Talk:Turkish Kurdistan/Archive 1

Sevres
Sevres was never implemented. When the Armistice signed at Mudos in 1918 36th parallel was the border between the Ottoman and British Empires. The previous edit is mine -AverageTurkishJoe 00:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's right. Although I have to trim the paragraph on Mosul a bit, since it does not belong to Turkey, so its coverage should be very brief.Heja Helweda 04:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am pasting the deleted part here for the record. I believe it is very informative and the additional information contained therein enables the reader to have a better grasp of the issues involved. Quite simply the British Empire assumed ownership of the lands in Northern Iraq and shifted her focus to Basra area which has both oil and convenient access to naval transportation. This part of the history is very pertinent to understand the current situation and the plight of the Kurdish people.


 * Following World War I and the defeat of Ottoman Empire, Kurds were promised an "independent nation-state in the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres. Turkish nationalists, however, rejected the terms of the treaty, and following the defeat of the Greek forces in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), the Treaty of Lausanne was signed in 1923 in Turkey's favor. Lausanne treaty specified all of Turkey's boundaries except the one with Iraq. Here there was only a provisional frontier called the "Brussels line." This issue was left open for a "friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months." In case parties did not reach an agreement within this time frame, the issue would be referred to the League of Nations. The Turkish government did not want to give up its old province Mosul for several reasons: the political wishes of Mosul's inhabitants, its many Turkish-speakers, its oil reserves, and the direction of its trade. In addition, British forces were twelve miles away from the city of Mosul on 30 October 1918, the day London signed the Armistice of Mudros that ended its war with the Turks; this made the legality of the British presence in Mosul very dubious. Despite Turkish claims to Mosul, London claimed the province in its entirety for Iraq under the British control; it also turned down Ankara's proposal that a plebiscite be held to measure views in the province. Unable to reach a "friendly arrangement," the two parties referred the dispute to the League of Nations, which endorsed Mosul's becoming part of Iraq. After prolonged tensions, which included threats of armed confrontation in the Turkish press, Ankara eventually signed a treaty in July 1926 that made the Brussels line the international frontier, leaving the Mosul region and its 600,000 or so inhabitants in Iraq. Since that time Kurdish nationalists have continued to seek independence in an area approximating that identified at Sèvres. However, the idea of an independent nation-state came to a halt when the surrounding countries joined to reject the independence of Kurdistan.
 * -AverageTurkishJoe 00:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Does "Turkish Kurdistan" posit a political entity that other political entities need to acknowledge.
Are you suggesting the existance of a political entity that is not reccognized? Are you suggesting that Turkey is in violation of an international agreement? Or are you just saying that Turkish government does not use or approve the use of the term "Turkish Kurdistan"? -AverageTurkishJoe 00:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No. There is no recognized political entity with that name. However, the Kurdish majority areas of south-eastern Turkey form a part of the geo-cultural region of Kurdistan. The part that falls within Turkey's boundaries is called Turkish Kurdistan, i.e., Kurdish areas within the boundaries of the Republic of Turkey. Heja Helweda 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Kurdish areas you say as if there is some sort of census. Turkish Kurdistan is a country referance. A geo cultural region would not explain rebelions would it? -- Cool CatTalk 16:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Explaining history of a rebellion in a region does not mean that region is a country. There is civil strife in Darfour region of Sudan, but talking about that issue does not imply Darfour is a country.Heja Helweda 02:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see nothing on the ancient history of the region. It's just on the events of the last cecntury.
 *  D iyako Talk + 18:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Turkish Kurdistan?
I would like to see some Academic references which refer to this region claimed in this article as 'Turkish Kurdistan', preferably not written by Kurdish Nationalists. Thank you --Kash 18:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The term is valid an Academic. http://www.hri.ca/doccentre/docs/aim-athens-22-04-98.shtml
 *  D iyako Talk + 19:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.hri.ca is not an academic source, is it? --levent 19:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes HRI is a good source. Also  CHRIS KUTSCHERA    http://chris-kutschera.com/A/Mad%20Dreams.htm
 *  D iyako Talk + 19:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No it is not a good source and does not describe Turkish Kurdistan, Your second link is definately not academic --Kash 20:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

HRI may be a good source, it may be excellent even, that's not the question (this is subjective view of yours, by the way). What I was asking was wheather it is academic. Apparently not. I myself could make such a web site claiming anything I want, name things whatever I want. Who controls it anyway? --levent 21:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you can't provide a valid source, we will have to rename this article to Kurds in Turkey, same as Syrian Kurdistan which now redirects to Kurds in Syria --Kash 01:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll provide a few academic manuscripts that refer to the region as 'Kurdistan' very soon. Ozgur Gerilla 23:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse it's called Turkish Kurdistan. --Comanche cph 12:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly reject the name Turkish Kurdistan, it should be Kurds in Turkey because formally all 70 million(aprox.) people in Turkey are called Turkish citizens(no dispute as Turks, Kurds, Armenians) they are all Turkish citizens and if you give a place borders and name it as a territory you must have some formal proofs such as government priviliges that gives Kurds a minority status etc. Until this discussion gives a result I suggest that there must be some sign on the page which shows that there is a discussion going on about this article's name.OnurRC

Turkish Kurdistan Article Must Be Deleted
There is no such thing as Turkish Kurdistan. I`m disputing this article until valid refrences are provided. All the encyclopedias say it does not exist.Zmmz 22:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Under section:2.3 State of Emergency:
 * http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.htm?tbl=RSDCOI&page=research&id=3ae6a8604
 *  D iyako Talk + 22:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You cannot provide a source that comes from a political movement. I extensively researched all the encyclopedias and they all agree a country names Turkish Kurdistan in not recognized by the known world.Zmmz 00:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Go see for your self...The POV of any state is not NPOV! Bertilvidet 20:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This article must be deleted. There is no such state/province as Kurdistan within Turkish borders.--Kagan the Barbarian 11:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy dispute
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)

Encyclopedia Britannica and other authoritative sources [do not] recognize the entity as a “country” related to Turkey. I have extensively researched this.Zmmz 23:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The content is also disputed as Kurds in Turkey do not live in a single region. --ManiF 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

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

What being done here is not correct and scientific. Turkey is not a federation, there's no state or region called with this name. This title and article does not show any good will and political correctness. It should be deleted and the content should be put to a more suitable article. --Gokhan 13:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Encyclopedia Britannica and other authoritative sources [do not] recognize a Kurdistan as a [province] called Kurdistan in either Turkey nor Syria. So, there is no Syrian-Kurdistan or Turkish-Kurdistan. Apparently the terms are only used by Kurdish nationaists. It seems ONLY one Kurdish province exits, and that is in Iran. I have extensively researched this, and all scholars agree [britannica.com/ebc/article-9369506].Zmmz 02:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resim:Kurdistan_1896.jpg

Kurdistan-Corduene: BC 63

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resim:Kurdistan-Milattan_once_63_yili.jpg


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Col cat because it exists.  D iyako Talk + 17:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Reply
"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)

Google Search does not provide any evidence. We need evidence that there is infact an organisation, or academic sources defining this geographical location as 'Turkish Kurdistan' --Kash 11:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute?
What's the problem here? Please point out specific sentences and paragraphs. AucamanTalk 23:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * The issue of Kurds in turkey has its own article. this article is on the turkish part of a geographical area called Kurdistan.  D iyako Talk + 09:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * I said it's not on Kurds it's on a place is it hard to understand?!! I don't believe so.  D iyako Talk + 10:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please provide evidence --Kash 11:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.  D iyako Talk + 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should be merged as well. It is in the best intrest of the subject matter.Zmmz 17:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Greater Iran!!
Also remember there is no greater Iran recognized by Turkish Republic but the term has its own article.  D iyako Talk + 08:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What has Turkey got to do with Greater Iran? Stop posting nonsense. --Kash 11:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is Eastern turkey part of your Greater Iran or not?!  D iyako Talk + 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed
That the term is disputed is indeed a main characteristic about Turkish Kurdistan, that should be mentioned in order to keep it NPOV. Therefore I believe it deserves a place in the introduction. I invite the editors who have expressed strong sentiments against the term to reformulate the sentence, in order to summarize briefly the reasons for the strong feelings against the term (maybe that it is perceived as seperatism). Bertilvidet 07:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The term is used even in encyclopedias.
 * http://www.iranica.com/articles/sup/Ahmad_e_Kani.html
 *  D iyako Talk + 10:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Diyako, what is your argument? Yes it is used in encyclopedias, and many people define the place they live as Turkish Kurdistan. So obviously it it relevant to have this article. But nonetheless the term is highly disputed. Don't we agree on that? Bertilvidet 12:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes off course, I did not mean that disagree with you, just provided the link for those people who claimed it is a neologim. D iyako Talk + 12:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree on that. The name of category must be Kurds in Turkey. Republic of Turkey isn't a federal managed country. So, Turkish kurdistan is just an absolute non-sense. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this article. But in order to write a good and balanced article, it is rather disturbing that the issue of the article's raison d'être is raised continuously in every debate. I guess it hasn't been done - so my I suggest you to propose the article for deletion instead of obstructing the work on its improvement. Then we'll take the general debate about the article there, while working on its improvement here! Silawkirdin/Saygılar Bertilvidet 17:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If nationalist let us to do that, I agree with you. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be better for all parts to reach an agreement if we should have the article or not. Bertilvidet 18:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * if we are to agree, I must take your attention to category name of it. We must replace it with Kurds in Turkey, secondly, we should delete some nationalistic sentences.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is to move large parts of the article to a new article [ Kurds in Turkey ] and write on other sides of the area instead. D iyako Talk + 19:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to create that article by moving stuff from this one.  D iyako Talk + 19:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Great idea, --Kash 22:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we open an article like ' Kurdish Diaspora ', then we can put all info of it.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 16:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Could be relevant with such an article, this is however another subject than Turkish Kurdistan so it can not replace it. Bertilvidet 10:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Syrian Kurdistan article currently been deleted and redirected to Kurds in Syria, same will be done with this one. Gather all the information in the Kurds in Turkey article.--Kagan the Barbarian 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A suggested solution
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)

Which articles should have the tag 'Category:Kurdistan'
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)


 * 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)

Draft table
''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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

In Turkey, there are general, provincial and municipal elections. People usually think in terms of the country, the 81 provinces and their specific municipality. The last general election was in 2002. Therefore, these 2004 figures are not only more recent but also, I would say, coherent with the panorama presented by the previous general elections. Provincial elections and municipal elections were held simultaneously. Provincial figures reflect the political choices of the voters better than the municipal ones. My choice for using the provincial figures instead of the municipal ones does not work to the disadvantage of any party. The party that was closest to promoting a Turkish K. agenda (let's say, people thinking in terms of a region whose mint they have struck themselves, with a name of their own preference) in these elections was the SHP (which is actually a tiny but nation-wide center-left party, and it that had struck a deal for the southeast with the HADEP-DEHAP pedigree for these elections). Any argument with an intention to relativize the definition of non-SHP voters can also be countered by arguments, possibly in stronger terms, for defining the SHP-voter profile as well. In Turkey, it is obligatory to vote in elections (you can vote blank if you want to, but you have to go to the polls), therefore, I would say, that the popular political viewpoint trends are rather well reflected in the numbers that come out of these polls (without having to draw comparisons with elsewhere). I start from the southeastern tip of the country and confine the figures to those parties that scored over 10 % in a given province, unless otherwise relevant or interesting. Very briefly, AKP is the party in power in Turkey, DYP is national center-right, CHP is national center-left, SP is religious-right, MHP is Turkish nationalist-right.

--Cretanforever 14:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

IT IS A DISASTER!
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)

3rd paragraph & Turkey not being a federation
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)

What is the point of this article?

 * 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)


 * 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)
 * A very contraversial name... So what part of this is not a POV fork? -- Cat out 01:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe we have discussed this topic intensely at the article's most recent AfD, see Articles_for_deletion/Turkish_Kurdistan. Bertilvidet 16:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Sharafnama
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)


 * 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)

Neutrality
I feel article requires check from uninvolved parties. I have my visible pov regarding Kurdistan so I disqualify the job. Please let the template stay where it is untill article undergoes check. -- Cat out 20:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Cat you should disqualify. You are not for a neutral article, you are simply against the sole existence of the word "Kurdistan". We all know this :-) --Behemoth 20:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Personal referances is a blockable offense as per WP:NPA. Please cease discussing me or anyone and focus on content of article. -- Cat out 20:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for your wikipolicing activity :-P --Behemoth 20:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not policing. Merely pointing out policy. Is there a reason for me to "police" you? -- Cat out 20:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Policy, police...the same etymology, the same purpose. --Behemoth 20:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... No, one intends to inform you another is a from of enforcement. There is a striking difference as you might agree. Anyways this conversation is most useless and I intend to discontinue it. -- Cat out 21:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This has already been asked and answered in the debate in Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan. I see no purpose in reopening this question - the Wikipedia community has already given its views - so I'm removing the tag. -- ChrisO 21:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia comunity also declared a sister article, Syrian Kurdistan, with similar content to be deleted (for being a POV fork). The vote in question was subject to vote stacking. -- Cat out 21:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Both sides attempted to manipulate the vote, and a number of votes were excluded because of this. Nonetheless, the remaining votes were a clear majority in favour. As for the vote on Syrian Kurdistan, each article under discussion is considered under its own merits. The outcome of that vote didn't - and shouldn't - automatically affect the outcome of the one on this article. -- ChrisO 22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I should also add that a POV-title template requires someone to actually state what's POV about the title, which I note that Cool Cat hasn't done (yet?). -- ChrisO 22:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I wanted this discussion to proceed without my interference and input since I have pov on the matter. Here are my reasons (they may be biased):
 * Kurdistan is a highly contraversial term on its own. Definition and borders of Kurdistan is vaigue (the cited sources conflict each other). We should try to evade controversial titles if it is possible and I feel it is.
 * Since this article is talking only about kurds and their history, the article should have a title accordingly. Article does not describe a cultural/geographic region as it claims in lead. It is more about a brief history of various kurdish nationalist movents with various political boundaries.
 * Also geograpic/cultural regions cannot be divided by artificial borders. Kurdistan when considered as a geographic/cultural region it should all be in one article: Kurdistan.
 * -- Cat out 23:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the way how you "disqualify" Coolcat. You have been a fervent campaigner to scratch the word "Kurdistan" in this encyclopaedia and a constant POV pusher and now you talk about the sacred notion of "neutrality". I wonder what will come next :-D --Behemoth 07:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Flying pigs? ;) &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 11:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

subjective propaganda
The page is quite disputed, cause it does not rely on scientific arguments. The main of aim this article is to promote Turkish-Kurdish hostility.

disputed
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

KURDS CAN SEPARATE
Kurds can separate from GREAT TURKEY,they can separate without any land,they can whereever they want to go,hell or heaven.BUT no Turkic terretory for kurdophones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.140.194.101 (talk • contribs).

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)

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&amp;Act3! (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2009 (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 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)


 * 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)
 * 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 DenizTC 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. DenizTC 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. DenizTC 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).

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)

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". [] --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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.115.144 (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

Hey! Are we trying to learn the truth or write an imagined history here??? This Kurdistan article, particulalry with Erzurum shown in "Kurdistan (!)" is the summary of how American politicians look at the future of Turkey. We the Turks should open our eyes to the widest possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.221.51 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

% s are so funny only in siwas malatya are kurds not so in majorty
% 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)

lol
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)

Exactly. Did you also notice that non of them wrote anything about iraqi turkistan or anatolian turkistan .instead, they ve  just  changed  the  name of  (10 000years old)  anatolia to  some   fake  racist nazi   name. today,   the land of turkey is located on anatolia  and thats it. like it or not. go to eastern turkey or western turkey  land of anatolia is turkey. you can write down your racist fasictic nazi ideas in  wikipedia but anatolia will always be anatolia and that land is now turkey  not something else.

Turkish Kurdistan is wrong
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)

Deleting the page
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)

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)

Ardahan, Erzurum, Erzincan... Kürtler bu şehirlerde çoğunluk filan değiller. Katliamdan önce de çoğunlukta değillerdi, sonra da çoğunluğa erişemediler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Çatalyürek (talk • contribs) 12:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Northern Kurdistan another name for "turkish Kurdistan"
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)

Immediate modifications need to be made to this page
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)


 * 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)

Incorrect Title, the correct term is South-East Anatolia
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)

Nonsense map
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)


 * 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)

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.
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)


 * 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 &#124; Say Shalom! 9 Adar 5775 16:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --109.102.18.90 (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)If a term exists on the level of public speech, it exists as a term. It is not a country, not even an officially recognized region of Turkey, it is an expression only, but as an expression, it exists. The article should be completed with the Turkish official attitude, but I think that the explanation for the expression itself has its place in the Wikipedia. And I am nor Turkish, nor Kurd. I am neutral.

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)

Says a Turkish ultra-nationalist. Kurdistan has been there for centuries. What do you expect? Closing our eyes the reality of Kurdistan in (nowadays) Turkey? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.82.170 (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion
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)


 * Wait, what? You put up a tag for it to be deleted and it's something you don't want? Anyway...

Does this article even have a single source to justify its existence under this title? A single credible source that uses the term "Turkish Kurdistan" The article itself only uses it four times, two of those being its title. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep? Not entirely sure what going on here.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 1 Nisan 5775 00:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep? Where does it say that Turkish Kurdistan is a country? - Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it should be removed. --Ahmetyal (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Just made a Google Scholar search. There is more than enough credible sources to justify an article with this name

So, so wrong Kurdish populated map.
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)
 * 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)
 * Worm That Turned - Please check this Antmqr (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The border of Kurdistan
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.





We have to add this informations to identify the border of Turkish Kurdistan.Antmqr (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)

"Borders of historical Kurdistan" map


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)


 * 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)

Encylopedia of Islam description
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)


 * 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)

Read carefully please. At this point, we are not discussing what provinces are part of Turkish Kurdistan, only what provinces Encylopedia of Islam says are part of Turkish Kurdistan. It is important that you understand the difference. As for Ardahan and Iğdır, these were not provinces in the 1980s, but districts of the Kars province. From the next paragraph in the article:

This sentence implies that Encylopedia of Islam's description predates 1987. So not only are you falsifying a source when you insert this and that province in that description, but also you are causing a logical fallacy in the article. Please stop doing that. --Mttll (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Demographic changes
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)

Inward migration
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)

Deletion of the map of Kurdish speaking area according to census 1965
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Map, Census, etc.
This is extremely problematic. First it is visually unappealing to have three maps that are only slightly different featured one after another on the page. The fact that one is from 1992 and two are from 1965 does not change that. Second the CIA report linked to the first picture is problematic. It is 1) not a source for the map used. 2) Refers to the Kurdish minority (not the Kurdish majority) and "Kurdish sector" It also states that the term Kurdistan is a nebulous one, and that the "majority of Kurdish people" live in Kurdistan - which seems to be being confused with "Kurdish majority" - it also says there is no reliable basis for estimating the Kurdish population. 3) I will say the 1965 Census is dated and its likely that many more people speak Turkish in southeastern Turkey today then did in 1965. Turkish being your mother tongue does not mean you are not ethnic Kurdish. Being ethnic Kurdish does not mean you are not Turkish. It is a question of self-identity and self-determination, and a language census is not a sufficient citation for this - probably language education in the region did have an impact on regional identity politics WP:OR

Is the choice "Turkish or Kurdish?" a valid way to frame the lead, article and photographs? - secondary sources are needed. 4) I removed the lead photo for now, the caption and map fail verification, we need a citation verify the photo is from the CIA. 5) The photo of PKK flag was removed with the reason given "This page is not about Turkish-Kurdish conflict." The conflict is discussed in the body, and so is PKK, please see WP:NOTABILITY WP:LEAD Seraphimsystem (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't add every image to the "LEAD" just because it is "mentioned" on the article. It is nonsensial. The article is about a geographical area and PKK flag is irrevelant, at least for the lead. 78.167.142.225 (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The maps need to be cited and the 1965 census is dubious, not least of all because there have been major demographic changes in the region as a result of the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Syria. I did not restore the flags, but I explained above some needed work and reimprove that would benefit this article. Southeastern Anatolia Region has a page, so it seems this article is about mostly about editorial politics, and that fact is not improved by the reliance on primary sources and failed verification of sources.


 * I added PKK flag, instead of only the Turkish flag, because I thought it was WP:NPOV to include both flags and because other regional pages have flags in the lead - see Iraqi Kurdistan - which flag do you think I should have used? I agree a map could be more appropriate, but three maps showing three different regions is not helpful. We should choose one that is recent and can be referenced and use that. Seraphimsystem (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are creating a straw man now. You are the one who added both Turkish and PKK flags to the lead and now arguing that adding only the Turkish flag is NPOV. In addition, you are the one who suggested to use "only Turkish flag" and after a very short time, you said that it is NPOV. Go figure! Also, why do you think it is necessary to use "flags"? Iraqi Kurdistan has a flag on the lead because, differing from Turkish Kurdistan, it is a recognized authonomous region. Turkish Kurdistan is not even a "de-facto" region. 78.167.142.225 (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read my comments before responding, I am not pushing to add the flags. I don't want to have a political debate. The map you posted failed verification, I have removed it. You seem more interested in fighting with me about politics then working on the page so I am going to refer you to WP:FORUM Seraphimsystem (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have just mentioned your nonsensical edits. I don't think it violates WP:FORUM. And none of my comments are about "politics". By the way, I am trying to read your "comments" before responding but you are keep changing your comments above and it is impossible to follow your "revisions". Please use the preview function and stop continually revising your comments. 78.167.142.225 (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Addition: I am adding this, since you, "again", revised your comment above: The map was not uploaded by me and I am not the one who added this map to the page. I just restored it a few hours ago, because the same map is not used 3 times in the article, as you stated on the edit summary. 78.167.142.225 (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The CIA map fails verification, and I will remove it. This issue has been raised previously on the talk page (Ardahan, Kars, etc.) and on the wikicommons page. Seraphimsystem (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You suggested a "current" map for the region and added a map from 1880s? 78.167.142.225 (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't find a better one that is not copyrighted. It should be a map of the region. The reason I can't find a map of the region is because there is no such official map. The closest thing is probably Sevres, and I decided putting that in the lead would most likely cause problems. The boundaries of the region are not determined by the languages spoken there - there are parts of Istanbul and Ankara that you would have to include in this definition of Kurdistan. A lot has changed in Turkey since 1965. Please review WP:GOODFAITH. Seraphimsystem (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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


 * no, Torul youre not true. is youre thinking which came from 100 before now... Ibrahim aziz (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It is obviously big lie, it is not offical nor unoffical. It is just someone's made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.111.176 (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No such thing
I'm living in Turkey and I know lots of minority people, but I didn't heard anything like "Turkish Kurdistan" even once. Not from any ethnic group because there is no such thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.111.176 (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well if you say it they it must be true ~ Zirguezi 14:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support putting this page up for a second AfD. The source that was used to justify naming the region "Turkish Kurdistan" comes only from the Encyclopaedia of Islam. There is no consistency among the sources about the boundaries of the region, and the article is full of SYN from sources that talk about the region, but don't call it Turkish Kurdistan. At best, this page could be a history of the term "Turkish Kurdistan" -don't know if there are enough sources to justify it, and WP:NAD - I'm quite surprised this one source was enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:AT in the first AfD, but I was not involved in that AfD and I would like to have another discussion. I've tried working on the page, and the WP:SYNTH and content disputes mainly stem from a title that doesn't meet policy guidelines.


 * I'm not endorsing the political statement above, but I reviewed the AfD, and the fact that one source out of many calls it "Turkish Kurdistan" should not have been enough for the page to have survived the AfD process.  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 18:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before. I can't find the discussion in the archive. Perhaps it was on a different page. Regardless, the consensus then was that the term Turkish Kurdistan is being used by scientific sources and media but that the boundaries have not been defined, which should IMO be mentioned in the articles. But nominating it for deletion is a bit over the top. We have lots of articles on territories that have not been defined, which is in itself subjective. I also remember a lot more sources for the term. Perhaps they've been removed over time. I'll try to add them back. ~ Zirguezi 20:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I read the discussion, my recollection is there was no clear consensus, so it was kept. Also, it was largely based on one source. If you can find other sources, please post them in a reasonable time. Without additional information, I disagree that a second round of AfD is over the top. With regards to Turkey banning Wikipedia - I don't find it a credible action, but it is also tough to throw stones when your own slate is not clean. Many editors raised the issue at the first AfD that this was politically motivated - the article is all WP:OR sources that do not use the term "Turkish Kurdistan" - it seems to have been put up as some misguided form of WP:POINTY and then neglected. I think enough time has passed for a second discussion. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 20:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically one source is enough as long as it's credible, but I agree. A term as controversial as this should have multiple sources. I'm going through the archives now looking for them. I'm not sure at who the Turkey banning Wikipedia comment is addressed as I didn't mention anything about it and don't see how it's related. If you want to nominated it for deletion based on a lack of sources then I propose to at least wait until I add the sources and then decide for yourself. ~ Zirguezi 20:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * About Turkey banning Wikipedia, I have noticed significant editorial bias in articles about Turkey and Turkish history - poorly sourced or unsourced additions that stay in articles for years, endless arguments that cherry-pick and misrepresent Lemkin, etc. Orientalism is generally a major challenge for everyone who is interested in the history of Turkey and the Ottoman Empire. Part of this stems from the fact that we don't have many Turkish editors. But I don't think Turkey's action is justifiable - even if there was major improvement and more Turks were involved editors, I don't think that improvement would be consistent with the changes the regime wants to see. That said I welcome the addition of WP:RS to this article - of course, they should be more about modern Turkey, and not the Ottoman Empire, which is historically a distinct concept. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Poorly sourced and biased articles are a problem for the whole of Wikipedia. It seems that unless there is a dedicated group of people maintaining a topic the articles will eventually fall in quality. Which is a shame as there are many interesting articles there.

Here are the sources. It seems I can't add the specific phrases to the source template so here are the phrases for each source: ______
 * De Vos, H., Jongerden, J., & Van Etten, J. (2008). Images of war: Using satellite images for human rights monitoring in Turkish Kurdistan. Disasters, 32(3), 449-466.
 * Gündoğan, C. (2002). From Traditionalism to Modernism, The Transformation of the Kurdish Nationalist Movement in Turkey in the Case of Democratic Party of Turkish Kurdistan. Undergraduate Thesis, Stockholm University, Department of Social Anthropology.
 * Nevo, E., Beiles, A., & Kaplan, D. (1988). Genetic diversity and environmental associations of wild emmer wheat in Turkey. Heredity, 61(1), 31-45.
 * Forty-eight enzyme loci were assayed in 157 individual plants representing four populations of T. t. dicoccoides, across a transect of 90 km in Turkish Kurdistan.
 * Van Bruinessen, M. (1988). Between guerrilla war and political murder: The Workers' Party of Kurdistan. Middle East Report, (153), 40-50.
 * It wanted a good working relationship with an organisation in Turkish Kurdistan
 * and the consequent repression has worsened in many parts of Turkish Kurdistan.
 * The KDP claims that since then the PKK fighters have been staying inside Turkish Kurdistan.
 * Rund, D., Cohen, T., Filon, D., Dowling, C. E., Warren, T. C., Barak, I., ... & Oppenheim, A. (1991). Evolution of a genetic disease in an ethnic isolate: beta-thalassemia in the Jews of Kurdistan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 88(1), 310-314.
 * In Turkish Kurdistan, the primary mechanism is genetic admixture with the local(...)
 * Van Bruinessen, M. (1996). Kurds, Turks and the Alevi revival in Turkey. Middle East Report, 7-10.
 * An ethnically and religiously mixed arc forms a transitional zone between Turkish Kurdistan and the rest of the country.
 * Fuller, G. E. (1993). The fate of the Kurds. Foreign affairs, 108-121.
 * The British helped foment trouble in Turkish Kurdistan in the 1920s
 * Gunter, M. M. (2004). The Kurdish question in perspective. World Affairs, 166(4), 197-205.
 * In addition, Dimili (Zaza) also is spoken in parts of Turkish Kurdistan, and Gurani is spoken in sections of Iraqi and Iranian Kurdistan.
 * Davis, P. H. (1956). Lake Van and Turkish Kurdistan: A Botanical Journey. The Geographical Journal, 122(2), 156-165.
 * Other than the sources above Google Scholar returns 1,220 results. Some of these are false hits but most are legitimate use of the term. Included are articles dating back to 1956(perhaps even further) and covering a lot of disciplines including nature sciences and political sciences. I'll start adding them to the article. ~ Zirguezi 21:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * How should we define the boundaries of the region and scope of the current article? The current definition we are implicitly working with "Kurdistan is a region where Kurdish is spoken" (my words) is flawed, and doesn't take major demographic changes into account. Dated sources include provinces of Turkey in the North that are not commonly considered Kurdish reagions. Also, despite being used in scholarly sources, I'm not sure those sources give us enough to justify a stand alone article. How will they be worked into the article? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have a source that clearly defines the boundaries which you think is representative you're more than welcome to add it. But as I said above, the term is subjective and therefore there is IMO no clear definition, which is fine. The term itself doesn't need to have a clear boundary to be used. This should be mentioned in the article. I think it definitely deserved it's own article. The fact that so many sources use it shows that there is justification for it. I'm trying to make it clear that the term itself is controversial and therefore has different meaning based on context. I'll use the sources to back this claim up. For now I have:  ~ Zirguezi 21:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, there has been significant disagreement on this page over the inclusion of areas like Ardahan and Kars, and a map that has been drawn from a CIA source - where the source itself is drawn in a way that is fairly unclear and difficult to interpret. My position is that including these northern provinces as part of "Kurdistan" is also an extraordinary claim that would need to be justified by more then just a single CIA source. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Zirguezi, thank you for your work on this; it may well have laid the groundwork for future discussions. In the meantime (I know, this was two years ago), Seraphim System has been blocked for socking, the socks apparently having been created to push specific POVs. In other words, recent events cast doubt on the neutrality of all their previous work. See Sockpuppet investigations/Seraphim System. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/ c 18:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Turkish Kurdistan → Kurds in Eastern Turkey – Kurds live in Eastern Turkey and not „Turkish Kurdistan“ (the term is politically motivated and is used only by Kurdish nationalists). Coron Arol (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * and the formulations should also be changed to:

Coron Arol (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unhelpful move for our readers. Also, i don't see how "Turkish Kurdistan is politically motivated and used by Kurdish nationalists" ... ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  17:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Turkish Kurdistan is even used by Western scholars to describe the Kurdish-inhabitated parts of the country.Google Books SearchGoogle Scholar Search --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: Article titles is the relevant policy here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see how it is politically motivated and the section above this one has a whole list of academic sources that use the term apolitically. ~ Zirguezi 19:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is on a geographic region, not a group of people living in said geographic area. The terminology has been used by numerous academic sources and news media to refer to areas in southeast Turkey with a large Kurdish pop. Here are some refrences taken from an earlier revision of the page, that were used to establish its use:      -Thespündragon 23:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, It is not rational to name a part of a country to a globally non-accepted name. For example, can we call the southwestern areas inhabied by forty-one million Spanish-speakers of the UnitedStates as U.S. Hispania or American Hispania??? Or large areas in western Canada as Canadan France?!! I think the name should be modified to a better name, for example; Kurdish-speaking areas in Turkey. SHADEGAN (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We do in fact have a page on the region of the United States in the southwest inhabited by Chicanos, using the common nationalist name Aztlán. -Thespündragon 23:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2020
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. 212.73.172.172 (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ - 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)

adding
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)

lies are written on it.
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)

Konli17's OR
, 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)
 * Yes, it's all in the article. Konli17 (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

, I agree about adapting on all parts, "jurisdiction" etc is just ridiculous as if Turkey is occupying this area. Beshogur (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't it? Has it left? Konli17 (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What? You are really confusing a geographical area with a country. Beshogur (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Konli17 (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Turkish Kurdistan is not a country. Beshogur (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)

UN is Turkish nationalist? Beshogur (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems to be more accommodating to Turkish nationalists than Kurdish nationalists. Konli17 (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2021
I would like to add an informative graph:. BlueSisyphus (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The Turkish censuses are known for being unreliable and understate the % of Kurdish speakers. --Semsûrî (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Evidence, please? BlueSisyphus (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Greetings. I have set the edit request as answered per the template: Remember to change the answered parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. 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 prominence of placement 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)