Talk:Turkish Kurdistan

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^Talk|@ 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^Talk 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)