Talk:Turkish Kurdistan/Archive 1

message: What's the problem here? AucamanTalk 04:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute?

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

message: So what exactly are you saying? What is it you want changed? AucamanTalk 19:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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? AucamanTalk 01:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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. AucamanTalk 16:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 CatTalk|@ 17:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Col cat because it exists.Diyako Talk + 17:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  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)
thread_title:  There is no "Kurdistan" in Turkey or Syria - Summary of Reasons For Dispute 

message: "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. AucamanTalk 23:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: What's the problem here? Please point out specific sentences and paragraphs. AucamanTalk 23:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The issue of Kurds in turkey has its own article. this article is on the turkish part of a geographical area called Kurdistan.Diyako Talk + 09:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I said it's not on Kurds it's on a place is it hard to understand?!! I don't believe so.Diyako Talk + 10:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide evidence --Kash 11:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. Diyako Talk + 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality dispute?

message: Also remember there is no greater Iran recognized by Turkish Republic but the term has its own article.Diyako Talk + 08:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What has Turkey got to do with Greater Iran? Stop posting nonsense. --Kash 11:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Eastern turkey part of your Greater Iran or not?! Diyako Talk + 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Greater Iran]]!!

message: 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)
thread_title:  A suggested solution 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Which articles should have the tag 'Category:Kurdistan' 

message: 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.
===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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 CatTalk|@ 08:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Draft table 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 CatTalk|@ 08:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Popular support in eastern Turkey for the political implications of the term and its use

message: 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)
thread_title:  IT IS A DISASTER! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  3rd paragraph & Turkey not being a federation 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: A very contraversial name... So what part of this is not a POV fork? --Cat out 01:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the point of this article?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Quote from Sharafnama 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: disputed

message: I don't believe it's necessary to merge the "History of the Region" and "Modern History" sections into other articles. Losing the two sections would not benefit this article. Both appear to give an adequate summary overview of the subjects and each links to a longer article. They could probably be condensed a little, but otherwise they seem to be an appropriate use of a spinout summary - see WP:SPINOUT for guidance. -- ChrisO 09:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: Hello. Could you please write "unoffical" word in bold text at Turkish Kurdistan page.Srhat (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold text (unoffical) 

message: is it taboo to write about the PKK militants being pursued into Irak by the turkish army ? Hope&Act3! (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PKK in Irak 

message: 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 from the viewpoint of turkish nationalists...
"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. denizTC 19:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In order to see whether it is notable or not, I suggest check out books.google.com  with 623 citations and also scholar.google.com with 206 citations . This shows the frequent use of this term in academic circles, hence such a notable subject can not be deleted.Heja Helweda 21:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that terms like Southeast Anatolia gets citations on a broad range of topics while Turkish Kurdistan is almost exclusively cited in a specific context which happens to be largely political oriented. Sorry for the awkward analogy but I must add that there are certain widely used definitions for genitals on adult content sites but that does not make them notable. Also worth noting is the political nature of this article which is much more pronounced than its informative aspect; checking the history of this text reveals a coincidence with other politically oriented texts that are especially active since 2006. Political edits in this discussion are notable as well. Therefore, Encyclopedia claim of Wikipedia requires that this 3-years-active political content should either be deleted or merged into Kurdistan and correct definition of area should be better stressed. user:Alfaarti 23:40, November 23, 2009  —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: google books: "turkish kurdistan": 651, "southeast turkey": 671, google scholar, "turkish kurdistan":326, "southeast turkey" 1,450. Souhteast anatolia (the correct geographic name) gets even more. It is ridiculous claiming that this absurd word "turkish kurdistan" is more frequently in use that southeast turkey. Not scientist - except for one specialized in kurdish history - would use this abstract neologism. 84.30.86.91 (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I think I was talking generally DenizTC 16:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this called 'Turkish Kurdistan' when 'Syrian Kurdistan' redirects to Kurds in Syria?  Shouldn't we have some sort of consensus on these article names?  155.188.183.5 19:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a good point there. You can start a merger proposal if you want to. If we assume good faith, it might be that the term Turkish Kurdistan is used common enough, whereas Syrian Kurdistan is not. DenizTC 19:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deniz, it's something that has been discussed before (check the archives). Basically, the idea of a "Turkish Kurdistan" is well enough used and clearly enough defined that it's a notable concept. It doesn't mean that we approve or disapprove of it, but it's significant enough that it's worth documenting who uses it, what it means and why it's used. -- ChrisO 22:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: This article contains so many factual errors but unfortunately i am not able to fix.
İ have tried to find and contact someone responsible of taking care of this kind of issues but i couldn't.
So i would be grateful to whomever edits this nonsense article or even erase it completely.
since wikipedia is not controlled by itself, in this case us Turkish users should be careful about such propaganda and speculations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.36.213 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone who is familiar with wikipedia edit this article 

message: PKK is a terrorist organization which has deliberately targeted civilians and/or non-combatants with the aim of creating fear. PKK is also known to be involved in drug trafficking and smuggling, both of which constitute a great source of PKK's funding. It is largely disputed that the primary reason for PKK's current existence is controlling of smuggling and drug trafficking gateways, as opposed to the separatist claims in the past. Therefore, this distorted identification of "militant separatists", however small, should be corrected as "terrorist organization". []  --Alfaarti (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PKK - Terrorist organization, not militant separatists 

message: It will be interesting to have an insight analysis related to the impact of Kosovo secession from Serbia on Kurdistan. Now, the Kurds in Turkey are having THE precedent and the Turkish Government just recognized that precedent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.123.228 (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact of Kosovo independence over the Turkish Kurdistan 

message: It is nonsense to cite the names of cities Erzurum,Kars, Erzincan, Elazig in Kurdistan. Turks form the majority in these cities and are mostly nationalist people. Please revise the section where those cities are stated in Kurdistan - a land that never existed, in fact.
Exactly... And Kars and Erzurum are way too north to be called a part of any sort of Kurdistan. If you let nationalist Kurds decide where the borders of "Kurdistan" lies, they'll easily end up somewhere in northern Bulgaria. I know Europe and America have a large bunch of people believing the evil demon Turkey is supressing the poor Kurds but even if you firmly believe in this can still do some very elementary demographic research. Throughout history there has always been more Armenians and Russians is Kars than Kurds (if there were any). And I'm not talking about the largest ethnical group there -the Turks. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  asadasd 

message: % s are so funny  only in siwas malatya  are kurds not  in majorty ,there are asimiletd kurds. but in bitlis bingol diyarbakir ,tunceli ,urfa ,its 91% !  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.39.112 (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  % s are so funny  only in siwas malatya  are kurds not so in majorty 

message: QUOTE from the article;
"The area covers between 190,000 to 230,000 km² (88,780 sq mi), or nearly a third of Turkey."
LOLOLOL This is why no one will give a damn about any information sourced from Wikipedia. Did not read anything after first paragraph. IDIOTS!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.243.20 (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  lol 

message: Turkish Kurdistan is linguistically wrong and paradoxical. It mean a Kurdistan that is Turkish or of Turkish nature. This needs to be changed to Kurdistan of Turkey at least or if possible simply, Northern Kurdistan.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus abdi (talk • contribs) 19:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish Kurdistan is wrong 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Kurds008.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: This page is nothing but a stupid  nazi  propaganda .    wikipedia is  not a terorrist  supporters or terrorist propaganda website  .   please  report this page to get removed  .    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.238.50 (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting  the page  

message: The word Turkish Kurdistan can be used to refer to regions in Turkey where Kurds form the majority, however, one must pay careful attention to the fact that Kurdish nationalism claims right on non-Majority-Kurdish regions and even non Kurdish territories in many cases. 
That is why cover word Kurdistan cannot be applied to some places where Wiki writes as part of Kurdistan.
Ardahan, Kars, Iğdır Erzurum, Erzincan, Malatya, Adıyaman, Gaziantep have never been Kurdish majority cities or districts. In those cities Kurds are either newcomers or old minorities. So, that Republican era Turkey witnesses Kurdish immigration to those cities and districts does not make these cities Kurdish. Labelling them as Kurdish is a historical distortion. Even in the present time, these cities have Turkish majority.  
And in many places you refer as Kurdistan, Turks who once formed majority decreased to be a minority. And this cannot make those places Kurdistan.
So Wikipedia should be careful about this, even if you will determinedly refer these areas as Kurdistan, you have to write that a considerable Turkish population exists there and they are natives of those places. And you should say that once back in the time these places were not Kurdish at all. If you claim neutrality.
Yes you are right, these places (Ardahan, Kars, Iğdır Erzurum, Erzincan...ETC) are part of great Armenia, Kurds only become majority after the Armenian Massacre.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurdish Majority and Transition Zones 

message: Among KUrds and democratic people that know the history of the Kurdistanian people that know that the Kurds have lived in this region for nearly 5,000 years, called the hand-made division of Kurdistan by: Northern-, Western-, Southern- and Eastern Kurdistan. 
Among all Kurdistanians, we called the occupied part of Kurdistan for "Northern Kurdistan", in Iraq "Southern Kurdistan", in Iran "Western Kurdistan" and in Syria for "Western Kurdistan". That is the really in all Kurdish media and among those people that believe in humanity and the rights of human being, that God or whoever created human beings with their own language, geography and culture and no one can deny something that already exists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.195.195.205 (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Kurdistan another name for "turkish Kurdistan" 

message: If Kurdistan is an ethnographic region then why is Kars, Ardahan, Erzurum, Malatya, Marash, Gaziantep, Kilis, Erzinjan and Elazig a part of this region. These regions have been predominantly Turkish since the late Seljuk period. There is absolutely no evidence that points to a sizable Kurdish population in this region let alone a majority. In fact, surveys point to them being predominantly Turkish. Whoever has this page locked needs to immediately remove such baseless maps. Please do not allow Kurdish ultra nationalists to contribute to any pages related to Turkey.
Also the sources are dead and unreliable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozan192 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be a little more specific about the problematic sources? The BBC, Encyclopedia Britannica, the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, a book published by Oxford University Press - those look exceptionally reliable to me. The map is based on the Encyclopedia of Islam, which also seems reliable enough. Huon (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immediate modifications need to be made to this page 

message: This is an incorrect term for this article. The correct neutral title of this area is South-East Anatolia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.32.124 (talk • contribs)   20:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Title, the correct term is South-East Anatolia 

message: The history/demographics sections of the articles of Kars, Erzurum, Ardahan, Marash, Malatya, İgdir Elazig make no mention of their being a significant historic Kurdish presence/rule in the reqion. 
its interesting that the most ridiculous, oversized, expantionist, nationalist, irredentist map is being used. Way to go for objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.206.86 (talk • contribs)  12:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Which map are you talking about? Yes, the cities Elazig and Malatya aren't Kurdish, but huge parts of the provinces are.--Ahmetyal (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense map 

message: Have you even READ the articles cited? He didn't call Northern Kurdistan by it's name, but the Kurdish areas in Iraq. In Northern Iraq, NOT TURKEY. --Jeff350 (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please relax, there's no need to for shouting. Upon closer inspection of the sources, you are correct and it seems that whoever put those sources in originally may have goofed and didn't read them. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 9 Adar 5775 16:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the love of God, remove the part about Erdogan calling the area 'Kurdistan'. It is 100% WRONG. Don't do this to make the Wiki page look good.  

message: This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --109.102.18.90 (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  OK - it is official 

message: This page should not be speedily deleted because... (There is no such country or region. Is not recognized by anyone. I'm opening my article here saying I found a country? Seriousness little please...) --Erlik.khan (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, what? You put up a tag for it to be deleted and it's something you don't want? Anyway...
*Keep? Not entirely sure what going on here.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 1 Nisan 5775 00:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: Erzincan,Erzurum,Kars,Ardahan,Kahramanmaraş,Gaziantep,Kilis,Hatay,Malatya,Elazığ provinces have absolute Turkish majority. Please edit this!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yabgu Turk (talk • contribs) 12:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: He is right - :File:Türkiyeetnikharitası.JPG - The map is propered by German objectively. Original one is "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Ethnic_Groups_Turkey_Dutch.jpg"Antmqr (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Worm That Turned - Please check this Antmqr (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, so wrong Kurdish populated map. 

message: Border of Kurdistan is unclear. The studies on this is so limited. We can use just a few source as CIA, Turkish general election, November 2015, Some ethnicity map to estimate the border of Turkish Kurdistan. 
thumb|left|200px|Ethnic Map of Turkey - The map is propered by German objectively. Original one is "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Ethnic_Groups_Turkey_Dutch.jpg" 
We have to add this informations to identify the border of Turkish Kurdistan.Antmqr (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's find an external source that attempts to surmise where Kurds live in Turkey from HDP votes, otherwise this is borderline original research. --Mttll (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The border of Kurdistan 

message: This map is just nonsensical. There is obviously no version of a historical Kurdistan that somehow 100% overlaps with the borders of officially-defined administrative provinces of modern Turkey. The map seems like the work of maximalist Kurdish nationalists in Wikipedia who try to have places with less 10% Kurdish population in their version of Kurdistan. User:Bruskom, I'm asking you to stop pushing your agenda by edit warring and explain yourself here. --Mttll (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Bruskom, we have multiple editors stating this map is an issue, and none explaining why it should be in the article. You have made approximately 50 reverts to the article in the past month, and 1 edit to the talk page (which was a revert). If you revert again without discussion, I will consider this a slow motion edit war, and block you - per my previous warning. Simply, if you think the map should be in the article, discuss it. That is your only remaining option. Cross posting to this and your talk page, so any other admin can block. WormTT(talk) 10:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Borders of historical Kurdistan" map 

message: For years, this had been the description of Turkish Kurdistan by Encylopedia of Islam:
Although I can't verify this in the source myself, I have the feeling this is what the source actually says. Not because I personally agree with it, mind you. Based on more relevant sources, one can easily assert that Kurds are only a minority in Erzincan, Erzurum, Malatya and maybe a plurality in Kars. There is also the fact that not all Turkish Kurds feel the same way about seperatism. Kurdish nationalism is rather weak in Adıyaman, Şanlıurfa and especially in Elazığ. But these are all beside the point. If that's what this source says, that's what this source says. It's not our place to "correct" it. We can only decide how much weight it is given in the article.
My actual point is that User:Bruskom comes into play every now and then and slips the provinces of  Gaziantep, Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, Kilis and Osmaniye in the description. For now, I will assume good faith per the Wikipedia policy and ask him to explain himself here. If he doesn't respond, I'm going to restore the older description. --Mttll (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Iğdır is has Kurdish majority and Ardahan has an large Kurdish population. These two provinces historically part of Turkish Kurdistan. You can see on Ardahan and Iğdır article pages. Bruskom talk to me 04:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encylopedia of Islam description 

message: I think there needs to be content reflecting how this has changed over the centuries, the disappearance of the Armenian population in areas once part of Armenia. the disappearance of other Christian ethnic groups in areas located to the south of Armenia, like the Nestorian Christians and Syriac Christians, the inward migration of Kurdish tribes encouraged during the Ottoman Empire, the resettlement of Kurds during and just after WW1, etc. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographic changes

message: I want to refer editors to please see Massacres of Diyarbakır (1895) and suggest that "Historically, its northern area was part of Greater Armenia, but after centuries of inward migration by Kurdish tribes and because of the Armenian Genocide during World War I, very few Armenians now live in the area." might need rewording. I have checked the source and it fails verification, the word kurd is used only one time in a footnote about a population census table, kurdistan is used 0 times, kurdish is used 0 times. I want to correct this and review the article for factual accuracy, but will wait and see if any other editors have input about this. Seraphimsystem (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Inward migration

message: The map is not correct, therefore i deleted and i nomiated for deletion on commons. There is such a map, too. But According to census in 1965 we cant get an exact result. Because most of Kurds were afraid of being killed and the government has never showed the exact number of Kurdish population.--Gomada (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * We are talking about an official, nation-wide census in Turkey. Its merits a place in Wikipedia regardless of how accurate it results were. If you find published critiques of it from reliable sources, feel free to add them as well. --Mttll (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find something more recent then 1965? 1965 census belongs in the history section, there should be a recent source reflecting large demograpic changes in Arab speaking refugees in the region  Seraphimsystem (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of the map of Kurdish speaking area according to census 1965 

message: This informations and map is not true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torul (talk • contribs) 18:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: no, Torul youre not true. is youre thinking which came from 100 before now... Ibrahim aziz (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  fake page 

message: The profound effects were felt by only for "some" Kurds who still practiced the Nomadic lifestyle within the Kurdistan region before its division. The language insinuates that all Kurds were nomadic which is false. There are literally tens of different Kurdish kingdoms and states before this proposed date. How can an entire nomadic nation build kingdoms and states if they don't settle?"
The breakup of the Ottoman Empire after its defeat in the First World War led to its dismemberment and establishment of the present-day political boundaries, dividing the Kurdish-inhabited regions between several newly created states. The establishment and enforcement of the new borders had profound effects for the Kurds, who had to abandon their traditional nomadism for village life and settled farming."Kurd," Encyclopædia Britannica. Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007. 212.73.172.172 (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: - Please only use this template as directed, i.e. "change x to y". It is unclear what you would like changing. Ed6767 (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2020 

message: Hi, can we add >> History of Turkish Kurdistan under History section ? i will working about Turkish Kurdistan history, thanks Mohajeer (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding

message: this page needs to be deleted. the sources are taken from purely biased research.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tengrilera (talk • contribs) 02:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  lies are written on it. 

message: , pinging you because there was  literally the same discussion yesterday on Iranian Kurdistan article. Can you verify this information is legit? Beshogur (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's all in the article. Konli17 (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could just use the current description of Iranian Kurdistan and adapt it for Turkish Kurdistan. The cardinal directions are mainly used by Kurds and it is difficult to source a southern Kurdistan logically for our readers if the eastern Kurdistan reaches farther south than the eastern one or a Western Kurdistan if the Northern one reaches farther west as the western one. Of course the cardinal directions could be added, but as mainly known/used by Kurds and probably also not in the lead but under Name. I hope this helped.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Beshogur, this article is about the part of Kurdistan under the jurisdiction of the Turkish state, not all of the Kurdish areas in that state. Konli17 (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Isn't it? Has it left? Konli17 (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What? You are really confusing a geographical area with a country. Beshogur (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? Konli17 (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Turkish Kurdistan is not a country. Beshogur (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one regards Northern Kurdistan as a country. Turkish nationalists regard it as the Kurdish-inhabited part of their country Turkey, Kurdish nationalists regard it as the Turkish-occupied part of their country Kurdistan. Konli17 (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To Jurisdiction you were referring to. Ahhh. Ok. Well, Turkish Kurdistan is within the jurisdiction of Turkey, but maybe such a detailed mention could be moved to the section where the jurisdiction and the restriction on the Kurdish languages is treated. And under could be replaced with withinParadise Chronicle (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

text: It certainly seems to be more accommodating to Turkish nationalists than Kurdish nationalists. Konli17 (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Konli17's OR 

message: I would like to add an informative graph: . BlueSisyphus (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Turkish censuses are known for being unreliable and understate the % of Kurdish speakers. --Semsûrî (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Evidence, please? BlueSisyphus (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I kindly request another input view from another user who would not have a conflict of interest in this article and this request, if possible. Kind regards. BlueSisyphus (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Check  There's plenty of scholars stating this. Kurdish was banned so obviously many refrained from choosing it on the census formula. --Semsûrî (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have checked both sources. The sources convey various reasonable and plausible premises, rather than field-based evidence directly on the census: e.g. '... they are more likely to underestimate the numbers because some respondents, fearing the state-employed questioner, do not always tell the truth.' The authors seemed to question/discuss why some of the responders might respond in a certain way without providing any set of evidence (e.g. interviews), rather than questioning the internal conduct of the 1965 census (e.g. no indication of data manipulation by the conductors was suggested by the authors). I think, the 1965 census is, despite its various weaknesses due to the time of its conduct, still an important historical set of data with a certain range of error/uncertainty, which can be mentioned alongside the figure in the article; and therefore, deserves to be put into the article. Kind regards. BlueSisyphus (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Greetings. I have set the edit request as answered per the template: . This request should remain in this state until consensus regarding this alteration is achieved. Now, as an uninvolved editor with no conflict of interest in this subject area, I am inclined to concur with parts of both of your points. I think that if there was an oppressive state-level actor prohibiting the speaking of a language, and a state representative is conducting a census in which they ask if a citizen speaks said language, that it is not necessary to prove that is why citizens may under-report that through interviews or investigations of how the census was performed. I also agree that because, apparently, the 1965 census is last time it was surveyed, that it may be of historical relevance and worth mentioning. The only thing holding me back slightly is that there is a possibility we may give the census undue weight (more specifically in reference to the  section as this article has very few images) if the majority opinion is that the numbers are unreliable. Thus, I tentatively support adding it with an updated caption that the numbers are in dispute, and more fully support the chart not being included. —Sirdog (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2021