Talk:Kurdistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kurdistan article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

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

Contents 1 Example of Factual Inaccuracy 2 Mere Propoganda 3 SIgns of war in the Middle East and Kurdistan's role 4 The 1820 map 5 NO KURDISTAN !!! 6 History of Kurdistan 7 This topic is include very wong information 8 The Truth 9 To D.Kurdistani 10 'Official Kurdistan' 11 TfD nomination of Template:Kurds 12 Someone should lock this article. 13 Khoikhoi reversions 14 Status of Kurdistan section

[edit] Example of Factual Inaccuracy

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Mere Propoganda

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

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

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

Kurdistan does not claim to be a country unlike Northern Cyprus, Nagro-karabagh, Sealand and etc. Kurdistan is to be treated as a mere geographic region. --Cat out 16:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably because it's widely accepted as an independent country and it has been claimed by war when it was necesarry. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs).

If you have evidence, do not hold back. But that region is not recognized as an independent country at all. Korrybean 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkish occupied cyprus is'nt recognised by any country other than Turkey, who invaded and occupied the region. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs).

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

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

[edit] The 1820 map

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

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

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

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

[edit] NO KURDISTAN !!!

Where are kurdistan ???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.98.110.71 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 14 October 2006.

It's in the Middle East—the region that Kurds traditionally inhabit. —Khoikhoi 15:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for this person. Many Turks use this phrase of "where is Kurdistan" to show that a state called Kurdistan does not officially exist. The Kurdistan here is just a REGION not a country Korrybean 00:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Collegiate® Dictionary • Kur·di·stan Pronunciation: ˌku̇r-də-'stan, ˌkər- Function: noun Etymology: Kurdistan, Asia

Date: 1904

an Oriental rug woven by the Kurds and noted for fine colors

Pronunciation: ˌku̇r-də-'stan, ˌkər-, -'stän; 'kər-də-ˌ Function: geographical name region SW Asia chiefly in E Turkey, NW Iran, & N Iraq © 2005 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

[edit] History of Kurdistan

Why was the history section removed from the article, you can't just remove portions of articles without explanation.

SIGN YOUR POST’S

Please people you need to sign your comment’s added to the discussion page not only for this article but other articles also, it’s stander Wikipedia guideline to sign your comments and posts.

If you don’t know how to sign your posts click the link below.

How to sign your post’s

--D.Kurdistani 04:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it is rendudnent on this article. There is a "History of The Kurdish people" (or a similar titled article). This article is expected to give a brief intor to the regional history of the most relevant issues such as world war 1. --Cat out 16:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This topic is include very wong information

Uyeyimben

both of area is in TURKEY

[edit] The Truth

This article contains a lot of propaganda. All the nations of the middle east knows that the kurds have never been a nation, never had a such thing as a kingdom in the middle east, neither did the name kurd appear before christ, their name appeared in history about 1100 after death. If you believe this or not is up to you but we from the middle east knows the truth about the kurds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.216.185.79 (talk) 09:26 30 October 2006

• • It shows how educated you are, “we knows”. You need evidence to back up that statement. You sound like a Turk, the history of the Turks in the Middle East starts about 900 years ago around 1100 C.E. Up in till the late 19th century your people were known as Gypsies among the Kurds, because of your migrations to the region. I can go on and make more racists remarks about your people, but I won’t waste web space with that and I suggest your don’t waste web space with your rubbish either and next time sign your posts. --D.Kurdistani 05:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Until the 19th century. hm...so none of those Greeks heard about Fall of Constantiople in 15th century or the Capture of Athens in 16th? I apoligize for this persons (unsigned one's) comments, but you show complete ignorance Kurdistani. Korrybean 22:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Kurds are tribes nonunited. Kurdish is a mixture of Iranian dialects. Kurds do not have concrete history or literature. Kurds never had a concrete homeland...they are just being created by puppet masters. Thank you.(cantikadam 13:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] To D.Kurdistani

There are several things wrong with the new infobox:

1. It looks ugly, and is not an improvement.
2. Your source for the population is the Kurdish people article, but Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source (see WP:RS).
3. Please do not remove the {{sprotect}} tag, the page is semi-protected.

Khoikhoi 23:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry I did not mean to remove the {{sprotect}} tag that was a mistake, but there are improvements in the new info box take a look below and compare. But whether the new info box looks ugly or not that is your opinion, I really don’t care much for peoples opinions no offense! --D.Kurdistani 00:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Diyako, Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise. It's not "every man for himself". We work together to build consensus on issues. I'll contact some other people on what they think. Khoikhoi 00:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

کوردستان

Kurdistan

Kurdish-Inhabited Areas
Location	Parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Armenia
Languages Spoken	Kurdish کوردی
Area (Est.)  - Total	190,000 km² - 390,000 km² 74,000 sq.mi-151,000 sq.mi[2]
Population - Total (2006Est.)	25-37.5 Million [3]

Kurdistan

Kurdish-inhabited area
Location	Parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey
Estimated Area	ca. 74,000 sq mi (191,660 km²)-392,000 km² [4]
Estimated Population	About 25-30 Million

This map is false according to Newsweek magazine [[5]] - [[6]]. The current map just basically where ALL kurds live, but this is making the reader misjudge something, it makes it look like in the shaded area, kurds form the majority, which is totally false. For example, Kurdistan does NOT include Mousil, as they dont make the majority. Please, can we create a new more accurate map? Chaldean 03:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This map is not false as you state, Newsweek does not state that this particular map is not accurate. The sources you provided just show only maps of the POLITICAL DIVISION of Iraq not the ETHNIC DIVISION of Iraq. It’s just a map you provided that has no relevance to the topic of this post. Now the map below shows the ETHNIC DIVISION of Iraq. --D.Kurdistani 07:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If you knew a thing or two about the middle east you would know that political division = ethnic division. The map you provide is old, the one I provided is newer thus being more accurate. Chaldean 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The map you provided shows who’s in control of Iraq, it clearly states that at the top of the map. Its shows who is in control and the political division of that country not ETHNIC DIVISION. ETHINC DIVISION does not equal POLITICAL DIVISION, the map proves that. Just look at the Kurdish areas different political groups have influence in different areas, apparently you don’t know a lot about the Middle East.

How do you know that the map I provided is old and outdated? I look around to find the date this map was created, but could not find an exact date for it. Until you can provide a good source for the exact date this map was created or even when first published. Until you provide that information this map is the most current map showing Iraqi demographics. --D.Kurdistani 21:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Official Kurdistan'

The Iraqi Kurdistan region and Kurdistan Province in Iran are officially acknowledged parts of Kurdistan. Officially acknowledged by who? Musungu jim 22:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I added a 'citation needed', which at least is indisputable. 66.92.53.49 04:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

They never talk about a "State of Kurdistan". I hope you make that clear. Korrybean 22:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Kurds

Template:Kurds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Khorshid 13:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Kurds was considered for deletion on 2006 November 18. The result of the discussion was Keep. --D.Kurdistani 06:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone should lock this article.

The vandalism is truly cretinous.

[edit] Khoikhoi reversions

Khoikhoi: What's up with the reversions? Perhaps we can discuss them here. My concern is you are reverting hard work by several people without an explanation, but I'm sure you have valuable input to include in the article. As described on here, try improving the article, and please offer an reason for edits. Or, as you say above, Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise. It's not "every man for himself". We work together to build consensus on issues. Guanxi 19:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted because the "status of Kurdistan" section is unecessary. Please provide sources that such a debate exists. Virtually everyone recognizes Kurdistan as a region—even the Kurds don't say it's a country. Also, why is it necessary to say "not existing as a country" in the infobox? Is there anyone that claims it's a country? Khoikhoi 19:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should definitely discuss it then (which I will in my next comment). I don't think simply reverting it, along with several other people's work, without comment is the best way to deal with it, and is in fact against Wikipedia's policies. Even if you don't agree with that section, why revert everyone else's work? Also, improve the section, do n't delete it. Guanxi 19:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Having friends (or aliases) reverting it (after your hint on my talk page about the 3 reversion rule) does not address the issue. Please address my comments above.Guanxi 20:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status of Kurdistan section

Copying Khoikhoi's comments from above:

I reverted because the "status of Kurdistan" section is unecessary. Please provide sources that such a debate exists. Virtually everyone recognizes Kurdistan as a region—even the Kurds don't say it's a country. Also, why is it necessary to say "not existing as a country" in the infobox? Is there anyone that claims it's a country? Khoikhoi 19:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Virtually everyone recognizes Kurdistan as a region": That depends on what you mean by "region". The Turkish government has very different ideas than the supporters of Kurdistan. Here is some evidence off the top of my head:

1. As far back as WWI (see the history section), Kurds have pushed for nationhood
2. Turkey has has been fighting an internal rebellion by Kurds for many years (decades?)
3. The leaders of the Kurdish region in N. Iraq have fought for autonomy for decades (again, see the various histories), and even now are pushing for maximum autonomy from the new central gov't.

So certainly there is some controversy. Guanxi 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the Kurds have pushed for nationhood hasn't affected the status of Kurdistan as a whole. Britannica says that Kurdistan is a "traditional region" and "extensive plateau and mountain area". Iraqi Kurdistan and the region of Kurdistan are different things. Compare to Tibet. Everyone knows it's a region in China, and although Tibetans want independence, no one claims it's a country. Khoikhoi 19:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I found some useful history here. Many Tibetans say the Tibet is a country, merely occupied by an invader (like Estonia under the USSR). But I think we are disagreeing more on wording than on content. Do we agree on the following?

• Kurdistan is not at this time recognized as a country.
• A significant number of Kurds (and possibly others) want autonomy, and some want it to the degree of nationhood. Certainly, if it were offered, they would take it.
• The countries where Kurdistan is located often try to downplay any suggestion of any cultural or political autonomy, which Kurdistan represents.
• Kurdistan represents both a geographic region and a political entity.

I think we may still disagree on,

• How much the concept of 'Kurdistan' is tied to the political autonomy, and how much it is merely a geographic region, in the minds of Kurds, the Turkish gov't, and the other gov'ts.

Guanxi 20:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes Kurdistan can have political meanings. Article isn't neutral and needs work. But what you are doing is not making it neutral. --Cat out 20:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I do want to make it neutral, so what do you suggest? I tried to describe both sides of the controversy without taking a side (I have no personal opinion). Could you suggest improved text? Guanxi 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Guanxi,

• Kurdistan hasn't declared independence, making that a null point.
• There's a differance between wanting something and having it.
• Kurdistan mainly represents a geographic region, see the source I provided.
• Kurdistan does not represent both a geographic region and a political entity. You are confusing Kurdistan with Iraqi Kurdistan.

Khoikhoi 20:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As you see, I am trying to find middle ground. Where do you see middle ground? Guanxi 20:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I edited it to try to address some of the concerns above. I think the open question is, how many Kurds, both now and in the past, have desired an independent Kurdistan. I will add a 'citation needed' and identify some sources later. Guanxi 21:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)