Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:21, 5 March 2006

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 Cat 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.

Diyako Talk + 18:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute?

What's the problem here? Aucaman 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

Diyako 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

Diyako 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)

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

Diyako 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)

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 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? Aucaman 19:05, 4 March 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 recognize a Kurdistan as a 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 .[[ .Zmmz 02:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Kurdistan-Corduene: BC 63

http://tr.wikipedia.org/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? Aucaman 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. Aucaman 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 Cat 17:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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