Talk:Southeastern Anatolia Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing! | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | |
 |
To-do list for Southeastern Anatolia Project: | edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
||
 |
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. |
Contents |
[edit] Comments
[edit] Last edit
Duk was one step ahead of me so my last edit was basicaly a spelling imrpovement. No praragraph was introduced. Just a bunch of minor edits. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What are you trying to proove?
The flooding of historical sites are well known this is mentioned on the page. Flooding of villiges is also mentioned. Exactly what part of providing people water and power violates human rights? Next time when I ask you to discuss something in talk I want to see something in talk, you got that? Do not just revert me, its something I am sick of. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Finally, a number of judicial questions needed clearing over the flooding of several historical sites as well as local residence. You cover it briefly, I cover it in more detail. Mine stays. PS. Its "prove", not "proove". - FrancisTyers 15:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Although sorced I realy dispute the factual acuracy of the Kurdish Human Rights Project report. A short peek at the cite will show the cite is less than neutral. What kind of a human rights organisation fail to condem both sides? --Cool Cat Talk 23:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- sounds like original research. re: What kind of a human rights organisation fail to condem both sides? — are you serious here?
- — Davenbelle 10:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism section
As I have told davenbelle earlier on, the criticism section is not in accordance with wikipedias neutral point of view policy. It is biased and one sided. --Cat out 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I want to have your attention to the fact that the whole anatolia is settled begginning from the ancient times. As a person who traveled nearly %80 of it I assure you that you can hardly find a village without an ancient fountain or similar ancient ruins. But a country still needs hydroelectric power and it is nothing but simple logic to build the necessary dams on the greatest rivers. I think the cristism section is a bit biased and unrealistic. Thalion Hurin 19:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hasankeyf is not related to Kurdish culture or Kurdish history.
Hasankeyf is not related to Kurdish Culture or Kurdish History. This is certainly not NPOV and must be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueEyedCat (talk • contribs) 16:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Biased Point of View
The claim that the construction of the Ilica Dam is aimed to destroy the Kurdish cultural treasures is not valid. It was published in the report of a clearly anti-state separatist organization, and aims to slander the importance of this project. Please take it off.Calcus 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)calcus
[edit] Bertilvidet
Please read ref http://www.khrp.org/publish/p1999/99G.htm, and compare with my changes, then revert if you want to. deniz 20:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
First, the additional info I provided are deleted by these reverts. Second, the criticism in Ilısu part is (detailed version of what is) basically given in the first sentence of erasure of displaced people section:
- The GAP has been criticized for the fact that damming the regional rivers will flood a significant portion of the historical Armenian and Kurdish homelands, effectively erasing the cultural and archaeological history of those displaced peoples.
Third, there are things that are not criticism in the Ilısu section. Fourth, references http://www.khrp.org/publish/p1999/99G.htm and http://www.dams.org/kbase/submissions/showsub.php?rec=SOC104 have the same text. The e-mail address of Kerim Yildiz is khrp AT khrp.demon.co.uk (see [1] ). They are the same references. The additional info I mentioned is also from these references, they are important as well, as they give a general information about the project. Fifth, the last section makes claims with no references, it is definitely disputed.
The title of last section should be changed imo, only the first sentence is about displaced people. Just criticism may be a better title. deniz 00:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Coolcat
It would be better to keep it there, at least some portion of it.
Did these criticisms pop up before the project or after the project?
Anyway, I guess you guys all knew about this (from Hasankeyf):
- According to Bugday Association, based in Turkey itself, and which focuses solely on promoting environment-friendly lifestyle and politics, recent field research conducted jointly by Ms. Huriye Küpeli, the prefect of Hasankeyf, Swiss ambassador to Turkey and representatives of the consortium of contractors for the dam project, seem to indicate a suitable nearby spot for moving the historical heritage of Hasankeyf, an operation for which the Turkish Ministry of Culture pledges to provide 30 million euros.[1]
deniz 18:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
