This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I would like to know why the category Assyria is allowed while category Kurdistan is being removed? Is there exact boundaries for Assyria? As far as I remember that's the main reason given for removing the Kurdistan category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vekoler (talk • contribs) 22:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I read from a Swedish women rights and organizations worker who travelled to dahuk that the city was populated mostly by Assyrians before the 1960's. I was wondering if anyone could verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Not just Nohadra(Dahuk) but a very large section of Northern Iraq was inhabited by Assyrians, many events have not been favorable for the Assyrians in Iraq, such as Saddam and Kurdish expansion. These factors have resulted in many Assyrians fleeing their homeland for more secure lives in the West. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved to Dohuk, Iraq per discussion. - GTBacchus(talk) 22:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I would rather advise moving the page to Iraq "Dohuk" -Llc since it is by far the most popular one.--Rafytalk 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Merci Rafy. But we must compare alternative names with the same condition. We don't have to compare 3,660 with others. Even Google books indicated "3,660 results", we cannot investigated all of them. Most of them are "empty". We have to use 390. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for you note, I didn't know of such a trick on google books.--Rafytalk 10:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Dohuk → Duhok – This move is potentially controversial because it is a request to move the page back to its former name. The record of the former move appears to be based on unanalysed Google tests.
While it is clear that the spelling "Dohuk" has had widespread use. The current governorate (http://www.duhokgov.org/) and university (http://www.uod.ac/) both use the spelling "Duhok". I believe that those two examples should carry weight.
The problem with the numerous spellings of the name is partly from the difficulty of pinning down the Arabic دهوك, for which the most accurate transliteration is most probably Dahūk. That is "most probably" because the value of the first, short vowel is not written in Arabic. However, in North Mesopotamian Arabic the vowel ū is often rendered as ō (as at the end of "Zakho", the second syllable of "Alqosh", and somewhat similarly in the first syllable of "Mosul"). Many short vowels in the local dialect are reduced to schwas, and this is the case in Arabic pronunciation of the first syllable of the city in question. A schwa could be written in many ways, but it is often rendered with a u (as in the second syllable of "Mosul"). Thus, I would suggest that the spelling that best represents the local Arabic pronunciation is "Duhok".
The Kurdish spelling (seeing as Kurdish is the main language in the city) is دهۆک, which is transliterated as Dihok. In Kurdish i is the most fleeting of the vowels, and it is left unwritten in Sorani script. The Kurdish spelling "Dihok" is not often used in the medium of English, but it does support the understanding of the two vowels as schwa and "o". Although nowhere near as important, it might be worth pointing out that the usual Turkish spelling is "Duhok".
I believe that the spelling preferred by the governorate and local university, alongside the local Arabic, Kurdish and Turkish pronunciation point to "Duhok" being the preferred spelling. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Gareth Hughes (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Interesting linguistic essay but oppose for now per WP:UCN/WP:OFFICIALNAMES. The proposed title is nearly unattested in print sources. Please provide more evidence from quality sources to support a move. — AjaxSmack 20:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I would like to point out that there is no common name in English. There is an official name, and it is Duhok, as used by the governorate. Entering a search into Google Books should not be decisive. What you are looking at is the attempt by different English-language publications to render the Arabic دهوك, and their total disagreement over how best to do it. The numerical superiority of Dohuk is not meaningful. Let's use the official name: Duhok. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I think Gareth Hughes has a point her. I'm still neutral on this though, both renderings are OK imo, if it ain't broke why fix it?--Kathovotalk 18:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Relisting comment. Giving it one last relist, I'll drop some notes at the appropriate WikiPorjects to try and get some more opinions. Jenks24 (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)