Talk:Diyarbakır/Archive 1

Comment
Should the main article be moved to Diyarbak&#305;r? Gerry Lynch 23:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe so. Olessi 21:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Syriac=Aramaic
Since Syriac is a form of Aramaic, shouldn't the Syriac and Aramaic names of the city be merged? The pronunciation differs according to the Syriac dialect: Omed (West Syriac) or Amed (East Syriac).

Dikranagertz
Isn't Diyarbakir sometimes called Dikranagertz by Armenians who once lived there? (If people can reply to this without arguing about the Genocide, that would be great. I would love to know more about the history behind the names. Thanks!)


 * I believe the Armenian name is Dikranagert. I shall try to write that in Armenian to add to the article. --Gareth Hughes 22:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Utterly cool. Thank you! 38.2.108.125 21:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Mayor
Some people seem to be amused by continuously deleting information on Diyarbakir's mayor, Osman Baydemir. He is a rather notable and well know person, from before he became mayor asa human rights defender and deputy-chairman of the Turkish Human Rights Association. Any arguments for these facts not being relevant in this article??? Bertilvidet 08:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Details of his CV belongs to an article under his name (Osman Baydemir, to be started). Here it is sufficient to state that he is the mayor.
 * Also, I am going to erase again the terrible phrase, "Among people who recognize Kurds, the city is often considered as the unofficial capital of Turkish Kurdistan." I am convinced that there are people who recognize Kurds (such as my humble self) but not the capital stuff. The phrase winks at a POV minded public. It is the seat/capital of Diyarbakır Province. That's all.
 * Also again, it is Diyarbakır Province which has the total population of 1,3 million people indicated here under the article for Diyarbakır city, which itself actually counts (at least officially, as indicated at the Governorship's web site ), 546000 souls and 721000 for the whole municipal area (2000 figures). I am prepared to believe it should be slightly more (but certainly not 1,3 million), and I also checked the site to see if there were at least some estimates in the Diyarbakır Greater Municipality web site, but His Mayoralty forgot to include basic information on his city, although some superfluous stuff is there. There is no link under "general information", which, I am tempted to venture, shows the degree of seriousness (I was referring to this article).

I will put the official population count for the city, remove that absurd phrase, and stick to basics for the mayor. --Cretanforever 09:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I really cannot understand what damage it does to shortly present the mayor. The same is done for at least one other mayor that is notable in Turkish politics, namely Mustafa Sarıgül, mayor of Sisli. Bertilvidet 17:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I started an article on Mustafa Sarıgül and work on it to develop. I suggest you do the same for Osman Baydemir. --Cretanforever 01:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Capital" of Kurdistan
Clearly, Turkish Kurdistan doesn't have any sort of official capital. However, I think it is notable that many Turkish Kurds claim it as their capital. A Kurdish press agency says "In the capital of greater Kurdistan, Amed (Diyarbakir)..."; Ocalan has said that it would "become the capital of Kurdistan after the region gained independence". Outside observers call it the "capital" or the "unofficial capital" of (Turkish) Kurdistan: Monde Diplomatique; an article on "Turkey's Strategic Model: Myths and Realities" by Graham Fuller in Washington Quarterly 27:3:51 (Summer 2004)by subscription; a book called After Such Knowledge, What Forgiveness?: My Encounters with Kurdistan, Jonathan C Randal ISBN 0813335809i.

Wikipedia should report this usage; this of course does not mean that Wikipedia endorses it. Here is some suggested language:


 * Many Kurds consider Diyarbakir to be the capital of Turkish Kurdistan, and outside observers sometimes refer to it as the unofficial capital of Turkish Kurdistan.

Thoughts? Remember, we are trying for NPOV.... --Macrakis 16:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proposed formulations. Actually I noticed last week that the British Foreign Office in its travel advice referred to Diyarbakir as the capital of southeastern Turkey. This reference was however - not surprisingly - removed the following day. But it underlines how widespread the city is conceived as the most important city - unofficial capital - for the Kurds in Turkey. It should be mentioned - but of course not endorsed. Bertilvidet 17:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For the moment, I inserted the true population figures and separated the discutable stuff under a second paragraph. I will provide a good number of sources for the assertions made in that paragraph. Let's keep it as it is for the moment. --Cretanforever 00:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Many Kurds" Who are these "many"? Please avoid "weasel words" and cite sources.--Hattusili 20:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hattusili, I provided two references above for Kurds (one a Kurdish organization, the other quoting Ocalan), and two references for outsiders. I agree that "many" is hard to establish; the quotes would directly support something like "some Kurdish activists". On the other hand, outside observers seem to be pretty consistent in calling Diyarbakir the capital of Kurdistan. A French guidebook to Turkey I have from the 70's calls Diyarbakir "the capital of the tribes" -- remember, it was illegal to talk about Kurds then. Would you prefer simply "Diyarbakir is often called the capital of Turkish Kurdistan" with all four references supporting this? --Macrakis 21:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There is NO state as "kurdistan" and "Diyarbakır" is NOT capital of anywhere!!!!!


 * The article currently states:
 * Diyarbakir has a large Kurdish population, and both some Kurds and outside observers often refer to it as the unofficial 'capital' of a Turkish Kurdistan

.
 * It says that some Kurds and outside observes often refer to it as an unofficial capital. This statement is true. What the statement does not say is that it is the capital. It does not help having statements like the one before my post, which is pure rant. — Gareth Hughes 22:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So Berlin is capital of German-Turkey.Add this sentence as well...


 * That makes no sense whatsoever. Please sign your posts. — Gareth Hughes 22:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the main issue is seperation of Turkey.


 * You still need to sign. You are talking politics, and not the facts of the statement you have tried to delete. That statement says nothing about anyone splitting Turkey. It simply says that Kurds and outsiders often refer to Diyarbakır as the unofficial capital of Turkish Kurdistan. Now, anyone who's been to Diyarbakır will know that this statement is true: Kurdish political and cultural activity in Trkey is centred on Diyarbakır. — Gareth Hughes 23:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * She can't sign, nor is she allowed to edit. She's banned. Khoikhoi 23:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish Name
The kurdish name cited in the article is Amed, but Díyarbekir is also the kurdish name of the city. The name was changed by the kurdish dinasty the Bagirawand(Bagiratids) who renamed their capital after them selves Diyarbakir (Diyari Bagir wich natually became Bakir, Land of the Bakir i.e. the Bagirawands). The name is thus not from the Arab Bakir tribe. (Source: Mehrdad R. Izady - The Kurds, A Consice Handbook)

I haven't come across the name Bagirawand in a search engine. I assume the Kurdish dynasty Bagiratids to be the same or at least akin to Bagratids whom I knew to have a Georgian branch and an Armenian branch. I did not know that there was also a Kurdish branch, or that the family was actually Kurdish. Therefore I am adding a link in your phrase to the article on that dynasty and I am sure a discussion there between you around the true Bagratid identity will be highly enlightening. Also, when did the name change take place? You did not indicate a date or a period. Regards. --Cretanforever 23:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know the exact time, but I would suggest it was during the middle ages.

Administrative Units of Contemporary Kurdistan
A map reference with the above caption was added by User:Retau (although he used this Google URL:). The map includes the credit "&copy; M. R. Izady. For class use only." It would seem to be the same person as this citation:

The Kurds: A Concise Handbook, By Mehrdad Izady, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, Taylor and Francis International Publishers/ Washington – Philadelphia - London

that was added +  by User:66.79.163.189.

--Moby 11:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

An interview with Professor Garnik Asatrian &mdash; Garnik Asatrian (Head of the Faculty of Iranian Studies at Yerevan State University)


 * GA: Mehrdad Izady is a stupid man, a very stupid man. He is a Professor at the University of Harvard, and I wonder why Harvard has Professors such as he. For example, he could not even be a mere teacher here in Armenia, even teaching children. It's amazing, it's amazing, it's very amazing.

--Cretanforever 15:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * God bless Turks. These (GA) are very fascists. Wow, very offensive!! Their hatred towards Muslims even if nominally is incredible. 66.79.163.189 16:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

kurdish propaganda
this article is turning out to be an article of kurdish propaganda and advertising of kurdish separatist movements. Possibly in the future these propaganda editors start adding statements about Turkish hostility. The motto of Turkey is "peace at home and peace in the world". Kurds of Turkey know and support this quite well. Most of the Kurds living Turkey are against these kind of separatist movements. We'll continue living in peace with our Kurdish friends together.

Yeah right, that's why there's so many Kurdish refugees in Europe running away from the Turkish army and police. We live in peace and we'll continue living in peace while our women and men get tortured or executed because they are Kurdish or spoke Kurdish or even Turks who defended this will get punished harshly like İsmail Beşikçi. We'll live in peace, in Istanbul, while at Diyarbakir people are dying of hunger. We'll live in peace but hide the fact in your identity card you have to be Islamic and Turkish, choiceless. We'll live in peace if the Kurds shut up and be Turkified or else Semdinli. We'll live in peace if Kurdish is not spoken, studied and lived. We'll live in peace as long as Kurdish is terrorism. Do we live in peace or do we pretend to be in peace? Ozgur Gerilla 12:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As stated at the beginning of this "kurdish propaganda section", Turkish hostility behind some separatists causes this debate. There is no need to dramatise the situation by creating a POV fork, cause in turkey most of the population is living under difficult conditions not only the kurds. the capitalist powers of the world is creating causalities. By promoting turkish-kurdish hostility, only the capitalists will get profit.

Yes, and who's those evil capitalists? Eupore and USA? The capitalists for Kurds is the Turkish government who restricted Kurdish & put the entire Kurdistan into poverty. Propaganda is what you get when you open Kanal D or Show TV or TRT int,1,2,3. I am providing facts. Ozgur Gerilla 13:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The media is never become objective, not only in turkey, everywhere. Everbody is trying to make their own propaganda. However, if we assume good will and try to be comprehensive, i think we can overcome all difficulties. If people in Turkey try to discuss the issues as we do here, the solution will be easier. There is no problem related with the constitution of thr Republic of Turkey, whose motto is "peace at home, peace in the world", the problem is related with the people governing turkey and with their relations. They put the entire turkey into poverty. Turks, Kurds and all other communities together constituted the Republic. We should defend our rights all together, preventing all hostilities.

Untitled
''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:
 * Archive 1 - Archived on November 22, 2006
 * }

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.
 * We follow simple guidelines of Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kursarta (talk • contribs)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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: 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.


 * "Panda" must be Turkish (or Kurdish) slang for something else - though who knows what! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.109.43 (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mesopotamia
Does Diyabakir belong to Mesopotamia? If so, it should be mentioned in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sehzades (talk • contribs) 17:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Bagivar (Kabï)
Hi

Im very interested about the village history of kabi(bagivar) near Diyarbakir. Is there any one who knows anything about the peple there the village history, I would apprecaite any good information regarding this subject. My main interest is what happened there in 1400 -1700 AD.

thanks in advance.

email: suryoyo@kth.se

//Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryoyo (talk • contribs) 10:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Coinage
Coin of the Artuqids minted in Diyarbakır in the 12th century. Feel free to insert them into the article. PHG (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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: 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.
 * 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].

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 &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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)

You can add the metareference for Rafael de Nogales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_de_Nogales_M%C3%A9ndez). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.152.18.129 (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Bakir
The name Bakir in Diyarbakir is not derived from the arab tribe by the same name. The name now rederects to the article Banu Bakir. The Bakir of Diyarbakir is already mentioned by Ptolomey who calls this area Bagrauandene Regio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.153.37 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is full of propaganda. I mean you add somebody who got killed in the Gaza Flotilla who was in now way significant to the city but you dont include the Mayor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.207.43 (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Kurdish speaking
It is stated that 72% of population speak Kurdish in daily works? It is false! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.170.14.10 (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Capital
The turks can say whatever they want Amed (diyarbakir) has always been the capital of Kurdistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrkurdistan (talk • contribs) 21:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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, 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)

I have heard that the name could come from the Turkish word for copper, "bakir", and "yar" meaning love. 96.55.183.132 (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

citation needed
UBUIBIOK (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC) The 41-year-old American-Turkish Pirinçlik Air Force Base near Diyarbakır, known as NATO's frontier post for monitoring the former Soviet Union and the Middle East, closed on 30 September 1997. This closure was the result of the general drawdown of US bases in Europe and the improvement in space surveillance technology. The base housed sensitive electronic intelligence-gathering systems that monitored the Middle East, the Caucasus and Russia.[citation needed] LICK, PRICK, ..DIA , DAG WERE GONE , BY BY.UBUIBIOK eye witness CITATION GIVEN UBUIBIOK (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Should be added that : "Leyla Zana: politician" It is an Imprisoned parlamentarian, as the other politicians have a detailed description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.48.94 (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Diyarbakır 0Rh positive
Diyarbekir, idris inci. its the pearl of Turkey when it comes the kabap and warm beauty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.47.164.222 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Türk İstilası
Burada yoğun olarak Türk istilası görüyorum. Irkçı zihinlerin; gerçek kaynaktan değilde, onlara öğretildiği kaynaklarla doldurmuşlar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.229.88.7 (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Kurdish
Remove kurdish language translation. it does not belong in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xelophate (talk • contribs) 22:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Winner 42 Talk to me!  23:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's a Turkish page created and written by Turks from 2011, which claim that 17 surveys points the fact that %75 of natives from Diyarbakır and more than 8 million people from all the country said that they're Kurdish. So, I don't think Kurdish is not spoken in this city or country and can't understand why it would be insult to add some Kurdish under that artcile. You can't forbid a language just because you want or think so. This is a language, a fact that you can't deny or take it as an insult. It was there before you born. It's not your opinion or decision and you can't call people or a nation terrorist (which you're doing it) just because of their mother language. 88.252.8.135 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Because Kurdish is not spoken in this city. There is no governmental data to prove this, e.g. census. It is also insulting as Turkey and PKK are currently in a 30 year war and Kurds claim that diyarbakir is their capital city - their territory does not exist.--XELO 02:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xelophate (talk • contribs)
 * Reliable sources say otherwise. I will not speak for the article that gives the 72% statistic as you have claimed it is biased so I have sent that to the WP:RSN. Sources that I do know are reliable have reported on the issue of Kurds in the city. This source claims the city is "largely inhabited by Kurds" and that "There is an intense demand for education in the Kurdish language in the area". This source claims it is a "Kurdish city" and this source says the city has a "Kurdish majority" therefore it is reasonable to give the city's name in Kurdish. Winner 42 Talk to me!  02:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * According to Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas: Historical and Linguistic Aspects, edited by Lars Johanson, Christiane Bulut, page 295, "...and the verb is unmarked for agreement, is now predominant for Kurdish spoken in the Diyarbakir regions". --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a note that will be absent from any further discussion here for a week or so.  Dwpaul   Talk   03:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To address a few other of Xelophate's arguments:
 * Kurdish is not spoken in this city. There is no governmental data to prove this, e.g. census.
 * There has been no census probably because it would not serve the Turkish government's interest to substantiate the opposition's claims about the ethnicity of the population. However, there are plenty of non-government sources to substantiate that there is a very large population of Kurds in Diyarbakir, that very possibly a majority of the population is Kurdish, and that Kurds primarily (most exclusively) speak the Kurdish language.
 * Turkish is the recognised language of Turkey. ...
 * it is an insult to the state to put kurdish translation as they are in war. Turkish wiki does not have this translation.
 * Please look at Turkish Wikipedia. This is an insult to Turks.
 * It is also insulting as Turkey and PKK are currently in a 30 year war ...


 * It is not our concern whether there are individuals (or governments) that might find reliably sourced information here offensive, provided it is relevant (which I contend it is) and not placed here purely to offend (which it is not). When we say that Wikipedia is not censored, we are not referring just to profanity. As stated at that guideline, " 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal (or inclusion) of content".  When a significant proportion (whether it is 30% or 70% doesn't matter) of a population speaks a language other than the "official" language (in this case Turkish), the name they use in their language to refer to their city is appropriate to include in an article about that city.


 * And please stop bringing up the article at Turkish Wikipedia.  We do not base our decisions about content here on the content of other editions of Wikipedia.  Dwpaul   Talk   23:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As a person who lives in Amed/Diyarbakır for ten years and can speaks Turkish and Kurdish both, I can say that Kurdish is definitely spoken in this city and Kurds are majority. In fact you couldn't find any of Turks who currently lives in this city if they wouldn't be officers or civil servants who assigned by government. Because most of Turks hates all the cities which Kurds are majority. There is even people who can't talk Turkish but only Kurdish, because they didn't get any education in Turkish. On the other hand a tragic amount of Kurds can't speak Kurdish because commercial language is Turkish. There are Kurds who described themselves Turkish nationalist. They are obviously assimilated. And I think it's not a coincidence that there is only 4 ″Kürt″ word at Turkish article of Diyarbakır, While English one contains (Kurd) 26 of it. 22:03, 6 Jan 2016 (UTC)

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 do not fall under what we consider as a reliable source. While Britannica is reliable, it makes no mention of the capital claim . -- 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  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)
 * -- 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 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)

Defining something according the invalid goals of some terrorist organization, is nothing but supporting terrorist propaganda. How can someone just put such bias on a public site which ought to be neutral and discusses like its all normal ? The fact Diyarbakir has large Kurdish community just means they're an important part of the city, that doesnt makes it another country nor "unofficial capital" or some made up way of putting things. The idea of a Kurdistan in Turkey is the goal of PKK terrorist organization and has nothing to do with ordinary Kurdish population in Turkey, only a very small part of the Kurdish community supports that goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.34.32 (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Diyarbakır. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lalishduhok.org/lalish/27/L
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119201316/http://dmi.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=DIYARBAKIR to http://www.dmi.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=DIYARBAKIR
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081101202734/http://www.diyarbakir.gov.tr:80/default_B0.aspx to http://www.diyarbakir.gov.tr/default_B0.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diyarbakır. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060512040802/http://www.diyarbakir-bld.gov.tr/ to http://www.diyarbakir-bld.gov.tr/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.diyarbakir.gov.tr/default_B0.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diyarbakır. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930221904/http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=205469 to http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=205469

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diyarbakır. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161130184727/http://www.france24.com/en/20161101-turkey-appoints-trustee-diyarbakir-mayor-after-arrests to http://www.france24.com/en/20161101-turkey-appoints-trustee-diyarbakir-mayor-after-arrests

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Demographic section
The Demographic section is very barebones, and it should be expanded with a current population number, possible historical populations, and numbers for the Turks, Assyrians, Armenians, and any others that are within the area. I added a number and source on the number of Kurdish speakers, but I think the bias of a site named "The Kurdish Project" should be noted. It's certainly better than nothing though. 2607:FCC8:C2C4:5B00:C0B6:5E13:76B3:FA51 (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Random bloke in America

History section summary
The History section is summarised at its start. I removed this summary, as it's not the usual format, i.e. usually the only summary in an article is the lede. Is there any reason a section summary is used here and not elsewhere? Konli17 (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical history
The section on Christain ecclesiastical history takes up around a sixth of the whole article, which is strange for an article about a city that has been majority-Muslim for centuries. It badly needs paring, which I did but which was reverted. It has been copied in its entirety to History of Diyarbakır, so there's not much argument that I can see for retaining it here. Konli17 (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No opposition from me. Keep a summary on the ecclesiastic history, though.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no pointer to the History of Diyarbakır article, so I've added one. I pruned the History section, especially the Ecclesiastical History section, but probably the overall History section (as well as eht EH section) could benefit from more pruning since we now have a main article.
 * The Titular See material was especially ridiculous. The only reason we had so much about that was because the Catholic Encyclopedia article was copied over bodily. We surely don't need a long list of titular bishops here or in other articles, except if individuals have some specific notability. After all, we don't list most residential bishops, who are surely much more important! --Macrakis (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

History section
About the latest update in the article, reliable public information has been retrieved for an unconvincing reason. Nor can it be justified by Hashemite theories as it is history and does not coincide with what was mentioned above. If you have a note, write it here or on the article talk page before starting any cross-out. Torivar (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I assume you mean removed, not retrieved? And courtesy pinging, as they reverted your edit. Perryprog (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, yes I meant "removed". Torivar (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Diyarbakir Eyalet already has a huge section. The rest is unrelated or pure fringe theory. Beshogur (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , This is another accusation, without elaborating. It's  summarize not pure fringe, but on the other hand I put together many reliable sources that talk about specific periods of rule. Then stop editing, the discussion has not ended, it comes to become liberation war. Torivar (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , that with present-day Kurds is the same as the population during the times of Corduene has been discussed extensively before. See the discussion there first. Consider including some of the quite extensive info at History of Diyarbakır but most not as History of Kurds, but History of Diyarbakir.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

, I have my independent sources so don't need to read an off-topic discussion. I have devoted a special section to the history of the Kurds and their ancestors in the region as it is a city with a Kurdish identity currently, while a section can be devoted to another component if you have the history. There is already a brief history at the front of the section. Torivar (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * all maps you have put doesn't have a single relation with the article, the map about Abdul Hamid II period is pure original research. Rest of your text doesn't have any relation with Diyarbakir either, plus it's fringy and original research. About Diyarbakir eyalet, see "Safavids and Ottomans", that's the reason why I reverted. Beshogur (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have reviewed all the maps and sources, and it became clear to me that this is the only file that doesn't reach Diyarbakir, but the rest is a brief actual history. Then I explained that there is a brief history in the introduction "Antiquity" and more details by sections like Ecclesiastical history. It can be improved, but not written off. Torivar (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine let's see what other users going to say. Beshogur (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Referring to  Torivar  talk ✉ 19:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Kurds as a ethnicity didn't exist till the Middle Ages, the fact that someone attempted to include the Hurrians, Gutians, Medes, and Corduene as part of "Kurdish history" is absolutely mind boggling. That is some next level WP:OR, if not POV. Please don't make me wack out all the sources that support my comment (really, please don't, it's a chore). Beshogur's revert was correct. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems that you don't differentiate between the ancestors and the genetic interdependence of peoples and ethnic history, then it is clear that the section is devoted to Kurdish history, but in the introduction it talks about some ancient peoples from which the Kurds descended especially those who lived in the Diyarbakir region or ruled it. "There is also no need to attack in sarcastic terms I didn't force you into an Discussion". Torivar  talk ✉ 16:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. There were no such thing as 'Kurds' back then, thus it is not part of Kurdish history. Claiming that all those entities were 'part of Kurdish history' is WP:TENDENTIOUS at best. That the Kurds were descended from these groups is not even a established fact, but a theory. Ultimately we're all descended from loads of ethnicities. Claiming that Hurrian history is 'Kurdish history' would be like saying that Byzantine/Greek/Lydian history is Turkish history. I'm not sure I understand the citation, since no one was attacked. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is the point as long as we are talking about the ancestors meaning the Kurds don't yet exist, so we cannot say that the Kurds came from nowhere. The division's name can be changed anyway but this is not a justification for write it off. Torivar  talk ✉ 16:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OR and WP:POV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I have read it, the content I have provided is an original research and a separate history if you want to delve into it, but I collected a specific history where it correspond the genetic presence of the Kurds and this is not considered non-encyclopedic because I don't add anything to it or give an opinion. The problem is in naming the section to correspond the content nothing more. Torivar talk ✉ 17:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just please don't try to claim that Hurrian history is Kurdish through genetics or something like that (that is still WP:OR). How is there any problem with naming the section? Just don't add the word 'Kurdish' to it, let the Gutians etc have their own section, voilà. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)