Talk:Turkish Kurdistan

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

asadasd

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)

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)

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)

In order to see whether it is notable or not, I suggest check out books.google.com [1] with 623 citations and also scholar.google.com with 206 citations [2]. 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)

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).

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)

I think I was talking generally Deniz^T_C 16:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Deniz^T_C 19:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

What is the range of this article? I am not sure the content of section "Modern history" fits here, it needs to be rewritten. Also something historical becomes suddenly something modern. Deniz^T_C 07:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Another fact pointing to the political nature of this article is some certain users' contributions to this and other articles. One specific user claims to contribute to many articles, almost all of which represent a certain political view. More edits to come when I have time to investigate the situation. user:Alfaarti 23:50, November 23, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC).

Merging

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) There is no Turkish Kurdistan in Turkey or in the world. Turkish Kurds are a small tribe living in Turkey like Zazas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayhan62 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Erzurum-Kars??

Erzurum-Kars and kurds? Come on...

Impact of Kosovo independence over the Turkish Kurdistan

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)

Kurdistan is the homeland of the kurds. Why call it turkish Kurdistan, iranian Kurdistan, syrien Kurdistan or iraqi Kurdistan? Kurds speak kurdish, not turkish, perssian or arabic. In north Kurdistan the kurds speak kurdish kirmanji, in south sorani, badini and faili, in east sorani, zazai, lak and faili, in west kirmanji and sorani. Therefore the the right name is Kurdistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.221.143.8 (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Another successful case of self-determination has occurred in recent times. Southern Sudan has voted overwhelmingly to separate from the despotic tyranny that the Bashir regime sought to impose on it.

Belgium may be moving towards a split into into two separate countries also.

By the way using harsh and/or restrictive methods to repress identity does not destroy separatist movements. Sudan might have remained one country had rational policies been pursued from the origin of that state.

Bold text (unoffical)

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

PKK in Irak

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)

Kurdish Majority and Transition Zones

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)

Can someone who is familiar with wikipedia edit this article

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)

It might help those interested in factual accuracy if you could list lines you perceive to be biased? References showing them to be not factual would also help. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

fake page

This informations and map is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torul (talk • contribs) 18:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

PKK - Terrorist organization, not militant separatists

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". [[3]] --Alfaarti (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Terrorist is a contentious label and as such a word to avoid IRWolfie- (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing called Turkish kurdistan there is onle one FACT TURKEY