Talk:Kurds/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

The suggestion that "most Kurds live in Kurdistan" seems a touch contentious. Surely it would be more helpful to talk of a "region in the Middle East commonly referred to as Kurdistan? Cruci 13:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would you please add some information about the language the Kurds speak, which branch of Islam they adhere to, perhaps just a bit about the relatively unique parts of their culture that keep them from interbreeding with the Arabs? Thanks, Don

I agree, most of what is on the page currently belongs on History of the Kurds. I know they mostly adhere to Islam, and also a small minority to Yezidism. User:Eean

I added the "about 25 million" figure -- I've seen it twice: quoted by Noam Chomsky and in an Encyclopedia of modern seperatist movements. If someone could find a source, that would be good. -- Sam

Is it certain that the Kurds are the largest ethnic group without a state? There are some large ethnic groups in India, China and Russia.

It's hard to make a positive determination, because the definition of 'ethnic group' is so unclear. I have tried to look around using Wikipedia's own "demographics" pages (coming from the CIA). India's demographics are by race, and thus not really usable. The largest Chinese minority group (Zhuang, 16 million) and the largest Russian minority group (Tatars, 500,000) are clearly smaller than the Kurds. However, Demographics of Indonesia tells that there are around 28 million Sundanese which form a minority compared to the 90 million Javanese.

Moved from the village pump:

Can xxxxxxxxxxxxxxsomeone who knows how make the map on Kurds smaller? thanks Kingturtle 06:02 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've cropped the original image and done a bit of image clean-up (Media:Kurdish lands 92 cropped.jpg), and also uploaded a shrunk version of this (Media:Kurdish lands 92 cropped small.jpg). Further, I've updated Kurds. Is this OK?
James F. 07:41 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
OK?! you rock! thanks! Kingturtle 18:35 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The Kurds constitute the only sizable minority in Turkey.

The Kurds constitute the only sizable minority in Turkey.

What about Jews in Turkey?
Or Zazas? Or Arabs? Or gypsies? Or Eastern European immigrants? Gerry Lynch 16:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Once the Kurdish Hamidiya irregulars had helped the Ottoman Turkish armies kill off and drive out the Armenians and the Assyrians between 1914-1923, and once the Ottoman empire had its Arab provinces detached, and once the Kurds had displaced the Christians, yes, they became the largest minority in Turkey.

Moreover, the Kurds have one of the highest birth rates in the Muslim Middle East, aided by the tribal and polygamous nature of Kurdish society. In Turkey, when the secular state tries to curb polygamy, the Kurds migrate across borders where they can legally have more than one wife; i.e., Iraq or Syria, and since 1979 to Iran. Note the New Yorker article in the Oct. 2004 issue about Kurds in Iraq and the Kurd with two wives and 21 children. It is hard to keep a growth rate like that from becoming "a sizable minority" even in a country with as high a overall birth rate as Turkey.


Are Kurds of Iranian origin? Gerry Lynch 16:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes they are. They are of purest Iranian groups. Kurdish language is one of the northwestern Iranian languages close to Persian. Iranian peoples who settled in the Iranian Plateau had two main branches: Persian and Medes. Kurds and most of the people residing in the western half of today's Iran are a mixture of the Medes and other Iranian groups. Kurdish language, culture, dance, race etc, are all of pure Iranian origin. --Mani1 16:55, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"purest" is really pushing the limits on any group in the Middle East, especially the Kurds. The Middle East is a highway of Asia. No group is "pure" on racial grounds. The only grounds for group relationships that are at all reliable are linguistic, and to some extent, geography.

Highly contentious too is the Median origin of the group. So little is known of the Median language, and Kurdish languages are so varied and major ones are NOT mutually intelligible, that the linguistic connection with the Medes is very tenuous and more of an assertion than a fact. However, it is true that Kurdish falls within the Iranian family of languages as do Baluch, Pushtu, and Ossetic. Baluch and Kurdish are the closest to Persian itself.

The earliest reference to "Kurds" is by Xenephon whose armies were beset by marauders in the mountains. "Kurd" for him meant thieves and robbers. But there is little doubt that the tribally organized Kurdish groups, straddling the borders of Safavid and Ottoman areas go back several centuries in history and Salahuddin (12th c) is the earliest known hero of the Kurds. In recent use, the name of this chivalrous hero has come to be used as a means of threatening Christians on the internet since Salahuddin had fought successfully against the Crusaders. ...

Well, according to Herodotus some Median tribes were not of Iranian origin. The Busae tribe (meaning aboriginals) and the Magii tribe were the two he identified. Pinar 05:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Herodotus' writings are not scientific and thrustworthy. Serious historiography and archaeology shows that Medians were completely an Iranian group, speaking an Iranian language close to Persian. Kurds are just one of the groups of Median origin. Actually the whole of population of northern and western parts of today's Iran is Median (i.e. Iranian) in origin.

-- 13:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

... The above statement is overblown and a bit on the bombastic side. The capital of the Medes was Hamadan (Ecbatana) and it has been continuously occupied to the extent that archeology is virtually impossible. On Herodotus, his strength lies in the details he provides that are rarely disputable although it is quite frequent for partisan writers to pick and choose what they want to consider historically accurate. In fact the story of Cyrus being 1/2 Persian and 1/2 Mede is from Herodotus. But if one looks at the patterns in folk heroes described by Joseph Campbell, one sees how this Cyrus story fits into the transitioning ruler mode. That was what Herodotus heard tell of Cyrus. And when Herodotus is not sure of something, he tells you that that is what he heard but did not witness.....


In 1999, the Turkish government had a major victory when it abducted Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), one of the groups fighting for the destruction of peace and presence in the region with an aim to weaken Turkish state.

This sentence has been changed back and forth between its current form and the wording "one of the groups fighting for Kurdish rights and independence." It seems that the current wording is intentionally argumentative. Any separatist group in any part of the world could be described as causing a "destruction of peace," but their purpose is obviously separation (i.e. independence), even if their methods may include terrorism. Thus, the present wording is extremely dismissive and ignores what they are actually fighting for, in their own minds.

Furthermore, the sentence is grammatically awkward and is missing two articles.

This section is in need of a good rewrite and updating. The PKK has a long and and important history in the entire region; it was Barzani's KDP, for example, that helped to suppress the PKK since Ocalan was so appealing a figure to many - Kurds and non-Kurds - and a threat to the tightly controlled tribal oligarchy of the Barzani/Zibari/Berwari group.

The PKK now goes under a different name and has renewed its insurgency against Turkey, perhaps in anticipation of the strengthening of the KDP position in northern Iraq which would then contend for power in eastern Turkey as well.

-> I have tried to fix it but the page is constantly beeing reverted autonomously. I believe they are using a AOL link and hide behind a router that generates rather random IPs.

Three recent edits by Coolcat

Coolcat has made three edits on February 10, at 16:00,16:14 and 16:19.

I see some problems with this wording:

Despite the "by some accounts the Kurds are the world's largest ethnic group without their own state" propaganda and help of some European countries, all the region's governments oppose the idea of losing significant parts of their own territories. It would also mean the return of recently settled brutal armed conflict between goverments and armed rebles.

The first sentence describes the argument that "by some accounts the Kurds are the world's largest ethnic group without their own state" as propaganda. Well that appears to be a statement of an opinion, not a fact. Or at the very least it's a non-neutral statement of a fact.

It's more like a possible fact that nobody official has taken the time to prove either way, probably worth including. Consider it like the Stalinist purges being described as "possibly the largest killing of a people's populace by its own government". It's hard to tally, but likely enough to be worthy of mention. Kaz 02:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The last sentence is an inference, not a fact.

"The Kurdish guerillas have been and continue to be persecuted by both Iraq and Turkey as they were responsible for a considerable amount of violence (primarily as PKK)." has been deleted. Is it untrue?

I would say it should be strongly footnoted. Those two countries have brutally persecuted the Kurds because of their separatism, but often without any other cause. Any violence on the part of the Kurds is at least arguably defensive. Kaz 02:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The clause " each claiming the title of Kurdistan's government" has been removed. Why?

The sentence "Which is a very concerning concept to the local states as such autonomy would destabilize the already trobbled reagion" has been added. Again this is a statement of an opinion.

It was also almost unreadable... Kaz

Such other changes as exist are minor and so I will revert all three edits to the previous state of the article, pending explanation of the edits. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't neutral. In politics facts are not necesaryly facts. PKK is a terrorist organisation. That is the opinion of the US goverment EU as a hole and several other misc states. That's a valid statement. If it were something like "PKK are a group of bad people" with no referance thats an opinion.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a chatroom, discussion forum, or vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:
Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Kurdish PKK guerillas, supported by Greek, Armenian and Syrian governments, launched attacks on Turkish targets since 1984

Is this factual?
Yes thats intelligence from the CIA as well
You see the Turkish Intelligence Agency is accused of supporting Chechen seperatists. Americans and others do not support the group directly. But often use another intelligence agency in a "joint" operation or they pose as one. It was either the nations in question or nations posing as other nations. Often there are more than one posing and intentional "screw ups" point the finger at the wrong direction. If the Intelligence Agency do not screw up, as far as we are concernened we wont know about it. Cat chi? 07:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletation

I object, no need to delete it, material used on both pages. No reason to have alergy to templates. I have a need to use this template on multiple articles. Cat chi? 17:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)



  • Some material was removed, carefully readded... Cat chi? 00:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Updated timeline with current news. Cat chi? 07:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Removed duplicate statement. Cat chi? 07:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reinserted the fact that surrounding nations have made several nations as they will go to war if Kurdistan is established. That is called destabilisation. Cat chi? 08:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV edits

The claims mentioned below are obviously opinions, not facts. Please don't present them as such:

"...and is opposed by the surrounding nations as it will destabilize the already troubled region."

"...and would significantly destabilise the region as declared in a uniform statement by all the countries involved in a uniform statement."

I don't care if the material is "declared by the regional goverments". These governments are part of the conflict and of course not in any way neutral. Present the above as a POV or I'll remove it. Stereotek 09:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I dont care if kurds want autonomy, its their beliefs, this entier article is POV. Cat chi? 07:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I rather discuss this article with IOTA. You fail to see that if Kurds do have autonomy there WILL be war. Thats called destabilation. Cat chi? 07:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above is called a POV. Nobody knows what will happend, if the Kurdish people get a country they can call their own, because it has not happend yet. Do you understand that? Stereotek 08:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not quite. "Nobody knows what will happen" is clunded by uncertainty. As discussed below will destabilise more than certain. Cat chi? 17:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent Edits

  • Table properly formated, removed repetive sentence, I dont know how valid the numbers are. Cat chi? 07:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Recalculated total, based on numbers provided, no reason to round. Adding a million people from nowhere does not make them more relevant. Cat chi? 07:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Re-inserted material removed by Stereotek. Kurdish nationalism is also POV. Kurdish propoganda is still POV. Not all kurds welcome a kurdistan. Some is aproporate as we dont even know how many of them there are. 50/50 word is some, anything else is POV unless you go to the region and survey all people. Cat chi? 07:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You are either completely alienated from the topic or dont know some spesifics.
  1. PKK has been active in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Turkey for 15 years. All nations mentioned suffered big time and do NOT want organisations like PKK to control oil, or other riches of Iraq as without it the PKK put up a hell of a fight. note that PKK is not all Kurds, but a minority of the kurds. Involuntary volunteering does not mean people really support them. Organisations like PKK have a policy like "you are either with us or against us" policy. They got my $120, and I wasnt willing to gove it untill they convinced me... with their Ak-47s. I am not as skeptical as you are after this kind of experience. Cat chi? 07:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. A free Kurdistan is enough for nations in the region to wage war. Syria, Iran, Turkey in a uniformed statement have officialy declared so. This is not POV, this is international politics of 3 countries that have the capability to remove Kurds from existance regardless of the American armed forces in the area, although I do not believe ww3 is necesary. You may think these nations are blufing, I see no evidence of it. Cat chi? 07:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Not all kurds want a free Kurdistan. Most Kurds in Turkey do not think of them as aliens in a foreign country. Cat chi? 07:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. When americans finaly pull out, you will be suprised on the level of fireworks. That is not my opinion. Think about it. With Americans there bombs blow up inside the autonomous region. Without the Americans... Simple logic. Still uncertain. I doubt Talabani will stay in his seat as long as he is elected for. You are too optimistic about Iraq. Cat chi? 07:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Long thing short, there is still a good chance of conflict in the region, the cloud of uncertanty still exist, and thats a fact. Cat chi? 02:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do you want to turn this into a political article when there is so much that could be said about their traditions, culture? I see no such entry Cat chi? 07:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


There's no reason to remove the information about the Kurds being the largest stateless group, and the business about "significantly destabilizing the region" is pure POV, and has no place in the article unless you can find a credible source for the claim. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I personaly believe they are a bit beefed up, can someone get me a source for the statistics? The way it is written is not right. Cat chi? 02:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I added that chunk of info after the statistics as a conclusion, ojections?
And what about the POV about destabilizing the region? Where's that from? Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
According to uniformed statement by local goverments, a free kurdistan means war. Its not freaking POV. Its govermental statemtent. Hence destabilize reowrd if you wish.

It is not fair when my edits are declared POV and edits of anons not. Kurds are no longer iranian but Indo-european. Read my edits or do not revert. Read what others did. Cat chi? 13:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"considered to be the best between all Kurds" that is pov. I did not change it, probably one of the anons did. PKK was and still is terrorist, us navy suggests. Cat chi? 13:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So the claim that 'a free kurdistan means war' is 'not freaking POV' because 'Its govermental statemtent'? And you suggest that we should consider the governments that are involved in the conflict neutral, and their 'govermental statemtent' to be facts? Stereotek 14:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If 3 goverments in a unified statement say so yea. They mean it. It is a solid threat, you dont threaten if you dont mean it. Historicaly I never heard of these 3 goverments agreein on anything. Cat chi? 14:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In order to understand why I am doing what I am doing on wikipedia you have to have the level of understanding of the material as much as it is presented here: Cat chi? 14:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • PKK wis no diferent than Al-Qaeda. They are as political as Al-Qaeda. You are urged to edit Al-Qaeda same way you are refering to PKK. They are as terrorist as Al-Qaeda if not more as they have higher kills confirmed by the cia. CIA says they are terrorist, so does Interpol, so does EU and a reqirement to join the EU is to accept a list of organisations, PKK being one as "terrorist". Cat chi? 14:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, those three governments might have a common interest in these matters? I've also heard a lot of governments make a lot of threats and then backing down again. Anyway, I was not able to access the content on the site that you provided a link to. It seems like they demand a username and a password. Now I guess I'll never be able to understand, what you are actually doing here in the 'pedia. :-( (apart from being involved in ArbCom cases and such). Stereotek 14:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Trust me countries will risk world war instead of another PKK. PKK hurt all. Cat chi? 15:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
1998 Syria recieved a threat of military intervention if Ocalan was not expeled from the cpuntry. Ocalan was shiped, the next day or so.
  • Threaten me not, you are the one who started indiscriminate reverting. That link: [1] Cat chi? 15:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The link works for me. I do not see why it shouldnt for you. Cat chi? 15:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh free to .edu domains, thats cute... Try signing up for free. Its worth it if you want to duscuss anything related to Turkey. You do not have an understanding of Kurds, Turkey to declare things POV NPOV. It is a very long article as the matter is very complex. The article analizes Turkey from 1920-1999. Article written by Dietrich Jung March 1999 Copenhagen Peace Research Institute Cat chi? 15:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)



Thats half of the material, more foreign policy related. Which is closely related to internal afairs. Have read material, I recommend [3]. Cat chi? 15:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Turkey was very important in the destruction of USSR. Which created new numerous countries. Also the entier Kurdish problem is mentioned. Cat chi? 15:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Selection from article (while you are recomended to read the whole thing):

Since the PKK began its war against the Turkish state in 1984, the Turkish army intervened in northern Iraq not less than 57 times. In the aftermath of the Second Gulf War and the Kurdish refugee crisis in Iraq in April and May 1991, northern Iraq became the theatre for major Turkish military operations. In August 1991, almost 5,000 Turkish troops entered northern Iraq to create a buffer zone along the border. More than 20,000 troops backed by tanks and the Turkish airforce crossed the borders to Iran and Iraq in October 1992. In relation to a military operation in March 1995, in which 35,000 Turkish troops went 40 km deep and 220 km wide into Iraqi territory, the then President Süleyman Demirel publicly spoke about a change in the Turkish-Iraqi border in favor of Turkey. This statement together with operation Murad, during which more than 50,000 Turkish soldiers entered northern Iraq in May 1997, raised suspicions in the Arab world that Turkey could have territorial claims and might want to revoke the Mosul decision of 1926 (Gunter 1998: 36-40).

Operation Provide Comfort, which created a Kurdish sanctuary in north Iraq, brought Turkey in a paradoxical situation. While denying a Kurdish question at home and claiming the preservation of the integrity of the Iraqi state as a major foreign policy objective, Turkey became fully embroiled in the Kurdish struggle in northern Iraq and participated in the upholding of its de facto division. On the one hand, Turkey wanted to avoid a Kurdish "buffer state" in northern Iraq and the possible spillover of Kurdish self-determination. On the other hand, in the war against the PKK Ankara concluded an alliance with Barzani’s Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), which for decades has been a major force in the Kurdish struggle with Iraqi regimes in Baghdad. In March 1991 representatives of the KDP and of its Kurdish adversary, Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), were invited to visit Ankara—a U-turn from the previous policy of not contacting the Kurdish groups in northern Iraq. In this way, Barzani and his KDP, who was in the 1970s fighting the Baathist regime in Baghdad supported by the CIA and Iran, became the main ally in Turkey’s fight against the PKK in northern Iraq, receiving military and logistic support.

Comment by me: There is a reason why these factions signed a cease fire. There is a reason why there are Kurds still there. It isn't a matter of POV. This is more complex than you think. Cat chi? 15:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Selection from article (while you are recomended to read the whole thing):

The readiness of politicians and state organs to work together with organised crime in their fight against the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) was recently revealed by the “Sursuluk incident”. The revelation began after a car accident in November 1996 in the West Anatolian town of Sursuluk in which Sedat Bucak, a Kurdish tribal leader and representative of the then governing DYP of Tansu Ciller, a high ranking police officer and Abdullah Catli, a right wing terrorist searched by the police, 32 happened to sit together in the car. The report by the Sursuluk Investigation Committee proved how close the ties between the state authorities and criminal gangs are. After more than twenty years of a state of emergency and more than fourteen years of warfare between the state and Kurdish guerrilla forces in the South East, the integrity of the Turkish state is not only threatened by Kurdish separatism, but by a web of Mafia-like structures in which politicians from almost all parties, members of the security forces, some banks and business companies, right wing terror groups, drug-traffickers and money laundrers are involved.

Comment by me: Spice things up, govermental corruption, there is this dimention of the kurdish problem. The number of Turkish involvement in Northern Iraq should affirm region will be "destabilised" on an independent Kurdistan. Cat chi? 16:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have been "hunting down" Kurdish Nationalist POV, there is no reason on Turkey related articles for kurds have a special space. If opressed, they are not opressed more than any other minority. SE Turkey is poor indiscriminantly, unlike the aurora, the region is not inhabited mainly by Kurds, Kurds are a minority everywhere. I was there... Ive seen the Turkish Town the Kurdish Town, the Arab Town. Neither had water or teacher. 3 towns had the same teacher before he was shot dead by the PKK. Political organisations do not shoot teachers. Cat chi? 16:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kurdish POV is still POV. That I will gladly remove. Mind that the independece thing is in the article in my version as its a relevant claim of some Kurds, believed to be a minority but there is no basis on how many Kurds want independence. When you think about it. The support rallies in turkey combined do not have 1 million people. Believe it or not Kurds often rally to support PKK within Turkey.Participation does not exeed thousands on seperate cities combined. It isnt as popular as Kurds made western media believe. Cat chi? 16:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Material from the article can be added, I just found this article. For my delight its perfect, objective. Kurdistan should be aproached parallel to this. There were limited to no Kurdish Nationalism before 1984, aside from isolated incidents. Kurds werent an issue, kurds werent even there, their numbers increased as they are growing in a "binary fusion" like rate. I believe 4 kids from a couple is excessive these people had 6+ in 30 years some viliges had their populution "explode" with a 400+% increase. Cat chi? 16:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its very very complex. Cat chi? 16:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Related ISBN: 1856498670 - Turkey at the Crossroads: Ottoman Legacies and a Greater Middle East by Dietrich Jung, Wolfango Piccoli

The article appearst to be a summaru of this 240 page book. This is not a matter of Kurds been oppressed and denied a nation. Kurds, and Fundementalist claims are their views, Fundementalists see west as a threat, what Kurds want is confusing, they were affiliated with Turks, then british, then independent anti-Turkey during the initial years of independence, stuck with it for a while, loyalty to Iraq, internal conflict between Barzani, Talabani, Ocalan, then Barzani, Talabani allied with Turkey, then switched sides and worked with Iran against Iraq, Sided with us on gulf war, gassed for this I think, then operation mentioned in the article above occured and aside from PKK things died for a while, sided with US against sadam. However recently turned against Turkey. Cat chi? 17:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know its good practice to see talk before reverting. Otherwise what is the point of talk. Cat chi? 09:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)