Talk:Southeastern Anatolia Project

Archive1

Last edit

Duk was one step ahead of me so my last edit was basicaly a spelling imrpovement. No praragraph was introduced. Just a bunch of minor edits. -- Cat ^chi? 16:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

What are you trying to proove?

The flooding of historical sites are well known this is mentioned on the page. Flooding of villiges is also mentioned. Exactly what part of providing people water and power violates human rights? Next time when I ask you to discuss something in talk I want to see something in talk, you got that? Do not just revert me, its something I am sick of. -- Cat ^chi? 14:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The project breaches UN agreements on hydroelectric projects because it can severely reduce the supply of water to Iraq and Syria, and these two countries have not consented to the scheme. Rivers that cross international boundaries are shared resources and should not be monopolised by the inhabitants of one country. Everyone has the right to drinking water.121.155.16.188 13:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)pignut

Finally, a number of judicial questions needed clearing over the flooding of several historical sites as well as local residence. You cover it briefly, I cover it in more detail. Mine stays. PS. Its "prove", not "proove". - FrancisTyers 15:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the bridge is yours captain. I am sick of dealing with this crap. -- Cat ^chi? 15:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Although sorced I realy dispute the factual acuracy of the Kurdish Human Rights Project report. A short peek at the cite will show the cite is less than neutral. What kind of a human rights organisation fail to condem both sides? -- Cat ^chi? 23:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

sounds like original research. re: What kind of a human rights organisation fail to condem both sides? — are you serious here?

— Davenbelle 10:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I was quoting the founder of the Turkish Human Rights Organisation who resigned his post recently noting "PKK takeing over the I.H.D." and used that quote. -- Cat ^chi? 13:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Plus why are you here? Stalking me around? -- Cat ^chi? 13:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section

As I have told davenbelle earlier on, the criticism section is not in accordance with wikipedias neutral point of view policy. It is biased and one sided. --Cat out 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to have your attention to the fact that the whole anatolia is settled begginning from the ancient times. As a person who traveled nearly %80 of it I assure you that you can hardly find a village without an ancient fountain or similar ancient ruins. But a country still needs hydroelectric power and it is nothing but simple logic to build the necessary dams on the greatest rivers. I think the cristism section is a bit biased and unrealistic. Thalion Hurin 19:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hasankeyf is not related to Kurdish culture or Kurdish history.

Hasankeyf is not related to Kurdish Culture or Kurdish History. This is certainly not NPOV and must be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueEyedCat (talk • contribs) 16:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Biased Point of View

The claim that the construction of the Ilica Dam is aimed to destroy the Kurdish cultural treasures is not valid. It was published in the report of a clearly anti-state separatist organization, and aims to slander the importance of this project. Please take it off.Calcus 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)calcus

Bertilvidet

Please read ref http://www.khrp.org/publish/p1999/99G.htm, and compare with my changes, then revert if you want to. deniz 20:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

First, the additional info I provided are deleted by these reverts. Second, the criticism in Ilısu part is (detailed version of what is) basically given in the first sentence of erasure of displaced people section:

The GAP has been criticized for the fact that damming the regional rivers will flood a significant portion of the historical Armenian and Kurdish homelands, effectively erasing the cultural and archaeological history of those displaced peoples.

Third, there are things that are not criticism in the Ilısu section. Fourth, references http://www.khrp.org/publish/p1999/99G.htm and http://www.dams.org/kbase/submissions/showsub.php?rec=SOC104 have the same text. The e-mail address of Kerim Yildiz is khrp AT khrp.demon.co.uk (see [1] ). They are the same references. The additional info I mentioned is also from these references, they are important as well, as they give a general information about the project. Fifth, the last section makes claims with no references, it is definitely disputed.

The title of last section should be changed imo, only the first sentence is about displaced people. Just criticism may be a better title. deniz 00:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Coolcat

It would be better to keep it there, at least some portion of it.

Did these criticisms pop up before the project or after the project?

Anyway, I guess you guys all knew about this (from Hasankeyf):

According to Bugday Association, based in Turkey itself, and which focuses solely on promoting environment-friendly lifestyle and politics, recent field research conducted jointly by Ms. Huriye Küpeli, the prefect of Hasankeyf, Swiss ambassador to Turkey and representatives of the consortium of contractors for the dam project, seem to indicate a suitable nearby spot for moving the historical heritage of Hasankeyf, an operation for which the Turkish Ministry of Culture pledges to provide 30 million euros.

deniz 18:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

References

Separating the primary article from political debate

Such a politically charged subject must of course be discussed in terms of opposing viewpoints. This controversy however should not obscure the basic facts of the subject. If those facts are in question, all sides should get their say, outside of the primary section, in the 'controversy' section which many good articles have.

Let's have those less personally involved write the main article. Was this text copied from the official Project website? That's how it reads. I didn't even get through the first sentence without tripping over rhetoric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.128.130 (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Where are the Kurds in this article?

Southeast Anatolia is Kurdistan, yet the single mention of Kurds in this article is to equate them to terrorists. There is a lot more to this than the PKK. The whole purpose of this project is the Turkification of Kurdistan, something that gets no mention at all. It equates to the Sinification of Manchuria (now completed) Tibet and East Turkestan (ongoing). Destroying a nation, a culture and an ethnic group under the pretense of beneficial development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.185.47 (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)