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.
 

Incomplete Historical Section[edit]

The historical section does not give info on how Assyria evolves or transitions to modern Kurdistan. That crucial part of history needs to be filled... ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 22:37, 19 January 2015 (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

"Southern Kurdistan" in Intro[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)

Iraqi Kurdistan or Southern Kurdistan was not always autonomous. Since 1991 it is. But it was and still is in fact part of greater Kurdistan. Like on the Wiki-pages of Turkish, Iranian and Syrian Kurdistan, it has to be mentioned which part of greater Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan is. Best Regards --Moplayer (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

for that there are already the terms Iraqi, Turkey, Iranian, Syrian etc to be used within which part of the region is refered to. Using wind directions instead of country names, is not used in mainstream media and sources. It's solely used by a specific ethnic group, and is therefore no general alternative term that everyone uses. If you would however use this on Wikipedia, you can also start referring other countries or parts of other countries by the country it borders with a wind direction attached. Quick examples would be referring Armenia as Western Azerbaijan, or Flanders as Southern Netherlands. Just because some people use it but is no general neutral term to refer to those regions.Regards Verdia25 (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Please read the history of Kurdistan or the History of the Kurds. As you maybe know, Kurdistan was divided into four parts ONLY about 100 years ago. But it still has an ancient history as you can read here History of the Kurds. Today millions of people use the wind directions for each part of Kurdistan. Therefore you cannot only define a part of Kurdistan by the country it is lying on. --Moplayer (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Your claim does not sudddenly make south Kurdistan a general alternative term to refer to the region. It's only used by a specific ethnic group. Wiki does not represent specific groups of people or specific organisations, neutral and general used terms should therefore be used here. And again, if you would allow this, you can also start refering other regions by other names that are only used by certain groups of people, like in my examples given. Verdia25 (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read my answer thoroughly. I have never said it is a general term, if so I would claim to change the article name to "Southern Kurdistan". But I did not. Your understanding of Wikipedia is wrong. Wikipedia is there for giving mankind ALL relevant information about topics. You can not deny that this term is used by about 40 million people. Again, please read the History of the Kurds to know the importance and meaning of the term "Southern Kurdistan". And if, as you said, Wikipedia is only there for general terms, why is the article of "Ayn Al-Arab" named "Kobanî"? Because it is more common.--Moplayer (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed Kobani is more common, it's used in a wide range of media & sources. However you can't say the same thing about 'southern Kurdistan', where this really isn't the case. I wonder if you have any evidence for your claim that it's used by 40 million people, but regardless, outside Kurdish media & sources it is not used. That is the objection. Verdia25 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Like Erbil is known as Hawler, Iraqi Kurdistan is known as Southern Kurdistan. You can not ignore the native name of the region, which millions of people are using. It is like you would say "Kurdistan" does not exists, just because it is not neutral to use the term "Kurdistan", like Turkey did for decades. But Wikipedia is not Turkey or any other country. It is the FREE Encyclopedia. I also can not repeat my sayings over and over. --Moplayer (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is indeed not Turkey, but Wikipedia is neither Kurdistan. So using Turkish or Kurdish exclusive terms that are not used in any other media beside their own, shouldn't be used as alternative titles on a neutral site. This is the point I am trying to make. You can still mention and explain those in the etymology paragraph where they fit. Verdia25 (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"Southern Kurdistan" is a well known and used term in the Kurdistan region. This is a fact. You absolutely can not deny this. As I said, Kurdistan was divided into four parts and each part still has the wind directions in their Wikipedia articles. See the Wiki-pages of Turkish Kurdistan, Syrian Kurdistan and Iranian Kurdistan. And Iraqi Kurdistan is still part of it, no matter it is a federal region.--Moplayer (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, the point is is that it's a Kurdish-exclusive term not used anywhere else. Also the wind directions variants have not always been used in the Kurdistan articles. So while they could be added, they can also be removed from the article.Verdia25 (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, the term is used by a large group of persons. And therefore it has to mentioned in the article. It is as simple as that. Even the Kurdish wiki-page named it "Başûrê Kurdistanê", which means "Southern Kurdistan". You may not ignore the native name of the region. --Moplayer (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Like Redthoreau said: "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." --Moplayer (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
But it will continue to remain mentioned in the article, in the etymology paragraph where it already is mentioned & explained, so the term would not be 'ignored' or 'denied'. But I don't believe it's fitting as an alternative title, because it's simply not referred to this way outside Kurdish exclusive media/sources.Verdia25 (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The introduction of an article is there to summarize the main facts of a subject. As long as it is an important fact that Iraqi Kurdistan belongs to the greater Kurdistan Region and is called "Southern Kurdistan" by the kurds themselves, it has to be mentioned in the introduction of the article. --Moplayer (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Greater kurdistan is a different subject than the one of this article, which is specifically Iraqi Kurdistan, so I don't see why it should necesarilly be used this way as you say. But in the end the use of 'Southern Kurdistan' to refer to a certain region is only used within a particular community only (in this case it is the Kurdish people), but outside this community it isn't used. As you won't find this use in any other mainstream media. Verdia25 (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
That is why the name of the article is "Iraqi Kurdistan", but the alternative or common name of the region is "Southern Kurdistan". And as it is a standard in Wikipedia to mention all common names in the introduction, I see no reason why to delete this term. --Moplayer (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
But it is no common term in English language. It is almost solely used in Kurdish sources only to refer to the region.Verdia25 (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
But it is a common name in the Kurdistan region. This is how they call themselves and it is absolutely legit to mention this in the introduction of the article. --Moplayer (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
In such case you could argue that it it could be used in the Kurdish language Wikipedia, but not quite for the English wikipedia, because it isn't really used in English language sources and media.Verdia25 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You can not deny what the people there call their own place. This is a fact, not nationalism. Just because we do not use this term in English media, it does not mean we can ignore it. And Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, is there to mention every possible fact. --Moplayer (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Like I have said before, this would not be denied. This term remains mentioned and is explained in the article, specifically the etymology paragraph. Where any (other) terms related to the subject of the article are stated and are explained.Verdia25 (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
It already is mentioned in "etymology" section and repeated in the introduction because it is the second common name for the region. Again, it is a term which is used by millions of people. Another example for you: "Iran", which also is known as "Persia". Should we delete this term from the introduction now, just because it is not used in English media? I think your argument is invalid. --Moplayer (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of how many people use it, it is not used outside of this group and you won't really find it in English sources. You bring up the term 'Persia'. That is a term that IS definitely found in English language sources. Even though it's uncommon today, in many older sources especially prior to 1930 it was a commonly used term. It was also not a term used by its inhabitants, but was actually the internatinal Western known term. However, I wouldn't have a big issue if people think it's better to delete it now as an alternative title, because it is barely used today. But it's not a similar case as 'Southern Kurdistan' which is neither used today nor in the past in mainmedia and sources.Verdia25 (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are some examples, where the term "Southern Kurdistan" is used in:

As you can see, the term was used and still is being used, with approximately 800.000 search results in Google's search engine. I think the discussion should have an end here. You got a lot of arguments and examples why the term "Southern Kurdistan" still should stay in the introduction of the article. --Moplayer (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

These are several individual cases where it is used, but that does not suddenly make the term a mainstream or common (Enlgish) term, which isn't quite the case for "Southern Kurdistan". Also, if you search the term between double quotation marks you get a significantly lower number than the 800000 that you brought up.Verdia25 (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Please stop ignoring these facts and being nationalistic. You call it "several individual cases", if a work of an author is published by the "Cambridge Scholars Publishing"? Or an author is writing for the renowned Seoul National University with exactly this term in the titles of his books? And the mentioned examples are just some of thousands. If you put the quotation marks, you get about 58.000 search results, which is quite enough for Englisch media which allegedly is not using this term. The whole Kurdistan region, with a population of approximately 28 million, is using this term including many renowned English media.--Moplayer (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I call it several individual cases if it's not a mainstream English term and is mostly limited to Kurdish sources only (these are not necesarilly sources written in Kurdish language, but also sources dedicated to Kurds, for example a Kurdish human rights site is a Kurdish site). The bottom line is is that this term is almost solely used by a particular people, but outside of this group it's hardly used at all. A few scholarly sources where it is used that you brought up, does not change the fact that it's still not a mainstream term. Verdia25 (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I am providing evidence and facts, but you are only presenting your opinion. However it has to stay in the article as it is a term used by the Kurdish people. And the article is about a part of Kurdistan. I am not pretending to change the name of the whole article to "Southern Kurdistan", but to mention a term which is widely used in English literature (see examples). I have no time to repeat my sayings every time. I saw on your Wiki-page that you probably are an Iranian citizen. Please avoid to implement your own subjective (maybe political) opinion in Wikipedia. Thank You. --Moplayer (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You yourself are also giving your own opinion on why you think it should stay. There is also no need to repeat your saying if you react to my counter arguments, whether it's the counter argument on the argument 'a native term used by millions' or the claim of 'widely being used' which I repeat in my last post. Also, saying that because I may be an Iranian citizen (which I actually am not) that I am implementing an 'subjective (political) opinion in Wikipedia' is just prejudice.Verdia25 (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I gave you many evidence and examples, you did not anything of this. Your are just giving one unproven argument, which is based on your own opinion. You also are not the one who can decide whether a term is common or not. As long as you can not prove that this term is NOT in use in English media and literature, you are not allowed to simply delete this term from the introduction. --Moplayer (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary:
Search results in Google's search engine for the exact term Southern Kurdistan: 58.000
Search results in Google Books for the exact term Southern Kurdistan: 6.900
Search results in Google's search engine for the exact term South Kurdistan: 300.000
Search results in Google Books for the exact term South Kurdistan: 1.500
= 358.000 general search results for the exact term of South(ern) Kurdistan and 8.400 search results in Google Books
I do not think that are just only "several individual cases". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moplayer (talkcontribs) 15:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There is more than enough basis to include "Southern Kurdistan" in the introduction. The article itself isn't being renamed, just a note made that the aforementioned name is an alternative one used by a considerable amount of people. Most Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan will also use Southern Kurdistan interchangeably depending on the context of the discussion (i.e. when referring to the greater Kurdistan for instance). As an Encyclopedia we are here to help illuminate information for greater clarity, and that is what including this does.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Official language[edit]

Turkmen language is not a official language of the KRG, I corrected it.

Turkmen language is just allowed to be used officially in some areas where Turkmens live. But it is not constitutional the official language of Kurdistan.

According to the Kurdish constitution Kurdish and Arabic are the official languages of Kurdistan and the constitution was not changed.--Alan Genco (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)