Talk:Turkish Kurdistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turkish Kurdistan article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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 Turkish Kurdistan:	edit · history · watch · refresh
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

This article was nominated for deletion on 24/3/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Sevres

Sevres was never implemented. When the Armistice signed at Mudos in 1918 36th parallel was the border between the Ottoman and British Empires. The previous edit is mine -AverageTurkishJoe 00:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's right. Although I have to trim the paragraph on Mosul a bit, since it does not belong to Turkey, so its coverage should be very brief.Heja Helweda 04:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am pasting the deleted part here for the record. I believe it is very informative and the additional information contained therein enables the reader to have a better grasp of the issues involved. Quite simply the British Empire assumed ownership of the lands in Northern Iraq and shifted her focus to Basra area which has both oil and convenient access to naval transportation. This part of the history is very pertinent to understand the current situation and the plight of the Kurdish people.

Following World War I and the defeat of Ottoman Empire, Kurds were promised an "independent nation-state in the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres. Turkish nationalists, however, rejected the terms of the treaty, and following the defeat of the Greek forces in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), the Treaty of Lausanne was signed in 1923 in Turkey's favor. Lausanne treaty specified all of Turkey's boundaries except the one with Iraq. Here there was only a provisional frontier called the "Brussels line." This issue was left open for a "friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months." In case parties did not reach an agreement within this time frame, the issue would be referred to the League of Nations. The Turkish government did not want to give up its old province Mosul for several reasons: the political wishes of Mosul's inhabitants, its many Turkish-speakers, its oil reserves, and the direction of its trade. In addition, British forces were twelve miles away from the city of Mosul on 30 October 1918, the day London signed the Armistice of Mudros that ended its war with the Turks; this made the legality of the British presence in Mosul very dubious. Despite Turkish claims to Mosul, London claimed the province in its entirety for Iraq under the British control; it also turned down Ankara's proposal that a plebiscite be held to measure views in the province. Unable to reach a "friendly arrangement," the two parties referred the dispute to the League of Nations, which endorsed Mosul's becoming part of Iraq. After prolonged tensions, which included threats of armed confrontation in the Turkish press, Ankara eventually signed a treaty in July 1926 that made the Brussels line the international frontier, leaving the Mosul region and its 600,000 or so inhabitants in Iraq. Since that time Kurdish nationalists have continued to seek independence in an area approximating that identified at Sèvres. However, the idea of an independent nation-state came to a halt when the surrounding countries joined to reject the independence of Kurdistan.

-AverageTurkishJoe 00:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does "Turkish Kurdistan" posit a political entity that other political entities need to acknowledge.

Are you suggesting the existance of a political entity that is not reccognized? Are you suggesting that Turkey is in violation of an international agreement? Or are you just saying that Turkish government does not use or approve the use of the term "Turkish Kurdistan"? -AverageTurkishJoe 00:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No. There is no recognized political entity with that name. However, the Kurdish majority areas of south-eastern Turkey form a part of the geo-cultural region of Kurdistan. The part that falls within Turkey's boundaries is called Turkish Kurdistan, i.e., Kurdish areas within the boundaries of the Republic of Turkey. Heja Helweda 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish areas you say as if there is some sort of census. Turkish Kurdistan is a country referance. A geo cultural region would not explain rebelions would it? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Explaining history of a rebellion in a region does not mean that region is a country. There is civil strife in Darfour region of Sudan, but talking about that issue does not imply Darfour is a country.Heja Helweda 02:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing on the ancient history of the region. It's just on the events of the last cecntury.

D iyako Talk + 18:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute?

What's the problem here? Aucaman^Talk 04:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Kurdistan?

I would like to see some Academic references which refer to this region claimed in this article as 'Turkish Kurdistan', preferably not written by Kurdish Nationalists. Thank you --Kash 18:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The term is valid an Academic. http://www.hri.ca/doccentre/docs/aim-athens-22-04-98.shtml

D iyako Talk + 19:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.hri.ca is not an academic source, is it? --levent 19:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes HRI is a good source. Also CHRIS KUTSCHERA http://chris-kutschera.com/A/Mad%20Dreams.htm

D iyako Talk + 19:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No it is not a good source and does not describe Turkish Kurdistan, Your second link is definately not academic --Kash 20:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

HRI may be a good source, it may be excellent even, that's not the question (this is subjective view of yours, by the way). What I was asking was wheather it is academic. Apparently not. I myself could make such a web site claiming anything I want, name things whatever I want. Who controls it anyway? --levent 21:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you can't provide a valid source, we will have to rename this article to Kurds in Turkey, same as Syrian Kurdistan which now redirects to Kurds in Syria --Kash 01:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll provide a few academic manuscripts that refer to the region as 'Kurdistan' very soon. Ozgur Gerilla 23:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse it's called Turkish Kurdistan. --Comanche cph 12:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly reject the name Turkish Kurdistan, it should be Kurds in Turkey because formally all 70 million(aprox.) people in Turkey are called Turkish citizens(no dispute as Turks, Kurds, Armenians) they are all Turkish citizens and if you give a place borders and name it as a territory you must have some formal proofs such as government priviliges that gives Kurds a minority status etc. Until this discussion gives a result I suggest that there must be some sign on the page which shows that there is a discussion going on about this article's name.OnurRC

[edit] Turkish Kurdistan Article Must Be Deleted

There is no such thing as Turkish Kurdistan. I`m disputing this article until valid refrences are provided. All the encyclopedias say it does not exist.Zmmz 22:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Under section:2.3 State of Emergency:

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.htm?tbl=RSDCOI&page=research&id=3ae6a8604

D iyako Talk + 22:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You cannot provide a source that comes from a political movement. I extensively researched all the encyclopedias and they all agree a country names Turkish Kurdistan in not recognized by the known world.Zmmz 00:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Go see for your self...The POV of any state is not NPOV! Bertilvidet 20:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This article must be deleted. There is no such state/province as Kurdistan within Turkish borders.--Kagan the Barbarian 11:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual accuracy dispute

Unlike Iran and Iraq, there is no officially recognized province named "Kurdistan" in Turkey, the topic should be deleted, or moved. --ManiF 23:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica and other authoritative sources [do not] recognize the entity as a “country” related to Turkey. I have extensively researched this.Zmmz 23:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The content is also disputed as Kurds in Turkey do not live in a single region. --ManiF 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

So what exactly are you saying? What is it you want changed? Aucaman^Talk 19:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What being done here is not correct and scientific. Turkey is not a federation, there's no state or region called with this name. This title and article does not show any good will and political correctness. It should be deleted and the content should be put to a more suitable article. --Gokhan 13:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There is no "Kurdistan" in Turkey or Syria - Summary of Reasons For Dispute

wikipedia is not the place to promote political nationalist ideas. Kurds are an ethnic group but they do not have a region named after them in either Syria or Turkey. There are a lot of Armenians in Turkey and Syria too, but we don't have a "Turkish Armenia" or "Syrian Armenia".

We can not create new entities and list them on wikipedia and hence make them a fact. For example, the very small number of results that comes up for "Syrian Kurdistan" on Google is almost entirely from Kurdish sources with political and nationalist agendas. If such entity existed, then other scholarly sources such as encyclopedias would have a mention of it somewhere. But that's not the case.

Titles such as "Kurds in Turkey" or "Kurds in Syria" with a more appropriate content dealing with the population instead of the geography of Kurds in Turkey and Syria, would be more appropriate.

I'd like to see a proof that entities titled "Syrian Kurdistan" or "Turkish Kurdistan" exist, a citation from an authoritative academic source would be appreciated. --ManiF 01:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica and other authoritative sources [do not] recognize a Kurdistan as a [province] called Kurdistan in either Turkey nor Syria. So, there is no Syrian-Kurdistan or Turkish-Kurdistan. Apparently the terms are only used by Kurdish nationaists. It seems ONLY one Kurdish province exits, and that is in Iran. I have extensively researched this, and all scholars agree [britannica.com/ebc/article-9369506].[[ .Zmmz 02:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resim:Kurdistan_1896.jpg

Kurdistan-Corduene: BC 63

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resim:Kurdistan-Milattan_once_63_yili.jpg

We recognize the fact that there are Iranian and Iraqi Kurdistans, which are official provinces in Iran and Iraq. We also recognize the fact that there are Kurds in Turkey and Syria. That, however, is unrelated to the issue of "Kurdistan" in Turkey or Syria, as there is no region or province named "Kurdistan" in either Turkey or Syria. That's just a fact. --ManiF 09:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If you believe so then the main article Kurdistan should also be modified. The point that you are missing is the criteria of creating an article is not its recognition by governments, rather its popularity. Kurdistan is a term which is used by both Kurds and non-Kurds to refer to the Kurdish inhabited areas of Middle East. This covers parts of Turkey and Syria as well. So the part that falls within Turkey's borders can have an article. Otherwise you have to deny the reality that Kurdistan is used by people to refer to south-eastern Turkey.Heja Helweda 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah no one here is saying that Turkish Kurdistan is officially recognized and this is mentioned in the article. The need for this article arose when I was rewriting some of the stuff in the Kurdistan article. So, again, what exactly do you want changed? Aucaman^Talk 01:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is I think to do with the wordings used in these topics.. "is the part of Turkey inhabited by Kurds and is the larger and northern part of the greater cultural and geographical area in the Middle East known as Kurdistan."

1- It is a proposed name for such area 2- Kurdistan is not a 'known' area in Middle East, it is again just a proposed name for areas inhabited by Kurds.

I suggest more neutral style of wordings to be used --Kash 13:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're talking about. There's a difference between "known" and "officially recognized". The article already says that "Turkish Kurdistan is not recognized by the Turkish government." So, again, what exactly do you want to say? You can go ahead and change the article yourself because I have no clue what you're talking about. Aucaman^Talk 16:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a tool for propoganda. "Situation of the kurds" is blant pov. Since it is noit recognised officialy and has no definded borders why are we writing about it? Article talks about rebbelion after another. Sounds like it just covers independence movement in the "geo cultural region" --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Col cat because it exists.D iyako Talk + 17:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no such kind of place in the world. The area showing as Kurdistan has been known as Mezopotamia. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 22:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

"Turkish Kurdistan" gets 17,500 hits on Google and that's enough grounds for keeping this article. The fact that Syrian Kurdistan does not get enough hits is not related to this article. (I'm guessing you're copy-pasting your arguments into several articles?) If you have any other problems, list them below. Otherwise go ahead and remove the dispute tag yourself. Aucaman^Talk 23:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Google Search does not provide any evidence. We need evidence that there is infact an organisation, or academic sources defining this geographical location as 'Turkish Kurdistan' --Kash 11:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality dispute?

What's the problem here? Please point out specific sentences and paragraphs. Aucaman^Talk 23:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I summarized the problem already, discussing the issue in a geographical sense is inaccurate, as Kurds live all over Turkey and this article implies that the land depicted in the map is Kurdish proper, which is not the case. Do not remove the dispute tag until my concerns have been addressed and the article has been rewritten and renamed to address the issue of Kurds in Turkey as oppose to a hypothetical "Kurdistan" or "Kurdish land". --ManiF 09:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue of Kurds in turkey has its own article. this article is on the turkish part of a geographical area called Kurdistan.D iyako Talk + 09:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And that's why the article should be merged with Kurds in Turkey as there is no historic or modern precedence for a "turkish part of a geographical area called Kurdistan". --ManiF 09:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I said it's not on Kurds it's on a place is it hard to understand?!! I don't believe so.D iyako Talk + 10:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence --Kash 11:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

have not any source provided?! You fasri user are ignoring any provided evidence, this make me be more serious and call admins. please act civil. D iyako Talk + 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should be merged as well. It is in the best intrest of the subject matter.Zmmz 17:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Iran!!

Also remember there is no greater Iran recognized by Turkish Republic but the term has its own article.D iyako Talk + 08:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What has Turkey got to do with Greater Iran? Stop posting nonsense. --Kash 11:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Eastern turkey part of your Greater Iran or not?! D iyako Talk + 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

That the term is disputed is indeed a main characteristic about Turkish Kurdistan, that should be mentioned in order to keep it NPOV. Therefore I believe it deserves a place in the introduction. I invite the editors who have expressed strong sentiments against the term to reformulate the sentence, in order to summarize briefly the reasons for the strong feelings against the term (maybe that it is perceived as seperatism). Bertilvidet 07:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The term is used even in encyclopedias.

http://www.iranica.com/articles/sup/Ahmad_e_Kani.html

D iyako Talk + 10:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Diyako, what is your argument? Yes it is used in encyclopedias, and many people define the place they live as Turkish Kurdistan. So obviously it it relevant to have this article. But nonetheless the term is highly disputed. Don't we agree on that? Bertilvidet 12:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes off course, I did not mean that disagree with you, just provided the link for those people who claimed it is a neologim.D iyako Talk + 12:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree on that. The name of category must be Kurds in Turkey. Republic of Turkey isn't a federal managed country. So, Turkish kurdistan is just an absolute non-sense. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this article. But in order to write a good and balanced article, it is rather disturbing that the issue of the article's raison d'être is raised continuously in every debate. I guess it hasn't been done - so my I suggest you to propose the article for deletion instead of obstructing the work on its improvement. Then we'll take the general debate about the article there, while working on its improvement here! Silawkirdin/Saygılar Bertilvidet 17:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If nationalist let us to do that, I agree with you. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be better for all parts to reach an agreement if we should have the article or not. Bertilvidet 18:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

if we are to agree, I must take your attention to category name of it. We must replace it with Kurds in Turkey, secondly, we should delete some nationalistic sentences.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is to move large parts of the article to a new article [ Kurds in Turkey ] and write on other sides of the area instead.D iyako Talk + 19:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to create that article by moving stuff from this one. D iyako Talk + 19:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, --Kash 22:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we open an article like ' Kurdish Diaspora ', then we can put all info of it.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 16:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Could be relevant with such an article, this is however another subject than Turkish Kurdistan so it can not replace it. Bertilvidet 10:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Syrian Kurdistan article currently been deleted and redirected to Kurds in Syria, same will be done with this one. Gather all the information in the Kurds in Turkey article.--Kagan the Barbarian 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A suggested solution

I suggest we create a page called Geopolitical disputes regarding Kurdistan and put all sides of each argument there. Then, at the top of each disputed Kurd or Kurdistan related page, we can put a link which says "See also Geopolitical disputes regarding Kurdistan". What about this? Merecat 22:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which articles should have the tag 'Category:Kurdistan'

All, please see the discussion at Category talk:Kurdistan (Which articles should have the tag 'Category:Kurdistan'), and weigh-in if you like. Thanks, --Moby 14:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In my view, Kurdish inhabited regions of Middle East, with a Kurdish majority, can be tagged under this category, since that's the definition of the term Kurdistan.Heja Helweda 19:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Draft table

Please do not touch the table below. It's a draft. I will add the provinces and the election results when I find the time. I will insert it into the article under the same heading when completed.

[edit] Popular support in eastern Turkey for the political implications of the term and its use

2004 Provincial and Municipal Elections Results in eastern Turkey

Thank you. This is a very good and relevant initiative. We must, however, be very cautious in drawing any conclusions on the basis of the election results. For instance AKP is often perceived as the most pro-EU party, and among Turkish Kurds a huge majority is in favour of Turkish EU-membership. Furthermore I suggest that SHP is changed to DEHAP, they ran in an alliance in the local elections, and I believe it is beyond any doubt that it was the former that attracted the large number of votes in Turkish Kurdistan / Southeat Turkey. Bertilvidet 14:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I will put the intricacies of the HADEP-DEHAP-SHP-DTP pedigree as a footnote. In the 2004 elections, it was the SHP that ran in the elections! I mean, period! I will put a link to Local elections web site and whoever goes to that site will see SHP. I will also put in my explanatory notes that relativizing approches on the vote counts can work two ways, with hints of both. --Cretanforever 15:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I am reaching back to 1999 also, when AKP did not exist. "Kurds voted for the AKP for EU membership" argument can then be worked on in the light of pre-AKP numbers. Regards. --Cretanforever 16:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not care if you reach back to the middle ages. Political votes cannot be considered "demographics" data. --Cat out 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In Turkey, there are general, provincial and municipal elections. People usually think in terms of the country, the 81 provinces and their specific municipality. The last general election was in 2002. Therefore, these 2004 figures are not only more recent but also, I would say, coherent with the panorama presented by the previous general elections. Provincial elections and municipal elections were held simultaneously. Provincial figures reflect the political choices of the voters better than the municipal ones. My choice for using the provincial figures instead of the municipal ones does not work to the disadvantage of any party. The party that was closest to promoting a Turkish K. agenda (let's say, people thinking in terms of a region whose mint they have struck themselves, with a name of their own preference) in these elections was the SHP (which is actually a tiny but nation-wide center-left party, and it that had struck a deal for the southeast with the HADEP-DEHAP pedigree for these elections). Any argument with an intention to relativize the definition of non-SHP voters can also be countered by arguments, possibly in stronger terms, for defining the SHP-voter profile as well. In Turkey, it is obligatory to vote in elections (you can vote blank if you want to, but you have to go to the polls), therefore, I would say, that the popular political viewpoint trends are rather well reflected in the numbers that come out of these polls (without having to draw comparisons with elsewhere). I start from the southeastern tip of the country and confine the figures to those parties that scored over 10 % in a given province, unless otherwise relevant or interesting. Very briefly, AKP is the party in power in Turkey, DYP is national center-right, CHP is national center-left, SP is religious-right, MHP is Turkish nationalist-right.

--Cretanforever 14:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You cannot determine peoples ethnicity based their political views. As interesting this is it is irelevant. Even if the region had 100% "Kurdish support", that doesnt make the place predominantly kurdish. It just means the political parties have support. It is mere speculation and has no evidence to base it on. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 08:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, why do you think we have nazis or nationalist parties. People obviously do politics based upon ethnicities. Ozgur Gerilla 10:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a single comment, politics based on ethnicities is called either Ethnocentrism or Racism. I strogly agree with user Cool Cat that "you cannot determine peoples ethnicity based on their political views". Speculating the statistics in favor of one's ethnicity is nothing but Ethnocentrism. E104421 12:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IT IS A DISASTER!

How you can define such cities like, Malatya, Kars and Erzurum as "Kurdish" cities. They can't even be considered as "minority" in these cities. These and many others in the list are 99% Turkish lands. One more detail; There was no country named as Kurdistan and there was no country that ruled by them in the world's history. Discuss this fact. I guess you will reconsider your views about "Kurdistan"...Deliogul, April-25

So what. If you look at Kurdistan, it's doesnt claim it as a country. So it's not wrong to say they are Kurdish cities. --Comanche cph 12:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd paragraph & Turkey not being a federation

Some anonymous person deleted the part "Turkey is not a federation and there is no such region, province or department in the country." I reverted back because this is a fact, not a political stance by any parties involved. This sentence need to be kept here for the sake of providing correct information. The 3rd paragraph contains wording like "reject" which doesn't give a neutral atmosphere. All readers should know there's no region like that in maps or Turkish official departmentalization. --Gokhan 08:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the point of this article?

Kurdistan is a vauge definition of a region where 'kurds happen to live'. There are no definate boundries of this "turkish kurdistan" and in practice such a definition is definately not in widespread usage.

The historic referances to the term is flawed as a Turkey never existed before its forming in the 1920's. Furthermore the Recent use of the term section talks about pranks and other very irrelevant referances and treats them as "mainstream references". Same section also portrays opinions rather than anything remotely encyclopedic.

We cannot also begin to talk about neutrality when the articles title is whelmingly rejected by the local goverment as the article suggests.

I am also puzzled what we are trying to cover. Are we covering the Kurdish culture? Kurdish nationalism? Kurdish politics? Kurds in Turkey? I do not see the purpose of this article aside from breaching a number of wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOT.

--Cat out 00:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is the definition for a very controversial name used for a particular geographical place. Many History and War Study books refer to the land as Kurdistan. It is important for readers to understand that the term only is an unofficial name for the southeastern part of Turkey densely inhabited by Kurds. Ozgur Gerilla 22:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A very contraversial name... So what part of this is not a POV fork? --Cat out 01:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe we have discussed this topic intensely at the article's most recent AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Turkish_Kurdistan. Bertilvidet 16:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote from Sharafnama

The following quote does not make sense, because a geographical region can not be defined by a single line! If Kurdistan starts with a straightline from the Persian Gulf (Hormuz Sea), then it should be completed with some other lines in order to to be able to define an area. Where are the other lines? Of course with a single line, half of the area falls to be north and half to the south, but we do not learn which areas are inside the territory described by Sharafnama. Moreover this quote is contrdicting the info. provided by Evliya Çelebi. Are you sure this is a correct quote?

In Sherefname (1597), Sherefxan Bidlisi drew the borders of Kurdistan as: "...starts with a line from the coasts of Hormuz Sea and on a straight line, reaches to the end of Malatya and Maraş vilayet. Thus, Iraq-al Ajam, Fars, Azerbaijan, Lesser Armenia, and Greater Armenia falls to the north of this line, Mosul and Diyarbekir to the south.Heja Helweda 22:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should phrase it in the article in a way as to make the reader understand that this description given is impossible in geographical terms. I do not have Sherefname, but if this is the actual quote, then there are three possibilities:

Sherefhan Bitlisi did not know where Marash and Malatya were,
Sherefhan Bitlisi did not know where Hormuz Sea was,
Sherefhan Bitlisi did not know what a straight line is.

A fourth possibility is that he was hoaxing his audience, it's a bamboozle. Yet a fifth would be that he was describing a region which was abstract par excellence. All of the regions mentioned or meant would fall to the north of a straight line between Hormuz Sea and the end of Marash-Malatya vilayets, such a line would more or less follow the Euphrates basin. Any comments? Cretanforever

At those times in the "Orient", a map wasn't read with the conception of a constant Ultima Thule located in the north and geographical directions regarded as constants. Please see more about the history of cartography. Without a constant location of north, "north" would be considered any location that fell to the top of a hypothetical line. The real point of discussion is not the perception of cartography but does the term "Lesser Armenia" refer to Cilicia (as our encyclopedia automatically redirects) or Armenia Minor (Armenian inhabited lands to the west of Euphrates, i.e. Sivas Eyalet et al)? --Behemoth 20:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I feel article requires check from uninvolved parties. I have my visible pov regarding Kurdistan so I disqualify the job. Please let the template stay where it is untill article undergoes check. --Cat out 20:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Cat you should disqualify. You are not for a neutral article, you are simply against the sole existence of the word "Kurdistan". We all know this :-) --Behemoth 20:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal referances is a blockable offense as per WP:NPA. Please cease discussing me or anyone and focus on content of article. --Cat out 20:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your wikipolicing activity :-P --Behemoth 20:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not policing. Merely pointing out policy. Is there a reason for me to "police" you? --Cat out 20:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Policy, police...the same etymology, the same purpose. --Behemoth 20:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... No, one intends to inform you another is a from of enforcement. There is a striking difference as you might agree. Anyways this conversation is most useless and I intend to discontinue it. --Cat out 21:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This has already been asked and answered in the debate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan. I see no purpose in reopening this question - the Wikipedia community has already given its views - so I'm removing the tag. -- ChrisO 21:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia comunity also declared a sister article, Syrian Kurdistan, with similar content to be deleted (for being a POV fork). The vote in question was subject to vote stacking. --Cat out 21:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Both sides attempted to manipulate the vote, and a number of votes were excluded because of this. Nonetheless, the remaining votes were a clear majority in favour. As for the vote on Syrian Kurdistan, each article under discussion is considered under its own merits. The outcome of that vote didn't - and shouldn't - automatically affect the outcome of the one on this article. -- ChrisO 22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I should also add that a POV-title template requires someone to actually state what's POV about the title, which I note that Cool Cat hasn't done (yet?). -- ChrisO 22:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I wanted this discussion to proceed without my interference and input since I have pov on the matter. Here are my reasons (they may be biased):

Kurdistan is a highly contraversial term on its own. Definition and borders of Kurdistan is vaigue (the cited sources conflict each other). We should try to evade controversial titles if it is possible and I feel it is.
Since this article is talking only about kurds and their history, the article should have a title accordingly. Article does not describe a cultural/geographic region as it claims in lead. It is more about a brief history of various kurdish nationalist movents with various political boundaries.
Also geograpic/cultural regions cannot be divided by artificial borders. Kurdistan when considered as a geographic/cultural region it should all be in one article: Kurdistan.

--Cat out 23:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate the way how you "disqualify" Coolcat. You have been a fervent campaigner to scratch the word "Kurdistan" in this encyclopaedia and a constant POV pusher and now you talk about the sacred notion of "neutrality". I wonder what will come next :-D --Behemoth 07:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Flying pigs? ;) —Nightst a llion (?) 11:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] subjective propaganda

The page is quite disputed, cause it does not rely on scientific arguments. The main of aim this article is to promote Turkish-Kurdish hostility.

[edit] disputed

After reading the article and the whole comments of this talk page, i can safely say that there is a great dispute on this article and suspects on the factual accuracy. For this reason, in order to improve the factual accuracy and NPOV, it is necessary to put a warning on the top of the article. I think this would enhance the edit process of the article. E104421 07:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, there is a difference between Factual accuracy and NPOV. This article is sourced by Encyclopaedia of Islam and academic papers (Hakan Ozoglu,...). It may have NPOV issues, but for accuracy you have to pin point the problem, then we will discuss and try to find sources if needed.Heja Helweda 16:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't help anybody if you just stick the labels on the article without explaining what the specific issues are. -- ChrisO 18:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most of the issues under question are already stated above, should we always rewrite them all the time? The editors should consider all the comments and questions given in the talk/discussion pages, not the last one or favoured one. In this case, who makes the last comment pushes the POV. To sum up, it is not necessary all the time to start the discussion from the very beginning. If figures and facts are exaggerated somehow to favor editor's POV, the article is automatically both "factually inaccurate" and "POV". There are questions about both "factual accuracy" and "NPOV" above and none of them are satisfactorily answered. Then, no need to rewrite.E104421 18:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KURDS CAN SEPARATE

Kurds can separate from GREAT TURKEY,they can separate without any land,they can whereever they want to go,hell or heaven.BUT no Turkic terretory for kurdophones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.140.194.101 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] OK - it is official

Articles like that show still Wikipedia is an open battlefield of propaganda... pitty for an idealistic knowledge project... I left wikipedia for some months - still the same! Happy new year to all by the way --Gokhan 08:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

If this term is an unofficial name and has no meaning for some, why did you write this article and give permission for discussion in this page? Some users gave "source"s about this term, but i think they are also unobjective resources. Moderators should review this article...

"The term has no administrative basis and is very open to controversy. Some sources claim that this region is the larger and northern part of the greater cultural and geographical area in the Middle East known as Kurdistan." (from main article)

It does not need to be official. The subject just needs to be notable. If it is not notable, we can delete the article. deniz^T_C 19:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/u/r/Talk%7ETurkish_Kurdistan_cb94.html"

Categories: B-Class Turkey articles | Mid-importance Turkey articles