Talk:Deq (tattoo)

Content dispute

@Semsûrî Noticed the content dispute from the ANI and I wanted to know what exactly was the information in the article that was being debated. I edited this article previously, maybe we can restore that with the debated information altered or left out if possible?

Here's the diff for my edits: Surayeproject3 (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Semsûrî and @Kivercik: For goodness' sake, stop reverting each other and talk. Kivercik, I don't believe this article is only about Kurdish Deq. If WP:RS can be found that document it elsewhere, that would be WP:DUE. Semsuri, I have concerns about what you keep re-adding. It all seems to rely on a single source, which I cannot access to verify. I did a Google Scholar search for "deq tattoo" and got 172 results. "deq tattoo syria" had 17, and most of that wasn't actually linking the tattoo to Syria. "deq tattoo yazidis" had only three results, of which only one seems relevant. From where I'm sitting, the view of the source you provided seems like an outlier, not mainstream academic consensus. I only speak English, so I am likely missing many non-English sources. Can you provide more WP:RS? EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The Deq has nothing to do with Syria or Syrians but rather with Syriacs also known as Arameans. An indigenious people to these regions were Deq is practised. Also Deq is known under various different names by Syriacs which makes it logial that you can't find much about it by using the Kurdish equivalent word Deq. Also I provided two different sources claiming the Syriac origin of the word Deq and the usage of it by several other ethnicities living in the same area. In Turkish document that speak about the Syriac origin and practise of this tattoo art they use the Turkish equivalent Dövme Kivercik (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction re: Syriac. That makes it worse, then; that has only one hit, which doesn't seem to be relevant. I also don't see the two different sources; all I see is the one citation to Ekmen. If possible, it would be useful if you could provide a translation to the passages you're quoting. (See WP:NONENG.) As-is, I'm glad you see the issue with finding WP:RS. I don't think that they have to go into the article, but I'd want to see 3-5 RS that support Ekmen's view (with translations) to accept it as a mainstream one, and thus WP:DUE. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

There's plenty of RS that explicitly attribute deq tattoos as Kurdish. Including anthropologists Lars Krutak and Serena Nanda . Researcher Odetta Pizzingrilli even writes: "Deq is mostly considered a tradition of the Kurdish community. Its motifs are often inspired by living creatures, designs, and patterns seen in nature, all of which carry symbolic meanings." Now, that doesn't mean it can't be mentioned if other ethnic groups use deq but Kivercik's edits were clearly UNDUE. Semsûrî (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

If Kivercik did have numerous sources that discussed it in other contexts, I think it would be WP:DUE. However, as-written, it's only one person that's being cited. Without demonstrating widespread discussion vis-à-vis non-Kurdish, I agree it's undue at this time. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck Noticed that my first post was getting replies. I was wondering if you'd be able to take a look at the version I wrote for this article and tell me what you think about the information. There's a larger number of sources here that talk about the topic and its relation to other ethnic groups.

I would like to mention that there is an ongoing naming dispute between Syriac, Assyrian, and Aramean designations, but all are used to reference the same people. Kivercik has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring on this topic and there have been recent discussions surrounding it at ANI of which I'm one of the involved editors. One of the sources I included in my edit attributes Deq to the Assyrian name (Suryaniler), so let me know what you think and if part of my edits are in line with RS and not OR or UNDUE. Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Your version looks good to me, though I haven't done a close reading of all the ways it differs from the current version. It looks like you have four sources supporting the single paragraph in its own subsection on deq in other cultures, which even if it's the minority, still seems DUE to me. I'm also a layman in this, and hope others with more expertise will chime in. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

very dishonest of you to translate Süryaniler to Assyrian, when the source is literally mentioning:

"Süryanilerin kökenine dair üç teori ortaya atılmıştır. Bunların ilki Süryanilerin kökeninin Aramî olduğu şeklinde ki, daha çok kilise taraftarlarınca savunulan muhafazakâr/geleneksel görüştür. İkincisi, ondokuzuncu yüzyılın ikinci yarısından itibaren Batılılarca ortaya atılan, 80 günümüzde de özellikle Avrupa ve Amerika’ya göç eden kilise dışında sivil/laik anlayışta Süryaniler tarafından savunulan Süryanilerin kökeninin Asurî olduğu şeklindeki görüştür."

It is mentioning that the traditional view of the Süryaniler term is that they are of Aramaic origin, while the second view is that the Syriacs are of Assyrian origin, which was put forward by Westerners since the second half of the nineteenth century.

Another example of WP:POV against the Aramean name, specially when they are favored in the source you referenced. Wlaak (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Wlaak, I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. Do you have WP:RS which are worth including? Also, please remember to avoid personal attacks such as referring to someone as being "dishonest". If they are, WP:ANI is the correct venue to address it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

the source in the editors own version suggests that the term he referred to when writing "Assyrian name (Suryaniler)" is contradicting this claim, suggesting that it was only associated with Assyrians by Westerners in mid 19th century, whereas Aramean is the traditional view.

this goes back to a very big ANI, but the main deal is that the name Aramean is often compromised, see Midyat Guest House, where the editor tried to similialy write of Assyrians based on a source stating Suryaniler, but was addressed on the talk page. Wlaak (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Of the sources that mention the name "Suryani/Suryaniler"...

• - This is the one that @Wlaak mentioned. The section using the label can be found on pages 79-81, but the relevant information here is translated from Turkish to English as follows... "There are three theories put forward regarding the origin of the Syriacs. The first of these is the conservative/traditional view that the Syriacs are of Aramaic origin, which is mostly defended by the supporters of the church. The second is the view put forward by the Westerners since the second half of the nineteenth century, the view that is still defended by the Syrians, especially the ones who migrated to Europe and America, in a civil/secular understanding outside the church, is that the origin of the Syrians is Assyrian. According to the third view, the Syrians are nothing more than the continuation of the people of Mesopotamia before Jesus. According to this view; the Syrians are not just Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans or Arameans. Syriacism is a synthesis that is based on the cultural foundation of all the ancient Mesopotamian peoples and has emerged by assimilating the Hellenistic Civilization." Based on this translation, we can see that the author is not explicitly taking a position on the term "Suryani/Suryaniler", but rather explaining the different views regarding the term's meaning and origin.
• - This source says "Süryaniler, Ezidiler, Müslümanlar her toplum kendi kültür ve inancına göre dövme şekilleri oluşturmuş olduğu anlaşılıyor.", which Google translates as "It is understood that every society, including Assyrians, Yazidis and Muslims, has created tattoo styles according to their own culture and beliefs."
• - This source says "After the 1920s, during the Republic period, Siverek lost its importance while Turkish ethnic groups and Suryani (Assyrian) people left the area, the latter mostly migrating to the area of Aleppo in Syria."
• Apparently, the source "Mardin Süryanileri - Tarihi Sosyal ve Kültürel Yönleriyle" mentions the name as well, but I was not able to find a link I could use to access the source

@EducatedRedneck Wlaak is another one of the editors who has recently contested the dispute between Assyrian, Syriac, and Aramean. This subject of dispute is currently at Village pump since it has been a continuous point of contention to the point of disruptive editing. In fact, the article that Wlaak mentioned, Midyat Guest House is the same one that Kivercik was edit warring on before he got blocked. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that’s what I said. The source you quoted states that "Süryani" was only equated with Assyrian after the 19th century, due to Western influence. Aramean is the traditional term, and using Assyrian exclusively contradicts the reference.

You can use Google Translate, but it’s inconsistent. Typing "Süryani" alone gives the translation as Syriac, and the Wiktionary also says Syriac. Not only that, but the official dictionary of the Turkish government defines "Süryani" as either Syriac or Aramaic Christian, and the Oxford Turkish Dictionary also refers to them as Syriac Christians.

Using the Google Translate pop-up versus the Google Translate website shows the difference. The website more consistently translates it as Syriac, while the pop-up seems to translate it as Assyrian only when used alongside other words. When it stands alone, it translates to Syriac.

However, that’s not the main point. Your source refers to it as "traditional Arameans" and mentions Assyrians as a result of Western intervention in the 19th century. If you want to write from the Assyrian perspective according to the source, make sure to include the 19th-century Western influence.

There is also no point in exclusively bringing up Kivercik in this, as I challenged your edits as well. Wlaak (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Surayeproject3 Thank you for specifying the sources and providing quotes and translations. I think per WP:NODEADLINES we can wait until both the VP and the ANI threads conclude before reaching a decision here.

@Wlaak I'm still not sure what passage you're objecting to in the proposed text, and how you propose to change it. I'll grant that Google Translate is inconsistent, and that the text you supplied mentions two possible definitions (as best I can tell, as I'm relying on said inconsistent Google translate). I'm not clear on where the text you supplied comes from or which source is the "Your source" you reference.

Given the VP and ANI threads that were referenced, I suggest it'd be best to let them run their course before sorting this out further. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

this is the source , it is the source Surayeproject3 has on his version, that kind of contradicts his claim. therefore i am opposing his version, the term should be "Syriac" instead of "Assyrian". Wlaak (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no problems with waiting for the VP and ANI to settle down before re-addressing the content disputes. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Renewed discussion about content

Per User talk:EducatedRedneck#Reopen discussion on Deq (tattoo) for content consensus, I'm reopening a discussion for content consensus on this article and am inviting EducatedRedneck (talk · contribs) to the discussion (tagging users isn't working for me for some reason). The last time this article was discussed, there were concerns about whether some of the content added aligned with WP:DUE, to which I showed a version of this article I had written . There was an editor above that contested the version's content alongside the now declared Wikipedia:GS/ACAS, but they have since been indef blocked due to sockpuppetry. In either case, it'd be nice to know what exactly is UNDUE that was being added so that it can be removed or altered for a much more fleshed out version of the article.

If there's no meaningful responses, I'll probably restore my version in about a week, but I'm hopeful that a proper consensus can be sought to improve Wiki's knowledge of the Deq tattoo practice. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I have no objection to the version given in the above permalink. I still am hazy on what passages were being objected to. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I am too honestly. I'm not sure what exactly was being argued as being UNDUE, except possibly that the edits were considering the tradition as not explicitly Kurdish which is not true given the sources. The lead I wrote stated "The tradition of Deq is primarily observed among Kurds and Yazidis, however other groups such as Arabs and Assyrians have also been recorded as having partaken in similar customs.", so that covers that aspect. All sentences describing its use by other ethnicities are cited by sources; the only thing I would possibly change is removing the "Assyrian culture" category and replace it with something similar or keep it removed. Some clarification could be used on what exactly was being argued for if there is future contesting of content on this article. Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

There are still some issues remaining. First of all there are unsourced paragraphs in the version from 3 April that need to be either sourced or removed. Moreover, that version states that deq is primarily found in Southeastern Anatolia region which is fundamentally wrong. Which reference states that? I moreover suspect some SYNTH issues here as DeMello, which is still present in the version above describes deq as Kurdish but that is not what the bodytext states.

In addition, one of the references comes from the journal MIKAD, which openly promotes Turkic nationalism , and I think we should be cautious about using it for claims about Kurdish-related cultural practices. The sentence "However, recent efforts have been made to revive deq as a means of reasserting cultural identity and supporting Kurdish nationalism", which is based on the MIKAD article, seems to frame deq less as an established cultural practice and more as a recent revival tied to nationalism. Semsûrî (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

First, thank you for providing a detailed description of the issues! Just to make sure we're all on the same page, I'm hearing that your objections are:

1. WP:V concerns from unsourced paragraphs
2. WP:V concerns from the description of Deq as being "primarily found in Southeastern Anatolia region", which you allege is not supported by a source
3. WP:SYNTH issues from DeMello describing deq as kurdish, which you allege does not match the bodytext
4. WP:RS concerns from the use of MIKAD as a source on Kurdish topics
5. WP:NPOV concerns from the passage, "However, recent efforts have been made to revive deq as a means of reasserting cultural identity and supporting Kurdish nationalism", which you allege downplays its established cultural practice and frames it chiefly as a recent nationalist appendage.

Am I understanding you correctly? If so, I have some followup questions for clarification, but I want to see if I understood you correctly, first. Thanks again for taking the time to give a detailed critique! EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

On number 2, my main concern is the use of the term ‘Southeastern Anatolia Region’, which in Turkish academia often serves as a self-censoring substitute for Turkish Kurdistan. We can be more concrete per this article which points that, in Turkey, deq is more prevalent in Mardin, Şanlıurfa and Diyarbakır than elsewhere. Now we have to remember that there are Kurds in other countries than Turkey. Otherwise I think you understand my concerns correctly. Semsûrî (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I just made a republishing of the version of the article from April 3rd, but with some changes to the content that outlined the concerns mentioned in this post. I have removed the source from MIKAD altogether and have replaced the last sentence with "However, recent efforts have been made to revive deq as a means of reasserting Kurdish identity". I have changed "southeastern Anatolia region" to mention areas where Deq is commonly practiced in Turkey as listed above. I can't access the DeMello source where it mentions Deq and I'm wondering which paragraphs may still be left uncited as well, but otherwise, let me know if this version looks better. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

The version is better now but I'm unsure of which reference covers the sentence: "However, recent efforts have been made to revive deq as a means of reasserting Kurdish identity" (I don't remember DeMello stating that). The Inside Turkey article above this conversation can be used to cover it nonetheless. Semsûrî (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Went ahead and made that change in the lead. I also added the source by Serena Nanda that you had mentioned above. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)