Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Iraqi Turkmens |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 14:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
Requesting party | User:Turco85 |
Parties involved | User:Turco85, User:MamRostam03, and historically other sock puppets and anon's |
Mediator(s) | User:ItsZippy, User:Steven Zhang |
Comment | MamRostam03 identified as a sockpuppet. |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
The dispute is strictly at Iraqi Turkmens and its talk page.
Who is involved?
The list of the users involved. For example:
What is the dispute?
The dispute first began when I first started to develop this article in December 3, 2010. I was using the sources which were previously there before I had initially started to edit the article as my starting point to expand the article. However, once I found sources stating the 1957 Iraqi Census as well as citations which states that their official language is Turkish, a group of new users (many of which have been blocked now for the sock puppet actions) started reverting my edits and accusing me of nationalism. Due to the heated edit-wars and disputes on the talk page (which one may see on archive 1), I decided to stop editing the article and come back at a later time. However, since editing the article, a completely “new” user has started to revert my edits. I have tried to explain to them that they are removing a wide range of academic citations…furthermore, some of those academic books/journals are used in certain sentences in the version of the article which they keep trying to revert it to. For example, when they revert my edits, publications such as Anderson & Stansfield (2009) are still being used even though these authors speak of the 1957 census and state that the Iraqi Turkmens speak Turkish.
What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
I have tried to discuss this issue on numerous occasions on the discussion page. I was adviced by User:Mr. Stradivarius on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard to open a case at the Mediation Cabal.
What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
I have shown a wide range of sources and have quoted many of them on the discussion page yet this user [who I believe to be the same person as those in archive 1] will not accept using the 1957 Iraqi Census nor will they accept that the the Iraqi Turkoman Congress adopted a Declaration of Principles stating that their official language is Turkish. Basically, I have tried to compromise however this user will not allow any co-operation. The main issue is that academic sources are being removed when this user does not "like what they see", yet the same sources are being used in the version of the article which they revert it to.
What can we do to help resolve this issue?
You can help by giving some advice/direction on what should be done about this matter. I have clearly sourced all my edits and yet I know it will be removed in due course. The discussion has historically gotten heated, and as I do not like confrontation, I would most likely just avoid editing the article; thus, the article would end up in a poor and inaccurate state again. It would be great if someone with a positive attitude can help conclude this argument in a fair manner.
Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?
Mediator notes
I am opening this mediation case. As this is the first case that I have mediated, I have requested that User:Steven Zhang assists me. Before going any further, could we just ensure that both editors involved in the dispute are aware of the case and willing to take part in this mediation process. Could both editors please provide an opening statement, outlining their view of the case and their opinions. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
As ItsZippy has requested my assistance with this case, I will be helping to mediate this, but I intend to mainly advise and let ItsZippy steer the mediation. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
We are still waiting for an opening statement from MamRostam03, who is yet to reply to this mediation after two notices. I will give this another two days and, if it remains inactive, I will close the case. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you to both editors for providing opening statements. It seems that the main problem here is the content regarding language and the use of sources relating to this. After reading the opening statements and the previous discussions at the talk page, I think it would be wise to establish a few ground rules. Could both parties please read the ground rules I have proposed below and sign to indicate acceptance of them. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to halt the current discussion, as it is proving counter-productive. Firstly, MamRostam03, before continuing the discussion, please read and understand the ground rules outlined below, then sign to signify your acceptance of them. Unless you accept these ground rules, this mediation cannot happen. Secondly, we need to stop arguing about other editors and keep the discussion solely focused on the content dispute. This mediation case will only work if we can agree to leave personal comments out of it. We must assume good faith, which includes not accusing other editors of trying to pursue and agenda or damage the article in question. This issue can only be resolved by a thorough examination of the sources. Before we go any further, I would like to see MamRostam03 signify his acceptance of the ground rules. In order to enable productive discussion, I will then outline a mediation agenda, which will determine in the course this discussion will take. Until the ground rules are agreed to and an agenda is established, I would ask that both involved restrain from continuing the discussion. I shall hide any discussion which takes place before then. I appreciate that this will take some time; however, with strong opinions on both sides, patience is vital if we are to resolve this dispute. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you MamRostam03 for accepting the ground rules. I would now like to establish an agenda. This will be a list of issues in this dispute which we will cover in order. We will follow the agenda and keep discussion to the agenda. I will post the agenda below. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I will be away from Sunday 4th December - Thursday 8th December. During this time, I will be unable to mediate this case. I am therefore putting this case on hold until that date. If my co-mediator, Stephen Zhang, wishes to continue mediation while I am away, he may. If he does not, this case will re-open once I re-open it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Opening statements
The dispute is focused mostly on the following main points:
- The 1957 Iraqi Census is constantly being removed. I believe that the reason for the removal of the Census is because some users do not want to accept that Iraqi Turkmens make up 9% of the population of Iraq.
- The language section is a constant dispute. The Iraqi Turkmen have declared their official language as Turkish; however, I accept that like other Turkish minorities (e.g. those living in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Georgia, FYR Macedonia etc.) that they have their own dialect.
- Finally, the version of the article which User:MamRostam03 keeps reverting it to uses sources such as Anderson & Stansfield (2009) which actually mentions the 1957 Iraqi Census as well as the fact that the Iraqi Turkmens speak "Turkish" as their mother tounge. Thus, what I am trying to say is that even when my edits are being reverted, many of the sources in User:MamRostam03 version of the article actually acknowledges the version of the article which I have written (i.e. the 1957 census and Turkish being their mother tounge).Turco85 (Talk) 13:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- The talk page (including all the materiel that Turco conveniently "archived" for hiding previous consensus) speaks for itself. Turco needs to appreciate (or admit to understanding) the difference between high quality and low quality sources. Something that is published in a peer-review journal, obviously is preferrable to something found on a random nationalistic website (such as fringe political party, the Turkey-funded "Iraqi Turkmen Front", which is a marginal organisation that receives only a minute number of votes in Iraq).
- Turco alternates between profound sleight-of-hand/red-herrings, and what I must only assume to be profound ignorance. Take his three "main points" above.....
- 1) I have no problem with the 1957 Census statistics, provided it's findings are reliably sourced and given proper context. (red-herring)
- 2) "The Iraqi Turkmen" have never made any such declaration. Such a declaration would indeed be strange, since the vast majority can't even understand Turkish, let alone read or speak it. The academic sources refer to the language either as "Turkmen", "Iraqi Turkmen", or "South Azeri/Azerbaijaini". It is, if you read the articles, a dialect of the latter, with heavy influence from Arabic, Kurdish, and Persian - depending on where the Iraqi Turkmen live. (either deliberate sleight-of-hand by conflating "Turkish" with "Turkic", or profound ignorance).
- 3) Red-herring. I am not attached to the current version (in fact I think it is atrocious) - but it was reached by a consensus, and is far more accurate than the obscenely misleading, inaccurate, and ethno-nationalist version you are attempting to implement against consensus.
MamRostam03 (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Ground rules
- Please keep discussion on the the content of the article and away from the conduct of others users. Please assume good faith, avoid making any personal attacks or accusations and only comment of the content issue. The potential or assumed motives of other editors should not be discussed and we will assume that everyone wishes to improve the article. I reserve the right to archive, remove or refactor any incivility and personal attacks which I feel are detrimental to the mediation process.
- To avoid an edit war and keep mediation on track, please refrain from editing the article in question, apart from non-controversial edits, until the mediation process is over.
- Remember that mediation works on compromise and that mediation will not work without an open mind.
- Please keep the discussion on topic. Each issue will be dealt with separately. If I feel comments are moving off topic, I reserve the right to archive them.
- Although the Mediation Cabal cannot form binding sanctions, I would ask that both editors to abide by the outcome of this process.
- Note: Please read them carefully. These ground rules should not be taken lightly. If you agree to them you are expected to abide by them.
Agreement by participants to abide by ground rules
- Note: Please read them carefully. These ground rules should not be taken lightly. If you agree to them you are expected to abide by them. Please sign below.
- I agree to abide by all the ground rules. MamRostam03 (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Mediation agenda
Thanks for your patience in this dispute. Here is the agenda which this mediation case will follow. Please keep discussion to this agenda and do not deviate from it - I reserve the right to remove comments which do this. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
[1%] Open case. Done
[5%] Receive opening statements. Done
[10%] Establish ground rules. Done
[15%] Ascertain what the key issues in the debate are. In progress
[20%] Initiate discussion on the first issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
[35%] Initiate discussion on the second issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
[50%] Initiate discussion on the third issue (if one exists), discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
[65%] Initiate discussion on the fourth issue (if one exists), discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
[75%] Assess the status of the mediation, considering how the solutions implemented have improved the article. Determine whether any issues still need to be addressed.
[80%] Revisit any remaining unresolved issues.
[85%] Discuss the articles with parties, offering advice as to how to better manage disputes in future.
[95%] Discuss long term options to help keep the article stable, for example agreement to abide by certain rules when editing these articles.
[100%] Seek resolution of dispute through party agreement, then close mediation.
ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Key issues
To me, the key issues seem to be as follows. If you see this as an accurate representation of the key issues, please indicate below. If you believe there are further issues which need addressing, please let us know below. Please do not discuss any of the issues presented, only whether or not they need to be discussed in this mediation process. I will remove any comments which begin to initiate discussion on the actual issues.
- Which sources in the article should be used and which should not.
- How to interpret any contentious sources in the article - what position do they support and how should they be used?
- Using the sources provided, determine how to describe the language of the Iraqi Turkmen.
- Using the sources provided, determine whether the Ottoman Empire encouraged migration from Anatolia to Iraq.
ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Those are an accurate representation; however, there is also the issue of the removal of census' as well as User:MamRostam03's refusal to accept that the Ottoman Empire encouraged migration from Anatolia to Iraq. Turco85 (Talk) 14:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Administrative notes
User:MamRostam03 was blocked by User:HelloAnnyong at 00:51, 7 December 2011, for sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ledenierhomme for the details. That probably means that this mediation should be closed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. Case closed. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
I am currently writing up a new version of this article-see here User:Turco85/Iraqi Turkmens- which is currently a work in progress and will take a few days for it to be at a standard which I am satisfied with. Nonetheless, I invite you all to have a look so that you can see what I believe that content of the article should be.
Within MamRostam03’s opening statement they say they I cannot distinguish a reliable source from one which is of "low quality" yet I believe that it is in fact MamRostam’s version of the article which is of low quality and poorly sourced. I have tried my best to use a wide range of academic sources… to an extent I agree with this user that we must be cautious of the sources we use. However, I do not see any sources within the article published by the Iraqi Turkmen Front (unless we are looking at totally different articles!).
As for the 1957 Census, I believe that the version of the article which I edited was "properly sourced" so I do not see why MamRostam still has a problem with it. Isn’t the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization reliable enough? Isn’t the International Crisis Group reliable enough? Isn’t a bunch of academics (including Western scholars) such as Scott Taylor (2004: 28) and Yücel Güçlü (2007: 79) Liam D. Anderson & Gareth R.V. Stansfield (2009: 42) reliable enough?
As for MamRostam’s comment that "since the vast majority can't even understand Turkish, let alone read or speak it"…can they please show a wide range of reliable sources which supports this argument? At the end of the day, it is a fact that Suleiman the Magnificent and then Murad IV took Iraq and made it part of the Ottoman Empire, and that they colonised it by encouraging migration from today’s Turkey. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all Turkmen descended from Turkey, however, it must be acknowledged that the large proportion are the descendants of the Ottoman Turks.
I accept the fact the Iraqi Turkmen have their own dialect. As a Turkish Cypriot I know that there is a difference in dialect between the Turkish spoken in Turkey and that of Cyprus. Furthermore, there are different dialects of Turkish spoken in Turkey (take the Black Sea Region for example) yet it is still officially known as the Turkish language. And again, I have shown a wide range of sources which states that Iraqi Turkmen speak the Turkish language. I have no problem with the article stating that they have their own dialect.
Finally, I would like to state that the current version (i.e. the version MamRostam keeps reverting it to) in which of the article was not "reached by a consensus"; if it was then I would like someone to show me where that happened. How an earth can one say that the current version of the article is far more accurate when many of the sources actually acknowledge my argument yet MamRostam deletes those sentences. For example, in the current version of the article:
- Footnote 7: Atticus J. Ryan & Christopher Mullen (1998) is begin used. Yet page 92 clearly states that they speak Turkish.
- Footnote 8: Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization is being used. Yet that source clearly states that Iraqi Turkmen make up 3 million and that their language is Turkish.
- Footnote 10: Scott Taylor (2004) is being used. Again, Taylor clearly states on page 28 that in the 1957 census there was actually 567,000 Iraqi Turkmen.
- Footnotes 26-27 & 35-39: Liam D. Anderson & Gareth R.V. Stansfield (2009) is being used. Page 43 clearly shows that the Iraqi Turkmen stated their mother tongue was Turkish within the 1957 census.
Turco85 (Talk) 14:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is incredibly disingenuous argumentation. I would encourage any admin to look at the talk-page, and read the actual sources - do not take Turco's word for anything. He gives a list of "footnotes" to try and bolster his phoney contentions that Anatolian Turkish is their language. I hope this kind of dishonesty is punished.
- First of all, just to clear something up for Admin, and show why Turco's project here is so ludicrous on its face..... why would Anatolian/Istanbul Turkish be their first language when they are not from Anatolia (the modern state of Turkey), nor do they border Anatolia (there are many hundreds of kilometres and many millions of Kurds and some Arabs in-between the Iraqi Turkmen and Turkey)? They have nothing to do with the Turks from Anatolia who now reside in neighbouring countries such as Bulgaria, Macedonia, etc.
- Turkmen have been here in Iraq (and Syria) for many, many hundreds of years. Almost 1,000 years. The modern "Turkish" language of Anatolia (the Republic of Turkey) was only constructed in the 20th century, under Ataturk's reforms - Ottoman Turkish was significantly different, was written in the Perso-Arabic script, and contained mostly Persian and Arabic (and later French) loanwords.
- Now, we should only be concerned with academic sources, and preferrably peer-reviewed sources. So no, your activist websites, whether they are from political parties or NGOs, are not reliable - at least not when they are contradicted by reliable sources. The main confusion comes from the conflation (deliberate on Turco's part) of "Turkish" and "Turkic". The Turkomen of NE Iran and Afghanistan are often referred to as "Turks" and their language as "Turkish" (when translation from Farsi or Pashtun into English) - but obviously they are not the same people as the Anatolian Turks of the modern Republic of Turkey.
- If you type "Iraqi Turkmen" language into scholar.google.com or books.google.com, you will quickly learn that their Turkic/Turkish is referred to as "Iraqi Turkmen" or simply "Turkmen" in academic discourse (to distinguish it from Istanbul Turkish, and the sundry other Turkic languages in Central Asia).
- It's all on the Talk Pages, but for clarity I'll post some titles and quotes here:
- "Iraqi Turkic: The Iraqi Turkic varieties of the "Turkmen belt" occupy an interesting intermediary position. They have a complex background and present a rather heterogeneous picture, displaying connections in various directions. The region has an ever-changing history of settlement with Turkic groups moving into the region in various waves from the early Muslim period on. It still has a high proportion of bi- or trilinguals with Arabic and Kurdish in various constellations...In a recent study (2000 a), Christiane Bulut discusses the
classifõcation of the Iraqi Turkic varieties, comparing them to Anatolian and Irano-Turkic dialects of the Azerbaijanian and Afshar types. She concludes that the dialects originally display numerous features of the Afshar or Southern Oghuz group but also exhibit similarities with certain southeastern Anatolian dialects as those of Urfa and Diyarbekir. Turkish as prestige language has exerted profound influence on Iraqi Turkic. Thus, the syntax differs sharply from neighboring Irano-Turkic varieties. http://turkoloji.cu.edu.tr/DILBILIM/johanson_01.pdf
- The title of this linguistics article is "Optative construction in Iraqi Turkmen" (p. 161)
- It reads: "They grow up with Turkmen as their mother tongue" (p. 161)
- "The Turkmen varieties" in Iraq show traces of both Ottoman and of Azeri Turkish. Written Turkmen is dominated by Ottoman Turkish, while the language is spoken differs considerably: it displays additional influences from Arabic, the official language of Iraq, and neighbouring Iranian languages such as Kurmanji and Sorani." (p. 161)
- Now, that's just from Turco's own sources that he's tried to bend to suit his bizarre theories. But as I said above, a quick search of academic sources on scholar.google.com will reveal many other sources saying the same thing.
- Thanks.
- MamRostam03 (talk) 06:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- MamRostam03, unless you show me sources to back-up your arguments, I am not interested. There are Turkish minorities in many countries who list their mother tounge as "Turkish"; this is a fact. Turkish is an offical language of Cyprus, and recognised as a regional language in the FYR Macedonia and Kosovo. Furthermore, it is listed in quite a few countries which were also once part of the Ottoman Empire, including the Bulgarian census [1] and the Iraqi census [2]; therefore, your aregument is invalid, and if you wish to try and validate it then you need to show me some sources which state so.
- I have already said that I have no problem with stating that they speak a Turkmenelian dialect of Turkish. Finally, as for your quotation: "Turkish as prestige language has exerted profound influence on Iraqi Turkic. Thus, the syntax differs sharply from neighboring Irano-Turkic varieties." Do you actually know what that means? Because I don't think you do. That quotation is clearly saying that the Turkish language has had a large influence of the Iraqi Turkmen and therefore the Iraqi Turkmen dialect actually differs from South Azeri (i.e Irano-Turkic). Thus, you have just given me another quotation which supports my argument. Maybe you should read your sources a bit more carefully, understand what they say first, and then try and use it against me. As I want to compromise, I would appreciate it if you list the sources which you consider to be unreliable here, as you previously stated that you was not satisfied with the sources, so that we can discuss whether they should stay or go. Turco85 (Talk) 13:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- And to add to your quotation, on page 15 of that same report it states the following: "The modern Turkish influence was strong until Arabic became the new offõcial language in the 1930s. A certain diglossia Turkish vs. Iraqi Turkic is still observable." strange how you forgot to quote that, right?Turco85 (Talk) 13:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I have hidden the above discussion. Please read my comment in the mediator notes section. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)