Talk:Diyarbakır

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Diyarbakır article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. 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.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Diyarbakır:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category
WikiProject Kurdistan
Kurdistan Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Kurdistan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Kurdistan-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.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the project's importance scale.


It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Turkey may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Archive
Archives

Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 20:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Archives:

Contents

[edit] Comment

When mentioning PKK, it should be provided as an important information that it is a terrorist organization which is world-wide recognized by international organizations such as the EU. The activities of PKK cannot be named as 'guerilla war', these activities are constituted of terrorist activities.

Yes, and it says it can be mentioned that it is considered a terrorist organization by many people and countries.. Baristarim 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Which, it is by the way :) Baristarim 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Whilst sources should be properly shown.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kursarta (talk • contribs)

Yes, "whilst" the sources are properly shown, just go to BBC website, type "PKK" in the search box and you got thousands of sources - just couple of clicks away!! :)) Baristarim 21:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unofficial capital

We have already had this discussion here. I'm not happy with the undiscussed removal of comments about Kurds and Armenians from this article, as that shows a clearly biased approach. It is a demonstrably true that Diyarbakır is an important city to Kurds now, and to Armenians in the past. I would hope that those who wish to change such sensitive parts of this article would be able to discuss their changes. — Gareth Hughes 16:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Objections were raised there and were actively ignored. The sources provided ([1], [2], [3]) do not fall under what we consider as a reliable source. While Britannica is reliable, it makes no mention of the capital claim [4]. -- Cat chi? 16:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
As the centre of Kurdish activity within Turkey, I think that 'unofficial capital' is not an unreasonable statement, the quality and availability of sources aside. The removal of an Armenian link at the same time, though, suggests that the approach is biased towards Turkish nationalism rather than a real quibble over sources — questionable motives disguised behind administrative labels. — Gareth Hughes 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Armeniapedia does not meet verifiability and reliability criteria we expect in our sources, it is a wiki anyone can edit. A bias towards Turkish nationalism in this case is only in your mind. -- Cat chi? 17:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Unofficial or official; Capital is the center of the government of a country.In this case; on which country, we are discussing, also which government? Where is "Turkish kurdistan", when declared its independency?......Diyarbekir may be called as "the capital of the Kurdish culture",etc.
  • Armenipedia.org,as Cat stated is not a reliable source. Regards.Must.T C 17:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I disagree with the statement that Diyarbakir is an unofficial Capital because since Kurdistan isn't an official country, it shouldn't have its own capital as it seems unreliable and I disagree with personal propagandas and most of the sources aren't verifiable..----Cometstyles 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with something like "it is a hub for Kurdish activities in Turkey"? Or indeed "for Kurdish culture in Turkey"? - Mark 11:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem on my end if there is a verifiable source that suggests the city is somehow significant for Kurdish culture (weather its folklore or some other reason). The article can and should explain why the city is culturally significant for the Kurdish people provided that there is a source for it. For instance Mecca is indeed a culturally significant city for Muslims. It however is not the Capital of the Muslim faith. -- Cat chi? 12:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If the debate is over one sentence in this article, why were the last few edits more widespread? I wouldn't mind replacing 'unofficial capital' with any other wording that emphasized the importance of the city to Kurds in Turkey. I would stand up to any attempt to erase comments about anything not Turkish about the city, as that is clearly biased. To encourage editors to use the talk page to discuss their edits first, the article will be locked for a week. — Gareth Hughes 22:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Anything not sourced can and will be removed from articles as per WP:V (see it in a nutshell). I generaly do not bother with {{fact}} tagging and remove content directly, see how I "mercilessly" move non-cited content on Republic protests article to the talk page. Removal of non-cited content is encouraged by notable wikipedia editors. I can name some if you like.
I consider your use of admin tools to gain advantage in your preferred version to be of poor taste.
-- Cat chi? 14:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You know, there is something that puzzles me with your protection summary. You suggested that the reason was "undiscussed, controversial editing" on your protection summary. I would think calling a city the "unofficial 'capital' of a non-existent aspirational country" would be at least a tiny bit controversial. I do not consider any other change any bit controversial.
  • The proper Turkish spelling of the airbase is definitely not controversial.
  • Moving image galleries to commons is also definitely not controversial and in fact is encouraged. That is the point of commons. There was no reason to remove the link to the commons page.
  • The dual line <div> list of people is also definitely not controversial.
  • {{fact}} tagging of material isn't generally encouraged, instead the more encouraged method is removing the unsourced material until a source can be found. If the material covered is obvious, finding a source should be trivial.
  • The external link to ottomanhistorians.com was out of place and does not belong to this article it can be a source/external link on Abdüssamed Diyarbekrî (whoever he is)
  • armeniapedia.org is a random wiki out there and hence is not a reliable source and does not add anything useful to this article. It should be removed unless you can make a convincing argument on how it is relevant.
-- Cat chi? 14:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see it written anywhere, but 'Do not use Wikipedia guidelines as weapons' should be written somewhere. Verifiability policy is there to make sure that article text is reasonably supported, not as a licence to delete material. I have alraedy stated, for the exact same reason you give, that another wording that represents the importance of the city to the Kurds of Turkey could be found. However, one user continued to delete the entire statement after being asked to discuss it first. The fact that we have had an editor here who believes that they can edit without discussion led me to revert the edit and lock the page. I certainly didn't use 'admin tools to gain advantage', simply enforce an old page image that isn't mine and isn't how I want it to be. I do not believe that the link to armeniapedia.org is a good one, but its deletion along with that of a statement about the city's importance to Kurds clearly suggest biased editing to me. The proper spelling of that airbase should be used — so move the article to the right name first (see Pirinclik and Pirinçlik and choose the best link)! The list of people could also be cleaned up. My issue is this: that this was all done mixed with clearly biased edits. It is a fact that Diyarbakır was historically important to Armenians, and that it's currently important to Kurds. I would like to see the non-controversial edits made alongside those that stress the importance of the city to various different peoples rather than deleting them. I certainly do not agree to such a deletionist agenda as you suggest should be employed: how is community consensus to be reached if their documents keep disappearing? Can we be a little more constructive? — Gareth Hughes 00:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
“
  • Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
  • Editors adding or restoring material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
  • The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.
-- from Wikipedia:Verifiability an official policy on the English Wikipedia
 ”
Verifiability policy is a policy (indeed not a license) to delete material not based on reliable sources. Weather you agree with the official policy or not to be blunt is none of my concern. I am trying to be reasonable and was not blanking out the entire article since most of it isn't sourced. I merely removed two questionable sentences.
  • You are welcome to propose such a wording to replace the "kurdistan capital" thing based on a reliable source. Since you haven't done that you really have no reason to keep those statements in the article that are seemingly advocating "Kurdish separatist propaganda" which you agree are problematic. I am not going to offer you an alternative wording because I do not have any reliable sources for it. Kurdish people were a nomadic people so it is unlikely for any city or settlement to have a cultural significance mythologically IMHO.
  • I have constructively added {{fact}} tags at the end of "reasonable" text w/o proper citation which was reverted. I have added a {{weasel}} pointing out an existing problem throughout the article, which was reverted. I have constructively removed an out of place external link, which was reverted. I have constructively moved a gallery page to commons, which was reverted. All which have been done in multiple edits. It is hard to be constructive when blanket reverts are happening. You could have just "restored" the parts you didn't agree in its removal but you chose to revert and in the immediate aftermath protect. That is hardly constructive now is it?
-- Cat chi? 13:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for "unofficial capital" claim

As requested by Cool Cat, the following are some sources I have found for Diyarbakir being the "unofficial capital" of the Kurdish people of Turkey. - Mark 14:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Randal, Jonathan C.. "Flight to Mountains Nothing New for Kurds; Generations Change but Cycle of Refuge, Battle and Exile Stays the Same", The Washington Post, 1991-06-27, p. A31. Retrieved on 2007-05-22. (English) "Mohamed eventually reached Diyarbakir, unofficial capital of Turkish Kurdistan, where he lived with his wife and a son in the tiny kitchen of an apartment shared with 25 other Kurds" 

Randal, Jonathan C.. "Kurdish Rebellion Still Vexes Turkey", The Washington Post, 1989-04-09, p. A30. Retrieved on 2007-05-22. (English) "the Kurds and other parties controlled large areas of Diyarbakir, a provincial capital north of Syria regarded as the unofficial capital of Turkish Kurdistan" 

Cowell, Alan. "No Headline", The New York Times, The New York Times Company, 1987-05-17. Retrieved on 2007-05-22. (English) "a military intelligence specialist based in Diyarbakir, the unofficial capital of Turkey's Kurdish-speaking area" 

Staff writer. "A finger points.", The Economist, The Economist Newspaper Limited, 2000-02-26. Retrieved on 2007-05-22. (English) "Tension is rising again, thanks to the arrest of the mayors of three Kurdish cities, including Diyarbakir, the unofficial capital of Turkey's Kurdish region." 

Stewart, Jon. "ON THE SCENE REPORT / Behind the Latest Attacks Against Kurds in Turkey", The San Francisco Chronicle, Hearst Communications Inc., 1992-04-06, p. A9. Retrieved on 2007-05-22. (English) "It was not until we reached Diyarbakir, the region's unofficial capital" 

Gunter, Michael M.. "Why Kurdish Statehood is Unlikely", Middle East Policy, Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company, 2004-04-01, p. 106. Retrieved on 2007-05-22. (English) "As some have noted, Turkey's road to the EU lies through Diyarbakir (the unofficial capital of Turkish Kurdistan)." 

Falconer, Bruce. "One Border, Two Worlds", National Journal, National Journal Group Inc., 2005-09-10. Retrieved on 2007-05-22. (English) "The two-lane road south from Diyarbakir, an ancient walled city of more than 800,000 people in southeast Turkey that today serves as the unofficial capital for the country's Kurdish minority," 

Gunter, Michael M.. "Turkey's floundering EU candidacy and its Kurdish problem", Middle East Policy, Middle East Policy, 2007-04-01, p. 117. Retrieved on 2007-05-22. (English) "the largest city in Turkey's southeast and long considered the unofficial capital of the historic Kurdish provinces in Turkey" 

Yes these can be used. It still should not be in lead in my view. Also those sources do not explain the cities significance to the Kurdish people. In fact cities significance was not ever mentioned in any of them. -- Cat chi? 15:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
As someone who has been to Diyarbakır, I have first-hand experience that the city is the most important Kurdish centre in Turkey (there are more Kurds in İstanbul, but that's a rather different story). Now, of course, there has to be evidence in print, and these references are clear evidence as far as I'm concerned. Here's another: The Invisible War in North Kurdistan, Kristiina Koivunen, PhD Thesis, University of Helsinki, ISBN 952-10-0644-7 (page 145 gives the population figures, with Diyarbakır Province standing far above the others). I'm sure that there is a substantial amount of academic literature that would back up this view. — Gareth Hughes 18:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh so you are biased and yet you protected the page. -- Cat chi? 23:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Also you are not a reliable source. In addition many "kurds living there" doesnt make a place capital. Many white people live in New York that doesn't make it a "white capital" though -- Cat chi? 23:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Read carefully what I have written: "Now, of course, there has to be evidence in print". I wasn't claiming that my word counts as a verifiable source, but saying that my experience guides me towards accepting such sources as long as they are reasonable. Remember too that I am no advocate for the 'capital' statement, but simply stand against its whole-scale removal. Your example about New York is really taking the wrong direction. The actual example that should have been used is that, as New York is the largest city in the USA, although it is not the capital city, it has some of the features of a national capital in terms of its place in national culture and international diplomacy. The fact that Diyarbakır has the largest Kurdish population in southeast Turkey, a fact undisputed, makes it likely to be the centre for Kurdish identity in Turkey, a hypothesis. Is this hypothesis verified? Yes, quite clearly. I would suggest no stronger wording than this, and, in fact, prefer it to the 'unofficial capital' wording, that smacks somewhat of journalese. — Gareth Hughes 00:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
So the city has no significance to the Kurds aside from many living there is that it - which allegedly makes it the capital of Kurdistan.
"a fact undisputed" remark of yours is clearly disputed. No census exists as obvious it may seem it isn't as indisputable. You may know the city but you probably haven't counted people one by one based on which ones considers themselves as "Kurdish". Now I am not disputing/suggesting weather the city has a Kurdish population or has Kurdish dominance. I am saying is we can't talk about "solid facts" as if it is based on a census. Diyarbakır is indeed the largest city population-wise in southeastern Turkey as per census data but its ethnicity composition is unknown census-fact-wise. There are verifiable/reliable sources that makes a "Kurdish dominant claim" which is fine and should be in article.
What is this "Kurdish identity"? Enlighten me.
sensationalizing adjectives are definitely unwelcome on controversial material. So I'd prefer discussing the alternatives rather than what we have.
Frankly right now I do not even want to talk to you since you protected the article to your preferred version. To be blunt it makes you look like a bully. Not intended to be a WP:NPA violation.
-- Cat chi? 01:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have not made this personal, the mark of the bully, but you certainly have — may I say thank you for withdrawing your request for arbitration against me (at least after you saw it was going to get thrown out by the arbitrators). My discussion above was the argument that Diyarbakır is of great importance to Kurds in Turkey: it has the largest Kurdish population in southeast Turkey (yes, all the sources are unofficial, as there is no census data, but the sources are reasonable), and has become the centre for Kurdish political organisation in Turkey. Encyclopaedia Britannica says that "[Kurdistan's] chief towns are Diyarbakir (sic), Bitlis, and Van in Turkey". The article Ethnic Kurds in Turkey: A Demographic Study, by Servet Mutlu, in the International Journal of Middle East Studies, is another good source, from a peer-reviewed journal, which puts the Kurdish population of the province at over 70%. The demand for 'solid facts' is yet another raising of the bar, as you seem to want for the a revealed truth. Are there sources that support the claim that Diyarbakır has a large Kurdish population, a majority Kurdish population and that it is the significant centre for Kurds in southeastern Turkey? Yes, and they are reliable. I have stated before my willingness to find a compromise wording, with a bottom line that I do not want to see mention of this city's importance to Kurds deleted from the article. I still cannot see from your replies what wording you are proposing. To me, it looks as if you're arguing for the sake of it. Now, tell me plainly what wording about Kurds in Diyarbakır you would prefer. — Gareth Hughes 09:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This isn't personal on my end. Its hard for me to talk to someone pointing the gun (page protection) at me. It demonstrates a lack of trust to say the least. (page is unprotected now)
I would like a wording that explains why the city is significant to the kurdish people and not anybody else (of course based on a source). We know the city is significant for its population regardless of its ethnic composition. I do not have a suggestion because I am unaware of the cities significance to the Kurdish people.
Kurdish population should be presented in a "[type source here] claims city is Kurdish dominant" form. This demographics data should be presented in the relevant section rather than lead. Consider Paris comparatively.
-- Cat chi? 11:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explain please?

Can somebody explain this to me? This isn't vandalism. I am genuinely curious as to why "panda sex" is so much more popular in Diyarbakir than anywhere else in the world, and why the top 5 cities for that term are Turkish. Do they discuss it in schools or somesuch? Most animal sex queries are most popular in Pakistan; this is an outlier.

[edit] Etymology

This claim:

"However, the Kurdish scholar Professor Mehrdad Izady, of the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, suggests an alternative argument in his book The Kurds: A Concise Handbook, according to which the name of the capital Amid would have been changed by the Bagirawand or Bagratid Kurdish Dynasty (the Kurdish branch of Georgian Bagrationi and Armenian Bagratuni dynasties) to refer to themselves."

looks fishy to me. It was based on an anon talk contribution a year ago ([5]), but has anybody verified the reference? What is the supposed relation between the Arabic "Bekr", the Kurdish "Bagirawand" and the Armenian/Georgian "Bagrationi"/"Bagratids"? Why are those "Bagirawand" not mentioned in the history section, what role did they supposedly play, and when? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am uncertain is there a scientific consensus for this? Feels unnecessarily complicated. I do not see the point of the Harvard University link on the page. -- Cat chi? 13:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

On a another note, the Turkish Diyarbakır => from Persian Diyar-i-bakir => from Arabic Diyar Bakir seems fishy too; is there an authentic source? It seems to me it's a direct loan from Arabic since the pronnounciation is exactly the same despite it being in Arabic two words (Diyar = land and Bakir = name of the tribe). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maha Odeh (talk • contribs) 11:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts and edits

I have reverted back to my version and restored most of other peoples edits to merge the versions. I did my best to provide a better version. Please work over this version than a revert. The total change is: [6] some being User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's edits. I have removed most of the images since they are a commons gallery now. -- Cat chi? 13:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of citation

Most of the content on the article is plausible but unsourced. I have tagged them with {{fact}}'s for this reason. -- Cat chi? 13:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable residents

I have reverted Bertilvidet because practically no one on that list is sourced so I'd like to give more time to that list. -- Cat chi? 14:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As per WP:AWT article has weasel statements that needs to be rewriten

I have tagged it with {{weasel}} until that is resolved. -- Cat chi? 14:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Existing referances

GlobalSecurity.org reference should be removed that map is from the USSR era and its margins have a ridiculous (60% - 100%) margin of error. -- Cat chi? 14:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diyâr

Diyar Doesnt mean "Land" , it means "Homes" or "District" in arabic , Singular : Daar , "Home" Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 07:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the plural of house دار in Arabic is Duur دور. Diyar does mean land or district or region. Check Lisan Al Arab. --Maha Odeh (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Syriac vs. Assyrian

EliasAlucard wrote that "The 20th century: most suryoye from diyarbakir identify as assyrians", but could only provide a webpage full of links as a source. Only one link item in the list mentions Diyarbakır:

  • The Assyrian Orthodox Church of the Virgin Mary, Paramus, New Jersey Home Page [the first Syrian Orthodox Church established in the United States by immigrants who came from Diyarbakir, Turkey in late 1890's].

But that website (http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/east-usa/parishes/paramus.htm) doesn't even exist. And if you look at the base website (http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org) it doesn't mention Assyrians, but only Syriac Christians.

So until there's a source that mentions that Ottoman Diyarbakır Christians viewed themselves as Assyrians, then let's leave it at Syriac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.224.192 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: http://web.archive.org/web/20070204142807/http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/east-usa/parishes/paramus.htm — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing on that webpage which says that Diyarbakır Christians from the Syriac Church thought themselves as Assyrian at the time (which is your claim). Assyrian (and Aramaean!) are incorrect until you find a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.136.205 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh okay. I'm just not going to take this trolling answer seriously. You obviously didn't even read the site, or you read it and are in denial. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not trolling. You are linking to a website (deleted off the internet, I might add) which contains some keywords but no information of any substance. Ordtoy (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)