Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Kurdistan (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Iraq (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Assyria (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, or visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

South Kurdistan[edit]

please change this page to South Kurdistan because Kurdistan is not Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hereshsniper (talkcontribs) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Not South Kurdistan, It is the KRG, a autonomous federal entity of Iraq and the Iraqi government ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 20:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

President[edit]

The section below the coat of arms of Iraq Kurdistan should include that Massoud Barzani is the president of Kurdistan region.

Article full of politician and war[edit]

Why is the article full of only war, uprising and politicians? There are separate sections for each one, don't put everything here. There is nothing about Geography, climate, education, and economy!!!

ancient period section[edit]

This section is simply full of factual errors and paradoxes. I will go ahead and remove the whole section in a week if no reliable source attesting the claims is added.--Rafy talk

RfC on Iraqi Kurdistan autonomy level (second proposal)[edit]

See box. Formerip (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result: No consensus. Iraqi Kurdistan should not be included in the template.

Two editors supported the proposal and three were opposed.

In support of inclusion, it was argued by the proposer that Kurdistan is an autonomous state within Iraq. As was pointed out in the discussion, though, this on its own is not necessarily enough, since other autonomous territories are not included in template:Asia topic or similar templates. It was also argued that not being afforded a place in the template puts IK in the unique position of having its diplomacy-related articles orphaned from any navbox template. This is a reasonable argument, but I'm not sure it makes IK unique (Tibet might be another example). A further argument was made that Kurdistan is not taken seriously enough on WP. This argument is difficult to assess but, even if it is true, it is not clear to me why this means it should be included in this template in particular, unless the idea is a sort of consolation prize.

Against inclusion, it was argued that IK is not a "dependent territory". As was pointed out in the RfC, this does not mean it cannot be included as an "other territory", though. It was also argued that Kurdistan is not a unique case and that no strong reason has been given for it to be treated differently from other entities with devolved or autonomous governments. I think this is fair.

Overall, I don't think either side presented anything decisive. Given that voting was close, I think the only thing I can do is to close as "no consensus".

Considering developments in Iraq over the past months, I would herewith like to make this RfC regarding adding Iraqi Kurdistan to template:Asia topic under the section of "other Dependent territories". This is the second RFC on this topic, with first RfC issued on 20 October and closed 26 November 2013 with a "no consensus" outcome, see discussion from 2013. In the meanwhile, i would like to point out that Iraqi Kurdistan came into media attention and is referred as a notable case of exceptional autonomy, with high level of self-rule bound in Iraqi constitution, and hence is somewhat similar to Hong-Kong and Macau - Special Administrative Regions of China. Here are my reasonings:

  • Iraqi Kurdistan holds separate national symbols and a separate autonomous parliament and government (see [[1] KRG website]), not subject to direct Iraqi Federal control (see "Independent" article from 24.06.2014).
  • The legitimacy of separate Iraqi Kurdistan's government (the KRG) is bound in the 2005 Iraqi transition law in article 53 - "(A) The Kurdistan Regional Government is recognized as the official government of the territories that were administered by the that government on 19 March 2003 in the governorates of Dohuk, Arbil, Sulaimaniya, Kirkuk, Diyala and Neneveh. The term “Kurdistan Regional Government” shall refer to the Kurdistan National Assembly, the Kurdistan Council of Ministers, and the regional judicial authority in the Kurdistan region." [2].
  • Iraqi Kurdistan is a de-facto economically sustainable entity (though officially still under the scope of Federal Iraq), with the completion and operation of Kurdish-Turkish oil pipeline by early 2014 and construction of international airport in Arbil back in 2005. For several months already the Kurds operate without Federal funding.
  • Kurdish region security is entirely out of Federal Iraqi control and KRG effectively controls borders and internal order by Peshmerga forces (see CNN from 28.06.2014).
  • There are academic assessments of Iraqi Kurdistan as a "largely autonomous federal state within Iraq" (for example see review by Johns Hopkins University).
  • Kurdish region is widely referred by the media as an exceptional case of autonomy, referring to ""Kurdish autonomy" or "Kurdistan region" see The Economist,The Independent,Inquirer,Reuters.

I welcome other users to comment and emphasize that we are not talking about any form of independence of the Kurdish region in Iraq at this point (there is no independence), but about a case of exceptional autonomy.GreyShark (dibra) 17:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  • The questions to ask are:
  1. What is the official status of Iraqi Kurdistan? A: autonomous region within federal Iraq.
  2. Is this status likely to change giving the region a higher degree of independence? A: yes
  3. Should Wikipedia anticipate this change? A: no.--Kathovo talk 09:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Many other templates use this template:Asia topic. And you can easily search for specific thematic articles. For example, from template {{Asia topic|List of diplomatic missions of}} You can go to all (Asian) articles "List of diplomatic missions of". But ONLY article List of diplomatic missions of Iraqi Kurdistan is not linked by template. Article List of diplomatic missions in Iraqi Kurdistan has the some problem. Etc. Only Iraqi Kurdistan has specific articles like this, which can be linked by Asia templates. It has sense to give Iraqi Kurdistan to this template. My response: support. Jan CZ (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nominator gave us lot of evidence to prove that Iraqi Kurdistan is autonomous, but I don't see any evidence to prove that it is regarded as a dependent territory. As I understand, the proposal is to include Iraqi Kurdistan under "other dependent territories", so the question is whether Kurdistan is dependent territory, and not whether it is autonomous, self-sustainable, etc. Nominator does not present any evidence from reliable sources to prove that Iraqi Kurdistan is considered to be dependent territory. Wikipedia article on Dependent territory says that dependent territories "are commonly distinguished from other subnational entities in that they are not considered to be part of the integral territory of the governing State." As far as I know, Iraqi Kurdistan is always considered to be part of Iraq in every context. We do not have any sources to prove that Kurdistan is commonly considered not to be part of Iraq. Other dependent territories in the Template:Asia topic like Hong Kong and Macau are indeed often considered not to be part of PR China. They compete separately in the Olympics, they have separate country code top-level domains, separate currency, etc. Most maps show Macau and Hong Kong as entities separate from China, while I've never seen a serious map which shows Kurdistan as separate from Iraq. Wikipedia article on East Asia shows Macau and Hong Kong as separate entities in the main infobox, while the article on Western Asia does not show Iraqi Kurdistan in the infobox. So, not just that we do not have sources which consider Iraqi Kurdistan to be dependent territory, but it's status is not that of the depended territory per definition of the dependent territory. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment. The section of template:Asia topic is called "Dependencies and other territories". In template:Europe topic we have also section Other entities, where even included not only EU and SMOM but also European Economic Area. Templates are not exactly define the different types of political entities. The template is used for quick navigation for the reader to the relevant articles. Iraqi Kurdistan has in many respects quite unique position, because that it has a number of specific articles, which usually have only States or dependent territories (or other entities like EU, SMOM, EEA..). Therefore, from a purely practical reasons, it is recommended the inclusion of Iraqi Kurdistan into the template. Similarly, as the reasons for the inclusion of EEU into template:Europe topic. Jan CZ (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: It's clearly an separately notable "other territory" and belongs in the navbox's "Dependencies and other territories" section (and in similar sections of other such navboxes, as needed). The above objection is predicated up on it not being a "dependent territory" of something, but that's a straw man argument in effect, if not intent (the fault actually lies with the imprecision of the proposal's own wording which implies that Iraqi Kurdistan should be considered a "dependent territory"). Treating Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan in particular as a notable topic is overdue, and frequently suppressed by PoV warriors (even in unexpected places, e.g. trying to censor mention of Kurdistan in articles on domestic cat varieties native to the area). This sort of "Turkwashing" and "Iraqwashing" of Kurdish cultural topics and, here, their significance and notability, needs to stop.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's an autonomous area within a federal state, not a dependency or "other territory". Being an autonomous area is not that uncommon; China has five (not HK/Macau), the Philippines has the ARMM and India has several autonomous tribal areas. There is no reason why Iraqi Kurdistan is any more deserving of being singled out than these. Number 57 22:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Just a note regarding: "This is the second RFC on this topic, with first RfC issued on 20 October and closed 26 November 2013 with a "no consensus" outcome, see discussion from 2013."

Ignoring the broken link you provided, it was not a "no concensus" outcome. The outcome was: "There is a clear consensus that Iraqi Kurdistan shouldn't be added to the {{Asia topic}} navbox." Comment is free, but facts are sacred. ;) --G E Enn (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternative titles of the article[edit]

One of the alternative titles that is used in the intro of this article is 'South Kurdistan'. I don't believe the use of this term as an alternative title is fitting in a neutral article. It is more of a term that I would consider irredentist and nationalistic, not one that is neutral. Moreover, 'south Kurdistan' is not used in mainstream media, where it IS used is almost solely in Kurdish media/sources. I have also noticed that a similar term is used ('North Kurdistan') in the Wiki article Turkish Kurdistan.Verdia25 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

3 of the 4 Kurdish regions all refer to it as Southern Kurdistan. Erbil doesn't for political reasons with Turkey, but Wikipedia doesn't censor based on trade deals. It's not "nationalistic" to make note that this is what the region is called by the vast majority of Kurdish people and their media outlets.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Noting it isn't necessarily nationalistic, it is the term itself what I call nationalistic and not neutral. It could remain mentioned in the Etymology paragraph, but as a term only used by a specific group of people it isn't fitting to use as one of the alternative titles in the starting sentence. Just Kurdish media and sources refer the region that way and therefore it isn't a general alternative name.Verdia25 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)