Talk:Batman, Turkey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Predominantly Kurdish

It is obviously relevant to mention the peoples inhabiting a city, while presenting this city. Therefore it should be mentionned that Batman is situated in the Kurdish dominated Southeast of Turkey. Bertilvidet 14:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Will you seriously doubt that Batman is predominantly inhabited by Kurds untill the Turkish state decides to make official statistics on the the ethnicity of its citizens? Bertilvidet 16:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please tell here if there is such a serious doubt, not based on the denial of Kurdishness. Bertilvidet 19:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to have a read of WP:NPOV before making any more edits or engaging in a discussion. Definde denial of kurdishness? Are you acusing me of being racist? Your tone is inadmirable, I suggest you change it to something more civil. --Cool CatTalk|@ 03:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I will staunchly refrain from attributing any ideology to my co-editors, since I would concider that as a personal attack. There is obviously a discord about the content, so let's discuss the content rather than the persons involved in the debate. My end with the above comments is in first hand to understand the reasons your edits. Without knowing these its difficult to have a debate about the content. I am aware that some people don't think there is such an ethnicity, and some would claim they are simply Mountain Turks. With this approach it is obvious to find the references to Kurdishness POV. I dont know if you adhere to that view. But if we recognize that Turkey has a Kurdish minority, I believe it is beyond doubt that the province of Batman, and the broader vaguely defined Southeast is predominantly Kurdish - well at least I have not heard anyone recognizing Kurdishness deny that. But please advance your arguments, now I am in the situation where I try to guess what your reasons for the controversial edits could be. Bertilvidet 09:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I am sincerely sorry if you find my tone uncivil and inadmirable. If other users agree with this account, please let me know, and I will do an effort to be more polite. Bertilvidet 13:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Just drop the "kurdishness" thing. --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Some claim Kurds as mountain turks. Thats a valid pov, a pov I dont necesarily share. Turkey has a kurdish minority no doubt but without official data, you cannot present statements such as "kurdish dominated". This isn't a denial, but more about NPOV. Just because people you met feel the place is predominantly kurdish, there is no data supporting this.
My edits are not contraversial. I am merely stating the obvious based on data. You do agree there was never a census determining ethnicity in Turkey or Batman. You also agree BBC says the place is predominantly kurdish. I simply stated that. Weather or not the place is predominantly kurdish or not is unknown no mather how likely it appears to be.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 14:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing called "Kurdish side" in Turkey. Every single centimeter in this country is belongs to the Turkish nation. Kurdish people are minority in Turkey and that is all about them, just like Georgians or Syrians. Once I mentioned that the term "minority" doesn't refer to a numerical data just like the term "majority", it is all about power and Turkish nation is in charge as the "majority"(both numerical and political) in Turkey. Please stop using the term "kurdish dominant" because even what the numbers say, all the lands in Turkey is ruled by the Turkish Parliment and they are all defended by the Turkish Army. With respect, the noble member of the Kayı Tribe, Deliogul 21:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurdish references

See The Guardian – What's in a name? Too much in Turkey for background and sources. --Moby 12:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

BBC is also a reference and neither are anything official and hence they are only claims by the BBC and the Guardian and will have to be presented as such. --Cool CatTalk|@ 03:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Please come up with sources that contradict The Guardian, namely that argue that Batman and Southeastern Turkey is not predominantly Kurdish. Bertilvidet 09:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool Cat, I have to agree with Bertilvidet. A lot of sources have been cited in the last month that state that Batman is generally considered a town with a predominantly Kurdish population. No sources have been cited that present the opposite claim. If you know sources of the stature of the BBC and the Guardian that do, please cite them. Cheers, Hippalus 09:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted to Bertilvidet's last version; the region is undeniably Kurdish and if the Turkish government does not acknowledge this, it is simply an indication of their bias. --Moby 09:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is another reliable and non-Kurdish source (Audio)
Conflict Flares Up Between Kurds, Turkish Forces No 2. cleak the link then click listen. Diyako Talk + 21:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The interesting thing, that makes it more difficult for me to see the arguments behind the removal of Kurdishness, is that even the Turkish government is about to fundamentally change its rhetoric on the Kurdish question. In August PM Erdogan went to Diyarbakır where he delivered a speech recognizing that he was in a Kurdish dominated area and claimed that the Kurdish question should be dealt with more democracy. On that occasion Erdogan stated on Turkish TV: "The Kurdish citizens are my citizens. [Kurdishness] is a sub-identity. We must not confuse sub-identity with supra-identity. They must all be viewed as a whole, as citizens of the Republic of Turkey." Bertilvidet 11:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This is refreshing news, thanks. --Moby 13:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
We need to be scientific. Just because Bush claims there are WMD in Iraq doesn't mean they exist. It was always a claim by Bush and the US government which they later said they were wrong IIRC. I am not here to discuss politics but you should see my point.
I do not give a damn about what the Turkish government thinks. Unless there is an official census it will have to stay as a claim. Frankly I don't see the problem.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 14:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the Turkish government is not exactly a neutral source on the issue of Kurds (and they would be the official aspect of any "official census"). To insist that the ethnicity of the region is only alleged to be Kurdish since the government doesn't recognize the people there as being Kurdish is unwarranted since there are many sources that confirm that the region is predominantly Kurdish. --Moby 09:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with this argument is that it entails that a country's restriction on liberties, then also restricts what to be written in Wikipedia. If you can come up with reliable sources actually questioning the "claim" of Batman's Kurdish character we can consider treating it as a claim. Bertilvidet 09:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, thanks for your input. --Moby 09:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Neither BBC or the Guardian had a census in determining the Kurdish dominance. I am not suggesting Kurds dont live there nor am I suggesting kurds are not dormant. All I am suggesting is we do not know exactly if the Kurds are dormant or not. no census means it will have to stay as a claim. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official site

Maybe somebody who can read turkish could have a look on the city's official site, and add interesting facts and data to the article. Thanks! --Hippalus 08:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links/Kurdish references again

I deleted the following links:

They don't refer directly to Batman, Turkey, and were originally placed in the article as sources for the statement that Southeastern Turkey is predominantly Kurdish. So either we can put them back in their original context (as in-line links after that statement in the intro), or we can leave them out altogether. I would vote for the second option.--Hippalus 12:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right, these maps are relevant for Turkish Kurdistan and Kurdistan articles, and are good sources to show that Batman is within the Kurdish dominated area. This point is however still to be contradicted on the basis of reliable sources. Bertilvidet 12:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I placed these links in the page because the ethnic composition of the area is being disputed by User:Cool Cat; I agree that they are not directly related to the article, so having them here on the talk page is fine, too. I would be fine with inlining them, too. --Moby 13:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I will never acknowlege statistics on demographics without a census. It does not matter how many sources you find or whatever the sources are. It is insane to declare a region predominantly some ethnicity based on a news article or based on a set of maps that are all covering diferent regions. Sure they overlap here and there hence the source self contradicts. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we are getting anywhere with this reverting to and fro between the two versions. Cool Cat, Moby, and Bertilvidet, how about finding a consensus all of us can live with? A proposal: let's take Moby's version, and amend that with a footnote expressing (Cool Cat's concerns over) the inherent unverifiability of demographic statements without a census?--Hippalus 17:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Which Featured Article has a disclaimer? We really want to evade disclaimers.
My version only states the obvious data. No census on ethnicity had taken place, regardless a notable site points out the city is predominantly Kurdish without any real basis. There is no rule that suggests BBC cant be wrong and they may well be wrong until a census determines real data.
Wikipedia articles' statistical data are never driven based on how people feel how they should be which would be Original Research. I frankly dont see what purpose "Predominantly Kurdish" serves.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 17:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Words to avoid.
"George Bush claimed in this speech that Al-Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 attacks" (actual citation)
Above is an aceptable usage of the word 'claim'. We are not disputing if Al Qaeda was responsible or not, but instead we are pointing out that we have a level of uncertainty. --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hippalus, thanx for the effort in seeking a compromise. I do, however, agree with Cool Cat that the footnote solution not is optimal; but let's stick to it until we find a solution to the dispute. It is misleading to treat it as a claim of BBC. It is a widely accepted fact, to which I so far only know about political based contestations from the Turkish far right denying existance of Kurds. I don't mind spending a few hours finding and listing numerous academic and scholar articles, with exact references, describing Southeastern Turkey as predominantly Kurdish - but it will only be worth the effort if Cool Cat is open for scientific arguments and accepts that the Turkish Republic does not have the monopoly of truth, simply because it has the Monopoly on the use of force. Bertilvidet 08:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You are entitiled to you political opinions. Obviously bushes claim is much more significant than the BBC yet it is treated as a claim. Wikipedia does not exist for the truth which is a contraversial term. Untill a census it is perfectly acceptable for the term to appear as a claim. Scinetific method requires data which can only be avalible with a census.
What is unnaceptable is to treat "commonly accepted facts" that is not based on data. If BBC likes to publish regarding ration of ethnicity without any data they can. On wikipedia we evade that.
I am not requred to accept anything also on an article about Turkey you cannot dismiss Turkey.
All we know is kurds live there, we do not know what fraction of the population qualify as kurd.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 13:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This is getting rather frustrating. One single user wants to treat the Kurdishness of the city as "claim" by one news service, but refuses to come up with any source contradicting the claim. Despite this I propose to come up with academic sources, if Cool Cat is open to scientific arguments, and even unilateraly reverts the compromise. It is tempting to act the same way, and revert to the version I prefer - however I am interested in finding a settlement and reverts thus just back to compromise version. Bertilvidet 13:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
If you want to publish all the kurdishness you like start your own website. Wikipedia has gudielines and rules. Talking about widely accepted facts w/o data is not acceptable on wikipedia.
Moreover weasle words are most certainly not welcome. ...widely accepted fact that Batman is kurdish dominant is an unnaceptable argument.
The phrase in the article is inline with WP:NPOV as well as Wikipedia:Words to avoid. No one has the right to declare the ethnicity of an entier city based on "widely accpeted facts". I cannot come up with a source contradicting you because a census had not taken place. And hence we DO NOT know anything about the cities ethnicity aside from a random referance at BBC.
I will not comprimise a nanometer from the scientific method.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 16:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
If you look at this map you'll see that the population of the region is 75-100% Kurdish. --Moby 09:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Cool Cat and Bertilvidet, thanks for your comments and legitimate criticisms on my 'proposal'. I agree with the two of you that this isn't a perfect solution, so we are united there at least ;-). The good thing however about the proposal as Bertilvidet implemented it, is that it states Cool Cat's doubts, while refering to 'Kurds in Turkey' as the legitimate arena for further discussion of this issue. Cool Cat, Bertilvidet, Moby, can you agree on leaving this edition of the statement in peace till we agree on a better compromise? I think that would help our further debate a lot.
Maybe our next step should be to list the elements we all agree should be covered by the statement. I might give it a go tomorrow, but I invite you all to take the initiative.
Meanwhile, while we are spending so much time here, we might as well cooperate on improving other aspects of the article. It is still much to stubbish. Thanks for your cooperation!--Hippalus 16:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hippalus, thank you...this is a good and constructive approach. I agree on leaving it for a while. There is still a lot of work to be done about Turkey, Kurdish issues etc. so it's rather frustrating spending the time on these heated debate rather than expanding and improving the article. Bertilvidet 16:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

If somebody doubts of the BBC, I find difficulty doubting about this, from the Turkish paper Hurriyet: "Three Turkish policemen were killed when PKK terrorists ambushed their minibus in the mainly Kurdish southeastern city of Batman, on Monday". (March 7). More important, has somebody noted that the mayor is from the DTP; excuse me but I have considerable difficulties immagining the local Turks voting for the Kurdish party, especially if the mayor in question says things like "Mr. Abdullah Ocalan is the leader of Kurdish people and dynamo of peace". I'm surprised this form of Hyperbolic doubt forgot to see the sentence "Many Turkish workers and state officials settled in the city", a sentence that is not supported by even one source.--Aldux 18:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I also doubt all sources untill census. Its scientific practice. Without a body count you cant tell how many are there. If you feel something in the article is inaproporate, simly remove it. --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by "scientific"; I treat constantly on the wikipedia Macedonian issues, and when we don't have a census (Greece also does not conduct ethnic census), we use sourced estimates; and nobody protests, except some extremist Greeks who would want us believe that a Macedonian minority doesn't exist in Greece. So sorry, but a STP mayor and a statement from the Hurriyet are overwhelming proofs that this town is mainly Kurdish. --Aldux 19:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Just for good order, I copied and translated that paragraph from the German wiki. I don't know the sources of the German article, I simply assumed good faith.--Hippalus 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
When we source estimates we should be explicitly stating that it is an estimate, or else we are accpeting facts without any scientific proof. While that may be fine on religion articles, I cant accept them on a paragraph talking about demographics. And if you arent doing this on Greece related articles, then I suggest you fix the mistake there as well. Suggesting something with absolute certainty without data is in my view silly.
We certainly are not being a reliable source when we claim something and deny it with a disclaimer with small font on the bottom of the page.
STP mayor is a political leader. We have blacks in the congress in the US which were elected by the whites. I do not care what the media suggests they are opnly speculating. I do not trust another wiki as a reliable source of census data given I know such a thing does not exist.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 09:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't give any numbers, estimates or percentages in this little article. We simply state the fact that the region is predominantly Kurdish, which is yet to be questioned by a reliable source. Estimating percentages, and discussing the estimations, might be relevant on pages such as Turkey, Kurd and Turkish Kurdistan. Bertilvidet 11:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurdish Category

The Category Kurdistan has repeatedly been removed and I feel that tagging articles about the region that Kurds live in is a reasonable thing and will be adding the category back to the Batman articles and others. The primary argument (beyond personal opinion) used for the repeated removal has been that it somehow implies that Kurdistan is a country; as far as I know, no one has advanced the idea that it is a country — it demonstrably is not. However, the category has twice survived CFD and the use of the category does not really have this implication, it simply indicates that an area is a part of the historic lands of the Kurds, the land they have, and do, live in. Kurdistan may, at some point, become an independent nation — with northern Iraq as a likely start — but beyond documenting populations and the fact that there is a movement for the establishment of a Kurdish state, wikipedia articles should not, obviously, misrepresent the current state of the Land of the Kurds. Areas that can reasonably be cited as having predominate and historical Kurdish populations should be so categorized. --Moby 11:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Except that it doesn't seem likely to me that Kurdistan may become a nation state (and I am not so sure if it would be desirable). But these debate has been taken intensively during the nominations for deletion of the category. So let's defer to the majority decision: that the category stay. Bertilvidet 12:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course, the category stays; that's been decided. I would like to establish a consensus about the use of the category on articles. Summary removal against an established consensus will not fly. As to the likelihood or desirability of an independent Kurdistan... who really knows. There are many possible directions this could go; see Aceh#Administration, for example. --Moby 12:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Moby, we have two issues at stake here. 1) Whether 'Kurdistan' is a legitimate category, 2) What articles fit into this category.

The first question has been answered positively in the CfD vote. However, I believe that before we start adding this category haphazardly to a lot of articles, we might better find a consensus on issue number two. The right place for such a discussion would be the category's talk page. What do you all think? Please answer that question on Category talk:Kurdistan ;-) --Hippalus 13:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine; I'll copy this conversation so for over there and see what other say. --Moby 13:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The city is predominantly populated by...

I have been asked by User:Cool Cat to come over and take a look at this dispute as a neutral third party. The first thing I will say is that just because Cool Cat has asked me over here, doesn't mean I'm going to take their side.

I understand from the article that the city is predominantly populated by Kurds, but that this information is hard to verify because the Turkish census doesn't list ethnicity, and that's fine. How you reference that is unimportant, as long as it is referenced, and any claims made in the article make it clear that this information is currently unverifiable by standard sources. I don't think it is enough to simply put "Batman is a city predominantly populated by Kurds" in the article, with the information about the lack of verifiability down below in the references: it has to be made clearer than that in the article itself. For example Batman ... is a city in the south east of Turkey. It is the capital of Batman Province, and has a population of 246,700. The city is predominantly Kurdish (if it is, that claim isn't actually made by the article itself) although there are no official statistics to say what percentage of the population this respresents. Feel free to rearrange but it does need to be pointed out as clearly as that.

As far as Category:Kurdistan goes I'll have a wander over to that category's talk page (when I have time) and discuss it there. -- Francs2000 14:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. However, the problem with your suggestion is that it could be seemed at questioning whether the city actually is predominantly Kurdish. Even though the Turkish Republic does not register ethnicity, there is to my knowledge no sources disputing that the city and the region is predominantly Kurdish. Bertilvidet 14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
...which is absolutely fine. Everything on Wikipedia has to be referenced from verifiable sources though, all I'm talking about is how the fact that it is predominantly Kurdish (which I'm in no dispute over) is referenced, and how that is phrased so that the article comes at the subject from a neutral point of view. -- Francs2000 16:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Quick question: is the city predominantly Kurdish or not? The article doesn't actually say and it should; at least if it does that'll be better than writing "in the predominantly Kurdish region of..." -- Francs2000 14:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Quick answer: Unknown until census. --Cool Cat out 15:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Quick answer: All scholars, journalists agree on that. Of my knowledge only User Cool Cat dispute it. Bertilvidet 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


Quick evidence: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
...And hundreds others...
If someone thinks that he should oppose the reality then he should provide some evidence opposing above evidence which clearly say The city is NOT Kurdish instead of nagging and nagging! Then we can put both claims in the article.
Kolkezerine 19:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. So from a research point of view there is plenty of secondary evidence that Batman is predominantly Kurdish: it is mentioned as such in several verifiable news sources. As Cool Cat has pointed out above, there is a lack of primary evidence however in this case it appears to be that the lack of primary evidence is not that the "facts" as stated are false, but that, as pointed out, the Turkish census doesn't record ethnicity. Cool Cat, you asked me here for my opinion, and my opinion is that given the lack of primary sources stating what the ethnic breakdown of the city is, you have to rely on the secondary sources, which at the moment all state that the city is predominantly Kurdish.
On to how the article is phrased. If you want to talk about the ethnicity of the population of Batman you have to point out in the body of the article itself that there is a lack of primary sources giving an exact ethnic breakdown of the city. However unless some secondary sources can be provided that state that this is not in fact the case (that it is predominantly Kurdish) then it is acceptable to rely on the secondary sources provided as references, but make sure one or two of the most verifiable ones are actually listed as references. It is not good to leave it stating that it is in the predominantly Kurdish region of..., because this is an article about the city, and that's what the reader has come to find out about. If good secondary references can be found that state that the city is not predominantly Kurdish then obviously that needs to be included in order for the article to remain neutral.
Finally I am still maintaining a position of neutrality. Just because I have just said something you agree with/disagree with, doesn't mean I'm taking sides. -- Francs2000 22:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
So is it wrong to suggest a tiny doubt in the article? All I want is that "kurdish domiance" be a claim rather than presented as a fact. I am not trying to remove the "kurdish dominance" from the aricle. --Cat out 13:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
If you can back up that doubt with a reference(s) to say that there is a doubt, then that is fine. So far the only references provided have been saying that there is no doubt regarding the Kurdish dominance in the ethnic population of the city. -- Francs2000 14:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thats perfectly normal because noone does demographics based on ethnicity. Just because a few journalists believe in something (without basis) doesnt mean we presented as a hard fact. Making it a claim by the BBC isn't wrong is it? --Cat out 14:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
We're not claiming it as a hard fact, because hard facts are based on primary sources and we don't have any of those. This is why we need to point out the lack of primary evidence in the body of the article, if we are going to include something about the ethnicity of the city. Given the lack of primary sources, we have to rely on secondary sources, such as journalists from reputable news agencies and academics from reputable institutions referring to Batman as being predominantly Kurdish. I have yet to be provided with a good primary or secondary source that states that Batman is not a predominantly Kurdish city.
You doubting it cannot be enough: if you were to take up research professionally your doubt would have to be backed up with references otherwise you cannot state that there is any doubt regarding the predominant ethnicity of the city. Provide me with a good primary or secondary reference that backs up your doubt, please. -- Francs2000 14:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
How can I put this... A scientific aproach must be based on data. There is no data regarding etnicity. All I want to do is mention this in the lead expanding the kurdish dominance claim.
I cannot cite sources to counter the claims because no scientific institution would publish research that is not based on data. If some journalist claims paris is predominantly kurdish and noone sugggests otherwise, I doubt we would declare paris predominantly kurdish.
--Cat out 14:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
We are not conducting scientific research. What we are doing is discussing social research, which is something I have a lot of experience of. I do not appreciate your sarcasm, and you needn't bother asking me to help you out in the future if this is how you are going to react. I have stated what would be acceptable and the circumstances that would make that acceptable, please do not bother to respond or contact me again unless you are willing to be civil and mature. -- Francs2000 14:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
How about this, take a look at Demographics of Turkey section explaning ethnicity.
Nothing, apart from the actual 'borders' of Kurdistan, generates as much heat in the Kurdish question as the estimate of the Kurdish population. Kurdish nationalists are tempted to exaggerate it, and governments of the region to understate it. In Turkey only those Kurds who do not speak Turkish are officially counted for census purposes as Kurds, yielding a very low figure.
Thats the view of the Turkish gov. So with that in account what do you think?
I am acting civily and maturely, I was not being sarcastic. I was only trying to express an obviously unnaceptable case.
--Cat out 14:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Then state that, and don't state things like If some journalist claims paris is predominantly kurdish and noone sugggests otherwise, I doubt we would declare paris predominantly kurdish because it comes across as sarcasm, and because that statement blatantly ignored the reason why I said that using secondary references by journalists was acceptable. Because we are discussing a Wikipedia article, I would prefer not to use another Wikipedia article as a reference because what we write here has to stand up to scrutiny. Please provide an external reference. -- Francs2000 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the info you provided. I have this [12]. It talks about Turkish goverments denial to accpet its Kurdish population. The site isnt neutral but the site claims the source is the US Gov.
I could not find this report but I have found this [13] which is the US embasy in stockholm
Thats all I got for now.
--Cat out 15:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A quick summary then

So to summarise what the discussion has produced so far.

  • Firstly this issue is not going to go away, and unilateral action of including or deleting categories from articles is not going to work. The only way to resolve this is through this discussion.
  • On the one hand we have no primary sources to say what the ethnic breakdown of the city is, and we have a link provided by the US embassy in Stockholm confirming that a lot of secondary sources coming from within Kurdish populations may be biased in favour of bumping up the figures. It is also not just Cool Cat who is disputing this (see Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#changes at Category:kurdish cities.
  • On the other hand we do still have a small handful of reputable news agencies referring to the city as "predominantly Kurdish" however for the moment that is all we have, and given the link provided from the US embassy that secondary evidence is no longer as reliable as it was. However in order to discount all eleven of the links provided above by User:Kolkezerine I would need evidence to suggest that the authors of each and every source was writing from a biased perspective.

What this is going to need from both sides is more evidence to state the case one way or the other. The fundamental question at the end of the day is, what evidence do we have that these cities are predominantly Kurdish, and what evidence do we have that they are not? When we have gathered this evidence then it is time to discuss how it is presented in the article and others like it. And please remember to remain civil in your discussions. -- Francs2000 09:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Seriously... the town is called "Batman" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.10.87.10 (talk • contribs). diff
While some figures from Kurdish sources may, obviously, be biased, the others provided are reputable. I don't believe that any serious citation to support the claim that Batman and the whole region are not predominantly Kurdish has been offered. Given this, continued obstruction of efforts to document the Kurdishness of the area amount to disruption.
I did not read the whole 30 page US State Department doc and did not find a section casting doubt on some sources. The parts I did read are full of accounts of denial of rights, burned villages and paint an appalling picture of the actions of the Turkish Government. If someone will provide a quote from that doc, I'll look again. I will also seek further citations. --Moby 07:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Personally I also have yet to see a reputable unbiased reference that sets an indisputable doubt as to the ethnicity of the city. However if the result of this discussion is going to last and help solve other disputes in Wikipedia we have to do this properly. I hope you understand. -- Francs2000 21:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I certainly do understand and will follow your lead on this. Reaching a reasonable decision here that can be held to in the future is an excellent goal. --Moby 06:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
FYI, the first article above refers to eleven provinces of Turkey as being "predominantly Kurdish provinces" map --Moby 06:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
"Turkey's largely Kurdish southeast"


Firstly I do not understand what my actions have to do with a ANB discussion I am not a part of.
Secondly I clearly know that demographics of kurds (how many kurds there are) and/or Kurdish ethnicity (who qualifies as a kurd and who doesnt) is often subject to a very heated debate. For instance some suggest Kurds are infact Iranian while others suggest they are Turkish.
www.globalsecurity.org does not explain kurdish dominance in Batman. It does however talk about areas that PKK operated, any kurdistan map they have may simply be for areas the PKK was active. And any suggestion of "predominance" may simply be an assumption that pkk was only active on areas where kurds were predominant.
  • One of the articles talk about kurds trying to secure kirkuk to secure resources for an independent Kurdistan. To say the least, "Kurdistan" is not a random geographic region.
--Cat out 08:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I, again, invite you to provide some reasonable source for the view that the region is not predominantly Kurdish. --Moby 02:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where do the Kurds live?

Although Kurds are to be found in Syria, the Caucasian republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan, Khorasan (in eastern Iran), and in Lebanon, the main concentration lives today where the Kurdish people have always lived - in the mountains where Iran, Iraq and Turkey meet. The heart of this area consists of the extremely rugged mountains of the Zagros range, running in ridges north-west to south-east. In the west these mountain folds give way to rolling hills, and to the Mesopotamian plain. To the north the mountains slowly turn to steppe-like plateau and the highlands of Anatolia. To the east the mountains fall away to lowlands onto which the Kurds have also spread.

Although the population is not exclusively Kurdish in much of this area, the dominant culture is Kurdish. From the early thirteenth century onwards much of this area has been called Kurdistan, although it was not until the sixteenth century, after the Kurds had moved north and west onto the Anatolian plateau, that the term Kurdistan came into common usage to denote a system of Kurdish fiefs. Since then, although the term Kurdistan appears on few maps, it is clearly more than a geographical term since it also refers to a human culture which exists in that land.

Nevertheless no map of Kurdistan can be drawn without contention, and for this reason the demographic map is not a political statement, but a statement of where large numbers of Kurds are found. Turkey for all practical purposes denies Kurdistan's existence, while Iran and Iraq are reluctant to acknowledge that it is as extensive as many Kurds would have them accept.

 — from minorityrights.org

--Moby 07:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Which areas fall inside Kurdistan and which parts do not. Who determines this? www.globalsecurity.org? www.minorityrights.org? CIA?
Although the term Kurdistan appears on few maps, I am supposed to accept it as just a brand new geographic region? Oh wait it just became a demographic region now...
So no one on earth campaigns for an independent Kurdistan? Kurdistan cant ever have any kind of political status. Is that so? human culture also exists in the United States but we do not have anything such as "Latinoistan" or "Negroistan" (pardon the slur, just trying to express a point).
If Turkey for all practical purposes denies Kurdistan's existence, how can we possibly mass tag articles with Category:Kurdistan in a neutral manner? If kurds live in a place it can be mentioned in the article. There is absolutely no reason for a category. Nor I inquire how can we talk about "kurdish dominance" when countries "deny" the existance of a large kurdish minority?
--Cat out 08:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I inquire why is it important to mention that this city is "kurdish dominant" when a census does not exist. It may or may not be kurdish dormant but I do not believe we have the grounds to conclude either way.
I also inquire what is the point of including Category:Kurdistan. What benefit does it bring?
--Cat out 09:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, it documents facts and provides information. There are Kurds in this world, and they come from a specific part of it. It is only reasonable that the mechanisms of this site, including categorization, be employed to cover issues relating to Kurds. The fact that the Turkish Government has denied the very concept of 'Kurd' should be covered; this fact is not, however, grounds for not covering the subject of Kurds — indeed it is an excellent reason to be sure to cover it fully and accurately with as many reputable sources as can be mustered. --Moby 02:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is an encyclopedia and this kind of categorisation makes it a soap box. The very concept of kurd is restcited to an article talking about kurds. Kurds do live in this city and no one objects to that including the turkish gov. What people object is the suggestion of some sort of "kurdish dominance".
If turkish gov is deniying a kurdish dominance then you cant suggest something contradicting that as a fact. You can present it as a claim however. What part of this is so hard to understand?
--Cat out 14:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It is important

Because the people have the right to know real fact about the cities and who lives there, isn´t that what we all are seeking for, facts, truth, backgrounds. And everyone have the right to know predominantly Kurdish cities or provinces, that´s for sure

--OtrO DiA OtrO DiA 15:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You will have to do better than that to convince anyone why it is approporate. So far all you told me is that it is the "truth".
I do not agree with your truth. Hence it can be argued that your truth is not necesarily the truth. Exactly who is qualified to determine facts and the truth?
--Cat out 16:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can we agree to progress please?

(My previous comment on this page I have removed because this one seems more appropriate according to recent comments made elsewhere)

At Category talk:Kurdistan User:Cool Cat has said that I do see kurdistan as a propsed country and I frankly do not care if the category page or the article suggest otherwise. Are all parties at least prepared to work together here to achieve a consensus? Because this comment does not give me that impression. Unless everyone is prepared to come to some agreement here I don't really see any point in my getting involved. -- Francs2000 19:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to seek progress here; I believe that I have be open to reasonable claims. I do not feel that a personal POV should be allowed to block progress. --Moby 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't doubting you, I have no reason to. Cool Cat has been the most vocal debator for a particular side however and I need everyone's agreement to proceed, otherwise this just becomes one-sided. -- Francs2000 22:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to exchange accusations etc. Lets stay civil.
I am merely stating that "Kurdistan" is a propsed country and many will agree (at least the Turkish gov). And as far as I care it will always stay as a "proposed country" regardless of how many disclaimers there are.
You cannot create a Category:Idiotic Americans and put bush under it As there are websites declaring him an idiot. A disclaimer wouldn't make it possible either.
--Cat out 11:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well no one here is characterizing it as proposed country, so you are making a strawman argument. --Moby 09:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
If no one is suggesting that then why are people trying to place the city under a kurdish category? Is kurdish an ethnicity or nationality. It cant be both. --Cat out 14:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivity

I have some doubts about objectivity here. No offense intended. Naturally we may all have similar issues. But could you honestly state here that you are totally impartial in this Turkey-related article? --Gokhan 07:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I feel that I am "impartial". I am not Turkish or Kurdish, and have no significant connection to either group or any bias on the subjects here. --Moby 07:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
So if the nationality determines the impartiality, which nationality have you? Sorry for asking but I see a lot of greeks or armenians doing partial things, just for the sake of enmity :) --Gokhan 07:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply that I thought that nationality determined an editor's impartiality; it was what I thought you were implying, so that's why I answered as I did. I am not Greek or Armenian either, or any other nationality that could conceivably be construed as having any tendency towards bias on the issues being discussed here. For what it's worth, I'm a Cetacean. --Moby 08:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I am neither Kurdish, Turkish, Greek, Armenian, Iranian, Iraqi or Syrian. If you want to know my ethnic origin and nationality it is shown in the "about me" section of my user page. -- Francs2000 22:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice user page. --Gokhan 09:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the article though...

Fine by me. About the article though... I think having a city with a majority of kurdish population is no problem, but the article seems to contain some propaganda wording. What do you say? I mean stating facts from a single POV is also propagando no? The article puts a lot of stress on "kurdish". I mean it's already stated at the beginning. Repeating seems by purpose. --Gokhan 09:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just re-read the article and nothing jumps out at me as propaganda. You do have a point that the Kurdish population is repeated in the Until the 1950s... paragraph; I believe that bit has been there for some time. It seems reasonable to me that since the region is and historically has been Kurdish that the article will tend to be heavy on that theme.
Obviously there are many other things that could be added to the article. A picture would be a nice addition. It's a wiki — click here and add what you know. --Moby
I understand your technicality point made on wikipedia jargon and you're probably right. However I still think the article is political in nature, because in other internet sources that "kurdish" theme is not mentioned heavily. Anyway that's not important, stressing that theme won't change anything at all. I'll check what I can do on the article. Thanks --Gokhan 10:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's important to stress that what we are discussing is just a small part of the overall article, and more energy needs to go into expanding the other sections of the information. Think about what an outsider might need to know before deciding to travel to Batman, or a researcher who wants to find out more about the history of the city. -- Francs2000 22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes good approach, you're right on this. I'll try to work on the article in that direction. Thanks. --Gokhan 09:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So you say everything is lie

because that is what you are saying, and like I said, yes that´s the truth, you can´t denie that. OtrO DiAOtrO DiA 00:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Retau, could you please try to moderate your comments while others are working to achieve consensus here? I believe that what you have said is designed to make others react in an inflammatory nature, and that helps no-one. I know this issue has caused a lot of conflict in the past, however others are making an effort and if you can't follow the example of others and change your tone, at least while taking part in discussions here, please don't say anything at all. -- Francs2000 22:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fatih Tekin

A few days ago, I added a paragraph about a child who was killed by Turkish Security Forces — and I gave a source for the account, the EU-Turkey Civic Commission Submission on Recent Violence. Recently an edit war occurred over this cited fact and the article has been protected on a version that omits the account. I see no reason why it should not be restored.

Furthermore, an account of the harassment and detention of Ayhan Karabulut, the Chairperson of Democratic Society Party's Batman branch should be added (see the link, which also details many incidents in Diyarbakır). --Moby 02:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As unfortunute as the kids death, wikipedia os not a memorial. 'harassment and detention' of Ayhan Karabulut may be a nice article in wikinews or a nice addition to Ayhan Karabulut but has no place in a city article as it has no significant impact to the city. --Cat out 11:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
see read Rachel Corrie. --Moby 09:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Why? What am I looking at. --Cat out 14:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
If you have a point to make, state it. I am not going to read an entier bio of a person. --Cat out 14:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gap site's Batman page

 — to be added —Moby 06:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent clashes

If a notable-enough event such as this happens, it should definately be in the article. For example, take a look at the Nasiriyah article, should we not present notable things that happen? —Khoikhoi 00:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

01/07 120 Aalstenaars herdenken door agent neergeschoten Turk Terwijl het gezin van de Turkse man Ceylan Ardiçlar, die midden juni is neergeschoten door een Aalsters politieagent, in Turkije is voor de begrafenis, hebben zo'n 120 mensen een herdenkingsplechtigheid gehouden in Aalst. Een twintigtal legde bloemen neer op de plek waar hij werd neergekogeld, vlakbij de Sint-Annabrug. Het was een stille herdenking, met een aantal speeches, maar geen echte betoging. De actievoerders, onder leiding van Hand in Hand, vragen wel met klem de opheldering van de zaak. Het waren vooral autochtone Aalstenaars die kwamen opdagen. Veel Turken zijn al op vakantie vertrokken en er waren voor deze herdenking weinig of geen afspraken gemaakt met de Turkse gemeenschap, beweert een neef van de overleden man, die in de buurt was. Het Belang van Limburg

I won't translate it textually but this is an article in Het Belang van Limburg, prominent newspaper for Limburg region of Belgium, about a Turkish man -or to be more precise, on his commemoration by fellow townsfolk-, Ceylan Ardıçlar, who was shot down by a Belgian police agent mid-June in Aalst, Belgium (on the back, after a routine identity check, while Ardıçlar was quietly walking towards his home, no clash situation, no provocation or suspicious behavior whatsoever, absolutely nothing, clean-cut hard-working citizen, I can seek out additional details on the incident). But, if this incident deserves to be in the page for Aalst, Belgium, then I will view it as natural that the -extremely regrettable- incident of Fatih Tekin should be on the page for Batman, Turkey. I will highly appreciate if someone could inscribe the memory of Ceylan Ardıçlar on Aalst, Belgium page. In the meantime, I am removing the part on Fatih Tekin from here. Cretanforever

I have restored the section re Fatih Tekin. I've also added Aalst, Belgium to my watchlist -- however I have no opinion on the matter you're referring to. Feel free... --Moby 05:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBatman%2C_Turkey_dc5e.html"