Talk:Gaziantep
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Comments
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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 Internatioal 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]
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Kurdish majority?
Are there any sources for this claim? A census would be nice - there are clearly several minorities present. Jd2718 21:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- No census based on ethnicity was ever held in Turkey, although the 1965 census did record languages. I'll try to find sources. Khoikhoi 22:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- this pro-Kurdish source makes it sound like the Antep region, but not the city itself, is on the fringe of the more concentrated Kurdish area. As they'd have reason to push figures up, it makes me think we are looking for an accurate smaller number. Majority is pretty clearly out of the question (and, OR or not, my observation there was that I heard Turkish and a little Arabic, and I met turkified Arabs, but not Kurds. But obviously this is me, not a source). Jd2718 23:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I also found a source that confirmed that the city did have a Kurdish majority, but it only discusses the 1930s:
-
-
-
-
In parts of Kurdistan the success of 'turkification' was already apparent by 1930. In both Gaziantep (Ayntab) and Urfa, for example, where Kurds were, in any case, barely 50 per cent of the population they, like the substantial Arab minority, were quite read to pass as Turks. But no uniform pattern existed. Local experience affected popular responses. In Marash, for example, noted then as now for its strong religious sentiments, the Sunni population sulked, held down by a stronger garrison. Alevis, by contrast welcomed Kemalist secularism for they no longer felt oppressed by Sunni clerics.
-
-
-
-
- You might also be interested in the discussion at Talk:Arabs in Turkey. Khoikhoi 23:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Antep is a urkish 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.
[edit] 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).