Talk:Kurdistan

Archives
February 2003 – February 2005 February 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – September 2006
Kurds v. Kurdistan

Example of Factual Inaccuracy

The Kurdistan article gives reference to Britannnica [[1]], but someone pushes POV fork, probably believing that no one would check it with the orinal source. In Brittannica the Kurdistan article is as follows:

"The name Kurdistan (“Land of the Kurds”) refers to an area that roughly includes the mountain systems of the Zagros and the eastern extension of the Taurus. Since very early times the area has been the home of the Kurds, a people whose ethnic origins are uncertain. For 600 years after the Arab conquest and their conversion to Islam, the Kurds played a recognizable and considerable part in the troubled history of western Asia, but as tribes, individuals, or turbulent groups rather than as a people.

Among the petty Kurdish dynasties that arose during this period the most important were the Shaddadids, ruling a predominantly Armenian population in the Ani and Ganja districts of Transcaucasia (951–1174); the Marwanids of Diyarbakir (990–1096); and the Hasanwayhids of Dinavar in the Kermanshah region (959–1015). Less is written of the Kurds under the Mongols and Turkmens, but they again became prominent in the wars between the Ottoman Empire and the Safavid dynasty. Several Kurdish principalities developed and survived into the first half of the 19th century, notably those of Bohtan, Hakari, Bahdinan, Soran, and Baban in Turkey and of Mukri and Ardelan in Persia. But Kurdistan, though it played a considerable part in the history of western Asia, never enjoyed political unity.

With the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I (1914–18), and particularly with the encouragement of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson—one of whose Fourteen Points stipulated that the non-Turkish nationalities of the Ottoman Empire should be “assured of an absolute unmolested opportunity of autonomous development”—Kurdish nationalists looked to the eventual establishment of a Kurdistani state.

The Treaty of Sèvres, signed in 1920 by representatives of the Allies and of the sultan, provided for the recognition of the three Arab states of Hejaz, Syria, and Iraq and of Armenia and, to the south of it, Kurdistan, which the Kurds of the Mosul vilayet (province), then under British occupation, would have the right to join. Owing to the military revival of Turkey under Kemal Atatürk, this treaty was never ratified. It was superseded in 1923 by the Treaty of Lausanne, which confirmed the provision for the Arab states but omitted mention of Armenia and Kurdistan. Mosul was excluded from the settlement, and the question of its future was referred to the League of Nations, which in 1925 awarded it to Iraq. This decision was made effective by the Treaty of Ankara, signed in 1926 by Turkey, Iraq, and Great Britain."

Mere Propoganda

The claims are merely political and a problem of POV. There are Turkish citizens living as much as Kurd originated Turks. Everyone can see that the progress going on in the northern Iraq is due to natural sources of the area, it is explicit!

İf a comparison is made for the situation, the problem of Cyprus sould be considered as the Turkish Cypriots claimed a free and offical state in Cyprus which is not recognized by many countries on contrary of an imaginary Kurdland. However Turkish C. inhabitated Cyprus and they got their country by force and draw the border, thus no one can claim the area invaded should be given back as the area has always been Turkish Cypriot. But Kudish area is something different, so called Kurdistan doen not exists, they are mostly Turkish or Iraqi citizens! So why USA still fond of an independant state in N.Iraq and S.W Turkey? Petroleum is the simple answer. As not so they sould have accepted the N.Cyprius. What is going on in Iraq and in N.Iraq is not LEGAL and it is a crime! Check out Leo Strauss(85.102.61.61 10:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

In what way is the Turkish republic in Northern Cyprus more real than the Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq ? --Vindheim 17:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably because it's widely accepted as an independent country and it has been claimed by war when it was necesarry.

SIgns of war in the Middle East and Kurdistan's role

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361

The 1820 map

The 1820 world map is not a very convincing picture. It shows various countries, administrative subdivisions and regions. However, nothing is well-defined; Kurdistan is not given any real boundaries, just like the territories in North and Western Canada. I'd advocate replacing this map with a new one illustrating the intent behind the Treaty of Sevres. Hugo Dufort 05:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we are better of with fewer maps. Some of them dont even seem to be relevant. We do not need every pd map about the general region (some of these are world maps anyways) --Cat out 03:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Having no map is better than having an unconvincing (or unfocused) map. Hugo Dufort 17:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with that. The aim is to give comprehensive information based on reliable sources. E104421 07:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

NO KURDISTAN !!!

Where are kurdistan ????