Talk:Tomb of Suleyman Shah

Süleyman shah

He had nothing to do with the seljuk tribe...

He is the Ancestor of the Ottoman dynasty...and there is no seljuks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.140.111 (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal status

The tomb "shall remain, with its appurtenances, the property of Turkey". The tomb is the property of Turkey, only that. Neither the tomb nor the land on which it stands are Turkish territory. The tomb and the island surrounding it ARE NOT a Turkish sovereign enclave. This claim, often repeated by the news media recently, is simply wrong. Wikipedia ought to be corrected.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that [1] this edit provides a suitable correction, taking out dubious claims in Wikipedia's voice while leaving in all notable viewpoints. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to edit the article to reflect this position, but I was reverted. The Treaty of Ankara cited in para 2 is really very clear, and I'm afraid a news agency run by the Turkish state is not in any way a reliable source for something like this. User:Maurice Flesier, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts? ninety:one 16:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its completely baseless a claim. Please read the article 9 of the Franco-Turkish Ankara Agreement and also there are many reliable and independent sources: Al Arabiya CNN International Maurice Flesier (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tomb now appears to be in Turkey. I have no idea if anyone is still claiming exclave status for its former locations, but I have updated the article to reflect the present situation. It is clearly inappropriate to claim exclave status in Wikipedia's voice. Please obtain consensus here before doing any such thing. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The shrine has been taken to Turkey for security reasons. Construction of a new tomb has already began on the territory of Syria very close to the Turkish border. This site already stands under Turkish flag secured by Turkish military. As soon as the building of the tomb has completed the shrine will be moved in. As this location was Syrian soil, and now has been occupied in exchange of the former place inside Syria, it is an exclave of Turkey. Please check the relevant international news carefully. Thanks. --CeeGee 18:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the treaty? There is no mention of "enclave." And enclave is a very specific thing in international law, and no one reading the treaty would say it is an "enclave." The treaty gives property rights. It does not give enclave status.Aeo1987 (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CeeGee. Turkey moved the tomb to Turkey, temporary and new area were maintained in the same way. So, its exclave status is ongoing. Maurice Flesier (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the issue lies. The Ottoman Empire and its Successor the Republic of Turkey was the colonial power and original owner of the entirety of Syria. When the allied powers invaded during World War 1 France took control of Syria but not Sovereignty. The Treaty of Laussane settled modern day Turkey's Sovereignty and Turkey did not cede Sovereignty over the Tomb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice, the problem is that the treaty very clearly says the Tomb shall "remain the property of Turkey". It does not transfer or cede the land from one state to another, as countless other treaties do. What's happened here is just the same as the state of Turkey owning buildings and land in many places inside and outside Turkey, and there are many cases of states owning property in other states without those areas of land becoming actual sovereign exclaves - you can see many other examples at Enclave and exclave#Land owned by a foreign country.

(Depressingly, we now have an example of the media using Wikipedia as a source of information without checking the sources first - many of them seem to have copied this article as it was earlier, sourced as it was to an agency of the Turkish state, which is not a reliable source).

Given that it's clear the perspective of the Turkish state is that the tomb is sovereign Turkish territory, might it be an acceptable compromise to explain this? Something along the lines of "The 1921 Treaty of Ankara confirmed the continued ownership by Turkey of the tomb, which Turkey now considers sovereign territory and part of Turkey"? The bottom line is that we can't describe it as an exclave without independent, reliable sources saying that (who haven't just copied the Turkish press releases, or this article in the last few days). ninety:one 19:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article to attempt to reflect the legal status. The Treaty of Ankara pretty clearly states that Turkey will have some rights regarding the tomb, but it does not cede sovereignty to Turkey. However, I did include the Turkish position in the section I created, which is that the area around the tomb is Turkish territory. However, Maurice Flesier has reverted these edits. As it stands, the article is not NPOV and inappropriately reflects only the Turkish position. – Zntrip 20:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any position on the legal status of the land/tomb, ~~but due to reversions the article now says again that the location is in Turkey, which is not supported by current reliable sources.~~ Earlier sources today said that it had been moved to Turkey, but this appears to have referred to the object "tomb", not the location, and more recent news sources say that the object-tomb has been placed in a new location-tomb within Syria, still in Aleppo: on a hill outside the village of Esmesi, near Kobani. Remove the legal claim until that's sorted out, that's fine and reasonable. (Perhaps cite the claim by Turkey that the move has not changed their claim to the land under the tomb? That seems accurate, at least, and clearly flags the facts as disputed by Turkey and Syria.) ~~But there is no question about the location any more, and "in Turkey" as the infobox now says is wrong, so it should be fixed.~~ — Saxifrage ✎ 20:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread the diffs. The change from my version is just the map. Since it's still in Syria, I find it odd that the map is now for Turkey. Why not keep the Syrian map and simply update the pushpin? — Saxifrage ✎ 21:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Saxifrage. I have made two edits today and a third could easily be construed as edit warring, so I'll leave it to someone else.

This talk page shows a strong consensus that we should not describe the former site of the tomb as sovereign territory or as a legal exclave of Turkey. We would need a reliable source to make the claim in our voice, and remarks by Turkish politicians (however reliably attested) are reliable only for the remarks made and not for the formal legal position. (It is perfectly possible for a nation to own territory in another, without it becoming their sovereign territory. E.g. on the Runnymede memorial, Evans, D. M. Emrys (1965). "John F. Kennedy Memorial Act, 1964". The Modern Law Review 28 (6): 703–706.) I also note that we do not now know whether Turkey claims the new site as its own territory, either as an exclave or as continuous with its undisputed territory. For the moment, to repeat, the word "exclave" is inappropriate. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and changed the article once again to attempt to reflect all points of view. In the "legal status" section, there are sources from both the official state-run news agencies of Turkey and Syria, which I believe can fairly be characterized as the official positions of those states. Feel free to correct any errors that you believe I've made. – Zntrip 21:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good and well-cited to me. I also restored the sentence in the body about the move being temporary according to Turkey, as that's cited and mentioned in the lede, and in the Turkish government's voice. I left out their justification for that intention since it relates to their position that it remains sovereign territory and I couldn't think of a way to phrase that less controversially. I think it should probably be put back in later though, in a way that makes it clearly in the voice of the Turkish government. There may be more news-report developments on that front later, which might make it easier to phrase and cite, particularly once the text of this letter to the UN that the article mentions comes to light. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure citing two governments alone is enough. Not one other state in the world has recognized Turkey's claim, including its statutory allies as to "enclave" or sovereign territory of Turkey status.. There are quite a few treaties and agreements that grant property rights, eg on war graves sites, around the world. The countries those are in which have granted property rights to another state have not granted territorial rights by granting property rights. Commit a crime on those properties and it is the country the property is in which has jurisdiction.Aeo1987 (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the discussion, the original site of that tomb at the time of the Treaty of Ankara is now at the bottom of a lake and was previously moved when the lake was formed upon the building a dam. I don't hear anyone saying that the land at the bottom of the lake is sovereign Turkish territory. Jeff in CA (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but that move was also done in cooperation between Turkey and Syria. However they arranged that, the result seems to be that the status of the plot of land under the lake is not a point of contention between them. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True; my point being that an object like a tomb is not so hard to move, but it is far more difficult to agree to transfer sovereignty over a plot of land. Because Syria has not ever disclaimed sovereignty (as far as I know), it is highly improbable that Syria would have transferred sovereignty to Turkey over the land at the second tomb location. A second written instrument between Syria and Turkey (after the 1921 treaty) is a necessary condition for Turkey to have any credible claim of sovereignty at the second tomb location. As far as I know, it doesn't exist. Jeff in CA (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's an interesting point to chew on, but it's highly irrelevant to Wikipedia: our job is not to engage in research to determine the truth, our job is to accurate synthesise what reliable sources are already saying. Until the press pick up the issue, or an editor finds existing legal opinions on it to cite, there's no percentage in us chewing on the truth of the territorial claim on this Talk page. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an interesting point, it is an objective and core point. Based on the treaty, there is not a shred of standing for one side of the claim. The treaty is worded no different than war graves treaties and agreements which grant property -- but not territorial rights. This treaty reads like America battlefield monuments commission property in Europe. They do not confer territorial sovereignty or any territorial or enclave status. They confer private property rights alone to another nation. Aeo1987 (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct...despite rampant claims by politicians and the press which are adequately reflected already in this WP article, the relevant (1921) treaty contains no mention of ceding territory or sovereignty even though elsewhere in the treaty it establishes and describes the international boundary/sovereignty. Note that the buildings convey, not the soil. From the Turkish Vikipedia: “In 1973, in order to construct the Tabqa Regional dam, the Aleppo Governor asked for 8797 square meters from the village of Karakozak. This was later accomplished as a result of negotiations between the governments of Turkey and Syria. In addition, in accordance with the Ankara Agreement, the Turkish military maintains the shrine.” Again, no reference to sovereignty in 1973. Parallels may be found with foreign gravesites, etc. in other countries...See Land owned by a foreign country which says in part: These lands are not enclaves and do not have extraterritoriality or separate sovereignty. Examples of this include:

Napoleon's original grave in Longwood, Saint Helena, owned by France.
The Brest memorial, in Brest, France, has been owned by the United States since the aftermath of World War I.
The Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial in Normandy, France, which contains the graves of 9,386 American military dead, most of whom died during the landings and ensuing operations of World War II, owned by the United States of America.
The Captain Cook Monument was deeded (ownership, not sovereignty) outright to the British Government by the independent nation of Hawaii in 1877]]
The land under the John F. Kennedy memorial at Runnymede, United Kingdom, is widely thought to have been granted to the United States of America by the John F. Kennedy Memorial Act 1964(an Act of the UK Parliament). However, the Act grants to the United States "an estate in fee simple absolute", which is a form of title under English law, and the site remains under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
The Tomb of Suleyman Shah (the burial place of Suleyman Shah, the grandfather of Osman I, the founder of the Ottoman Empire) situated in Aleppo Governorate, Syria, is the property of Turkey. Article 9 of the Treaty of Ankara signed between France and Turkey in 1921, provides that the tomb "shall remain, with its appurtenances, the property of Turkey, who may appoint guardians for it and may hoist the Turkish flag there". -- DLinth (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to popular opinion outside of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not and has never been in the business of deciding what is truth is for our readers. Our policy against original research forbids it. What we do instead is quote, paraphrase, and synthesise what other sources have already said. By putting the two countries claims side-by-side, along with the relevant info from the Treaty, we aim to give the reader as clear an idea of the situation as possible so that they can come to their own conclusions about truth. The only problem I currently see with the article's execution of this approach is that someone has removed the note about the Treaty being silent on the subject of the land under the Tomb. Hypothetically, would such a line being restored satisfy your objections? If not, I'm not sure what Wikipedia can actually do to satisfy you and not break its own rules, but we (including other editors in "we") can certainly discuss it to see if there's a satisfactory consensus to be found. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was wrong on that point: there is still text that says the Treaty does not talk about the land/sovereignty over the land: "Neither Treaty states that the tomb is deemed to be the territory of Turkey." Given that, I think your objection is actually satisfied; is there anything missing from the current state of the article?

While I was reviewing the state of the article I checked out the edit history. You may have been writing here when the article had been changed anonymously to say, in Wikipedia's own voice, that the tomb is definitely sovereign territory. If that version of the article is what you were objecting to, then take heart: those versions do not enjoy editor consensus, and changes that go against consensus will always be removed. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have no knowledge of International Treaty Law or International Customary Law. You are attempting to interpret a single piece of Treaty literally. Fortunately, Treaties are interpreted using the "Golden Rule" also know as the Purposive approach. Turkey's Sovereignty over the Tomb is not derived from the Treaty of Ankara alone and the issue lies here. Turkey derives Sovereignty over the Tomb pursuant to the Treaty of Laussane and 2 Protocols signed between the Republic of Turkey and the Syrian Arab Republic. Both Turkey and Syria accept Turkey's Sovereignty over the Tomb as confirmed by the 2 Protocols. If you guys bother to ready the above section on Sovereignty you will see the reality. For one to dispute Turkey's Sovereignty over the Tomb is to dispute the Treaty of Laussan and thus the borders of modern day Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to get this point of view into Wikipedia, you will need to provide more than one-sided claims. If you can find evidence of its acceptance by the relevant international legal bodies - and by the legal government of Syria - that evidence will be acceptable for Wikipedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And by evidence, we mean citations. Even if we agreed to change the article, any fact without a citation can be removed from the article without discussion. To get a fact into the encyclopedia, provide a citation from a reliable source that supports the fact — that's the only way to guarantee a statement will remain in the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The below shall suffice in allaying your concerns:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.226.142 (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I (and I'm sure others) will take a look at them to see if they provide anything new. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, having read these, I see nothing new. (1 )–( 3) simply state that it is an exclave, but only point to the 1921 treaty as a reason. The article already deals with what the treaty says about the tomb. (4) claims it's an exclave, but without clearly citing the reason why (it just refers to "international treaties" without saying which, giving us no new leads to pursue). What was just being discussed was the need for citations saying that there is international recognition of sovereignty (reporters are not Heads of State and their recognition isn't what's needed on that point).

One thing we could use these citation for is a statement along the lines of "It is widely reported in the media that the Treaty of 1921 established the Tomb as a sovereign exclave of Turkey." That would be an accurate characterisation of those links taken together that I don't think would count as OR (though I may be wrong), as it's just stating a fact about the reporting around this incident.

That said, it's late here. Does anyone else see something of novel use in these links that I've overlooked? — Saxifrage ✎ 05:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me a link which supports the laypersons claim that it is not a sovereign enclave of Turkey? The article also fails to mention that pursuant to Article 6 of the The North Atlantic Treaty done at Washington D.C. on 4 April 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) views the subject Tomb as Sovereign Territory of the Republic of Turkey and protected under the collective defense mechanism. This is because the Tomb is under Turkish control and jurisdiction and located in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is obligated to prove a negative. Rather, we include things into the article with are positively supportable. A citation to a reliable source explaining how the 1921 Treaty makes it sovereign territory is what is required before we can say so. Again, we add only what is supported by citations, and leave gaps where gaps exist in the real world, which our readers can interpret as they see fit.

Alternatively to a citation to support the statement that the Treaty makes it sovereign territory, a citation to NATO saying explicitly that they consider it sovereign territory would be excellent, since that would constitute international recognition. However, beware that if you're suggesting we extrapolate that fact from Article 6 of the NAT (1949), that is forbidden to us as it would qualify as original research, and avoiding original research is a core tenet of Wikipedia. I'm aware that Turkey has stated that an attack on the Tomb would constitute an attack on NATO, but we would need citations saying that NATO as a whole (or majority) agree with that statement. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(As an example of why we are forbidden to do original research: your interpretation of the NAT (1949) is in error. Article 6, bullet two that you reference, does not establish or support any territorial claims. It only says that attacks on forces of the Parties constitutes an attack on the Members as a whole. Also, Syria is not covered by its conditions. For Article 6 to be relevant, it must be already established that the Tomb is Turkish territory; trying to use Article 6 to show that it is Turkish territory is the getting it backwards: the fallacy of affirming the consequent. This kind of error, and the massive arguments over it that would occur, are why the encyclopedia has a blanket ban on doing it in the first place. We look to outside expertise only, and collect what they already say. That means we can reduce arguing to simply what sources are reliable, and arguing over how to accurately reflect what they say; which is why we keep insisting on citations that explicitly say what you're wanting the article to say.) — Saxifrage ✎ 19:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This entry needs more work

For example, WHEN was the first tomb built? Who built it? What did it look like? What records exist describing it?

etc. etc. etc.

For a historical wikipedia entry there is really very little history here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxdsg (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Does anyone have any reliable sources on what was actually at the various sites, and what items have actually been moved around? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

Looking for some Chronological Logic here: If Suleyman Shah was the grandfather of a man (Osman I) circa 1290 AD, how could he (Suleyman Shah) have fallen off a horse in "Modern Day" Syria? Some facts would help in understanding these events. When did Suleyman Shah fall off the horse and drown?

Thank you Wp212 (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He died in a location that is in modern-day Syria. It doesn't mean that he died when modern-day Syria existed. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey's Sovereignty over the Tomb: Treaties and Protocols (1921, 1923, 1956, 2003)

I don't know when secondary sources such as news articles became replacements for primary sources such as International Treaties and Protocols. I edited this section on numerous occasions with irrefutable links to the actual treaties establishing the Republic of Turkey's Sovereignty over the Tomb yet for some unknown reason people insist on relying on the wording of the Treaty of Ankara alone to assert the contrary position. Well the true juristic position is that Turkey does not derive its Sovereignty over the Tomb solely on the basis of Article 3 of the Treaty of Ankara.

The Treaty of Lausanne (Article 3) is best known for establishing Turkey’s modern borders, but in fact it was the last of three accords that ultimately doomed the Ottoman Empire. Building off the secret Sykes-Picot agreement in which Britain and France divided the Near East between them, the 1920 Treaty of Sevres sought to annull Ottoman sovereignty over Greater Syria, Palestine, Iraq, and the Balkans. British, French, Greek, Italian, and Armenian armies invaded the Anatolia, threatening to divide the Turkish heartland itself. However the Treaty of Sevres never got off the ground. Mustafa Kemal, later known as Atatürk, rallied the remnants of Ottoman forces and assembled a new Grand Turkish National Assembly in Ankara that rejected the treaty. Within a year he had accomplished the unthinkable, routing the Allied forces, and compelling a new round of negotiations over the nascent Turkish state’s borders.

The Treaty of Ankara, settled between France and the Grand Turkish National Assembly, delineated Turkey’s southern border. France turned over much of today’s southeastern Turkey, and in exchange Ataturk acknowledged that the new republic held no further claims over former Ottoman territory. The detailed description of the boundary effectively follows the route of the still incomplete Berlin-Baghdad Railway between Aleppo and Mosul. Kobane – the latest town to which Kurdish refugees are besieged by ISIS forces – was little more than a station along this route. Its name is likely a corruption of the word “kompanie”, in honor of the German firms who funded and designed the audacious project a decade earlier. Split into two parts by the treaty, Kurdish and Armenian migrants turned the Syrian half into a prosperous border town.

The treaty also recognized Turkish sovereignty over Caber Kalesi, the tomb of Suleyman Shah, grandfather of Osman I, the eponymous founder of the Ottoman dynasty. Though Atatürk wanted to distinguish the secular republic from its Ottoman past, even he could not outrun such an illustrious legacy. Detailed in Article 9 of the treaty, the tomb and all its appurtenances remained “the property of Turkey, who may appoint guardians for it and may hoist the Turkish flag there”. Barely the size of two football fields and just 35 kilometers south of Kobane, Caber Kalesi became a portion of Turkey entirely surrounded by Syrian territory. The French, and later the Syrians, followed the terms of the treaty to the letter even under the most extreme circumstances. When Syria decided to build the Taqba Dam in 1973, Damascus agreed to relocated the tomb to a higher elevation in order to prevent its flooding. But rather than move the tomb to Turkey proper, Caber Kalesi remained a Turkish exclave, surrounded by the Euphrates River and the Syrian Desert.

The Syria Arab Republic also acknowledged the Republic of Turkey's Sovereignty over the Turkish enclave in the The Aleppo protocol with Turkey after the withdrawal of the French mandate on August 5th, 1956. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 26 February 2015

Please see the discussion of this point in the next section. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Hence why I decided to write a new section. The discussion is based around Article 9 of the Treaty of Ankara which is being viewed in isolation. The Republic of Turkey derives Sovereignty over the Tomb and its surrounds (up to 10,000 sq m) pursuant to 4 International Treaties and Agreements discussed above.

Furthermore, Sovereignty is not dependent on International Treaty alone. International Customary law is of vital importance also. The Syrian Arab Republic does not exercise any de jure or de facto jurisdiction over the Tomb and its surrounds. The Turkish Armed Forces also maintains a permanent presence there. If one disputes Turkish Sovereignty over the Tomb they are disputing the Sovereignty of mainland Turkey as well as it is the same treaty (Treaty of Lausanne) that delineated modern day Turkey's frontiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You actually speak largely of de facto control. De facto control is not the same as sovereignty, from Ukraine to the West Bank to this tomb. Brownlie draws a sharp distinction between sovereignty and jurisdiction; the latter can include rights, liberties, power, property (de facto control) and yet not rise the the level of national sovereignty. (Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law Fifth Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 106.)

And since national sovereignty must be actually agreed by at least two states, recognized by other states, or established by an international court such as the ICJ, then, actually, it is in fact dependent on bi-lateral or multi-lateral treaty, or on an actual international court ruling or arbitration. "Customary international practices" that you mention fall short of that. See the WP page on sovereignty: "According to Immanuel Wallerstein, another fundamental feature of sovereignty is that it is a claim that must be recognised by others if it is to have any meaning: "Sovereignty is more than anything else a matter of legitimacy [...that] requires reciprocal recognition. Sovereignty is a hypothetical trade, in which two potentially conflicting sides, respecting de facto realities of power, exchange such recognitions as their least costly strategy." Wallerstein, Immanuel (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke University Press. p. 44. ISBN 9780822334422. That doesn't exist here; Syria does not concede to Turkish sovereignty over the tomb, and the only relevant authoritative agreement (1921; http://www.hri.org/docs/FT1921/Franco-Turkish_Pact_1921.pdf ) in fact deliberately avoids going that far, instead talking of property and flags and guardians, none of which would need to be rights granted to (or even mentioned regarding) Turkey if the tomb were sovereign Turkish soil. It is not.

You question above the veracity of news articles. You are correct to do so; numerous articles incorrectly prescribe sovereignty or "Turkish soil" to the tomb, or quote claims from politicians from one state (remember, it takes two or more). None of that counts, only what is found in a bi-lateral treaty or international court ruling. -- DLinth (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to interpret the Treaty of Ankara and the Treaty of Laussane you need to understand the historical backdrop: The Ottoman Empire and it's Successor the Republic of Turkey has never ceded Sovereignty over the subject territory (Qal'at Ja'bar) even during the French Mandate over Syria, albeit it was occupied by the French. During the two years that followed the end of the war in 1918 – and in accordance with the Sykes-Picot Agreement that was signed between Britain and France during the war – the British held control of most Ottoman Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) and the southern part of the Ottoman Syria (Palestine and Transjordan), while the French controlled the rest of Ottoman Syria (modern Syria, Lebanon, Alexandretta) and other portions of southeastern Turkey. In the early 1920s, the British and French control of these territories became formalized by the League of Nations' mandate system, and France was assigned the League of Nations mandate of Syria on 29 September 1923, which included the territory of present day Lebanon and Alexandretta (Hatay) in addition to Syria proper. The French however with the Treaty of Ankara acknowledged the end of the Franco-Turkish War and ceded large areas to Turkey. Article 9 of that treaty confirmed that Qal'at Ja'bar (including the Tomb of Suleyman Shah) "remains" [emphasis added] the property of Turkey. The use of the word remains is critical to interpretation of the Treaty. It confirmed that the Successor State to the Ottoman Empire: Turkey retained it's Sovereignty over the tomb. Successive Protocols between Turkey and Syria confirmed the formers Sovereignty over the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.226.142 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 27 February 2015

(Please sign your edits using four tildes at the end (like this: ~~~~, or by clicking the "Sign your posts on talk pages" link below the edit box), which will be automatically turned into an identifier and timestamp.)

This is enlightening. If you can provide citations to a reliable source making this interpretation, then we can use that. We are forbidden from doing that interpretation ourself though, hence the need for a citation to someone else doing it for us.

Similarly, we need a citation to either these protocols you mention (if they are unambiguous) or a reliable source's explicit interpretation of them, so that we can derive accurate statements from them that we can then cite to them. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FACT 1: There is no dispute amongst anyone on here that the Republic of Turkey views the subject site of the Tomb as its Sovereign Enclave. This has been repeatedly publicly stated by the Turkish Government.

FACT 2: There is also no dispute that the Republic of Turkey exercises full control over the site and also has a permanent military presence on it.

Then how could one refer to the tomb as merely being "a site situated in Aleppo Governorate, Syria"? This is misleading and inaccurate. It is a historical site containing the remains of Suleyman Shah that is claimed by the Republic of Turkey as being a Sovereign Enclave. This fact cannot be denied. Yet people still insist on omitting any reference to Turkey's claims and instead supporting layman's interpretations of International Treaties. Gibraltar's Sovereignty is also contested by Spain and many other countries yet the wiki article mentions it as being a British Overseas Territory. What is the difference with the site of the Tomb? Especially so when the Republic of Turkey never ceded its Sovereignty over the site AND exercises effective control. I sense a lot of bias against Turkish claims in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these facts are in the article: both that Turkey claims the site, and that they control the site. These facts are not disputed, and they're not absent from the article. If you want to extrapolate from that to sovereignty, that is forbidden by our original research policy, which I urge you to read before you put more energy into pursuing futile original research here.

As for bias, your own edit history is nearly exclusively pro-Turkey. That is not a problem per se, because Wikipedia's approach to nullifying bias is encoded in our fundamental content policies, which you've been referred to repeatedly, and the approach is quite effective even for highly-contentious subjects. As for my bias, I have no dogs in this race at all, having no personal, religious, or heritage interests in any Middle East countries. My interest in this article is that I read a news article about the remarkable event of the second relocation, noticed an inaccuracy in the Wikipedia article's statement on the new location and corrected it... and then noticed that there was a lot of contention on the talk page about the legal status of the site. As a longtime administrator and general Wikipedia policy wonk, this intrigued me, and I felt that my Wikipedia-centric expertise could be useful in mediating the dispute. (NB: I am not acting in my capacity as an administrator now, and am actually now forbidden from exercising administrative powers around this issue due to my engagement in the discussion here. Rest assured on that point.)

So, as I've said, we have specific policies about this. Convincing your peers here on this page is going to be a failure if you're not following policy. To be clear, the policies involved are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I urge you to study those to understand why your statements so far have not gotten any traction. If you can reframe your suggestions in a way that positively leverage our content control policies, you may find that the conversation becomes more productive of change in the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reference supporting any claim that the Sovereignty of Turkey is disputed over the site of the Tomb. Whereas, many references have been provided to support the Turkish Government position that the site is a Sovereign Enclave of the Republic of Turkey. Furthermore, Sovereignty can be acquired in many ways: one common method is of Prescription (sovereignty transfer). Since you agree about Facts 1 and 2 above, then the first line of the article should clearly state that the subject site is claimed by the Republic of Turkey as its Sovereign Enclave. 110.33.226.142 (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do indeed have reliable source for the claim by Turkey, though I have not seen a formal claim directly from an official source. We mention those claims in an appropriate place. If and when you can persuade a consensus of editors that the claim needs to be in the first line, then it will go there. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Release No: 98, 27 March 2014, Press Release Regarding the Illegal Exposure of Certain Audio Records with Regard to the Tomb of Süleymanşah Memorial Outpost

Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Release No: 70, 22 February 2015, Press Release Regarding the Temporary Relocation of the Tomb of Süleyman Şah and Memorial Outpost

Both Ministerial Press Releases explicitly state the Republic of Turkey's position that the subject sites are Turkish Territory pursuant to International Law. 60.241.130.229 (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's very helpful. The first link does mention "the Tomb of Suleyman Şah Memorial Outpost, which is a part of Turkish national territory" - whatever that means. It doesn't actually use the word "sovereign" though it would well imply such a claim. The second link says "The temporary relocation of the Tomb, conducted on the basis of security assessments, does not constitute any change on the status of the Tomb and its annex stated by the agreements". Again, it doesn't mention the word "sovereign" and again I'm not entirely sure what it means. I suppose it may represent a claim to the 1973-2015 site, but that's not clear. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have realised what the problem here is. You appear to be attempting to prove the claims. While that would be a reasonable way to proceed in most places, trying to construct proofs to get an article changed is entirely contrary to how Wikipedia works. We are actually forbidden from using constructed proofs as reason to change an article. Again, please read the two policy pages (WP:OR most, but also WP:RS) I linked you to, before you continue with this line of argument. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite solid proof (primary sources) you still insist on personal opinion and secondary sources to distort the facts. Various "British Overseas Territories" are also viewed as being Sovereign, including Gibraltar (despite its Sovereignty explicitly being disputed by Spain) yet you still insist on interpreting the phrase "which is a part of Turkish national territory" (contained in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Release) as not denoting Turkish Sovereignty. You are expecting a country to spell out its Sovereignty and borders despite the aforementioned being contested by no one including Syria (n.b. there is no citation stating that Syria does not recognize the enclave) something which is unheard of in International politics. What you are attempting to do is against Wikipedia's Policy on Neutral point of view (NPOV). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "sovereignty" is a positive and strong statement which needs positive evidence. We cannot make such a claim on the basis of original research. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can say that Turkey says that it's sovereign territory, and we do. The treaty says that they own the tomb (ownership and sovereignty being distinct legal terms), and we say that as well. We cannot say that the tomb is sovereign territory just because Turkey says so, when the treaty says that they merely own it. Sovereign territory requires bi- or multilateral recognition, which we've asked you for citations to, and you've yet to supply any. It doesn't matter if we don't have a citation to other countries disputing it: the citations you're giving do not support Wikipedia siding with Turkey's view. You can try to prove the truth of what you're saying, but proof is not what Wikipedia requires. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect you cannot assert that the Treaty states that Turkey "merely owns" the tomb. By stating this you are providing your own interpretation of the Treaty, which you are not qualified to make. Only International Jurists and Lawyers are capable of interpreting Treaties. Treaties are never interpreted literally. There are special Rules on how Treaties are interpreted. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Done at Vienna on 23 May 1969 governs the interpretation of Treaties and International ProtocolsVienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties stipulates as follows:

1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:
(a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty;
(b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.
3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:
(a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;
(b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the
parties regarding its interpretation;
(c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.
4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended.

Article 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties stipulates as follows:

Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the
application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:
(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.
You read and interpret the Treaty of Ankara in isolation and draw conclusions which do not reflect reality. You do not mention nor take into account the successive bilateral and International Treaties that expand *and articulate on the Treaty of Ankara and crystallize Turkey's Sovereignty over the tomb despite being provided with links and references to the same above. Your claims do not conform with reality and thus jeopardize Wikipaedia's reliability.

You insist on the dichotomy between ownership and sovereignty which really is a dichotomy between Extraterritoriality and Sovereignty. You claim that Turkey only has extraterritorial rights to the Tomb similar to Extraterritorial properties of the Holy See in Italy. Whereas you fail to note that with Extraterritoriality you cannot assert Military force: you are only exempted from the jurisdiction of local law. Whereas, Turkey since 1923 exerts full sovereignty rights: has a permanent military presence, passport control and also entered into a bilateral treaty with the Syrian Arab Republic for transit rights to the tomb. These are not attempts and trying to prove Turkey's Sovereignty. These are well cited and documented statements that explain the history of the site and the roadmap to Turkish Sovereignty. You can ignore these as much as you like but if you want to claim to be a reliable source then you need to take heed of them 114.78.127.253 (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please familiarize yourself with what a reliable source is for our purposes. We are not here to make our own interpretations, however reasonable they may seem. Just to make clear, to assert that Turkey has sovereignty over either the 1973-2015 site or the current site is to assert that sovereignty is recognized by the relevant international bodies. To assert this, we would need reliable sources saying so, and it would help if they made clear exactly which site they are talking about. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but you are substituting your own opinions in lieu of facts. You cannot provide one primary source claiming that the subject site is not Sovereign territory of the Republic of Turkey. You have nothing more than a few secondary newspaper articles. Whereas, I have provided primary sources (Press Releases from the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and references to International Treaties). By your line of reasoning no British Overseas Territory would be regarded as being sovereign nor would Taiwan. The US State department also conveyed its condolences to Turkey over the death of a Turkish soldier during Operation Shah Euphrates US STATE DEPARTMENT PRESS BRIEFING 23 FEBRUARY 2015. Do you think the US would convey its condolences to Turkey if the later was acting against International Law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been told already, citations are not required to support negative claims for things that are not in the article. We also can't make inferences beyond what a citation literally says, as you are demanding we do with that press briefing citation. If you want the article to say that it is sovereign territory, please provide a citation from a impartial 3rd party authority on the subject that literally says "it is sovereign territory."

I don't see any point in continuing to go in circles with you until you do. The consensus is fairly clear that we don't have grounds to use Wikipedia's voice to support Turkey's sovereignty claim over the land, and the consensus will not change until you provide a useful citation that unequivocally contradicts the consensus view.

Additionally, please stop these daily edits to the article contrary to consensus. If you continue to ignore Wikipedia's rules about not editing contrary to consensus, administrators will be asked to intervene to prevent further disruptive editing from your account. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passport control citation: is it a reliable source?

A sentence about passport control at the (1973–2015) site of the tomb was added to the article with this citation:

A Piece of Turkey Lies in the Middle of the Syrian Desert

The citation says:

"Entering this exclave is a surreal experience. This is sovereign Turkish territory, and you need a passport to visit it even though it is smaller than a city block."

And the added sentence said:

"Visitors to the site must undergo Passport control and have a valid VISA for the Republic of Turkey."

Since the citation makes no mention of visas however, I've removed that part from the article and it now says:

"Turkey requires visitors to the site to carry passports."

Now, the question is whether this is a reliable source for the statement that Turkey exercises passport control on visitors to the site. That's not a very controversial statement (we already know Turkey considers it sovereign territory, so that they would check passports is not shocking). However, the source is a republished CNN blog post. Blog posts are not usually considered reliable sources, but I wonder if this is an exception: the source statement is a retelling of personal experience visiting the site. Unless we are concerned about the author risking his reputation by "embellishing" (which is unfortunately a thing that happens), it seems reasonable to give the source due weight for this lightweight claim.

Looking at the details of our policy though, I'm left uncertain whether it is an acceptable source, even for recounting personally-experienced facts:

It may not qualify as a reliable source under Verifiability: Self-published sources as sources on themselves because that only permits such sources to be used to cite statments about themselves. I don't believe that passport control at the tomb in 2012 is a feature of the author, as construed under that policy.
It may not qualify as a reliable source under Reliable sources: Self-published sources (online), which says that self-published sources on news outlets can be acceptable, but only when "the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Since the original CNN blog article begins with a disclaimer that the contents are solely the opinion of the author and not CNN, it's unclear whether they exert "full editorial control" over its contents.

Those two points being said, WP:RS also says that "A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." That Turkey exercised passport control at the tomb site in 2012 is certainly a lightweight claim.

Given these doubts, I have held off on removing the statement from the article. The statement itself is uncontroversial — but if the source is unacceptable, the statement will become uncited and have to go. I'd like to see if there is consensus for whether this source meets our WP:Identifying reliable sources policy or not. Or, alternatively, if someone could dig up an more reliable source to replace it. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd find a blog acceptable for the statement that Turkey requires passports - so does Ryanair but that doesn't make their aircraft sovereign states. I'd support leaving it in. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So "yes", because it's just such a lightweight claim and does not appear to be a point of contention. Sounds good. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Mind you, I don't think we actually need the point in the article and I'd also be happy to see it removed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Mention of the International Protocols relating to the Tomb

There is no mention of The Convention of Friendship and Good Neighbourly Relations signed by the Turkish and French Governments. The convention established ‘relations of friendship and good neighbourhood’ between Turkey and the countries under French authority in Mandatory Syria and the Lebanon. The convention also defined in more detail the border established between Turkey and Mandatory Syria and the Lebanon in the Treaty of Ankara of 1921 and established a commission to delimit the border. The commission’s work was ratified in the Protocol between France and Turkey of June 29, 1929 and in the River Tigris (Syria and Turkey): Final Demarcation Protocol, Aleppo, 3 May 1930.

http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/LNTSer/1926/242.pdf
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/15/1036558/-The-Mandate-for-Syria-and-the-Lebanon-Timeline-1918-1946-Part-VI#
http://www.haber7.com/guncel/haber/1303128-suleyman-sah-turbesi-turkiye-icin-neden-onemli (In Turkish: a summary of International Treaties and Protocols confirming Turkish Sovereignty)

All these protocols expressly confirm Turkey's sovereignty over the enclave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 February 2015

Please sign your edits. Please also put new Talk page sections at the bottom, to preserve the order of discussion. There is a handy "New section" button at the very top of the page to make this painless. Continuing to edit the page while failing to use etiquette designed to avoid disrupting the page will probably lead to you being viewed as a user who is not actually interested in learning how to improve Wikipedia productively, and side-lined or ignored as a result. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your suggested sources, please quote the statements in these links that you think are relevant. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eshme etc Village

There is a little mess with the name of the village where the tomb was transferred to. The sentence reads: "...southeast of the Turkish village of Esmesi (Esmeler or Esme or Eshme)..[2] Sourced to Reuters. In the first place, "Turkish village" is incorrect, because the source identifies the place as "northern Syrian village of Esmesi, Aleppo province".

I corrected that right away, because it's not debatable, I guess.

The real mess is the name. It's given here and in BBC as "Esmesi". I'm completely sure that that is a mistake, because all Turkish sources refer to the place as Eşme, and the -si ending is just the Turkish genitive, when writing "Village OF Eşme" = Eşmesi Köyü. The same goes for Esmeler - that is a plural, because there is a Upper and a Lower Eşme, as the mainstream Turkish daily Hürriyet explains: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/dunya/28271911.asp

As I said, that is obvious to any reader who speaks Turkish, but the fact remains that Reuters and BBC did quote the name uncorrectly and now it's in the source given. Of course there are plenty of sources for the other versions, too. What can we do without incurring in WP:OR? As for the record, the real situation is quite clear:

The Village is called Eşme in all Turkish media.
This is rendered as Esme in English-language media, because they don't use the Ş letter (but WP does).
Per mistake, the -si ending is conserved and gives Esmesi. Sometimes, a plural Esmeler is used.
Other English-language media use the normal transcription for Syrian places and write Ashme. The Arab letter ش is rendered as SH in English (instead of Ş in Turkish), and the initial vowel أ is normally rendered as A in English and E in Turkish (cf. https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%C5%9F%C5%9Far_Esed for Bashar al-Assad ).

So it's quite obvious that the name is Eşme in Turkish and should either be kept like that or, given that's a Syrian and not a Turkish place, be rendered as Ashme in English. As does the daily Hürriyet, for instance: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/isil-poses-threat-to-turkey-not-the-pyd-demirtas.aspx?pageID=238&nID=78726&NewsCatID=338. Or the Kurdish Firatnews: http://en.firatajans.com/news/ypg-and-turkish-flags-wave-at-the-new-site-of-the-tomb Or the Turkish http://english.yenisafak.com/mobil/news/suleyman-shah-tomb-identified-with-the-euphrates-river-2090532.

I hope to find a consensus before doing any change. Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ilyacadiz. I have no way of checking what you write, but on the basis of the above I'd suggest Ashme, with a mention of the alternative Eşme. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A simple course of action would probably be to add one of those citations you mention beside the Reuters citation. That way we can refer to Reuters for the relocation information, and the second citation supports the correct name.

However, even simpler would be replacing the Reuters citation's use right there. (But moving it — it's used farther down the article and just deleting it would break that.) If you can find a source that says "Ashme" that also supports everything else the Reuters cite supports, then we don't need both. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think, there where several sources around and I moved the Reuters source a little, that's all. See also below, for Location. Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BurritoBazooka put the spelling explanations into a footnote, that's great, but it was the wrong village: the spelling variants refer to the Syrian village of Ashme, not to the Turkish village of Eşmeler. Moved the note there. Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Village location

Simultaneously with the confusion over the name, the actual location has been ORed to be near an unrelated(?) Turkish village also named Esme, which I gather is the wrong location. Per the Reuters citation, the correct location is north of a Syrian village the article calls "Esmesi", and I really don't see how this can possible refer to a village inside Turkey. This makes our map pin and geo coordinates incorrect! Can anyone help with the coordinates of the correct, Syrian village of Ashme that the citation actually refers to? I briefly scouted around Kobani using Google, but many of the place names are in Arabic script and I don't read any Arabic language. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:OR. See http://www.geonames.org/search.html?q=Esmeler&country=TR (Geonames...probably the most common source for coordinates in WP as you know.) It lists: 1 Orta Eşme

Esmeler,Eşmeler,Orta Esme,Orta Eşme,Orta-Eshme36.88538438.095551 Turkey, Şanlıurfa populated place N 36° 53' 7 E 38° 5' 44... with the pin for the location in the correct place, 2 km SE of this location. We should put this in as a source, I suppose, or one of the press reports mentioning the Turkish and Syrian towns of the same name (many spellings) just across the border from each other DLinth (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry DLinth, but I had to undo it again because although your argument "Common occurence...village of same name on two sides of a border, as mentioned in a couple of the sources" is completely right, there is only one source given in that sentence, and that source, Reuters, says "north of the Syrian village", not "southeast of the Turkish village", although most probably both would be correct. But we must keep text according to source. Or look for a different source, of course, and state even both definitions, if possible. Ilyacadiz (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I got again into it, adding several sources which describe location and even mention (alas only in Turkish - couldn't find any English one -) the existence of the Turkish village called Eşmeler, just opposite the Syrian one, across the frontier. But I had to eliminate the exact km/miles data, because I haven't seen that in any source and it looks like WP:OR to me: locating the exact place and then measuring. Probably quite accurate, but what if not? I think let's stick to what sources say. Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DLinth, you added again the exact location (10 Km northeast of Jarabulus and 22 km west of Kobani), saying "location is well established". Just how do you know it's well established and it's not 9 and 23 or 8 and 24 km? Is there any source which allows us to pinpoint the location as you see it? Please add it, then. For the moment, the distanced are not sourced. Ilyacadiz (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of 2003 Agreement between Syria and Turkey

There have been a few references here to the 2003 agreement as a source of support or non-support for the sovereignty claim. For what it is worth and for others to use, here is a non-expert translation based on Google Docs OCR of a pdf file that contains the text in both Turkish and Arabic, as well as my humble efforts to cobble them together into a coherent English version.

Talk:Tomb of Suleyman Shah/Translation of 2003 Agreement between Syria and Turkey

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff in CA (talk • contribs) 07:22, 26 March 2015

Thanks for the translation work! I've moved it into a dedicated subpage though, since its value is mostly as a reference, and a large inline document makes it harder to use the Talk page. Being in a subpage makes it easier to revise and update, with its own history tracking, too. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Coordinates for Tomb of Suleyman Shah

Coordinates of Tomb of Suleyman Shah is 36°38'19.22"N 38°12'26.80"E. Location of Tomb of Suleyman Shah is part of Republic of Turkey.

Suleiman ibn Qutulmish

It's Suleiman ibn Qutulmish who died in Euphrates, and it's his tomb, not Suleyman Shah, ancestors of the Ottomans. Suleyman Qutulmish died in 1086, as you can see here.[2] and Suleyman Shah died in 1236. Beshogur (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]