Talk:Turks in Germany

Article class
I have changed the class from start to B.
 * Referencing & citations ✔
 * Coverage and accuracy ✔
 * Structure ✔
 * Grammar and style ✔
 * Supporting materials ✔

Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Statistical Yearbook 2009
The link: Statistisches Bundesamt (2008), Statistical Yearbook 2008 For the Federal Republic of Germany has automatically changed to the 2009 yearbook! So I will change the population figures of Turkish citizens from 1,713,600 (2008) to 1,688,370 (2009) which means that 25,230 have become German citizens this year.Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the Turkish population in Germany after 1980? The statisticals shows only before 1980 here. --212.154.117.108 (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Turkic people

 * What about Turkic people living in Germany? According to this reference in 2006 there was:  15,219 from Azerbaijan,  57,203 from Kazakhstan,  9,221 from Kyrgyzstan,  1,303 from Turkmenistan and  8,767 from Uzbekistan. This equals to 91,713 Turkic nationals (excluding Turkey) 81.153.119.143 (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about ethnic Turkish people rather than Turkic peoples. Your statement could be mentioned however it would probably be better if new articles were created e.g. Azeris in Germany, Turkmen in Germany and so forth.Thetruthonly (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Turkish Ethnicity or Nationality?
Using "ethnicity" sounds discriminative, as some -if not most- of these people belong to a distinct etnicity (Caucasians, Kurds, Arabs, Georgians, Albanians etc). Also Turkish is a national noun, its ethnical counterpart should be Turkic which would include Azeris and others as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.209.22 (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any references stating that 'Caucasians, Kurds, Arabs, Georgians, Albanians etc' make up most the population? The fact that you believe that most of the Turks in Germany are not Turks is discriminative itself and evidently a bias view. Ethnic Turks make the majority of the population. This is all written in the demographics section. Moreover, other Turkic groups are not even stated in the article. Have you actually read the article? And to answer your question (in the sub-heading) this is an article about ethnic Turks. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You may also find it useful to read previous archives. Though I suggest you read the article itself first.Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the anon is talking about Turks from Bulgaria, Cyprus and Greece. These people are ethnic Turkish people. Many people seem to confuse Turkish people and Turkic people on wikipedia. But it is not that difficult!  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 17:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, this article is about ethnic Turkish people. Not Turkic people, nor other groups who have immigrated from Turkey. Kurds are only mentioned in this article because they are included in the population stats.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 17:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Political behaviour & Popular culture
These to sections are lacking compared to the rest of the article. Lets improve it!  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 17:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Turks in Germany and the Abitur
This article quotes a magazine called The Spiegel, stating that "only 14% have the Abitur (that's less than 50% compared to the German population, and also much lesser than other immigrated groups)", but I think The Spiegel got something wrong, because according to what I heard about that study on TV not 14% of turkish of any age-group, but 14% of turkish youngsters graduating from German schools this year received the Abitur. It is also not true that this is less than 50% compared to the German population. In 2008 only 18% of Germans of all age-groups held a Abitur (http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article2541399/Migranten-haben-oefter-Abitur-als-Deutsche.html). However it is true that ethnic German youngsters graduating from German schools that year were twice as likely as turkish youngsters to receive an Abitur. (Sorry for my english, it's not my native language).—212.201.83.30 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, this section needs to be removed because it is a biased article with no real academic reference like the rest of the article! In fact, this website states that contrary to expectations, the children of (Catholic) German Italians perform worse in school than those of (Muslim) German Turks. 86.171.67.97 (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. It looks like this article still has a lot of work. I encourage you all to help contribute towards the article. Just make sure that reliable references are being used. Thanks.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 01:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with what the other IP (86.171.67.97) said. This source (which was written by a german educationist) states that German-Italian children were the least succesfull ethnic group when it comes to education and that the turkish had better success with the education system. Unfortunately there is no english version of that article.-- 212.201.82.76 (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont mind translating it. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think p. 9 could be interesting: ''Am wenigsten Schulerfolg haben die Gruppen der

Staatsangehörigen Italiens und Serbien-Montenegros: in beiden Gruppen finden wir mehr Sonderschüler als Gymnasiasten. Das Gros der Schüler in diesen beiden Gruppen ist darüber hinaus in der Hauptschule zu finden, nur kleinere Prozentsätze besuchen Gymnasien und Realschulen. Während diese Tatsache bei den Staatsangehörigen Serbien-Montenegros mit der langen Tradition der Unterdrückung der Kultur der kosovo-albanischen Minderheit erklärt werden kann, die für eine ganze Generation auch ein nichtfunktionierendes Schulsystem zur Folge hatte, ist die Tatsache für die italienischen Kinder in Deutschland zunächst überraschend. Sie wird deswegen ausführlicher behandelt. Die türkische Gruppe als größte Zuwanderergruppe bietet zwar ein besseres Bild in bezug auf die Relation Gymnasiasten- Sonderschüler, auch hier ist aber klar ein gravierender Überhang der Hauptschul-Population zu erkennen. Wie der Aufsatz zu den Aleviten in unserem Band exemplarisch zeigt, gibt es aber auch innerhalb der aus der Türkei stammenden Bevölkerung durchaus erfolgreiche Gruppen. Zu berücksichtigen ist darüber hinaus, dass inzwischen etwa 700.000 Menschen türkischen Ursprungs eingebürgert sind. Da dies tendenziell gut integrierte Zuwanderer sind, wird der Bildungserfolg der türkischen Zuwanderer unterschätzt, wenn man auf die Definition Staatsangehörigkeit abstellt, wie dies die amtliche Statistik tut.''--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Citizenship

 * Under previous German law, children born to foreigners in Germany were not entitled to German citizenship because the law was based on jus sanguinis, in other words on a blood connection.

I think this sentence is wrong, because while they were not automatically entitled of German citizenship, they still might apply for it. It was not like they were not allowed to apply.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But this is a fact. It was based on a blood connection... Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * All countries have jus sanguinis (blood based citizenship). I.e. US parents who give birth to a child abroad can without problem bring that child back to the US because due to jus sanguinis (blood) it is automatically awarded US citizenship. Likewise Germany's citizenship laws continue the principle of jus sanguinis, there has been NO CHANGE to it. Now, another completely different question is whether Germany did have an additional jus soli principle (citizenship by birth). And the answer is, no, German did not have jus soli, that was only ADDED recently. Is it thus justified to call Germany's old citizenship laws "blood based" as there has only been jus sanguinis? NO, because there are more citizenship principles than just jus sanguinis and just soli! Germany did award hundreds of thousands citizenships to people who do NOT fall under the jus sanguinis (blood) since many decades. These were granted depending on the years of legal stay in Germany. My own sisters migrated from Eritrea to Germany in the early 1980s and were soon granted citizenship due to the fact that they were staying legal (officially granted asylum) for the necessary number of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.61.234 (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I know persons of non-German parentage born on German were not automatically granted German citizenship when they were born (as the case in other countires such as the USA), but still might apply. I never heard that persons of non-German parentage were not allowed to apply.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct, Greatgreenwhale. Everybody who was staying legally in Germany for a required number of years could apply for citizenship in the old law. I thus changed the sentence to be more specific. It now reads "...were not entitled to German citizenship by birth", which makes clear that the old law didn't stop them from applying later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.61.234 (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion section in info box
Atheism is not a religion and therefore seems illogical to have in this section. Furthermore, the majority of Turks in Germany are actually more religious than in say Turkey or Cyprus were Secularism dominates. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is simply not true, although many European Turks might be more traditional than most in Turkey, figures from the Dutch Bureau of Statistics (CBS) indicates close to 20% of Dutch Turks do not have any religious affiliation. NeoRetro (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is about Turks in Germany not the Netherlands. Furthermore, this section of the info box is about religions. 'Nontheism' is not a religion.Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nontheism IS about religon. NeoRetro (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe so but that does not make it a religion. It is actually against religion.Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination
The following section is being disputed. It seems as though one user by the name of Massadanarti does not see this sentence as a form of discrimination:
 * 'Foreign Armenian terrorists have also attacked the Turkish community in German streets'

I for one believe that the reference is a demonstration of racism towards the Turkish community and have therefore replaced the deleted sentence. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 14:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I for one (and the "one" is a German living in Germany) see this sentence as bullshit. If anyone finds sources in German, Armenian or Turkish newspapers, it can be reinserted with exact dates and info about the occurences. It is definitely wrong to say terrorists had targeted "the community in the streets" as a general occurence. --141.70.81.136 (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Languages
If "Turks in Germany" means "turkish ethnicity in Gemany", German and Turkish may be correct. If it means "People in Germany originating in Turkey", Kurdish must be included, as well as Armenian (to a lesser extend).

There are many Kurds from Turkey in Germany (who also speak Turkish), and some ethnic Armenians also immigrated. --141.70.81.136 (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well the article is about ethnic Turks. Kurds are only mentioned within the citizenship statistics. One must not forget that many Kurds are also actually from Iraq and Iran, they do not all belong to people originating from Turkey. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 12:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * the numbers given (up to 4 million people with at least partly background FROM Turkey) is not based on ethnicity but on (former) nationality it includes anybody from Turkey no matther what ethic group and it also includes people from the Turkish republic of Northern Cyprus (since Germany does not officially recognise the TRNC) 134.3.76.108 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Religion
Since many members of Christian minorities (Orthodox, Catholic, etc.) also emigrated to Germany, due to repressions by the Turkish state in the past, they form a larger percentage in the German-Turkish population than they do in Turkey. I don't have figures here, but I think they should be included in the Religion part of the infobox. -- megA (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be best to find sources before adding this. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 18:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still looking for figures and have only found that there are 80,000 members of the Syriac Church in Germany, which would amount to 2% of the Turkish population (counted as 4 million). This is, of course, already more than the estimated 0.2% of all Christian denominations in Turkey, without counting Byzantine, Armenian, Roman-Catholic, and Protestant denominations. This survey only distinguishes between Sunni, Alevi, Shia Islam, "None", and "Others", which amount to 7%. The Christians are hidden in the 7%. Still looking for something citeable... -- megA (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * the UP to 4,000,000 number is NOT based on ethnicity but on (former) nationallity. it includes ALL people with an (partly) immigrant background FROM Turkey no matter what ethnic background those people have. it includes Turkey-Kurds, Turkey-Greeks, Turkey-Arabians, Turkey-Armenians,... m134.3.76.108 (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * According to census database, those with Turkish migrant background have the following religion: 55 410 roman-cath., 40 860 evangelical 3 990 free evangelical, 67 490 orthodox, 2 490 jewish, 792 030 other and 1 751 970 are unaffiliated with a religion established by statute. Muslims could fall in the last two groups. Beliar (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

"Turks with German citizenship"=3.5 - 4 million?
Isn't this figure moot? For example a person born and raised in Germany, from one (ethnic) German parent and one (ethnic) Turkish parent is, by definition of the Statistisches Bundesamt, a German with migratory background. And thus part of the 3.5 or 4 million. So, is he Turkish or German? By law, he is German, not a "Turk with German citizenship". There is no such thing. "3.5 million people of Turkish origin living in Germany" – correctly phrased "...estimate that there are now more than 4 million Turks in Germany" Nope, there are 1.7 million Turks in Germany. 2.3 million are Germans with (half or full) Turkish ethnicity. -- megA (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I see your point. They are basically German citizens of Turkish descent. Much of the youth born in Germany do consider themselves "Turks" though, hence all the debate about integration going on at the moment; they are technically German citizens but not ethnically German. Thus, it is important to keep the 3.5-4 million estimates [alongside citizenship figs] which include descendents because the community will still consider themselves "Turks" [well German-Turks] once all have been natuarliased in the future anyway. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 17:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. My only point was actually with the phrasing, which, if using official statistics, should also be kept to the official definitions relevant to these statistics. That's the reason I changed the formulation in the infobox back. I'd like to see some statistics whether a single Turkish grandmother makes people see themselves as a member of the ethnicity. We're talking a child with (1) a German parent already born in Germany "with migratory background", and (2) a "full" German parent (whatever that means). Anyway, the statistics given, afaik, only count first- and second-generation immigrants, so the phrasing should be kept to the official definition. EDIT: Regarding "emotional integration": I just skimmed through the survey I mentioned in the "Religion" section here and found that 55% of Germans with Turkish ancestry have "strong emotional ties" with Germany, and 47% with Turkey. (You can have emotional ties with both countries, so the figures don't add up to 100%) In case of an act of war by Libya or Iraq (a muslim country was chosen on purpose), 50% of Germans with Turkish ancestry answered they would defend Germany, 18% would try to keep out of the conflict, and 24% were indecisive. (Figures for Turkish citizen in Germany were only different by a few percent). The study as a whole is very interesting, unfortunately, it's in German. -- megA (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * the up to 4 million people number is NOT based on ethnicity but on (former) nationality/citicenship (and since Germany does not recognize the Turkish REpublic of Nortern Cyprus it's citizen also get as a tecnicallity registerd an Turkish citizens) 134.3.76.108 (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Population distribution
The numbers in the table provided in this section do not make much sense, especially the "percentage of Turks living in Germany", probably due to incremental editing without updating everything. First the numbers do not up to 100%, even accounting for rounding it's too far away, second, many of the numbers do not make sense - 60.000 Turks each in Bremen and Schleswig Holstein get different shares of the whole community, double pop figures do not mean double percentage features and so on. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Percentage of persons with Turkish background - please factcheck
This article says that 4-5% of the population has Turkish background, but according to Demographics of Germany 3,7% of the population has Turkish background. There should be a fact check on which number is correct in order not to let Wikipedia look contradictional.--Charlene1989 (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC) that also bother me too,Did you find the answer yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero011 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Segregation Section
This section is renamed to 'Integration Problems'. It can not be named as 'segregation'. None of the references, one of them is a dead link talks about segregation at all. Whoever initially started this, clearly extrapolating. Segregation is illegal in Germany and is not practice anywhere in Germany, including Ethnically rich cities. If there were any segregationist movement or views buy turks, law enforcement agencies certainly will intervene. Do not change the title to 'Segregation' before providing clear reference that there is a segregation movement or similar. --83.97.72.14 (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This section is written in a biased attitude based an extrapolated conclusion on a survey which reliability is in question. Neutrality of that section is very much disputed. --83.97.72.14 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * the polling agency INFO has a good reputation and is cites by news agencies worldwide. Who says otherwise? I do not see any bias or reliability issues here--but I do see very relevant information. Rjensen (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Rjensen, source of the polling is not the problem. The problem is the interpretation of the polls and labelling as segregation. You can not attribute an interpretation of a 'sampling' study to LABEL whole ethnic community as "segregationist". There are lots of turkish origin Germans who integrated into society pretty well. None of the references refer to any segregation issue. SEGREGATION IS A VERY STRONG WORD.  It is clearly an integration issue with the turkish community. Segregation is illegal in Germany. If there were any segregationist movement or views, law enforcement agencies certainly will intervene. Do not change the title to 'Segregation' before providing clear reference that there is a segregation movement or similar.

--83.97.72.14 (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Self-segregation Claims

 * "segregation" has multiple meanings and what is meant here is self-segregation, which is increasing among the Turks in Germany. But yes it's a good idea to use "integration." Rjensen (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * @Rjensen. Yes, "self-segregation" is probably true in some form but none of the given references talks about self-segregation. If you read the article about self-segregation in Wikipedia, you should add there too if there is any self-segregation by turks in Germany. It still sounds like too hard a claim while It is an interpretation of the polls no where discussed in the references. If you have references that discusses self-segregation of turks in Germany please do add, otherwise please refrain to add that identification. You might be a social scientist adding your value to wikipedia but no original research is allowed in wikipedia. Moreover I think even self-segregation might be illegal if it was practices, German laws against any kind of inhumane treatment or segregation is one the most strictest in the world, for example refusing to serve non-members in the Doner shop or similar would be completely illegal. I never heard such a treatment in any turk-origin establishment in the press. If you have it then please add of course.

--83.97.72.14 (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Residential segregation
@Rjensen, There are some original research works in ethnic segregation in Germany  [], Maybe you can write a separate article about this with your academic background in general. I think it is a generic issue with immigrants in the country and it must not be restricted to turks, this article. But I am not sure if these sources are acceptable in wikipedia standard, it still looks like OR, no original research policy. --83.97.72.14 (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish percentage in Germany
As I understand German officials do not distinguish between Turk and Kurd, but does anyone know what % of the est. 3.5 million Turks in Germany are of Kurdish origin? I would like to include this in the article if anybody knows. It's an important cultural distinction.Oxr033 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The data are based on citizenship. If you can show me Spaniards and Basques in Germany separately listed, then we may think about that. Got it? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Turks from Bulgaria and Greece
What about Turks from bulgaria and greece. There has been a migration especially from bulgaria to germany. So the number of Turks in germany is higher than expected. One of the most famous Turk from greece is Cemile Giousouf (Cemile Yusuf), a parlamentarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.156.50 (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

person with Migrant background
ok,just for example,If there was a man who was of Turkish origin,And his parents were German citizens when he was born, but his grandparents were immigrants and arrived now Germany after 1955（Typical guest workers like many others), here is the question,would this gay or others like him be count as a man with Migrant background? or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero011 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I found a source about a survey that discussed attitudes held by the Turks in Germany. Would this be relevant? WhisperToMe (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pelz, Danial. "Study: Large number of Turks in Germany put Islam above the law." Deutsche Welle. 16 June 2016.

Almanya'daki ünlü Türkler
Useful link: http://www.dw.com/tr/almanyadaki-%C3%BCnl%C3%BC-t%C3%BCrkler/g-17016295 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.107.66 (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Issues with Turkish ultra-nationalism in this article
This article obviously has various issues with Turkish ultra-nationalism. To name some examples:


 * Apparently the term Turks in this article is supposed to refer to a set of people defined by affiliation to a certain citizenship, namely citizens or former citizens or descendants of citizens of the Republic of Turkey. However, I just had to delete a recently IP-inserted paragraph (off-topic in its section anyway) which sought to use the term Turks in opposition to Kurds, thus as an ethnicity.


 * Apparently the term Turks in this article is supposed to refer to a set of individuals, namely citizens or former citizens or descendants of citizens of the Republic of Turkey. However, this article is full of instances of denying such individuality, instead forcing the individuals into a nationalistic collective called Turkish community and only considering them as part of said collective.


 * This article lacks any discussion of the problems associated with organized Turkish ultra-nationalist political activism in Germany, both in the secular variety ("Grey Wolves") and Neo-Ottoman variety.

These issues should and must be addressed, for the article to do justice to its topic. I am seriously considering if a POV template is needed for the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Timeline
I removed the following timeline from the page; it was not sourced and seems unnecessary.

Please restore the timeline
The doesn't seem to be a single questionable fact and the list offers a very nice overview. Authors have invested significant work here and if a single point is questioned it should be supported with a source instead of deleted. Deleting it all is utter nonsense.

This looks like vandalism a lot! 06:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You've mentioned: Some Turks have converted to other religions or are irreligious/atheists
I love the atheo-Turks. They are my brothers.

Comments are not allowed in Wikipedia, but we have to push in life to take our place, because the others don't respect us if we don't push for our rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8455:D100:3060:E6E8:A680:A948 (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: Add new book (study) to further reading
I can't figure out how to add books to that further reading template: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/turkish-germans-in-the-federal-republic-of-germany/BEDD8126B86F81E3C59D178045A3D88D Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

German-Turkish vs. German-Turkish
Not to be pedantic, but the term "German Turks" or "German-Turkish" refers to Turkish people of German descent. The correct term for this article is "Turkish-German" (with or without hyphen). I'm changing the instances of this term in this article correspondingly. Similarly, "Turks in Germany" is also incorrect, unless it actually refers to Turkish citizens in Germany. I'm sure no one meant any harm using these phrases in this article, but I would argue for erring on the side of precision, not least given the historical difficulties Turkish-Germans have faced (and continue to face) in being recognized as "fully" German. --Tserton (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Tserton, would you then suggest a renaming of the article? Most the content is clearly about people of Turkish origins, regardless of whether they were an immigrant or a descendant. Many in the community still identify as "Turks" even if they have German citizenship. Further, if we look at Turks in Croatia, Turks in North Macedonia, Turks of Western Thrace, etc. none of these communities are Turkish citizens because they have been living there for centuries. Sseevv (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Revising Demographic stats in the infobox
I'm revising the estimates on the number of people of Turkish ancestry in Germany. Currently the estimate of seven million is listed under "academic estimates" yet multiple sources cited don't mention it or come from politicians during political speeches, only one source comes from a professor. It contradicts heavily with official estimates, making it inappropriate for the infobox. The numbers used on this Article as of August 14th are more accurate to the research consensus. Will Tyson for real (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)#


 * I've reverted your edit and invention of estimates (i.e "1.5 million to 2 million" Turkish origin in Germany - which is ridiculous). The sources are range between 4 million and 7 million (latter includes estimates by EU officials quoted by Tessa Szyszkowitz, as well as Dr James Lacey and Professor Williamson Murray, and Professor George K. Zestos). Sseevv (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not "my invention", in fact my edit was an almost verbatim restoration of the the article as of 15:49, 14 October 2020, incidentally before you edited it without either consulting the talkpage or even stating a reason on the edit history, I only didn't return the "Turkey-related population" statistics since it muddled the infobox and most estimates of Turks state they include Kurds anyways, since the estimates are done by the citizenship of their parents or grandparents rather than ethnicity.  The "1.5 million to 2 million" is a carryover from the older article  which I copy and pasted verbatim, now that you point it out I will remove it - my mistake, I was going back and forth between multiple versions. Regardless the primary point of my reversion was the misleading label given the the below information: the lower estimates at the top are put in a dismissive pretext as they are "German government estimates", while the higher numbers at the bottom are referred to as "academic estimates". This is fine for the 4 million estimates (though they are the higher end of academic estimates) but not for the 7 million as you yourself admit most of the citations for the 7 million figure are not in fact academic, they are of professors quoting political speeches from German and EU government officials. That is not an academic estimate, that is a quotation supplied by an academic of what are not even government estimates or studies but statements from political speeches, that doesn't belong in he infobox especially under the title "academic estimates", its deceptive, I retained it in the demographics section however.  As for the rest of the citations for 7 million: There are in fact estimates that go much lower than 2.5 million but I wouldn't use them in the infobox either because of how much it conflicts with established research, my mistake was bringing back most of the pre-October 18th infobox.  The most common figures given for the number of people of Turkish descent in Germany ranges between 2 million and 4 million.  The following sources give these numbers for the entire Turkish diaspora in Germany:
 * "Religion in an Expanding Europe" page 211, 2.5 million
 * "Europe's Angry Muslims: The Revolt of The Second Generation" 2.5 million, of which only 700,000 have citizenship
 * "Strategies of Identity Formation: Youth of Turkish Descent in Germany" page 18, 2.5 million, 500,000 of whom have German citizenship
 * "Islam in Europe: The Politics of Religion and Community" page 19, 2 million
 * "Hybrid Humour: Comedy in Transcultural Perspectives" page 14, 2.5 million
 * "The Islamic Challenge: Politics and Religion in Western Europe" page 6, 2.4 million
 * "The Islamic Challenge: Politics and Religion in Western Europe" also states that 98% of the Turkish diaspora in Germany are Muslims, and pew research estimates the total number of Muslims in Germany from all backgrounds at 4.9 million, which includes 1 million Arabs and hundreds of thousands of Balkan Muslims. Also, recently Cambridge university published an estimate just under 3 million, noting "Fifty-seven years later, Turks are the largest ethnic minority group in Germany, numbering nearly three million residents; only approximately 246,000 of them hold German citizenship."  Not only yet another estimate closer around 2.5 million, by far the most common number, but that Turks have a very low rate of naturalization, migration background is tracked in Germany three generations back based on citizenship at birth, but until the citizenship reforms in the years 1999 and 2000 you could not acquire German citizenship by birth in almost all circumstances, and you still can't under many circumstances, it is primarily inherited from parents. Even since then the naturalization rate of Turks has remained low very low. "Turkey: Economic Reform and Accession to the European Union" page 345 states that the number of Turkish diaspora could rise as high as 3.5 million by 2030 from the year 2000. So the reasoning that somehow the number could have sprouted to as high as 7 million undetected because of "those not counted because of citizenship" is ridiculous. Also, "at least 4 million" listed for all academic sources is completely unacceptable, you now only includes sources at or above 4 million under that label to make the 7 million figure seem less salient. I'm restoring my edit and then adding the above sources I cited instead of verbatim restoration while removing the 1.5 million to 2 million range as you requested, again my mistake.  The 7 million figure does not belong in the infobox and I've given more than enough reason why and, 4 million is not in any way shape or form the low estimate for most academic sources. Does this sound reasonable, BD2412, Rodw, Heiko Gerber, John of Reading, Abductive, eliko007, Saotura, Tserton, and Peacetowikied? Will Tyson for real (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm noticing yet another issue, something which is stated in both the infobox and Demographics sections under population: it says the German census may be inaccurate as it includes only the 2.7 million with at least one parent born in Turkey. This is false, what the source actually refers to is the number of people of migration background(Migrationshintergrund) broken down by nationality of origin of that persons ancestors, it is not what country you are born in but rather if at least one grandparent did not have German citizenship at birth that determines wether you are classified as migration background or not.  Its a mute point anyways as I've already quoted multiple sources showing the vast majority of Turks in Germany do not have German citizenship even if they are born there.  Even if we ignore logic or pretend it refers to "born in Turkey", none of the sources explicitly state that this number maybe inaccurate, so its in violation of WP:SYNTH - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.", so it shouldn't be stated as such regardless. Will Tyson for real (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well you are clearly reading the census wrong. It also says that there are 1,240,570 people in Germany from Kazakhstan, but that does not mean there are 1.2 million Kazakhs in Germany. The census can only determine foreign-born people and their children, it does not go beyond that nor does it collect data on ethnicity. Even so, you should not be removing footnotes without discussing them first, nor should you make up your own figures and place them alongside footnotes that do not confirm what you claim (e.g. claiming that the German Embassy says "2 million" when it actually says "4 million" - this is vandalism to the highest degree). Sseevv (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot of Turkish people in Germany are ethnic Kurds. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot of Turkish citizens are indeed Kurds. This article is about Turks in Germany, there is already an article for Kurds in Germany. The German census cannot demonstrate the total number of either community: ethnic Turks have come from Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria... Similarly, ethnic Kurds have come from Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. We go by what the source says, not by User:Will Tyson for real's inventions. Sseevv (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Well you are clearly reading the census wrong." says the person who put in originally that it said born in Turkey, a demonstrable falsehood. And I am not reading it wrong, I never claimed it was "ethnicity", but migration background of Turkish origin as it is defined in Germany, at least one grand parent born without German citizenship, it is indeed based off nationality but nowhere is a source cited that says ", it is a question of you adding your own words.  I retain your sources because they are fine outside the infobox, though the caveat of "at least 4 million" runs contrary to countless sources.  As for "claiming that the German Embassy says '2 million' when it actually says '4 million' - this is vandalism to the highest degree" you are now being a disruptive user with charges of vandalism, this was another mistake on my part that I didn't rectify when bringing back my old edit as I again copied this from the October 14th version, but you want to charge me with vandalism and adding misleading or false information to your sources (two unintentional times one of which I rectified and the other I'm just now aware of) while simultaneously you not only refuse to address any of my points or broaden the estimate range in the infobox to 2.5 million, you delete the sources I added and continue with inflammatory language and now you are going to report me for reverting you even after going into detail about whats wrong, when you have done so twice (and were the first one to revert) with a sentence at most while dodging any questions I bring up.  You not only reverted me first on the pretext that I took down your sources in a deliberate attempt at Vandalism (it was one source I removed I believe, one of three quotes from a politician) but you yourself have removed many more sources without discussion. I'm going to ask a moderator to review this discussion. Will Tyson for real (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, so if you now acknowledge that the German Embassy does indeed say 4 million Turks in Germany in 2011, can I ask why you think that 10 years later 2.5 million is a realistic representation of Turks in Germany for the infobox? Have you come across evidence that the population of Turkish origin declined by 1.5 million since then? Prior to my edits, the infobox was very bulky so I condensed the "essay". I have no problem with including a Turkey-related population again as a footnote in the infobox. But again, that's some 5.6 million - much higher than the 2.5 million you are pushing for. Sseevv (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have quoted to you half a dozen sources that put it at or under 2.5 million, scroll up and you will see them. Do you actually believe all of those plus German government estimates are none sense and shouldn’t be included while simultaneously using the 7 million figures where the sole primary source appears to be political speech’s rather than studies? And even if we grant 4 million (again a high estimate) how do you think it’s possible it increases nearly two fold over 9 years? The guest worker program ended in the 1980s, there has been significant return migration, and more importantly Turkish-descent birthdates are now nearly as low as native Germans. And I think Turkey-related populations should be kept in the demographics section not the infobox Will Tyson for real (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So now you are suggesting even lower than 2.5 million? You are basically using outdated sources as well as your own interpretations on statistics regarding Muslims (which is irrelevant - not all Turks are Muslim). Just because there are sources out there that continue to repeat outdated estimates doesn't mean they are truly representative. There are also estimates that suggest as high as 20 million Turks living in Germany (e.g. John Mann, Baron Mann see here or here for pdf), but you don't see me pushing for just about anything that has been published. We should be reasonable and realistic. The German Chancellor Helmut Kohl said there was 3 million Turks in 1997, the German Embassy in the US said 4 million in 2011 - these sources should not be brushed aside for your attempts to portray a population of less than 2.5 million. Further, your claim that only 500,000 Turks have German citizenship is incorrect. In 2020 there were already reports that 1 million Turks were in danger of losing their German citizenship because they are suspected of holding dual nationality (and this is only including those who are suspected of it) . Sseevv (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep misrepresenting everything that I say? I am not in favor of removing nor did I brush aside any figures for 4 million sans a single mistake which I corrected in the next edit, I'm in favor of keeping them in the infobox as the higher estimate, what I have continuously argued for is the 7 million figure to be used only in the demographics section and not the infobox. As for "Further, your claim that only 500,000 Turks have German citizenship is incorrect" its not *my* claim when its a direct quote from a source I provide now is it, Sseevv? And then another source I provided above puts the number at 700,000 of 2.5 million. From 2011, "50 Jahre türkische Arbeitsmigration in Deutschland" page 21 puts the number of Turkish descent in Germany to 2.7 million of which 755,000 have been naturalized.  Then there is what the Cambridge University Press published, a study I have already referred you to stating "Fifty-seven years later, Turks are the largest ethnic minority group in Germany, numbering nearly three million residents; only approximately 246,000 of them hold German citizenship." And note, this is a study dedicated to this particular topic and that its extremely recent, from 2019. Regardless how many have been naturalized in recent years doesn't particularly matter to the main point of whether the 7 million figure is plausible enough for the infobox.  The conjecture you give about the possibility that the 7 million figure could be reconciled against the much lower estimates seems to rest on the idea mass naturalization occurring recently (since you consider 2006 to be too old for accurate information even though I've given far more current ones and sources that support the idea there hasn't been much population growth in general) means large numbers of naturalized Turks wouldn't be counted as being of Turkish background.  This is pointless, since "migration background" is dependent on the citizenships your grandparents were born with, not what citizenship you have either at birth or later in life, hence "migration background" rather than simply "migrant". Its at least been established that naturalizations of Turks is a  recent phenomena (and they are still rather low for how many are eligible and compared to the rate of naturalization for other groups) due to revisions of citizenship laws in 1999, 2000, and 2005, so this would not significantly effect   it, regardless of how many acquired it since, again you acquiring citizenship wouldn't change the citizenship your parents or grandparents are born with.  This is your fundamental misunderstanding, Turks born in Germany in the early 1990s for example were usually born as Turkish citizens. So while its true German census data does not track ethnicity as such, given that German citizenship until recently was passed through a parent rather than whether or not you were born in Germany, it gives an accurate picture.  You could always argue that hundreds of thousands of Turks intermarried with Germans and their children acquired citizenship in earlier decades, but German-Turkish intermarriage very uncommon, and if you want me to provide a multitude more sources proving that fact I will. Will Tyson for real (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely the source should be ringing alarm bells to you when you see that it claims "246,000" have obtained German citizenship. This is simply not true. Sseevv (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Will Tyson for real, What is uncommon? There are enough German-Turkish Couples in Germany. They are enough People of German-Turkish Ancestry trough intermarriages. As example here two People from the German TV, both Fathers are Turks from Turkey while there Mother is Germans:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdo%C4%9Fan_Atalay, and
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BClent_Ceylan 2003:E1:3F26:1D8A:98CD:435C:DDFF:B3C4 (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BClent_Ceylan 2003:E1:3F26:1D8A:98CD:435C:DDFF:B3C4 (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to put it out there for anyone else following this thread, the German Embassy in the US said the following in 2011 (i.e. almost 10 years ago) see here for archived link: Therefore, the above user's push to change the infobox figures to less than 2.5 million Turks in Germany with only 500,000 holding German citizenship is beyond ridiculous and a waste of my time. Sseevv (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "With a population of roughly 4 million within Germany's boarders, Turks make up Germany's largest minority demographic."
 * "As of 2005, 92% of its population is ethnically German, not including some 2 million Turks with German citizenship."
 * To those reading, see my responses above and you'll see I give alot of sources for the number I propose. Sseevv either ignores or dismisses the unearthly amount of information and associated sources I provide, though he has at least conceded that the lower half of the infobox being juxtaposed with the top as "academic estimates" is incorrect and removed it.  This is getting tiresome, I feel I've given as much (sourced) information and articulated as well as possible why I believe it should be changed without getting much feedback.  I would really appreciate other editors weighing in on whether they agree or not, or for a moderator to step in and make a decision. I will respect consensus if it is against me. Will Tyson for real (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Issue here is the dates. Will Tyson has cited many strong sources, but not all of them are recent. What are the estimates for the Turkish population of Germany say 2018 or later? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2019: 2.824.000 people with Turkish roots in Germany (p. 68). That's the official number by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany. All other numbers and citations are wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spatzenversteher (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding, Buidhe and Spatzenversteher, I’d also like to add many of the source I gave are quite recent, such as the one from Cambridge University which is from 2019, thanks. Will Tyson for real (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is anyone going to call for consensus? - Charlie Bostoner (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * One should now change the number in the infobox and add the current official number of the Statistische Bundesamt. I won't do this, because I already got a warning for doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spatzenversteher (talk • contribs) 20:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Spatzenversteher, could you elaborate on the 'Statistische Bundesamt' methodology for their census with sources? It would be useful for the conversation. Will Tyson for real (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, the source you are suggesting is based on country of origin, not ethnicity. It, therefore, is not appropriate for the context you wish to use it. If we went by this logic, then we might as well create an article called Kazakhs in Germany (which FYI is currently an redirect to Kazakhs) and place 1.240.570 in that info box, as the 2011 census shows for Kazakhstan. But, obviously, this is not what the census is actually saying, nor is it representative of an ethnic Kazakh community in Germany. We currently have a range of sources here as well as the German Embassy report. The sudden objection by numerous accounts which have barely been active on Wikipedia, except here, is extremely suspicious. Possibly a combination of sockpuppets. Sseevv (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet again with the accusations. I have already rebutted these talking points you are bringing up about the German census repeatedly in the discussion above, I will not repeat myself yet again. As for the accusation you are making: all of the sudden? This discussion started more than a month ago and I told you I was going put in a request for closure/third opinion for which the usual wait is 30 days for a response, and Charlie Bostoner has not even stated an opinion.  Regardless you should use actual tools made for the purpose when making an accusation like that,  I took the liberty of adding the names of "the accused" for you, remove or add whichever names you want.  Can I also ask why you continue to edit the demographics section and infobox when we have an ongoing dispute over it?  And what resolution can we come to when I've given multiple explanations for why these changes should be made but you just dismiss the sources I give as fraudulent such as this statement "Surely the source should be ringing alarm bells to you when you see that it claims "246,000" have obtained German citizenship. This is simply not true."? Will Tyson for real (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What I would recommend is give both the official figure, and an unofficial estimate from recent, peer-reviewed source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Buidhe, but the census does not give any details about ethnicity. Moreover, Turkish Germans born in Germany from 3rd generation onwards are not included in the heading listed as "Turkey" for migration background. Many ethnic Turkish communities from former Ottoman lands have also come to Germany from Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria etc. - not exclusively from Turkey. With the German Embassy report of 2011, which is also a state publication, at least we are specifically told of a population of "Turks in Germany" (unlike the census). We also have evidence of a former German chancellor placing the population of Turks at 3 million, 14 years before the 2011 census. At the turn of the 21st century, Professor Clifford Geertz suggested that the Turks in Berlin alone was 2 million. And even Angela Merkel has said that the total population is 7 million. Thus, using the census figures in the infobox, which only shows the 1st and 2nd generation with a migration background from Turkey, will not be representative of the entire Turkish German community. After all, at least 2 million Turks had German citizenship in 2011, this is according to the German Embassy. Sseevv (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Buidhe, so would you agree that we use the Cambridge University study from 2019 as the peer-reviewed source along with the German census, while the extreme numbers are relegated to the Demographics section? Will Tyson for real (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to admit to being a little confused as to the substance of this dispute - there seem to be several things going on. If I understand correctly: no one seems to dispute the accuracy or up-to-date-ness of the numbers published by Germany's official statistics numbers; the issue seems to be who counts as Turkish - i.e. whether Kurds and ethnic Turks from outside the modern Turkish state should be included. Is that correct? Or is the disagreement simply over which sources to regard as authoritative?

A few thoughts: If I've correctly identified the meat of the dispute, I would propose this: give the number cited by Germany's statistics office (~3 million), noting that it only encompasses first and second generation Turks and Turkish-Germans, and also say that estimates of the total number people of Turkish descent living in Germany is around ___. (We should look at the reliability of the sources for that number, and whether the sources implies that their estimate comes from actual data-based projections, or just gut-feeling.) --Tserton (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No matter what else, off-the-cuff statements by political leaders (especially the one by Kohl, which was intended to make a political point) are not reliable sources, and I think they should be removed from the infobox. In addition, official statistics should also take precedence over statements by embassies.
 * Part of the discrepancy might come from the fact that Germany's annual "micro census" only records first and second-generation Turkish immigrants - so anyone with only a Turkish grandparent is not counted. Estimates made by other people might be more sweeping, resulting in the higher numbers seen occasionally. The US makes it easier for us by simply asking about descent without specifying a cutoff (see e.g. Polish Americans) - which is less accurate but more complete. Some readers (and editors) might intuitively think the German census is also inclusive like this, so the number should be qualified as "first and second generation" whenever it's used.
 * I haven't looked at all the sources, but there are a few in there that I would definitely consider unreliable, like the one from Larouchepub.com. There are also too many sources in the infobox. At some point, adding more sources doesn't make the statement more authoritative.
 * I don't know if there are any hard statistics on the immigration of ethnic Turkish vs. Turkish citizens to Germany - and in the absence of hard statistics, I don't know how we'd go about breaking it down into sub-categories.
 * I disagree with removing Kohl's statement. There are academic sources from the 1990s which also place the population at 3 million. It's just much simpler to place Kohl's statement here rather than including a bunch more footnotes on estimates from the 1990s. Furthermore, there are other examples on Wikipedia where the statement of a state leader is used, see for example Armenians in Russia which uses Putin for 2020. I also disagree with removing the German Embassy report, as it is a state publication which expressly mentions the population of Turks, unlike the census. Considering that the Russians in Germany article uses the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the main citation for the figure of 7.5 million, I really see no problem with a German state report here... Nonetheless, I would be fine with placing the 2011 census here if we expressly state what it represents. As you say, some users seem to assume that just because it is a state census, citizens are declaring their ethnicity - which isn't the case with most European censuses. Censuses in Western European countries generally do not report in the same way as the US, Canada, the former USSR or the Balkans which allow citizens to declare ethnicity. In general, many of the ethnic group articles on Germany are using the German census incorrectly. E.g. Arabs in Germany is using all statistics on majority Arabic-speaking countries and representing all citizens as "Arabs" without showing the diversity of these migration waves which include Kurds, Berbers, Turks, Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, and many more. The majority of X in Germany articles are doing this, which is a total misrepresentation of figures. Sseevv (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've included the census with a detailed description. I strongly encourage that this is done for all X in Germany articles because at the moment all these pages are misrepresenting what the figures actually represent. I've also removed the study (Douglas, 2000) published by the Executive Intelligence Review, I hadn't realised the controversies with this publisher. Sseevv (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sseevv you keep editing the contested sections of the article without anyone agreeing to it. I have refrained from editing the article since early December. Please stop. I think all the changes to the infobox and demographics section should be restored to how they were before my original edit for the time being since this this is where the dispute began and its muddying the waters of what was under debate. Will Tyson for real (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While it's good to be bold, it's also good practice to wait for consensus before carrying out contested edits. You're not going to "lose" the argument by waiting to make an edit - everyone here is interested in the truth and in representing it objectively and completely. As for using politicians' statements on population figures: if we start doing that, we open the door to presenting Donald Trump's statements about the crime statistics of Mexicans in the US as fact, or Viktor Orban's pretending that Hungary is getting swamped with immigrants. Reputable secondary sources - i.e. official population figures, demographic studies, etc. - should suffice. I would also avoid statements by embassies when more solid figures are available (here and in other articles), unless it's clear how they arrived at their numbers. Embassies can also have an incentive to inflate the number of their citizens (and their descendants) in a certain country. --Tserton (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

To Tserton's post above (and to anyone else who doesn't want to sift through the previous walls of text to figure out whats going on): the primary dispute was not about the 2011 German census, this came up later. It was about the sources cited for the 7 million number. It was given as "academic sources" in the infobox when in reality the sources being used for that number came entirely from questionable sources like political speeches (some of which were being cited by academics and thus called that, but nonetheless were quoting those speechs only as a primary source) and so were many of the 4 million numbers as they came from embassy estimates. My proposal was just like yours: get the 7 million number out of the infobox. Personally I think it shouldn't even be in the article, but I thought keeping it in the demographic section would be a good compromise. I also didn't think that many sources (all qouting the same speech) was needed, but Sseevv accused me of vandalism. Regarding the German census, please read my post near the top starting with "I'm noticing yet another issue..." The census was misquoted as saying "at least one parent born in Turkey" when it includes several generations up based on what citizenship they were born with. Sseevv then tried to claim that the real number of Turks in Germany must be much higher (thus giving the seven million figure more creditability) because it is not strictly ethnic background. However there are several false assumptions in his belief: for one thing as I mentioned before naturalization of Turks in Germany is a recent phenomenon, and even since then (1999-2005 when these laws changed) being born in Germany does not automatically gain you citizenship. So no, it is not accurate to say "migration background" only includes first and second generation, since there are a large number Turks in Germany today whose grandparents immigrated in the 1950s, but it wasn't until two generations down that they received German citizenship (the vast majority still haven't). Thus even Turks born recently in Germany in most cases would still be classified as "migration background" since their parents or grandparents werent born with German citizenship. Regardless this is all original research from him not sourced that I was responding to. If you want to note that the German census isn't strictly about ethnicity thats fine, but any implication attached that implies most research puts it much higher is false and requires a source explicitly saying that. This implication is made as it is by having that statement followed by "other estimates" of which the extremely high figures are exclusively used, despite the sources being unreliable.

I cited many sources for these statements earlier - particulary in regards to the low number of Turks with German citizenship, to which all Sseevv could counter with was a statement from an embassy and a single news article. The second false assumption in this is that everyone coming to Germany from Turkey is an ethnic Kurd. Most statistics say around 1 million of those of Turkish migrant background are ethnically Kurdish, so if anything the German census not strictly relating to ethnicity implies the number of Turks being lower than the census. Sseevv then made a series of vague arguments trying to explain how that ridiculously high number, at odds with all serious academics and from a unreliable source, could be viable. First claiming that the number of ethnic Turks from other countries (like Greece which has a minority of them) could make up the difference, but not giving any source to how many that would be, I doubt its very much personally. Secondly if Kohl said there were three million Turks in Germany in the 1990s (he refuses to believe its unreliable as a source) therefor the Turkish population must have grown. I rebutted with a source stating that the ethnic Turkish birthrate was quite low, and further Turkish migration to Germany is no longer a major phenomenon and that there is also such thing as return emigration.

Next he simply moved to saying that my sources must be wrong because they contradict the embassy estimates and political speeches he cited. Note that everything else besides this question is moot: the fundamental problem is he is using unreliable sources against the myriad of third party academic sources I have given. I chose to engage with his other explanations (which only seems to have confused things) for how that number could be reached so we could have a discussion and I could show that there was other supporting evidence for the argument I make. But again, he simply has not given reliable sources where as I gave sources that adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. As for the Russian Germans article that Sseevv brings up: firstly that number seems to have been added to that article recently, so perhaps other authors havent noticed it rather than it being accepted. And secondly there might not be other sources to chose from. An even bigger point I'm making is it isn't just that the sources in use here are questionable, there are sound sources I have given from actual academic works dedicated to the subject, so there is no excuse for them to stay. "Surely the source should be ringing alarm bells to you when you see that it claims '246,000' have obtained German citizenship. This is simply not true." these are the kind of statements he makes regarding third party academic sources, the only evidence he gave to the contrary was a news article. Yet he has been free to edit this article several dozens times since this started. I would recommend everyone to look through the revision history of the article, though that has been hugely complicated by all the editing he has done whilst reverting everyone else. One thing you'll find is I am not challenging a longstanding agreement on the infobox, he himself added the 7 million figure without comment. Am I the only one seeing a problem with the way he has responded to me not even including the accusations of vandalism and sock puppets? Thanks. Will Tyson for real (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you think? --Tserton (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I take your point, I'll refrain from making more changes in the infobox. It was a sincere attempt at taking on-board the comments: I included the 2011 census and removed the reference you pointed out. The Germany Embassy report must stay, you haven't made any convincing arguments why it should be removed. Similar embassy reports are widely used throughout Wikipedia., thanks for finally showing your motivation: to remove higher-end estimates. Firstly, they are not all quoting the same speech. Please accept that there are a range of estimates on Turks in Germany: an FBIS report (a intelligence component of CIA - which is also widely cited on Wikipedia) said there were three million Turks in 1994 (page 69); Professor Clifford Geertz has estimated that there was two million Turks in Berlin in the 2000s; Professor Daniel Goldhagen said in 2013 that six million Turks were in Germany (almost half of which were German citizens) . In short, there is a range of estimates between four and seven million, the estimate of 3 million dates back decades. I have dozens of sources ready to illustrate this. 's recent edit and explanation in the article illustrates my point. This opinion that the census includes five generations of Turkish Germans is simply not true. And where does the 800,000 figure for Kurdish-Turkish people appear in the German census? Of course, the census includes Kurds from Turkey, but as I've said many times before the census does not collect data on ethnicity. One cannot use official sources and manipulate them to "prove" a point. The census does not show the number of Balkan Turks, Levantine Turks etc. either, it does not fall to us to use the census in a manipulative way - as several editors have done in their 2020 edits. Sseevv (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually Sseevv you are the one acting like you have an agenda, you use unreliable sources and refuse to allow lower estimates solely because you deem them "too low" and attack editors telling you otherwise, not a single editor who as weighed in so far has agreed with you, while multiple have disagreed, I suppose they are just sock puppets right? "One cannot use official sources and manipulate them to "prove" a point. The census does not show the number of Balkan Turks, Levantine Turks etc. either, it does not fall to us to use the census in a manipulative way - as several editors have done in their 2020 edits." you are the one manipulating based on your conduct so far, and b Do you have a source about how many Turks from those countries are in Germany? If not its irrelevant. I gave you many strong sources from works dedicated to the subject.  I looked at these you just cited and one is from the CIA and the others are one-off statements from books not about the subject without any primary sources given for the number. I cited to you actual studies.  BTW you are still being dishonest since the ones you just cited were not in the infobox, which are from political speeches (for the 7 million number.)  Will Tyson for real (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, two million Turks in Berlin is in gross contrast to every study done on the Turkish diaspora in Berlin (usually given areound 300,000). "The Germany Embassy report must stay, you haven't made any convincing arguments why it should be removed. Similar embassy reports are widely used throughout Wikipedia." you do not own this article Sseevv, we have as much say as you do, not even considering that you are thus far alone in this opinion. Will Tyson for real (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well the majority of you have barely contributed to Wikipedia, yet are suddenly here together with the same aim. Just because you appear as a majority doesn't make you objective or correct. It is quite hilarious to see users saying that a German chancellor who served for 8 years is unreliable; a German embassy report is unreliable; publications by numerous well-known professors are all unreliable. Only the numbers you "like" are reliable. Meanwhile, in Germans in Turkey only two sources, neither of which show 50,000 in the country. This debate is beyond ridiculous. I'm sorry you don't like the fact that there is a wide range of estimates - but they do exist. Hiding them won't change that. Sseevv (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Buidhe and Tserton have contribution histories going back years. I havent tried to remove high estimates from the article, I said they should appear only in the demographics section since there are better sources.  You are the one ignoring the wide range since you removed the sourced estimates I had entirely and just left the census for anything lower.  However argument points aside, I am reporting you for edit warring: removing multiple users edits over an extended period of time without consensus and accusing others multiple times of Vandalism, using Sock Puppets, and agendas. You've been guarding the article like a watchdog, "I take your point, I'll refrain from making more changes in the infobox." You say this after you reverted back to the page you wanted just now, even though me and Tserton both brought it up to you before you did it. Will Tyson for real (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, so - the facts (that I think no one is disputing):
 * The community of first and second generation of Turkish immigrants in Germany (including those with German citizenship only) numbers ca. 3 million.
 * Germany does not collect data, self-reported or otherwise, on ethnicity or descent.
 * It follows that:
 * The total number of people of Turkish descent in Germany is certainly higher, possibly much higher, than 3 million
 * It's difficult to make well-founded projections on the number of Germans of Turkish descent in the 3rd generation or higher, given the lack of sound data. Some reputable sources have nonetheless tried.
 * While I find the 7 million number highly unlikely (that'd be almost a tenth of the German population), it does appear in some reputable sources. When sources contradict each other, it becomes a due weight question. While I'm sympathetic to Will Tyson for real's argument that a lower number sounds more correct because Germany's citizenship laws used to be much stricter until recently, "it doesn't sound right" isn't a good reason to give a source less weight. And there were a sizable number of naturalizations even before 2000: a total of 2.3 million just in the 1990s, "mostly from Russia and Turkey." The point is that this is complicated enough that we shouldn't rely on our own conjectures. I would say, though, that not explaining their methodology is a reason to give a source less weight. So I would propose the following: For the infobox: the more succinct, the better. Infoboxes are meant to provide information at a glance, so if it's long most people are going to skip it and just read the article text instead and this whole debate is for naught. So I would favor phrasing it like so: at least 4 million [2-3 sources], some estimates range up to 7 million [2-3 sources]. Since it's much less complete, I would not include the results of the census in the infobox and instead mention it only in the text. If there's a strong preference for thoroughness, we can put that number in as well - just be wary of clutter. And absolutely remove the statements by Kohl, and preferably the one from the embassy as well. Embassy statements might do in a pinch, but we're not in a pinch - the number frome the embassy is also cited by a great number of other sources. If someone is strongly in favor of mentioning those sources I would suggest putting it to an RfC. In the main text of the article: here we can should fully explain that the census offers an incomplete snapshot and why, and why it's difficult to make a firm projection.
 * What I don't understand about this solution is that it ignores all the other sources I gave earlier. Why would the lower number be "at least 4 million" (I highly contest thats a low estimate anyways) when all these sources give the number between 2 and 2.7 million: "Religion in an Expanding Europe" page 211, 2.5 million|"Europe's Angry Muslims: The Revolt of The Second Generation" 2.5 million, of which only 700,000 have citizenship | "Strategies of Identity Formation: Youth of Turkish Descent in Germany" page 18, 2.5 million, 500,000 of whom have German citizenship | "Islam in Europe: The Politics of Religion and Community" page 19, 2 million | "Hybrid Humour: Comedy in Transcultural Perspectives" page 14, 2.5 million | "The Islamic Challenge: Politics and Religion in Western Europe" page 6, 2.4 million.  So if its a matter of we can't discount a source with another, then why would that happen the other way around? They should at the very least be included in the range in the infobox. Then there is the actual study about Turkish diaspora and German citizenship from 2019 that gives similar numbers for the number of Turkish descent and of those how many hold citizenship. And I gave previous sources about the Turkish naturalization.  Every source I have given has corroborated this fact, that the naturalization rate was especially back then and even now very low for Turks, in the case of the Cambridge University study that is the entire subject of the study, I recommend anyone challenging this to actually read it before taking a position.  On this statement, "2.3 million just in the 1990s, "mostly from Russia and Turkey." I specified Turks for a reason and gave clear sources for it. You can absolutely not use a source that groups Russia in as evidence when it doesn't divide how much of each.  Even still the difference is there were several million ethnic German repatriates coming to Germany in the 1990s from the former Soviet Union, unlike for Turks Germany had a special program of automatic citizenship for people claiming German ancestry in the former Soviet Union so long as they could prove it. "All those who are able to demonstrate German ancestry are automatically granted German citizenship"  they were known as Spätaussiedler.  Anyways I'm going to do some more reading on the sources for the 7 million figure. None is from an actual study, if it turns out these books are all quoting the same speech or don't give primary sources at all that could be grounds for being considered unreliable.  What I find astounding is that Sseevv is so obsessed over these staying in the infobox: I repeat it was never my intention to remove them from the article altogether.  He was remarkably hostile from the get go and refuses to engage with the ideas or explanations I bring up. I'm biased towards myself of course but I don't think I've ignored his arguments, I rebutted them with the information I have. Will Tyson for real (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've put my responses in bullet point form to keep it readable:
 * Why would the lower number be "at least 4 million" You're right that saying "at least" is a bit strong since we really have no idea.
 * "when all these sources give the number between 2 and 2.7 million" I haven't read most of these but will do when I have the time. But I suspect that most of them simply rely on the microcensus and don't include 3rd, 4th, 5th-generation Germans of Turkish descent, whose number is unknowable - but I would say that those people still fall under the scope of this article, just like 10th generation German-Americans are covered by the article German-Americans. I did look at the study by McFadden and it does rely on the microcensus (and appears to misunderstand a crucial point in it - see next bullet point).
 * "Then there is the actual study about Turkish diaspora and German citizenship from 2019 that gives similar numbers for the number of Turkish descent and of those how many hold citizenship.[24][25]" I looked through the sources you posted, and they both cite the "microcensus" for their contention that only ~200,000 Turkish people have taken German citizenship. But the author seems to fundamentally misread what that number means. I followed the study's citation to the actual census (available here; it's only available in German though) and it clearly states that that number refers only to Turkish-German dual citizens (p. 10). The total number of first and second generation Turkish/Turkish-German people in Germany is 2.82 million (p. 68). Subtracting the number of Turkish citizens, 1.47 million as per, and adding the number of dual citizens to that results in 1.55 million German citizens of first or second-generation Turkish descent - much higher than the 200,000-500,000 given by the various studies you cited above. In this case I would give the official statistics precedence over the studies citing them. Even academic sources are occasionally wrong.
 * "You can absolutely not use a source that groups Russia in as evidence when it doesn't divide how much of each." Agreed, absolutely. I wasn't trying to use that source to establish a concrete number - the point I was trying to make was that the issue is too complex and has too many unknown variables for us to be able to say "because naturalization laws used to be strict, Turkish naturalization in Germany is a recent phenomenon, therefore the Turkish population in Germany can be largely accounted for." The number would definitely be higher if the third generation and onwards is included - how much higher is impossible to know. --Tserton (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on the first two points. On the last two points: my mistake, the current number of naturalized Turks since 1999-2005 must have been much higher its my fault for not noticing it cited the census, however that still leaves the fact of how recently did those acquire citizenship? Migration background once again isn't done by your parents or grand parents country of birth but their citizenship at birth.  Just because someone acquires German citizenship later in life doesn't retroactively change that.  I mentioned this before, Turks have been living in Germany for decades but until citizenship law reforms the number of naturalizations was low, so what you call as "third generation Turks" would still in most cases have a parent born with Turkish citizenship, regardless if said parents or grandparents acquired it later in life that would still make them migration background. In other words if a Turkish couple had been born in Germany but inherited Turkish citizenship from their parents, their children would still be migration background. The first Turks in a given family to inherit German citizenship (presumably inherited from naturalized parents but one German one Turkish parent could pass it down too) is where the generational countdown to no longer being registered as "migration background" begins. It was in those aforementioned citizenship reforms that Germany began tolerating duel citizenship which until then had been a barrier, and until then you did not receive citizenship at birth, where as now (not under all circumstances) you do.  So I'm sorry I have a hard time seeing how number gaps that big could be justified as not being covered by the census without even going into the low Turkish birthrate and intermarriage and high return emigration I noted near the beginning of the discussion.  The very implication that the overall number of Turks would be bigger than the census total even if there was many unaccounted for is still flawed: a huge portion of Turkish citizens who immigrated to Germany were infact Kurdish, so its not like the number of ethnic Turks in Germany is "everyone mentioned in the census and then some", for all we know the overall number is actually lower when you subtract Kurds. Will Tyson for real (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of reasons to believe that the number of 3rd generation and onward Turkish-Germans might be considerable. The first is that there were naturalizations in the 50s-90s (see e.g. here) - not a huge number in any given year, but they add up! I don't think there's a breakdown of these figures by previous nationality available, unfortunately. The second reason is that children born to a German and a Turkish parent, even in that more insular Germany of the 60s, would generally be German citizens. Again, likely impossible to know numbers on that. But these uncertainties make it highly conjectural to say "because of this and this, the number is probably close to x." A third reason is that, as has been brought up before, ethnic Turkish people who immigrated to Germany from outside Turkey might identify or be counted as Turkish in some respects (although I'm far from knowledgeable about that), but not by the German statistics office. All this does make it at least imaginable that the true number is several million higher than what the census says. Again, I agree that the number is probably lower rather than higher (my gut says 4-5 million) but Wikipedia doesn't rely on gut feelings. As to the thorny Turkish-vs-Kurdish issue, I would separate that debate from the one at hand. The sometimes interwoven, sometimes decidedly separate identities of Turkish Kurds and "Turkish Turks" is hard enough to tackle on its own. More to the point, there are practically no numbers on Kurds in Germany. I would address it in the article, though: mention that both some present and former Turkish citizens identify as Kurdish rather than Turkish, but that the number is difficult to pinpoint. --Tserton (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned that bringing up those naturalizations is simply incorrect: people who could prove ethnic German descent were granted automatic citizenship and thus skew the overall number, and I do have sources saying at least compared to other ethnic groups the rate of Turks make up a lower percentage of naturalizations. Using numbers that include other nationalities when there is clear evidence that one group (Ethnic German repatriates) make up the majority just isn't sound even from a subjective argument point of view. "As to the thorny Turkish-vs-Kurdish issue, I would separate that debate from the one at hand." except that it is relevant to the question of how many ethnic Turks there are: please explain to me then how naturalized Turks who might be not be considered "Turkish" background in the census are relevant but not those who are listed as Turks but are in fact Kurdish or another ethnic(aka non-Turks)?  If you think Kurds in Germany should just be counted in with Turks because they have the same nationality then why argue ethnic Turks that are naturalized Germans should be listed as Turks in Germany at all? We at least know for a fact that the number of Kurds who came to Germany from Turkey is significant, regardless of the exact number. From page 1012 Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World · Volumes 1-2 "Of the approximately one million Kurds living in Europe, more than 600,000 live in Germany. More than 500,000 came from Turkey because Germany's labor recruiting program was the largest to concern Turkey.".  I have not seen any source from either you are Sseevv on what the estimates of ethnic Turks in Germany from other countries is, or even that it is significant.  Sseevv also made the implication that the overall Turkish population must have grown since Kohl's speech, but aside from falling birthrates we know that more Turks have been emigrating from Germany than immigrating to it for at least awhile.(page 285 Nordic, Central, and Southeastern Europe 2018-2019)
 * "All this does make it at least imaginable that the true number is several million higher than what the census says." I think you might be misunderstanding me, and if so it might be my fault for not articulating properly. I'm not saying that it isn't possible, even though I personally find it tenuous that a number that differs that much from official statistics without explaining how they reached it could be used in the infobox, but my point is just that given the evidence its equally likely that the number of Turks in Germany is lower than the census indicates as it is likely that its higher. Will Tyson for real (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To respond to the entire thread: As a general matter, I agree that an estimate based primarily on politician statements and at odds with better sources does not belong in the infobox. See WP:DUE. The place to cover disputes over the number is in the article body; the inbox should give a figure or more likely a range, based on the best sources, i.e. as close as we can get to a WP:RS/WP:NOR assessment of real-world consensus in reputable, secondary source material. Politicians' speeches are primary-source op-ed material and do not qualify.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * overall, I would agree to reduce the number of citations in the infobox and place the remainder in the main body of the article. If the census is no longer a condition for the other parties, I'm more than happy for it to be removed from the infobox. Please note, many of the cited sources do explicitly say "at least four million" or "more than four million" - this is why it is written in the infobox. Tserton, thanks for clarifying the German citizenship figures in that article; I have previously expressed that this figure is not representative of the total number of Turkish Germans but it has fallen on deaf ears for over a month. But I fear that the same irrelevant debates will continue to prolong a compromise, especially since today "Will_Tyson_for_real" reported me for editing warring on this article - I have been accused of "bullying" - and below, by User:Spatzenversteher, I've indirectly been accused of belonging to a fascist movement. As I've said before, I had added the census with good intentions because it was favoured by those parties (I've actually been against using it because it is misinterpreted in most Wiki articles); I did not realise that my edit would be used against me in such a way. Nonetheless, to avoid further repetition, above you can see my reactions to the sources "Will_Tyson_for_real" is pushing for - they are generally outdated and echo census data only, not the Turkish community as a whole (i.e. with Turkish Germans descendants).  Sseevv (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * can the personal digs come to an end already? You portray me as hostile and a "bully", yet the personal comments have all been directed at me. Your past eidts is what made me wary of your motives. But if you are a genuine user, with a willingness to compromise objectively, then I would prefer this debate had a promising end. There are other projects which I wish to work on, and this debate is prolonging that. Sseevv (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I gave sufficient explanation for why I reported you for edit warring, and I haven't called you insulting names other than maybe "guarding like a watchdog". As for why I used the word bullying - I didn't know you actually opened a sock puppet investigation and and thought you were just using personal accusations to silence others since it was in the context of other experienced users on this talkpage, but if you had legitimate concerns I suppose thats fine. There was also "vandalism" lobbed at me up which is not accurate at all. That said I would like the discussion on what to use on the infobox to have a resolution too. Will Tyson for real (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It was not personal accusations against you. I wanted to ensure you weren't a sockpuppet first, due to several past edits. Although the investigation concluded that one new account likely belongs to you, I didn't see a need to go further with that because it was just one edit on this talk page. In the case of vandalism, in your previous edit you changed it to "Estimates have varied between 1.5 million and 2 million" and "that there are "at least" 2 million or "more than" 2 million people of Turkish origin" - but the footnotes don't say that. So, of course, I would see this as vandalism. In another edit, you also said that the German Embassy report said 2 million Turks in Germany when it actually says 4 million. There are URLs to all the citations so one should be able to read all sources and recognise that I am not making the figures up. Anyway, whilst there have been legitimate reasons to assume vandalism etc., I have not refrained from communicating with you either; rather, I have tried to explain some of the problems with out-dated sources and sources that only use census data. I also have continuously tried to point out that the figure of 246,000 people with German citizenship is not representative of the entire Turkish German community. My last edit was a genuine attempt to start the first steps to a compromise, by including the census (as you wished) and to remove a source pointed out by User:Tserton. But as this was not welcomed, I did try to explain myself here. Believe it or not, my intention is to find a resolution too; I would much rather be working on more productive projects rather than just an infobox. Sseevv (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a [watch?]dog in this inter-personal dispute, nor do I really care all that much what the exact wording is or how many sources are cited where, only that the sources been good, be attributed where necessary, and that the infobox and lead use figures from the better sources and express a range that best reflects the range found in the better sources. PS: Please stop adding blank lines between :: and ::: comments, etc.  This breaks the list markup and makes talk pages a hellhole for users of screen readers. See MOS:GAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, SMcCandlish. With "User: Rocket1" now adding a new German statistic in the infobox (again, first and the second generation with a migrant background from Turkey), I'm beginning to get very confused on the consistency of arguments, and how the other parties see a resolution here. Sseevv (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been over two weeks now, with no response from any of you. Is there any update from the other parties? As discussed previously, official statistics by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany do not provide data on ethnicity. The inclusion of 2019 data by User:Rocket1's incorrectly identifies this as the number of "Turks in Germany" - which is incorrect (as I've repeatedly said, such figures are only 1st and 2nd generation with a migrant background from Turkey only). This should therefore be removed. Perhaps to avoid future confusion, it would be best to rename this article "Turkish Germans" (similar to Turkish Americans, Turkish Canadians, Turkish Australians, Turkish Cypriots etc.), this way we avoid this continuous confusion in using such statistics. Sseevv (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections, I propose that we place the 2019 stat provided by User:Rocket1 into the infobox footnote, as currently this number is misrepresented and needs to be explained correctly. Sseevv (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Simply because no-one has responded yet does not mean anyone is in agreement or that there are no objections, especially given you were given a warning about this before. For one I've had a busy last few weeks, though you still do not address most of the points I've brought up. And you've added even more articles from news sources that are very recent and very well may have gotten the information from wikipedia to begin with since they give no sources.  I'm working on a in-depth statement at the moment, my argument still stands and I will give more information here on this subject later. Will Tyson for real (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just come back to this topic. It obviously hasn't gotten any simpler, but I'd like to start with the following: the infobox is overcrowded. It's absurd to devote almost 100 words and 20 references in the infobox to the population figure. I'm going to remove the estimates given by the embassy and the one based on Helmut Kohl's informal remark. To summarize the reasons: (1) we should always favor sources that explain their methodology (i.e., surveys, studies, censuses) over opaque guesstimates, (2) the numbers from the embassy and from Kohl are very close to those given by reliable academic sources and statistical agencies, so there's no need to resort to the lower-quality sources, and (3) in its current bloated form, it's onerous for casual readers to readers: people use infoboxes for at-a-glance summaries, not comprehensive treatises. As for the overall population range, I'm open to leaving that as 4-7 million for now. --Tserton (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * On that note, I would also suggest trimming down those ~20 references to a maximum of 3 for each statement - this also applies for the rest of the article beyond the infobox (see WP:OVERCITE). --Tserton (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have respectfully waited months for a further reply from "User:Will Tyson for real", and I am always willing to communicate with you all. I am pro shortening the section, but you should have first come to the talk page to discuss such drastic edits. Since the German census does not provide data on ancestry I will place this in the footnotes. I was pro-keeping the embassy report which you have removed. Perhaps the removal of both is a compromise?  Sseevv (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for reaching out. Taking the census data out of the infobox sounds okay to me as long as the footnote stays short and succinct. In its current form I actually find it too long - don't lose sight of the forest for the trees; no one's going to spend more than a couple of seconds glancing at the infobox before reading the main text and if they see a lot of text they're more likely to ignore the infobox entirely. I'd include that the census doesn't ask about ethnicity and no more - that already inherently implies that it doesn't include longer-generation descendants, Greek Turks, etc. The main text can (and should) go into greater detail. Also, remember that Will Tyson, like anyone on Wikipedia, has a right to stop editing whenever they want, and that doesn't make their contributions or previously expressed opinions void. And establishing consensus on talk pages before major edits is of course central to Wikipedia (bold edits notwithstanding), but we already discussed removing the Embassy and Kohl sources at length above, and the bulk of the disagreement was on how to portray the numbers, not the sources used. Plus, the Infobox manual of style is pretty clear that they should be short and self-contained.--Tserton (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Tserton, hope this message finds you well. I hope you don't mind, I shortened the infobox and population section further (the next few days I'm away so I don't want to keep you waiting too long with replies). Please let me know what you think of the edit. And, of course, I actually still edit with previous concerns in mind. I would much rather we have a balanced and accurate representation to avoid future disputes and edit wars. Regards, Sseevv (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I would ask any and all who want to weigh in on this subject to read the following carefully: Sseevv completely relegated the 2.7 million census figure to a footnote on the infobox last week, and the main body exclusively featured the number 4 million to 7 million(apparantly Tserton agrees with this, I don't). Sseevv, as I told you numerous times earlier in the discussion migration background is counted by citizenship at birth going two generations back, Turks in Germany even three and four generations down etc are considered "migration background from Turkey" if they, or one their parents, still posses Turkish citizenship at birth so the accompanying statement "(first and second generation immigrants only)" is objectively false, since immigrant does not just refer to those who have been naturalized. It can in theory go on indefinitely if they retain foreign citizenship. When any foreigner acquires German citizenship it would then take two generations down before they would no longer be considered "migration background"(and holding dual German-Turkish citizenship as a significant number do you would still be considered migration background), I repeat both of your parents have to be born as German citizens before you are no longer counted as migration background. I am rewording the footnote accordingly. I also told you about how Turks and other foreigners were generally not able to acquire German citizenship at birth (unless inherited from a German parent), until the law reforms introduced in 1999-2005 (see earlier in discussion for the sources), the only major exception to this rule were the 4.5 million ethnic Germans repatriated from the Soviet Union. Until that time German citizenship law was based on the concept of Jus sanguinis. (source Immigration, Public Policy, and Health: Newcomer Experiences in Developed Nations pages 214-215).

I won't allow the 2011 census being relegated to a footnote until there is further discussion and consensus, its parameters are flawed because it does not explicitly identify ethnicity, but it is the only primary source based on actual census data in the infobox. In addition the other sources that I had added in the 2.7 million range that you removed were also from academic research, for the time being I am re-adding them, it is misleading to say "academic estimates" and then cherry pick only the sources that agree with the number you want. I also removed the more partisan wording from the main body: bringing up that Helmuth Kohl's speech mentioned a higher number than the census before it took place, that "as of 2020 many scholars have given the number as seven million", and "many authors have said at least or more than 4 million" (several of the sources you cite for this don't even say that) etc are specifaclly to abrogate lower numbers. Well guess what? There are authors who have put the number far lower than that since the census, that's like me citing all of those and saying "many authors have put the number lower than 3 million". let the stats stand on their own. For one thing I would recommond all to go through the sources, Sseevv has added a large number of citaions and only a handful are not from recent news articles which has hugely increased the research I have had to do, when you go through each you see the problem. I reduced the number of citations as the clutter when editing has reached ridiculous levels, which is precisely what has complicated my arguments, there does not need to be 20 citations of recent news articles saying the same things with the same lack of primary sources.

On the 7 million figure still in the infobox, this is the main point of contention so I will not touch it until there is some sort of understanding. Firstly, my position is that it does not belong in the infobox but in the main body of the article due to the possible unreliability (which I am about to go into detail about) of the sources it uses, but I have never advocated for it to be removed entirely. Sseevv has added a large number of citations to protect this statistic. So far there are six citations for it in the infobox. Three of them are news articles, all from the past six months after Sseevv first added the 7 million figure to the infobox. News articles are not considered a reliable source for statistical information anyways, but a specific danger is the possible usage of information from Wikipedia itself by these news articles, in fact several more news sites are cited in the main body (there are no actual published works cited aside the ones below and one or two in the main body of the wiki article that do not give methodolgy or a primary source) that are also from this recent time frame. Regarding the three remaining citations: In my view this should not be included in the infobox. I will add that Sseevv's supporting arguments do no stand up to scrutiny either. He says that the population must have grown since 1997 which I challenged by showing that the Turkish-descent birthdates are now nearly as low as native Germans, and that more Turks have been emigrating from Germany than immigrating to it for at least awhile.(page 285 Nordic, Central, and Southeastern Europe 2018-2019). He has stated that ethnic Turks from other countries could make up the difference between the census (and other sources) and the seven million figure, but has given no sources showing that there are even a significant number from other countries. The sources given in this article for ethnic Turks in Germany from other European countries in fact all give figures of a few thousand each, that isn't much, and many use news articles yet again. In the case of one it in fact misquotes the source to inflate the number in Germany, In the wikipedia article it says 20,000 Lebanese Turks settled in Germany, when the actual source says "To date more than 20,000 Turkish citizens have fled Lebanon, forced to take refuge in Germany and various other European countries." I corrected this in my most recent edit. I hope I'm not the only one seeing a pattern here. Tserton, if we agreed to removed the 3 million figure because a political speech from Kohl was unreliable why not the same with the 7 million figure? More than enough debating has gone back and forth, and I am not convinced by Sseevv's arguments, and the sources are not reliable in my opinion. Third opinions have been expressed but haven't really helped in reaching an understanding thus far, so I am submitting a Requests for comment, and I would suggest waiting before further revisions.
 * Autour de l'État thérapeutique, from the opinions of the writer Paul Gottfried, and he says there are "seven million Turks in Germany" to emphasize that the "Political elites" are making a mistake with immigration and in general he puts forth an anti-multicultural argument. A politically motivated opinion is being peddled with this, and neutrality of viewpoint is a factor here, and there is no primary source cited by the author.
 * Moment of Battle: The Twenty Clashes That Changed the World, this book is about military history and has nothing to do with migration. It mentions the 7 million figure in passing and cites a speech by Angela's Merkel.
 * Europe Confronts Terrorism, it cites as its source a political speech from an EU official, "It is a little late to start the debate about being an immigrant country now, when already seven million Turks live in Germany", a clear political point is being pushed with this.

As an aside my other personal recommandations for the article would be to reduce the number of citations and clutter, and maybe have a section discussing the liberalization of Germany's citizenship laws from 1999 to 2005. Thank you. Will Tyson for real (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi WTfr, thank you for finally replying. In the future, could you please provide shorter responses so it is easier to follow your arguments? I have rewritten the census footnote for a clearer explanation. The census does not provide any data on ethnicity therefore it does not show the number of Turks in Germany. So why should it be in the main section of the infobox? Turks in Germany have come from the Balkans, Turkey, and the Levant. In regards to the infobox, it no longer says "academic estimates" because you had objected to that. So why are you still raising this issue? In your last edit, you placed two citations and represented all other footnotes beside it as saying 2 million - this is misrepresenting all the sources which actually placed the estimate at 4 million. Another way you are misrepresenting sources is by using publications that merely cite census data. I agreed to remove the embassy report and Helmut Kohl's to reduce the section - not because it was political. I've been open to compromises but you should be too. It is all well and good to criticise sources you don't like, but what makes the ones you are pushing for better? I'm happy to go through all, but please stop these ridiculous edit wars. Sseevv (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Sseevv my responses are long and complex entirely thanks to this being a complicated subject and the massive clutter caused by the unholy amount of citations you have added. An in-depth answer is the only option. "you placed two citations and represented all other footnotes beside it as saying 2 million - this is misrepresenting all the sources which actually placed the estimate at 4 million." this is not a misrepresentation, it did not put them as saying "two million" it was between 2 million and 7 million, 4 million is between those two numbers.  "The census does not provide any data on ethnicity therefore it does not show the number of Turks in Germany. So why should it be in the main section of the infobox? Turks in Germany have come from the Balkans, Turkey, and the Levant." I explained this in detail above. "I have rewritten the census footnote for a clearer explanation." that is false, "nor are Turkish Germans whose parents were born in Germany" is not a true statement, again read above.  I was the last person to leave a reply btw and you never addressed my arguments, you do not have final say on this article, I did not agree with the changes you made last week and you remove sources while I am abstaining from doing such, you have literally reverted every single person that has touched the infobox over the past 6 months, stop with the knee jerk reverting when you don't address or misrepresent what I say, you revert every time someone else edits. Do it again and I will report you for edit warring.  I have not removed any of the sources we were debating but the most recent changes and biased qoutations in the article. Will Tyson for real (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In the footnotes, you are the one who has included this citation which says "migrant background” is defined by the German Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) as someone who was not born a German citizen or who has at least one parent who was not born with German citizenship" - and now you are against that too? It seems impossible to communicate with you. I'm utterly shocked by this. The continuous digs towards me are tiresome now. Sseevv (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not against it, but that is not what you put, "nor are Turkish Germans whose parents were born in Germany" there are Turks who are born in Germany that do not have citizenship at birth. "It seems impossible to communicate with you. I'm utterly shocked by this. The continuous digs towards me are tiresome now." the feeling is mutual, I don't think you are a bad person but everytime someone disagrees with you a flurry of false assumptions comes out that are demonstrably false. All my edit was for: adding the sources I had added originally and adjusted the range to include them, corrected misquoations, and for a neutral point of view. Will Tyson for real (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well the footnote explained the meaning of "migration background", so Turkish Germans not under that title would not be counted. I've tried my best to always remain courteous - I don't see how a dispute can truly be resolved with bad tension, disrespect, edit wars or personal digs. When I say you are misrepresenting sources it is not a personal dig, it is an observation: in your current edit, you are showing footnotes 2-9 as saying "2 million" when they say 4 million. This is a misrepresentation. Sseevv (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The footnote assumed that all Turkish immigrants past third generation wouldn't be counted which is false, that is true only if both of their parents have citizenship at birth, see this if you don't believe me: A person with a “migrant background” is defined by the German Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) as someone who was not born a German citizen or who has at least one parent who was not born with German citizenship.. But there are many Turks who were born in Germany that but did not receive citizenship and their children and so on, therefor there are third generation and further down that are still counted as migration background since they did not inherit German citizenship, this was a law that was only recently liberalized. Why do I have to keep explaining this? "You are showing footnotes 2-9 as saying "2 million" when they say 4 million. This is a misrepresentation." ok I can see the misunderstanding with this one. What the sentence says is "est. between 2 million to over 7 million", I added two sources for the 2 million, the 4 million is supposed to represent the "between" part, and 7 million is top estimate. How else should I format it then?  2 million is the lower estimate, 7 million is the high one, should I move the sources for 4 million next to 7 million?  Maybe all the citations should be moved to the right of the seven to represent the whole range. Will Tyson for real (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is due to the complexity of census data that I have been pro-having a footnote that clearly states the above. I'm not fussy with the exact wording - it just needs to be correct and coherent. But this is also the reason why I against keeping the 2.7 million figure in the infobox; the census does not claim to represent the number of ethnic Turks in Germany.


 * With regards to the misrepresentation, I have made one edit to clarify that those are estimates of 4 million. I have checked your two citations. Firstly, footnote 3 (i.e. Vertovec & Peach, 1997) should be removed for several reasons: 1) it is a 1997 publication and outdated; 2) it says "There were in 1990 1.67 million Turks in Germany; a more recent estimate is just over 2 million (Peach and Glebe, 1995). Not all Turkish nationals' are Muslim, of course." It is clearly an estimate on Turkish nationals only - not the total population, including descendants. Secondly, in footnote 4 (which should actually be cited as Klausen, 2005) it does not say 2 million, rather it says: "if there are 2.4 million Turkish-origin residents in Germany" and footnote 5 (page 14) on that publication shows that this is based on Census stats only. Sseevv (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Rectified by removing those and instead adding sources that explicitly identify ethnic Turks. I have moved all of the citations to the right of the seven, this is supposed to be an approximate range of estimates (added tildes for clarity) and by definition includes all the figures in between, including both 3 million and 4 million, it coming at the end of the sentence makes it clear the citations are for the whole range. As for the census it already says " 2.7 million with migration background from Turkey" and has a footnote explaining what that means at the bottom of the infobox. Will Tyson for real (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I hope you are all keeping well during this pandemic. I have rewritten the population section in the main heading, because of the misrepresentation of sources beforehand. I have also removed the census data from the infobox; this really should be a compromise since it is already in the infobox footnotes - even though it has nothing to do with ethnicity. I am willing to show the infobox as 2 - 7 million; however, the sources provided for the 2 million are still weak. Firstly, footnote 2 (i.e. Blank and William) was originally published in 1993 - not 2002. This is extremely outdated! So I am removing it from the infobox and placing it into the main population paragraph. In regards to Footnote 3 (i.e. Horne and Pavlovic, 2007), is this actually an academic source? I have googled both names and neither seems to be academic; moreover, the book is published by Infobase Publishing. This is not strong enough. So far, only footnote 4 (Orvis and Drogus) seems acceptable because of the date of publication and the fact that they are both professors. But their estimate is 3 million. If you cannot provide stronger sources showing 2 million, then we must change the infobox to "3 million to 7 million". I look forward to your reply. Sseevv (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I can't agree to these changes right now. There is a request for comment open right now on this subject, (I had to reword from the original but it is there again) so I would like for us to get more opinions on it first, I personally am still against it for reasons given earlier.  On two million sources, the one from 1992 has multiple editions published up until 2012 (editions often have more added and revisions to informatioin) so I'm not sure the statistic is that old.  2007 one isn't the best, but I have given similar complaints of unreliability about the numerous online articles and political speeches that are being cited for the higher numbers as well and have not removed those for similar reasons that there is dispute about it.  I don't see what is being misrepresented. As it stands it was a compromise since we both disagreed about whether certain numbers should be used so for the time being both should be present, but I'll put foreword more of my thoughts on the census and why it should it stay on the weekend. Will Tyson for real (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In my experience, RfCs rarely get more participation this long after they're published, especially when there wasn't much participation to begin with. Nothing to do with you - sometimes it's just bad luck, or a super specialized topic that not many people are familiar with and don't have the time to get into. At this point I would recommend that you close the RfC and seek dispute resolution, although would have to agree as well. I'm happy to mediate as well, although I'm not really strictly neutral, already having expressed quite a few opinions on the topic (and I think the dispute at hand would benefit from someone with experience in mediating). I can also offer to write a new, more focused RfC if you'd like. --Tserton (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * When I refer to misrepresentation, I am talking about the main section of the article - which you deleted completely. Can you confirm whether your revert was to undo the infobox or the population section too? If also the latter then this would vandalism. As for  Stephen J. Blank et al. (1993), see the pdf here the estimate of 1.8 million ethnic Turks is almost 30 years old. A reprint does not provide a valid argument on it being a modern estimate - it is simply a reprint.Sseevv (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Will Tyson for real, can you please provide any up-to-date academic sources on your claim of 2 million? The only source you have provided is from 2007, which is not only outdated but also not academic (i.e. neither William Reginald Horne nor Zoran Pavlovic has an academic position or PhD). This needs to be removed. I have provided a range of academic sources which show that the three million figure is also outdated from the 1990s.Sseevv (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * As you have not provided an academic estimate I am removing this source from the infobox. Sseevv (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources on the population of people of Turkish descent in Germany
If I understand correctly, this has boiled down to a disagreement on the reliability of the sources. Having reread more of the discussion, the debate has become more narrowly about whether to include the census, so this exercise isn't immediately useful to solve that. I'll keep populating the table, though, because I'm still a bit confused about what the sources say and think it'd be useful to have an overview. I think it would be useful to gather the existing sources and what they say in a table. That might help put the dispute on a more solid footing and help uninvolved editors understand it. I'll create a new section below and put in a table template. Everyone please feel free to populate it - but don't put in clearly unreliable sources like off-the-cuff remarks by politicians. And keep it succinct. Unnecessary detail is the fastest way to turn people off reading something. --Tserton (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first source, Stephen J. Blank et al., see the pdf here, it was actually published in 1993 and is therefore almost 30 years old. The 2002 publication is not a "newer version" - it is simply a reprint. And even if it were a revised publication (which it isn't) it would still be almost 20 years old and outdated. To reduce the number of sources in the infobox, I suggest we keep sources that were published within the last few years. Sseevv (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Tserton, I have already written what the sources say in the population section (and I have even placed the quotes for every reference in the templates too). If this exercise will make it clearer for you then that is fine. As I have previously said, I do not object to including both the low and high-end estimates in the infobox. But so far every source of 2 million has been very outdated. My main objection has been the census because it is not based on ethnicity and is already in the infobox footnotes. Sseevv (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm on board with what you wrote in "Academic estimates". I also agree that 2 million is unrealistically low. I'm just a bit curious why some of the sources diverge so much - I'm wondering about the methodology of the ones citing 7 million. Maybe they can be traced back to the original study (if there was one); I'd like to read it. I'll collapse the table since it's not that useful for now. --Tserton (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally, academics provide their own independent estimate - that's why they vary. Currently, footnote 3, i.e. William Reginald Horne & Zoran Pavlovic (2007) is the only estimate of 2 million in the infobox; moreover, it is the only non-academic source we have. Neither writer holds a PhD or an academic position. This should therefore be removed. Unless an up-to-date source can be provided by an academic scholar on 2 million, we should change the infobox estimates to ranging between 3 million and 7 million. Yet, even 3 million has been suggested since the late 1980s, see for example page 120 by Merryl Wyn Davies and Dr. Adnan Khalil Pasha's 1989 publication. To reduce references, I suggest that we place one source for each latest estimate. The rest can stay in the main article Sseevv (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

RFC about Demographics, reliability of sources, and what is appropriate for the infobox
What sources and figures should be favored in the infobox for Turks in Germany? Will Tyson for real (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * There has been lengthy debate for six months about the current population figures used in the infobox for Turks in Germany, in particular their reliability. This can be summarized in three questions:
 * 1.Are there too many citations being used for each statistic?
 * 2.Should the 7 million Turks figure be removed from the infobox? See the Revising Demographic stats in the infobox section for the specifics and arguments put forth by both sides.
 * 3. Is the German census and its definition of "migration background" appropriate for the infobox? Will Tyson for real (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Will editors please note, the dispute has prolonged for 6 months because "Will Tyson for real" had stopped communicating on 16 January 2021, with a brief appearance on 8 March 2021‎ to say that they would be returning. It has thus been impossible to reach a conclusion without the other parties. Sseevv (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You refused, and continue to, address many of my arguments. The elapsing time is due to the massive number of sources added to this article that make it near impossible to sort, in the meantime me and you both were warned not to edit for the time being which I took heed.  It is my fault for not addressing this sooner however you are right.  I was hoping that at least more people would weigh in but they haven't.  Regardless my most recent edits and response were sparked by a recent edit you made. Will Tyson for real (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The time does not really matter, I'm willing to wait as long as needed because you previously said that you were busy. That is fine. But you have expressed here that it has been a lengthy dispute: editors not familiar with it have a right to understand that this was not an ongoing 6-month dispute. It was paused for 6 months because there was no communication. Sseevv (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Will, I have the following general comments: first, I would urge you to have another look at WP:RFCOPEN bullet #3, which requires a "brief, neutral" statement of the Rfc question; this is expanded at WP:RFCBRIEF. Some of the five questions either have nothing to do with improving this article, or cannot be decided here, because this is the wrong venue. Number 1 is for academia (a WP:SECONDARY source) to answer, not us. Number 2 makes no sense to me, and even if improved, any question about the reliability of a source cannot be decided here and should be moved to the Reliable sources noticeboard. Question #3: same as #2, WP:RSN; however a national census will almost certainly be found reliable by the Noticeboard. Questions #4 and #5 are brief, neutrally worded questions, and ideal for an Rfc, and may be commented on. I urge you to strike out questions #1, 2, and 3 as inappropriate for an Rfc.  I'll come back later and given an opinion about #4 and 5 on another occasion. Mathglot (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S., if no one has responded yet to the questions by number, you can just delete the first three, instead of striking them out, and renumber the remaining two. See WP:REDACT. Mathglot (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks, this was my first RFC, I will bring up on the question of reliability to the appropriate noticeboard at a later time. Will Tyson for real (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: to be clear, the reliability of the German census is not being disputed here. The census does not collect data on ethnicity; thus, the suitability of it being used to represent the population of "Turks in Germany" is what is being disputed because Turks have not only come to Germany from Turkey. Sseevv (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes on 1 as per WP:OVERCITE - reduce to 1 or 2 citations max. And no on 2 (for now). While the given upper range of 7 million does sound hard to imagine to me, there are sources to back it up, and I can't find any reason to consider them unreliable. --Tserton (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree on reducing citations in the infobox to the latest publications, whilst the rest can remain in the main article. Also in favour of keeping the low and high estimates together in infobox (i.e. including the 7 million; the 2 million should only stay if up to date publications can be shown - but so far 3 million seems to be the lowest from recent publications). Not in favour of keeping the census because not based on ethnicity (Turks in Germany also come from Balkan and Levantine countries). And it is already in the infobox footnote. I have already compromised by taking out the embassy report and statement by Kohl. I'm yet to see a similar willingness to compromise from the other side. Sseevv (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , any thoughts on how we move forward? I suggest two publications by academics in 2020, one showing low and the other the high estimate of the current period. I have removed William Reginald Horne and Zoran Pavlovic (2007) from infobox as neither hold a PhD/ academic position and therefore are the only non-academic source used. Furthermore, since the other party has been pro keeping the census, but against the embassy report and the speech by Helmut Kohl, I have included the 1994 estimate by the Integration Officer, Professor Barbara John. This adds neutrality since the census has nothing to do with the total population. Sseevv (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My priority would be to keep everything succinct; the 12 (!) sources are still way too many - so using two (or even four) sources for lower and higher bounds sounds like a good idea as long as it's in the format "3 million[x] to 7 million[y]". Each estimate doesn't need its own sentence (and in any case I'd say the Barbara John estimate is too ancient - or do you specifically want to cite a historical estimate?). The census, while very imperfect, is still useful for establishing a minimum number, but I can get behind the argument that it's too imperfect for the infobox. --Tserton (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Tserton, thank you for your reply. Since the German census doesn't conform to the heading in the wiki infobox (i.e. the sky blue heading which says "Total Population"), I still think it is inappropriate to have it in the main section. This is why it is better left in the infobox footnote. However, if this is still a must keep (even though it is not a figure on the total population) then it is important to show that the three million figure has been echoed by representatives and academics of the German state for some three decades now.


 * Since there is only one source for the 3 million figure (i.e. Orvis & Drogus, 2018) that can stay. I propose that we use the latest publications; so keep Zestos & Cooke (2020) as well as Fuller (2020) for the seven million estimates. Does that sound good to you? Sseevv (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Objectivity and quality
This article is ridiculous. Who examines the quality and objectivity of it? Obviously nobody! It seems to be written by Grey Wolves. Like any other European country Germany has a functioning system of official statistics published by the Statistische Bundesamt, which states that there are between 2,7 and 2.8 m. people with Turkish roots in the country. That's the official number that belongs in the infobox, not 4 or even 7 m. There are 1.472.390 people with a Turkish passport in the country. And it is not a "government estimate" when Helmut Kohl eventually guessed that number in public in 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spatzenversteher (talk • contribs) 01:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The figures are supported by a host of sources, including academic sources and the German Embassy report. To accuse editors who have spent there time on editing this article as part of the Grey Wolves is extremely inappropriate and offensive. Sseevv (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I still wonder what is your intention by persisting on these inflated numbers of Turks in Germany, but I think you WISH there are more, and that's not correct. There are 2,8 m. people with Turkish roots in Germany, and if you even include ethnicity, you will have up to 1/3 Kurds within this number. It is not "my interpretation" and considering that I often work professionally with German and international statistics it is actually quite impertinent stating I have no clue about it. Again, it is not only the 1st and 2nd generation. When asked about the migration background in the German census and a 80-year-old Turk reports that his parents and grandparents were Turkish, and his grandson is also Turkish, you cover 5 generations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spatzenversteher (talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Spatzenversteher, how am I "wishing" this? I haven't invented the numbers from thin air, they are cited. Also, no evidence that the in the German census 1/3 are Kurds. The census does not collect data on ethnicity. It only collects data on foreign nationals; people born outside of Germany and their children. Sseevv (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I have given sources myself showing Kurds make up a significant portion of the those in the census labeled as "Turkish background" in the discussion above. Will Tyson for real (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The Kurds in Germany article would be the appropriate place for population figures on Kurds. Sseevv (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Except for the fact that the number of Kurds from Turkey in Germany is being used to inflate that number of Turks. Will Tyson for real (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Most of the sources you cite, Sseevv, cannot count as reliable as they are not technical demographic studies about the subject but just casually mention some number. In most cases it is obvious that the number of Turks had been confused, or conflated, with the total number of non-western immigrants. So "Turks" really meant "Turks etc.". Because of the pervasive marriage immigration, there cannot be a large number of third generation Turks in the technical sense of a person both parents of whom were born in Germany. The fourth generation must be negligible as it only consists of people of which all four grandparents were born in Germany.--MWAK (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The studies with the 7 million Turks quoted by @Sssev are unfortunately not absolutely not reliable. It seems that they refer to each other.  They are not studies about the number of Turks in Germany. They are any studies where simply a number is mentioned. Proof of the non-reliability of the studies cited is also the abstruse statement by Clifford Geertz that there are "at least two million Turks" living in Berlin.  A total of 3.5 million people live in Berlin. This is not true. There are no other sources for this statement. What kind of stupid statement is that? Besides, I don't see the point of inserting a rough estimate by a German minister from 1994 in the infobox? What is the point of inserting such an old piece of information?
 * Official government figures put the number of Turks in Germany at 3 million. 30-40% of these Turks are of Kurdish origin, so would not describe themselves as of Turkish origin. There are 1.3 million people with Turkish passports in Germany (this is an accurate figure). How do you get to 7 million? That's not right. Ros.mary90 (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As I remember, the sticking point was that the official figures omit a potentially large portion of third-generation Germans of Turkish descent (of which there are a lot). The census only asks if "you or your parents" have a non-German passport, so people born to a parent or parents without Turkish passports aren't counted as having Turkish ancestry, even though they would clearly count for the purposes of this Wikipedia article. So 3 million is more of a minimum number. But your arguments about the dubiousness of the sources make sense to me, as does the notion that 2 million Turkish people living in Berlin is unrealistic. --Tserton (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Turkish-vs-Kurdish argument, I'm not sure if it's within Wikipedia's paygrade to judge how Kurdish people in or from Turkey describe themselves. I would prefer a footnote or parenthetical clarification rather than trying to guess how many of the people identified in Germany's census as "Turkish" are or wish to be seen as Kurdish. We should simply state the figures as reliable sources give them - and provide context and caveats where appropriate, of course. --Tserton (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Notable people
There is an extensive List of Turkish Germans page and therefore no need to repeat it all here. To avoid making the sub-headings extremely bulky it is best to place notable Turkish Germans who have gained prestigious awards, won elections, or represented a nation-state in sports/music etc. Most importantly, all information needs to be cited with references and written in a formal manner to fit the academic tone of this article. I have already volunteered to help expand this, and I more than welcome a discussion in which we can plan the best way to go about this. Sseevv (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Condensing the list of mosques
I don't think the list of mosques adds to the article - quite the opposite, I think it breaks the flow of the page since most readers are just going to scroll past it. Also, currently only two of the mosques have their own articles on the English Wikipedia, so it's not clear how "notable" they really are. How do people feel about condensing it to 2-3 mosques and putting in some text instead? For example, there's a decent amount of interesting information about how Turkish mosques are run, like the controversial role of DİTİB. Alternatively (or additionally) we could split off the list into its own article, although I'm not sure it would survive a notability challenge given there's already a List of mosques in Germany. --Tserton (talk) 09:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be eager to expand with text, but after the infobox is dealt with. Sseevv (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So! I would suggest doing away with the list of mosques entirely (with the rationale that it is reproduced in List of mosques in Germany) and replacing it with a single picture of one of the mosques - maybe the first or biggest one. If there is strong opposition to deleting the list, we could split it into its own article, although we might want to think of a more objective title than List of Turkish mosques in Germany as not all the mosques are formally affiliated with Turkey or even the Turkish-German community. --Tserton (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Turkish Roma
There are also Turkish speaking Muslim Roma in Germany. The first Group came as Gastarbeiter from Turkey, the so called Romanlar, (romani in turkey), the Host population saw them as Turks like other Ethnic Turkish Gastarbeiter. The second Turkish Muslim Roma Groups in Germany, are from Bulgaria and Romania (Dobruja), they came to Germany when Bulgaria and Romania became member of the EU. The first Group are fully assimilated in Turkish society in Germany, nobody look them as Romani people. They havent anything to do with other Romani-Groups. Nalanidil (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well there is already the Romani people in Germany article. Sseevv (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)