|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Sources
- 2 Disambiguation
- 3 Turks in 877?
- 4 Request to add interwiki
- 5 Relation with Syria Portal (?)
- 6 Which disputes?
- 7 False ethnic map
- 8 This article must change name to Sanjak of Alexandretta
- 9 Intro based towards Syria?
- 10 Redirect
- 11 Misinformation
- 12 Protest Image
- 13 hatay:iskendurun ,erzin and dortyol are kurdish cities
- 14 its kurdistan and not "kurdistan" answer to -Supreme Deliciousness and hatay is kurdistan!
again I will ask for sources on the information provided. I have seen the message you left on my talk page in Turkish but you cite no sources there either. can you provide any sources, preferably verifiable ones? citation is especially important on controversial issues, and you probably know that Syria and Turkey had a disagreement for a long time regarding Hatay. thanks. at0 15:58, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Dear Atakan Bey, It is a fact that the "Hatay issue" is rather controversial. But the controversy does not stem from some so-called "election tricks" etc. As you may have read in certain sources, "Hatay" also bears some peculiar importance for the Arab nationalist and Ba'athist cause. A Ba'ath protagonist, Zaki al-Arsuzi himself was from Arsuz, as you would realise from his surname. Furthermore, Arab nationalism sees the "Hatay issue" as a Turco-French cooperation, thus an amalgamate of "Turkish yoke" and "French imperialism", two "evil forces" in Syrian political jargon, the latter also blamed for carving out Grand Liban. Unfortunately, there aren't enough sources published available in Turkish. It is true that there are ones on general contemporary history but they don't necessarily focus on events on a local basis and in detail. The annals, et al, published by the governorate were comprised of some anachronistic official propaganda (like "kırk asırlık Türk yurdu düşman elinde kalamaz") at least until recent times. Arab (i.e. Syrian) sources reperesent an opposite of this discourse and they are in Arabic, partially in French. There were efforts of local researchers and local press, some of which have seriously taken the issue. To name few; Mr. Müslüm Kabadayı (Antakya) and the defunct local paper of Güney Uyanış (Adana). However, there is an inspiring academic activity going on within the Department of Anthropology at Mustafa Kemal University, regarding the local ethno-cultural texture of the vicinity and its history. Some of my knowledge on the "registered voters" depend on a paper on the local history of district of Hassa, issued by a research fellow. As I had mentioned before, I didn't think to make use of data obtained from my personal contacts, because they may have been regarded simply as rumours and not some trustworthy field studies of oral history. If you have a particular interest on Hatay, I may also happily and humbly care to help you. Best Regards......Yunus
The Sanjak of Alexandretta subsection contains a wikilink to Armenian (piped to say Armenians), which is a dab page. Please change this to a link to Armenians. Thanks. Ntsimp 16:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't you do it? Funkynusayri 16:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Turks in 877?
Request to add interwiki
Please add the Bulgarian interlanguage link to the article: [[bg:Хатай]] since article is protected and I can't add any info to it. Thanks. --Vanka5 00:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Relation with Syria Portal (?)
Because of the Syrian roots still evident in Hatay today.
Since time immemorial, this page has been currently protected from editing "until disputes have been resolved". Which disputes? One of the warring editors from a long-gone-by past has been indef blocked, so I guess we'll never hear his side of the story. --Lambiam 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
False ethnic map
The map by William R. Shepherd is historical inaccurete because according to map there is no Turks in Cyprus. There is a de facto independet state in north Cyprus. In Northern Cyprus articel you can see the history of Turkish population in Cyprus. Ruzgar 21:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This article must change name to Sanjak of Alexandretta
Intro based towards Syria?
The introductionary paragraph seems to be baised towards the Syrian POV. Which I don't think is the general international concensus on the issue. Hatay appears as part of Turkey on maps released the UN  (*with disclaimer that the UN doesn't nessecarily endorse the shown borders), the US State Department  and the European Union . And on maps used by Wikipedia itself.
A better intro might be: Hatay is a Turkish province located on the Mediterranean shore in the south of the country. The province borders Syria on the south and east and the Turkish provinces of Adana and Osmaniye in the north. The province was ceded to Turkey in the 1939 by the French. The Syrian government does not recognize this today, and considers Hatay (or Liwa' aliskenderun (Arabic: لواء الاسكندرون) as the Syrians call it) to be part of Syria.
Many thanks for that. Its a fact that Syria was under french protection from 1920-1946 and it considered Alexandretta an integral part of Syria until 1938. That is not a POV but factual and was included in the intro as fact. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britishsyrian (talk • contribs) 22:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I reverted some of the things britishsyrian had added. The map show Arabs in majority with smaller communities of Armenians and Turks, nothing more. There are no details of the city of Antioch or Iskandaron. The "A modern solution to the dispute that satifies both sides?" section was made up of a lot of guessing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the remark. I see your point but may be instead of deleting the whole section we can reach to a compromise. The fact that an agreement in Adana 1998 and subsequent agreements that where signed up even as recently as last month are indisputable facts that cooperation between Turkey and Syria has allowed the issue of Hatay to fade away between the two countries. May be a rewrite can be done with both our efforts.
hatay:iskendurun ,erzin and dortyol are kurdish cities
- Non of those links can be regarded as sources or reliable sources. The first one is from hizliresim.com  which is a web archive website, who made this map and how is that a reliable source? It claims that "Kurdistan" was an entity during the Treaty of Sevres. This is something that is made up. Look at a real Treaty of Sevres map from the New International Yearbook: A Compendium of the World's Progress  or this map by Lt.-Col. Lawrence Martin, Geographer of the Institute of Politics , they do not mention any "Kurdistan".
- The second link  is published by kurdtimes.com, how is that a reliable source? What factual occurrences is it based on? That source claims "Kurdistan" being an entity in Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran. This is another imaginary map not based on anything factual and is completely made up.
- The third one  is a map uploaded at commons. It is also a home made map, and exactly as the two other maps you brought is an imaginary map not based on anything factual and is completely made up.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
its kurdistan and not "kurdistan" answer to -Supreme Deliciousness and hatay is kurdistan!
hatay is kurdistan city! its for me not imporant if hatay is now under turkish state we knwo hatay is our kurdistan s city!
kurds killed by turksih racist state and now its "turkey" ,?ah no no !
- You have just posted same links you posted above and linked to a Wikipedia article. Your post and links were replied to above . Do you have anything reliable to bring to the conversation or do you want to ad the same unreliable links and made up maps a third time? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)