Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

There's been sockpuppetry going on here which the closing admin will need to consider. Please be advised that the user of sockpuppets in a deletion debate is a blockable offense and highly frowned upon. Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was to keep the nominated articles. -- ChrisO 07:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Kurdistan and Iranian Kurdistan

Page should be deleted and redirect to Kurds in Turkey etc..

A similar nomination has recently taken place and result was:

The result of the debate was Delete and Redirect. I considered relisting this, but it's had 14 days already and I think on strength of argument (particularly regarding the page's status as a POV fork) there is a consensus to redirect it. I've taken "redirect" to mean in this context "delete and redirect", given that there's no point in just replacing a contentous POV fork with a soft redirect that can be undone with a couple of mouse clicks. kingboyk 13:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I'm being quoted a little out of context here. The above was my summary of a debate which I closed. Therefore they're not my words, but an interpretation of what the community said in a different debate. In no way am I an expert on this issue nor do I claim to be. --kingboyk 11:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. According to Encyclopaedia of Islam, south-eastern parts of Turkey are called Turkish Kurdistan, which covers 17 provinces of Turkey [1]. Heja Helweda 22:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is still a pov fork. The question is why should it be separate from Kurds in Turkey--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the terms listed are in general use. Turkish Kurdistan and Iranian Kurdistan return 27,000 and 80,000 google hits, respectively. The terms are used by many people, not just Kurds. Iranian Kurdistan has been used in numerous sources, such as [2],[3],[4],[5],[6], [7] and in Academic sources such as [8].Heja Helweda 22:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt explain why that can't be done with a redirect. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Kurdistan by definition is a geographic region, and it spans several countries. This is different from Kurds here and there, since the term Kurd refers to a group of people not a region. So Turkish Kurdistan which is a region can not be redirected to Kurds in Turkey, a group of people. It's like redirecting apples to oranges.Heja Helweda 23:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me it's a bit more like redirecting apple orchard to apple tree. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect. I don't think there is much to discuss when we have the Syrian Kurdistan example in front of us. It is the same situation, the same argument and I propose the same solution, delete and redirect to Kurds in Turkey.--Kagan the Barbarian 22:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete.There is no state such as Kurdistan.That's just a seperatist propaganda and it must be deleted.Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda...Inanna 21:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until we have a general discussion of how to handle ethic groups, ethnic minorities, separatists or irredentist claims, etc. Problems seem to be endemic in Middle Eastern/Central Asian/South Asian articles, and deserve a broader consideration. I plan to raise the topic at the Village Pump. Handling these matters as a series of pitched battles between proponents of various nationalisms, as edit or AfD wars, leads to constant simmering conflict. Zora 22:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. As per Cool Cat and Adkagansu. --ManiF 22:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect we can disscuss this ethnic group in kurds of turkey. Kurdistan is just a confusion in minds. since there is no place called kurdistan. Zora, he is just saving mind by sayin keep it until..., it is the second time that I am voting for its deletion.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 22:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or rename them to Northern Kurdistan and Eastern Kurdistan. There is a large Kurdistan according to every encyclopedias and reliable sources but due to anti-Kurdish political reasons these countries are afraid of recognozing these regions; so the terms Northern and Eastern which are non-political and just geographical terms and do not need regognation by any turk seem to be more neutral and proper. Diyako Talk + 22:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  How is the presence of this article "more neutral" when everyone but some Kurds are dening the existance of the regions? There exists a contraversial region known as Kurdistan and it has its own article. The question still is why should Turkish Kurdistan be separate from Kurds in Turkey?

  You are entitled to your POV about countries being afraid. While I dont share the POV, I do not see how that is relevant to this AfD.

  --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  Because people and region are too defferent issues. Diyako Talk + 23:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  But people live in the region. anything relevant to kurdish people in Turkey can be in Kurds in Turkey. Region stuff that is relevant to other people as wellas kurds can go to approporate articles related to Turkey rather than being redundent coppies of information on this article. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  You are trying to divide Turkey into geopolitical segments that don't exist. There are 15 million Kurds in Turkey spread everywhere in the country, there is a SE region in Turkey where Kurdish population are the majority but there is no such state, province, city as Turkish Kurdistan.--Kagan the Barbarian 23:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  Correction. It has been claimed that way. No census was held establishing ethnicity. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  True, I don't have any source concerning ethnic population in SE Turkey. It is just general belief.--Kagan the Barbarian 23:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  It is not a city, It is a ethnographic, cultural, and historical...etc region which Turkish governmant politically has not recognized it and this has been clearly stated in the article. It is the same as article Kurdistan but more zoomed. Diyako Talk + 23:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  Thats fascinating. Why is it necesary? Stuff about Kurds in Turekey have its own article.

  Kurdistan is obviously a pov title that may be disputed at least by the United Nations and all member states. One article about Kurdistan is fair enough.

  If it is same as Kurdistan you'd agree at its redundetness, right?

  --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  Probably you should try to remove Kurdistan article altogether. If there is Kurdistan page, then there can be articles about its different parts.Heja Helweda 23:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  I dont follow that logic. If there is an article about Albert Einstein (which no one disputes his existance) does that mean there can be articles about parts of Albert Einstein? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  What about Turkistan? I don't see Uzbek Turkistan, Kazakh Turkistan or Turkmen Turkistan? Even Chinese Turkistan redirects to Xinjiang.--Kagan the Barbarian 23:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Diyako, Kurdish ethnicity and culture are everywhere in Turkey. Except for the Black Sea region, there is hardly any city in Turkey without a Kurdish population. There are more Kurds in Istanbul, Izmir, Ankara combined than in whole SE Turkey. You are promoting seperatist undertones in Wikipedia. There is no good faith to assume.--Kagan the Barbarian 23:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect.It looks like it returns 27000 results but if you go to the last page of results you'll see that actual count is around 600, rest being repetitions of it on the same site[9]. And most of them are Kurdish sources. Sites like kurdistan.org, kurdistan bloggers, etc. have high repeat count of it. It is just a term made up. --levent 23:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

NO what 600? more, you spelled it with small numbers!!! Heja helweda is right: [10] 27000 also yahoo [11] hits these without repetition. Diyako Talk + 01:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

These sources are using the term Turkish Kurdistan, and they are obviously not Kurdish: Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research, Institute on Southeastern Europe, Al-Ahram Newspaper(Egypt), Marco Cavallini, Anitwar.com, Eurasia Research, [12], New Dawn Magazine, Christian Science Monitor, World History Archives, Planetware.com, United Press International, Le Monde Diplomatique, The Nation, Council on Foreign Relations, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Jewish Encyclopaedia, Assyrian International News Agency, The Jamestown Foundation Prism, German Cinema, United Nations Commission on Human Rights, ABC Australia, Global Defense Review, Z Magazine, The Boston Globe, Turkish Weekly, Corriere della Sera, Universtity of Stockholm (Department of Linguistics), World Music Institute, The Guardian. Heja Helweda 00:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, you have a Kurdistan and a Kurds in Turkey article, more than enough for you to cover everything there is to say. We redirect Turkish Kurdistan to Kurds in Turkey and people still get the information they need. I very well know why you are stuck with names, that's the exact same reason I want this article to be deleted.--Kagan the Barbarian 00:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Click on the link you gave above (#10), then click on the last page of results (page 10). And you'll see a note at the bottom (In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 674 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.). Now click on the link at that note[13] and you'll see the repetitions I am talking about. Actual count is not 27000, it is 674. --levent 11:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with all the critics presented of course. This is a place for sharing knowledge - also about terms that some may find unpleasant. Bertilvidet 00:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  I agree Wikipedia is for information and I understand where you are coming but we already have a Kurds in Turkey article, there is no need for this. I am asking for deletion and redirect, not to silence them eternally.--Kagan the Barbarian 00:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Kurdistan is a geographic place. Tazmaniacs 01:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Valid encyclopaedic topic. --Mais oui! 01:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Valid topic. It's obvious that bias is involved in this nomination and the delete votes. Scranchuse 01:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is becoming pathologic, and POV pushers don't expect me to even answer. Turkish Kurdistan is an accepted term, it IS an encyclopedic term, it is a term which has been used for quite some time, just like terms 'Ottoman Armenia' or 'Russian Armenia.' And for those googlers that relies on google to establish the notability of a term, Lord Kinross, which Turkish nationalists like to quote in every given occasion that Ataturk is cricised DO call it such, a discussion published in The Geographical Journal Vol. 122, No. 2 (June., 1956) p. 166, Lake Van and Turkish Kurdistan: A Botanical Journey: Discussion by James Marshall-Cornwall; Lord Kinross attest to that. This Wikipedia-wide Turkish ultranationalism is really becoming a disease. Just recently Smyrnas material allegedly under the pretext of dumping it to be merged on Izmir, ended up as a pretext to DELETE the entire section regarding the fire. That they have sliced the criticism on Ataturk pages, that they have gotten parasitically involved in Greek, Armenian and Kurdish matters as far as screwing and scrapping the Armenian genocide article is not enought, they even had to recruit ultranationalists. BTW Coolcat, you were right on one thing, you indeed were not Karabekir, your alter ego Tommiks was, the Tommiks who rearranged, sliced and screwed the entire integrity of the Ottoman Empire related articles and who worked in tandem with you. As for my ranting, sorry, I can't help it, after what I have learned in those two days about the 'Call for Turks' in the 10s Febuary, 2006, to invade those articles made my two days(I have my sources). Also, if I were you, I would start accumulating the evidences, since right now, I have 14 pages of evidences that would discredit you, Tommiks, Ottomanreference, Karabekir and some I'd like to not name here right now, for good..., so it would be a good idea for you to stop requesting Kurdish related articles deletions and start accumulating evidences against me, sine in few days my research will be completed Fad (ix) 01:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Yes it is an accepted term. Your entier post does not explain why this article is necesary. Simply the term can reditrect to Kurds in Turkey just like Syrian Kurdistan. Oh and talking about pov pushers... article is a pov fork. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 02:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Kurdistan is a geographic name, hence different than an ethnic name like Kurds in Turkey. Geography is not the same as ethnicity. Heja Helweda 02:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen you even debate when articles such as anti-Turkism, which are not quite notable were created, have you even requested a merging with the article about Turkish people? Besides what you say doesn't make much sense, this article exist, the term is notable, and doesn't apear to be to be expended article. There are articles of three lines which are accepted and no one even question if they should be merged. STOP IT! Don't you guys not realise that this is WIKIPEDIA and an apolotical encyclopedia? You would be the first, if Greek, Armenian or Kurd nationalists were to go on searching after any Turkish related articles to remove or add whatever they want, but yet, THIS IS EXACTLY what is happening there with ultranationalists like you. Fad (ix) 02:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I am just simple plain Cool Cat. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I created this article because it became useful in the 3rd paragraph of the Kurdistan article. It receives 26,700 Google hits and is well-notable. It is also sourced. I'm not sure why people want it deleted. No convincing reason has been given. The article Kurds in Turkey is about Kurds, a people. This article is about a region. Aucaman^Talk 02:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This term is not notable because of google, google alone does not confirm notability. Turkish Kurdistan is notable, because it has been c alled such in various different works and for decades, that google was there to confirm or contradict that won't change much in this cases. Fad (ix) 02:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

See the first "Keep" vote by Heja Helweda. The article is notable and term is used widely by Kurds and non-Kurds. Cool Cat is saying it should be deleted because it belongs to Kurds of Turkey, not because it's not notable. Aucaman^Talk 02:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, I just clarified that this article should be kept because it is a notable subject, and not only because google say so. Fad (ix) 03:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is reliable info. about the definition of the term: Turkish Kurdistan covers at least 17 provinces of Turkey. In the north-east, the provinces of Erzincan, Erzurum and Kars; in the centre, going from west to east and from north to south, the provinces of Malatya, Tunceli, Elazig, Bingöl, Muş, Agri, then Adiyaman, Diyarbakir, Siirt, Bitlis and Van; finally, the southern provinces of Urfa, Mardin and Çölamerik (Hakkari). Encyclopaedia of Islam. Heja Helweda 02:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

People will still get their information; the page will redirect to Kurds in Turkey. Having a standalone article about Turkish Kurdistan is suggesting it has a geopolitic existence which we all know is false. What will you do when in future Turkish government decides to name SE Turkey, well, Disneyland? Call Turkish PM and complain "Oi mate, we already named it Turkish Kurdistan for ya, what you doin!"?

You have Kurdistan, you have Kurds in Turkey, more than enough, don't divide countries into nonexisting segments. God, I wonder if people are even reading these before voting.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Geography is an obvious subtopic within the broader topic. Hawkestone 05:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Arbusto 07:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since there are some specific features. Turkish, Iranian and Syrian Kurdistan pages have to reflect on the relationships with those national states. They are also major factors in the domestic politics and histories of those states. The geographical area is clearly different from the population in the state as a whole. As an British person, I think here of what the difference would be, pre-partition, in an article on Ireland and an article on the Irish in the United Kingdom. --Duncan 07:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Excuse me but this is ridicilous. What we have here is a travesty of democracy. Most of these people voting here are a mob directed here by Bertilvidet. He called/informed 16 Wikipedians here just so they can vote in favor of keeping this article. Is this going to be this way? Should I ask all my friends to create Wikipedia accounts? I called only 2 Wikipedians here because I knew they were hardcore about this subject, I could have called all Turkish Wikipedians instead.

  I briefly studied Law and if there is a lawyer here, he/she is free to correct me if I am wrong. In law, decisions taken in previous cases set an example for the latter, especially with judge made laws like here with admins. Now we have a previous case/a very similar, in fact identical case that is Syrian Kurdistan, verdict was delete and redirect. If we are going to keep this article, we need a really and I mean and stress really good reason, so Wikipedia can maintain its consistent pattern of behavior.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Syrian Kurdistan was a stub, one paragraph, but these articles are notable and are good articles. Diyako Talk + 10:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurds living in South Eastern Turkey must be examined as a part of Kurds in Turkey, it does not require a seperate article. If Syrian Kurdistan redirects to Kurds in Syria, if Chinese Turkistan redirects to Xinjiang then it is quite very normal to ask the same to be done with Turkish Kurdistan. Unlike you, I am asking for equality, not priviledge.--Kagan the Barbarian 10:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you still are confused with the mater. First, as people said above, Region and people are different. The article Turkish Kurdistan should include the history of the region and all politics directly related to it such as how Turks occupied it, and how they are destroying it and geographical stuff. The article Kurds in Turkey should be on the Kurdish people in Turkey and should discuss the facts that how this people are oppressed so that they have no right. they are told that they do not exist. They should be Turks! Is it clear now?Diyako Talk + 11:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Now at last, we are starting to see your true colors and where you are trying to lead all these good people to by pretending to have good faith. Shake the glass a little and watch the magic unfold, always works. You know, I live in Izmir and couple of days ago it was Nevruz, your opressed friends were trashing down the stores in Alsancak, probably the most beatiful district of Izmir, or was before your friends redecorated it, so I am not sure who's destroying whose property. It takes two to tango, you form and support militan groups that practice terrorism, you must bear the wrath that it will bring. As the Turkish proverb says "Who sowns wind, reaps storm". People like you are hurting Kurdish Turkish relations at an irrecoverable level, you are planting seeds of hatred between people.--Kagan the Barbarian 11:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The seed of hatred were planted 80 years ago by Turkish ultranationalists,geniciders and linguiciders who destroyed Anatolia. read history. Diyako Talk + 11:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, do you recommend any particular pro-Kurdish author or should I make my own research.

http://www.google.com.tr/search?hl=tr&q=turks+genocidal+maniacs+biji+kurdistan+blame+the+turks&btnG=Ara&meta=

Hey I got 3 hits.--Kagan the Barbarian 12:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Becuase maybe you cannot google or at least censor it!.

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Turkish_crimes_pictures.htm

Diyako Talk + 12:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:))) I know about this website. Check out its contact information: Mailing Address P.O. Box 9426 Glendale, CA 91206 . Yes, that Glendale, it is one of the many websites made by Armenians. Anyway, what's next? Hellenicnews.com?--Kagan the Barbarian 12:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep of course; for all of the affirmative reasons given above. --Moby 09:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. And please stop making Kurdish politics.--hakozen 09:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who wants information on the topic can easily find it on the internet, most of it will however be one-sided pro-Kurdish. An article here on Wikipedia will be a more balanced outcome of negotiations and compromises between different approaches (Kurds, Turks, Iranians and outsiders). Bertilvidet 11:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That just came from a person who spamed this vfd on over 15 talk pages. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

So far I ignore the personal attack in order to keep a friendly environment where we can work together despite disagreements. Bertilvidet 15:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes but some people see the word offensive to their biased POV therefore they want to censor it!!. Diyako Talk + 11:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

O yeah, shout "RAPE!!!", play the lady in distress, always works. Nobody is censoring anything, we are asking for it to redirect to Kurds in Turkey and information be moved there. I repeat, the exact same reason you want this name to stay is the exact same reason I want it deleted.--Kagan the Barbarian 11:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding, This fact that despite of existence of such a term Turkish government wants it be censored is notable enough and can be explained in the article.!!! Diyako Talk + 11:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to civility. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As already said, one thing is a region, one thing an ethnic group--Aldux 11:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Go to Kurdistan for the region, go to Kurds in Turkey for the people.--Kagan the Barbarian 11:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  The point is that it can be legitimately said that Turkish Kurdistan has a peculiar identity which differentiates it from Iranian or Syrian Kurdistan. It isn't also only the about the Kurds, but of all the people there, like the Turks; I know very well that the present article is very far from being satisfying, but this is only a good reason for working on it, not for deleting on it. This is my POV, naturally so as always I may be wrong.--Aldux 15:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Not worth commenting.  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 11:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Southeastern Anatolia, merge most of the content on the Kurdish Issue with Kurds in Turkey. If we agree that this article covers the geographical region, it shouldn't have this controversial naming. Turkish Kurdistan could be a disamb page, pointing the reader to the articles Southeastern Anatolia, Kurdistan and Kurds in Turkey . In the intro of southeastern Anatolia we should mention that a widely used but unofficial name for this region is Turkish Kurdistan.--Hippalus 18:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. In the past days, the article has been edited to change its focus from geography to the definition and history of the term. I think that it is now a correctly named article, that could exist next to a possible future Southeastern Anatolia which would cover the geographical region.--Hippalus 08:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Could be. I consider this another option.--Kagan the Barbarian 11:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect per Adkagansu --Raki-holic 12:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There aren't enough Turks to win a vote against the rest of the World so just drop it please. Bhoeble 14:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  This isnt war. We are here to debate weather or not this article is to stay or not. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Heh, you are not the world, you are just another lemmings following Bertilvidet's call for jihad. I praise Hippalus for taking the time to read the arguments and making a reasonable suggestion instead of just signing "Keep" and leaving like most of Bertilvidet's mujahideen here did.--Kagan the Barbarian 15:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  I'm amused by the insults ;-) Bertilvidet 15:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  I am glad you are entertained. But what you did violates Wikipedia:Vote Stacking. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  That's a proposed policy. IMO that proposed policy will fail... --Latinus 16:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  So it is aproporate to collect one sided votes? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  It is appropriate to inform users of the debate. Bertil did not tell me what to vote. He just informed me of a debate I did not know about - nothing wrong with that. It would be inappropriate for him to say "vote keep", but he didn't - he just linked to the AFD. Therefore, what he did was not a violation of that proposed policy. It allows that. --Latinus 18:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  The policy suggests:

  Notification of individuals on user pages, article talk pages or project pages should be done with care to remain neutral both in the message placed on and in the selection of users to notify. Notifing only people who you believe would agree with "your" position is a violation of this guideline.

  I stand corrected. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Good - because it would be a violation of WP:AGF to assume that Bertil was only notifying users that he believed would agree with him. --Latinus 20:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Legitimate subject. Alexander 007 15:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - appropriate naming and well written articles on existing and encyclopaedic topics. This is clearly not a case of POV fabrications. --Latinus 16:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Yet another one. ALLAH AKBAR!--Kagan the Barbarian 16:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  I prefer not to feed trolls. --Latinus 16:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, I realized, you prefer feeding those who have a beef with Turks instead. And you are not fooling anyone by handing out Barnstars to Turkish Wikipedians, cheap tricks Latinus, very cheap. I will counter your Greek POV pushing whenever, wherever.--Kagan the Barbarian 17:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  "Cheap tricks"? I'm afraid I was under the impression that I did have the right to make awards to users I admire. You see, not all Turkish users possess trollish characteristics, but are assets to Wikipedia and valuable contributors: Uğur Başak, TuzsuzDeliBekir etc... etc... BTW your trollish remark has been noted. Regards, my Turkish friend... --Latinus 17:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  How is it not a case of POV when the title is a contraversial region? Geez.. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  I wonder what the people who actually live there think - or does Ankara's POV carry more weight... --Latinus 16:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to know what are the differences between Kurdistan and Kurd in Turkey. They are the same articles. So why do some editors persist on keeping ? Welli I think it is because of politics. I haven't blamed anyone being hater of Turks, but I should start to think of it. Since there is no place called Kurdistan neither geog. nor politically and historically. It is just an unrealistic wish of Kurds. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 16:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And Greater Albania is an unrealistic wish of the Albanians. Alexander 007 16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Greater Albania ? What is that ? --TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

For comparison: Greater Albania, main article; Chameria, an adjunct. Kurdistan, main article; Turkish Kurdistan, an adjunct. Alexander 007 17:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is a Kurdistan article. There is no French Germany article or Spanish Albenia...

Heja Helweda suggests its just a geographic region. What you say does not agree with his claim. Hence the nature of the dispute.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There are no realities to support French Germany (fiction) or Spanish Albenia (fiction). There is a reality behind Turkish Kurdistan. Alexander 007 17:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Some people in germany claim ownership to all of europe. They are often known as Neo Nazis. There are no such official claim by the German Government though. You do not have to respond the second I post. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I respond when and if I want to respond. Your Spanish Albenia comparison was so lame, I wasn't even going to respond. Alexander 007 18:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont care when you respond. Just pointing out you dont have to respond the minute I post. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Nor should you care, it is not your business. Why should I respond one hour later when I'm at the keyboard now. I don't care if it creates edit conflicts for you. Alexander 007 19:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. For all the reasons already mentioned--Hectorian 16:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Despite what Turkish editors claim, there has always been a region called Kurdistan, historically and geographically. Miskin 17:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  I am not Turkish and we arent debating weather or not that exists. We are debating why Turkish Kurdistan is necesary when we have Kurds in Turkey. As you suggested Kurdistan is a contraversial term and may be disputed by at least Turkish editors. One contraversial region article can explain all that needs to be explained and a sub article is not necesary. Article only serves to be a POV fork. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

When have we begun to describe geography according to ethnicity ? Who told you that it was always called Kurdistan ? --TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Muhamed 17:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please write your idea.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

He cant, he doesnt know english. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean he even doesn't know what's happening in this page :) --TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

He knows whats going on. He just has no idea what we are discusing so its a blind vote. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Then he doesn't know what's happening on this page. To wit: this is a discussion, not a vote. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that we are voting just for nothing ? Look around you. editors come here to vote for deletion. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 20:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I know what's going on; I've seen plenty of these things go down. The purpose of AfD is the use a polling format to bring out the best arguments for keeping or deleting an article in order to write the best encyclopedia we can. Since the discussion format resembles a vote, many people take it to be one, and believe that they can "win" by attracting superior numbers of "voters". However, majority doesn't rule in these discussions - the best arguments rule. A swarm of "votes" which add no reasons for keeping an article are not given equal weight with a handful of thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments that demonsrate understanding of the situation and of the relevant Wiki-policies and guidelines. The strongest argument I'm seeing given for deletion is that the article is a POV fork - a second article on the same topic as an existing one, presenting it from a different perspective. If you disagree, then explain why it isn't one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What will happen when I create an article about Southeastern Anatolia? It is the geopolitical name for the region. It will be POV fork, right? And which article will be the deleted one, mine, which is Turkey's internationally recognized geopolitic map and name for the region or the Turkish Kurdistan which is recognized as such by who? BBC? The Guardian perhaps?--Kagan the Barbarian 22:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Chameria and Cham Albanians. Chameria and Thesprotia. No fork there, no fork here. Maybe a spork. Alexander 007 21:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it does seem like a fork. Besides Chameria article says little, just that it is the Albanian name for the region and it consisted of this and that territory, that's it. What about this: Turkish Kurdistan, it starts with this sentence:

"Turkish Kurdistan (Kurdish: Bakurê Kurdistanê) is an unofficial name for the Southeastern part of Turkey predominantly inhabited by Kurds."

And ends showing photos from the region. Yeah very similar to the Albanian thing.

I think the answer is I create an article about Southeastern Anatolia and let's see what will happen then.--Kagan the Barbarian 22:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This only proves that the article needs to be rewritten. The point is, as ChrisO noted, that the arguments are not the same; many Kurds do not live in Turkish Kurdistan, and many Turks do live in Turkish Kurdistan. And also there's the region's economy to treat, thing that can hardly be done adequately in Kurds in Turkey. This is my view.--Aldux 22:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you are comprehending what I am saying? The region already has a name, it is geopoliticaly Southeastern Anatolia, historically Upper Mesopotamia. Turkish Kurdistan should be under these titles. It means nothing alone that you got 1,450,000 hits with Turkish Kurdistan, I googled "Irish Empire" and got 1,630,000 hits, I guess we need to create an Irish Empire article based on this, eh? Please, please, I praise reason and logic.--Kagan the Barbarian 10:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The argument of redirecting to Kurds in Turkey is not convincing at all, and should be abandoned. However, Adkagansu's proposal to redirect to Southeastern Anatolia is something else. It would be, however, like redirecting Chameria to Thesprotia, which doesn't seem much better than two separate articles; it rather seems worse. Alexander 007 23:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

* Strongly Delete and Redirect AGREE WITH TuzsuzDeliBekir--hybrid lily 18:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC) -- this user has been blocked as a sockpuppet-- Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

* Strongly Delete and Redirect agree with Tuzsuz, coolcat and others--Shanex 18:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC) -- this user has been blocked as a sockpuppet --Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• This vote is this user's second edit and could possibly be a sockpuppet - CheckUser is on ;-) --Latinus 18:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect same as what happend with Syrian Kurdistan (rd to Kurds in Syria) --Kash 18:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is clearly a region, not POV Computerjoe's talk 21:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Yes it is a region and it is called Southeastern Anatolia, that's its geopolitical name. I think, instead of thinking clearly, some people here are just saying "This guy is a fascist, I am not like him, I am a humanist liberal righteous someone, I won't allow him to censor it". I wonder how much of those who voted Keep actually tried to understand my point in this without being dragged away by their bias towards certain things. Its geopolitical name is Southeastern Anatolia, at least, as previously suggested, this article should be moved to Southeastern Anatolia and be mentioned some regard it as Turkish Kurdistan, and Turkish Kurdistan will still redirect to this page and people will get their information.

  Either like this Chinese Turkistan or this Syrian Kurdistan, 2 solutions I am offering. Think before voting, and with think, I mean work some idle braincells.--Kagan the Barbarian 22:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Not pov? Kurdistan is a highly contraversial term. Turkish Kurdistan is a greater contravercy and is a POV fork. Why are we having double standards? The vote should have been paralel to Syrian Kurdistan. Of course thats not going to happen due to Vote Stacking --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but rewrite. Kurds in Turkey is clearly not synonymous with Turkish Kurdistan; Istanbul has a big Kurdish population but I don't think anyone would argue that it should be part of a Kurdish political entity. I think the Turkish Kurdistan is worth keeping, but it should be revised to make clear that it's about the region rather than the people. -- ChrisO 22:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The region has already a name , Southeastern Anatolia.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 22:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

BIG MISTAKE BY ME: As Bekir pointed out, its geopolitic name is Southeastern Anatolia, not Southeastern Turkey, sorry, awful mistake.--Kagan the Barbarian 23:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to point its historical name, Mesopotamia--TuzsuzDeliBekir 07:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is like calling eastern france western germany. Why cant we use the official regional names rather than pov ones such as this? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Becuse its called Kurdistan called by Kurds :)--TuzsuzDeliBekir 23:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Non-existent. Period. redirect to Southeastern Anatolia if necessary, and work on Kurds in Turkey. --Cretanforever 23:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, keep, and... keep some more. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — regardless of claims by either Kurdish nationalists or the Turkish government, the term is a widespread geographical designator. Kurds in Turkey should be about the people, Turkish Kurdistan about the land and related political claims. (It should, of course, include recognition of both sides' POV.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Move to Southeastern Turkey, merge most of the content on the Kurdish Issue with Kurds in Turkey. This thing has obviously turned into an arena where Greek nationalists can satisfy their needs. This is an encyclopedia and you officially dont call a place Kurdistan just because most people there are Kurdish. It would be a shame to see Wikipedia as a part of dirty games like this. (Metb82 01:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC))

hmmm...let me see...there are about 35 users who have voted so far,and among them there are-if i am not wrong- 3 Greeks(me incuded).u really should not blame the greeks for every single thing that u do not like.:)--Hectorian 01:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

actually Hectorian,i had good intentions for the greek people before i came here..Before seeing the massacres against Turks being removed, before trying to deal with all the POV things against Turks,etc.....You know after reading so much History of Civilizations,you expect Greeks to be larger and less grudging than that.. (Metb82 02:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC))

all i am saying is not to blame the greeks for virtually everything.the Greeks users represent a tiny minority in this voting process.--Hectorian 02:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There are lots of articles about places which don't have a formal political existence. None of those in Category:Regions of England have except for the ones in the subcategory for government office regions. Political existence isn't a requirement and shouldn't be. Choalbaton 05:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Its about the place and its history, Kurds in Turkey is about the population. Kurds in Turkey should contain most of the modern controversial stuff, and this one should be more historic. JeffBurdges 16:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• delete and redirect. the correct name is Southeastern Anatolia, its the official and most well-known one. it is one of the 7 geographical regions of turkey. tembelejderha 16:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

'Delete and Redirect'. Kurdistan is not an actual geographic location. Rather, "Kurdistan" refers to a regional ethnic identity existing across states. Ethnicities exist within and across political borders. Thus an article called "Turkish Kurdistan" would have to deal with ethnic Turks, if such a body exists anymore, living in a region titled "Kurdistan," assuming one existed. The article seems to suggest the content concerns Turkish administrated Kurdistan but since a state with that name has never and does not currently exist then it is impossible to determine the nature of the Turkish administration of it. --Strothra 18:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep definately notable, even if just for an explanation of the term. - FrancisTyers 20:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Existing and notable subject, distinct from the suggested redirect target. Mukadderat 21:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The very fact that it has caused this much controversy is an easy lock to say its notable and is in normal usage. We have articles on many ideas which do not exist in the physical world. This is no different. -M^ask 23:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. There is no reason that this information could not be somewhere else, particularly in Kurdistan. That article is the important one - regional subsections of that article can be accomplished with subheadings. It is the content that matters, not the name at the top of the article. Joey 05:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am surprized how many people make this argument without giving it a thought. In wikipedia things work in exactly an opposite way: if the topic grows, it is separated from a larger article, not merged into. Did you happen to look at the article you are suggesting to eliminate? It is ten times larger than most of pokemon articles. Mukadderat 16:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • My vote stands, and no amount of brow-beating is going to make me change it. Just so you know, I find the implications that I voted 'without giving it a thought' and without 'look[ing] at the article' borderline offencive, and certainly think they are not displaying an assumption of good faith. Joey 17:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't want you to change your vote. It is not the good faith that is questioned. It is the logic. Yor argument does not provide the reason of your vote. If you had given the reason, it could have been possible I'd changed my vote instead. Your explanation basically says "I like it all in one big article", and it is fine with me; I dont want to beat anyone's brows; tastes differ, I know. But this is the reason why I concluded that you probably didn't give it much thought: if you had, you'd explain your reasoning: why subheadings are better than subarticles. In particular you didn't bother to explain what is wrong with my explanation: wikipedia articles breed most often by spawning rather than by merging. You preferred to play offended instead. Mukadderat 17:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Personally, I do not feel that article should exist at all but it seems that certain politically motivated individuals with a lack of much anthropological knowledge concerning culture-political interaction are determined to keep it. If it is going to be kept it might as well be merged in order to enframe it in a wider context.--Strothra 19:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep current rewritten version on the concept of Turkish Kurdistan. u p p l a n d 08:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If we have articles on fictional planets in Star Trek, then we can have articles on fictional places in Turkey, that assuming that the place is only made up my Kurdish separatists. Unlike fictional star trek planets, there are some (sane) people who actually believe that these places exist, and there is probably some historical evidence that backs them up. At the very least, the articles should exist to explain the controversy over the terms. --Rayc 16:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hah. Too true; I change my vote to Keep.--Strothra 19:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep another attempt to wipe out all things Kurdish on WP. I think that the assumption of good faith has been indulged too long by too many on this. Carlossuarez46 00:00, 30 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)

Would be a good idea, I think. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous, it is really pathetic to see how people can give away simply because some ultranationalists are very vocal and by constant lobbying they can dictate what to do. We should simply stick to Wikipedia policies. Is there something called 'Turkish Kurdistan' ? Yes, there is such a thing, Is this term notable? Yes! IT IS! I can cite here various articles, I have access to various servers of notable journals, and this term is very often used. The last question to ask is, are there materials in that article? Yes! THERE ARE. There are various sub of less notable terms which will never get deleted, merged. They have even merged Smyrna the ancient city with Izmir, and in the same token they have removed the entire section about Smyrna fire which is still considered one of the worst fires in history, there are even some comparing it with the burning of Rome. When will anyone attempt to merge the city of Ur with its current location? I say, this is ENOUGHT!!! ENOUGHT! I have attempted blind eyes for few days, but unless people stop sleeping on gas and no one answers this will continue again and again. Also it is amusing to see that some member still brag 'neutrality' request, when this one same member in his own userpage indicated clearly why he was on Wikipedia, which he said was to counter Armenian, Greek and Kurdish POV pushing. Fad (ix) 00:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a Turk, I speak my heart, I don't hide behind devious words or schemes. I won't kiss you on the cheek, and dig your grave behind your back. I see you made a background search on me. I like attention, you may keep stalking me. Anyway, I have no beef with neutral Greek, Armenian and Kurdish users. With one neutral Greek user, Hectorian, I believe we did a great job on making Turkish Cypriots page as NPOV as possible, which was repeatedly edited before. He proved his good faith to me many times and earned my trust.

It is a fact there is a lot of POV pushing going on Turkey, Armenia, Greece and Kurdistan related articles. And I believe Turkish voice is definitely not heard as much as it should be. I've seen hardcore Wikipedian Armenian, Greek and Kurdish users here who spare many hours a day here and almost none Turkish. Most Turkish users here either spare little time for this or have little interest in what's going on or are busy with editing Turkish Viki or suffer from limited language skills. Now I have the feeling some people are uncomfortable with Turks rising their voice.

Anyway back to the subject here; what we have is a very legitimate case. I have examples in front of me such Chinese Turkistan and Syrian Kurdistan. I'll demand my friends to create a Southeastern Anatolia page which is the geopolitic name for the region, internationally recognized, unlike Turkish Kurdistan which has been made popular only by certain media organizations. If you ask me there are 2 decent solutions to this subject:

1. Rewrite and shorten Turkish Kurdistan page so it won't act as if TK is a breakaway de facto state in Southeastern Turkey. At the beginnig of the article it should say "For the geopolitic Turkish region see Southeastern Anatolia" or something like that, whatever the proper language is. But this will, in my opinion, be POV fork. 2. Delete the entire article and move the information to Southeastern Anatolia. Turkish Kurdistan will redirect to this page and in it the unofficial name will be mentioned like in Chinese Turkistan. This I think is the most decent thing to do. I really don't understand people who fail to see the legitimate argument here. I am having a hard time assuming good faith.--Kagan the Barbarian 09:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Background search? What background search? I knew all this all along, since you are one of the Turks who registered in the 10s February 2006. And you are absolutly wrong and you know it when you claim that Greeks, Armenians and Kurds were much active while Turks were not. There are more active Turks and always has been than Armenians, Greeks and Kurds combined. There are at least one Turk in everything related to Armenians, Greeks and Kurds when the slightest political scheme is concerned. And now, with the call for Turks in the 10s February 2006, the amount of POV pushers has just jumped to another fold. No one is saying to stop contributing, in fact I will more than ever welcome a Turk that at least is honest enought to admit for what he is here and also assume his Turkishness, than some dishonest people hidding this all together and both of us know that in this sphere of activity(Kurdish, Armenian and Greek issues) this type of people aren't in shortage. And if you pay attention, there is a clear disproportion between nationalist Turks ivading Kurdish, Armenian and Greek articles than the other way around and if you were honest enought you would have no problem admitting that, but this is not what you do, you are claiming to the contrary. Just for your information, here we have another example of how ultranationalists dictate Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Khoikhoi

This guy has been fair with everyone requesting concessions from every sides, but yet your fellows will in mass try to hijack a request for adminiship. Claiming that he push Greek POV which BTW is ridiculous when he himself as reverted Greek POVs.

Comming to this poll, most here don't even know for what they are voting, a member has even gone as far as placing statistics of the last Turkish election. By the same token I should also present the statistics of the last Canadian election to advance that French Quebecers are not French Quebecers because they have voted more for the Conservative right party which always was against French Quebecers identity and values, than the Liberals [14] . Or maybe we should merge articles about Upper or 'Downer' Canada, etc. The question here is, IS THERE SOMETHING CALLED TURKISH KURDISTAN??? The answer IS obvious, this term IS notable, the article IS expanded enought. This is what it is, and if you truly are against POV pushing, you will stop doing that. I myself disagree with the maps of Turkish Kurdistan, because it also claims what is called 'Ottoman Armenia,' but Wikipedia IS NOT about what I think, but what positions are, a coverage of positions. Fad (ix) 20:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Numbers

Figures for the 2004 Turkish Provincial Elections (electing members of the Provincial Assemblies) in the 'at least' 17 Turkish provinces covered by the article (former Category: Kurdistan in wikipedia covered 20 provinces, therefore their number is displaying an unmistakably decreasing trend!!!).

• 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.

Hakkari Province: SHP 46,56 % - AKP 32,03 %
Şırnak Province: SHP 37,27 % - AKP 24,97 - DYP 16,82 %
Mardin Province: SHP 27,12 % - AKP 23,23 % - DYP 13,43 % - CHP 11,75 %
Batman Province: SHP 49,69 % - AKP 17,76 % - SP 10,57 %
Diyarbakır Province: SHP 41,84 % - AKP 30,79 %
Tunceli Province: SHP 23,01 % - CHP 19,71 % - AKP 16,93 %
Siirt Province: AKP 39,23 % - SHP 27,72 %
Bingöl Province: AKP 44,30 % - SHP 14,77 % - SP 13,42 %
Muş Province: AKP 31,20 % - SHP 29,56 %
Bitlis Province: AKP 29,11 % - SHP 15,19 % - SP 11,72 %
Van Province: AKP 44,83 % - SHP 26,66 %
Ağrı Province: AKP 34,66 % - SHP 19,21 %
Elazığ Province: AKP 33,20 % - DYP 28,96 % - SP 13,67 % - MHP 7,90 % - SHP 3,69 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Malatya Province: AKP 47,57 % - CHP 16,43 % - MHP 15,20 % - SP 5,93 % - SHP 4,25 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Erzincan Province: AKP 40,61 % - CHP 21,24 % - MHP 16,85 % - SHP 4,25 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Erzurum Province: AKP 48,61 % - MHP 18,86 % - DYP 8,49 % - SP 5,01 % - SHP 4,08 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Adıyaman Province: AKP 41,11 % - SP 15,04 % - CHP 13,09 % - DYP 10,41 % - SHP 6,54 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Kars Province: AKP 40,21 % - MHP 16,40 % - CHP 11,13 % - DYP 9,46 % - SHP 8,89 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Source: [15]

As a side-note and strictly as a metaphor, I find it a pity that, instead of developping the articles on Sezen Aksu and Dario Moreno, I had to spend time looking for and presenting these figures to balance the dishwater of the out-of-touch, the know-not, the prejudiced and the agenda promoter.

(This is the second message I am posting. I voted above.) --Cretanforever 02:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

May I remind people that these are not relevant to 'Iranian' and 'Iraqi' Kurdistan who are also both being deleted (and should be) --Kash 03:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Article rewritten & expanded

I've rewritten the article to focus it more on the concept of a "Turkish Kurdistan" (where it's deemed to be, why it doesn't exist as a political entity, etc). If you've already voted here, please take a look at the revised article and consider whether you might want to adjust your vote. -- ChrisO 23:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done! I changed my vote.--Hippalus 08:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For comparisons of content quality, approach and tone. Padania. p.s There is no article for "Italian Padania" --Cretanforever 06:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.