Talk:Kurdistan

The article is wrong because There is no state called Kurdistan yet. The imaginary Kurdistan covers some areas from Iraq and Turkey. It may be founded in the future due to broken of Iraq. A part of it may be founded over Iraq but not Turkey. Hence Turkey has its own govermental and established rules and has borders which have defined withrespect to international agreements between 1920-1939. Furthermore Turkey are occupated by other states. Therefore Turkish people have freedom to decide about their country future.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1
• Archive (Kurds v. Kurdistan)
• Archive 2
• Archive 3 ?? - 23:34, 18 December 2005
• Archive 4 February 7, 2006

Wikify

The article is only about Kurdish people and their history which both have their own pages. I think we should improve the article by adding info about other sides of the issue i.e. geography, economiccal situation, militarization of the region, even cliamte etc... Thanks. Mesopotamia 00:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to talk about the other peoples living in "Old Kurdistan!" Kurds, Persians, and Azeris are not the only people living there. Those other peoples identities shouls be included.

Mannaeans

I suggest to add Mannaeans article to the history section. The reason is that the center of Mannaean Kingdom was in Mahabad, a Kurdish city in western Iran, which is part of the geo-cultural region of Kurdistan.[1]

Heja Helweda 17:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

KURDS ARE ETHNIC IRANIANS

The individuals that are not to be trusted and have a anti-Iranian agenda are Mesopotamia , Aucaman , and Heja Helweda . Do not trust them and read through the history and see the changes they made and when they provide evidence you must all double check. Also look at the discussions and you can see the methodology of their agandas. Mesopotamia fabricated information and pushes it. Aucaman pretends that he wants compromise, but is in favour of the vandals and false information. It is so transparent. Heja Helweda gives half truths, which are lies. Like the genetic information. Everyone read it carefully. Irani means Iranian. it sys Kurds are in the same ethnic cluster as Iranis. If you look at that whole article on its direct source you will see that the individuals who placed it there are liers who changed the information that actual study says Kurds are Iranians. ALso please look at all of Heja Helweda contributions as well as the others and you will see what is on their minds. MY SUGGESTION IS TO GO EDIT THEIR ARTICLES BECAUSE I SEE A LOT OF MISTAKES. Heja Helweda is abusing this site.

What's an "ethnic Iranian"? Nymos 00:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Their Language is mix of fars, arabic and turkish. So why you ask that stup.d question. onur80

Kurdistan?

Can we have some academic sources of anyone else beside Kurdish nationalists recognising such a thing as Kurdistan (Land of Kurds)?! --Kash 17:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes offcourse!

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9369506 Diyako Talk + 19:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is not the full article and is distorted. User:Diyako does not know left from right on this issue and only fabricates information. He Just wants to push his rhetoric that gives a political make-over to Kurds. 69.196.139.250 01:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9369506 Britannica is my POV? Your Iranian friends added that sentence i did not. You even can delete it. I do not disagree. and please do not bold the word "jerk" to me in tour comment.

Diyako Talk + 02:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry your source does not use the word 'Land of Kurds', please see -stan for more info. --Kash 13:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

http://0-www.search.eb.com.library.uor.edu/eb/article-9046466

Diyako Talk + 15:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Strange..There is no mention of Armenia for the location at here have they missed this out? if Armenia is included, then that'd make a strange looking geographical location! I will leave it until an expert can comment.

Also I noticed in your link.. Persian Kordistan and Arab Kurdistan are these the proper names for Iranian Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan? --Kash 15:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No they are not you have just exposed his lack of credin\bility on the subject. 69.196.139.250 06:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong tag!

Cleanup has its own tag !!!! {{cleanup-date|March 2006}} why you put pov tag ??????? Diyako Talk + 16:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Because article has fine grammer and spelling. Material covered is bad taste. What about this article explains kurdish culture? Nothing. It only talks about kurdish independence movement(s), displays a flag and even talks about Kurdish ecomonmy and militarization. Looks like a country article to me and not a geo-cultural region. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Climate and historical atractions are photo galeries... Wikipedia is not a tourist guide. Kurdish nature? Come on! How is nature kurdish?

The only source is "Essays on the Origins of Kurdish Nationalism, edited by Abbas Vali"....

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurdistan is a militazied, undeveloped geocultural region. what is wrong with that? You want citiation? off course we should provide. Have u any other concerns? Ok you can ask admins for mediationDiyako Talk + 17:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you aren't dictating this article or bulliying me. And one being an admin cannot interfere with article like that.

Who is we? Kurdish government? Anfan? Starfleet intelligence? Other wikipedians?

One minor issue: Define the borders for me? Who gets to decide? You? Me? CIA? Some random Texas A&M prof?

Geo cultural region has to do with CULTURE, I see no evidence of culture. All I see is a region portrayed and treated as a country with flag and map and all... By definition a geocultural region cannot be confined to provinces with artificial borders.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been asking this but none could answer. It is now in the archive. Flag shall be removed as it belongs to a terrorist movement trying to estabilish a country. And the flag represents the proposed country, while article is about a historic/cultural region. --levent 08:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it a fact that there are millions (10 - 40?) of ethnic Kurds living in the areas shown, and they want to be recognized as Kurds? And since millions of people consider themselves Kurds, and want to establish their own country, with their own flag, its something to be considered on a web page. For the flag, I think it should say just what it is: That only millions of Kurds (if not all Kurds) consider it their own (apparently, but if there are any Kurds here, please let us know which flag you would prefer), and stress that it is NOT an actual country recognized by other countries. Because for a country to be a country, the US (or Europe, or NATO) needs to recognize it. Or can it still be a country if a another little country recognizes it? ----- One other note on flags is, many different organizations have flags, even companies, or similarly, for families, family crests (which resemble flags), and also, countries from history, that are no longer there, also had flags, and that can be shown for historical significance. So I vote, keep the flag, and state that it is not recognized by other countries. But to not show it is like pretending it does not exist --User:NYC-ALB 2006 March 16.

I have made this suggestion several times before, surprisingly without any of the Kurdish editors showing interest in it: To discuss issues of Kurdish separatism, dedicate a page to it, rather than spreading separatism-related issues allover Wikipedia in places where actually other things should be discussed. Most of the content of this page should be moved to a page with a name such as Kurdish Separatism or Separatist Movements among the Kurdish People, or Kurdish Efforts for an Independent State, or something like that. In the present way, the article could essentially be renamed to those. Another option would be to create a separatism page, additionally keep this one and change it into a cultural article, which is what it should be. Again, probably if you create an article which deals with Kurdish culture, you could essentially merge it with the already existing Kurdish People article. Shervink 15:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Your POV is quite irrelevant. Maybe you are unfamiliar to writting articles or at least the issue of Kurdistan. Kurdistan is a place on this planet. It has a geography, a history. This region has been politically, economically dinstinct from its other neighboring regions. it has a people, its people are distinct from their neighboring ethnic groups. I do not know what you mean by limiting its stuff to only cultural issues. If you are really unfamiliar with Kurdistan issue then I agree to write the article the same way as credible encyclopedias do.Diyako Talk + 16:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Your pov is also irrelevant, drop the hostile attitude.

You are saying kurds are completely unrelated to anyone else, is that it? Region is a geo cultural region. Firstly you cannot just display information regarding kurds. You will have to explain every minority and majority living there. Not just kurdish politics, kurdish history, kurdish flag. Or esle article is one sided and frankly pointless. Also article should be limited to culture since after all thats the purpose of this article. History should be trimed to nada as we have a seperate article for that as middle east has a VAST history to say the least. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that every response of yours to a comment that I have made starts with the words Your POV? Which part of my suggestion was POV? It was a suggestion, in good faith, in order to bring more organization into the Kurdish issues on WP. Do you realize that I am suggesting to discuss Kurdish separatism on WP? Is that not what you want? What is the problem with it? I am quite familiar with writing articles, not only on Wikipedia, but also in scientific journals. I am also very familiar with issues of the Middle east, especially those of the Kurds and other Iranian peoples. Please stop insulting me at each and every occasion. Shervink 16:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

No, I've not asked for creating that article which by itself is a good suggestion. but I wonder why some people wish to remove irrelevant info from this article. the article still is a stub and if you are familiar with the issue of Kurds and their struggles, uprisings, poverty, lack of primary human rights then please help wikipedia by creating that article. maybe we can use info from that to expand this one.Diyako Talk + 16:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is not whether you asked me to create an article. The point is whether you agree with it. I am quite busy unfortunately, and so I leave it to others to start the article. I think it would be a valuable one if written impartially. The suggestion was to move info from this article to that one, not vice versa. This article defines itself as a cultural one. If you have an article on Kurdish politics then that's where Kurdish politics should be discussed, not here. I'm sure you understand my point. It is quite clear. Whether you accept it is something else, and quite frankly, I don't care! Shervink 16:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Your suggestion is quite irrelevan. there are or there will be many articles on Kurdish culture or other Kurdish cultural related articles. But Kurdistan (THIS article) is not on kurdish culture but on the land of the Kurds, a region on this planet. This region has a history. this history has been shortly explained here (on the article). the same as any other enciclopedia. I belive that credible and neutral encuclopedias are acceptable, What u think? are not they?!

Diyako Talk + 17:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I find myself once again in the unfortunate situation of discussing with you, Diyako. There is no point in discussing since you have no interest in finding out the truth. Your objective is to prove you are right, not to learn, and so I - once again - quit dealing with you here. As a last remark, there is no reason to have several articles in WP on Kurdish culture. One is completely sufficient. I already stated that I agree with keeping this article, but you should make its content more relevant. Dedicate another page to separatism, and if you can still make this article sufficiently informative and distinct from that of the Kurdish people, keep it. I have no problems with that, so I don't understand why you are attacking me. Shervink 17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Dear shervink, I'm neither pushing my POV nor attacking you, never. but the page does not discuss Kurdish separatsim at all. It is small parts of the history of this region. The history of this region is Struggle and blood. Just looks like separatism! but it is a relevant fact.Diyako Talk + 17:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Geez and I thought there was pov pushing... </sarcasm> --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute?

OK, what exactly is disputed here? Make a list of very specific concerns. Aucaman^Talk 18:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

For one article portrays kurdistan as a country. A flag is displayed and even a map establishing artifical borders. This article supposed to explaina geo-cultural region. What it should have is stuff related to culture. I am also questioning the necesity of this article when we have Kurdish people explaining kurdish culture (or at least its supposed to) we do not have an article for "Land of the latinos" or "Land of the Blacks" on US related topics.

There is excessive coverage of history (this article is not the place) and remove history and you have a bare stub.

Remaining material talks about "usual definition of Kurdistan" for example. There is no usual definition of Kurdistan according to the lead (The exact borders of Kurdistan are hard to define.) Hence artcles factual acuracy is disputed, article is self conflicting.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't know what you're talking about. For the article to be factually inaccurate, you should be able to point at to a sentence, paragraph, or statement and say "this is not correct!" Exactly which part of the article is not correct? Maybe you mean to put in an NPOV dispute tag? Aucaman^Talk 04:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• using the map and other related material in the article is encouraged. You just keep repeating Kurdistan is not a country. it has nothing to do witth the matter.Diyako Talk + 19:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC) You do it for no good reason. but I'm happy that wikipedia is an internationally project, and Kurdistan article is not alone. Diyako Talk + 19:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Acuman how come when someone clearly explains things to you that you disagree with you do not understand? You are being very problamatic and counter-productive. FOr a change address the problems and concerns instead of pushing them aside or waiting them out with your allies. 69.196.139.250 05:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand his problems, but none of them are factual accuracy concerns. Which part of the article is not factually accurate? Aucaman^Talk 16:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The article clearly explains that it is not a country in the first line, Kurdistan (literally meaning "the land of Kurds") [7] is the name of a geographic region and a cultural region in parts of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Armenia, and Syria inhabited by Kurds. It is not an independent state. About history, the region clearly has a history and it should be discussed, but it can be summarized a bit. Since I don't see any major dispute, I am removing the tag.Heja Helweda 02:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh so we can write self conflicting articles... I see a major dispite, firstly its a proposed county, it has the category. Do not remove the tag and do not rush things, this would be in everyones best interested. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, who's said Kurdistan is a country? Aucaman^Talk 12:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont know/care, article still has the category. Also. Flag is inaproporate if it isnt a country as a region cannot be about just kurds.

Why inst GAP mentioned?

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Flag is not a good excuse. All US states and Canadian provinces have their own flag, yet none of them is a country. Using a flag does not automatically translate into being a country. I don't see any serious arguement.Heja Helweda 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

USA and Canada are federal states, that's why and the flags of states/provinces are recognized by the federal governments. Using especially the flag in this article is idealogical propaganda.--Kagan the Barbarian 12:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

GAP, Good suggestion, the reason is because no one has tried to write on. such things should be mentioned.Diyako Talk + 20:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Map and flag has to be removed

I am not against this article but I am against it being used to promote a seperate Kurdistan state. The map and flag are furtively being used for this purpose. They should be removed otherwise this article is a tool for an idealogy.--Kagan the Barbarian 10:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The map is fine. It's just showing an ethnic map of where Kurds mainly live in the Middle East. I find it to be helpful, how certain people interpret it is something else. There's also nothing wrong with the flag, there are many articles about separatist movements that show the flag, besdies, it's not saying anything like "Free Kurdistan". --Khoikhoi 22:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

As per Khoikhoi and others above, there's nothing wrong with using maps and flags. But if it makes you feel better, we can make a flag a little smaller and move it further down in the article. But there's no reason to remove it. A lot of places have their own flags. Aucaman^Talk 22:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the flag kinda has to be on the large side because the caption (complete with 6 footnotes!) is extensive. It would appear that this has been rather contentious. --Moby 09:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I was going to joke why don't we put a national anthem as well and to my suprise today, hell there is one. What else do we require to declare this new country on Wikipedia? Currency perhaps? Hmm, Kurdish Dollar? What else? Political system? Saddamesque regime of Massoud Barzani?

Is this article political or social? If it is social then why do we have so many seperatist suggestions in it such as the flag? Don't tell me it is innocent, the same flag and anthem are on the Iraqi Kurdistan page. If it is political and since Kurdistan has no political existence then isn't that idealogical propaganda on Wikipedia? Political part of this should be examined in another article such as Kurdistan Seperatism or something like that and this page should link to it. And keep in mind that Kurds consist of many tribes and not all of them are pro-Kurdistan.

My main concern is Turkish Kurdistan article. Open a political map of Turkey, can you see a Kurdistan? Turkey is not a Banana Republic like current day Iraq, we have our constitution, laws and a map thankfully; Wikipedia has to respect that if it claims to be neutral. We already have a Kurds in Turkey article and it is sufficient. Now as an admin you tell me, is Wikipedia to be informative or provocative?--Kagan the Barbarian 09:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

So what do you think?--Kagan the Barbarian 14:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I repeat the infobox has to go. Which legal or Wiki language you want me to speak for you to do something about it. And the problem with the map is there is no consensus about it, choose from one of these [2], [3], [4].--Kagan the Barbarian 15:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I thought you are an admin, apperantly you are not, sorry.--Kagan the Barbarian 07:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

kurdistan?

Article is almost looking like a country article. What is trying to be done? --levent 23:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

THere are USers using Fake sources

The sources that say Kurdish is banned in Iran are not even sources. They led to nothing. One only led to to a Google search. This is suppose to give credibility to these arguments. How could this be allowed after I even pointed out. if my removal of that statment is reverted I am giving due warning that the Administration will be getting involved for falsifying information and vandalism. This is giving fuel to the people who want to remove the Kurdish flag so I suggest all aprties keep their eyes open. Once again I specifically warn user:Acuman and user:Heja Helweda not to revert this vandalism and falsehood. 69.196.139.250 00:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright user:Diyako is using fake sources that have nothing to do with his claim. Basically he is fabricating. YET ANOTHER SOURCE, EH! Your vandalism has gone to far the Admin will get involved here. The three sources he has placed are not even sources they are just random webpages. This is how this site is being vandalalized! 69.196.139.250 01:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You can listen to this non-Kurdish and reliable source.

Diyako Talk + 15:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish tactic on this article

is closing their eyes and ears to any kind of dispute and hoping to get this obviously idealogical page running as long as possible. The flag, the infobox, this page is a joke. I gave my reasons, remove the flag, remove the infobox. If you don't, I will, this page is not under your dictate.--Kagan the Barbarian 07:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The reasons have been explained. If you still have any concerns on this matter it is a good suggestion to ask a mediation. Diyako Talk + 15:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Diyako, I don't mean to be hostile but you have to compromise with people here and rid this article of seperatist undertones if you don't want to get it vandalized till the end of free editing in Wikipedia. Regards.--Kagan the Barbarian 18:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

If you think that link to Britannica is a reliable source then why not add the info about origins of Kurdish people in Kurds article? It says ethnic origins of Kurdish people ae uncertain. [5]

Also that source does not give exact numbers for area, just an approximation. It does not mention anything about national anthem or such. It has no autonomy in Turkey. There can't be an native language for the area. What are the sources for these?

Why don't you just turn the page into a country article so people will understand that this is a joke and just laugh and pass on? --levent 15:31, 20 March 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 14:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the invalid information under the flag

Flying the Kurdish flag in Iran is nnot a criminal offence and the cited sources do not verify this. 69.196.139.250 04:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)