Talk:Kurdistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kurdistan article.
Article policies
Archives: 1

Contents

[edit] Headline text

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archive
Archives
  1. February 2003 – February 2005
  2. February 2005 – December 2005
  3. December 2005 – February 2006
  4. February 2006 – September 2006
  5. September 2006 – April 2007

[edit] Spamming?

What is all the nonsence I read below here? There seems to be some kind of "Kurdofobia" around here. I do not want to point my finger to any etnical groups, but please grow up and stop whining like a baby. Wikipedia is a science-based encyclopedia, and if you have any so called "Grey-wulf" (or so I think it was called) symphaties, then atleast TRY to bring any objective comments. If not, than I'm afraid there will be some IP-blocking to do... Jimmy Wales —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.138.101 (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but this doesn't look like how JW signs in discussion pages. DRCMN--85.97.17.219 (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The map

The map is labeled as "Kurdish inhabited regions". It is not a map of "Kurdistan". It should be removed. -- Cat chi? 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That map of Kurdistan is not where Kurdistan is, the real map, according to many interntional experts, is this: http://www.geocities.com/kurdistan_map/kurdistanmap2.jpg , or http://www.kurdishacademy.org/images/map-04.gif , or http://chuot.club.fr/zimages/kurdistan/decokurdi/kurdmapphoto.jpg.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.141.25 (talk • contribs)
Which experts are those. What kind of experts tryes to hide the truths. These experts may be PKK experts. The real map is this one http://www.turkishnews.com/DiscoverTurkey/images/maps/map1.jpg while every world knows that, some people tryes to mislead the fact, those region in the maps belongs to the other countries, like Turkey,Iran, Irak, Suriye. You have no rights on these lands and you will never gain rights by killing womens and children! Other interesting point on these web pages, you are giving as 'Experts maps' and they made by kurdish people by theirself. They are kurdish web sides. Can you give us a map from, any countries government side. You are Terrorist and a Lier. At least the map at the top shows as population where kurdish people lieves.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.205.206 (talk • contribs)
All this is besides the point. The map doesn't belong to this article as per its own caption. -- Cat chi? 23:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Here are two maps that are from a third party source, [1]

and [2] So that it is clear, if I am a Qurd that does not make me a Terorist or a member of PKK, so please do not refere to all the Qurds as members of PKK or Terorist. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavallee (talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

To the person who have put the link to the political map of Middle East with Turkey central in it, when the issue is Kurdistan. This article is about Kurdistan, which is the geographical area in Middle East where the Kurds are a majority. It is correct that Kurdistan is not an independent state and therefore can not be seen on the political map. But you have done a good job showing have little tolerance there are for Kurds in Turkey and the geographical term Kurdistan, thank you for that, we don't have to say that ourselves. You are so affraid of Kurds that even when this article is for informational purposes, you have to put a link to your countries map. Kurdistan is the geographical area in Middle East, and it is the Kurds' home.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.159.168 (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Entrance paragraph

D.Kurdistani is changing the opening paragraph

to

i think the second one is a mistake because it is the definition and there is no special geographic feature of kurdistan that makes it called kurdistan. In the opening we must make a clear definition on what makes the area called Kurdistan? Is it the geographic feature or the language spoken and the kurdish people? i demand a vote if necessary. Kurdano 13:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "generally nowadays as a minority language by Kurds"? Do you mean those Kurdish cities in Kurdistan, all of a sudden, became minority in speaking the Kurdish language? If the case, you're definetely incorrent because we have source to back this argument.
The article has the implication that Kurdistan is the region in which people with the same language, culture and etnicity inhabit predominantly. Thus to mention the values these people share and define them with their ethnical name is correct and it doesn't have to be in the first paragraph. Özgūr Talk Hist 08:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
"generally nowadays as a minority language by Kurds" means that Kurdish is a minority language of Turkey, Iran and Syria although not in Northern Iraq. I dont understand what is wrong with that?
The idea you want to shove to peoples face is already on the article. That's the problem and if we're going to improve the quality of information in this article it is necessary to understand the topic exactly. This article is about a region that its boundaries surpasses official Iraqi Kudistan, meaning that it can be officially unacceptable in those countries, but it is a fact that the neighboring countries do have substantial Kurdish population. Kurdistan is the region not a country and thus one of the main connective factor is language. The language in Kurdistan is dominantly Kurdish (this can easily be sourced) the otherwise or the conclusion that arise upon opposition to the term shouldn't convience you to take irrelevant actions. Özgūr Talk Hist 14:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments: 1. Kurdish language is seen as a "minority language" in this article because Kurds are minorities in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Armenia. Kurds are the largest ethnic group in the world without a state and therefore they are a minority in the countries they live in. Therefore their language is called a minority language. The Kurds are a majority in Northern Iraq/Southern Kurdistan, where they have an autonomus region but the Kurds are still a minority in Iraq.

2. Kurdish language has four dialects; Kurmanji, Sorani, Zazaki and Gorani.

3. When it comes to the issue of why Kurdistan should be called Kurdistan, my suggestion is, because Kurdistan means "Land of the Kurds"; "this is the geographical area where the majority of the people living there are Kurds".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatma2008 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is terorism.

Talking about a country that does not exists and trying to make it real by provoking the minority in a country Turkey is something not etichal.

I'm triying to serve wikipedia family and using it deeply and I'm shocked about this article. This is parting against a country. This is parting inside of terorism(PKK).

I deeply suggest you to erase or edit this topic. It looks easy, but everyday PKK is killing new Turkish youths, the youths of a country that protected and defended Kurds against Saddam and welcomed them to their lands.

Kurdistan is a project of emperialism to cut the countrys, make brothers armed against each other. Congratulations to wikipedia if you are defending terorism(applaus).,

I agree. Sometimes I hate Wikipedia for defending ideas that would lead to nothing but "arming brothers against each other".
Nationalism and Terrorism are completely separate. What nonsense equating them.--Erkin2008 01:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

kurdish people have a long history of civilization and culture more than 5000 years(far more than yours turks) and they have had their own land. they have since then not migrate or invade their neighbours and have lived there peacefully (just opposite to you turks who has been always invaders). now i have a question: where were you turks have been lived befor 800 years ago?????? if you cannt answer, then i have got the answer. yes you were brutal invaders (ancient terrorists)started your migration from MONGOLIA to our lands(our beautiful kurdistan) and destroyed all the things on your way until you reached our lands. you killed as many people as you could and occupied our lands.we kurds embraced you turks as new guests or neighbours. now you think its your land and kurds have to leave there for you turks??!!!!!we will stay there in our beautiful kurdistan and fight against all who want to destroy it.if you are not happy with that you would better to GO BACK TO YOUR LAND MONGOLIA. and another question: why kurdish people support PKK? because they find totalitarian turk state fascist racist unflexible and that it would not accept to verify nationalities other than turkish nationality and it would never respect them as a different nation. there is no chance for kurdish nation to obtain their natural rights other than support pkk in turkey at the moment. but still i think another party can be formed that unlike PKK is not military and maybe along with pkk follows kurds rights in turkey----Awyer

It is not "terrorism" to point out that the boundaries of the modern middle east are arbitrary and do not conform to the facts on the ground. It is undeniably true that there are 25-30 million Kurds living in a fairly well defined region that overlaps several existing countries. If you examine the end of World War I, the colonization and independance of Africa, or the first and second Balkan war, you can see that ethnic nationalism and colonialism can impose and change borders constantly. Look at Macedonia! It's been four or five different shapes and part of several different nations before the currrent incarnation. Turkey's borders are the result of being carved up from the Ottoman Empire, and they were pretty arbitrary. Antakya should be part of Syria; it's an Arab city. If the Greek Army wasn't so ineptly led, the western coast of Turkey would be part of Greece right now. You can't do to the Kurds what you did to the Armenians, so you will have to deal with the fact that there is a hostile nation living inside and across your borders. They aren't going away because you point to a thick black line on a map.

The most confusing thng for ignoran people is that . Thus tribes are using the name of Kurdish . First of all the leader of PKK Abdullah Öcalan his mother is not Kurdish Armenian , also lots of other Armenian tribes are partcipated to PKK movement . At first glance for ignorant peoples it may seems like a freedom fight for Kurds but if you stop your self and look realities it will be so obvious. How ? The percentage of Kurds in Turkey is around %20 but the political party which says represents Kurds DTP took only % 5 of votes at free elections. Noone can say it was not free election lots of EU comissioner came and watch our elections and all of them said it weas ok for Democracy . So it is so much clear only the %25 of Kurds are supporting PKK at Turkey . And whose that ? % 90 of them are living on East and SothernEast part of Turkey . Not as a Kurd but as a tribe . Now you came critical point. SORYY GUYS this will be so much against your romantic dreams but there is no difference between those tribes and Medellin Kartel at Kolombia.How much Medellin Kartel is freedoom fighte rthose tribes are also fighting same freedoom:) And one more thing have you ever searched the name of Barzani and Barzan at nternet from independent sources ? You will have surprise about their real roots which is related with Jews rather than Kurds . And now I am sure there will be some liars about that reality but you can freeeeeely search it :) Thanx for your patiance:)


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.175.13 (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Kurds where promised a homeland when the Ottoman Turkish Empire fell. They never got it, and some people in the Kurdish Ethnicity want one. Simple as that. Terrorism or Freedom fighters, whatever. It is a subjective term based on the point of views of different people. The PKK is communist. I imagine if Turkey was not so land hungry, or did not kill a bunch of Armenians they would have some form of leg to stand on in these arguments.

You all sound like saber rattling Nationalists who denounce the Kurdish Peoples Right, if they would chose to, self determination. I hope one day Greece takes back Constantinople and runs the Turks out of anatolia and Cyprus and make you people a minority in the lands your barbarian ancestors conquered.

Wikipedia is not talking about a "country" called Kurdistan here, they are talking about a geographical region called Kurdistan. Kurdistan is a geographical region like Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Caucasus, Balkan, Thrace.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatma2008 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] West love Kurds so west must embrace them by all means


Kurds don't learn from their mistakes neither do Americans.There has never been a Kurdistan, there is no Kurdistan and there will not be a Kurdistan.Barzani and Talabani are nothing but a bunch of gangsters no better than Lucky Luciano or AL Capone. Western people doesn't know anything about the Kurds but they all supported PKK.They all loved Kurds.They supported Kurds.They armed them.They financed them.They welcomed them in their countries.I am not a Fascist but here are some facts. -So-called Armenians genocide were made by Kurdish bandits.During the re-location Armenian families were attacked,raped,robbed and murdered Kurdish thugs. -PKK is responsible for the death of 10000 Turkish soldiers -%90 of crime(murder,theft,rape...) in Turkey commited by Kurds -%90 of heroin consumed in Europe,is smuggled and distrubuted by PKK and Kurdish mafia -Kurds rose against the British rule but poisoned by RAF in 1930.They were poisoned again by Saddam and saved by Turkey -The only thing that holds Kurdish clans is common hate for Turks.If Turkey left them alone Apo,Barzani and Talabani were going to fight each other. -Eventually US will leave the region and once more Kurds will experience "The revenge of Turks" Remember what happened to Armenians and Greeks. -Turkey,Iran and Arabs will make Kurds pay for their betrayal and treason.If you don't believe me read what happened to them when British left -I challange the west.Take the poor and hungry Kurds to your countries.You love the Kurds?Take them!You like them when they are 10000 miles away.Will you like them when they are your neighbours? Blood of Turkish soldiers is in West's hands.Take Kurds to your countries to help you wash your hands.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.19.0 (talk • contribs)

I really do not see the point of this post. -- Cat chi? 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly why Turkaphobia exists (yes, its a real word). We need to argue intelligently, as posts like these do nothing but hurt our argument. I agree with a couple of parts though: PKK did kill 15000 Turks, including babies; and 90% Heroin in Europe is smuggled and sold by PKK. But still, please stop, you are only making us Turks look bad.Korrybean 07:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's what you really think Korrybean, that as a Turk, I can only be sorry for you. I doubt that you are a 100 percent Turk. You cannot put the blame on Turks for creating Turkaphobia. Turks were not Mongols who have raided all cities that they've conquered. Turks have created a great Ottoman culture and became the nation who knew the most about science and culture. Europeans should be blamed for Turkaphobia. No, they (European governments) are not afraid of Turks, but they make their own citizens be afraid of us to make them hate us. I don't expect you to understand this fully because if you could, I wouldn'T be writing this comment to you. Still, I'm hopeful that one day, we'll see what I see. One more thing, if the truths make us "look bad" let us LOOK BAD, even worse. Yes "doğruyu söyleyen dokuz köyden kovulur.", but it's not an excuse. You might think we are overreacting. Well, we can discuss this when Turkey no longer exists, if you wish. What I mean is, there's no more time to lose. It's already late. So, we Turks whould be discussing among ourselves. This would make our theoratically friends Europeans happier. Thelorien 15:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PROPOGANDA

This article is full of propoganda. Most of the information is not cited and they are not relieable because they are mostly "ideas" not "facts". One should accept that the whole idea of having an independent Kurdistan is supported by USA in order to weaken four middle eastern countries: Iran, Syria, Iraq and Turkey. The idea is not 100 percent supported by the Kurdish population. I live in Turkey and I'm a Turk. I have no problem with Kurdish friends of mine. I have some Kurdish friends and they are very annoyed by the fact that people FİGHT for an idea that is shown as is all Kurds support it. No, that's not the fact. 20 years ago Turks and Kurds had no difference and were living quiet happilly together. Now, because of PKK's violent acts as a terrist organizations, Turks hate to use the word Kurd and Kurds hate to use the word Turk. Still, I have two things to say. 1. You people whoare trying to seperate us will not succeed. We'll keep being FRIENDS forever. We'll never be a role player in USA's little game on Middle East. 2. I want to express my sorrow for my Kurdish fellows who are playing a role in USA's little game and who are being wasted by the USA. One day both Kurds and Turks will be sorry for all this. Till then, lets hope that violence stops. Thelorien 15:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  /\ That's the closest I can see to the truth so Amen to that
     We are brothers which will not be separated by every meek attempt, so let's talk like human  beings. BTW the article sucks it doesn't even list the main cities or areas of ethnicity (I mean properly with percentages-isn't that the basis for the word even existing?!

Borders are not drawn out by God so I fail to see why a discussion is not possible the problem is Terrorism again. 82.29.70.34 23:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What NPOV means.

It means that we present thing without taking sides. Not declaring "PKK is bad" for whatever reason. I don't even really know the situation in Kurdistan, but I can tell there is a hell of a lot of POV coming from Turks. Whether the PKK is good or bad is not a subject for this site to explore. Zazaban 06:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC) For the record, acknowledging a movement exists is not the same as supporting it. This articles does not claim Kurdistan is a country. Zazaban 06:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

PKK is a terrorist organization as USA also declared it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.67.228 (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PKK is not a terrorist organization... Are you a member of any type of an organization? More than half of the world believes that PKK is struggling to get it's own country, not terrorize the world. How could you possibly compare PKK to a terrorist organizations.--Flavallee (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Borders of Kurdistan

Not Armenia, nor Azerbaijan (the state, not the Iranian one) are not the parts of Kurdistan. Not Britannica [3], nor Encyclopaedia of islam, nor even the dubious map, represented in the article, are not support this OR. Andranikpasha 15:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andranikpasha. I reverted your edit on the borders of Kurdistan because you did not explain them on the talk page. All you did was to assert that the info in the article was wrong, without giving any sources for that (apart from giving sources that asserted the opposite). --Crusio 16:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

At first, it seems you're not a newbie and surely know that we use edit summary and talk pages to explain our reverts. And what about my changes, anyone, when he adds a text, must prove that is fact. Noone needs to prove that fact doesnt exists. Surely I cant find sources asking that for example a South African state is a part of Kurdistan, and anyone who adds such an "info" needs to prove thats right! I cited 3 sources marking the borders of Kurdistan, what else? Andranikpasha 16:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry, it seems I misinterpreted your first comment here due to some double negations. Britannica indeed does not mention Armenia or Azerbaijan. The map in the article, though, does seem to indicate a small area in Armenia, west of Yerevan. I think you can safely remove Azerbaijan from the figure caption. Perhaps the person that put up the figure can come up with a reference for the area in Armenia? If not, that should be removed as well. BTW, I responded on your talk page because your initial comment to me was on my talk page.... :-0 --Crusio 19:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Its OK! The map is so little I cant see if there're a little part from Armenia. Anyways surely this map cant be a reliable source, and as I know Kurds in Armenia live in mountainous area mostly near Aragats (north from Yerevan) not at Ararat valley. And if Kurds live anywhere it never means this is a part of Kurdistan. There're Kurdish diasporas in the Europe or USA, but we dont consider that regions as Kurdistan (its an uncorrect term for this case- Kurdi-Stan means Country of Kurds). There is a Kurdish diaspora in Armenia, but sorry, Armenia (Hayastan:) is not the Kurdistan. So we can delete both Azerbaijan (which have also a large Kurdish diaspora) and Armenia. Andranikpasha 19:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition (2000) which is sourced by dictionary.com establish the borders as "southeast Turkey, northeast Iraq, and northwest Iran, with smaller sections in Syria and Armenia". -- Cat chi? 00:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi! While a discussion is going on related to the borders of Kurdistan, you reverted and added your "source" without any explanations and discussions! Ill be glad if you find some time to discuss at articles talk page if a POV by a "Dictionary of English language" is a good enough (and reliable) source to justify your revert on political geography. Especially if the other descriptions in the same page cited by you are marking different borders. Thanks in advance and sorry for distarbing you here! Andranikpasha 00:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware that the borders of Kurdistan are defined by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. There are many definitions that are at a state of flux. "American Heritage Dictionary" is a peer-reviewed notable, verifiable, reliable and neutral source. So it is fair to establish borders stretching as far as Armenia. CIA's map (this is being treated as a map of Kurdistan even though it isn't labeled as such) also has a chunk in Armenia as well. -- Cat chi? 00:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

An English dictionary can be a reliable linguistic book but not that for descriptions in Political geography, sports history, or f.e. ancient Greek literature. We need to differ what sources in what causes are reliable! And what for CIA's map, it seems to be very correct as it is called Kurdish-inhabited area (no OR, do not mix with Kurdistan; Holland f.e. can be described also as a Kurdish-inhabited area, its not the same- Kurdistan). Some regions in Armenia are also inhabited by Russians, Assyrians etc its never mean a part of Armenia is Russia or Assyria... so if to compare with other marked more notable reliable (not simple linguistical) sources (Britannica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, etc,) your source is very dubious and also I dont see a reason why Armenia became the first (is it the main Kurdistan with a "smaller part")? Andranikpasha 01:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I then recommend the removal of the map from the info box as like you said it is relevant to Kurdish inhabitance and not Kurdistan.
As for the addition of Armenia, it more satisfies wikipedias guidelines and policies. If you like a footnote can clarify this.
-- Cat chi? 01:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely Im agree with deletion of unrelated map which can be a good addition for the Kurds article.

But anyways the borders of Kurdistan are an important, serious political topic, so its better to clear up if Armenia is really within the borders of Kurdistan, and if no and it is one Dictionarie's POV, its deletion is needed (as I cant decide what we can write at footnote: "A smaller part of Armenia is Kurdish-populated, but it is not recognized as Kurdistan"??). So Ill be grateful if you or anyone else add some additional more reliable sources asking a part of Armenia is really a Kurdistan, which is seems to be a simple mistake according to the marked sources. Andranikpasha 01:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to remove the map. This was discussed before (#The map) and no one provided a satisfactory answer to why this map should be in the article.
No part of Turkey, Syria, Iran or Armenia is recognized as a part of Kurdistan as Kurdistan exists purely in an unofficial and aspirational manner. Kurdish populated does not equal Kurdistan, quite right however Washingtonpost also seems to include Armenia. That was a 0.15 second goggle search. Looking at the thread, there is no mention of Azerbaijan in the sources so it is out.
-- Cat chi? 01:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
"most Kurds live in the generally contiguous areas of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Armenia and Syria – a mountainous region of southwest Asia generally known as Kurdistan". If you read the article you will see that Armenia never mentioned again as Kurdistan. To finish this discussion maybe its better to search for an "Armenian Kurdistan" (I searched [4], not even one reliable source using such a "term")? You asks: "Kurdistan exists purely in an unofficial and aspirational manner". Surely, than we need to be more careful in this article and mark in the description that the topic of this article is something unrecognized and aspirational. Otherwise we have a large (fantastic) territory of different internationally-recognized countries which looks like the occupants of the "Land of Kurds", which is not a recognized fact (Iraqi and maybe Turkish Kurdistan's can be discussed), but rather a partially POV. Andranikpasha 08:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not think even "Iraqi Kurdistan" should be treated as a part of this "greater Kurdistan" as it is merely a Federal State of Iraq just like how New Mexico (a formerly official Mexican territory until United States annexed) is a federal state of the United States and is not a part of this Greater Mexico. Anything else would fall under WP:OR.
As for Armenian Kurdistan, I found this: [5] "Armenian Kurdistan also known as Red Kurdistan (Kurdistana Sor)." Now I do not know if this falls under a reliable source (it ceratainly does not feel reliable) but Red Kurdistan (Kurdistana Sor) does exist as an article. I assume the popular way to referance to Armenian parts of Kurdistan is as "Red Kurdistan" as Armenia did not exist back then when Soviet rule was over the place. According to the article on wikipedia most Kurds were deported which may explain why there is very little mention of Kurds in Armenia on the net which is my ¢2.
-- Cat chi? 15:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is confused

I am uncertain what this article supposed to cover. It seems to be a complete rerun of History of Kurdish people. -- Cat chi? 02:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think so! Also we need to check the accuracy of the description and article's text! Kurdi-Stan means "Kurdish land" or "Country of Kurds". During the history such an independent country never existed (there were few separate autonomies). It is rather a description of some claims, not verifable facts. And we must differ "Kurdish-populated" areas from the "Country of Kurds" which is rather a political term and if we're marking something more than simple "cultural area" in the description, we must detalize what we mean by "Country" or "Land" (is it means for example that Kurdish-populated part of Iran is not the country of Iran but a Kurdish country or land, or maybe both??). Andranikpasha 08:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The article nowhere claims to be about "an independent country". The first paragraph plainly states that it covers "a geographic and cultural region in the Middle East, inhabited predominantly by the Kurds". --Vindheim 10:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Vindheim, if you're interested in geographics (I awarded a junior prize many years ago:) you surely know that the Armenian and Turkish geographical parts are internationally recognized as Armenian Highland, or currently also Eastern Anatolia. No such a geographical region(s; as according to the map the Armenian part seems to be an anclave) - Kurdistan (Land of Kurds, Land, country is not the same of cultural, ethnical presence), its an obvious territorial claim. If even there is a region in Armenia which is inhabited predominately by the Kurds (??, any facts, as I know Armenia is a mono-ethnic state with absolute Armenian majority in all the regions, there are only separate Kurdish, Russian, Greek, Assyrian villages), it never means this region can be called as a "Country (land) of the Kurds"... Im asking again: is there an Armenian Kurdistan? Andranikpasha 11:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Stating the fact that many Kurds live in Aremenia and Azerbaijan does not imply any change in the geopolitical status of these lands. --Vindheim 12:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Surely! Thats what Im asking. We can state here (or better at the Kurds) that many Kurds live in Armenia, Azerbaijan, also Netherlands, Germany, USA etc., but no sources asking this geographical or even culturel regions are the Lands of Kurds. Many Assyrians live in Armenia, we're not going to include Armenia in Assyria. Andranikpasha 12:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Historically the region in question changed many hands. "Greater Armenia", "Greater Turkey", "Greater Assyria", "Greater Kurdistan", "Greater Russia", "Greater Persia/Iran" are all aspirational demands over overlapping territories. Plausibility of such demands are indeed disputed and none of these are official or unofficial countries. They do not even exist on paper on an active internationally recognised treaty. The land was also officially taken over and annexed by many existing countries ranging from Soviets to Romans.
If this article is over a mere geographic and cultural region, it should not have a flow of a country article. There is an over emphasis on Kurds in this article. The article is not on Kurdish people, which is a seperate article, but over a geographic and cultural region. Europe is a geographic region and please check how that article flows.
-- Cat chi? 15:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Article can be moved to a "Kurdish inhabited region" perhaps. -- Cat chi? 15:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it cannot be moved. Kurdistan has an entry in major encyclopeadias such as Britannica. [6].Heja Helweda 17:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
We aren't a Britannica clone. Look how much material even Britannica has on the matter? Very little indeed (478 words). Note the lack of a map as well. Should this page were to be moved to "Kurdish inhabited region" there would be more room for expansion with the expanded scope.
By the way the mentioned source does mention "Mountainous area of Kurdistan [...] parts of what are now eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran and smaller parts of northern Syria and Armenia." which includes Armenia.
-- Cat chi? 17:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we must keep this article just by deleting most obvious POV's (we should ask at the description that there isnt detailed borders for this term, its not recognized not politically, not geographically (there isnt such a geographic term, its a political term)). What about "Greater Armenia", "Greater Turkey", "Greater Assyria", "Greater Kurdistan", "Greater Russia", "Greater Persia/Iran" - we must differ them: "Greater Armenia" is not a geographical region but an Ancient Kingdom, "Greater Turkey" (there are two -"Ottoman Turkey" historical and "Turan" (Great Turan) political term), Assyria was an Ancient Kingdom (and there is a term of Assyria connected to the modern political claims of Assyrian peoples), "Greater Kurdistan" never existed, surely its not a geographical term, i dont know if there are modern political claims for a "Greater Kurdistan", if yes, then OK, we can create a separate article dedicated to that claims with the citations from the Kurdish leaders or semi-officials. Until now we even cant understand what Kurdistan means according to this article: is it a geographical region, a region with Kurdish majority, the Kurdish political claims, a "Kurdish-inhabited"(?) area, a platue? To Heja: there isnt a region in Armenia mainly inhabited by Kurds. Its an unsourced OR. Andranikpasha 17:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. Each of the "Greater" entities I mentioned have unique characteristics. I dare not simplify them.
Most material on Kurdistan is up in the air due to a complete lack of any official or semi-official borders. No one, not even Kurds claim the existence of a "Kurdistan" as a political entity or such a claim is not backed by defacto or dejure government. Some Kurds indeed campaign for an independent/dependent Kurdistan such as the Kurdistan Workers Party, labeled as terrorist by vast number of countries further complicating matters.
Kurdistan is a complicated term with many meanings much like Macedonia and should be treated as such.
-- Cat chi? 18:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I see we are near to a consensus! "Most material on Kurdistan is up in the air due to a complete lack of any official or semi-official borders." Im absolutely agree! But we will be more careful here as the last period many sources and officials are starting to speak about a Kurdistan autonomy in Iraq etc. (which I think are the most seriuos claims since Kurdistan became a political termin during Treaty of Sevres 1920). The description of Kurdish movements are not important here, but rather we need to add here only the real, well-known, sourced info on a Kurdistan, which is carefully described- as the Iraqi Kurdistan is differs of that of "Turkish Kurdistan" (claims) and "Armenian part of Kurdistan" (claims?, majority?). Andranikpasha 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I think we need
Kurdistan (region) could be titled as Kurdish inhabited region so as to avoid unnecesary controversy. Few people fail to acknowledge that Kurds live in a region in the middle east with non-defined borders but only some people call it "Kurdistan" in a controversial manner. The area is more commonly known as "Kurdish inhabited region" at least according to reputable sources such as the CIA.
-- Cat chi? 19:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The cat and the pasha do not constitute a consensus here. Since the article does not describe a politcal entity there is no need for precisely defined borders.--Vindheim 18:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
No, this is near to be a consensus as what you added is an unsourced POV. Pls cite what the platue and the regions with mainly Kurdish-inhabited region(s) in Armenia. We discussing sources here, we re not going to "create" a Kurdish land here without detailed description (Land, autonomy, Kurdish majority, geographical region, platue?) and borders (its encyclopedia)! Andranikpasha 18:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Any information on wikipedia, even information on fictional Star Trek needs to be based on reliable, reputable, verifiable sources at which this article miserably fails. "Kurdistan" can be a political term. Just like Macedonia it is a complicated term and should be treated as such. -- Cat chi? 19:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely!

to Vindheim: and what the mainly Kurdish-inhabited parts of Armenia? US Department of State report on Armenia: "The population was approximately 98 percent ethnic Armenian. The Government did not discriminate against the small, officially recognized "national" communities, although the economic and social situation of such groups has deteriorated substantially since independence in 1991. National communities recognized by the Government included Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Jews, Kurds, Yezidis, Assyrians, Georgians, Greeks, and Germans." [7]. A partisan source (really serious claims): Kurdish prof. Samvel Kochoi (Moscow): "Being the aborigen peoples of the region, Kurds live at the teritory of 500.000 km. This territory is situated between former political borders of Turkey, Iran, Iraq ans Syria, and all of these countries has its "own" Kurdistan: Turkish, Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian (sometimes marked as northern, eastern, southern and western Kurdistans)".[8]. Where's the "platue", where's Armenia? Andranikpasha 19:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There does not need to be a scientific consensus for something to be in the article. Armenia is included in some sources. But this really is a trivial issue. Key problem is the rest of the content in the article. -- Cat chi? 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. I rewote the definiton of area, and excluded to reference to Armenia. Not that I believe this will stop the edit wars around here. --Vindheim 20:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I reverted it. Please do not remove sourced material without adequate discussion first. -- Cat chi? 20:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The linguistic "Dictionary of English language" is not a good enough (and reliable) source to justify anything on political geography, especially if the most reliable int'l encyclopedias dont consider a part of Armenia as a part of Kurdistan. Its a POV. Andranikpasha 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

--

The geographical area where Kurds are majority could be called Kurdistan. The area in Turkey and Armenia; North Kurdistan, in Iran; East Kurdistan, in Syria; West Kurdistan and in Iraq; South Kurdistan. Todays Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq could change its name to South Kurdistan Regional Government. Terms like Turkish Kurdistan, Irani Kurdistan, Syrian Kurdistan, Armenian Kurdistan/Red Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan should be stopped used.

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.159.168 (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roots of Kurds

What do we know about the Kurds and the Arayans? Some suggest they are one in the same. can anyone refrence any valid researches done on thos subject?

[edit] WikiProject Assyria?

Why was this article added to WikiProject Assyria?[9] Any specific reason(s)? — Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 02:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because "Kurdistan" intercepts historical Assyria. Chaldean 15:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northeastern Kurdistan ?

Kurds often refer to Southeastern Turkey as "North Kurdistan" The Kurdish Region of Iraq as "South Kurdistan" Northeastern Syria as "West Kurdistan" and The Kurdish parts of Iran as "East Kurdistan".

But what of the small Kurdish enclaves in Armenia and Azerbijan. During Soviet times they were sometimes referred to as "Red Kurdistan" but what name do Kurds use for these regions today ? 80.229.222.48 13:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

They could be seen as a part of Northern Kurdistan if you ask me. I don't like the term "Red Kurdistan".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatma2008 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why The Kurds are not allowed to 'self-determinate'

I have made an edit at the bottom of the Iraqi Kurdistan section. Feel free to revise it, but I feel it is necessary that this point is made clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moosikal (talk • contribs) 15:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia should be banned because of this article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.67.228 (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

can u pls tell me is there a country like that in world?? or within the turkish territories_?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.134.238 (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are blind then it's your fault, please do read the full article and it explains that Kurdistan is not a country it is a region occupied by Kurds... and second of all introduce yourself, register an account and lets see who you are and what you represent, that you make unnecessary comments such as these. Wikipedia should not allow anonymous users such as yourself to post any comments here, so when you make a statement that Wikipedia should be banned, you would be banned instead!!!--Flavallee (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have realised that I have made a mistake in describing Kirkuk as a region inhabited by mainly shiites and kurds. In fact, the case is that there are generally more sunnis and I have therefore corrected my error to arabs for the sake of being too precise. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moosikal (talk • contribs) 13:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is referring to Kurdistan as a region "inhabited" by Kurds, not "occupied". This means simply that Kurdistan is an area in Middle East where the majority of the peoples living there are Kurds.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatma2008 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason for many arabs living in Mosul and Kirkuk is that Saddam burnt homes of Kurds there and deported them to south and at the same time deported arabs from south to the oil rich cities.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatma2008 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect information

"The situation in the region has since eased following the capture of the PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan in 1999 " That is a very false statment. If anything it got worst and almost lead to the invasion of northern Iraq by Turkey to take out the Kurdish terrorists based there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.41.21 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Sumerian Cuneiform tablets

I've removed this bit asserting Kurds are mentioned in Sumerian tablets from 3000 BC:

Recognition of the existence of a Kurdish land goes back even as far as Sumerian Cuneiform Tablets, dating from about 3000 BC, which speak of the land of the Kurds.[1]

The article History of the Kurdish people and associated discussion makes it clear that unequivocal association of any people from before the Roman period (at least) with the modern Kurdish people is dubious. Perhaps the Carduchi or the Corduene were Kurds, in both a genealogical and linguistic sense, but we can't assert this unequivocally.

Linguistically, there could not have been any Kurds in 3000 BC at all (just as there were no Swedes or Italians). It was only in the second millenium that the breakup of Proto-Iranian into various Iranian languages occurred.

In any case, this whole business is treated much more fully at History of the Kurdish people and probably best left there. --Saforrest (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all deletion was not a good choice. Secondly, the name of Kurds has very archaic roots even may pre-date aryan/Aryanized Kurds. Thirdly the sentence is about a "land" a geographical entity with its older name. I do not agree with deletion; Sharishirin (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Kurdistan map is not acceptable. There is no such a map. PLease correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.186.196.196 (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kurdistan = the Future Kosovo

The recognition of Kosovo independence opens wide the road to independence to Kurdistan. Before Kosovo, the chances for an Independent Kurdistan where small, now the chances are considerably higher. It is important that the Turkish government recognized Kosovo and adopted an benevolent atitude toward secesionist minorities. In the near future, this atitude will extend step-by-step toward the Kurdistan and toward recognition of the Kurdish state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.150.157 (talk) 11:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this'll reflect much. Where it is a significant step, I'd imagine Turkey recognized Kosovo as more of a way to stick it to the Russians and Serbians, so to speak. --MercZ (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the duplicated passages

The sections on Iraqi and Northern Kurdistan are just a copy-paste of their respective main articles. There is no need to duplicate them here. Sharishirin (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Kurdistan!

Why this page is appearing on Wikipedia which is highly respected around worldwide?

If something is not true, everybody who has hands, keyboards and internet can post anything about their passionate dreams which are the observation of their stupidity. Imagine a society (Kurdish) that is used by other nations (the USA) to other countries Iran and Turkey just instead of having their independence(!). But still they are somewhere on the map between Iraq,Iran and Turkey. Now, they want to own some lands from each country and want to live without depending on other ones which is impossible.

So, you kurdish people, if you want to have your own country then go to Iraq mountains which you are born inside the caves. Otherwise, respect our descendants and sacrificed soldiers for our nations Safety and Independence. Guerrilla battling and Terrorism will not bring you peace in contrast the bombs that you deserve in exchange with our soldiers that you murdered.

Leave in peace or Go to Hell! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.46.155 (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BATTLEGROUND ~ Zirguezi 00:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This kind of racism should not be allowed in Wikipedia. Who are you to telling people to back to caves? Saying that Kurds come from caves are racism. Kurds are one of the oldest peoples in Middle East. Kurdistan is the geographical region where the majority are Kurds. It has always been and will always be the home the Kurds.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatma2008 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Would the editors who have worked on this article please stop!

I am aghast at the amateurish nonsense that fills it. Meowy 22:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


-- Can you be more spesific? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.159.168 (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is so much wrong that it is hard to be specific and the whole article is probably beyond redeemable. Could it be anything else, given its use of text books and books on scripture from the early 19th-century to justify its POV fantasies. Meowy 01:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)