Talk:Turkish diaspora/Archive 1

About The Figures
Could somebody cite any sources about number of Turks in these countries:

Ajda 01:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Brazil
 * Mexico
 * Russia
 * Azerbaijan
 * Iran
 * Iraq
 * Syria


 * You can try to look for them too, u know :) Baristarim 01:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Germany
Hi, this regards the recent edit of User:84.142.87.25. The editor wants to make a revision to the number of people of Turkish ethnicity in Germany (from 2,637,000 to 2,180,000), together with a new reference for the new number. I feel the need to say that I'm not doing a blind revert just because the number gets lower. Recently, I spent considerable time providing reliable references for the numbers on the table, always preferring data published by official statistics offices with a clear mention of the number concerning this article. If you check the numbers before my referencing work, you can clearly see that the numbers went down with my edits, so, this revert is not because I care about the actual value of the number. I realize the reference given by the user (Statistisches Bundesamt, the official bureau of statistics) is more reliable than the existing one (a German university institute), I myself already did a search on Bundesamt's website for the number we are looking for, but strangely, could not find it there. The url given by the user links to a press release in which I do not see the number 2,180,000. Could the user please discuss how this number is arrived at, instead of insisting on a revert? Another important thing is that it would be good if you please comply with the rest of the references by using the proper citation style with adequate details (a simple external link is not enough, please see the existing "ref" tags within the page code and also see Citation templates). Atilim Gunes Baydin 00:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that. I will explain everything: 1,764,000 people with turkish citizenship live in Germany. 1972 till 2005 465,000 turkish people obtain German citizenship, but 50,000 lost that citizenship because they apply for the Turkish citizenship to have dual citizenship. Germany hav since 2000 a new rule that if someone do something like that, than they lost the German citizenship. So we have in Germany 1,764,000 people with turkish citizenship and 415,000 german people of turkish descent. 1,764,000 + 415,000 = 2,179,000. This the german public broadcasting ARD show this last week in their program with all the sources. I have giving the sources here. I hope that you understand my bad english :P --84.142.113.218 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

.............

"415,000 german people of turkish descent" Νο. In reality they are 415,000 German Citizens of turkish descent. German citizens, not german people.

Changes in population numbers
I have changed the population figures regarding many countries. the reasons are the following:
 * Turkey cannot be included cause the article is supposed to be about the Turkish diaspora, not about the Turkish people.
 * The Turkomans of Iraq, as it is generally accepted and as the article devoted to them says, are an ethnic group, related to the Turkish and Azeri people. thus, they are Turkic speaking, but not Turkish.
 * I have doubts concerning Germany (since the figure includes the Kurds as well, although they are not even Turkic...)
 * Iran: that seemed extremely POVish... a number found nowhere + an unbelievable estimation about the number of the Azeris. does the author know that Iran is not an Azeri majority country? pls, remind him...hmmm...her maybe...
 * Syria: Does this number concerns the Kurds in Syria (who according to turkish government are 'mountainous Turks)? I have seen a source about such a number of turkish people in Syria, but it was based on a 1906 census!
 * Greece: not only 'Including Western Thrace Turks', but only the western thrace turks. there had been a population exchange in 1923, u know... the number 90,000 is sourced.
 * Belgium, Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo, Denmark, Romania, Sweden: numbers as in Turkish people, that, btw, are sourced and in some cases double-sourced.
 * Avustrlia: i removed this country (???). such a country does not exist and did never existed...
 * Russia: the russian census recorded Meshketian Turks, not Turkish people. once more, it is not an article about a supposed Turkic diaspora, but about Anatolian Turkish Diaspora.
 * Azerbaijan: removed the parenthesis, as per above
 * Israel: let me understand one thing: the article is about Turkish citizens living abroad, or about ethnic turks living abroad? or maybe any possible combination that provides the highest possible number? Sephardic Jewish people from turkey migratted to Israel... that's all. the number 20,000, as stated, refers to those who hold turkish citizenship. pointless... cause this way, there are no Turks in Greece or Romania or in the United States! --Hectorian 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, you should change the table back to it's original state and it should include Turkey too. Please check the other references, when you says diaspora, you should also mention the mainland of that nation (i.e. Greek Diaspora) Miller88.106.8.214 08:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Number for Turkey
The number for Turkey is not right. It says 73,400,000, but the link gives a total of 72,100,000 under the name 'Population, total'. That means the whole population of Turkey, not just the Turkish. As this is an article about Turkish people living outside of Turkey and Demographics_of_Turkey shows that numbers about the ethnic composition of Turkey are disputed (e.g. possibly 20% of the population might be Kurdish, but these are not mentioned in Turkish censuses). I would therefore rather have the entry for Turkey removed. Any other ideas? --Hardscarf 18:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Very important point. The number for Turkey here should represent people of Turkish ethnicity, not Turkish citizenship. I'm removing the entry for now, until it will be fixed with a valid reference. Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With my last edit, I tried to clearly present the number of ethnic Turks within Turkey, Turkey's total population, and the number of Turks living outside Turkey (which is the actual definition of "diaspora"). I believe all these numbers could be needed separately. I also corrected number (with the World Bank reference) given for Turkey's population. Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit you did is wrong (except the population number, thanks for that). Please refer to other diaspora articles for the right format. We are not discussing the actual meaning of the diaspora or what you belive it should be. Please be careful when you edit and stick to the wikipedia standards --Fearlessdog 10:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 73.4 mi is TUIK (Turkey's official statistic institute) 's 2006 estimate, as far as I remember. DenizTC 22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Fearlessdog, could you please explain what you think was wrong with my edit and why you have reverted it without an edit summary? Please note that the table currently has "Number of ethnic Turks" as the column heading and 71.2 M figure for Turkey (which is Turkey's total population) is definitely wrong, because not all citizens of Turkey are ethnic Turks. Turkish people, as defined here in Wikipedia, does not include Kurdish people and other ethnic minorities in Turkey. The total number of ethnic Turks in Turkey is given / discussed on Kurds in Turkey article and a few other articles. I also maintain that it was very useful to have the total number excluding Turkey as a separate entry and be able to see how many Turks are living outside Turkey. We can perhaps give both the grand total, including Turkey, and the total outside Turkey. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also note that the definition of diaspora clearly excludes the homeland (in this case Turkey). It is of course OK to give the number in Turkey in the table under a heading like "Number of Turks in all countries", but, Turks in Turkey are not a part of the Turkish diaspora and the recently changed opening sentence "The term Turkish diaspora refers to the estimated population of Turkish people in the world (both in Turkey and living outside of Turkey)" is simply wrong. It's not my belief, it's just the definition of "diaspora". Also see the definitions given for Greek diaspora and Armenian diaspora. Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1- Please see the other diaspora articles for references. It is a standards issue. Do not change the table structure according to your personal assumptions.
 * 2- 71.2 is an offical number, as stated in the related reference. Nobody made that up.
 * 3- We are not discussing the actual meaning of the diaspora or what you believe it should be. Please be careful when you edit and stick to the wikipedia standards --Fearlessdog 21:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is no standard at the moment. I checked diaspora articles now, most don't have any tables, among the remaining ones, some include the home country as well, some don't. Here are the ones with the tables (the ones I could find)
 * Assyrian_diaspora
 * African_diaspora
 * Armenian_diaspora
 * Greek_diaspora
 * Romanian diaspora
 * Russian_diaspora
 * Sri_Lankan_Tamil_diaspora
 * Ukrainian_diaspora
 * Overseas_Vietnamese

We also have Kurdish diaspora, so it might be better to include only 'ethnic Turks'. I personally don't like to separate. DenizTC 22:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please check my edit. Thanks. DenizTC 22:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I added some more countries using the Turkish people article, but we need sources. Feel free to revert. DenizTC 23:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the edits Denizz, the article looks much better now in my opinion (and more objective). --Fearlessdog 11:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Question
By, "Turkish people", does it mean "citizens of Turkey", or the Turkish ethnicity? Khoikhoi 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, why is it necessary to clarify that we're not talking about Turkic peoples? I don't see the Germans article saying "this differs from the Germanic peoples"... Khoikhoi 01:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose it is used here by meaning "citizens of Turkey", since the number for Germany includes the Kurds originating in Turkey. IMO, there is no need for clarification. the other Turkic peoples can have their own diaspora articles, since no such article about ethnic group families exists. the english language has the distinction between "Turkic" and "Turkish", and when someone is talking about the "Turks", certainly does not have the Gagauz in mind:). Hectorian 01:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My point was that this is meant to be an encyclopedia article and this is the place to have the definitions. As such we have to create that clear distinction between "Turkish" and "Turkic" by informing the reader. The Gagauz example is particularly good for me: I have friends here, from Romania and Belarus, who always used the word "Turk" to refer to Gagauz people when we were talking. Please also check the dictionary definition of "Turk" in the provided reference. Anyway, I think everyone is happy with the current version and it also became better with Hectorian's last modification. Atilim Gunes Baydin 01:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The term diaspora is actually different from "minority" in that the diaspora have migrated from the land of origin to a new country, and is a - albeit fuzzy definition - recent phenomena in their history. The Turkish minority in Bulgaria and Greece for example have been living in those countries for hundreds of years. I do not think they should be termed as diaspora. Instead, when the Balkan wars in the early 1910's occurred, or ethnic persecution under Todor Jivkov during the communist regime in the 1980's, a sizeable Turkish speaking Bulgarian population was forced to immigrate to Turkey. They actually comprised a 'Bulgarian-Turkish' diaspora in 'Turkey' - since they had strong ties with their original country including citizenship, family and property ties.

---

please see Diaspora in Bulgaria section below for an extra two cents to the debate... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.176.111.71 (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Turkish diaspora in Bulgaria" !!!
There is no Turkish diaspora living in Bulgaria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilhanli (talk • contribs) 16:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing "diaspora" and "natives".

diaspora refers to people (Jews) who are migrated. so, Bulgaria cannot be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilhanli (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

EDITORS: The "TURKS IN BULGARIA" figures in this article need to be returned to where they were several months ago. It is irrelevant that many of these Turks were not born in Turkey; they consider themselves Turkish and speak Turkish in their daily lives. Furthermore, most other "Turks_in_[country]" articles refer to ethnic Turks as well as those with Turkish nationality. One cannot therefore ignore almost (if not more than) 800,000 Turks who live in Bulgaria. I feel it may be people harbouring Bulgarian nationalist feelings (or ultra-nationalist Turks) who removed the figures, however removing them does not change the facts that almost 10 per cent of Bulgaria's population is officially registered as being of Turkish origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.176.111.72 (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

i don't often write in wikipedia, but i have to ask: where was the figure of 300,000 (jan 2008 version) for Turks in Bulgaria gotten from? did someone just pluck it out of the air? the source you give right next to the figure - from the Bulgarian National Statistical Institute http://www.nsi.bg/Census_e/Census_e.htm  - says 746,000; the wikipedia article "Turks in Bulgaria" says the same thing, as it should... and yet someone keeps insisting on giving lower figures.

(at least the section on Bulgaria was returned - in dec 2007 someone had completely removed it...)

Please - this is an Encyclopedia. you cannot just make almost half a million people disappear simply because they do not conform to someone's political views (i am saying this as i am convinced that it is a Bulgarian person who keeps denying the existence of minorities in the country: i presume most people familiar with the subject are aware of the tensions between Turks and Bulgarians over recent years, especially in southern Bulgaria. But please also be aware that providing such "facts" as the 300,000 shown in this article, however trivial they may seem, will only serve to Worsen these tensions, not improve them...* also, think about it – showing that a country has large minorities does Not present a greater risk to the majority, but rather demonstrates greater tolerance among the population...so we should take pride in our country's diverse cultures - as all clear-thinking British, French, Spanish etc people do. we live in the 21st century lads, get with it – you shoulda forgotten about racism over sixty years ago!) With the exception of Cyprus (which is, de facto, two countries), Bulgaria proportionally has the largest Turkish minority in the world - almost 10% - that won't change just by writing it down wrong...

remember: ENCYCLOPEDIA: "complete education" - hence not a place where opinions can be presented in a table containing statistical data. this is misinformation, and we should not use wikipedia's free status as an excuse to propagate it, and then wonder why so many people refuse to accept wikipedia data as fact... (and "300,000...not including Turks born in Bulgaria", as far as i can see, is a veiled piece of propaganda serving someone's political and racial interests.) By all means, mention all the complete info in the appropriate sub-sections of the appropriate article, but not where it currently is.

Again, please note: Nationality and Place of Birth have Nothing to do with Ethnicity. IF there are 746,000 people in Bulgaria who have Defined Themselves as being of Turkish origin in the Official Bulgarian Census of 2001, then This article has No right to question this and Must reflect these facts.

You must not – cannot – deny someone's right to define their own self, their very being. Yes, many Turks in Bulgaria Have been living here for hundreds of years, but they are still Turkish...They are still part of that community and speak the language in their daily lives. They may have moved there many years ago, but they were part of the diaspora then, and therefore still are. For otherwise where will the cut-off point be? How many hundreds of years will an American Jew need to live in the US before they stop being Jewish and part of the Jewish diapora? They Will always consider themselves a part of that community, won't they? they'll always have that link.

Unless They start considering Themselves as being a separate nationality (as the US declared their separateness from Britain, as did the Quebecois from France), then We cannot force them to do so.

For if we are "not including Turks born in Bulgaria", as the article currently states, should we also not include Turks born in Turkey for the Turkey figures?! By that same logic, should we also consider the Turkish population of Cyprus as being zero?! (since the Greeks consider it as a single country). Or, are we considering citizenship AND place of birth as the benchmarks? By that argument, should we then consider the Tens of Millions of US-born African-Americans as being White & Anglo-Saxon: "Since you weren't born in Africa, then you ain't of African origin!"?! (who'd like to taddle along down Detroit way and announce that? any takers?) Similarly, there is no such thing as Romany citizenship or a Romany state, either... does that also therefore mean that there is no such thing as Romany ethnicity?! ...or that we cannot count Roma as official minorities Anywhere?! That would be a ludicrous thing to suggest. It would make a mockery of the whole discipline of statistics, and render them pointless, useless and worthless. So...

EDITORS: please, change the info to what it should be.

(and keep an eye out for Any articles where the facts clearly contradict the wikipedia statement). Thank you.

(*also, some people say that some Roma write "Turkish" in the census "cos they dont like the stigma attached" – if that's true, how come only 654 peole in Sofia wrote "Turkish"?! [census; Turks in Bulgaria article] If you can Prove it, by all means – provide the exact numbers, subtract them and then write an explanatory footnote... but then that would simply anger someone Else, since it would then mean that there is an even larger Roma minority than some people would like to accept...some people, eh? well... tough cookie fellas, we all gotta liv here together, deal with them apples and slap a nice ol' smile on your face about it, cos it en't gona change...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.176.111.71 (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the French version of this article is way better...
...we should incorporate some of the stuff there into this English. Onur (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this really a Diaspora?
I know nothing about this topic, but it seems to me that a diaspora is more than just those of an ethnicity living abroad. It usually either those forced out of a land, those fleeing unrest or disaster, or (anachronistically) those who left to manage a conquered land or colony. Those who went abroad to find work or emigrate for other reasons are not usually defined thus, unless there was some reason pushing them. If you look at the rest of List_of_diasporas, you see something more than just talking about those living abroad (admittedly, some are just statements of expatriates). If there is some reason to call it a diaspora, it seems like you should explain those reasons, or else move/rename this article to something more appropriate. Again, I have no knowledge or expertise, but was looking up something else and found this page by accident.GumbyProf: &quot;I&#39;m about ideas, but I&#39;m not always about good ideas.&quot; (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Certain communities can not be classified as part of the Turkish Diaspora
Turks in Kosovo, Turks in Macedonia, Muslim minority of Greece, Turks of Romania, Iraqi Turkmen, Turkish Cypriots etc. should not be listed here. These are native peoples of the corresponding countries not a diaspora.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes.--Ilhanli (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a Turkish cypriot and therefore i TOTALLY understand what you mean...although i see myself as Turkish i am a Cypriot... i have changed the setting of the article by adding a turkish native section aswell. It is best to have all the Turkish people on this article but put them into different headings for people to understand the Turkish population better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.98.231 (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Iraqi Turkmen
This article says in the intro that it "refers to the estimated population of Turkish people in the world migrated outside of Turkey." According to this article from Radio Free Europe (The Iraqi Turkomans: Who They Are And What They Want):

"At the First (Iraqi) Turkoman Congress, held in Irbil from 4-7 October 1997, a 'Declaration of Principles' was adopted. The second Article defines who they are and what the name 'Turkoman' represents: 'The name Turkoman represents a people belonging to the Muslim Oghuz branch.' According to this principle, they 'migrated from Central Asia to today's Turkmenistan.' This migration, according to them, began in the year 53 A.H. Here they are no doubt referring to the migrations leading to the foundation of the Seljuk empires, which also brought a large part of the ancestors of the present-day Turks of Anatolia, the Caucasus, and Turkmenistan to the regions which they now inhabit. All three Turkic peoples -- the Turks of Turkey and the Balkans, the Azeris of Azerbaijan and Iran, and the Turkmen of Turkmenistan, Iran, and Afghanistan are members of the Oghuz group of Turkic languages. That means that there is a relatively high degree of mutual linguistic comprehensibility among them."

Therefore, I would say that the Iraqi Turkmen are closely related to the Turks of Turkey, but not the same. IMO we should remove them from this list, as there is no question that they are a Turkic people, but I'm not so sure if they consider themselves to be Turkish. Mutual linguistic comprehensibility does not necessarily translate to ethnicity. Khoikhoi 05:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

About Turks in Armenia

 * I heard there are some Turks live in Armenia. But I can't found any description in this page. Why? 61.230.88.18 (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if there is a turkish community in armenia i doubt that the armenians would record it. Though there probably is a community there.Turco85 (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been BIG changes
I like the idea of writing about the history of the diaspora and about turkish nationality, however the total figures have not been written down in the tables. Are we waiting for more references or something before adding them? Also a natives section has been added, will this make it confusing because this is about the diaspora, although on this disuccsion page many people have expressed their feelings about the absence of not adding them. hmm maybe it will end the dispute? I am going to try and find more statistics on the TURKISH DIASPORA but I urge users not to use the joshuaproject as it is not very realiable, although i do undersand that it is difficult to find many more the data required Thetruthonly (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to joshuaproject there is sizeable communities in Brazil, Egypt, Venezula, Lebanon. and El Salvador. I understand that the website is not exactly realiable however this information can guide us to look for realiable statistics of these countries. Please help expand the tableTurco85 (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Turco85 thanks for your recent contributions on the article. References have been found for Brazil, and I have just added the turks in lebanon. I will try and find referenes for the other countries you have suggested. Thetruthonly (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

requesting a removal of some of the info
A new article the Turkish population has been created therefore we should maybe just leave the diaspora figures here and remove the countries whih are not apart of the diaspora e.g. Bulgaria, Norhern Cyprus etc. Justinz84 (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii?
Hawaii is a part of the United States, therefore Hawaii's Turkish population would be a part of the overall Turkish-American population, rendering Hawaii's inclusion in the table redundant. I will be removing it from the article. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

suggested merge
I disagree with the merge... the diaspora is about Turkish communities who are immigrants to certain countries such as Turks in Germany or Turks in Canada. Turks living in countries such as Cyprus, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Romania... etc... are not part of the diaspora. That information (all though in another heading on this article) should be removed. Thetruthonly (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge: There is a big difference in the turkish population and its diaspora. This whole talk page illstrates this. If anything I want to develop the Turkish population article even more! Just like the Jewish population article... however I wanted to wait till we found more figures. Also, whoever suggested the merge has nt even given their reasons. Justinz84 (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose since the information on Homeland Turks has been removed from the diaspora.Turco85 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * oppose merging There is a difference between a population and a diaspora of a race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.148.185 (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there anymore feedback? Turco85 (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need to merge, alot of you have already given the main reason anyway. 86.163.169.15 (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been a month now since we have been discussing this issues; since there is an absolute thought on this subject (that there is indeed a difference between the subjects of both the articles) I shall remove the merge heading. Justinz84 (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merging. I am not sure why tag was reinserted here two years later, without any discussion I may add, when there was a decision in this thread against the merge in 2008. Atabəy (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

POV
Labour Export Agreement with Germany in October 1961, followed by a similar agreement with the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria in 1964; France in 1965 and Sweden in 1967..... was related with Turkish citizens not with ethnic Turkish. Takabeg (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Turkish citizen (Türk vatandaşı, Yurtdışında Yaşayan Türk Vatandaşları) is the citizen of the Republic of Turkey and includes many kind of ethnic groups, Kurdish, Zaza, Laz and son on. And this group doesn't include some ethnic Turkish group who doesn't have Turkish citizenship. We can use numbers in this list for Turkish citizen (Türk vatandaşı). But these number are invalid for Turkish People (Türkiye Türkleri).

Turkish people (Türkiye Türkleri) is one of the ethnic groups of Turkic people. For example, about 55 million Turkish people live in Turkey.

In this article will we write about which one ? Now there are serious problems in this article. We have to solve them. Thank you.

Takabeg (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Takabeg, this article on Turkish diaspora is similar to other examples, such as French diaspora, Armenian Diaspora, Greek Diaspora, and other examples. Can you, please, clarify what exactly you are disputing, so that we can resolve the issues and remove the tag that has been irrelevant on this page for over a year? Atabəy (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have info about Frenchs, Armenians, Greeks, if you want you can use Talk:French diaspora, Talk:Armenian diaspora, Talk:Greek diaspora. I have much info about "Turkish people", so I pointed out problems. Takabeg (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg, the merger request was declined in 2008. Can you explain why you keep reinserting merger tag in the article? About the neutrality tag, you have not substantially explained the edit so far. What is that you are disputing in the article? Turkish diaspora includes every person who identifies him/herself as Turkish while living outside of the Turkish homeland. Same way as Armenian, Iranian, Greek and French diasporas include persons identifying themselves as those respective peoples living in foreign countries. Why should Turkish be any different than any of the examples brought? Unless you provide a detailed explanation for the edit, we will have to seek an independent opinion as to why you, all of a sudden, decided that Turkish diaspora (and Azerbaijani Americans for that matter) have to be classified into ethnic and nationals. And why tags are being inserted into articles without relevant explanations. It's not just any justification you have to use, but the one justifying the tag you insert. Atabəy (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

disambiguation page proposal
I suggest that we make this article a disambiguation page so that we can list the following: The Turkish diaspora may refer to the following:
 * Turkish population (population of ethnic Turks by country)
 * Turkish minorities (population of ethnic Turks living in traditional areas of Turkish settlement)
 * Bulgarian Turks diaspora
 * Turkish Cypriot diaspora
 * Western Thrace Turks diaspora
 * Turkish citizens living abroad

What do you all think? Turco  85 ( Talk ) 13:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Turco85, I disagree. The article may need to be improved and include actually history of Turkish diaspora communities in various countries. There is no article reflecting that. Take a look at French diaspora for instance. The Turkish citizens living abroad article does not sufficiently cover the Turkish emigres who settled in other countries, and may or may not hold Turkish citizenship. Atabəy (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Turco85's proposal is relatively constructive and more neutral than existing articles. At least, we can solve disputes between nationality (Turkish citizens) and ethnicity (Turks in Wikipedia: Turkish people). Takabeg (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For example, the article Avrupa'da yaşayan Türk vatandaşları deals with Turkish citizens living in Europe. This is not same as Turks (ethnic Turkish people) living in Europe. I think that Turco85's proposal will open the way for solving discrepancy. Takabeg (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the reason for changing the article or making disambiguation page, when Turkish diaspora includes citizens of Turkey, ethnic Turks living in other countries, and any other person living outside of Turkey and identifying him/herself as Turkish. Atabəy (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge proposal was rejected in 2008, and User:Takabeg is reopening a case that was already concluded;
 * Numerous other examples brought, including French diaspora, Greek diaspora, Armenian diaspora, show full article with information.


 * I think that my soultion is the best answer to this problem. The current condition of the article is not accurate, and can be considered misleading. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 10:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, because there are many religious and ethnic "diasporas" related with Turkey (diaspora of Turkish citizens). ethnic Turkish diaspora, religious Alevi diaspora, ethnic Kurdish diaspora (this is related with not only Turkey), ethnic Zaza diaspora, religious Assyrian diaspora, ethnic Laz diaspora etc... Takabeg (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What makes the Turkish diaspora much more complicated (other than Kurds, Zazas etc) is the fact that Bulgarian Turks, Turkish Cypriots, Western Thrace Turks...etc...etc...also make up large communities within the diaspora- see Turks in the United Kingdom whereby Turkish Cypriots make up 300,000, or Turks in the Netherlands where Bulgarian Turks make up 30,000 (or about 80% of Bulgarian citizens)- therefore the current condition of this article is not correct. I propose that we vote on this issue.

I propose that we make this article into a disambiguation page which will look like this: click here
 * Support disambiguation page solution per my reasons above. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 11:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Opinion. Before deciding what to do we should define the word diaspora. In the article diaspora the noun is defined as "people dispersed by whatever cause to more than one location", But this definition is too wide. When we talk about diaspora we include several groups in the definition like;
 * 1.Turkish citizens working or staying in foreign countries (This is usually a temporary stay)
 * 2.Former Turkish citizens who adopt a new citizenship (Most probably the mother tongue of their foreign-birth children will not be Turkish)
 * 3.People who are not Turkish citizens but speak Turkish and/or consider themselves as Turkish because of cultural reasons.
 * Maybe instead of changing the present article into a disambiguation page, the present article can be divided into three (or maybe more) articles. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. We could do that, but I think it will make the article confusing and complex. Having a disambiguation page will make it much more clearer and concise. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 14:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions
Now the article is much better. But I still think that there is room for improvement.


 * 1) The History section has been deleted. Although the former History section had some factual errors, I think it must be kept after some reviewing.
 * 2) The former section about the continents was redundant and it was deleted. However the first sentence in the North America category (about ethnicity) was important and that particular sentence may be added.
 * 3) I think Turks of Iraqi citizenship also deserve a subsection in the section Diaspora of Turks from tradional areas of settlement
 * 4) And a question about the logic. Is it logical to consider Turks from the traditional areas of settlement (say Cyprus) to Turkey as a part of Turkish diaspora ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason why I deleted the history section is because I am planning to have separate history sections for each section. I thought this would be best since each group has had different reasons for migration (i.e. Turkish citizens were "guestworkers", Turkish Cypriots left due to the Cyprus conflict, Bulgarian Turks left due to the 1988 Communist events and after Bulgaria's accession into the EU etc.).
 * I will add the Iraqi Turks now.
 * I think that it is logical. Have a look at the old version of this article: here we can see that for the UK we had 500,000 written as part of the diaspora, however, only 150,000 are actually Turkish nationals whereas at least 300,000 are Turkish Cypriots. Similarly, we have Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan but none of these figures actually include people from Turkey, it is actually the Meskhetian Turks population. Turco  85  ( Talk ) 10:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. but I think my last point needs a bit more explanation. Are Turks of Turkey in TRNC and Turks of TRNC in Turkey considered a part of diaspora ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Turks from Turkey living in the TRNC would only be part of Turkey's diaspora. In Cyprus, although Turkish Cypriots accept that the two are of the same ancestry, people from Turkey are still considered "foreign" [i.e. not Turkish Cypriot]. Similarly, Bulgarian Turks living in Turkey are considered as "foreign" by Turkish citizens. Hence, if a Turks homeland is Bulgaria, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece etc. and living in Turkey [vise-versa] they are part of their own sub-cultural diaspora; this was the main reason why I wanted to make this article a disambiguation page. We may need to add more detail in the intro for clarification.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 12:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It might make it easier if you think of the British colonalisation process. For example, today there is an Australian diaspora and Canadian diaspora living in the UK. This is similar to that of the Bulgarian Turks and Turkish Cypriots living Turkey. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 13:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Vatican State and African countries
VAtican City cannot have 300 turks because it also grants cizizenship as long you're working there. Offical there are less than 600 citizens and less than 1000 population according to the CIA World Fact Book and article ->[[Vatican_City#Citizenship], so I edited it to zero. Also the figures of the African countries, ranging from 1 to 20, is strangely odd. Saemikneu (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)17:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Saemikneu (talk)

Western Thrace "Turks"
The term is disputed and heavily politicised. Turkey claims they are a Turkish minority, while Greece claims they are "Muslim Greeks", a term that is claimed to have been agreed to ever since the treaty of Lausanne. Although, admittedly, there are also significant numbers of Plans (Muslim Slavs) residing in the area. Please refrain from using the term Western Thrace Turks like this. LightningLighting (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Germany 7 Million turkish people
This number is simply unbelievable. 7 Million is an outlandish claim which is based on one supposed qoute by a non-german official 17 Years ago. At a time when the was a negative migration between germany and turkey for a whole decade where houndreds of thousands left towards Turkey. An unnamed official shouldnt be enough to be considered a source. Turkey also estimates an even higher number who are officially still in germany but acutally live in turkey. Its absurd to cite articles which dont name a source and most likely depent on the same eu official. Especially to call this "academics estimates"

Even if ethnic Turkes from other States are included from states like romania and bulgaria, those are not nearly enough to explain such an increase in the millions. Something the articles eniterly forgets: turkish people can also leave not only to turkey but to third states. This third states are only included when talking about increasing the number.

I would suggest to delete all the references to above 5 Million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.133.4.218 (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)