Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan

Protest of Turkey firing artillery across the border

I found this news story "Iraq protests Turkey's cross-border shelling" from Sunday, June 10, 2007 but I'm not sure what article it should be included in. Seems pretty note-worthy its at http://www.sundaytimes.lk/070610/International/i503.html It begins with "The Iraqi Foreign Ministry today issued a formal protest to Turkey over the cross-border shelling into northern Iraq."

--Wowaconia 13:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

President

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

Arbil derived from Latin Urbilium?

"Its capital is the city of Arbil derived from the old latin Urbilium"..didnt "Arbil" derive from the ancient aramaic (which predates latin) name for the city "Arbela" (Arba-Elu meaning for Gods) ILLeSt (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbil nor Kurds have nothing to with Latin, and yes the region was dominated by the ancient aramaic language, since it was assyria

Inquery

SInce this is not a nation how can it have either an anthem or capital? -- Cat ^chi? 02:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Without getting in to the vexed question of how to define "nationhood", many non-independent entities have both anthems and capitals. Wales has its capital at Cardiff and a national anthem, Hen Wlad fy Nhadau. All of the US states have capitals; most also have anthems ('state songs'). The Basque Country, Catalonia, Scotland, Quebec and the Canadian provinces, the German Länder, the isle of Åland, New Caledonia, Tatarstan and all the other autonomous republics in Russia – all of these have local autonomy with various attributes and symbols of sovereignty (such as flags, anthems, coats of arms, constitutions) without being independent. This is the de facto state of affairs for Iraqi Kurdistan right now. QuartierLatin1968 15:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget Taiwan. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Also don't forget that outside powers such as the USA and Britian have used these peoples ideals as tools of manipulation on the world scene.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The name of the article is inaccurate

It should be Kurdistan Region or Iraqi Kurdistan. It is mentioned as Kurdistan Region in the Iraqi Constitution, not Kurdish Autonomous Region. The latter was only used during the Ba'ath regime in the 70's and 80's. Here is the reference to the name of the region in the new constitution of Iraq:

CHAPTER ONE: REGIONS

Article 113:

First: This Constitution shall approbate the region of Kurdistan and its existing regional and federal authorities, at the time this constitution comes into force.

Article 137:

Legislation enacted in the region of Kurdistan since 1992 shall remain in force, and decisions issued by the government of the region of Kurdistan - including court decisions and agreements - shall be considered valid unless it is amended or annulled pursuant to the laws of the region of Kurdistan by the competent entity in the region, provided that they do not contradict with the constitution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html

Please kindly restore the page Iraqi Kurdistan. Heja Helweda 23:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to REDIRECT this article to Iraqi Kurdistan, since according to the consititution there is not such a thing as Kurdish Autonomous Region anymore. In Iraq they use Iraqi Kurdistan Region instead. Also in the dismbiguation at the top of the Kurdish Autonomous Region the REDIRECT of Southern (or Iraqi) Kurdistan to Kurdistan is also wrong, it should be to Iraqi Kurdistan. Heja Helweda 00:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Heja Helweda, there are two things going on here that I think you're asking to be conflated. The first is moving this article to something like Kurdistan Region (probably a good idea). The second, though, is what to do with Iraqi Kurdistan. This used to be a redirect. Before that, we tried having separate articles for Iraqi Kurdistan the broad geocultural region (it was called Southern Kurdistan), and Iraqi Kurdistan the autonomous regional government (called Kurdistan Regional Government); in my opinion, it wasn't a success. All of the information on the one article would also have been useful on the other.

So I think having one article makes good sense. If we want that article to be entitled Iraqi Kurdistan, however, it would be preferable to move this article there so as not to lose the revision history that's preserved here. For that, we need an administrator.

In any case, I recommend waiting a couple days to give others a chance to air their objections and suggestions. Best, QuartierLatin1968 22:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[PS: For technical reasons, it would be easiest to move this article to Kurdistan Region or Region of Kurdistan, and make Iraqi Kurdistan redirect there. QuartierLatin1968 22:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)]

Hi QuartierLatin1968, My suggestion is to stick with the official names, as mentioned in the Iraqi Constitution and Kurdistan Regional Government(which uses the term Iraqi Kurdistan: Information&SiteID=3), and at the same time in order to avoid confusion retain the name Iraq, so a name like Iraqi Kurdistan seems appropriate. About Kurdistan Region or Region of Kurdistan, it may be confused with Kurdish inhabited areas of neighboring countries. As a very crude test, I googled for these names: Iraqi Kurdistan (334,000), Region of Kurdistan (13,100), Kurdistan Region (55,600), Iraqi Kurdistan Region (589), Kurdistan Region of Iraq (829). So I suggest to keep Iraqi Kurdistan and make Kurdish Autonomous Region a REDIRECT to it. The term Kurdish Autonomous Region is an old one (adopted in 1970) and is no longer in official use. Heja Helweda 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You've convinced me. Now we have to find an administrator though! Never mind, looks like we don't need an administrator. Some things do get better! QuartierLatin1968 22:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

CRAP! The reason it worked is that I mistyped the name. Now we're really in trouble. Hang on a jiffy.

Okay, we're now back where we were, but there's an official request at Wikipedia:Requested moves#21 January 2006. In five days, unless somebody offers a vociferous objection, we should be able to move to Iraqi Kurdistan. QuartierLatin1968 22:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support a move to Iraqi Kurdistan. LuiKhuntek 08:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support (for the record) for the reasons Heja Helweda outlines above. QuartierLatin1968 01:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support per discussion above. Jonathunder 11:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support There was an Autonomous region of Kurdistan in the Soviet Union (Azerbaijan), so this will certainely prevent additional confusion. --Kuban kazak 22:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

From the former Iraqi Kurdistan talk page

I think we should make this a redirect to Kurdistan (or the regional government). We used to have two articles, one for Southern Kurdistan and one for Kurdistan Autonomous Region, and it proved to be unworkable – there was too much overlap. On the other hand, Kurdistan has a lot of material specific to Iraqi Kurdistan. QuartierLatin 1968 18:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi QuartierLatin,

Southern Kurdistan is the same Iraqi Kurdistan and it covers a larger area than Kurdistan Autonomous Region does. I think it is a good idea to redirect it to Kurdistan but if it is possible to the part of the article which is about Southern Kurdistan (i.e. middle of the page); is it possible? Thank You. --Diyako Talk + 19:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean, something like #REDIRECT [[Kurdistan#Iraqi Kurdistan]] ? I think that would be a tremendous idea, but I'm not sure if it works. We could always try it and see.

Part of me agrees with you, Iraqi Kurdistan is a broad area with centuries of history which extends as far as Kirkuk and stretches southeast along the Iranian border for a long way, etc, while the Autonomous Region is just a political entity established a few years ago over part of that area. On the other hand, much of what we would say about the one thing would also apply to the other -- it's impossible to talk about (for example) culture in the Autonomous Region without the same comments applying outside those boundaries. And since the Autonomous Region claims Kirkuk and wants to expand its boundaries to the rest of the Kurdish region... QuartierLatin1968 01:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The same can be said about Iran. Political Iran is not the actual boundries of Iran. This can be said about Albania too. Political Albania is not the historical boundaries of the actual area and so on. It is a part of world evolution. Boundaries change.

Neutrality

This Revolution was the greatest Kurdish revolution and the most conclusive in the history of the Kurds, which ended as a result of the treasonous Algeria’s agreement between Iraq and Iran.

This really needs re-wording, as does a lot of the article, other than that, the article is looking quite nice :) - FrancisTyers 13:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Which articles should have the tag 'Category:Kurdistan'

All, please see the discussion at Category talk:Kurdistan (Which articles should have the tag 'Category:Kurdistan'), and weigh-in if you like. Thanks, --Moby 14:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Mosul

The map is very false. Iraqi Kurdistan does not include Mosul. It only has a 15-20% Kurdish population. Chaldean 12:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The first map yes it is not accurate: The population of Mosul is principally Kurdish, but with a large minority of Arab-speaking Christian Assyrians although resettlement plan instituted by the Ba'th Party government beginning in the 1970s tried to increase the presence of Arabs in the city but after the fall of the Baath regime many (muslim) Arab families left Mosul and returned to their cities and many Kurds who had left Mosul came back to the city. Now it is safe to say that the population of Mosul is mainly Kurdish and Christian. The problem with first map is that it confuses Kirkuk and Mosul. Now in 2006 Kirkuk has a strong majority Kurdish population more than it is in Mosul (more Arabs left Kirkuk and more Kurds returned back to the city in comparison to Mosul) but you see Kirkuk is shown half Kurdish but Mosul totally Kurdish. So I agree with you and think we should replace the first map with the old one. Jalalarbil 14:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Now it is safe to say that the population of Mosul is mainly Kurdish and Christian.

No it is not, all you gotta do is look at the election results, where in Mosul Sunni arabs got 75% of the votes. Chaldean 00:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mosul traditionally was Kurdish and Christian until Baath increased the number of muslim Arabs in the city and forced the Kurds to leave the city. After Baath this process converted to decreasing muslim Arabs number and increasing Kurdish number. Right now it is going to be so and this is a process not a sudden event. The elections are not the same as census since many Kurds did/do not agree with Kurdish alliance and may prefer to vote to a secholar party which wants a united secholar Iraq rather than to Kurdish alliance or more probably not to participate in the elections especially in a city such as Mosul with a muslim Arab population which may worried many Kurds about their lives to go out and vote. Like I said it is a process and the same as Saddam did not arabize the city in 'one' day, the Kurdification of the city too, requires a time to be done. Besides the elections were several months ago and still there were no enough possibilty to the leaving-returning process. I heard that even christians have a such a process, to increase the Christian population in the city since unlike many Kurds who do not really have a claim about the city of Mosul most Christians have a nationalistic claim for that (whether they will be able to do that or not is not clear yet). Most Kurds claim the surronding areas of Mosul not necessarily the city of Mosul, while Kurdish government believes that the city traditionally has been Kurdish-Christian and thence they say it should be included into the federal government of north (currently known as KRG). Indeed in 2005 the city of Mosul was included in the map of Barez Mella Baxtiyar which provided to Baghdad government... Jalalarbil 09:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

nearly half of mosul population is kurdish and 60% of the population of kerkuk is kurdish the arabs in mosul attacked kurds on several occasions arab election workers have manipulated kurdish votes all over the arab parts of town and a lot of yezidis votes for allawi and a lot of shabak kurds voted for the shia alliance , the sunni arab got votes from the turkmen , some 50.000 turkmen voted for the sunni parties

Mosul is not Kurdish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabananahana (talk • contribs) 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

KRG or Kurdistan

Is this article about KRG or Iraqi-Kurdistan? Chaldean 03:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan is a region comprising of cities, mountains, rivers etc.. while KRG is comprising only of politicians, parliament, Police, etc.

The article discusses both. Jalalarbil 11:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

But it can't - those two are totally different topics. The article's title "Iraqi Kurdistan" refers to a region while Kurdistan Regional Government refers to a much smaller region. Which one is it? Chaldean 13:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Kurdistan Regional Government is not a region, but a government.Jalalarbil 14:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A Government over a region. For example, Germany is the region under the Germany goverment. I dont know, maybe I'm making this issue too confusing. Chaldean 14:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Exactly. The Kurdistan Region is the lands and cities, such as: Slémani, Pirmam etc, but the KRG is: Nechirvan Barzani, Parliamnet etc.

Question

Wow, I really shocked by this edit! Does this man think he is keeping it correct? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_Kurdistan&diff=next&oldid=64875634

---

1. It's written in some Kurdish constitution or another that the official languages are Kurdish, Assyrian, and Arabic (in that order). No question here.
2. "Chaldo-Assyrian" is a broad term with varying meanings. It can either be:
   1. A newly-invented title that describes the union between the names "Assyrian" and "Chaldean" (not "historically known as..."), or
   2. A person who belongs to the Chaldean Catholic Church who also wants to be identified as Assyrian. (Thus, this does not include those who refer to themselves as Assyrians).
3. They have never always been referred to as "Aramean" even though they speak the language. Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Middle East for hundreds of years. At the time of the Great Jewish Revolt in 70 CE, Jews in Palestine spoke Aramaic. Any sane person would not call them Arameans.

Chaldean's edits in question were completely legitimate. --334 22:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Rename to Kurdistan Regional Government

Since this is about the Kurdistan Regional Government it might as well carry that title. Objections? -- Cat ^chi? 08:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's about the region governed by the Kurdistan Regional Government, as well as the government. We store our article about Wales at Wales, not at Welsh Assembly Government. (The latter article exists, but it's exclusively about the cabinet members and the government as a corporation.) If at some point this article grows to the point where a separate article about the cabinet and government is needed, then by all means we should revive the Kurdistan Regional Government article. QuartierLatin1968 15:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to have a separate article about the Kurdistan Regional Government, and to have most of this information transferred there. I agree however that we should keep this article here - a bit like the difference between Wales and National Assembly for Wales articles. AndrewRT - Talk 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that would be wise. There is a Kurdistan Regional Government (Wales equavalent) and a Kurdistan Regional Government assembly (National Assembly for Wales equavalent) (they have a parliment of somesort). "Iraqi Kurdistan" is the contraversial name merely to imply occupation in other parts of Kurdistan. This is like saying Wales is a part of eastern Ireland (granted its a bad example)...

I really want to break the kurdistan pov fork chain. Syrian Kurdistan was deleted for being a pov fork, same should happen to Iranian Kurdistan and Turkish Kurdistan (more like lists of kurdish revolts).

Let me put it another way:

• If we are going to write about a proposed kurdistan country I am all in for that.
• If we are going to write about the existing regional entitiy, I am all in for that.
• If we are going to write about the geo-cultural region, I'd be ok with that too.
• If we are going to write about kurdish revolts, I am fine with that.
• If we are going to write about kurdish history, I am fine with that.
• If we are going to write about kurds in general in a specified region I am fine with that too.
• I am however against doing all of the above in one page as it is done now.

-- Cat ^chi? 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This page is happy where it is. The term is in wide scholarly use [1]. You are welcome to apply standard MOS procedure to sections. For example split out some information into Kurdistan Regional Government. In fact, I'll do that now. - FrancisTyers · 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. - FrancisTyers · 22:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The flag, coat of arms, and practicaly everything else in the infobox should go there too. No region should have a flag or coat of arms unless its a state or a country. No other geographic region has such info. Governorates certainly dont belong to this "mere geographic region". History section is a dupe of a number of articles. A regional history cant start with ww1. This should either have its own article (like "history of the kurds" or something similar).

We do not and should not have an article on every scholar term. "Kurdistan" is a fine article for information regarding "Iraqi Kurdistan" and other "Kurdistan"s. After removing information irrelevant to a "region" article, we can merge it to Kurdistan

-- Cat ^chi? 00:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the objective of the article? What is it explaining? -- Cat ^chi? 00:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool it, Cool Cat. There's no use gunning for a quick fix; you may be reverted just as quick. Let's work on building consensus first. I want to talk about just the infobox first: "No region should have a flag or coat of arms unless its a state or a country. No other geographic region has such info." This is easily falsifiable. Sardinia (an autonomous region of Italy), Karelia (an autonomous republic of Russia), Chubut (a province of Argentina), Saskatchewan (a province of Canada), and the Western Cape (a province of South Africa) all have infoboxes, and every single one of them shows either a flag or a coat of arms – or both when available. Not one of these is "a state or a country".

As with these other articles, the point of this article is to describe a bit of the history, politics, demographics, economics, and geography of a region which does have a legal existence and personality today and about which Wikipedia users may wish to know something. QuartierLatin1968 03:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of cooling something that isn't even warm, I am not in conflict with anyone. I am mearly acting in what I feel will make wikpedia a more neutral place.

I have absolutely no objection for an article to explain the current political entity in northern Iraq (Kurdistan Regional Government). I do not object in anyway to articles that explain the general (controversial) region known as Kurdistan. I do not object articles explaining Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and etc (Kurds in Turkey, Kurds in Iran, Kurds in Iraq...). I however object the existance of articles about Iraqi Kurdistan, Turkish Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan. I believe they exist as POV forks. I'll post my reasoning below in bullets.

• Iraqi Kurdistan
  • The regional government is often referanced controverisaly as "Iraqi Kurdistan" (correct me if I am wrong)
  • The official accepted title is Kurdistan Regional Government. (correct me if I am wrong)
  • Deducing above, I believe it would be prudent to use the official full name rather than the contraversial and unoffical one. It would be more logical.
• Turkish Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan
  • These are not political entities (defacto or not). (correct me if I am wrong)
  • Turkish Kurdistan seems to be more of a list of Kurdish revolts and history than anything. Infact the entier article is about general history of the kurds and nothing else but additional trivia which are barely if at all encyclopedic. (correct me if I am wrong)
  • As for iranian kurdistan, article is also strictly about history going as far back as the 12 century. Some random referances to "human rights" issues as well which should be in Kurds in Iran. (correct me if I am wrong)
• Suggestion
  • Detailed information about Kurdish history should be confined to articles explaining the kurdish history. Take Europe article for instance. It does not give info on every skirmish that had happened in europe. Nor is the topics covered confined to the history, politics, and etc of one ethnicity, race or religion.
  • Detailed information about Kuridsh people should be confined to articles about Kurdish people. Again see Europe. There is a diverse culture section mostly one paragraph per culture with a more detailed explanation on linked articles.
  • The contraversial region Kurdistan should be treated just like Europe and should not be confined to Kurds. Kurdistan should not provide a hole lot of information but rather brief introduction to related topics just like Europe.
  • I am puzzled what Turkish Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan artilles supposed to explain. Why do they exist?

-- Cat ^chi? 14:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with Cool Cat's logic/reasoning (or his spelling :-) j/k, Cool Cat), I do agree that his suggestions are valid. There is too much Nationalism in Wikipedia and Nationalism doesn't lend itself to neutrality. "Kurdistan" as a region/state/political entity is controversial at best. The Iraqi Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan and Turkish Kurdistan articles are blatantly obvious POV forks. The general region claimed as "Kurdistan" is home to many people groups other than the Kurds. There are already individual articles for Kurdish people, Kurdish culture, etc. All that info should remain there. Articles about such topics as the "Iraqi Kurdish Region" should have a neutral name, deal specifically with the details of current state of the region: demographics, form of governance, econimic situation, notable political considerations, borders, geography, etc. and not contain Kurdish Nationalist propaganda.--WilliamThweatt 17:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan is different than KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government). In the current article, there is a large section about the history of the region in 20th century. From 1920 to 1991, there was no KRG. As for the William's objection, I have to remind him that the term Iraqi Kurdistan appears in the Iraqi Constitution which was ratified in September 2005. This was the main reason to change the name of article from Kurdish Autonomous Region to Iraqi Kurdistan. Please read my discussions with QuartierLatin1968. For Turkish Kurdistan, the term appears in the Encyclopaedia of Islam here [2].Heja Helweda 18:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the "Iraqi Kurdistan" thing in the Iraqi constitution proveked a level of outrage domesticaly in Iraq. More so diplomaticaly among many countries such as Turkey. There is no mention of this in the article or anywhere on wikipedia for that matter and was not even part of the renaming discussion. Furthermore the rename was entirely inaproporate.

Kurdish Autonomous Region or KAR is a historic entity that lasted a decade plus. There must be a seperate article about it as the current political entity and KAR as they are nothing alike . Kurdish Autonomous Region had two main rivaling factions for power among others. It being abolished/renamed/restructured/united is entierly irrelevant.

I'd like to ask for one clarification. Is Iraqi Kurdistan a cultural region or a political entity in the body of the federal Iraqi structure. If it is so what is Kurdistan Regional Government then? If it isnt a political entity, what is the coat of arms and flag doing here?

While verifiable (as stated above), "Iraqi Kurdistan" is not a neutral term. By all means all this above makes terms "Turkish Kurdistan" and "Iranian Kurdistan" entierly inaproporate imlying political existance along with the Iraqi counterpart.

-- Cat ^chi? 19:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add that if we are going to talk about Kurdistan as a term it should be more like Macedonia (terminology). Please take special care that article has 96 sources. Also take notice of the difercity of the sources from different points of view, culture, and languages.

Infact Kurdistan should be a disambiguation pace just like Macedonia.

-- Cat ^chi? 19:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary edit point

Cool Cat wrote: "The regional government is often referanced controverisaly as "Iraqi Kurdistan" (correct me if I am wrong)" and "The official accepted title is Kurdistan Regional Government. (correct me if I am wrong)". You are wrong. The Kurdistan Regional Government refers to itself as the Kurdistan Regional Government. It refers to the region it governs as Kurdistan (or Iraqi Kurdistan to be avoid confusion with other regions, such as the Iranian province of Kordestan). You can find any number of examples of this usage at the KRG website: the page "About the Kurdistan Regional Government" refers to the KRG when describing the structure and institutions of the state, while the page "A Brief History Of Iraqi Kurdistan : Position on Federalism,Declaration of the Iraqi Kurdistan National Assembly" talks about Kurdistan and the Kurds when talking about the region and its dominant ethnic group. If we distinguish between governments and the regions they govern, you can perceive that the Iraqi Kurdistan region has certain geographic, cultural, historic, demographic, economic and other features which are well within the scope of this article. Now, if you feel the history section (for example) is biased so as to emphasize Kurdish nationalist preoccupations, by all means, why not add information to correct the imbalance. QuartierLatin1968 04:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. I'll give a similar example then to emphacise my point.

• Consider Republic of Turkey (defined borders) and Anatolia (undefined borders). Anatolia does not come with the Turkish flag or coat of arms nor it should. Anatolia focuses on the regions general geography and is more or less a list linking to relevant articles.
  • Mind that it links to Geography of Turkey and not Geography of Anatolia.
  • A Geography of Kurdistan Regional Government (defined borders) is fine while Geography of Iraqi Kurdistan (undefined borders just like Kurdistan) is not.
  • A Kurdistan (a general region) is approporate while a Iraqi Kurdistan is not. Borders of Kurdistan is disputed. There is no valid claim that suggests that the borders of Kurdistan is defined by the borders of Kurdistan regional government. In fact the KRG is working on aquiring more territory (according to this article).
• Your assesment is somewhat self conflicting. From what I know the official title of "Kurdistan Regional Government" is "Kurdistan Regional Government". KRG webpage verifies this hence the "KRG" and not "IK".
  • Every bits of information about the "Kurdistan Regional Government" should be avalible at Kurdistan Regional Government article and nowhere else. We dont want duplicate info.
• Consider History of Turks/History of Turkey/History of Anatolia and contrast with History of the Kurds/History of Kurdistan.
  • (ethnic history) History of Turks talks about the history of the Turkish people as a whole.
  • (political entity) History of Turkey talks about the history of the country Turkey. (political entity)
  • (geographic entity) History of Anatolia talks about the history of the geographic region.
  • (ethnic history) History of the Kurds talks about the history of the Kurdish people. (ethnic history)
  • (geographic entity) History of Kurdistan does not exist. Should talk about the regional history ranging from the Turkish war of independence to the Urartu also with elements from Turkish Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan
  • (political entity) History of Kurdistan regional government does not exist. Should talk about the KRG's history. Tho this can probably be done in Kurdistan regional government alone since the KRG is just 2 years old and does not have much of a history.

When compared to similar articles, Iraqi Kurdistan doesnt fit anywhere. Article is unorganised and confusing.

Basicaly all I am asking is juggling the information off of this article to more approporate locations...

-- Cat ^chi? 10:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What does 'arbitrary edit point' mean?

I'm honestly not sure whether you have paid any attention to what I wrote above, or had a look at the KRG website, so I won't waste my time repeating the same thing. Perhaps, however, if you're a visual learner, an illustrative table might help:

Regions governed	Governments	Areas included within region
Wales	Welsh Assembly Government	area of the thirteen traditional counties of Monmouthshire, Glamorgan, Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire, Cardiganshire, Brecknockshire, Radnorshire, Montgomeryshire, Denbighshire, Flintshire, Merionethshire, Caernarvonshire, and Anglesey
Southern Sudan, 'New Sudan'	Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS)	the territory of the former provinces of Bahr el Ghazal, Equatoria and Upper Nile
Bavaria	Bavarian State Government (Bayerische Staatsregierung)	the area of the kingdom of Bavaria, less the Rheinpfalz
Iraqi Kurdistan, 'Kurdistan'	Kurdistan Regional Government	Iraq north of the Green Line, including all of the governorates of Suleymaniya, Erbil, and Dohuk (de jure and de facto) and sections of Ninawa, Ta'mim, and Diyala (de facto)

The point being that regions and their governments aren't the same. They're not always even called by the same name.

The Iraqi Kurdistan region does have defined boundaries. In fact, they check your passport when you cross those boundaries, from what I hear.[3][4]

Comparisons with Turkish and Iranian Kurdistan are completely unhelpful, because Turkish Kurdistan has no legal existence, defined boundaries, or constitutionally recognized autonomy, while the Iranian Kurdistan province is only a (non-autonomous) part of the informal region of 'Kurdistan' in Iran. It's much more fruitful to compare Iraqi Kurdistan with other regions that actually do have autonomy of one form or another.

I'm trying to follow your Anatolia analogy, but it just doesn't make sense to me. History of Turkey is a disambiguation page: it points you to History of the Turkish people, History of the Republic of Turkey, and History of Anatolia, among others. We are, however, in agreement that information concerning the political history of the KRG should be at Kurdistan Regional Government until it grows worthy of a separate history of the Kurdistan Regional Government article.

Your ideas for changing, moving, or reorganizing the articles on Kurdistan, Turkish Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan sound fine, but what relevance do they have here? QuartierLatin1968 20:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary edit point creates the "edit" link at a conviniant location so that I dont have to scroll up and down. I really think it is prudent to break long discussions so it stays managable.

Let me elaborate my stand point. Treat each bullet as a seperate issue.

• For the History of Turkey link, what I ment was History of the Republic of Turkey link.
• This article is like Wales region being discussed in a "British Ireland" article (I just made that up). Name is somewhat problematic no matter how one looks at it.
• Anatolia anology points an example of a geographic region. Geographic regions by definition can't have flags nor coat of arms nor political borders as they would be political regions if they do so.
• The Iraqi Kurdistan you mention is the claim by the Kurdistan Regional Government. Kurdistan itself still has a disputed set of undefined borders. You can google (image search) for "Kurdistan" or "Kurdistan map" to find inconsistant maps from various sources.
• Historicaly speaking an Iraqi Kurdistan officaly existed as of last year. Any information prior should not be presented here. Only information since the Operation Iraqi Freedom and the aftermath should be present here. Information about the decade of defacto existance prior for instance should be presented in Kurdish Autonomous Region article. KAR was very different from KRG after all.

Removing/moving KRG data and unnecesary history data leaves almost no content to this article. And remaining content is better off being in Kurdistan than here. My reasoning is based on treating Iraqi Kurdistan as a geographic region and not a political one.

-- Cat ^chi? 21:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I have updated the Infobox, added more information to it and also the coding for this new Infobox is much easier. The old one was just a table made into an Infobox, but this new one is the right Infobox for this article, compare them side by side the old one and my new one. And this new Infobox looks much better than the old one. Comments and suggestions are welcomed. --D.Kurdistani 03:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't the Infobox be at the Kurdistan Regional Government page? Chaldean 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont think so. But I think the article Kurdistan Regional Government be renamed to Politics of Kurdistan Regional Government, or similar names such as Politics of Kurdistan-Iraq.

Moreover, I believe that a more accurate title for this article is Kurdistan-Iraq, with a hyphen. This is exactly what KRG officials use. Awat 12:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this name Iraqi Kurdistan Region that I put on the Infobox, personally I believe it should be Kurdistan - Iraq like Awat said, but in the Iraqi constitution it is officially known as the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. Until it is officially changed by the Kurdish authorities in Northern Iraq, we will keep it that way. --D.Kurdistani 08:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually 'Kurdistan - Iraq' is what today Kurdish authority are insisting on instead of 'Iraqi Kurdistan'. We can for instance refer to Adnan Mufti's recent explanation of this title. moreover the new draft of Kurdistan constituation has a passage in its introdiction which explicitly explains usage of 'Kurdistan - Iraq' from a linguistic, historic and political point of view. Awat 13:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This article needs to be broken apart. I am not sure what is the intended topic here but insignificant stuff like the anafal campaign should not even have a mention here. Nor does the infobox belong here, this article is about the geo-cultural area along with Turkish Kurdistan and Iranian Kurdistan. -- Cat ^chi? 03:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Article to be broken apart

Events that happened prior to regions recognition should go to Kurdistan Autonomous Region, the defacto entity that existed prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I'll do this myself if no one else volunteers. -- Cat ^chi? 03:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the anafal campaign is part of the history section of this article. Moving it does not make any sense, and creating a different article for Kurdistan Autonomous Region prior to the US invasion of Iraq does not make sense either. Not much has changed besides being recognized as an official federal region by the central government so why make all these changes? --D.Kurdistani 08:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Think of it this way, the ottoman wars are not described as a part of "Turkey" but rather "Ottoman Empire", anything happened before the establishment of "Iraqi Kurdistan" belongs to the respective article of the past entity or entities -- Cat ^chi? 14:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

New army

What is the new army they are talking about in media: the Armed Forces of Kurdistan? Should this be mentioned in the article? Samrendshere 00:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That'll be the peshmergas, I presume. There's a section on the military in this article. If I'm right, they're not really new ... which media report are you referring to? Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan-Iraq

I read in the article that, official name of Northern Iraq Kurdish federal region is Kurdistan-Iraq not Iraqi Kurdistan, we should also use this name. For example, for Burma article's name is Myanmar, which is the official name of Burma.Ayasi 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Your right Iraqi Kurdistan is not the official name of the Kurdish Region of northern Iraq. I have done some research to find the official name of the region as stated by the Kurdish and Iraqi authorities and the official name as stated in the Iraqi constitution. I came up with many different names. In the Iraqi constitution it say’s Kurdistan Region, on the official webpage or the Kurdistan Regional Government I found two names for the region, Kurdistan – Iraq and Kurdistan Region – Iraq. There are many other names like Iraqi Kurdistan Region, Iraqi Kurdistan, Kurdistan Region and some others. If someone could find a direct link to a official government webpage or some other reliable source stating what the official name is then I say we go ahead and change the name. --D.Kurdistani 08:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The visa stamps from Arbil airport say "Republic of Iraq - Iraq Kurdistan Region - Arbil International Airport"--Vindheim 10:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraq is a whole!

I don't know this country! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StANDby007 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

This article is mixing Kurdistan region with Iraqi Kurdistan it should be only about Iraqi Kurdistan since the title is Iraqi Kurdistan.--Aziz1005 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, this isn't a country, it's a state. On their visas, it says "Iraqi Kurdistan" and the "Republic of Iraq".

I don't think Northern Iraq has recognition yet. Neither de jure nor de facto. Why doesn't it clearly stated in the article? Deliogul (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph states that the article concerns a " semi-autonomous, federally recognized political entity located in northern Iraq." Perfectly clear to me, and also correct.--Vindheim (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is crap

Or to use more academic language, it's not internally consistent with regard to spelling of place names even within the same paragraph 82.110.248.146 (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is confusing

I see how confusing this can be having so many terms about Kurdistan and its different part and having several articles about it and its several parts whit its several names.

Kurdistan is a geographical area in Middle East. It is in SE Anatolia, NW part of Zagros Mountains and N Mesopotamia. In Southern Kurdistan there is a Kurdish Autonomous Region with its own regional government. Terms like Iraqi Kurdistan, Turkish Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan etc. doesn't sound good. Better to only call it "Southern Kurdistan", "Northern Kurdistan", "Eastern Kurdistan" etc. And it would be better if Kurdistan Regional Government called it self "Regional Government of Southern Kurdistan". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatma2008 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Demographics!

The demographics of this article are incorrect in my opinion. 95% being Kurdish makes no sense to me. Assyrians and Turkoman make up about 5-7% of Iraq, and majority of the turkoman and especially Assyrians live in Northern Iraq. How can it be possible that they are still only 5% of Iraqi Kurdistan?

from CIA Factbook, Assyrians and Turkomans are 5% or Iraq, that makes their population at about 1.5 million, now lets assume that 500 000 live outside of the borders of Iraqi Kurdistan, that would still leave 1 million Assyrians and Turkomans in Northern Iraq (which is a good estimate in my opinion) and that would make Assyrian/Turkoman population at about 15-20% of Iraqi Kurdistan.

Please provide a source of the 95% claim of this article or remove it -- Malik Danno (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)