Talk:Gaziantep/Archive 1

Gaziantep's Armenian population

This sentence is very suspect (and I don't just mean the grammar):

Gaziantep Armenian population before the World War I was close to 99% -- after the Genocide statistically there were no more Armenians.

Can anyone give a source for this claim? As far as I know, Antep was a mainly Arab city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xemxi (talk • contribs) 11:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Antep was known by its previous Arabic name of Aintab although this does not really state that it was a mainly Arab city...maybe it was historically though. The presence of Armenian churches most probably points to at least a sizeable Armenian prescence. I found this link [1]stating that "Armenians lived side-by-side w/ other groups but it does not state the 99% part. So maybe we should mention that there was once a sizeable community that had churches and existed there before the Armenian Genocide. Fedayee 21:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sizeable community is ok. If there were any numbers, that would be nice. However, any kind of numbers of the kind from that era are extremely hard to come by, so if there are none, that's not a big problem... Baristarim 23:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just checked. According to Ottoman census records (which are not admittedly the most reliable source, but not terrible either), in 1914 there were roughly 90,000 Muslims, 15,500 Armenians, 400 Armenian Catholics, 5,000 Protestants (prob. almost all would have been Armenian), some Greeks, Jews and 'Latins' (and 3 Gypsies). So that would be a little under 20% Armenian. Xemxi 23:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the Ottoman census. (Is it available online?) I was working from the 1911 Britannica (45,000 population) and the 1886 Grande Encyclopedie (20,000 population). I wonder where they got their figures (previous censuses?). It seems that there was a thriving Armenian population, both Protestant (Congregational or Presbyterian) and Gregorian, as well as "a small body of Episcopalians ... a schismatic 'catholicos', who has vainly tried to gain acceptance into the Anglican communion." (EB11) Of course, the EB11 is not an unbiased source -- they are all for Christian missionaries. Take a look at my new article Central Turkey College, too, and add anything you can to it.

About 'gazi', my Ottoman dictionary (1911) glosses غازي as "Warrior who fights for the Muslim faith and who has conquered a Christian country (or defeated the infidels), a title taken by sovereigns and muslim commanders after a victory over the infidels", and my modern Turkish dictionary (1959, I know, that's a bit old...) a "one who fights for Islam; veteran of a war; title taken by a victorious Muslim general or ruler". Though the meaning "veteran" may be a synonym for 'eski asker', it seems that the more pertinent gloss would be 'Antep the Victor' (to avoid more inflammatory names like, say, Basil the Bulgar Slayer).

On another topic, the encyclopedias refer to the population of Aintab as "Turcoman". What exactly is this referring to, and what is that clan of Çapanoğlu? --Macrakis 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ottoman censuses are not available online, but they are avalable in a book by K. Karpat, Ottoman Population 1830-1914. The discrepancies with the Britannica figures might be due to the fact that the census was counting the entire district (liva) of Ayintab rather than just the city.

What about 'Hero' for gazi? As in 'Heroic Antep' or something similar.

I'll be adding to Central Turkey College shortly. Xemxi 08:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think "Antep the Victorious" is the most accurate, without being inflammatory or offensive in any way (though Gazi itself could be considered inflammatory...). For the census figures, the EB11 numbers appear to refer to the city itself, so shall we stick with them and go with "about 1/3 Christian, mostly Armenians"? --Macrakis 16:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as the proportion of other ethnicities are mentioned, yes. Otherwise it would not be too NPOV and might raise questions about the good faith of the edit since it would be common practice to give a full low-down of ethnicities rather a specific one. In any case, as for the name, it doesn't matter how inflammatory it is.. I don't see anything of the sort, but Turkey named the city that way, and if it is "inflammatory", that doesn't concern anyone. It is the official name. The city was renamed in 1974, and back than the usage of "Gazi" had definitely shifted to "veteran". Eski asker is not the same thing as veteran, veteran simply means having passed through a war respectfully. It is not hero either, Kahraman in Kahramanmaras means hero. Sanli in Sanliurfa means glorious, and Gazi in Gaziantep means veteran. We cannot bend neither the official name of the city or the definitions of the Turkish language :)) Baristarim 23:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(back to left margin)

About the name:

I don't know when the city was actually renamed Gaziantep, but the title 'Gazi' was given to the city in 8 February 1921 by the National Assembly [2][3]. Perhaps the city was only officially renamed Gaziantep in 1974. I understand of course that 'gazi' has come to mean 'veteran', just as all soldiers returning from wars are sometimes referred to as 'heroes' (regardless of their actual actions), but it seems that the basic meaning of 'gazi' is pretty clear, and in fact the Turkish Ministry of Culture uses the translation 'victorious fighter' in the Web page referenced above.

About the population statistics:

I agree with you that the full range of ethnicities should be mentioned. I was wondering if you understand what the EB11 is referring to when it calls the Muslim inhabitants of Aintab 'Turcomans'. Does this just mean 'ethnic Turks' or something more specific? --Macrakis 03:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to have an expert opinion on this from the Turkish editors here, but I will assume for now that the EB11's reference to Turcomans is referring to the Yörük (Türkmen), who are found in this area. --Macrakis 16:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Gazi

I've seen the argument under "Armenian population topic" however I think this is a fairly simple topic compared to genocide. Defining the meaning properly will also help to shed light to its recent history. In modern turkish "gazi" is equivalent to veteran. The turkish republic army distinguishes its soldiers who have served in war, or took part in minor shootings as "gazi". It has nothing to do with religion any more, and the word has diverted from its original meaning. The Ottoman usage and its religious aspects is totaly obsolute today. The secular Commander in chief Ataturk had also this title as he was a war veteran. The title was given to the people of Gaziantep, as they defended their city by themselves and were considered to be war veterans themselves. peynir 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The deleted counter-reference

Sworn Statement of Albert J. Amateau on the allegations that Armenians suffered "genocide" by the government of the Ottoman Empire

On this eleventh day of October in the year of 1989, there appeared before me, a notary public duly commissioned by the State of California, Albert J. Amateau, known to me. In my presence the said Albert J. Amateau duly took the required oath and affixed his signature to this instrument as well as to every page of the attached Statement of Facts (nine pages), declaring it to be an integral part of his sworn statement.

Wendy O'Steen, Notary Public - California, Principal Office in Sonoma County, My Commission Expires December 1, 1992, Signed and Sealed 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6- 7 - 8 - 9 - 10

Albert J. Amateau, residing at #413 Oak Vista Drive, in the village of Oakmont, City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma in the State of California, being duly sworn, deposes that he has prepared and hereby submits the attached statement containing (a) facts, (b) extracts from published and/or uttered communications which disprove the allegations of Armenians that their ethnic brethren suffered genocide by the government of the Ottoman Empire in 1915-1923.

These facts are submitted to oppose approval of resolution S.J.212, introduced by the Honorable Robert Dole, Senator and Republican leader of the United States Senate, at the first session of the 101st Congress of the United States. The said resolution seeks to designate April 24, 1990, as the "National Day of Remembrance" of the 75th anniversary of the alleged Armenian genocide of 1915-1923 perpetrated by the government of the Ottoman Empire.

I was born in Milas, Turkey, on April 20, 1889. In 1905 I was a student at the American International College in Izmir (Smyrna), Turkey. At the time, The Reverend John McGlaglan was President and I attended classes in English conducted by Professors Lawrence and Evan-Jones. These details to make it possible to ascertain the truth of my statements.

There, I became acquainted and friendly with many Turkish born Armenian students, most of whom were my seniors. Because my Grandfather, whose name I bear, had been the French Consul in Izmir, I was mistakenly considered a Christian and a Frenchman. The Armenian students felt that they could freely discuss their membership in Armenian secret societies, i.e., Huntchak and Tashnak Zutiun, and their active participation in secret military exercises to prepare themselves for military duty in their planned subversive war against the Ottoman Empire and nation. In alliance and collaboration with Tsarist Russia.

In 1906 a number of wealthy Armenians in Izmir were assessinated. Mr. Hayik Balgosian and his friend, Mr. Artin Balokian, had been shot by two men in front of the Balgosian mansion in Karatash, an affluent section of Izmir. Days later, the large establishment in the center of the Izmir Bazaar, the SIVRI-SSARIAN, wholesale dry goods warehouse and store, was bombed. Mr. Agop Sivri-Ssarian and a number of his Armenian employees were killed. The perpetrators then sent secret messages, in Armenian printed lettering, threatening a number of Armenian merchants, doctors, lawyers and architects - unless they "contributed" the sums the leaders of the secret societies had assessed, the recepients would suffer the same fate as Balgosian and Sivri-Ssarian.

A majority of these addresses must have "contributed". A few, who evidently were satisfied with their economic, social and political status, did not approve of the plans for subversion and rebellion. They informed the Izmir Police of their suspicion of the identity of the leaders of the secret societies and that the Apostoloc Armenian church on ERMENI MAHALLESI, the main Armenian quarters in Izmir, was possibly the repository of arms and ammunition for the planned rebellion.

I witnessed the police raid on that church; and the truck loads of arms and ammunition which were taken out. Also the arrest of five priests and a number of other Armenians who were in the church at the time of the raid, including a few of my fellow students of the American College. Evidently I had not taken the disclosures of my fellow students seriously enough. Also, I could not understand the Armenian logic for rebellion against a country that had given its ethnic minorities the right to observe and practise their religion, conduct schools for the instruction of their young in their ethnic language and favored many of them with positions of trust. I knew of many Armenians in important positions in the Ottoman Treasury, Foreign Affairs, and as functionaries as consuls,.

I knew of many affluent Armenian doctors, attorneys and even a couple of bankers and architects. It was well known that the Armenians were the merchant princes of the Empire and that the Sultan favored them, especially because, of all the ethnic communities, they were the only ones who spoke the difficult Turkish language as a second language to their own Armenian.

Armenian terrorists in the United States and their duped friends have made it a career to assassinate Turkish consular officilas, supposedly in revenge for the alleged Armenian massacre in 1915. Their prelates, leaders, and even our own California governor, Mr. Deukmejian, have not seen fit to express their disapproval, and by their silence have tacitly approved of the assassinations. The leaders of the secret Armenian societies, Huntchak and Tashnak Zutiun, have continued their nefarious activities by agitating for the introduction of their alleged genocide into the instruction program of the public schools of the State of California.

They have also been able, through their boast of one million Armenian votes, to influence State representatives in passing laws to place their Armenian program for a motion picture into operation.

Now they are trying to have the Congress of the United States pass a resolution to designate April 24, 1990, as the 75th anniversary of their alleged genocide of 1.5 million Armenians by the "Ottoman Turks in 1915". I am amazed that intelligent and politically astute gentlemen, such as Senator Robert Dole, the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, and others, his colleagues, have been importuned to sponsor that resolution without any proof of the veracity of the Armenian claims. There is no doubt in my mind that Senator Dole and his colleagues are honest and honorable men. They have been duped to believe the Armenian allegations as true.

To establish the truth to the satisfaction of the Senators, I am submitting extracts from statements - in fact, avowais - by Armenian leaders in their addresses and/or communications with their adherents. These extracts, and the entire statements, are unimpeachable, and the veracity of my quotes can be easily ascertained. I am also submitting statements of others, but especially of Professor John Dewey, of Columbia University, who investigated the Armenian claims of genocide.

a) EXTRACTS from the November 1914 issue of the OFFICIAL ARMENIAN GAZETTE HUNTCHAK, published in Paris, France, by the Armenian Revolutionary Committee of the ARMENIAN NATION. This was a CALL TO ARMS! "...The entire ARMENIAN NATION will join forces - moral and material, and waving the sword of REVOLUTION, will enter this World conflict.... as comrades in arms of the Triple Entente, and particularly RUSSIA. They will cooperate with the ALLIES, making full use of all political and revolutionary means for the final victory of Armenia, Cilicia, Caucasus, Azerbayjan.... heroes who will sacrifice their lives for the great cause of Armenia....Armenians proud to shed their blood for the cause of Armenia...." -Please note the date. It was even before the declaration of war.

b) EXTRACTS from a letter dated JANUARY 27, 1918, and published in the LONDON TIMES on JANUARY 30, 1918, signed by BOGHOS NUBAR, the recognized leader of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, TASHNAK ZUTIUN. This was a complaint that the Allies had refused to invite the ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY COMMITTEE HUNTCHAK to the PEACE CONFERENCE at which the treaty between Turkey and the Allies was signed in Lauzanne, Switzerland.

"...The unspeakable sufferings and the dreadful losses that have befallen the Armenian Nation by reason of their faithfulness to the Allies.... The fact well known only to a few that ever since the beginning of the war, Armenians fought by the side of the Allies on all fronts... Armenians have been belligerents 'de facto' since their indignant refusal to side with the Turks... our volunteers fought in Syria and Palestine (at the time part of the Ottoman Empire) in the decisive victory of General Allenby.... After the breakdown of Russia, the Armenian legions were the only forces to resist the advances of the Turks whom they held in check until the armistice was signed. Thus they helped the British forces in Mesopotamia (at the time also part of the Ottoman Empire) by hindering the German/Turkish forces from sending troops elsewhere."

---

Please note the reference to refusal to side with the Turks, the nation where they were born and of which they were a part. There is no claim of genocide.

c) EXTRACTS from the MANIFESTO, delivered by His Excellency, HOVHANES KATCHAZOUNI, PRIME MINISTER of the ARMENIAN REPUBLIC (established after the First World War) at the CONVENTION of the ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY FEDERATION, in Bucharest, Romania, JULY 1923. This was in the nature of a report. "...In the fall of 1914, when Turkey had not yet entered the war but was already making preparations, Armenian revolutionary bands began to form with great enthusiasm...

The ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY FEDERATION had active participation in the formation of these bands and the military action against TURKEY... In the fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer bands fought against TURKEY... This was an inevitable result of the psychology on which the Armenian Nation had been nourished during an entire generation... the winter of 1914 and the spring of 1915 were periods of great activity, greatest enthusiasm and hopes... We had no doubt that the war would end with complete victory for the Allies and Turkey would be defeated and dismembered, and its Armenian population would at least be liberated... We had embraced Russia wholeheartedly without any compun(...)... we believed that the Tsarist government would grant us self government in the Caucasus and in the Armenian vilayets (Turkish provinces where many Armenians resided), liberated from Turkey, as a reward for our loyalty, our efforts and our assistance. Unfortunately Russia did not keep its word..."

One and a half million Armenians are claimed to have been massacred. The avowals of their leaders prior to and after the First World War prove that there had been no massacre - their leaders would have referred to it or claimed it as their calamity, or at least as their contribution to the Allied cause. The allegations of massacre and/or genocide are a later invention to compel the new Turkish Republic to cede to them the five vilayets where they had installed the Armenian Republic, which they later had to give up to the Turkish Republic after a brief war. The Armenians have ever since been trying to obtain either the territory to add to the Russian Armenian Republic, or a large sum of money as the price for stopping the terrorism.

The Armenian people must blame their own leaders and their secret revolutionary societies for the subversive actions which led to their participation in the war with the Allies. They can blame Russia for reneging on its promise, and the Allies for not giving them due credit for their help, but they certainly have no reason to blame the Turkish Republic and/or even the now defunct Ottoman Empire, as their own leaders confessed. Let us now see what Professor John Dewey, of Columbia University, has to say -a broad minded Christian gentleman who went to the Middle East in 1928 to investigate the Armenian claims of genocide. This is extracted from his report published in THE NEW REPUBLIC, vol. 40, November 12, 1928:

"Few Americans who mourn, and justly, the miseries of the Armenians, are aware that till the rise of the nationalistic ambitions, beginning with the 70s, the Armenians were the favored portion of the population of Turkey; or that in the Great War, they treacherously turned Turkish cities over to the Russian invaders; that they have boasted og having raised a hundred and fifty thousand (150,000) men to fight a civil war, that they burned at least one hundred (100) Turkish villages and exterminated their populations. I do not mention these things by way of appraising or extenuating blame, because the story of provocations and reprisals is as futile as it is endless. Finally, one recalls that the Jews took their abode in "fanatic" Turkey when they were expelled from Europe, especially Spain, by "Saintly" Christians, and they have lived in Turkey for some centuries, at least in as much tranquility and liberty as their fellow Muslim Turks, all being exposed alike to the rapacity of their common rulers. To one brought up, as most Armenians have been, in the Gladstonian and foreign missionary traditions, the condition of the Jews of Turkey is almost a mathematical demonstration that religious differences had no influence in the tragedy of Turkey, only as they were combined with the aspirations for political separation, which every nation in the world would have treated as treasonable..."

Professor Dewey had evidently not been told of the rejection by the Jewish Communities of Turkey of the appeals by the European Zionists for political and financial assistance. Insofar as the Jews of Turkey were concerned, the Zionist proposals were "subversive", unless and until the Ottoman government agreed to them. At no time did the Jews of Turkey nurse aspirations for political separation from their Ottoman saviors, who had received them when no other country allowed their either entry or residence. In 1922 in Izmir, Kemal Ataturk, when he captured 100,000 Greek soldiers who had been allowed by the Allied governments to invade and occupy Turkey in Asia, said: "OF ALL THE ETHNIC MILLETS (Communities) THE JEWS ELECTED TO REMAIN LOYAL TO THEIR MOTHERLAND." Now for a brief view of Armenian atrocities against Muslim and Jews - EXTRACTS from a letter dated December 11, 1983, published in the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, as an answer to a letter that had been published in the same journal under the signature of one B. AMARIAN, claiming 1.5 million victims of genocide by the Ottoman Turks:

"..We have first hand information and evidence of Armenian atrocities against our people (Jews) which preceded the so-called massacre of Armenians which you allege in 1915. Members of our family witnessed the murder of 148 members of our family near Erzurum, Turkey, by Armenian neighbors, bent on destroying anything and anybody remotely Jewish and/or Muslim. Armenians should look to their own history and see the havoc they and their ancestors perpetrated upon their neighbors... Armenians were in league with HITLER in the last war, on his promise to grant them self government if, in return, the Armenians would help exterminate Jews... Armenians were also hearty proponents of the anti-semitic acts in league with the Russian Communists. Mr Amarian! Prove that, as you say, a large scale massacre of Armenians occured. I don't need your bias." Signed ELIHU BEN LEVI, Vacaville, California. Attached as the last page of this statement is proof of Armenian collaboration with Hitler.

My friend, Franz Werfel, of Vienna, Austria, a writer, wrote a book entitled THE 40 DAYS AT MUSSA DAGH, a history of the massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks. The story was told him by his friend, the Armenian Bishop of Vienna and Werfel never doubted the Bishop's account. He did not investigate what he wrote. Years later, when the true facts about Mussa Dagh were established by the research of neutral investigators - which was never denied by the Armenians - Werfel discovered that he had been duped by his friend, the Bishop, with a concocted story. Werfel confessed to me his shame and remorse for hav

THE TRUTH

Fifty thousand Armenians, residents of villages in and around Erzurum in Turkey surreptiously ascended a mountain called Mussa Dagh (dagh is Turkish for mountain) with arms, ammunition, victuals and water, sufficient to withstand a siege of many days. Before ascending that mountain, they had captured hundreds of Muslim Turks and Jews, their fellow citizens and neighbors, with whom they were supposedly on good terms. They murdered them all in cold blood, for no other reason than they were Muslims and Jews. Thereafter, every night armed Armenian bands came down from that mountain and attacked the rear of the Ottoman and German armies fighting the Russian invaders. This was at the very beginning of the First World War, and part of the secret plans made by the Russians and assigned to the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. ing written that story, in which he had blamed the Ottomans as the aggressors and terrorists.

The Turks were mystified. The Armenian attackers would disappear. Try as they did, at first the Ottomans were unable to trace the disappearing Armenians, but finally they discovered that Mussa Dagh was the hiding place. The Ottomans found the mountain fortress unassailable. They laid siege and waited 40 days before the Armenian rear guard conceded defeat and laid down their arms. But the Ottoman forces found the mountain empty. The large army had disappeared down the other side of the mountain where they had found an exit to the Mediterranean. French and British men-of-war had been signalled and they picked up the main army, transporting the soldiers to Alexandria, Egypt, then under the control of the British. Less than 500, the rear guard who gave themselves up, were zaptured by the Ottomans.

Yet, in telling the story to Werfel to write, the Bishop had claimed 50,000 victims captured and put to death - an invented story, just as is the story of 1.5 million massacred in 1915. If 1.5 million Armenian lost their lives during that war, they died as soldiers, fighting a war of their own choosing against the Ottoman Empire which had treated them decently and benignly. They were the duped victims of the Russians, of the Allies, and of their own Armenian leaders. A few thousand Armenians may have lost their lives during their relocation, caused by their own subversion.

In making this expose of the truth and disclosing my home address, I know that I risk Armenian harrassment. I have already been subjected to telephone and written threaths! However, the truth must be told. As one born in the Ottoman Empire, from which I emigrated in 1910 and have never returned to live, I must declare:

1) I am not and never have been employed or paid by any government in Turkey.

2) I am not now and never have been financially interested in any business in Turkey.

3) My parents died before the Second World War. My sister and brother-in-law, residents of the Island of Rhodes, were captured and murdered by Hitler's Nazis. I have no relatives or friends in Turkey. It should be evident that I have no motive in taking the risk, other than my conscientious duty to tell the truth out of my love for my native land. I beg the Honorable Senators and other government officials to demand from the Armenians proof of their claims and explanation of the statement of avowals made by their own leaders. Under the circumstances and in view of the above proof, I cannot conceive that the Senators can in good conscience pass that resolution.

It is not enough to say that they do not mean to hurt the Turks or Turkish/American relations. By entertaining that resolution without proof, they are actually going against the interests of Turkey and the safety of the United States and of NATO.

Albert J. Amateau

Cretanforever 22:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Amateau represents a minority view on this subject. It would violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight to give equal weight to his view with that of most historians. Khoikhoi 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You can, however, have something similar to what we have in the Adana article:

In 1909 Adana was the site of what is termed the Adana massacre.[3] Turkish scholars and some others refer to the event as the Adana rebellion based on a thesis of its underlying causes.[4]

Khoikhoi 23:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Gaziantep is not the page to discuss 1915. If any editor can come up with a specific event concerning Gaziantep, more or less well-sourced, be it part of a larger processus, in the same vein as the Great Fire of İzmir or Menemen massacre or Battle of Aydın, then it would make sense to refer to it in the page for the city. But seen the performance in coming up with the names of prominent intellectuals exiled from İstanbul the capital, I doubt it. That paragraph looks like a goat drop presently, I am prepared to replace it with a lengthy one on the Saint Narses church in Rumkale near Gaziantep, referred to here. Cretanforever 00:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed here, here, and here... Why should it be replaced when there are sources that back it up? Khoikhoi 01:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cretanforever that the Gaziantep article is not the appropriate place to discuss the overall Armenian Genocide. It is appropriate to wikilink the Armenian Genocide in discussing the dramatic decline in the Armenian population in Aintab/Antep/Gaziantep. It is also not appropriate to use primary sources like Amateau in WP -- the interpretation of primary sources is considered original research, and should be left to competent historians. --Macrakis 01:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, let's keep it specific to Gaziantep. I've removed the first part of the paragraph. Khoikhoi 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just strengthening the minority view. Amateau was too alone up there. Add me. Cretanforever 02:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

SIGNATORIES TO THE STATEMENT ON H.J. RES. 192 ADDRESSED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

RIFAAT ABOU-EL-HAJ Professor of History California State University at Long Beach

SARAH MOMENT ATIS Professor of Turkish Language & Literature University of Wisconsin at Madison

KARL BARBIR Associate Professor of History Siena College (New York)

ILHAN BASGOZ Director of the Turkish Studies Program at the Department of Uralic & Altaic Studies Indiana University

DANIEL G. BATES Professor of Anthropology Hunter College, City University of New York

ULKU BATES Professor of Art History Hunter College City University of New York

GUSTAV BAYERLE Professor of Uralic & Altaic Studies Indiana University

ANDREAS G. E. BODROGLIGETTI Professor of Turkic & Iranian languages University of California at Los Angeles

KATHLEEN BURRILL Associate Professor of Turkish Studies Columbia University

RODERIC DAVISON Professor of History George Washington University

WALTER DENNY Associate Professor of Art History & Near Eastern Studies University of Massachusetts

DR. ALAN DUBEN Anthropologist, Researcher New York City

ELLEN ERVIN Research Assistant Professor of Turkish New York University

CAESAR FARAH Professor of Islamic & Middle Eastern History University of Minnesota

CARTER FINDLEY Associate Professor of History The Ohio State University

MICHAEL FINEFROCK, Professor of History College of Charleston

ALAN FISHER Professor of History Michigan State University

CORNELL FLEISCHER Assistant Professor of History Washington University (Missouri)

TIMOTHY CHILDS Professorial Lecturer at SAIS, Johns Hopkins University

SHAFIGA DAULET Associate Professor of Political Science University of Connecticut

JUSTIN MCCARTHY Associate Professor of History University of Louisville

JON MANDAVILLE Professor of the History of the Middle East Portland State University (Oregon)

RHOADS MURPHEY Assistant Professor of Middle Eastern Languages & Cultures & History Columbia University

PIERRE OBERLING Professor of History Hunter College of the City University of New York

ROBERT OLSON Associate Professor of History University of Kentucky

DONALD QUATAERT Associate Professor of History University of Houston

WILLIAM GRISWOLD Professor of History Colorado State University

WILLIAM HICKMAN Associate Professor of Turkish University of California, Berkeley

JOHN HYMES Professor of History Glenville State College West Virginia

RALPH JAECKEL Visiting Assistant Professor of Turkish University of California at Los Angeles

JAMES KELLY Associate Professor of Turkish University of Utah

PETER GOLDEN Professor of History Rutgers University, Newark

TOM GOODRICH Professor of History Indiana University of Pennsylvania

ANDREW COULD Ph.D. in Ottoman History Flagstaff, Arizona

MICHAEL MEEKER Professor of Anthropology University of California at San Diego

THOMAS NAFF Professor of History & Director, Middle East Research Institute University of Pennsylvania

WILLIAM OCHSENWALD Associate Professor of History Virginia Polytechnic Institute

WILLIAM PEACHY Assistant Professor of the Judaic & Near Eastern Languages & Literatures The Ohio State University

HOWARD REED Professor of History University of Connecticut

TIBOR HALASI-KUN Professor Emeritus of Turkish Studies Columbia University

J. C. HUREWITZ Professor of Government Emeritus Former Director of the Middle East Institute (1971-1984) Columbia University

HALIL INALCIK University Professor of Ottoman History & Member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences University of Chicago

RONALD JENNINGS Associate Professor of History & Asian Studies University of Illinois

KERIM KEY Adjunct Professor Southeastern University Washington, D.C.

DANKWART RUSTOW Distinguished University Professor of Political Science City University Graduate School New York

STANFORD SHAW Professor of History University of California at Los Angele

METIN KUNT Professor of Ottoman History New York City

AVIGDOR LEVY Professor of History Brandeis University

DR. HEATH W. LOWRY Institute of Turkish Studies Inc. Washington, D.C.

JOHN MASSON SMITH, JR. Professor of History University of California at Berkeley

ROBERT STAAB Assistant Director of the Middle East Center University of Utah

JAMES STEWART-ROBINSON Professor of Turkish Studies University of Michigan

FRANK TACHAU Professor of Political Science University of Illinois at Chicago

DAVID THOMAS Associate Professor of History Rhode Island College

WARREN S. WALKER Home Professor of English & Director of the Archive of Turkish Oral Narrative Texas Tech University

WALTER WEIKER Professor of Political Science Rutgers University

MADELINE ZILFI Associate Professor of History University of Maryland

ELAINE SMITH Ph.D. in Turkish History Retired Foreign Service Officer Washington, D-C-EZEL

KURAL SHAW Associate Professor of History California State University, Northridge

FREDERICK LATIMER Associate Professor of History (Retired) University of Utah

BERNARD LEWIS Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern History Princeton University

---

a) Why are you bringing this up on the Gaziantep page? b) copying long lists (of any kind) isn't very helpful -- I trust this is available on the Web elsewhere, so just provide a link. c) If you read the statement, it is as much concerned with the mention of "Turkey" (rather than "Ottoman Empire") as it is with "genocide". --Macrakis 02:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I see this issue has come up again. Please note that most sources use the term "Armenian Genocide", regardless of whether the events constituted a genocide or not. Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, we use that term. Khoikhoi 04:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cretanforever, please. This is not the place to discuss who recognizes the genocide and who doesn't. Khoikhoi 05:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Southeast Anatolia Region

What is this? The linked article is not helpful. Is Gaziantep economically, politically, socially or culturally linked to Diyarbakir and Batman? Jd2718 21:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Antep is a Turkish city

Antep took so much immigrants from the eastern provinces.As a result of this in the metropol ethnic structure has changed but in the rural areas Turcoman population is doninant nearly 90 percent.If we exclude kurdish immigrants from eastern provinces city itself nearly all of Turcomans.In 1999 elections MHP got the 20 percent of the total votes whereas DEHAP got only 5 percent those votes are immigrants' vote from the eastern provinces.So if people form batman diyarbakir leaves the city Turkish character would be visible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.140.194.116 (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Antep took so much immigrants from the eastern provinces.As a result of this in the metropol ethnic structure has changed but in the rural areas Turcoman population is doninant nearly 90 percent.If we exclude kurdish immigrants from eastern provinces city itself nearly all of Turcomans.In 1999 elections MHP got the 20 percent of the total votes whereas DEHAP got only 5 percent those votes are immigrants' vote from the eastern provinces.So if people form batman diyarbakir leaves the city Turkish character would be visible.

As I wrote before they are just creating pseudo Kurdish cities by taking advantage of mass Kurdish emigrations in Turkey.--Doktor Gonzo 12:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Gaziantep is not a kurdish city ..we are TURK and we ll be TURK until forever...

Gaziantep is not a kurdish city ..we are TURK and we ll be TURK until forever...AND Gaziantep ll be a TURKISH CITY END OF HISTORY. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.229.124.45 (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I was just going to write if someone from Antep saw "Kurdish inhabited areas" cat they'd be really pissed.--Doktor Gonzo 12:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

editprotected

{{editprotected}} In the "Popular culture" section, please change the link [[Turkish]] to [[Turkey|Turkish]] in the sentence beginning: "Gaziantep was made famous in Greece by the Turkish TV serial ..." Russ (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• complete --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Baklava

Can we all agree that you can buy good baklava here, and add that to the article?

Not good baklava, the best baklava! Meowy 19:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I would drink to that!

How can we add Interwikis to these protcted pages?--Aziz1005 11:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I also heard that they make a fine ezme there. Mmmh, ezme! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative languages area

Please put Kurdish Language (Dîlok)

I've removed the mention of the Kurdish language as there is no evidence in the article of a Kurdish connection.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Name

The article says that the Arabic spelling is "with t not with ţ but Encyclopaedia of Islam II gives the Arabic spelling `Aynţāb, a spelling that according to the article goes back to the Arabian Nights. Encyclopaedia of Islam Second edition is available online with a subscription from Brill

Ybgursey (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Arabic sources that give the spelling with t are modern

Ybgursey (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Ybgursey (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC) OTOH Encyclopaedia of Islam (First Edition), 1913, written when the Arabic scritp was used in the Ottoman Empire (Turkey)gives `Aintāb with non-emphatic t, as does İslam Ansiklopedisi, teh Turkish edition of Enc. of Islam I. So , perhaps at one point Arabic did have emphatic ţ and changed to non-emphatic t, at least during the Ottoman Empire.

tap does not mean spring `ayn does

I don't know what source says that Arabic tab means spring as claimed by Turkish Wikipedia (Vikipedi). `ayn can mean either "eye" or 'spring"

Ybgursey (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Zincirli Bedesten.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Zincirli Bedesten.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide & Armenian Population - British Archives

The existence of Armenians in this city before the Armenian Genocide is grossly understated in this article. In all likelihood, before 1895 the majority population of this city was Armenian, not various Muslims as claimed by the article. I realize Britanica stated 45,000 population 2/3 Muslim, but this is also misleading in that this figure was after the 1895 massacre of the Armenians, not to mention that the source cited below is from official British government archives and has more weight than the Britanica article from 1911. In addition the Ottoman government sponsored Hamidian Massacres of 1895 are also ignored, probably one of the single most important historical incidents in modern history of that city. Below is the letter to the British Consulate in 1922:

«««»»»

BRITISH CONSULATE

ALEPPO, 15 November 1922

My Lord,
SITUATION IN TURKISH DISTRICTS NEAR SYRIAN NORTHERN FRONTIER.-
I have the honour to report that on November 8 the Turks gave notice to the Armenians of Aintab & Marash and of the district, stretching Eastward to Birejik,
that they must all leave the country in a month. This is done in pursuance of the policy that no Christians are to be allowed to stay in Turkey.

Aintab which formerly held 40000 Armenians now contains only 3000.

The French Consular Representative in Aintab, Mr. de Sandfort, has been transferred to Adana and has not been replaced.
I have the honor to be,
With the highest respect,
My Lord,
Your Lordship's most obedient,
Humble servant
(signed) James Morgan
Consul
Copies to British High Commissioners, Constantinople, Cairo, Jerusalem and Bagdad.

«««»»»

The source can be found here

Thinkfood (talk) 06:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaziantep. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5lctsW5KG to http://www.twins2010.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pic/Dokumente/List_of_Twin_Towns_01.pdf?PHPSESSID=2edd34819db21e450d3bb625549ce4fd

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaziantep. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005052755/http://dmi.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=GAZIANTEP to http://www.dmi.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=GAZIANTEP

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Population

The Box for the city has a different figure of population in 2014 than the text. There is no reference for the figure in the box. The text stated that the population was c.1.4 million in 2014, and is referenced to a quote from a German organization from 2012!!. So in other words in 2012 a certain German source estimated the population for 2014, and this is quoted as fact. Wrong, it is an estimate. All too often on Wiki people pull population figures from various sources as fact. The Turkish Census has a figure for the population from 2000, all more recent figures are estimates and should be presented as such. Brunswicknic (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gaziantep. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414210204/http://www.duisburg.de/micro/english/introducing/102010100000187829.php to http://www.duisburg.de/micro/english/introducing/102010100000187829.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.twins2010.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pic/Dokumente/List_of_Twin_Towns_01.pdf?PHPSESSID=2edd34819db21e450d3bb625549ce4fd
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528020829/http://www.gaziantepcity.info/ to http://www.gaziantepcity.info/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaziantep. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022012849/http://www.gaziantep.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=114&Itemid=144 to http://www.gaziantep.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=114&Itemid=144

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

To add to article

Basic information to add to this article: the demographic breakdown of Gaziantep (the percentage of the population that is Kurdish or the member of other ethnic groups). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@173.88.246.138: This city is overwhelmingly Turkish. A sockpuppet added the Kurdish name. Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If we add the Kurdish name here, then why don’t we add the Kurdish name to Aleppo or Ankara or Istanbul? Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding the Kurdish name to this article is WP:UNDUE. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

There are also no reliable sources for the name. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That most reliable sources use the way better known Gaziantep is normal, but Dilok is rather well known, and as article even redirected to Gaziantep province for quite somewhere, I changed the redirect to Gaziantep city then after the Kurdish name discussion came up. A kurdish source and a Turkish source should be enough, actually not even necessary as Arab or Syriac etc. also mostly aren't sourced were they are added. Arab and Syriac would make more sense to source as they use different script, while Kurdish script is readable also for people who can read English.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

more sources for Entab: Kurmanji article, [4], [5] Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Kurds, their words and Gaziantep

@Paradise Chronicle:@Thepharoah17: As an outsider to your edits I would like to comment. Kurds are important in the modern city of Gaziantep, as this article tells me. Names are important, and I am pleased to discover the Kurdish name for the city. However the references for the name are not quite adequate. They mention Dilok but not in a form understandable to me as meaning "A Kurdish name for Gaziantep is Dilok". If some of the inhabitants of Gaziantep and Turkiye refer to it as Dilok, I would like to know that. If some refer to it in Arabic in a different way, that too. However, as indicated, I believe the references to Dilok are not quite adequate, please do try and find some better ones. Thank you both for your contributions to WP. Brunswicknic (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is a Kurdish dictionary which calls both Entab and Dilok. Now does Brunswicknic also call for a source for the Arabic script as well?How does someone want to remove a sourced Kurdish name and leaving an UNSOURCED Arabic one the very same edit like The Pharoah17? I don't care if the Arabic one is sourced or not, I assume good faith, but I would like to see this from other editors as well for the Kurdish name for a city where Kurds have lived since centuries.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I can see your frustration Paradise Chronicle. I can see that the name section has apparently unreferenced material. Perhaps someone else can chase the reference, has it dropped out over time or some such. In regards to the Kurdish dictionary, looks good, very good, includes the name 'Entab as well. If you edit the article including that reference, I think it would be a good thing. Thepharoah17, I note in the names section that it includes historic names, including those from Armenian people and Crusaders. As I mentioned before, correct me if I am wrong, the contemporary Kurdish population of Gaziantep is not insubstantial, and Gaziantep has a place in contemporary Kurdish life. So, is not a Kurdish name for the city notable? Again I thank you both for contributing to WP. Brunswicknic (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle I note your recent edit, perhaps you could have waited for Thepharoah17 to have participated in this talk page discussion, you know, them participating and us reaching a mutually agreeable edit. You include the initial two references, I think they are not strong enough to act as a reference, this is of course not because of their intrinsic value, but as a source for the name that English readers can appreciate it. Speaking personally, I have found it hard to remain "unattached" to my wiki contributions, but with greater time and reflection, I can appreciate others viewpoints. Though I stand up to bullies, so there you go. Once again, I believe that both of you editors are acting in good faith to help make this Gaziantep article a better thing for readers, thank you. Brunswicknic (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought three references for a Kurdish name will be good enough for ThePharoah17. They claim Kurdistan has nor reason to exist, that Kurdistan is a secular "idea" and Kurdish names also don't exist. They clearly oppose Kurdish names and therefore I thought better three than 1.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I note that there is a lot of opinion-sharing between both of you. This is why I urge restraint if possible. Brunswicknic (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean with opinion-sharing? I go with the sources and need 3 for 1 word and they prefer the unsourced part on Wikipedia. Is this really opinion sharing? Yet there was no word of you on the unsourced part, only about the sourced Kurdish one, which you deemed not well enough sourced.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this page being re-written to reflect an anti-Turkish prism?

This is about the "Ethnic Groups" section. I have no skin in the game. A photographer friend of mine was recently travelling here and sent me a photo as I was intrigued. So I did some research and ended up on this page.

First, I was somewhat curious as to why this change was made: An erroneous statement of "Turkish Kurdistan": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaziantep&type=revision&diff=1060399026&oldid=1059753350

So, I guess my query is whether a section which is surely about current ethnicity has ended up becoming a polemic (chiefly one author) that comprises:

(A) pejorative language (e.g. the use of "not even": "The decrease in the historic population of Armenians until 16th century can be explained by Asadur Khederian's claim that there was a Turkification of Armenians through conversion due to domination and oppression, which eventually affected Armenians who were not even Muslim, as they started to speak Turkish as well") and

(B) selective interpretations of academic texts, themselves trying to discern points of view and perspectives (see reference 31, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339596061_AN_ASSESSMENT_OF_A_GESAR%27S_BOOK_%27AINTAB%27S_STRUGGLE_FOR_EXISTENCE_AND_THE_ATTITUDE_AND_BEHAVIOR_OF_ANTEP_ARMENIANS_DURING_THE_INVASIONS%27_-THE_ANATOMY_OF_A_PARADOX-).

I'm not sure an encyclopedic entry about a city is the place for this kind of discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:3D0A:3301:69C4:C59:279:5D0A (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Demography of Gaziantep

If people would like to add information on the demography of Gaziantep, than a section in the article would be an appropriate addition. There have been attempts to add information that pertains to Gaziantep Province, again, a new section would be appropriate. I note that there articles on the Demographics of Turkey, Minorities in Turkey, Turkification, and Languages of Turkey. At the moment this looks like edit-warring around Kurdish People and Turkey. I ask people to respect diversity and attempt to reach a civilised consensus. Brunswicknic (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I will add a section on this page regarding the demographics in the near future. Thanks for the advice, but according to the way this page currently stands out, there should be a clarification regarding the demographics, since most of the time, mostly the pages of the majority-Kurdish cities in Turkey include these city's Kurdish names, although there are Kurdish names for cities like Istanbul. So, the inclusion of Gaziantep's supposed Kurdish name implies as if Gaziantep is majority Kurdish, which is why I believe there should be a clarification. Antepli0234 (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Antepli0234: for creating the Demographic section. The source you use is not a great demographic source, demography usually requires some sort of census data, basically numbers, to give appropriate sense. This section is using generalist language. There seems a slight contradiction between the two statements: "Gaziantep had very little Kurdish inhabitants until today" and "The last half century saw an increase in its Kurdish population through internal migration to the city from Kurdistan". I also refer you to the statement elsewhere in the article "By the end of the 19th century, Aintab had a population of about 45,000, two thirds of which was Muslim—largely Turkish, but also Arabs and Kurdish" It would seem that Gaziantep has had a significant Kurdish population since the end of the 19th Century, that there has been migration of Kurds to the city during the last 50 years, and that the Kurdish population of Gaziantep is a significant minority that has been there for over 100 years. You use the term "now". Such use is discouraged in WP, when is "now", the reference you use is dated to 2005, what data does the reference use, what time period is that reference referring to. All in all, all this seems not to exhibit a Neutral Point of View. This Demographics section needs some re-wording. Brunswicknic (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I aim to develop that section, but I didn't have time to finalize it with better sources, which is why I used the term "near future" for that. I will try to shortly add them. In addition, I had changed the word "now" long before, but I will also adjust the current statement to better suit WP.. As a side note, the statement in this page is vey ambiguous and doesn't refer to the Kurdish population as significant. Antepli0234 (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I added a section below and only just saw this. I just want to say, I thought it was biased. I think those who are writing should declare any potential COI when dealing with these types of issues. But, my point remains, I was interested to read of the demographics and instead found myself embroiled in a political piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:3D0A:3301:69C4:C59:279:5D0A (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)