villages and towns of Syrian Turkmens and gives demographical information. It's in Turkish. Anyway, most of the resources (news agencies, academical resources etc) claims they are more than 1 million. We should notice that fact. Closing your eyes doesn't change the fact, just lies yourself. 141.196.67.218 (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And let me remind you that ORSAM which is displayed as the resource is a member of MESA (mesa.arizona.edu). And that's the staff of ORSAM: http://www.orsam.org.tr/en/ourstaff.aspx So, do you still think of it being unreliable? 141.196.67.218 (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "The largest ethnic group (approximately 90%) in Syria is Arab, mostly classified as Levantine. Other major groups in Syria are Kurds (2 million), Syrian Turkmen (0.75-1.5 million) and Assyrians (0.9 to 1.2 million).".


 * Who is the author of this article on the population of Syria? It does not look very convincing as the total population of Syria is 20 million. 10% of non-Arabs is 2000000. And it's mostly Kurds. This resources a unrealible.


 * The Turkish source said that Syria 3.5 million Turks. They claim that in Homs, which is called Humus, Turks are the majority. All this does not seem very reliable sources.91.78.15.150 (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Before removing the resource, you should prove the unreliablity of the related resource. That's the staff of ORSAM: http://www.orsam.org.tr/en/thecontributors.aspx also a member of member of MESA. On the other hand, the resource you added is very old and outdated, and it reflects the claims of Kurds and Assad regime, who seem to be contrary to Syrian Turkmens' rights. 88.232.19.81 (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Turkmen Regions Aleppo Governorate, Latakia Governorate,Hama Governorate, Bayırbucak, Talaf, Salib al-Turkman, Aqrap Caber Castle

Merger
Turkmens living in the Bayırbucak region face ethnic cleansing from Russia and Shiite militias supported by the Syrian regime after Sunday's fall of Rabia, the last major opposition-held town in the coastal province of Latakia.

Regime forces reportedly announced that they have shared coordinates with Russian aircraft to hit the village of Yamadi near the Turkish border where 21,000 Turkmens have sought shelter, and made a call for Turkmens to leave the Bayırbucak region completely. The regime's capture of Rabia has displaced many Turkmens from 70 villages around the area.in Bayırbucak face ethnic cleansing after Rabia falls

'Weakest position in Syria in years': Russia and Assad may have just delivered a decisive blow to Turkey  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.225.59 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Russian jets are deliberately targeting civilians in northwest Syria, a local journalist said Monday.

Sadettin Molla, editorial coordinator for the Bayirbucak News Agency, said Russian bombers were attacking Syrian Turkmen areas close to the Turkish border in “an intense way”.

“Four or five Russian jets hit the area at the same time,” he told Anadolu Agency. “The mosques, schools and bridges and civilians are deliberately targeted.”

Direct Russian military involvement in the Syrian conflict since Sept. 30 had intensified the war, Molla added. Russia supports President Bashar al-Assad and says it has been carrying out airstrikes against "terrorists" in northern Syria, although Turkey and other members of the anti-Daesh coalition have claimed the attacks are largely focused on forces opposed to Assad.

“In the last three days, Russia hit tents in Obin village as well as a village named Merad and a hospital in Birnas,” he said. “Fifty people, including women and children, were killed.Syrian journalists: Russian airstrikes targeting Turkmen civilians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.170.179.104 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

They are Turkmen not Turks
Problem here. The article is about the Turkmen people of Syria (related to the Turkmen of Iraq and the people of Azerbaijain), but the article refers to them as "Turks" - confusing them with the Turkish people of the modern Republic of Turkey. This needs to be addressed. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Meh. "Turkmen" is a common term for Oğuz Turks. There probably isn't much, if any, social or ethnic division between ethnic Turks in Antep or Hatay and the people right across the border in what's now Syria; both are descended from Turkmen tribes settled there in Ottoman times. Sure, Syrian Turkmen may not be "from Turkey" (Türkiyeli, to use a politically contentious but unambiguous term), but does that really mean that as Turkmen they are also not Turks (Türk)? I doubt many of the people in question would find much value in such a distinction. Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The 1930s French ethnographic map separates "Turcomans" (the subject of this article) from "Turkmenes" and from "Turcs". Some proper neutral sources are needed (i.e., sources that predate the Syrian Civil War period and sources which are not advocating for particular ethnic groups) to clarify things. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is about Turkmen, but I don't see a link to Turkmen in general. Wikipedia has an article on Turkmens, and this article should clearly link to it. My impression is that the ancestors of the Turkmen in Syria were refugees from the Mongol conquest of Khwarezmia in 1218-1221 AD. (I have only glanced at the linked articles - this needs more work.) Oaklandguy (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That initial origin might be true. According to Bleaney, there were later settlements in Syria by Turkmen established during the Ottoman Empire and that they settled in the Hatay area, which would be the origin of the modern-era settlements that still survive. And that by the time of the later settlements, the earlier ones had become extinct through assimilation. Bleaney does not say when those Ottoman settlements were established. This article seems to be being hijacked for propaganda purposes. Turks are not Turkmen, Turkmen are a distinct ethnicity, though some of the MHP fascists in Turkey have adopted them as pets to go with Asena. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I really hate doing political talk here, though, I'm sure you are not really a chump to state that Turkmens are distinct from Turks right? Should we talk genetics? Like do you really think that the relation between Anatolian Oghuz Turks and Turkmens are like Dutch and Indians? Really? Wow. Berkaysnklf (talk), 01:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Turkmen, Bayirbucak Turkmen in Bayırbucak trying to protect their land against the regime of Syrian troops , increasing in recent years struggling to survive against Russian air attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.225.59 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Aelkezl Bash
Is "Aelkezl Bash" (whom the article refers to in reference to Selim the Grim) meant to refer to Kızılbaş? Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The Official Flag
I know there are not a lot of people who know Turkish here. Although, if you read the latest press release (somehow) of the Syrian Turkmen Assembly which is the umbrella organization of all the Turkmen movements in Syria and the official governing body of Syrian Turkmen (Like PYD of the Kurds - for you to understand better), it is stated that the flag will be the official flag of Syrian Turkmen to put an end to the vague use of Turkmen flag, representing the 3 million Syrian Turkmen population. Meanwhile, the other 2 flags may be continued to use on battlefields and protests, the official flag for diplomatical meetings, conferences, conventions, etc. will be the one which is declared as official. Berkaysnklf (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That "assembly" based in Turkey can declare whatever it wants to be "official", but it is irrelevant for this article. This article is about an ethnic group in Syria. That "assembly" does not have ownership of an ethnicity and it does not have the status of a state with an ability to have a flag. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You are right that the article is about an ethnic group, however Syrian Turkmen Assembly is actually a government-in-exile for the Turkmens under Syrian National Council and National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces. It is better for the flag to stay until lead actors of the Syrian Turkmen movement show up better so that we can put their faces there. Berkaysnklf (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The proper place for this flag is in the article for the organization that uses it. It cannot appear in an ethnic group's infobox. If you disagree and want to make a credible argument, cite some examples of ethnic group infoboxes on Wikipedia that do have flags. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that the flag is back, and now accompanied by two more similarly unofficial flags to boot. I have deleted all three for the same reasons as mentioned above. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

POV map
Claims that the map is sourced to "Academical sources" are a bunch of nonsense. The map is sourced to various Turkish government funded think tanks (mainly ORSAM) and turkmen advocacy groups. These sources do not meet the criteria for reliable sourcing because they are not third-party sources nor do they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Claims that the map is sourced to a BBC article are lies, because the BBC article in question does not have any maps. This is POV-pushing of the crudest kind. Athenean (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I stumbled upon this issue myself and would have to agree. The justfication to have the map remain would require NPOV sources. I haven't seen any yet. 82.154.168.152 (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is your own claim, Athenean. If you can't prove it, that seems to be your personal view. 81.213.112.217 (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Who are Syrian Turkmens? BBC Article. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34910389
 * In the meantime, ORSAM is a member of MESA (mesa.arizona.edu). It has staff from various backgrounds: http://www.orsam.org.tr/en/thecontributors.aspx
 * 81.213.112.217 (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The BBC article is very vague. You cannot possibly be serious that a map as detailed as this is based off the BBC article.  ORSAM is just another of these Turkish government-funded think tanks that push the neo-Ottomanist Turkish government POV.  Creating large "oppressed" Turkmen minorities to use them as a pretext for invading neighboring countries is part of this strategy.  By the way, you could at least have the courage to edit using your account instead of hiding behind an IP. Athenean (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP is not me dude, I'm not the only guy who is Turkish here. And say what, at least ORSAM "has a research and an article", you can blame them and create conspiracy theories like Cyprus, when Tsipras publishes a better one on Syrian Turkmen. Berkaysnklf (talk), 12:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

ORSAM, the Center for Middle Eastern Strategic Studies, is not a neutral source. Based on this source it was founded as an Ankara-based lobbying group for Turkmen: "I established ORSAM in November 2008 with an executive committee decision of the Türkmeneli Cooperation and Cultural Foundation." It is funded by the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the "Foundation and the Foreign Ministry worked closely with ORSAM". Its founder goes on to claim that "The fact that the Turkish Foreign Ministry is the main sponsor of ORSAM has destroyed ORSAM's identity as a civil society organization" and that he was fired from the organization by Ahmet Davutoğlu when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs. In other words ORSAM stated out as a Turkmen lobbying group and its activities are now controlled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey. While this does not mean everything ORSAM has published is suspect, if its claims on a subject are radically different from all other sources (such as its population claim) then such claims are suspect and should be treated at best as fringe, certainly not authoritive enough to be suitable for a map.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that makes it official and carries infinitely more weight than any Turkophobic rhetoric and opinion. -Dominator1453 (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WELL, Turkish propaganda cant decide anything and their words have no weight whatsoever and since they have no authority in Syria then this map is NOT official. There is a deletion process here for this map and so, it will no be used until the result of this deletion is decided.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You only have one contribution in your history. -Dominator1453 (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that you showed me the history of my user page on wikimedia and not my contributions ? Those are my contributions.. they are more than 300 on wikimedia and 11000 on wikipedia. Now, what does the number of my contributions have to do with this discussion !!!.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I do: you are trying to get rid of a totally good map on Wikimedia. No need for exclamations. Let us keep it civil please. -Dominator1453 (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * a POV map full of propaganda and mistakes. But in spite of this, It wasnt me who asked for its deletion as it is clear in the deletion page.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

A recent change in the lede
Hello. I have changed the word "demographic" to "ethnic" in the lede. Demographic change has to do with the age distribution of the population, the birth rate, the educational levels, the male-to-female ratio and so forth. Whatever agenda the Syran Turkmen Assembly has, it cannot be "to prevent demographic changes". I am sure it is meant to say "ethnic". But even that needs to be sourced better. Discuss here please, before changing anything in this regard. RhinoMind (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

an academic source on the Turkmen villages in Qastal Ma'af and Rabia Nahiyah
From a 2006 French academic source (a geographer and expert on Syria): "Les nâhyeh-s de Rabî’a et de Qastal Ma’al sont peuplées en majorité par une population turkmène, de confession musulmane sunnite." (...) "je pense que la stratégie de l'Etat syrien est d’encourager l'exode des populations turkmènes, afin qu'elles s'arabisent ; permettant ainsi d’éviter toute revendication de la Turquie sur cette zone frontalière." . --Minorities observer (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Alleged displacement
Dear editor,

You are misinterpreting the source. You had claimed that According to the [Amnesty International]] report, Kurdish fighters gathered residents from Hammam al-Turkman into the local school and instructed 1,400 Turkmen families to leave the area.. The source doesn't say so. The source says: ''According to the Farid (27), a resident who works as a day labourer, and who was present when the villagers were displaced, told Amnesty International that there are about 1,400 Turkmen families in the village along with 10 Kurdish families.''. That's clear misinterpretation of a source. The statement is now deleted, you are free to add it by using the source and neutral language.Ferakp (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. O.celebi (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Population
The 3.5M claim is made by three researchers but that's not what they tried to say. They said there are probably 3.5M Turkmens, some of the Arabized, and they put the total estimate of Turkmens to the 1.5M million, not in 3.5M million. Also, the article contained a lot of falsified content and misinterpreted sources. They are all now fixed.Ferakp (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, not just three researchers. BBC, The New York Times also suggest that it can be 3 million or over. I have clarified the distinction in the info box. Thanks, O.celebi (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Population section in infobox
Beshogur: The user O.celebi's version is much more neutral than your own version even though the source which claims their population is around 3,5M is not a reliable. Some sources clearly highlight the fact that their population is believed to be around several thousands (also 100,000). Your edit is not improvement as it removes sourced information. You have been blocked before for involving in disruptive editing. Please, use the talk page before making such edits. Ferakp (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Your approach is pretty POV given that estimates of 100,000-200,000 which date before the civil war was a result of discriminatory actions of the Syrian government. Even some independent broadcasters, such as BBC, updated their content. You can see yourself the more recent BBC reports give the range 800,000-1,500,000 as the figure, while older ones use the figure of 100,000 which is a direct reflection of government policies which also targetted other minorities; such as Kurds, Circassians and Assyrians. So, it is not at all healthy to say that "any report or source or scientific research from Turkey is not reliable" and then claim that "government sources are the most reliable ones". First of all, there are sources in 4 different languages other than Turkish; English, German, Arabic and even Kurdish/Persian. And sources of the page come from various institutions, broadcasters, books, researches, authors from around the globe. And it is only natural that most of the research on the "Turkmen" ethnic group would come from Turkey and this does not mean that they are not reliable just because they are stemming from Turkey. So, I think of your approach as POV and unhealthy with your claim that "the most reliable and real estimate (accounting to 100,000) is the one from government", since 90% of the remaining sources state otherwise, with the minimum number being 800,000; and the 10% of these sources are based on pre-civil war statistics that are affected highly from governing policies. Berkaysnklf (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Important discussion about PKK held areas in Syria
The YPG supporters have been able to portray its entities as legitimate historical regions and Wikipedia has turned into a playground of zealot pro-PKK activists. Hence, it is important to bring some sense back. I kindly ask all interested parties to participate in this discussion here.

Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Demography maps
Here is the source which is against the current demography maps which have been added to the article. Thus, it's clearly Turkish claim. Source: http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Struggle_For_Syria.pdf] Ferakp (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources of the maps include sources from Kurdish professors, US Research Institutes, Turkish think-tanks, news reports in various languages(German, English, Turkish, Kurdish, Arabic), reports and articles in Turkish, French, Hebrew, Arabic, and organizational reports from the local representatives. When one observes your profile and contributions, one clearly understands your motives, but no, your allegations are fictional. Berkaysnklf (talk), 13 December 2016, 20:58 (UTC)


 * Sure, your maps are from different sources, but from all you are cherrypicking the infos about Turkmen majority areas, which makes it wrong in the end, since they contradict themselves. I can't tell for all maps, but at least the northern Aleppo map is just ridiculous. I mean, Jarabulus and Azaz (or at least almost half, as it's shown on your map) as majorily Turkmen? That's hilarious. They are both Arab towns, which is a commonly known fact. I hope you don't demand sources for that.


 * To make it clearer, where you're cherrypicking: Jarabulus as well as Azaz are clearly shown as Arab, but strangely, they're Turkmen in your map. So how can you seriously claim to have used this map as a source?


 * Not enough, Dudiyan is in the midst of your "Turkmen area". Sources say clearly, that it's Kurdish, plus I couldn't find any source claiming it's Turkmen.


 * Also, I never heard, that Dabiq and Soran are Turkmen. In which sources is the information about this?


 * Another point is in northern Raqqa province. Again you use Izady's map as source, but the Turkmen area is far bigger than is is shown there. This is clear POV-pushing.


 * I know you invested much time in creating these maps. Still, what you've done there is not a neutral presentation, no, it is clearly in favour of the Turkmen. And that's simply not acceptable according to Wikipedia policy.--Ermanarich (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I clearly state that it is a combination, "cherrypicking" is also a biased definition. Izady's maps are the 'main' basis for the maps. Else than that, if there is a village associated with Turkmen identity in any of the sources (mostly, this much detail is presented by ORSAM reports); I marked that as well. What you can criticize is this; When there is a pocket of Turkmen settlements, then another Turkmen pocket, and a desert or a mountain region inbetween, which is referred as "uninhabited", I incorporated that area to make those pockets into a bigger zone to better show the "geographical distribution". This was an easier way to create the maps graphically as well.

The Soran city (near Hama) already is not shown as Turkmen in the map... This Soran is a village near Dabiq and those two are mainly Turkmen settlements, their old residents in Turkey even started up a campaign to send fighters for Dabiq area's capture from IS, and currently that area is controlled by Turkmen militias accordingly. Azaz is a Circassian, Arab and Turkmen city, and Turkmens are marked accordingly. For the Raqqa area as I told you, since these maps show "geographic distrubition", I incorporated the uninhabited desert zone between Hammam al-Turkman, Suluk and Turkmen neighborhoods of Tal Abyad into one pocket. Which is a plausible way to go in ethnic maps. Berkaysnklf (talk), 15 December 2016, 22:49 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not a neutral combination, since you deny your first source with simply expanding Turkmen area to areas which are shown as Arab or Kurdish areas at the map. It would be neutral, if you would search if the map may be overstating the Turkmen areas at some point. But miraculously, Turkmen area only massively expands at your map.


 * And as it turns out, your friend User:Beshogur even states at Talk:Ezidkhan, that Izady isn't a reliable source at all.


 * "What you can criticize is this; When there is a pocket of Turkmen settlements, then another Turkmen pocket, and a desert or a mountain region inbetween, which is referred as "uninhabited", I incorporated that area to make those pockets into a bigger zone to better show the "geographical distribution"."
 * Well, that's simply a lie. The area between the northern nieghborhoods of Azaz to the Turkish border is not uninhabited at all. Also, Dudiyan is still in the middle of your "Turkmen" territory. Same for Suluk: The areas around, which you marked as Turkmen are not uninhabited at all. You can easily look it up at Google maps, Wikimapia and so on.


 * As for Soran, I haven't heard about these residents you talk, yet. Could you provide a source? Also, I'd like to know, what ORSAM is and what the text is about. Incorporating a text which is not readable for everyone at such a disputed map theme is not a good way to go.


 * I almost forgot to mention Azaz: Well, if there are three major ethnicities and you marked Turkmen as making up about 45% of the population, then they are the biggest group in Azaz in the end? How strange, all reports I've read refer to Azaz as an Arab city, but also if they don't say it's Arab, I've found not any one that claims it to have Turkmens as the biggest group in it.--Ermanarich (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, I have to ask again, what is with Jarabulus?--Ermanarich (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I would also agree that these maps are inaccurate and portray an unrealistic picture of the Syrian Turkmen demographic makeup. I went through the sources that were listed for the different maps and I would argue that the maps have indeed been created through cherry picking, when articles conflict in their opinions, the article that describe there being a Turkmen population in an area is chosen as a basis for the maps, not once can I find an instance where a claim of a village being Turkmen is omitted from the maps because of dubious/unconfirmed sources. The Columbia/Michael Izady maps are for example highly inaccurate, they show Deir Ez Zor as fully Armenian, which is far from accurate and highly misplaces the Assyrian/Syriac populations (There is no cluster of Syriac villages south of Hasakah). Some articles don't even contain much information that could be used, much of the information seems to be taken from the either the maps I mentioned or the Turkish think tank ORSAM's reports that contain lists of villages with Turkmen populations in Syria, which I would argue does not constitute a neutral source. If the maps claimed to portray historical populations, a mere presence/minorities in those areas, then it would be another question but right now they state that these regions contain majority Turkmen populations. I would argue for them being removed from the page until they've been revised to portray a more neutral and factual portrayal of Syrian Turkmen demographics. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have had these concerns for a long time as well. There is clearly an intent to inflate the presence of Syriam Turkmen in these maps. And ORSAM is definitely not reliable. Khirurg (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Source shenanginans
Several reliable sources that gave an estimate of 100,000-200,000 disappeared over the last few days, without explanation. I have re-instated all of these. I have also removed a lot of unreliable sources (Turkish think-tank ORSAM, various rebel spokespersons and pro-rebel tabloids). I will be keeping an eye on this article in the future to ensure this doesn't happen again. Khirurg (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The news outlets you provided are all duplicating the same rhetoric, as is evident by the dates that they were all published (all on the 24th-25th November 2015). No, it is not reliable for news outlets to simply copy-paste from each other and then to show it as "several reliable sources". As for the source published by the missionary organisation (written by David J. Phillips), again it is not reliable. This is because it clearly confuses Turkmen of Syria (i.e. Turcoman of the Middle East) with the Turkmen people who are scattered across Turkmenistan, Iran, and Afghanistan. O.celebi (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * They are not "new outlets", they are reliable sources. And they are not "duplicating" anything, they are each independent of each other. You just want them removed because they do not fit your POV. And it's not "rhetoric", they are facts. That's also enough with using Turkmen spokesmen and Erdogan-funded think tanks as "sources". These do not meet WP:RS. Khirurg (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The fact that you only see the sources stating "100,000" as "facts" and dismiss everything else is quite unethical in editing - especially since hundreds of thousands of Turkmen have been displaced. Can you please specify which sources are "Erdogan funded"? if this can be verified, then, yes, they should also be removed.O.celebi (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Conflict with population sources
There are many different sources which overstate the Turkmen population in Syria.

Problems: The think tank ORSAM was described as an "independent" think thank in this article even though there were no sources to confirm it's really independent. Thus I removed it as it's clearly WP:ORIGINAL. The second problem is that most Turkish sources clearly exaggerate the Turkmen population in Syria. The government, Kurdish and independent sources are talking about 100,000 Turkmen while Turkish sources are talking about 1,5M-3,5M without referring to any reliable sources. The think tank report which claims the Turkmen population is 1.5-3.5M is probably not a good and reliable source as all other sources are against it. Also, the think tank report itself says "even though there is no official data, there are 1,5M Turkish speaking Turkmen in Syria and 2M who have forgotten Turkish language.."(page 6). That clearly confirm that their estimates should be seen as claim rather than reliable information. Admin will be called to review the population section.

Turkish sources are not probably reliable sources in this situation. Other Arabic sources which are shown as "Arab source" are actually pro-opposition biased sources, almost all of them are clearly against WP:RELIABLE. The section will be rewritten and someone will be called to give an opinion.Ferakp (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Ferakp, thank you for using the talk page. Many Arab sources seem to be in agreement with Turkish sources. By "government sources" are you suggesting that estimates given by the Assad regime - which the minority is fighting against - would be reliable? The 100,000 est., prior to the civil war, seems quite unrealistic considering hundreds of thousands of Syrian Turkmen have been displaced since then. Moreover, I do not see how ABCNews or USNews meet your requirenment for a "reliable" source yet a range of Arab sources as well as the BBC and the New York Times do not. Nonetheless, I have kept the low estimates in the article because placing both the high and low estimates will allow the article to remain objective rather than selective on this matter. O.celebi (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Arab sources you have used are not reliable sources, that's the problem here. There is one government in Syria and that's usually the most reliable source for stats like this. It doesn't matter do you see the government biased or not, it's the only official one here. I have explained the case of BBC and New York times below (they don't support your population claims). Remember that the Turkish government sources are also biased as there is no free press in Turkey (FreedomHouse&RSF) and it's in war with Kurds, but because it's the only "official" government there, their stats are used in many articles. Thank you for replying.Ferakp (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear user O.celebi, I see your edits and I feel you are repeatedly involved in WP:ORIGINAL and misinterpretation of sources, despite messages I wrote you. There are many sections where paragraphs you have added are clearly WP:ORIGINAL and for this reason I've added the original research-tag to the article. We need someone to come and review your edits.
 * WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V sections:
 * P1: However, BBC English maintains that the Syrian Turkmen population ranges between 500,000 to 3.5 million.: Here you have added the source []. However, the source says ...There are no reliable population figures, but they are estimated to number between about half a million and 3.5 million... The source clearly says it's an estimate and there is no reliable figure. That means that the paragraph P1 is original research and source doesn't support your paragraphs at all.
 * P2: ..According to Ali Öztürkmen, Bilgay Duman and Oytun Orhan, from the independent Turkish think-tank ORSAM,..: It's a big claim to say the specific think tank is an independent, reliable sources are needed to confirm such thing. It has been now deleted until a reliable source is added. Also, I added "claim" instead of "according" because the source mentions (the think tank report) that there is no official data. You didn't mention it, just like in the case of P1 paragraph.
 * P3: Similarly, the New York Times has suggested that the population is between hundreds of thousands to perhaps more than 3 million.: You have written that the New York Times has "suggested". This is unfortunately cherry picking and original research. The source says No reliable figures are available, and estimates on the number of Turkmens in Syria and nearby countries vary widely, from the hundreds of thousands up to 3 million or more. which means that the source itself says directly that there are no reliable figures and estimate vary widely. The source itself doesn't support that the population is between hundreds of thousands to 3M.. There is a big difference between adding adding a source which supports such estimate of population than adding a source which says "there is no reliable figure..different sources estimate..".


 * The whole population section should be rewritten and your other edits should be reviewed more carefully. I suggest we cut the population section to different sub sections according to origin of sources. Please, review WP:ORIGINAL, WP:V and WP:NPOV, then review your edits. Ferakp (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've taken your comments on board, please take a look and let me know what other problems you have with the section. Thanks, O.celebi (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

No ethnic compound of Syria has official data but this is not stated on their infoboxes. I think that explanation should be lifted from the infobox. Berkaysnklf (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps it would be best to clearly have this written in the other wiki articles of ethnic minorities in Syria too. O.celebi (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think communities related to them would allow it. I think we shouldn't mention this in infobox as well, it has already been pointed out clearly and several times throughout the article and instead; we should give the estimated number range where most and recent researches commonly suggest; 800,000-3,000,000. Wouldn't you agree? Berkaysnklf (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The range has to be RS based. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Source Suggestion
I suggest the editors of this page to benefit from the Emeviler'den Arap Baharı'na: Halep Türkmenleri (ISBN: 9786056562853) book. Great academic source shedding light on the past and current situation of Turkmens in Syria, mainly of those living in north Syria (Bayırbucak, Idlib, Aleppo, Çobanbey, Tel Abyad and Suluk). Berkaysnklf (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

"Turkish claim"
It's not a "Turkish claim" only as some users says it. Please check the sources.
 * Columbia University,
 * Michael Izady 1,
 * Michael Izady 2,
 * Jersualem Post,
 * Washington Institute
 * : Presseausschnitte zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Nordafrika und dem Nahen und Mittleren Osten. Autors: Deutsches Orient–Institut; Deutsches Übersee–Institut. Hamburg: Deutsches Orient–Institut, 1996, seite 33.,
 * Fabrice Balanche Les Alaouites, l’espace et le pouvoir dans la r´egion cˆoti`ere syrienne : une int´egration nationale ambigu¨e. G´eographie. Universit´e Fran¸cois Rabelais - Tours, 2000. Fran¸cais. 
 * Syria and the Middle East Peace Process, Alasdair Drysdale; Raymond A. Hinnebusch; pg. 222, (ISBN 0876091052)
 * Nicholas A. Heras; Syrian Turkmen Join Opposition Forces in Pursuit of a New Syrian Identity, Terrorism Monitor, 11.
 * SOITM
 * World Population Review - Syrian Turkmen / 2013,
 * BBC,
 * Ahmet Emin Dağ, 2015, From Umayyads to the Arab Spring: Turkmens of Aleppo, ISBN: 9786056562853.
 * Mehmet Şandır, “Suriye Türklüğü” (Syrian Turks), Türk Yurdu, Cilt 18, Sayı 133 (1998), s. 7-8.
 * Işıl Bostancı, Halep Türkmenleri (Boy ve Oymak) (Turkmens of Aleppo), Fırat University, Elazığ, 1998
 * ORSAM Report No: 14
 * ORSAM Report No: 150,
 * ORSAM Report No: 83
 * The Turkmen Reality in Syria
 * Arguments on Safe Haven in Syria: Risks, Opportunities and Scenarios for Turkey - Page 37 (Source for Tel Rifat - Mare countryside update)
 * Syrian Turkmen Assembly - Website Articles and Information
 * , I know the maps are little bit exaggerated but it does not means those maps are "Turkish claim" as you said. Beshogur (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , I know the maps are little bit exaggerated but it does not means those maps are "Turkish claim" as you said. Beshogur (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are. Until you find other sources that support your demography claim, it's a Turkish claim. Your first source(pdf) is based on ORSAM study. The second source is a map which itself is not a source. It's also against your claim actually. Sources 3 and four are by M.Izaddin which is also owner of the map of the second source. Jerusalem Post article doesn't support your claim. Washington I. article doesn't support your claims too. All others are Turkish sources (ORSAM) and pdf of Suriyeturkmenmeclisi.org. Ferakp (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, most of those claims are from Izadi in fact, a Kurdish Iranian professor. ORsam or other sources adding just some info where Turkmens are living. Yes, as I said the map is a bit exaggerated but not a "Turkish claim". Beshogur (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sources removed
I have removed a large number of unreliable sources from the article. These do not meet WP:RS, as detailed below. Please do not re-insert.


 * Mustafa Khalifa - A novelist and anti-Assad activist. No academic credentials. Published in "Arab Reform initiative", a western funded, anti-Assad think tank. Fails the WP:RS criterion for "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This source is used throughout the article, even in the lede. Out of the question.
 * Pierre Picinin da Prata - Freelance journalist, zero academic credentials. Has been widely criticized, as hid fr.wiki article makes clear . His claims that Turkmen make up 15-20% of Syria are wildly extravagant and at odds with all other published literature.
 * Salman Hamoud Falah - published in Arabic at www.al-amama.com, a Druze activist website. Fails the WP:RS criterion for "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
 * Sinan Hatahet and Ayman Aldassouky - similar to above. Published in Sharq Forum website. Fails the WP:RS criterion for "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
 * Enab Baladi - Slick, western-funded, anti-Assad activist website. Fails the WP:RS criterion for "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
 * Elaph - Same as above.
 * Damascus Times - Same as above, even more obscure, Arabic-only.
 * Erem News - Same as above.
 * Shaam News Network - Same as above.
 * Al-Araby Al-Jadeed - Same as above.
 * Al-Jazeera English - Qatari government mouthpiece. 'nuff said.
 * Ersat Hurmuzlu - Published in Turkish Policy Quarterly. Fails the WP:RS criterion for "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
 * Mustafa Abdurrahman - Syrian Turkmen spokesman. Self-evidently fails WP:RS
 * ORSAM - Turkish government (i.e. Erdogan) funded think tank. 'nuff said.
 * Daily Sabah - Pro-Erdogan mouthpiece. 'Nuff said.

Furthermore, several reliable sources, such as this, were removed sneakily and without explanation. Khirurg (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm slightly confused here. You mention that the Arab Reform Initiative is Western funded and therefore unreliable, yet your edit said the following: "Most Western sources have also suggest estimates in the 100,000-200,000 range" - implying that it is ok to use pro-Western sources. However, ABC Online, IB Times, and Time Magazine are not better alternatives. And hardly academic.


 * The inconsistency continues because you use C.H. Bleaney which states that "another [estimate] surmises" that there was 94,000 in 1978, making them "1.2%" but it also says  "whereas elsewhere they are estimated to form up to 3 per cent of the total" - which you omitted including. Having said that, this source still completely contradicts most of your edits. If there was 94,000 in 1978 how can there be 100,000 in 2018? Barry Rubin points out that ""The Turkmen in Syria have the highest growth rate among Turkic groups in the Middle East, with a 3.8% increase in population estimated between 2000 and 2025." (see ISBN: 1317455770, publisher also Routledge).


 * For the Arabic sources, please provide evidence of your claims that they are all anti-Asad. I should point out that there are also well known pro-Assadists who also side with the estimate of around 1 million, such as Paul Antonopoulos who states: "The Turkmen of Syria number around a million people and have once again been used by Ankara to further Turkish goals in Syria" see page 8 . O.celebi (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No, no you clearly do not understand WP:RS. What matters is whether a publisher meets the criterion for "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". IBTimes, ABC Online, etc. all those meet that criteria because they are published by reputable publishers with a long history. In contrast, the anti-Assad activist websites you cite sprang up literally at the start of the civil war, all with slick, state of the art websites, out of thin air. Also, please don't synthesize sources (Rubin and Bleaney). Populations can stay static even with a high growth rate if there is migration to other countries. Bleaney is definitely WP:RS. Antonopoulos is a known neo-Nazi, definitely not RS. Khirurg (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * But Bleaney says that an estimate in 1965 suggests 60,000 and another in 1978 states 94,000 (that would be an increase of 56.67% in 13 years). That would not be static at all. Nonetheless, the problem with the news outlets that you want to use is that they contradict the majority of academic sources. This is my main concern. O.celebi (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You still have absolutely no understanding of WP:RS. The sources you call "academic" are not academic. Hence the "news outlets" (As you call them pejoratively), don't contradict any "academic sources". Let's cut the crap shall we? The real reason you don't like the "news outlets" is because the flatly contradict the ridiculously inflated numbers you are so keen on inserting in this article. Khirurg (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Which sources are not academic, please be specific (are you referring to my proposal below or the Arabic sources). The news outlets flatly contradict academic sources which suggest a population of 3% or over. O.celebi (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * None of the sources in the list I said should be removed are academic. Do you know what "academic" means? Or is it just a word you use to describe a source you happen to like? Khirurg (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am very much aware of what an academic source is, thank you. But you are consistently contradicting yourself; you don't want any of these sources to be used because they are not academic. Then you say we must use ABC Online, IB Times... these are not academic either. You are cherry-picking sources in a subjective manner. O.celebi (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I am not contradicting myself at all. You are being intellectually dishonest. I am saying, that ABC Online and IB Times should be used because they are reliable sources. A source does not have to be academic to be reliable. On the other hand, those pro-rebel activist website you use are not reliable. And you removed Harvard Divinity School, an academic source. Khirurg (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for Population section
After taking into consideration our discussion above, it seems that we disagree mostly on two points:

1) I am critical about ABC Online, IB Times, and Time Magazine and believe that these are insufficient sources which contradict most academia on this topic (including Nikolaos van Dam, published by Taylor & Francis; Daniel Pipes, published by Oxford University Press; Pierre Beckouche, published by Edward Elgar Publishing; the Syria profile, published by Ohio State University etc.). They also contradict the most respected online sources (such as the BBC and Dr. Jonathan Spyer's article in The Australian). Furthermore, the Harvard Divinity School is particularly questionable because it also suggests that there are only 160,000 Kurds in Syria, which is ludicrous, to say the least. Therefore, this is not a reliable source. Please note that Identifying reliable sources says that "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics". 2) Khirurg is particularly cautious of all the Arabic and Turkish sources.

I am of the opinion that Arabic sources should not automatically be dubbed as unreliable; rather, we must be cautious of journalists who write about the region and its people without ever stepping foot in the country. Having said that, if there is sufficient evidence to suggest that any (or all) these Arabic sources are somehow bias (evidence is needed for this) then I am willing to take the same opinion that I have for Time Magazine etc.

Below I have written a proposal which excludes the sources I reject and the sources that User:Khirurg rejects. In addition, I have included Khirurg's wish on using C. Heather Bleaney (published by Routledge) and I have also included Paul Antonopoulos (published by Taylor & Francis) and Dr. Jonathan Spyer's article too. Could this possibly be a compromise? or at least lead us to a positive direction on finally resolving this dispute?

O.celebi (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Absolutely no Paul Antonopoulos. And absolutely yes to Washington Post, NY Times, ABC Online, IB Times. These all meet WP:RS. There is absolutely no reason to exclude them. In fact you are trying to exclude every source that says 100,000-200,000. But that is intellectually dishonest. Also, get rid of all the "However"s and "Acknowledges" and all these subtle POV words per WP:EDITORIALIZNG. And make it all one section. It makes no sense to have a "population" section and an "estimate" section. Redundant. Khirurg (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Well the New York Times is already in my proposal. You're rejecting a publication from Taylor & Francis but preach about WP:RS. This is a problem. Another problem is that you seem to read IB Times as claiming a population of 100,000 or 200,000; in fact, it says that "the Associated Press reported that most estimates suggest the Turkmen minority in Syria number around 100,000. The BBC reported the best estimate of the total Turkmen population is between 1.5 and 3.5 million." so, no, it does not claim that there are 100,000 Turkmen. If you see these Western news sources as reliable then I really don't see why you consider Arabic new outlets as unreliable. I'm still waiting on any evidence to suggest that they should be removed. O.celebi (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Which Taylor&Francis source am I rejecting? As for the IB Times, just replace it with "the Associated Press". BBC is already included. As for the Arabic outlets, the reason I am rejecting them is not because they are Arabic, but because the fail the criterion of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". These are highly partisan activist websites that sprang up when the war started. Zero reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Khirurg (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Paul Antonopoulos' article is published by Taylor & Francis. Yes, the BBC is already included, but the point is that the IB Times is quoting both these sources (i.e. the Associated Press and the BBC), therefore, if it is to be included in the article, it must be clarified in this way. The echoing of sources is also evident in the Washington Post. If you click on to the blue links on the article which say "numbering around 200,000 people" and "Syrian Turkmen leaders, though, insist that the community's population is far larger", the Washington Post directs the reader to the Time Magazine and the Jamestown Foundation. Therefore, the Washington Post is also citing two sources we are already using. It is not an independent estimate by the publisher. As for the Arabic sources, you haven't provided any legitimate evidence to suggest that they fail the criteria.


 * I will try to write up several more proposals to see if an agreement can be reached. I will do my best to do this by today. Kind regards. O.celebi (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have provided very good reasons why the ultra-partisan, pro-regime change activist websites are not reliable sources. It is you who is pretending not to listen. And on top of this you had the nerve to remove Harvard Divinity School, which is an academic source, on the grounds that "oh, their numbers are too low". It is not up to you to question a reliable, academic source. The fact that you think their numbers are too low means nothing. The source is reliable, and that's all there is to it. This is a red line. I will not stand for inclusion of activist websites, nor the removal of academic sources. As for Paul Antonopoulos, see here. Are you sure you want to go down that route? Khirurg (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * See, your reply here is a continuation of how your arguments cherry-pick. You can see that the Harvard Divinity School states 160,000 Kurds in Syria see. This should be ringing alarm bells: perhaps something is wrong here. But no. You say: "it's academic". Would you be prepared to include the HDS' Kurdish estimate of 160,000 in Kurds in Syria?.
 * You say that you will not stand for "activist websites", the proposal above has none. I removed everything we both disagree with to see if we can discuss a compromise (instead, you are continuing to merely object to things that are not in this proposal). Nonetheless, you still need to provide sufficient evidence to suggest that those websites are unreliable (arguments like they are "activist websites" or "'nuff said" is not enough).
 * Before, you argued that higher estimates by Arabic sources were from the anti-Assad camp (without any sufficient evidence), so I wanted to show you that this is not the case, even Antonopoulos sided with the estimate of 1 million. I am aware of his political leanings (that was the point in showing it to you). Furthermore, I wanted to see whether you would object to using an academic peer-reviewed journal, which you clearly have. (it was published by Taylor & Francis not Al-Masdar News). O.celebi (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Not cherry picking, you are. HDS is an academic source, and that's the end of that. It doesn't matter if you don't like what it says. It doesn't work like that. An academic source is an academic source, and it will go in the article. As for those activist websites, well, I'm not going to repeat myself, as you are pretending not to listen]. [[User:Khirurg|Khirurg (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "An academic source is an academic source,..." so then you should have no problem with Antonopoulos, right? I can perhaps write up a proposal of which include only academic sources. You need to be specific and show evidence on which sources are "activist websites", so that this discussion can finally move-on. O.celebi (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "Show evidence". Nice try trying to shift the burden of proof. You are the one trying to add these websites to the articles, so it is on you to show that they meet wikipedia's criteria for being considered reliable sources. Specifically, the criterion for a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I somehow have a feeling this won't be forthcoming. Since you are resorting to gimmicks like trying to shift the burden of proof, I am concluding you are not really interested in a negotiated compromise, but rather you are just trying to filibuster and wear me down with repeated bs. Khirurg (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your last edit; it was interesting to see how you placed the majority of academic sources below Western news outlets. This is not cool, rather, it is irresponsible editing. I would like to point out that that the sources you're using to justify these edits: ABC, IB Times, Washington Post, and Time Magazine were all written in the same week (on 24th and 25th November 2015). Wikipedia states that News media is potentially unreliable "Particularly with breaking news"...Identifying reliable sources also says that: "Breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies." This is clearly the case here, as it was breaking news when the Russian plane was shot down (thus the publication on "Who are the Syrian Turkmen" news reports that followed). In addition, I would also like to point out that these websites seem to mirror the Wikipedia entries of this article on 24th November 2015 and 25th November 2015. This is not reliable, particularly since no academic sources were used back then.


 * I would be open to using only academic sources, articles written by known academics with a PhD, and reputable think tanks. This should surely be a reasonable compromise. To me, the sources you're pushing for are unreliable and are not supported by any academic source (except for the Harvard Divinity School, which states controversial figures - such as 160,000 Kurds in Syria). I have not found this 100,000 estimate in any modern scholarship. O.celebi (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Second Proposal for population
In this proposal I have removed the majority of news websites (see my reasons above), keeping only the article by Dr. Jonathan Spyer because he is the only academic in any of these sources. I have also kept the UNHCR and the think-tanks (i.e. the Jamestown Foundation and the Arab Reform Initiative). The rest of the sources are solely academic only. I still dispute the reliability of the Harvard Divinity School because there is no date of publication and I have not found a single modern academic source suggesting a population of 100,000; however, I have included it here until I seek a second opinion. Any constructive (rather than moany) criticism or suggestions are more than welcome.

I look forward to hopefully bringing this dispute to a conclusion. Kind regards to all. O.celebi (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think this proposal would be a definitive improvement of the population section, and I commend you for sticking to only academic sources here as a compromise. Perhaps it could be even more succinct for ease of reading, having one "Estimated figures and percentages" subsection presenting claims of higher and lower estimates instead of having two separate sections. But all in all good job! AntonSamuel (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

An improvement, but several problems remain.
 * Please remove "Arab Reform Initiative". Partisan think tank, author has is a novelist and activist, zero academic credentials. We've been over this.
 * Lots of poisoning the well for (surprise!) the sources that give lower estimates, such as Bleaney ("however, Bleaney does not specify the sources for these estimates" - do the others? Why single out Bleaney?) and Harvard divinity school ("the Harvard Divinity School also states that the Syrian Kurds number 160,000" - classic well poisoning. The Kurds are irrelevant here. Why are so bent on mentioning the Kurds?)
 * Lots of editorializing and innuendo. All "however"s and "indeed"s and "moreover"s should be removed.
 * Associated press is an excellent source and should be included, as should other reliable western news sources. The criterion for inclusion is reliability, not academicity.
 * "has not allowed its citizens to declare their ethnic origin" --> "does not collect information on citizens ethnicity". NPOV.
 * Also please remove the neoconservative Middle East Forum and the professor from Qatar University. Qatar is a dictatorship with no academic freedom, and is moreover actively involved in the civil war.

Overall a huge improvement, even though some issues remain. We're getting there though. Khirurg (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi AntonSamuel, thanks for the feedback. Your optimism is a relief. Kind regards. O.celebi (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Khirurg, it is nice to see you a bit more optimistic, great! I am concerned, though, that your demands for the inclusion of the Associated Press is stepping back to past discussions, which will be a major obstacle on concluding this dispute. This is because the inclusion of news websites by authors with no expertise in the field will certainly open the flood gates; consequently, editors will start adding a bunch of random news articles again. We need to avoid this. In particular, I am concerned that you are Orientalising writers who are not "Western". This is unacceptable, non-Westerners should not be considered inferior just because of the country of their origin. We must use sources written by experts on the region, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, religion etc. not simply relying on random journalists just because they are Western.


 * Previously, you had argued that the Arabic news sources should be removed because they were launched post-2011. I took this into consideration. For this reason, I removed the Al Sharq Forum publication, as a compromise. However, the Arab Reform Initiative was launched in 2005 and is well respected and very much cited by academics. Mustafa Khalifa, the author of this demographic study, is not just a novelist (as you previously said), the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, correctly says that he is also a Syrian topographer see here. Moreover, Khalifa is an award-winning writer who was a recipient of the Ibn Rushd Prize for Freedom of Thought in 2015. He is widely known in the Arabic speaking world and is widely cited even in English speaking publications. For example, Gary Gambill (who also contributes at Jamestown Foundation ) says in a report published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute, in footnote 3, that “For an excellent discussion of demographic barriers to partition, see Mustafa Khalifa, "The Impossible Partition of Syria," Arab Reform Initiative, October 2013.” see here . Several other notable scholars have also cited Khalifa’s demographic study, such as Professor Dirk Moses  see here and Khalifa’s demographic study is also cited in peer-reviewed journals, such as in a report published by PRAXIS: The Fletcher Journal of Human Security see here… the list is actually quite extensive, which I’m sure you can see for yourself (if you look into this).


 * There is no source in this proposal published by the Middle East Forum.


 * I'm not convinced with your views regarding Professor Taef El-Azhari’s article. So what if he is Qatari? His work is published in a peer-reviewed journal which is published by the University of Szeged. Please don’t Orientalise people just for the sake of it.


 * In regards to how I wrote Bleaney's claims, she says the following ""Estimates vary from 30,000 Turkomans plus an unknown number of Turks in 1964, to 60,000 Turkmoans in 1965; another surmises a Turkic-speaking population in 1978..." but she provides no references at all, where does the 1964, 1965, and 1978 estimates come from? The other authors in this proposal either suggest the estimates themselves or say "estimates vary from" – which is expressed as such in this proposal (though I can make this more clear if need be).


 * I have asked for a second opinion on the reliability of the Harvard Divinity School source at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard see here for the discussion. Two responses have also suggested that it is probably out of date. The fact that it has no publication date, author, or references (not even one of these qualities), coupled with the 160,000 estimate for the Kurds in Syria, is an important indicator that we need to be cautious of simply adding it as a modern estimate.


 * I will tweak parts of this proposal again. I hope that you consider my reasoning above. Best, O.celebi (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Your praise of Mr. Khalifa means nothing. It doesn't change the fact that he has zero academic credentials, no academic publications, and is just an anti-Assad agitator praised by neoconservative regime change types and their ilk. So he's been cited by other regime-changers? So what? Arab Refrom iniative is regime-change junk. The fact that he's topographer means nothing (Free tip: topography and demography are different things). The publication of his you cite is not academic. It's published in a self-published regime change website. Worthless. As for Taef El-Azhari, the problem is not his ethnicity (nor did I ever imply that, so quit distorting), the problem is the Qatari government which funds him is hell-bent on regime change in Syria. Qatar is a brutal dictatorship with no concept of academic freedom. What academic in Qatar would dare violate the official line? It's not "orientalizing" or any such bs, so keep your (not so) subtle accusations of racism to yourself. As Bleaney and HDS, you are poisoning the well. It's interesting you don't do the same for the sources that give the ridiculously large estimates you seem to favor. Khirurg (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, the Ohio State Source you like is totally worthless. It contradicts itself (Arabs 90%, Kurds 9% and Turkmen 8-9%). It is unpublished, has no citations (red flag!), and frankly looks like it was written by a student as homework for a class. Khirurg (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh boy, the Ohio State source is riddled with ridiculous errors, for example "During the 1st century AD, Syria was under constant attacks from the Byzantines." Wow. Just wow. Khirurg (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The author of the Ohio State piece, Allison Didion, does not appear on the OSU web site, so is almost certainly a student. I can't believe you tried to pass this off as an "academic source". Is this your notion of an "academic source"? Khirurg (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * More intellectual dishonesty: You claim that Jamestown foundation says the there are 250,000 Turkmen in Bayirbucak. Bayirbucak is a remote, sparsely populated, rugged region on the border with Turkey. I found that strange, because Bayirbucak consists of nothing more than 40-50 villages, which would imply 5k per village. Mighty large, these villages. So when I checked further, it turns out the figure for 250,000 is not Jamestown's own, but instead from the notorious Anadolu news agency, i.e. Erdogan mouthpiece. Out it goes. Khirurg (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * And you are arguing with a (presumably) straight face to keep junk like Khalifa, the OSU student essay, and Anadolu, but keep out the Associated Press, New York Times, Washington Post, and other reliable sources. This is intellectual dishonesty on a stunning scale. Out of the question. We have a BIG problem here. Khirurg (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * So far, you have not made a single compromise on this talk page. Yet, several times now, you have attempted to delete sources and rewrite the article according to your own opinions. This is disrespectful towards those of us trying to reach a compromise here. Please, realise that to conclude this dispute we all need to make compromises - not just me - and the best way to do that is by working together and by respecting each other in a civil manner.


 * I am not "praising" Khalifa' I am merely trying to give you background info on a topic you clearly don't have much knowledge on. I would like to point out that C. Heather Bleaney is not an academic either; I am critical of her study but, to compromise, I have included it in this proposal. I have even included the Harvard Divinity School, despite the fact that several Wikipedians on Reliable sources/Noticeboard suggested that it is out of date. Again, to please you, to reach a compromise. You wanted to use the 2011 Jamestown Foundation report. So again, I included it. If you want the 2011 Jamestown report then the second publication will be included too. No more cherry-picking, please.


 * You say the "Arab Refrom iniative is regime-change junk" - no it is not. You are clearly criticising something that you no nothing about. Where is your evidence to even suggest this? The ARI is partnered with distinguished think-tanks across the world. You say "What academic in Qatar would dare violate the official line?" - yes you ARE Orientalising. In fact, you are doing it more so now. El-Azhari's paper was published by a respected university - the University of Szeged - so your comments are totally baffling. This is another example of your continuous attempt to cherry-pick sources.


 * You say the Ohio State piece is not referenced and therefore a "red flag" - well the Harvard Divinity School has no references either yet you have been totally supportive of that. Again, the cherry-picking continues. So shall we keep both or remove both?


 * To be clear, I was actually fine with using the New York Times, however, to show that I was dedicated to keeping sources written by experts on the region, it seemed fair to only keep the one article written by an academic. O.celebi (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I've made plenty of compromises. If you think I haven't, that says more about you than me. Yes, you are praising Khalifa, who is a novelist and anti-Assad agitator ("he's a topographer!"). Making the Ibn-Rushd prize sound like some kind of Nobel prize. Give me a break. My manner may be a bit brusque, but I prefer to be direct and honest, instead of making sneaky snide comments about "orientializing" and other such bs. Also please indent your comments properly. Khirurg (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Third proposal for the population
Above, User:Khirurg criticised the Ohio State University, so perhaps a compromise can be reached if it is removed alongside the Harvard Divinity School (HDS) (which has no date of publication, known author, or referencing). To those who have not followed the dispute above, I also asked for a second opinion on the HDS at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard and the discussion can be found here. User:Khirurg is now also become critical of the Jamestown Foundation publications because they cite Turkish sources, so I have removed these sources too.

I am still critical of C. Heather Bleaney (due to the lack of refencing in her claims regarding 1964, 1965, and 1978). On the other hand, User:Khirurg is critical of Mustafa Khalifa's work published by the Arab Reform Initiative. Neither author seems to have a PhD but both do focus their work on Syria, so keeping both these sources will, hopefully, be a logical and fair compromise:

This is the third proposal now, which has taken into consideration all the disputes. I believe that it is a fair proposal. As always, I welcome any recommendations. Please stay civil, let's just work together to get this done now. It is tiresome. Best, O.celebi (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Edited proposal

I have reviewed your proposal which I thought was mostly good. I have made some modifications, by merging the two subsections regarding estimates and trying to make it more compact and more easily readable. I have also removed some repeated remarks, added Minority Rights Group International as a reference, rephrased/removed some non-neutral language, removed a non-academic source and dead link as well as some other tweaks in what follows below. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks good, just three points. I insist on not including Khalifa, he is a novelist and not an academic (and it seems we are sticking to academic sources), Arab Reform Initiative is not an academic source, and the Ibn-Rush prize (award amount $2,500) is not the Nobel Prize. The only other thing I would like to add is that many Syrian Turkmen have fled since the war, and estimating their current numbers is impossible (perhaps in the intro of the section). Lastly, I do think Jamestown should be included, just not the figures it cites from Anadolu. Khirurg (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would argue that including or excluding Khalifa is a bit of a toss-up, since the Arab Reform Initiative is an independent think tank and therefore the source could be argued to be academic even though he is a novelist. Regarding whether they are credible or not because of an alleged pro-Western and anti-Assad bias is also a bit problematic, it could be argued that a majority of think tanks have some sort of bias but as long as they are not considerably biased regarding the subject matter at hand (e.g. if they were anti- or pro-Turkey) they could be considered to be a credible reference to include, at least for expressing a claim. I have rephrased it again somewhat, added some info about the civil war and included the Jamestown Foundation. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * With your latest edits, we're good except for Khalifa. He is not a demographer and has no qualifications in this area. How did he arrive at his conclusions? He is an anti-Assad activist with a very strong POV. Arab Reform Initiative is a think-tank (who funds them?) and not an academic institution. There is a plethora of Saudi and Qatari funded, pro-regime change "think tanks" and "scholars" nowadays. We have to be very cautious in this regard. Khirurg (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the effort you have put in, . I will write up a fourth proposal below, taking your comments on board. I do think that it is best to keep different sections for percentages and figures. Dividing paragraphs by "low estimates" vs "high estimates" is a subjective approach. More importantly, the percentage estimates specify according to Sunni Muslim Turkmen (Professor Alasdair Drysdale and Professor Raymond Hinnebusch; Dr. Pierre Beckouche; C. Heather Bleaney - see page 210 on Bleaney where she specifies this); Turkmen who speak their mother tongue (i.e. Professor Daniel Pipes); and Syrian Turkmen in general (Dr. Nikolaos van Dam, Mustafa Khalifa). This needs to be written accordingly. Also, with regards to Dr. Jonathan Spyer's article, it is not a dead link; one has to be a subscriber to read from the site (only certain articles are viewable to non-subscribers). I can send you a personal email of it; alternatively, you can ask for confirmation through another wikipedian (it was published on September 10, 2015). Since we are all familiar with the writers now, I can write up a shorter proposal without rambaling about which university or institution these writers are (I originally had done this in response to the dispute to show credibility), so it'll be an easier read. Kind regards, O.celebi (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, the author of the Jamestown Foundation article, Nicholas A. Heras, is not an academic. C. Heather Bleaney is not an academic either. Neither of these writers hold a PhD. Since you strongly support the inclusion of these two sources, I don't see why you criticse Mustafa Kalifia for not being an academic. Kalifia is a well known, award-winning, Syrian writer published in a respected think-tank. You will need to compromise on this for the dispute to conclude. The fact that you are pushing for one Jamestown publication whilst rejecting another Jamestown publication is already problematic (you are essentially continuing to cherry-pick). But I will overlook this if you finally accept the source as a compromise to achieve a balanced article. Kind regards, O.celebi (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would highly recommend against splitting figures and percentages, it results in repeated statistics that will hard to read and get an overview of, which keeping the low and high estimates separate does provide the reader with, and there is not necessarily subjectivity in that I would argue, that's how most Wikipedia articles deals with a lack of consensus or varying claims. It is important to keep the article neutral and presenting the reader with estimates from both sides, since most can be considered to originate from credible sources. If you want there to be further clarification between the differing categories (Sunni, Turkish-speaking, Turkmen) that is fine, but I would urge you to keep the text as compact as possible and exclude unnecessary facts and claims for ease of reading, I would even argue that focusing on the overarching figures and keeping the names of the researchers confined to the references would probably be even better. You may include Spyers article as a source however it is a relatively wide claim (500,000-3 million / ~2,5-15%). AntonSamuel (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have written another proposal below. Hopefully it will satisfy all. Best, O.celebi (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The difference is, Heather Bleaney and Nicholas Heras are published by reputable publishers, with a track record. Arab Reform Initiative is think-tank that sprang yesterday, with a very clear regime-change POV. They don't reveal their funders (Qatar? Saudi?). There is a world of dodgy Qatari and Saudi funded "reform" type think tanks out there. Khirurg (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way I wonder how you arrived at the conclusion that Bleaney and Heras do not have Ph.D.s. Care to share with us? Khirurg (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The Arab Reform Initiative was founded in 2005, hardly yesterday. It is a think-tank, just like the Jamestown Foundation. Your argument of "dodgy" funding is baseless. So I see no reason why it should not be included. It is time for you to compromise.


 * Yes, I can share with you:
 * Heras A. Nicolas's cv is here he has a BA degree and an MA degree.
 * As for Bleaney, the contributors page in the book "The Turkic Peoples of Syria" lists the writers as follows (pages xiv-xx):
 * Dr. Jussi Aro
 * Dr. Margaret Bainbridge
 * Dr. Linda Benson
 * Heather Bleaney - not a Dr.
 * Dr. F.W Carter
 * Professor J.M Dewdney
 * Dr. William H. Hale
 * Dr. Harry Halen
 * Dr. R.I. Lawless
 * Dr. Andrew Mango
 * Dr. Julie Marcus
 * Dr. Robin Oakley
 * Dr. Pierre Oberling
 * Professor Jean-Paul Roux
 * Alan Sanders
 * George Schopflin
 * Dr. J.M Wagstaffe
 * Professor Malcom Yapp
 * Dr. Feroze Yasemee


 * Best, O.celebi (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Means nothing. Bleaney and Heras are published by reputable publishers. We are including them. Khirurg (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't say we should remove them. You said "Care to share with us?" so I am merely replying to you. O.celebi (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Well then thank you for sharing with us. Khirurg (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Fourth proposal for population
Taking further discussions into consideration:

I'm hoping that this will be sufficient to conclude this dispute. Please let me know your thoughts. Best, O.celebi (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I actually like the way you arranged them chronologically, that makes sense. If you were to a) add Maisel (from below), b) remove Khalifa, and c) not have a separate section for "birth rates", we have a deal. Khirurg (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Also a note in the opening paragraph about how many Turkmen have sought refuge in turkey during the war, which makes estimating their numbers even harder. Khirurg (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually I have a question about Rubin. How does he arrive at the conclusion that the Turkmen have had a growth rate of 3.8% between 2000 and 2025?? Did he use a time machine to travel in to the future and did the math? Khirurg (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have included Larry Clark and Sebastian Maisel. Barry Rubin is saying that this projected, you have misunderstood... basically, he is saying that this % increase is estimated to occur within these two time periods. I am still not convinced with your arguments for Khalifa because you have not provided any evidence to suggest that we need to avoid this publisher. Also, we shouldn't be writing POV sentences about the refugees; I do not object to having a sentence on the refugees, if it is sourced (the only one I could find was the Al Sharq Forum, which you rejected using). Other than that, I am happy to go forward with this proposal. This will be a fair conclusion, as both of us will have to deal with a source we are not keen on. But it will enable the article to remain neutral, taking all relevant publications into account. O.celebi (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see "projected" anywhere in Rubin's writing. Khirurg (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have now used this version with some tweaks (rephrasing, removal of duplicates) as a provisional replacement of the old version of the population section, if you have additional concerns and minor changes you wish to make then go ahead, but please refrain from unilateral and potentially controversial changes without debate from now on. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks good except for Khalifa and Rubin. Regarding Rubin, the whole "2025" is nonsensical. It is also unclear if the growth of 3.8% is on a yearly basis (which would indeed be astronomical), or 3.8% over 25 years, which is minimal. It is also meaningless in that it is only a comparison to other turkic groups, but not to arab or kurdish groups. By the way, we're not done here. There is a world of junk sources in the rest of the article (activist websites, turkish government think tanks). Khirurg (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I leave the rest of the debate up to you guys, if you can't come to an agreement I advise you to ask for moderation by an administrator so the debate doesn't go on forever. Regarding the rest of the article, I've rephrased a number of sections and removed some sources I considered to be unreliable in an effort to make the article more fact-based, easy to read and neutral. Most Wikipedia articles do not hold such strict standards regarding sources as being put here, that they should be academic, totally non-biased and so on, but if you insist on removing references you still consider to be dubious, I would advise you to refrain from deleting useful information and merely rephrasing sections using a more neutral language wherever possible (E.g. x claims that and so on). AntonSamuel (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think your edits are fair, AntonSamuel. I'm willing to support this. O.celebi (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

New sources
By the way, it appears there is a plethora of sources that has been overlooked. Unsurprisingly, it is because they give low estimates for the number of Turkmen in syria, mostly around the 200k mark.


 * Violence and Gender in the Globalized World: The Intimate and the Extimate, edited by Dr Sanja Bahun, Dr V.G. Julie Rajan


 * Turkmen Reference Grammar, Larry Clark,


 * Political Musings: Turmoil in the Middle East Sainu Kainikara


 * Encyclopedia of the world's minorities, Carl Skutsch


 * Yezidis in Syria: Identity Building among a Double Minority, Sebastian Maisel


 * Peoples on the Move: Introducing the Nomads of the World, David J. Philips


 * All the sources we are currently using are extensively about the demographics of the country, with a focus on the Syrian Turkmen. Out of these sources, Sebastian Maisel does focus on Syria, so that could be included - though it is a questionable source since it estimates up to 15% Kurds (quite unprecedented in scholarship), and it does not focus on the Turkmen (having mentioned them only four times). None of these sources are a study on the Syrian Turkmen; and a random sentence of "x Turkmen" is not sufficient to say that they have knowledge on this subject. I have included Larry Clark in the proposal above as he focuses on Turkmen.


 * In general, I don't see why you should have a problem with the Arab Reform Initative since you recommend that we use one book published by "Vij Books India" and another by the Christian missionary the "William Carey Library" - which are not academic and not reliable.


 * Please also take a look at the two headings above this one where I have provided a reply to your question on "who is not a Dr." O.celebi (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't say these should be included, I just posted them for the community to decide. There is nothing "questionable" about Mansiel btw, the fact that you think his estimates for Kurds is too high means nothing. You had no problem including sources that are total garbage, as long as they had ridiculously high estimates for the Turkmen. Khirurg (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it is too high for Kurds; I said it is unprecedented but that it can be included. Please, read my comments carefully rather than continuously jumping to conclusions on what you think I'm saying. Nonetheless, looking on the positives, we have actually come a long way from the beginning of this dispute. I have added Larry Clark in the proposal above because he focuses on Turkmen, so that is fine with me. O.celebi (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes and Overly detailed template
Hi all, hope that everyone is keeping well. The overly detailed template placed by AntonSamuel includes the request to relocate relevant information, therefore, I placed Drysdale and Hinnebusch (1991) and Beckouche (2017) into the religion section as it is specifically about the Sunni Turkmen. This has since been reverted and AntonSamuel has said that "any percentages and speculation about figures should be contained to this section [i.e. population]" during this edit. If we are to stick to such a rule then we should also place the displaced section into the population heading. However, it does seem more logical to just move Drysdale and Hinnebusch (1991) and Beckouche (2017) to the religion section, if there is a controversy about these figures then users can place the relevant sources alongside these in the religion section.

Can a valid explanation also be given for why all the detail from the info box section has been removed? Yes, some of this detail is in the summary but this is the case with most articles on wikipedia. Why should it be an exception here? Also why has Michael Izady's estimate removed in the religion section? Best, O.celebi (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The section can be reduced if the first paragraph in the estimated figures is moved to the history section. Reading about 1931 to 1996 is so much babbling! Also the Michael Izady "source" should be deleted completely, ok, it is on the University of Columbia website but it's just a map with annotations. not the best source. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have shortened the population further. On 31 July I suggested that we move the first paragraph (about estimates from the 20th century) into the history section. This will significantly reduce the section further! Selçuk Denizli (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * AntonSamuel has removed a significant amount of information. It is extremely bias to write three sentences on the population in the 20th century and one sentence on the 21st century! Ridiculous! Where does Eakin & Roth (2013), Peyrouse (2015), Antonopoulos (2018), Pardo & Jacobi (2018) say that Turkmen are 4-5% of the population??? This is made up! Where does the sources say "estimates" have been given claiming that the Turkish-speaking population was 94,000 in 1978"?? Only one estimate says this. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My intention has not been to be biased in any way, I have not removed any significant information, I've merely lumped together the different population claims. The section was very problematic in the amount of authors it mentioned and the way it went back and forth in mentioning different figures, which is not standard for Wikipedia demographic sections of articles and it was quite hard to read and get an overview of it. The sources you've mentioned mentions around a million Syrian Turkmen, which would represent around 4-5 percent of the population as O.celebi had previously written. I don't think it's indicative of the length of a sentence regarding if it's fairly representing two sides of an argument, I have stated that numerous sources have given higher estimates and kept the sources, however I have rephrased the section now somewhat to adress your concerns. Please refrain from further unilateral reverts before discussing the matter here first. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It will be great to reduce the length, and that is exactly what I was doing! But it is you (and those other two editors) who agreed to this structure. So this sudden removal of all crucial information is wrong. The best thing to do is move the 20th century estimates to the history section, and then reduce the word count of the 21st century estimates. Your last edits have not been helpful. You are reinterpreting information. You are stating things that are not in the references! I have reported this. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If you read the debate that was taking place, I used the fourth suggestion by O Celebi to end the long-standing dispute, and stated that this would be provisional. After that further text and mentioning of authors has been added, which was the reason the section had a tag for being problematic. Once again, no crucial information has been removed, the only sources removed were the really general ones, presenting all claims from hundreds of thousands to 3 million. And again, no, the information matches the sources and I haven't done any wild reinterpretations, if you compare the present version to the previous version, I've merely lumped together sources that have given higher estimates around 4-5% and around 1 million as well as those stating lower estimates of around 1% and 200,000. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You have written 3 sentences on the 20th century and 1 sentence on the 21st century. Why? If you really want to reduce the section then you should remove the old estimates and focus on the now. Only the 21st century is relevant for current estimates. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for your reply.Selçuk Denizli (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I merely tried rewriting the section by pairing together different sources in a way that worked, and having one sentence longer than the other was not a conscious choice. The reason I argued before with the other authors that population estimates, statistics and percentages should be kept to the population section is that the article had become littered with them in every section. I don't think it's necessary to remove estimates from the 20th century since they're mentioned so breifly, many of them are fairly recent and relevant for comparison with the present estimates. However, if you want to expand the 21st century part to emphasize that these are the most current and relevant estimates, you're welcome to do so once the article unlocks again. I just ask that a lot of similar estimates are not presented separately anymore, that the names of the authors are reserved to the references as much as possible and that the section is kept as succinct and readable as possible with a minimum of percentages and figures. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section should be shorter but the authors have to also remain in place so readers can know which sources are by academics and which are not. Then I will leave this article. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Placing authors names in the text is not standard, having them in the references is enough. There was already a debate over academic and non-academic sources, and only academic sources were included in the draft that I later revised. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The following are not academics: C. Heather Bleaney; Hugh Eakin and Alisa Roth; Nicholas A Heras; and Mustafa Khalifa

The following are academics: Dr. Paul Antonopoulos; Professor Pierre Beckouche; Dr. Larry Clark; Dr. Nikolaos van Dam; Professor Alasdair Drysdale; Professor Taef El-Azhari; Professor Raymond Hinnebusch; Assistant Professor Sebastian Maisel; Professor Moshe Ma'oz; Dr Henry Munson;  Dr. Eldad J. Pardo; Dr. Sebastien Peyrouse; Professor Daniel Pipes; Professor Itamar Rabinovich; and Dr Jonathan Spyer

So make it clear which are academic and which are not, otherwise remove the sources that are not written by an academic. Then I will be fine with your structure. But don't pretend that all these sources are written by academics when they are not! Selçuk Denizli (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The impression I got was that O Celebi and Khirurg despite their disagreements, agreed to only use academics as sources, but it seems think tank fellows, some authors and the like were included in that definition then now that I've checked again. If you feel like that is an important distinction to make, then go ahead and add that in the text! AntonSamuel (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, this entire talk page is a dispute about the population, since 2009! That's almost 10 years! If we continue to go down this current road then the dispute will never end. Therefore, I have written a proposal in my sandbox (please look here) which is strictly academic. I have kept C. Heather Bleaney in because she is published in Routledge. I've also left the UNHCR report because it's written by notable scholars (Dr Laurence J. Kirmayer, Professor Abdelwahed Mekki-Berrada, Dr. Andres Barkil-Oteo etc.). The only source without any academic association is the Minority Rights Group website (but it's not in the estimates, so that's fine). Everything else is written by an academic. This will enable the decade-long dispute to come to an end, using only academic sources as precedent. Also, it's significantly shorter than the original proposal agreed by you guys. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * All right, I've looked through your proposal, it looks better and I've made some tweaks, as well as added the claim by the Turkmen leadership. (Check it out here). I've kept all the sources and the mentioning of sources. I've rearranged so the figures come first and the percentages mostly follow. I understand if you want to mention the different professors to throw weight behind the different claims, and in order to get a better final version I'm ok with keeping them, but I would still say that mentioning these many authors in the text is not really standard either on Wikipedia or in other types of essays, that's pretty much the purpose of references, to refer to sources. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The concept of figures and then percentages works well for the first paragraph. But in the second paragraph it doesn't flow well (because it takes the reader back to "before 2011"), would you place Pierre Beckouche before the 1 million estimates? That will read better. I also think that the Turkmen leaders' claims should only be included if an academic source provides this information. This is to prevent future editors from saying "well so and so isn't an academic source so I'm going to place x here too". Since Nicholas A. Heras' footnotes rely heavily on ORSAM publications, it would be better to just cite Abdurrahman Mustafa's report here, but I do think we should avoid adding anything that is not academic. So I would prefer that the last sentence is removed. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have updated my sandbox: please take a look. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, I'm good with it being posted in this form. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just placed it in the article now. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)