Talk:Kurdish separatism in Iran

Article name

After the somehow inconstructive edits by Kermanshani, i think nevertheless there is a point to rename this article into "Kurdish separatism in Iran" per WP:COMMONNAME. According to Habeeb et.al.:

Although there is a long history of Kurdish Separatism in Iran, just as there is in Iran and Turkey, Kurdish society is tribal in structure and the competing tribes have had a difficult time unifying. Neither the Shah's government nor the current Islamic Republic has been willing to grant Kurds autonomy, and both have viewed the Kurds as potential source of rebellion.

Is there any opposition to such a move?Greyshark09 (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

 DoneGreyshark09 (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all I would like to note that there is absolutely no evidence that Simko Shakik wanted to establish an independent Kurdish state. During his rebellion against the Iranian monarchy he expanded his control far outside of Kurdistan and was marching on the capital before he was defeated. Had he won, it's more likely that he would have become Shah of Iran. More dubious however do I find the way you handled the Republic of Mahabad in this article. Just a simple click on Republic of Mahabad would have revealed the very first sentence of the article: "The Republic of Mahabad (Kurdish: Komarî Mehabad/کۆماری مەھاباد, Persian: جمهوری مهاباد ), officially known as Republic of Kurdistan and established in Iranian Kurdistan, was a short-lived, Kurdish government that sought Kurdish autonomy within the limits of the Iranian state.[1]" - meanwhile in here you write that "a separatist attempt of Barzani to establish the independent Republic of Mahabad in Iranian Kurdistan...failed with military victory of the Iranian forces and the state was abolished." This seems to be purposely aimed at misleading the reader, by not mentioning the Soviet occupation, not mentioning the fact that they established a communist government in Mahabad and saying this government declared independence from Iran which is simply not true. The word autonomy is not mentioned in regards to the Republic of Mahabad at all in this article. Also, the PJAK is not a seperatist organization, as can be seen from this Interview with one of their top leaders: "Are you speaking of creating an independent Kurdish state? - What we are talking about now is not the changing of borders or the replacing of flags but creating an all-inclusive Iran." " Do you seek a structure of parallel government for Kurds in Iran comparable to the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq? - Not at all. We would prefer to have much more participation in a democratized central government." Also I would like to see a source about KDP-I or Komalah being seperatist groups. Please can you provide a source in which Simko Sakik, Qazi Mohammad, or any leader of the PJAK, KDP-I or Komalah is quoted as saying their objective is to secede from the Iranian state?Kermanshahi (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, since you charged me of a deliberate "misinformation of the reader", i would like to emphasize i'm fully neutral on this issue (of course you can choose not believing me, but that is up to you). It interests me purely from historic sense, and your charges of "deliberate" or "POV" stance are hence illogical to me. Nevertheless, i appreciate your wikipedian contributions and would like your cooperation with this and other Kurdish and Iranian-related articles. This article is pretty much a recent development from a stub, so your contributions are more needed than criticism. Here are my answers to your questions:

Regarding the aims of Simqo, you might be right he had no intention to create a state specifically in Iranian Kurdistan, but it is nevertheless a clear separatist attempt (seen several sources mentioning that, and i can bring quotes, including those below). I think discussion of sources can resolve this dilemma.

Regarding Iranian crisis of 1946, of course more info should be added, and Soviet support for separatist Mahabad and Iranian Azerbaijan should be mentioned. However, from Iranian point of view it doesn't matter how those client Soviet States called themselves, what matters is that they were seen as breakaway attempts and crashed with no mercy.

PJAK is often mentioned as a separatist movement, see [16], [17], [18]; Iranian official source [19]; academic review [20].

KDP-I's intentions to gain independence are mentioned in this academic essay: THE ARAB SPRING, ITS EFFECTS ON THE KURDS, AND THE APPROACHES OF TURKEY, IRAN, SYRIA, AND IRAQ ON THE KURDISH ISSUE; this article on Kurdish separatism also includes KDP-I struggle against Iran Land and Rebellion - Kurdish Separatism in Comparative Perspective.

Hope this sutiisfies, though in any case i do intend to supply citations and corrections to all raised issues.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This does not satisfy, I want to see sources. Almost all references you gave in the article are not links (and thus almost impossible to verify), furthermore you have yet to provide 1 quote from either Sheikh Simko, Qazi Mohammad or Haji Ahmadi about being separatist or wanting to secede from Iran. Even if certain media sources refer to PJAK as separatism, the fact that they do not denounce separatism themselves would make the title at very least POV and disputable. The Republic of Mahabad had in it's goals autonomy from the Iranian state and never declared independence (unlike Palestine, Kosova), yet you insist to refer to it as an attempt to create an "independent" republic, although this is clearly not true, because they DID NOT declare independence and you have not 1 source to back this up, because it did not happen. Saying that "hey were seen as breakaway attempts and crashed with no mercy" is not a good argument, the Shah crashed any political dissident with no mercy and being politically active against a government or being the target of a government crackdown does not make you are separatist. These simply do not have the same meaning.Kermanshahi (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you are going too much into semantics. The sources i provided are all available online - this is where i searched them at (i will perhaps add links in the future, but wikipedia policy doesn't require to link them). There is an entire article i have already mentioned where all struggles are described as part of the Kurdish separatist straggle - Land and Rebellion - Kurdish Separatism in Comparative Perspective.

If most sources relate to PJAK as separatist - this is what the article should mention. Per WP:NPOV, we can also mention sources which claim the opposite, but i have seen practically none. Please provide some, to support your point.

Reliable sources say Mahabad did decalre independence, and it is pretty much redundant to claim a declared "Republic" or "nation-state" is not a separatist attempt for independence. Here is one source for example [21]:

Seeing a window of opportunity, the newly-formed Komala-i Jiyanawi Kurdistan (The Committee for the Revival of Kurdistan - Komala), a predominantly middle class democratic nationalist party, began to negotiate with the occupying Soviets with the idea of creating a Soviet-sponsored Kurdish republic, independent of Iranian control... As the people of Iranian Azarbaijan moved towards their own neighboring Soviet-sponsored state, Qazi Muhammad was elected the first Kurdish president and on 22 January 1946 the Mahabad Republic was born.

Regarding "crush with no mercy" - you can change the sentence per your opinion for a more proper one, i don't mind.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - we cannot hold both a rename procedure and a merger procedure, thus since this one is not yet official, i hold it until the merger procedure below is complete. It is not possible simultaneously vote for merger or renaming.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Merger

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.

---

Now this article, who's name is 100% incorrect since not 1 party mentioned in the article is a confirmed seperatist (and there are no sources in existance with Simko, Qazi Muhammad or any leader of the KDP-I, Komalah or PJAK saying he wants to secede from Iran), also is a gross misrepresentation of history. As you take several events that happened over various different parts of history than add an infobox and pretend this was somehow 1 long war. It wasn't. Instead this article should be called "History of Kurds in Iran" and then cover this. However the history of Kurds in Iran is largely already covered in the article Iranian Kurdistan. This article is almost the same as the Iranian Kurdistan except and infobox has been added to it. I suggest either we change this into a history article, or merge it into the Iranian Kurdistan and expand that with a few more sections.Kermanshahi (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - the article is relying on WP:RS to describe a notable long going conflict in Western Iran, which is widely described as "Kurdish separatism", lasting from early 20th century. Here are several academic sources on this:

"There is a long history of tension between the Kurds and the government in Iran. This began with Reza Shah Pahlavi recapturing the lands that Kurdish leaders had gained control of between 1918 and 1922..."; "When Iraqi forces left Kurdistan to the Kurds, its territory became a base for Kurdish separatists in the region..." [22]

"Ismail Agha Simqu, head of the Abdui Shikak tribe, attempted between 1918 and 1922 to build a tribal alliance in support of independence as post‐war chaos left the country with no central rule maker..." Land and Rebellion - Kurdish Separatism in Comparative Perspective

"The Mahabad Republic stands as the high point of the Kurdish nationalist movement." [23]

"Although there is a long history of Kurdish separatism in Iran - just as there is in Iraq and Turkey..." William Mark Habeeb, Rafael D. Frankel, Mina Al-Oraibi. The Middle East in Turmoil: Conflict, Revolution, and Change. ABC-CLIO publishing. P.46. [24]

Unfortunately, user Kermanshani is stubborn to erase this article and not to continue the discussion we had begun and without choice we are turning to this merger procedire for a properly referenced, notable article, maybe due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

None of that points to 1 solid conflict that lasted from 1918 to present. Such thing never existed. Also, despite labels such as "separatism" being thrown around freely by Western sources, you have yet to provide 1 piece of evidence that Shakik or Qazi Mohammad or any of the other "seperatists" wanted to secede from Iran. Yes, you've got some Western sources which throw the term around, but where are your quotes? Truly if any of these people wanted to secede from Iran, you would be able to find 1 source with a statement from just 1 of these people saying so? If not, than making a "Kurdish separatism in Iran" article is inappropriate. Also, this article is not properly referenced at all, there are hardly any references. If anything, this article is comparable to the Kurdish rebellions article (about Kurds in Turkey), which very notably does not use the word separatism at all, and neither does it attempt to portray these various tribal rebellions as 1 solid "ongoing" war.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

@Kermanshani, i don't want to be technical, but you need to avoid bolding within your arguments - this is against WP policies. Thanks.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with putting multiple events in the context of a bigger one. See for example War on Terror. However the problem with this article is that it takes a lot of completely unrelated events and presents them as one very long event. The War on Terror has two clear sides that are at war with each other with a clear goal: namely the US and allies vs Islamic extremist. This article however takes so many different parties that it becomes unclear what the link is between these events. The first 5 Kurdish rebellions tried to create an independent Kurdish state while the KDPI and the recent PJAK are only seeking autonomy within Iran. Not to mention the fact that Iran itself has had its revolution. This makes it very hard to link the events with each other. Reading this article again like it's the first time it's very vague what is being explained. The infobox itself is unnavigable. I suggest we turn this article into History of Kurds in Iran so we can include so more information and turn in into a proper article ~ Zirguezi 11:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is not putting "multiple events in the contest of the bigger one" (which can be SYNTH. On the contrary - this article is based on the academic approach, reflected by several academic works on Kurdish militancy in Iran, which is referred as "Kurdish separatism", "Kurdish-Iranian conflict" or the "Kurdish issue" - see for example Land and Rebellion - Kurdish Separatism in Comparative Perspective. There are many more sources on this topic.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed we could call this article "Kurdish militancy in Iran" and make it about various Kurdish armed factions which have existed. But These are indeed a series of unrelated events and the one thing Zirguezi was wrong about in his post is that "The first 5 Kurdish rebellions tried to create an independent Kurdish state" which there is no evidence of. You have yet to provide 1 document of proof that either Simko Shakik or Qazi Muhammad had any intention whatsoever of seceding from Iran. One was an old conflict between rebellious tribes and the crown, the other was an attempt by the Soviet Union to create Communist zone within Iran (but neither Azerbaijan or Mahabad ever tried to secede). This is all to vague. And as I will repeat again, just because some anti-Iranian journalist in the West calls someone a separatist doesn't mean it's true. I want quotes, I want proof. Do you have any? Do you have anything on Simko that paints him as any kind of Kurdish nationalist (leave alone separatist) at all? Because this guy was marching to Tehran with an army to topple the Iranian government. Reza Shah overthrew Qajars, does that make him a Mazandarani separatist? Just putting a blanket "separatist" label on every single Kurd which opposed/opposes the Imperial/Islamic regime of Iran, does not seem like nPOV to me.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I could settle with "Kurdish militancy in Iran", however take in mind that this is not WP:COMMONNAME (only two sources mention this term [25]), so some one might rename the article back (there are 2,110 sources on "Kurdish separatism in Iran", many of which academic). Please don't delete sources on Kurdish separatism, especially academic ones - there is a clear approach on this issue by historians. Even if you are correct and Kurds strive just for an autonomy, it is still a separatism - just like in Iraq and Turkey.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• • It isn't separatism if they don't want to secede for Iran. +There is no evidence that Simko want to establish an autonomous Kurdish entity either. Qazi Muhammad wanted autonomy, PJAK wants not autonomy for Kurds but federal state of Iran. But both PJAK and KDP-I are mainly anti-regime groups, neither of them strive for separatism. Now there may be American sources which mention "Kurdish separatism in Iran," however, since nothing in this article is related to Kurdish SEPARATISM, the name is incorrect for this article. Also, when talking about Iraq and Turkey, we do not have articles called "Kurdish separatism in Turkey" and even if there was, there have been actual attempts to declare independence from these states such Ararat Republic or Kingdom of Kurdistan and the PKK cited Kurdish independence as their goal from 1984-1993 when they said they would be willing to settle for autonomy if the Turkish government would be prepared to make peace with them. When it comes to Simko Shakik, Qazi Muhammed, the KDP-I and PJAK, however, there is not 1 quote from Shakik, Muhammed or any member of KDP-I or PJAK or Komalah in which they state secession or Kurdish independence as their organizations objective. On the other hand there are interviews, press releases, by leaders of these 3 groups specifically renouncing separatism and denying they hold any separatist ideology.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Separatism does not necessarily mean secessionism; it could just mean militant political organizing for the sake of emphasizing a separate identity in opposition to the larger group, which may or may not lead to calls for more devolved power. I don't think this article should be merged. Shrigley (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This article is about the military conflict, not Iranian Kurdistan in general. If calling the confect "separatism" or "1 solid conflict" is a problem just name it something along the lines of "Kurdish–Iranian conflicts" (plural). Iranian_Kurdistan#Kurds_in_modern_Iran should modern history in general, this article should be about the military conflict/s. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Removed merge tag: I removed the merge tag. It is not relevant that consensus appeared to be leaning towards keep because the discussion stopped in January 2013. Otr500 (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2013 (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.

Non-free file problems with File:IPFG.jpg

File:IPFG.jpg is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:IPFG.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

One good source

[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]-تیراژه (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Problems

Personally I found many problems with this and related articles so criticism by Kermanshahi is justified. First of all inital start-article "Kurdish-Iranian conflict" included list of Ottoman-backed rebellions, Soviet-backed rebellions, and later Marxist insurgencies. Later, article was renamed as "Kurdish separatism in Iran" per "commonname" which is nonsense. Separatism can be part of insurgency, but not every insurgency is separatism. That's why I renamed it to "Kurdish insurgency in Iran", per two better sources and per google-books/scholar. Some of Greyshark's edits are clearly misleading, for example in article 1967 Kurdish revolt in Iran he inserted first intro-sentence that revolt was "...part of the long-running Kurdish separatism". It's misuse of sources, because cited book leads to section about PJAK. In Abrahiam book I found something very different, it says KDP-I's goal was establishing autonomy for Kurds in Iran modeled as a federal republic. No secession, no separatism. This and many other articles edited by Greyshark avod to mention any foreign influence and Marxist nature of revolts, so average person my assume all insurgencies were of same nationalist separatist nature, or that Kurds in Iran are the same as Palestinians in Israel. That's laughable nonsense. --HistorNE (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Autonomy is also separatism. If you would like to rename Kurdish related articles please propose official rename procedure. So far, your actions seem disruptive editing and edit-warring.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

By some fringe definition it may be, but it shouldn't be misused by POV-pushers. I'll repeat, separatism can be part of insurgency, but not every insurgency is separatism. You've tried to present plunders and tribal revolts as "separatism", and when I correct it by citing most reliable sources you simply undo it and insult me by calling such edits as "dispruptive editing". You've changed name of article without any discussion and explanation, and after I changed it with explanation you search for discussion. Remember that Wikipedia is not your personal one-man show. --HistorNE (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You should perhaps make yourself familiar with such works as "Land and Rebellion: Kurdish Separatism in Comparative Perspective" (2009). I don't mind to change the title, but you should support it with sources. Meanwhile your only argument is that i'm a propagandist, while i've invested a lot of effort to balance and source those articles properly. While reverting by the way, don't forget the 3RR.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I checked Smith's document but I still haven't found most rebellions described as "separatism". Try to search in google books/scholar and I asure you "insurgency" has more results then "separatism". Some academic books even clearly states there's no separatism among such movements: "In spite of the official hostility of the government, there are strong ties between the Kurds and the Persians. The Kurdish language is related to Farsi, and the Kurds share much of their history with the rest of Iran. This may explain at least partly why Kurdish leaders in Iran do not want a separate Kurdish state." (Kreyenbroek, Philip G.; Sperl, Stefan (1992). The Kurds: A Contemporary Overview, p. 141). I didn't said you're propagandist, but few of your edits may look strange. --HistorNE (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You are not responding to my requests for a move discussion prior to move, thus i assume no more WP:GF. Further, your actions are likely of a sock, previously active on Kurdish and Iranian related issues, so i will consider to issue a complaint for your disruptive behaviour.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Move war

This page has been move-warred by User:HistorNE and User:Greyshark09 8 times so far in August. I have moved it to its pre-August title and protected it from further moves. Please use WP:RM to suggest a new title and form consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to convince him for making a move request, but HistorNE is not responding. Anyways seems he might be a sock of a previously active user, so i guess i will just issue a complaint.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I responed but you didn't, you simply remove University Press sources if they don't fit in your own POV, and replacing them with misused sources. I gave better sources, I explained insurgency has more hits per google book/scholar two times, but you don't accept. --HistorNE (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You failed to post a "move request". This is a stable sourced article, which existed in current form for many months prior to your edits. Change of name and content requires editorial procedure, end of story.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I remember, you proposed changing name by misusing sources and only vote is actually your own. Pure one-man-show. After I posted subsection "Problems" and put factual accuracy template, you simply removed it few times (along with WP:RS) without any discussion. Very arogant behavior (plus end of story and insulting consctructive edits as disruptive). --HistorNE (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm the creator of this article; it was moved due to another editor's request for name change. If you have a better name, make WP:RM. That's it.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You are funny, your source also says "Kurdish separatism" - you should read your own sources! [33]Greyshark09 (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody owns articles, but I'm not here to molesting you but to help, that's why I significanty improved your recent article 1926 Shikak revolt. Per WP:RS, only two events are described as separatism: Simko's revolts and Mahabad case. That's why I also don't agree with Kermanshahi claims Simko didn't want separatism/secession. However, impling all revolts/insurgency are separatism/secession is also POV since WP:RS disagree, so categories like Secession in Iran can be considered as clear POV-pushing. The same goes for category Terrorism in Iran - if some of insurgency activism by PJAK include terrorism, it can not be aplied to all historical revolts/insurgency. I already mentioned that few revolts occured during Safavid (Dimdim) and Afsharid (Khorasan, against Nader Shah) periods so that's why "Modern Iran" is more precisely for article's name. Only logical names of articles are Kurdish insurgency in Modern Iran or Kurdish revolts in Modern Iran. Renaming whole article by using one paragraph taken out of context is nonsense, you can find even "Kurdish terrorism in Iran" but that doesn't give right to Iranian POV-pushers to rename it. --HistorNE (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you're funny, along with your inductive reasoning (Yao Ming is Chinese + Yao Ming is >200 cm tall = billion Chinese are >200 cm tall). In given book I see only calling Mahabad and non-Iranian movements as separatist, so it doesn't change anything. --HistorNE (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand - you should make WP:RM and show that your proposed title is WP:COMMONNAME. Unless you do so, legitimacy of your edits is very poor. I do however take in good faith relevant edits, but overall your actions are disruptive and do not contribute to this article.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you don't understand - you're misusing sources (WP:OR + WP:SYNTH) and despite all explanations (WP:ICANTHEARYOU) you're still forcing your own WP:POV. This article isn't sole case, you're doing the same WP:TEND on numerous related articles. Considering "separatism" as main subject of article, you've been using this three sources:

• (1) William Mark Habeeb (2012): Middle East in Turmoil: Conflict, Revolution, and Change - on p. 46. this book states "Although there is a long history of Kurdish Separatism in Iran", but no specific chronology or names have been given so it can not be applied to all events since 1918. It's from subchapter called "The Kurdish PJAK" which itself falls under chapter "Ethnic insurgencies" (p. 45.). Beside separatism, book is calling PJAK's activities as terrorism also, but it's equally inappropriate to apply all historical insurgencies as terrorism or categorize article under "Terrorism in Iran". It would be pure WP:SYNTH, as same as your own interpretation of all events as "separatism" and forcing category "Secession in Iran". You did the same with article 1967 Kurdish revolt in Iran: there you used same quote to describe event as "separatism" despite there's 40 years of interspace between event and PJAK, and after I responded with most reliable source about issue and real KDPI's motives, you've restored your tendentious version (seven times!) and claimed Abrahamian book is kind of alternative view or fringe theory.
• (2) Benjamin Smith (2002): Land and Rebellion: Kurdish Separatism in Comparative Perspective - this self-published working paper written by associate professor deals about Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. Only Iranian events of 1920's and 1946 are described as separatism (separatist movements in northern Kurdistan, p. 13.) or fight for independence (build a tribal alliance in support of independence, p. 10.). Anyone with basic inductive reasoning capabilitie can understand that title can not be applied to all other mentioned events. Ironically, Greyshark has been using this working paper as major source for "separatist" 1967 Kurdish revolt in Iran despite source states this: There were no Kurdish uprisings to speak of between 1965 and the late 1970s (p. 18.).
• (3) Rasmus Christian Elling (2013): Minorities in Iran: Nationalism and Ethnicity after Khomeini - I've inserted this book as source for "insurgency" and "ongoing"^[34], and Greyshark simply misused it for "separatism" despite book clearly states some of revolts were NOT separatism.

After all, it should be noticed that article has Infobox military conflict and it's categorized under Wars involving Iran. Insurgency is an armed rebellion, but separatism is the advocacy. --HistorNE (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This is your opinion and it is fine, and it is possible that another title may be given to this article, but your way of doing it is completely unacceptable and in addition you have so far failed to prove that the entire framework of conflict is referred as "Kurdish insurgency", rather only some of the subconflicts may indeed be referred so; i think it should be "Kurdish-Iranian conflict" or "Kurdish separatism in Iran", the second being most supported by sources. Again, the sources are too many, like "Land and Rebellion:

Kurdish Separatism in Comparative Perspective"[35]; The Conditions of Ethnic Separatism: The Kurds in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. [36]; recent media sources [37] and more.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As I explained above, current name isn't suitable with NPOV because it presents various revolts as "separatism", and such description mostly come from Kurdish ultra-nationalists and irredentists. Not all listed revolts have been of separatist nature (neither secession or autonomy case). Some of them were local tribal revolts, some of them motivated by Turkey or USSR, some of them are Marxist insurgencies, some of later groups practiced terrorist activities, etc. Describing all events either as "separatism", "foreign-backed", "Marxism" or "terrorism" is tendentious. I'll repeat for third time: separatism can be part of insurgency, but not every insurgency is separatism. That's not mine opinion, scholars agree with it. There are academic sources which describe all revolts as insurgencies, but there is no any source which describe them as "separatism". It's your own WP:SYNTH, you're persistently using sources which describe one event as separatism to prove all of them were of separatist nature. Despite I gave explanation for Smith's working paper (point (2)), you're still desperately reling on it. Some books even clearly denies separatism was case of specific revolts, for example Minorities in Iran: Nationalism and Ethnicity after Khomeini by Rasmus Christian Elling (2013, a recent book). Even some leaders of Kurdish opossition groups like Ghassemlou said he was not separatist. --HistorNE (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling me "desperate" is violation of WP:CIVIL; i will not engage with any discussion with you with such offensive behaviour (anyway it seems useless). All conversations to be conveyed via dispute resolution.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You should consult some dictionary for meaning of word desperately before baseless accusations, and this is not your first time considering this^[38]. Fact is that you don't have any constructive response. --HistorNE (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Despite misusing of sources has been reported, Greyshark still force them. He inserted another source which refers only to PJAK, another attempt of misusing specific events for all revolts. --HistorNE (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That is because until now, you have been arguing PJAK is not separatist; and that ongoing conflict is not separatist.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. -- tariqabjotu 22:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Kurdish separatism in Iran → Kurdish insurgency in modern Iran – Per above. Current title is product of misusing sources, it's absolutely inappropriate for describing all historical revolts and it's very tendentious. As explained, most reliable sources use insurgency (or simply revolts) for describing all mentioned events, and since there has been more Kurdish revolts in Safavid and Afsharid Iran, using "modern Iran" in title is more precise. HistorNE (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - first of all, the path HistorNE has chosen to rename this article by edit-warring, disruptive editing, complete ignorance of any reliable sources which are not in accordance with his opinion and a general tendency to discard wikipedia policy on WP:CIVIL is highly problematic. Regarding the title itself, there is of course a dilemma whether to name this article "Iranian-Kurdish conflict", "Kudish conflict in Iran" or "Kurdish separatism in Iran"; i'm not convinced the entire scope can be referred as "Kurdish insurgency", since insurgency refers to some periods of Kurdish nationalist-political struggle (like 1990s and 2000s, maybe 1967), but is not a proper term for Kurdish rebellions in 1918, 1946 and 1979. "Kurdish separatism in Iran" seems as WP:COMMONNAME - google scholar shows [39],[40]; while only a single result for "Kurdish insurgency in Iran" [41], which probably refers to specific phase of the general conflict in West Iran.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I've already responded to Greyshark's baseless accusations on dispute resolution noticeboard where I proved his ignoring discussions, insults, threats, misusing sources, POV-pushing, false acussations and many more. He's still acting like WP:OWNER of this article. Regarding the title, "insurgency" is more proper term since all of them refers to armed rebellion against a constituted authority, also rebels were not belligerents, and not all of revolts were of separatist or even nationalist nature (as proved above). There's not even one source which describes all listed revolts as separatism and it's huge irony that you always refer to sources which use separatism for specific phase, and accusing others for doing so. I already proved not all of events are separatism so there's two solutions: rename article or exclude some 80% listed events. I'm affraid there's no third option. --HistorNE (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I really don't see the problem here. The earliest listed incident is the Simko Shikak revolt. So yes, this was technically under the Qajar dynasty ("Sublime State of Persia"), but even this has "Iran" in its native name. Every other incident occurs in a state that can unambiguously be called Iran. A name change would appear to mandate a paring down of the article, and I can't see a benefit to doing so. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: BDD's vote come after 17:03 - 18 August 2013 version, it completely rewritten (by me) three days ago according to current name; everything unrelated to separatism was excluded per talkpage. Disputed version can be found here. --HistorNE (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Table

This way is much more easier:

Event	Separatism?	Quote
Simko Shikak revolt	Disputed	— "Although elements of nationalism were present in this movement, these were hardly articulate enough to justify a claim that recognition of Kurdish identity was a major issue in Simko's movement. (...) Simko's uprising was typical: a tribal chief with the privilege of official recognition, who used it to gain personal power at a time when the government was vulnerable. He had a combination of personal and national grievances, and his aim was to establish an independent state: nationalist in so far as such a state would nominally be a Kurdish state. However, Simko's uprising was based on tribal support and power, and had to rely heavily on conventional tribal motives. Fighting for the sake of 'Kurdish identity' was not strong enough as a motive." — "An opportunistic chieftain fluctuating between Russian and Turkish support, Esma'il Aqa Shakak ("Simko"), led a series of raids and rebellions in 1919-26. Despite his self-centered ambitions and only vague allusions to a united Kurdistan, Kurdish ethnicists today revere Simko as a hero of independence."
1926 Shikak revolt
1926 Kurdistan Province revolt	No	— "Although unrelated to Simko's action in Azerbaijan in 1926, a more important revolt occurred farther south in the Kordestan province. (...) tribal fighting." — "Most of these revolts were among the tribes of the Zagros (...) with the reappearance of Salar al-Dawlah — the last claimant to the Qajar throne — in Kurdistan in the spring of 1926, a series of scattered and disorganized disturbances broke out in the region (...)"
Iran crisis of 1946	Yes	—"In the autumn of 1324 Š./1945 declared communist groups had launched separatist movements in the provinces of Azerbaijan and Kurdistan, with the support of Soviet troops." — "Although imbued with Kurdish pride, he [Mohammad Qazi] did not espouse Kurdish separatist ideologies."
1967 Kurdish revolt in Iran	No	— "Significantly, the KDPI and Komala have never advocated a separate Kurdish state or greater Kurdistan, as did the PKK in its early years." — "...these Kurdish Democrats raised the slogan "Democracy for Iran, Autonomy for Kurdistan," and called for an armed struggle to establish a federal republic modeled after that of Yugoslavia on the grounds that Iran, like Yugoslavia, contained many diverse nations." — "...Qassemlou, was quoted by TASS as saying that 'the Kurds are not separatists. We are fighting for autonomy within the framework of democratic Iran, within the framework of its territorial integrity'." — "In spite of the official hostility of the government, there are strong ties between the Kurds and the Persians. The Kurdish language is related to Farsi, and the Kurds share much of their history with the rest of Iran. This may explain at least partly why Kurdish leaders in Iran do not want a separate Kurdish state."
1979 Kurdish rebellion in Iran
KDPI insurgency (1989–96)
Iran–PJAK conflict	Yes	Numerous

Refs

---

Until dispute is resolved, all events and persons irrelevant for separatism in Iran (per table above) will be removed. --HistorNE (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your declaration ("Until dispute is resolved, all events and persons irrelevant for separatism in Iran (per table above) will be removed") is indication a clear attempt to violate WP:OWNER. While, i've right away agreed to add your sources and title "Kurdish insurgency in Iran" (even though i tend to disagree it is WP:COMMONNAME), you have acted in bad faith and disruptive editing to remove reliable sources. Your move to make a deeper checkout of the issue is a progress in good direction, but it seems to me that while progressing you still insist on removing sources and making disruptive edits to the article. I will provide relevant sources, but you should refrain from disruptive edits while WP:RM is in progress.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not NPOV-version until dispute is resolved. You've presented WP:OR and WP:SYNTH proved as false per table above and it stand too long, almost one year. It was you who violated WP:OWNER rule. Since old content is clearly not compatible with present title it have to be removed. --HistorNE (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You started the edit-warring, disrupting article structure, stable for 1 year. There is no problem to argue about name and content, but you simply disregard any opinion, other than yours.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Here are relevant sources:

• Simko's revolts:

Per Smith - "Ismail Agha Simqu, head of the Abdui Shikak tribe, attempted between 1918 and 1922 to build a tribal alliance in support of independence as post‐war chaos left the country with no central rule maker"

Nagel also includes Simko's revolts as part of the separatist struggle in Iran. See The Conditions of Ethnic Separatism: The Kurds in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. quote "Simko occupied the towns of Mahabad and Rezaiyeh and openly spoke of Kurdish autonomy (Arfa, 1966, pp. 48-62). Upon defeat in 1922, he fled to Turkey only to return in 1925 to lead another revolt a year later."

• 1931 tribal revolt:

Smith doesn't expand much about 1931 events, though briefly describing in his work (Land and Rebellion: Kurdish Separatism in Comparative Perspective) that "Only in the late 1920s did his army begin to attempt to disarm the tribes. That effort took place amidst serious state violence and British consular officials remarked in 1931 that official policy appeared to have become a consistent one of “deliberate, open cruelty” toward Kurdish villagers, armed and unarmed alike".

Per Nagel - "The British were to aid the government in putting down further rebellions by Simko in 1930 (during which he was killed) and Shaykh Tafar of the Hamadan tribe, in 1931 (O'Ballance, 1973, p. 31). Both revolts met harsh resistance by the Iranian military. No significant Kurdish activity against the government occurred until the Second World War."

• 1967 revolt:

Benjamin Smith doesn't expand much on the 1967 Kurdish uprisings in his summary (Land and Rebellion: Kurdish Separatism in Comparative Perspective), though he does mention it in his work - "They formed a Revolutionary Committee and declared their support for sporadic peasant uprisings against the National Police between Mahabad and Urumiya. Lacking a significant social base, however, this new leadership found little purchase in Kurdish society, and it was quickly crushed."

Nagel disregards the 1967 events, saying "Since 1946, no Kurdish action has been reported in Iran." (the article was written in 1978, so it naturally doesn't speak of 1979, 1989 and 2004 events).

• 1979 rebellion:

According to Smith, "Hoping for favorable treatment from the new Islamic Republican government, the KDP‐Iran requested substantial autonomy within the unitary Iranian state."

Per Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East - in March 1979, the KDP-I formulated and publicly announced an eight-point plan for Kurdish independence; It also says "During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran was faced with Iraqi support for Iranian Kurdish separatism..."

• KDPI insurgency:

According to Smith "There has been almost no Kurdish political activity in Iran since the early 1980s, despite the glowing success to the west of Iraqi Kurds since the 1991 Gulf War."

Gloria Center of IDC put the perspective of KDPI insurgency as a direct continuation of the nationalist 1979 rebellion, quote "Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, struggles for independence in the Kurdish regions continued. The Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), Komala, and the Kurdish branch of the Fadayan launched a well-organized rebellion in 1979. The Iranian regime responded harshly with the banning of the KDPI, followed by an armed campaign against the Kurds. During the Iran-Iraq War, both sides became engaged in ongoing violence in order to bring the Kurdish areas under their own control. Hence, Iran was faced with a rebellion in Iranian Kurdistan supported by Iraq. They were put down through a systematic campaign of repression. In 1983, the PUK agreed to cooperate with Saddam by signing an autonomy agreement. However, the KDP remained opposed. In 1985, the PUK and the KDP joined forces. This led to widespread guerilla warfare in Iraqi Kurdistan until the end of the war in 1988. Attempts to negotiate a settlement on Kurdish autonomy with the Iranian government resulted in the assassination of Kurdish leaders. The KDPI leader, Abd al-Rahman Qasimlu, was assassinated in 1989. Iranian Kurdish opposition leader (Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, PDKI) Sadiq Sharafkandi and three other Iranian dissidents were killed in the Mykonos Restaurant in Berlin in 1992. The minister of intelligence at the time, Ali Fallahian, was the only official named in the Mykonos verdict, which revealed the high-level government involvement in this political assassination."

Roger Haward specifically names KDPI insurgency in 1990s as "separatist" - quote (in relation to year 1996) "Central to the calculations of the Iranian commanders was their ability to strike at the forces of a militant separatist group - KDPI, that had in recent years waged a low-level but costly guerilla against the Iranian military from the relative safety of its bases... "

Refs;

I would herewith like to make an intermediate summary, integrating various sources - it seems that Simko's revolts were largely tribal, though some call them separatist or "seeking independence"; 1967 uprisings are mentioned within context of specific separatist struggle of KDPI, though their importance is not high; 1979 was clearly a nationalist separatist rebellion of KDPI; in early 1990s, KDPI insurgency was not seeking immediate independence, but is mentioned by some within the scope of Kurdish separatism. I have long thought of adding into infobox that the main phase of the conflict is 1943-present, maybe we can indeed implement this as sources disagree whether Simko's rebellions were more separatist or just tribal. Regarding 1926 Kurdistan rebellion, i don't find any reference on this event.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

---

• Simko's revolts:

I already provided sources that scholars agree some elements of nationalism and separatism were present among rebels so I don't dispute main revolt can stay in both article and campaignbox.

• 1931 tribal revolt:

It's even doubtful did tribal revolt happened in 1931, more reliable sources like book The Making of Modern Iran: State and Society Under Riza Shah 1921-1941 by Stephanie Cronin states Jafar Sultan led rebellion in 1929 and it was part of many tribal revolts which occured in Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, Luristan and Fars.

• 1967 revolt:

Smith doesn't mention anything about separatism but states Kurdish nationalism was social motivated and Soviet-inspired, and states there were no Kurdish uprisings to speak of between 1965 and the late 1970s (p. 18.) In general, his incomplete working paper is full of notes-to-self ([flesh this out], [which were?], [why], etc.) so reling to much on it is nonsense. Beside that, I have all books which he listed at the end and I quoted many of them in new version of article.

• Other KDPI insurgencies:

There's no need to argue about this issues since it's scholary agreement that KDPI wanted sort of autonomy but did not want to separate state. It has been mention about such revolts and their motives. Interpretations from non-reliable tertiary sources like "facts on file" encyclopedias or Israeli think tank organizations is out of question since it contradicts academic secondary sources, even primary sources (quotes of KDPI leader Qassemlou). Claim that "1979 was clearly a nationalist separatist rebellion of KDPI" is thus ridiculous. Article surely can contain basic facts about 1979 revolt (as same as for Simko's revolts) since autonomy by fringe definition can be considered as "separatism", but with mentioning clear motives which for sure weren't separatist. Inserting just miscellaneous informations as you did with exaggerating it's scope, or inserting it in campaignbox named as separatism is pure violation of NPOV. --HistorNE (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually i found out Uppsala argue that PJAK rebellion is not separatist - this should be mentioned as a minority view [42], even though they are the only ones to claim so so far. Regarding KDPI, i agree that since 1996 they work to resolve the conflict with Iranian regime by other means (they were simply crushed and most leadership assassinated); so from 1996 they have not been separatist - this is also claimed by Uppsala University conflict research program, quote "The conflict between KDPI (Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran) and the Iranian government began in 1946 and has been active during several periods up to 1996. The incompatibility concerned the status of the Iranian Kurdistan." [43]. Regarding your "so-said" quote of KDPI leader Qassemlou, the source is not reliable (TASS was an authoritarian state agency without board until recently).Greyshark09 (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

KDPI (PDKI) as a separatist organization

Since most of the argument is essentially whether KDPI is a separatist organization or not, i would just add a source, specifically naming it separatist throughout its existence:

• Blin et al p.228 [44]

I think this settles it.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You're free to add that minority views about both PDKI and PJAK, but of course not as primary one. About KDPI, sources state they have never advocated a separate Kurdish state or greater Kurdistan. "Never", not "from 1996". Aviod WP:OR. --HistorNE (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Just an observation: As far as I can see you rely upon the internet too much (problem with 90% users), but there you won't find major academic books about issue. Presented view (which you restored two times today) was biased, factually inaccurate and contradictory to mentioned secondary sources. I kindly advice you not to do that because if some serious administrator who is in possession of such works (like me) implicates in this issue you may get into troubles. Fact that you're Israeli doesn't make you biased by definition, but in this kind of disputes it wouldn't be mitigating circumstance for sure. Content which I presented after rewritting article is NPOV and very well sourced to major works, and it's not pro-Iranian at all. I'm personally very familiar that even some Iranian politicians called KDPI as "separatist" during 1980s, but such views are derogatory and again contradictory to scholarly views. --HistorNE (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Just an observation - you are a very arrogant person. There is no way you are a new user of wikipedia with all the staff you try to make; it makes you a likely sock or meat puppet. Kermanshani, the master of socks is perhaps related?Greyshark09 (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually description fits better for you because you act like you WP:OWN articles, but you don't. Restoring POV version with manipulated sources and calling my version as "disruptive" is insulting, as same as baseless accusations. Please behave yourself, shalom. --HistorNE (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In my tribe we say Sholem and if you cared to check more deeply who am i, it would turn away your appetite to mark me as somebody's agent/manipulator/propagandist. It is however clear to me from your edits throughout multiple articles (many of which are not within my scope of interest), that you are a pro-Iranian regime sock, and strive to delete any WP:RS which doesn't come in line with your radical points of view - a typical behaviour for somebody rased in a totalitarian regime and a total violation of all wikipedia's policies. I wish you could understand what is WP:RS and WP:NPOV.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edits speak enough, despite all relevant explanation and mine improving article, you're still insisting on biased and factually inaccurate version. The same goes for other related articles. By calling Iran as "totalitarian regime" you've openly proved yourself as Iranophobe, and it's below my academic and civilize level to continue any discussion with hater from savagery Zionist regime. --HistorNE (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem, but who is the representative of the brutal Zionist regime here? maybe you or you prefer Iranian regime?Greyshark09 (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Pathetic provocations. My point was: take a look at own country before insulting others. I'm not here to present anyone and in my contributions I included various constructive criticism on Iran, but I do not tolerate lies and manipulations against anyone. It could be even Zionist regime because I'm very familiar with many Palestinian nationalist claims which are not supported either by academic sources or sane logic. --HistorNE (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Look who is talking of provocations here - let me remind you who ran out of arguments and remained with an only available excuse: to blame the Zionists (which have little relevance to me, but whatever). If you would read some criticism on Iran and the Kurdish-related events by international analysts it would have helped you; but seeking only sources from within Iran (even though by Iranian scholars), is a violation of NPOV. It is quiet clear that the conflict is separatist (one can argue what separatism means, but still). I don't mind the rename the article, as long it holds the sources, but you are too violent in editing to make it happen. We can restore the Kurdish-Iranian conflict title, though it is less supported by sources (i would be neutral on that). "Kurdish insurgency in modern Iran" however is very rarely used.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not out of arguments, I've explained everything already. I have to remind you that you accused me of being sock or meat puppet, even involved Kermanshahi into dispute, but I didn't report WP:ATTACK. Scholars which books I used as sources aren't Iranian or pro-Iranian at all, they're Western academics and leading experts on Kurdish history. I already gave your sources which explicitly states some rebellions weren't separatism, motives were different. By forcing separatism you're doing bad mistake against both sides: one may find it anti-Iranian because it's fact that huge majority of Kurds don't want to separate by any means (sources agree with it), and other may find it anti-Kurdish because Iranian government is wrongly accussing some activists as separatists (I'm sure you're familiar with it since your country also like to decry Palestinian activists on same way). If I'm some hardcore "pro-Iranian" I wouldn't even mention this. I suggested two options: renaming title and including all conflicts, or keeping name but excluding all events irrelevant for separatism. Personally I don't have anything against having both articles: of conflicts synthesis and separatism. --HistorNE (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Updated table on separatism

First of all several sources on why this article has been named "Kurdish separatism in Iran" and it is important to emphasize that there has been Kurdish separatism since the inception of Pahlavi state; however the separatism in Iran was not as violent as in neighbouring Turkey and Iraq (perhaps due to Iranian success to efficiently crackdown on Kurdish nationalists throughout modern history):

• Habeeb argues that "Although there is a long history of Kurdish Separatism in Iran, just as there is in Iran and Turkey, Kurdish society is tribal in structure and the competing tribes have had a difficult time unifying. Neither the Shah's government nor the current Islamic Republic has been willing to grant Kurds autonomy, and both have viewed the Kurds as potential source of rebellion."
• According to Smith, "The conventional understanding of Kurdistan and of Kurdish separatism‐‐focused mostly on Iraqi and Turkish Kurds - is that it is a uniform phenomenon. Missing from this picture, however, are both Iranian and Syrian Kurds, who have respectively been only periodic and nearly absent actors on the Kurdish political scene. What accounts for this variation across Kurdish minorities in these four countries? This essay seeks to explain why Kurdish nationalists have been historically able to sustain rebellion in Iraq and Turkey but have failed in Iran or Syria." Smith, B. Land and Rebellion: Kurdish Separatism in Comparative Perspective. University of Florida. 2007. [45]
• Noi says that "There is a long history of tension between the Kurds and the government in Iran. This began with Reza Shah Pahlavi recapturing the lands that Kurdish leaders had gained control of between 1918 and 1922. (...) Iran fears that the creation of a semi-autonomous state in northern Iraq might motivate its own Kurdish minority to press for greater independence. However, Iran’s concern about Kurdish separatism does not approach the level of Turkey’s concern. Still, there have been repeated clashes between Kurds and Iranian security forces".
• Per University of Arkansas, the conflict timeline - "Iran/Kurds (1943-present)"
• Per University of Uppsala, "The conflict between KDPI (Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran) and the Iranian government began in 1946 and has been active during several periods up to 1996. The incompatibility concerned the status of the Iranian Kurdistan." (referring to territorial status).
• Abrahamian concludes that Iranian national identity is questioned mainly in the peripheral Kurdish Sunni regions."

Here is the table with more sources:

Event	Sort of separatism	Quote
Simko Shikak revolt	mix of tribalism and nationalist separatism	Kreyenbroek describes the following - "Although elements of nationalism were present in this movement, these were hardly articulate enough to justify a claim that recognition of Kurdish identity was a major issue in Simko's movement. (...) Simko's uprising was typical: a tribal chief with the privilege of official recognition, who used it to gain personal power at a time when the government was vulnerable. He had a combination of personal and national grievances, and his aim was to establish an independent state: nationalist in so far as such a state would nominally be a Kurdish state. However, Simko's uprising was based on tribal support and power, and had to rely heavily on conventional tribal motives. Fighting for the sake of 'Kurdish identity' was not strong enough as a motive." Elling says "An opportunistic chieftain fluctuating between Russian and Turkish support, Esma'il Aqa Shakak ("Simko"), led a series of raids and rebellions in 1919-26. Despite his self-centered ambitions and only vague allusions to a united Kurdistan, Kurdish ethnicists today revere Simko as a hero of independence." Per Smith: "Ismail Agha Simqu, head of the Abdui Shikak tribe, attempted between 1918 and 1922 to build a tribal alliance in support of independence as post‐war chaos left the country with no central rule maker" Nagel also includes Simko's revolts as part of the separatist struggle in Iran, quote: "Simko occupied the towns of Mahabad and Rezaiyeh and openly spoke of Kurdish autonomy (Arfa, 1966, pp. 48-62). Upon defeat in 1922, he fled to Turkey only to return in 1925 to lead another revolt a year later."
1926 Shikak revolt	mix of tribalism and nationalist separatism	Per Elling - "An opportunistic chieftain fluctuating between Russian and Turkish support, Esma'il Aqa Shakak (Simko), led a series of raids and rebellions in 1919-26. Despite his self-centered ambitions and only vague allusions to a united Kurdistan, Kurdish ethnicists today revere Simko as a hero of independence." Nagel says: "Simko occupied the towns of Mahabad and Rezaiyeh and openly spoke of Kurdish autonomy (Arfa, 1966, pp. 48-62). Upon defeat in 1922, he fled to Turkey only to return in 1925 to lead another revolt a year later."
Jafar Sultan revolt	?
Hama Rashid revolt	mix of tribalism and nationalist separatism	According to McDawall, with the general instability in Iran during the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, the British were approached by the tribal leader of Baneh Hama Rashid and by a Mahabad leader Qazi Muhammad, in order to obtain protection. Jwaideh says that the delegation of Kurdish chieftains arrived in Baghdad, requesting to include their areas in the "British zone", but were refused. Denise says "Kurdish notables, such as Seyyid Taha and Hama Rashid met with British officials to discuss a Kurdish state under British protectorate (...) Still the manifestation of Kurdish nationalism was not influential or representative across Kurdistan. In contrast to the transitioning Iraqi and Turkish states, whereby Kurdish nationalists accessed semilegal associations, modernizing political parties, tariqa orders, and external support to influence local population, Iranian Kurds could rely only on disorganized tribal militias."
Iran crisis of 1946	nationalist separatism	Per Zabih - "In the autumn of 1324 Š./1945 declared communist groups had launched separatist movements in the provinces of Azerbaijan and Kurdistan, with the support of Soviet troops." Encyclopedia Iranica - "Although imbued with Kurdish pride, he [Mohammad Qazi] did not espouse Kurdish separatist ideologies."
1967 Kurdish revolt in Iran	tribalism and autonomy demand	Benjamin Smith doesn't expand much on the 1967 Kurdish uprisings in his summary Land and Rebellion: Kurdish Separatism in Comparative Perspective, though he does mention it in his work - "They formed a Revolutionary Committee and declared their support for sporadic peasant uprisings against the National Police between Mahabad and Urumiya. Lacking a significant social base, however, this new leadership found little purchase in Kurdish society, and it was quickly crushed." Abrahamian argues that "...these Kurdish Democrats raised the slogan Democracy for Iran, Autonomy for Kurdistan, and called for an armed struggle to establish a federal republic modeled after that of Yugoslavia on the grounds that Iran, like Yugoslavia, contained many diverse nations."
1979 Kurdish rebellion in Iran	initially demanding autonomy, but descended into full-scale national separatist rebellion	Denise Natali says "despite its criticisms of the regime, in its early postrevolutionaly public discourses the KDPI called itself an authentically national and Iranian party (...) Instead of creating a cohesive Kurdish nationalist movement, some Kurdish leaders such as Husayni's brother Shaykh Jalal accepted Iraqi military assistance and formed a Sunni militia opposed to the Iranian government and Kurdish nationalist parties. Qasimlu differentiated his real Kurdish nationalist party from 'traitors' within the KDPI. Others, such as the prominent Ghani Boulorian, tried to negotiate with the central government. After the revolution some Shi'a Kurds from Ilam, Kermanshah and West Azerbaijan turned away from Kurdish nationalists and towards non-Kurdish Shi'a communities. Sunni Kurdish leftists continued to direct the nationalist project in their enclave in Kurdistan Province, having marginal influence over Shi'a Kurds in other regions." Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East includes this statement: "...in March 1979, the KDP-I formulated and publicly announced an eight-point plan for Kurdish independence (...) During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran was faced with Iraqi support for Iranian Kurdish separatism..." Alam Saleh says "In 1979, Khomeini warned the Kurdish leaders that any attempts to claim independence for the region would be confronted with a strong reaction. Knomeini also declared a Jihad, a holy war, against Iranian Kurds. (...) The regime's security forces are stationed in the Kurdish areas and closely supervice the activities of Kurdish separatist groups such as the Iranian Kurdish Democratic Party." Romano argues that "Significantly, the KDPI and Komala have never advocated a separate Kurdish state or greater Kurdistan, as did the PKK in its early years."
KDPI insurgency (1989–96)	a mix of autonomy demand and nationalist separatism	Per Smith - "There has been almost no Kurdish political activity in Iran since the early 1980s, despite the glowing success to the west of Iraqi Kurds since the 1991 Gulf War." Aylin Ünver Noi says that "Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, struggles for independence in the Kurdish regions continued. The Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), Komala, and the Kurdish branch of the Fadayan launched a well-organized rebellion in 1979. The Iranian regime responded harshly with the banning of the KDPI, followed by an armed campaign against the Kurds. During the Iran-Iraq War, both sides became engaged in ongoing violence in order to bring the Kurdish areas under their own control. Hence, Iran was faced with a rebellion in Iranian Kurdistan supported by Iraq. They were put down through a systematic campaign of repression. In 1983, the PUK agreed to cooperate with Saddam by signing an autonomy agreement. However, the KDP remained opposed. In 1985, the PUK and the KDP joined forces. This led to widespread guerilla warfare in Iraqi Kurdistan until the end of the war in 1988. Attempts to negotiate a settlement on Kurdish autonomy with the Iranian government resulted in the assassination of Kurdish leaders. The KDPI leader, Abd al-Rahman Qasimlu, was assassinated in 1989. Iranian Kurdish opposition leader (Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, PDKI) Sadiq Sharafkandi and three other Iranian dissidents were killed in the Mykonos Restaurant in Berlin in 1992. The minister of intelligence at the time, Ali Fallahian, was the only official named in the Mykonos verdict, which revealed the high-level government involvement in this political assassination." Roger Haward specifically names KDPI insurgency in 1990s as "separatist" - quote (in relation to year 1996) "Central to the calculations of the Iranian commanders was their ability to strike at the forces of a militant separatist group - KDPI, that had in recent years waged a low-level but costly guerilla against the Iranian military from the relative safety of its bases... " In 1992 book, Kreyenbroek et. al. says "In spite of the official hostility of the government, there are strong ties between the Kurds and the Persians. The Kurdish language is related to Farsi, and the Kurds share much of their history with the rest of Iran. This may explain at least partly why Kurdish leaders in Iran do not want a separate Kurdish state."
Iran–PJAK conflict	some claim the conflict is nationalist separatism, others say PJAK is seeking autonomy in federal Iran	Xinhua news agency report from 2012 - "Four members of Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) were killed in an attack by members of the Kurdish separatist Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK) in western Iran, the semi-official Mehr news agency reported on Wednesday.". Itzkowitz Shifrinson says "More indicative of the PKK’s growing power was its 2004 establishment of the Party for a Free Life in Iranian Kurdistan (PEJAK or PJAK) as a sister organization with the goal of fomenting Kurdish separatism in Iran by fostering Kurdish nationalism therein."

Refs

Restored article to version from 19:13, 25 July 2013

I have just restored the article to the version that it was in at 19:13, 25 July 2013, which is my best guess as to where it was last stable. To be blunt, the actions of HistorNE (who already has come close to being blocked for edit warring) and Greyshark09 on this page have been rather deplorable. While not a clear cut case of 3RR, it appears that these editors are working to undermine each other, removing each other's changes and sparring in edit summaries. If this continues, I will ask for admins to step in and take a closer look. In this situation, I'm not even looking at content, I'm not going to get involved in that, but it's clear that conduct is of issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That is fair enough, though it may remove some of recent constructive additions as well. I will refrain from further edits here as long as Histor will not try to radically change the topic of this article and starting other "competitive" article Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan without a WP:RM (which has so far not gained consensus).Greyshark09 (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I restored it back because administrator BDD has checked article before voting, and I already proved by strongest possible sources that not all rebellions are "separatism" (see Table). Since Greyshark09 clearly isn't person for making any consensus because he's avoiding discussion and keep forcing his POV, I'll engage some administrators active on Iranian history to check complete issue. Still, I'll transfer Greyshark's newest content to Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan, article which is not "competitive" since it includes general Kurdish conflicts in Iran, not just these of separatist motives. --HistorNE (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That is blatantly trying to bypass the WP:RM - eroding this article in favor of "better article" (which is HistorNE's aim, since he cannot delete this protected article). This is clearly disruptive and working against wikipedia guidelines and against the community.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you name me one problem with rewritten article? I named almost 10 about yours: misusing sources, violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, insisting on WP:POV directly opposed to WP:RS, prefering unreliable sources and unfinished working papers instead of academic books written by most eminent scholars, forcing version full of inner "citation needed" and header POV template, etc. Such version wasn't "stable" at all because some editors already disputed many parts of it, but you simply reverted everything like you WP:OWN article and acted WP:ICANTHEARYOU toward all relevant criticism. That's precisely what you did try with me: distract me by edit war and avoiding discussion or wait until I "go" and then restore your version. Not to mention provocations like "you're sock of Kermanshahi" and accusing me of "disruptive editing" at various articles with hidden desires that I'll lost control and attack you, but I didn't. Just the fact that you prefer "stable" version with POV header and at least ten mentioned problems clearly speak about your intentions. --HistorNE (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to split this article in two, unless you want to downgrade the content.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Kurdish separatism in Iran

This section was initially located at Talk:Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan.

Two closely related, overlapping articles. Stronger in merged form? Basis for remaining separate? DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Merge into Kurdish separatism in Iran - there is no reason to keep separate. There was a single Kurdish separatism in Iran article, until user HistorNE did a split in line with the campaignbox since he disliked the title (WP:RM was rejected).Greyshark09 (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - this is the last version before the split (done on September 1st). A related discussion was also concluded as merge regarding the "Campaignbox Kurdish-Iranian conflict" into "Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran", see Templates for discussion (Campaignbox Kurdish-Iranian conflict).Greyshark09 (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Merge ONLY without the word separation: I supported a merge of the templates with support of a rename, and was seconded "as per my comments", which if I understand Wikipedia consensus, means a renaming should certainly be discussed and not a bold statement that there was a merge consensus to the name "Kurdish separatism in Iran". I felt, I hope not in error, that Mr. Greyshark09 was in agreement that he could live with a name change. I am not going to argue that, as per what he stated, "Kurdish nationalism, self-determination and essentially separatism is the core of the conflict in Iranian Kurdistan", is not without truths. I can not definitively point to a clear picture that separatism is appropriate in the title. There is certainly a difference in the meanings of someone seeking or believing in separatism and autonomy.

I do not support the name "separatism" for two reasons; 1)- Most of the articles are actually about conflicts and not specifically with content and references related to battles (legal or actual) for "separation" and some are apparently questionable. 2)- Evidence that all the included conflicts are not clearly regarded as separatist movements to justify the inclusion in the article name.

I will give examples I have found in the article Kurdish separatism in Iran:

• • The section Simko's revolt (1918–1922), with the main article being Simko Shikak revolt, states, "Although elements of Kurdish nationalism were present in this movement, historians agree these were hardly articulate enough to justify a claim that recognition of Kurdish identity was a major issue in Simko's movement, and he had to rely heavily on conventional tribal motives. It lacked any kind of administrative organization and Simko was primary interesting in plunder.", and; "Simko's men do not appear to have felt any sense of unity or solidarity with fellow Kurds.". This is not evidence of separatism even with a possible fact that "Kurdish ethnicists (linked to Kurdish nationalism) " today revere Simko as a "hero of independence".". One faction claiming him such a hero does not make it an historical fact.
  • The Iran crisis of 1946 was brought about because of Soviet occupation. This would have to be a move for independence in general. Although the article Kurdish Separatism in Iran states, "...includes a separatist attempt of KDP-I.." The article Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan states, "... a political party in Iranian Kurdistan which seeks the attainment of Kurdish national rights within a democratic federal republic of Iran.". This means this party, according to content, seeks autonomy not just nationalism which would be separatism.
  • The section PJAK insurrection can be labeled as a Kurdish Nationalist or secessionist movement which would be separatist. The section lists Terrorism in Iran as a main article, includes the section Attacks by Mujahedin-e-Khalq (main article: People's Mujahedin of Iran), that contains the content, "is an anti-clerical Islamist guerilla organization regarded by the Iranian, the U.S. governments, and others as a terrorist organization.", and the U.S. has since de-listed this organization as well as the NCRI. Now! I do not propose to support any of this as I understand the organization has been responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens and the U.S. has been notorious for changing sides or positions according to current political agendas. It probably can be asserted without argument that politics and governments are not necessarily looking out for the best interests of "the people". However, this is my POV and not related to the issue at hand.

I have not been able to review all the verbiage included in the discussions between Greyshark09 and HistorNE, and this really does not matter as the ultimate goal is the improvement of Wikipedia, but I submit that if Mr. Greyshark09 wishes an article named "Kurdish separatism in Iran" the content should reflect the article name and not just battles, revolts, rebellions, or insurrections, that can not be definitively referenced as all being separatists in nature. There is no doubt that there is much to write about separatism and can probably include something about the "Manifesto of the Kurdish People", but unless properly referenced, conflicts dealing with the Kurdish people simply can not be labeled as "separatist", meaning seeking a separate nation.

My position on this issue is that a consensus named template (referenced for clarity) and merged articles, that shows true consensus with a name reflective of the content that might be "Kurdish insurgency in modern Iran" or the "Kurdish–Iranian conflicts" would be far better.Balance is required as a neutral point of view is a "fundamental principle of Wikipedia" and one of the few "rules" (if you will) that Wikipedia consensus has determined; "This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it".

I also don't think involved editors need to feud to the detriment of Wikipedia, for editors to include contested content without resolved discussion, editors removing referenced content because of personal beliefs or POV without clear consensus, or editors creating new articles and template because he or she does not like the outcome of consensus. That is the purpose of dispute resolution.

On a side-note: Is there a reason the table could not be used in an article? Otr500 (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User HistorNE systematically erased all reliable sources referring to separatism through edit-warring. Nevertheless, i don't mind naming the merged article Iranian-Kurdish conflict as long as "Kurdish separatism in Iran" would stay as secondary bold title; i still request that an additional WP:RM to be issued in order to rename it.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Important note - the original article is Kurdish separatism in Iran, and the entire editing history is located there, so in any case the Kurdish separatism in Iran article should be the base article and merger target - it could be renamed later if community agrees. I should also emphasize that the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic was found to be "Kurdish separatism in Iran" per (89 results in Google books [46]), while "Kurdish insurgency in modern Iran" and "Iranian-Kurdish conflict"/"Kurdish-Iranian conflict" get much less citations (zero [47] and 2 [48]/ 2 [49] results respectively) Greyshark09 (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you; Glad we had consensus on the discussion move. So I don't feel as though there is a "steering" going on, and since a request for extension can be obtained as long as discussions are on-going, might I ask for the courtesy of discussions before actions. Mind you, I do not argue a move of the discussion provided the below information is favorable, otherwise I will contest it. As you mentioned and I have seen, there has been a lot of "moves", "deletes", and what some may consider nonconstructive actions without discussion nor consensus. It is just too simple to state it first, take action accordingly, and thereby not joining in on something spoken against.

Concerning the article and the Google searches relating to the naming: I have, until getting tired, looked at "many" of the Google hits. A criteria on this is "relevant hits", and not just a count, and on that point I have made a very long list of "hits" that are simply not relevant to the article(s) nor the naming to include separatism. Also, in light of the fact that there has been much bantering, I will hope that we can dispense from that direction. From this point, if referenced material is deleted without discussion and consensus, I will consider it disruptive editing and seek Wikipedia resolution. A balanced article with a neutral point of view is esential. A hopeful goal is to see if one article can serve Wikipedia better than two very similar fragmented articles as I feel is the case.

As I stated, and concerning your "emphasis" on the common name, relevant content that is either very contested or at the very least will have to be omitted because of direct references to the contrary, will have to be omitted thus relegating the article to content specific to known content pertinent to the title. I can see no logical argument, providing and "if" a merge is approved, why a less contested title, and one far more appropriate for the material I have observed, should not be used with appropriate sections to balance the article. I would think, considering there is the issue of separation, that Iranian-Kurdish conflict with "also seen as Kurdish separatism in Iran ", should not be listed. If this is not going to be a major problem, concerning the name if a move is approved, I would like to have assurances to this end as "it could be renamed later if community agrees" will be a distraction. I will assume good faith that Mr. Greyshark09 does not have an agenda to include "separatism" to the sacrifice of a better article. Otr500 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind if we eventually name the article some other name (as long as supported by sources), but take into consideration that saying "Kurdish-Iranian conflict" title implicates a much broader conflict than the title "Kurdish separatism in Iran". "Iranian-Kurdish conflict" also suggests symmetry with much more bloodier and violent separatist Kurdish-Turkish conflict and Iraqi-Kurdish conflict, while historians clearly refer to Kurdish separatism in Iran as a much less violent than in neighbouring Turkey and Iraq. Once again - all Kurdish violence in the last 100 years had some aspect of separatism, but the separatism itself (the conflict) was less bloody than in neughbouring countries.GreyShark (dibra) 18:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Merge, again as per the comments of Otr500 - Use this page's history and compromise on an appropriate name for an article with a goal of WP:BALANCE -PC-XT+ 03:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment, as I said on 03:46 14 August 2013 (and some admin's talkpages): "there's two solutions: rename article or exclude some 80% listed events", so comment by Otr500 is valid: if merge, exclude word "separatism". Regarding Greyshark comments, he has been prefering unreliable sources and unfinished working papers instead of academic books written by most eminent scholars, and still accuses me of "removing reliable sources". Pathetic. --HistorNE (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

HistorNE you are a disruptive editor, you don't follow community consensus, you use inappropriate language and personal attacks and you avoid any professional discussion (long pages of WP:SYNTH text where you tend to use 2-3 sources and disregard such Kurdish area experts as McDowall doesn't count). A complaint on your recent inability to follow community consensus regarding Template:Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran is filed at WP:ANI.GreyShark (dibra) 14:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive? Trying to make personal WP:SYNTH of "100-years old and ongoing Kurdish separatist struggle against Iran" may be considered not just as disruptive editing, but childish propaganda piece. You renamed article without any discussion and lately completely ignoring all critics, and you're speaking about don't following community consensus? Hypocrisy at it's best. Regarding personal attacks, above everyone can see you accused me of being sock of Kermanshahi. You didn't apologize for it, and knowing you and your "culture" I even don't expect it in future. For yourself, in own four walls or your kibbutz you may be big chosen grey shark, but for me you're still little fish caught in manipulations and arrogance. McDowall isn't expert but narrative writter, you have not a clue about academic authorities in this field or reliable sources, you know only for google. There's no any problem about community consensus of merging two templates, but voters proposed renaming it to more precise and neutral name and until it's done everything irrelevant will be excluded. Your personal wishes isn't issue here, WP:RS doesn't follow you. --HistorNE (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Warning!! There are consequences for repeated disruptions of Wikipedia. I have been impartially involved and not taking any sides other than what I see as valid points. I do not pretend to know as much about the subject as either HistorNE or Greyshark09 but I have been digging deeper and have given very practical and valid solutions. Apparently there is a desire to have personal battles that so far has not been resolved to the betterment of Wikipedia. At some point there has to be compromise or those that can not need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. If there is absolutely no compromise between the two editors, and civility can not be observed, I will seek alternative resolutions. Trying to find a solution I will attempt to tread softly at first but I have seen enough mud-slinging and the drama is disruptive. Neither editor should attack the other again, nor remove ANY referenced material but bring it up for discussion.

So I will ask this one time. Is there a way the two of you can come to a compromise or not? IF both of you can not be involved with this subject and stop the personal attacks --as in completely--, take several breaths, exhale slowly, and work on a compromise, the result will be predictable. I can tell you that from what I have read, from both editors, a nice admin would probably give a long forced cooling off period. One not so nice might go a more serious route. Surely neither of you wish to be banned? How will that help the article? I don't really care about what has happened in the past, unless it can not be resolved. The reason I have not taken this situation up higher is because the two editors involved seem to have considerable knowledge on the subject. The question is do they want to work on the article or not.

1. The article has consensus to be merged so this part of the discussion is concluded. With that it can be merged but the name is an issue.
2. There appears to be a consensus for a rename.

I think the article should --at this time-- be renamed to Iranian-Kurdish conflict. The reasoning is that it does involve a "much broader" scope and gives room for two sides to present verifiable content supporting both views. This is considered balance and allows for a neutral point of view. The policy states, This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.. If the two of you can not see that both sides are critical for a good article then there is no hope for you to be involved in the article. Some of the events can be referred to as either conflicts or battles, and IF they are about autonomy or separatism depends on the side of the fence you are looking at. With this the lead should be able to state an alternative name something like, "Some aspects of the conflict are regarded as Kurdish separatism.", or something to that effect. The article "must" have a section on separatism as it is relevant and important but both sides need to presented fairly. Otr500 (talk)

I don't think it will work - HistorNE states i'm an "Israeli manipulator" [50] or something like that (he has some phobia of Israelis i guess, since he uses this reason against many other editors). He sees in me the enemy of Iranian Revolution and hence he would use any means against me, no matter the cost (i mean blocks/sanctions/3RR/community consensus). He is also a stubborn advocate of Kurdish wonderful lives in Iran and hence would delete any sourced material to claim something else than "brotherhood" of Iranian peoples Persians and Kurds (including highly reliable academic sources on casualties and Kurdish national movements). That is the situation.GreyShark (dibra) 19:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to arbitrate - start with HistorNE's inability to receive community consensus: as our recent consensus to have one campaignbox [51].GreyShark (dibra) 19:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge with name change

Who supports a name change to Iranian-Kurdish conflict?

• Support: For reasons above. Otr500 (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you notify all the previous participants for your new proposal (i did so previously)?GreyShark (dibra) 21:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral - i don't mind to return to the previous title (as previously mentioned), but i don't think it is a very bright idea, because it makes parallels with the much more violent separatist Iraqi-Kurdish conflict and Kurdish-Turkish conflict; Kurdish separatism in Iran implies not the all out war of Kurds against Iran (ie. "Iranian-Kurdish conflict"), but a more marginal conflict of Kurdish separatists against Iran. It would also require to include Iranian-Iraqi PUK confrontations in 1970s. In addition, the WP:COMMONNAME is clearly not "Iranian-Kurdish conflict", but the "Kurdish separatism in Iran". In any case, this article is to be used as the merger base of course, since it contains all the previous history.GreyShark (dibra) 19:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Changed to Oppose - since the only real agitator of name change was the banned user HistorNE, i see no reason to continue this seemingly pointless discussion resulted from HistorNE's edit-warring.GreyShark (dibra) 18:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support, per Otr500. --HistorNE (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • User HistorNE was banned indefinitely from wikipedia as a sockmaster. Due to the seriousness of this case, his vote should not be counted in this survey per wikipedia guidelines.GreyShark (dibra) 18:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Merger - finalization

• Comment - @Otr500:, @DASonnenfeld:, @PC-XT: there is now a clear-cut majority to remerge the previously split article Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan into Kurdish separatism in Iran, considering that sockmaster HistorNE is "out of the game". I suggest let's merge first because the split article is a result of sock activity and there is a clear consensus to remerge. If there is a good reason to change the current title - let's discuss (currently there doesn't seem to be consensus for a rename).GreyShark (dibra) 21:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, I didn't get a ping. Merging to here first is ok with me. —PC-XT+ 13:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr. GreyShark I have absolutely no problem with a merge, especially as I would imagine it really could be done boldly, considering the ban. I got involved with this article after removing an old merge tag with no discussions. I have followed some of your comments and think you may be able to do some consolidating and reorganizing but I do have some concerns: You have advocated for the name to include "Separatism" as if that is the only name.

From the point I got involved I have had severe reservations on the validity of the name which you support. From the time you listed Google hits to support the current name I researched those "hits" until I was exhausted and did not come to the same conclusion. I am totally against using just a number (X-google hits) as they can be as misleading as vague references. I commented on this extensively yet you seemed to exclude my comments when you stated above "(currently there doesn't seem to be consensus for a rename)". At a point, unless withdrawn or changed, Mr PC-XT was in agreement to a merge per my comments that did wish to see a name change. Not counting HistorNE (because he is "out of the game") that would have been two to one. I have not looked at all aspects but User: Kermanshahi also appeared against the current name and commented on this on the stalled merge request. With all that said please do not make something appear one way in print when that may in fact not be the case. "IF" there is contradictory acceptable evidence (source, reference etc...) it is suppose to be Wikipedia policy to present all sides without bias. "IF" there are doubts about the validity of a reference(s) there is a resource to get opinions on that.

My concerns are valid and simple. The article (as well as the fork of HistorNE) is not much for an article and I am sure there is a lot to be added. The word separatism is usually associated with secession far more than autonomy. Some of the articles Greyshark09 has been involved with makes cross references to Kurdish Nationalism and separatism as being the same. Editors have made points that not all Kurdish/Iranian conflicts have Nationalism as a goal. This is weakly addressed in the last two sentences of the third paragraph of the lead. The article includes elements of conflicts over autonomy such as the second sentence of the history that states, "first major bid for establishing independent Kurdistan in Iran, which is known as seeking autonomy not Nationalism.

The more I look at these related articles the more I see a lot of circular editing as well as redundant content. The subheading "Constitutional Monarchy" in the article Kurdish nationalist#Iran list the main article as "Kurdish separatism in Iran". I can see no reason for this link except to foster an opinion that all incidences of actions between the Kurds and the Iranians are in fact always over sess. In the same section there is "military aid from the western world while there are references that specifically name the US and Great Britain?

If these articles are merged let's see if there can be improvements and not editors driving Cadillac's for the soft steering. There indeed needs to be productive discussions concerning the validity of the title name. This may also serve to avoid future needless glorified stubs on conflicts with a "point of view" that they are not related to separatism with Nationalism roots. Otr500 (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I still support finding a more neutral name. I just don't see a need for separate articles, and I'm not entirely sure what the name should be, yet. —PC-XT+ 11:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the lack of neutrality in the title is one of my main concerns, but as with PC-XT, I do not have a title name that I know to be more suited. Problems I have is that avoiding an article content funnel is hard to do when the title seems clear in a certain direction. I have not looked into it but I suppose some clarity could be established in the lead, as in the first paragraph, to include (a reverse stipulation of Mr. Greyshark) mention of other known names.

The priority is the merging as there is consensus for that as well as the aforementioned Wikipedia guidelines concerning intentional mirrors and forks. Some article issues:

• 1)- What is the purpose of this article? It begins in 1918, and that is an issue with the current title since "struggles" certainly include those of the Ottoman Empire and others earlier. There needs to be more on the history possibly to include an ancient history section, and/or some reference to the article "History of the Kurdish people" possible as the main article.
• 2)- Title: Content consistent with the title. As far as I see the only way the title can be used, not counting the partial timeline factor that is at odds with the name, is with a proper lead allowing the setting up of unbiased content. This would include an explanation of the use of separatism as to meaning all forms of "breaking away" to include autonomy (within Iran) and secession (to form an independent country) of the Kurdish people.
• 3)- It does not take a rocket scientist to see that this article, as well as the title, is a "partial" or dated timeline view and actually only covers the 20th and 21st century. Is someone going to address any of these? -- Otr500 (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Otr500: - at first the lead section included other names, but HistorNE erased those with the split. I don't mind the second or even third bold title for the article in opening section. Second thing is that despite what HistoNE incorrectly said, separatism is different from secession in definition and doesn't necessarily means independence. Autonomy is a form of separatism as well, and there is no contradiction to use for this article. In any case, we first need to merge the articles back and later we can continue a fruitful discussion - which of the possible titles is the best per WP:COMMONNAME.GreyShark (dibra) 18:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I vaguely recall some mention of a HistoNE but I was told he is banned. This means his opinions do not count. I guess separatism can have different definitions depending on the country but the second paragraph of the lead in the article Separatism states: "While it often refers to full political secession,[1] separatist groups may seek nothing more than greater autonomy.". Mr. Webster defines separation as: "a belief in, movement for, or state of separation (as schism, secession, or segregation)". Maybe Mr. GreyShark missed something but an article he is a principle editor on, Iran–PJAK conflict, makes it clear there can be confusion. The lead states; "...an armed conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the ethnic secessionist Kurdish guerrilla group...". "Ethnic nationalism (ethnic) and secession(ist) paint a clear picture of the meaning that PJAK seeks secession. The second paragraph states that leaders of PJAK have stated a goal of "an autonomous Kurdish region within the Iranian state". A parallel between secession and separatism (in that article) is shown by an unsourced statement, "Many however refer to PJAK as a strictly separatist organization, pursuing a complete disengagement of the Kurdish regions from Iran and alliance with neighbouring Kurdish regions in Iraq, Turkey and Syria.". If one hovers over the the Wikilink "separatist" it points to this article (Kurdish separatism in Iran) to show a direct relationship between what Mr. GreyShark states is not related. I will assume that during the 80 edits on that article he has just missed this. Now that there is a shown relationship between secessionists and separatism maybe he can understand why some people have concerns?

You mentioned something earlier about the history being here so if you are going to do the merge I would say to do it. You can of course wait for a discussion close--or close it (if that is acceptable) per above "merge from intentional POV-fork". At any rate you will not find any opposition. As for a "common name" that is one of the problems I have, given the content time-line, the actual meaning of the word separatism in the title (neutral name as per PC-XT), and the content verses the title name. Autonomy is certainly a form of separatism but what I see does not "hint" at autonomy but "strongly" points at nationalism and there is a difference. Otr500 (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to add, in case it was also missed, that this article is listed (see below) in the "categories" Secession in Iran. Please! If some altercations, battles, wars, etc.. between the Kurdish people and the Iranians are as a result of a movement towards nationalism then that needs to be noted. If the same is true for any form of separatism that is rooted in autonomy then it is wrong to place it as a secessionist movement. Not only is it wrong but an injustice to a platform such as Wikipedia that is suppose to be fair and unbiased. If there is more than one side, or multiple acceptable references to show two sides, then this can be presented as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines and consensus. Otr500 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I replaced "Secession in Iran" with "Rebellions in Iran" and i herewith proceed with the merge. I make it as neutral as possible, taking emphasis on both opinions - whether separatism towards autonomy and independence on the other hand.GreyShark (dibra) 18:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 11 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. — QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Kurdish separatism in Iran → Kurdish–Iranian conflict - A google search for "Kurdish–Iranian conflict" gives us 9 times more results compared to "Kurdish separatism in Iran" and since "Kurdish–Iranian conflict" is a lot more commonly used the title should be renamed to "Kurdish–Iranian conflict". Another problem with the current title is that all of these Kurdish armed organizations that fights against Iran are not separatist organizations and changing the title would fix that problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kurdish_separatism_in_Iran#Updated_table_on_separatism This table from the talk page shows that problem with the current title. Also the same title style that I'm suggesting is being used in these two pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish%E2%80%93Turkish_conflict_(1978%E2%80%93present) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi%E2%80%93Kurdish_conflict - So for consistency current title needs to be changed too. Patetez (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

All Kurdish armed groups are not officially separatists that makes the current title (Kurdish separatism in Iran) a little bit weak , but other proposed title ( Kurdish–Iranian conflict ) also have the weak points that 1- That does not shows that is an internal conflict inside Iran and the title does not covers the Iranian conflicts with Kurds of Iraq and etc 2-The term Iran is not only the name of a country , and it may have ethnic meanings . In ethnic sense , Kurds are an essential part of Iranian peoples (Iranic peoples) and the proposed title seems meaningless . I think "Iranian Kurds conflict with central government " is the best title , but that is so long : maybe "Iranian Kurds versus government " or "Iranian Kurds conflict with government " can be used . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

To fix that we could just change "Iranian" to "Iranian Government" and the title would be Iranian Government-Kurdish conflict. Patetez (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Iranian government against which Kurds ? Iranian Kurds or Iraqi Kurds or etc?How about Iranian Government-Iranian Kurds conflict ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the title needs to specify that since PJAK for example has many Iraqi and Turkish Kurd members. Patetez (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This article tends to cover the conflict between Iranian Kurds and central government ; there can be border conflicts (for example shelling the border regions ) between Iran and Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq or Iran versus rebels from Turkey that shift their name between PAJAK and PKK , but they (external Kurds ) should not be included in this article .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Following the User:Alborz Fallah comments, The current name is better and suitable. No need to rename.--Samək^Talk 17:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kurdish separatism in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029191132/http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11142005-144616/unrestricted/003Manuscript.pdf to http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11142005-144616/unrestricted/003Manuscript.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807060312/http://www1.american.edu/cgp/pdf/hicks.pdf to http://www1.american.edu/cgp/pdf/hicks.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20060714180916/http%3A//www.janes.com%3A80/security/international_security/news/jir/jir060628_1_n.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No evidence provided to support the move. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Kurdish separatism in Iran → Kurdish–Iranian conflict – the name is more used in sources and is more proper, and flows well with kurdish conflicts with other neighboring countries Ridax2020 (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck███ 03:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Þjarkur: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Discussed already twice: see above at #Requested move 17:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC) and #Requested move 11 April 2016 13:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC) :: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose — No evidence has been shared to support the nom's contention about which name is more commonly used. Nothing to suggest why this RM should go differently from the prior ones. I'm open minded to reviewing actual evidence (meaning academic WP:RS) of how a different title might better meet WP:AT criteria, but based on this nom, oppose. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support See also Turkish kurdish conflict.Shadow4dark (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. But only because the suggestion is better than the current name, which implies all of these groups want independence from Iran (which is inaccurate), as some are only calling for more autonomy or cultural rights etc. Thus, “separatism” can be used pejoratively if the group is not openly calling for such.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with that criticism of the current title, but I still don't support the proposed title for a different reason (aside from lack of evidence of common name, etc.): it implies the conflict is between Kurds and Iranians, which I suggest is not an accurate way of portraying the dispute. More accurately, the conflict is between Iranian Kurds and multiple Iranian governments. Maybe a better title is just "Iranian Kurdish conflicts"? Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The entire article refers to "separatism" and "separatists". Even the lede characterizes it as a separatist conflict. Not sure what subtle difference you wish the draw, but it looks like the current article title better reflects the article content. Until the content is changed, I am afraid it is simply more straightforward and clear. Walrasiad (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2020 (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.

Conflicting information, POV-pushing

The lede of this article currently states that Kurdish separatism in Iran supposedly commenced in 1918, i.e. with Simko's mutiny. However, the body of the article debunks this narrative on every level, per to the given WP:RS. It seems that the narrative about Simko's mutiny, which included "elements of Kurdish nationalism" (i.e. per Kreyenbroek & Sperl), has been misconstrued into being a clear-cut case of "Kurdish separatism", and has additionally been misused in order to draw a continuous line of events all the way into 2020/2021. Interestingly, any mention about Simko's main objective, namely robbery/pillaging, is not mentioned in the lede. For the record (copied from the body of this article):

Scholars view the revolt as an attempt by a powerful tribal chief to establish his personal authority vis-à-vis the central government throughout Iranian Kurdistan. While elements of Kurdish nationalism were present in this movement, historians agree these were hardly articulate enough to justify a claim that recognition of Kurdish identity was a major issue in Simko's movement, and he had to rely heavily on conventional tribal motives. It lacked any kind of administrative organization and Simko was primarily interested in plunder. Government forces and non-Kurds were not the only ones to suffer in the attacks, as the Kurdish population was also robbed and assaulted. Simko's men don't appear to have felt any sense of unity or solidarity with fellow Kurds. Historian Ervand Abrahamian describes Simko as "notorious" for massacring thousands of Assyrians and "harassing" democrats, and Mehrdad Izady holds him responsible for killing Alevite Kurds.

Additionally, in the words of Kurdologist and Iranologist Garnik Asatrian:

In the recent period of Kurdish history, a crucial point is defining the nature of the rebellions from the end of the 19th and up to the 20th century―from Sheikh Ubaydullah’s revolt to Simko’s (Simitko) mutiny. The overall labelling of these events as manifestations of the Kurdish national-liberation struggle against Turkish or Iranian suppressors is an essential element of the Kurdish identity-makers’ ideology. (...) With the Kurdish conglomeration, as I said above, far from being a homogeneous entity―either ethnically, culturally, or linguistically (see above, fn. 5; also fn. 14 below)―the basic component of the national doctrine of the Kurdish identity-makers has always remained the idea of the unified image of one nation, endowed respectively with one language and one culture. The chimerical idea of this imagined unity has become further the fundament of Kurdish identity-making, resulting in the creation of fantastic ethnic and cultural prehistory, perversion of historical facts, falsification of linguistic data, etc. (for recent Western views on Kurdish identity, see Atabaki/Dorleijn 1990).

- LouisAragon (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

References