This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Older discussion

Sharafnama is an important historical text and must be mentioned

It was completed by Prince Sharaf al-Din Biltisi in 1597, and is about the history of kurds and their various dynasties and states in medieval period. http://www.mazdapublishers.com/Sharafnama.htm

Heja Helweda Nov. 9, 2005.

Iranian Kurdistan section isnot neutral

1) Iranian Kurdistan section is not neutral, when it says "Kurds have been part of the Persian Empire(Iran) since its very beginning around 500 B.C., along with all other ethnic groups which make up the present-day nation of Iran." From the historical point of view, this isnot correct. Not all kurds have been part of Persian Empire. Indeed, in top of the page, there is a reference to the territory controlled by the Roman Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LocationRomanEmpire.png, which covers parts of kurdish inhabited areas of Middle East, specially areas which are now parts of Turkey and Syria.

2) Kurds created the Median Empire before Cyrus the great, and before Achaemenides or Sassanids. So , historically they had a state before persians. This state covered all kurdish areas of western iran, including Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, Hamadan, Kermanshah and Ilam provinces in present day iran.

3)Then it says:"... along with all other ethnic groups which make up the present-day nation of Iran". Well this is also not correct, since Turks and Turkmen and Arabs came to the iranian plateau much later, around 600 AD ( for Arabs) and 900 AD for Turks. It seems to be a politically motivated sentence. Heja Helweda Nov. 9, 2005.

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. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 17:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Turkish propaganda

Turkey uses propaganda to justify denying the Kurds their right to an independent state. They label the Kurds as terrorists to justify their illegal occupation of the North Kurdish lands. The fact that there never was an independent Kurdistan does not mean that there should not be an independent Kurdistan. The claims of terrorism are absolutely ludicrous. It should be said that the Turks use oppression to subjugate the Kurds.

The real reason is that Turkey wants to continue stealing Kurdistans oil.

--82.156.49.1 00:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

what you've written is called propoganda my friend. besides, south eastern anatolia has no oil whatsoever; at least do your propoganda without lying. just like we know from religious fanatics, political fanatics like you are usually inclined to become terrorists.

What is Kurdistan?

This article contains severe wording and links that support kurdish terrorist organization PKK who killed thousands of people in Turkey.

Kurds have been highly supported by British since 17th century thought WW1 with direct support in Treaty of Serves. (Reference page is cited: Kurdish are greanted with Kurdistan by British) Over years, Kurdish were also supported by US, Russia, Iran and Syria. However due to recent tension in middle east, only US and British remain supporters of separatist terrorists.

3 days ago, kurdish separationist terrorist group attacked a popular tourism area and killed 5, one British, one Irish. Even though kurdish terrorist claims this attack, lets look at some British papers: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1530775,00.html - (No links to Kurdish) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4691755.stm - (Kurdish denies responsibility)

Turkish police has evidence linking this attack earlier attacks which are proven to be by kurdish terrorists. And several calls were received taking the responsibility. HOWEVER, BRITISH MEDIA DENIES THIS!

SO DOES WIKIPEDIA!

30,000! Yes 30,000 civilians were killed by kurdish separation terrorist. Does it make any sense?

There are about 10 million people in Turkey that may consider themselves coming from Kurdish origin. However a fraction of them would consider getting separated from Turkey and therefore support terrorism. What about the rest?

Considering this, how can you say Kurdish are abused in Turkey and give the impression that kurds have problems?

Kurdistan is a "made" state by British in early years of WW1. Like many other "made" states like Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia; British government aims to remove any Turkish control from these areas and make them vulnerable for their invasion and control, since these governments would lack determination of their destination. Here are a few examples of what I am saying:

Iraq: Saddam has been supported by US and British during Iran-Iraq war. Then he got out of control and US decided to take him down at all costs.
Jordan: Controlled by king and THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY. However US is not interested in democracy, as long as King is under control of US and British.

With respect to control, Jordanian army backed up against Jewish/British group during

Arab-Israeli_War

Syria: Does not obey US and British rulings, under severe risk of an invasion by US. However supported by Turkey and Russia who denies requirement for any involvement in Syria.
Saudi Arabia: Controlled by King where there is no democracy. However supported by US and British. US have no problem with Saudi Arabia as long as they let US do whatever they want in country, including drilling, opening air bases etc.

So what is Kurdistan? Kurdistan: Another British-designed, US-supported country that will have no fortune but will live with great commitment to US and British.

This is blatantly false, shamelessly false even. The Kurds have lived along the Tigris and Euprates rivers for over 3000 years, and the USA exists for less than 300 years and Britain for less than 1000. Kurdistan existed as an autonomous entity within the Ottoman empire. To say that Kurdistan was created by the Brits and Americansis the standard sort of false propaganda that Middle East governments indoctrinate their populations with. All this nonsense of how they are oppressed by the west when the Middle East leaders themselves do the oppressing. Whenever a Middle Eastern country cannot win an argument, they use the same propaganda over and over again. They spread lies over socalled Jewish atrocities, spread lies over America and the west and deny their own atrocities. The only reason for these lies is because they want to steal the oil from the Kurds and because Turks are inheritly racist. --82.156.49.1 00:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it is not in Turkey. There is no region in Turkey called Kurdistan. So will you let me to correct it please! 85.99.164.121 09:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent Discussion

Also

During that edit I decided to query the change from British to French inserted by the previous editor (it seemed like a big change to me!) and I also had to edit out the "Images of Kurdistan" external link because the spam filter doesn't like it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments on main article (moved for discussion) --Coolcat 22:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some items may be reintroduced to the main article after its neutral. Policy of Wikipedia prohibits opinions in articles.

Then things began to change when Kemal and his cadres became the sole rulers of Turkey. None of their claims, not even linguistic and cultural ones, were met and Kurds began to be harshly oppressed by the Turkish State especially after the failed rebellion of Sheikh Seid in 1925. Turkish State propagandised that the rebels were "reactionary bandits financed by the British", without a slight reference to Kurdish rights or even Kurdish existence.

In 1930s, with the introduction of Türk Tarih Tezi ("Turkish Thesis of History") and other pseudo-scientific theories, which were products of the pro-Nazi leanings of current régime, oppression attained a more racist tone. Minister of Justice, Mahmut Esat Bozkurt thus spoke: "The ones living in Turkey but of no pure Turkish blood have merely one right: to serve the Turks as slaves!" Crushing of Dersim Rebellion of 1938 much characterised with atrocities and massacres of Turkish Army against civilian Kurdish population reflected this sort of ideological approach. Bombing of women and children who took refuge in the valley of Geliyê Zilan led to tragic incidents; a "Kurdish Guernica". Sabiha Gökçen, adopted daughter of Atatürk attended the bombings gaining the title of "first female combat pilot of the world", much exploited for a pompous propaganda of the "primary successes of the Republic". The irony was that Gökçen herself was an orphan of 1915 of concealed Armenian origin, now killing Kurds in the name of "Great Turkish Race".

Multi-cultural political life in Turkey was slightly different for Kurds. They were represented in the parliament and even in the cabinet as "parliamentarians from the East (an official substitute for the strictly banned word of "Kurdistan")" without the least mention of Kurdish origin and a single word in Kurdish. The attitude of the State was one of denial and oppression. Racist theories were always in vogue; a Beyaz Kitap (White Book, i.e. papers issued by the Army) sounded that Kurds were solely Turks, unfortunate enough to walk on the thickened layers of snow on the high mountains, an action, which produced a "kart-kurt" sound that gave them the euphemism "Kürt",albeit they were "pure Mountain Turks". Left and Right, two main political currents of Turkish politics, which became two hostile camps in 1970s were both content with the official policy of forced assimilation. Turkish right saw Kurds as "alien stock not to be deprived from happiness of being Turks (i.e. being incorporated into Turkish market)", Turkish left as "people under a feudal yoke so harsh that they can't even learn how to speak properly".

The theories on “Turkish origin of Kurds” were supported by both civilian and military authorities. Foreword of the book serving such a cause, Doğu İlleri ve Varto Tarihi (A History of Eastern Provinces and Varto) of M. Şerif Fırat, a local Kurdish agha, was written by General Cemal Gürsel, then the president of the Republic and the book was distributed by the Army. Academicians were encouraged to write treatises and promoted for improving these theses. One of this sort, Dr. Abdülhaluk Çay, held post as a cabinet minister. Research people Dr. İsmail Beşikçi, Dr. Fikret Başkaya who opposed official approaches were imprisoned allegedly for “pursuing separatist actions”.

The accents in Turkish usage by Kurds had always been a source of entertainment for the Turkish public. Another element to present a comic effect was their "backwardness" a formal label of comparing Kurds to "bears" (a symbol of rudeness). "Kurd" (Harputlu / Haso) was a main comic character in the Ottoman puppet theatre Karagöz and improvised spectacle Ortaoyunu. However, so were many personalities of different ethnic origin and social strata in the Empire. By the foundation of the Republic, the "Kurd" happened to be an incarnation of ignorance, rudeness, and backwardness, qualities any right-minded Turkish citizen should not bear. The all-time popular comic flicks, such as Kibar Feyzo and Davaro, often written and directed by leftist protagonists, ridiculed the Kurdish culture in the name of a so-called "anti-feudal criticism".

These are not my views. I merely moved it as they are opinions.

My recent edits

Coolcat, here are the reasons for my last edits.

1. It might be logical to begin the article with a General heading but this isn't how articles are organised on Wikipedia. Every article has a general introduction with no heading.

2. The flag is not just the flag of the Kurdish Autonomous Region. It predates the KAR and is used throughout Kurdistan.

3. It makes sense for the introduction to have a short summary of the relevant history.

4. "Long revoked" in the introduction is not necessary and seems intended to push the idea that the Treaty of Sevres is no longer relevant.

5. Physical force conveys the same meaning but is more neutral than violence.

6. Please explain what is wrong with this section:

In Turkey, Iran, and Iraq, Kurdish guerrilla groups, known in the Kurdish culture as 'Peshmerga', have fought for a Kurdish state. In Northern Iraq, Peshmerga fought against Iraqi government before and during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and now police the Kurdish Autonomous Region there. Another guerrilla group, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) have fought an armed campaign in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran, in a conflict that has involved the deaths of over 30 thousand people.

Your alternative wording suggests that there are only Peshmerga in Iraq, suggest that the PKK is limited to Turkey, and explicitly blames the PKK for the 30 thousand deaths.

7. This article is called 'Kurdistan' not 'Kurdish inhabited areas of the middle-east' (or whatever). So it makes sense for it have section for each of the parts of Kurdistan.

Please respond to my reasons given here before you revert my edits. Iota 16:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I read your post after reverting, sorry. My bad. It wasnt intentional I will reverted it back to your version only so that you read this and discuss it like people, instead of random reverts like overgrown infants... -_-;;

1) General looked nice in my opinion. I dont really care. If there is a general section its easier to edit information there.

2) The flag only represents the Kurdish Autonomous Region. You will offend quite a lot of Kurds by claiming thats their flag is that thing. PKK made the Kurdish flag something else. There is no such thing as a Kurdish flag. The flag in question may be representing the Kurdish Autonomous Region or as I will refer it as KAR. KAR does not represent the Kurds throughout the world. It does not even represent Kurds in Iraq. KAR is not a country as well. You can only assign a national/nationalist flag to a country recognised by at least by another nation. Also officialy UN determines what is a country and what isnt.

3) I am not sure what do you mean by the "short story" but the story relating to PKK was the primary kurdish activity in Turkey and in the Surrounding countries. Their handy work was not plesant. PKK article has links to pictures that are disturbing at best.

4) Serves is the claim of these people. I placed it there for a reason. the article was revoked and will stay that way. Parties involved in the serves were European nations and the ottoman empier. The Ottoman Empier is gone. I doubt the European nations will want destability in the region. If that "thing" some how haunts back. At best there will be a middle eastern world war. No nation in midddle east wants borders change. Asside from the kurds, and Saddam's Iraq. No one wants change. Its their claim. An independent Kurdistan will be the battle ground of the middle east kurds will suffer most from such a war. So a Kurdistan should not exist. A relatively disorgnised group like PKK was responsible for so much violence. I can hardly imagine how much violence an independent Kurdistan can cause.

Kurds do not campaign for an independent Kurdistan. It doesnt benefit them in any way as it will officialy lead to a war. Not my oppinions, threat of the nations involved + extras like saudi arabia, russia and US too as they are there for now. Russia vs US is death. WW3 if you will. Not all Kurds, nor a majority want an independent Kurdistan. They want to be equals in the nations they are in. However there does exst a minority who atemted independence through violence.

5) Violence is the aproporate word. Phisical force is more like lifting weight. Violence is indiscriminate killing, precisely what happened.

6)

In Turkey, Iran, and Iraq, Kurdish guerrilla groups, known in the Kurdish culture as 'Peshmerga', have fought for a Kurdish state. In Northern Iraq, Peshmerga fought against Iraqi government before and during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and now police the Kurdish Autonomous Region there. Another guerrilla group, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) have fought an armed campaign in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran, in a conflict that has involved the deaths of over 30 thousand people.

"fought an armed campaign" sounds like an independece war. These people (PKK) are hated by both turks and kurds. I dont know how long you lived in the region. I lived there most of my life. The PKK was not fighting for a free kurdish state.

30,000 people (I prefer the digit version, shorter makes the horror more visible) died in Turkey. Thats the statistics for Turkey only. On other countries even more people died. I am not knowlegable of their statistics.

7) This article is called 'Kurdistan' however there is no such thing as Kurdistan. The map shows the Kurdish inhabited regions. Kurdistan officialy does not exists as far as wikipedia goes its completely fictional as otherwise its propoganda. 'Kurdish inhabited areas of the middle-east' (or whatever) because its wikipedia policy not to have propoganda and neutrality. Only a minority within kurds claim it.

8) Also Kurds dont fly a kurdish flag in Turkey. Such a flag does not exist. That flag represents Kurdish Autonomous Region and thats it. People who fought against saddam and against Turkey are two different organisations. Dont unify them thats a discrace to kurds.

9) Kurdish nationalists is as factual as Klingon nationalists. It cannot be a statement as there is no Kurdish country according to the views of all Earth nations and the UN.

I hate the idea of war hence I oppose Kurdistan. Like all discussions there always are two side. You appear to be a pro kurdistan side. Correct me if I am mistaken here. I do not, however spit my hate and apply the art of propoganda. All I want is neutrality. This is an Extremely fragile article as the number of deaths I and many others "lived" thorugh makes it very difficult to comprihend. --Cool Cat 08:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In answer to some of Coolcat's points:

Intro paragraph: I've changed nationalists to separatists (which I don't think should be controversial).

Agreed. --Cool Cat| My Talk 16:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(2) The flag: I've changed the wording so it states that it is flown by Kurdish separatists rather than by any old Kurds. Please bear in mind that the wording does not state that it is a "national flag" or that it has any 'official' status anywhere outside of the KAR. It is refered to as the 'Flag of Kurdistan' because that is the name given to it by its inventors and those who fly it. That's just how we handle naming issues on Wikipedia. Using the name does not imply acceptance that it is the 'actual' flag of an actual 'place'.

Agreed. Flag of Kurdistan should be renamed to the Kingdom of Kurdistan, the country that existed for a Brief period of time (between serves and Laussane), not officialy recognised by any country else than the countries signing the treaty of serves. --Cool Cat| My Talk 16:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(4) Sevres as 'long revoked': My objection to this phrase was that it seemed to be put there to push the POV that the treaty is no longer relevant. You've simply replied to this with a long argument attempting to justify that POV. It might be a very reasonable or even correct POV but it is still an opinion.

The serves will not return. The only reason I want to keep it is its the claim of the group of people who want an independednt Kuristan which itself is an opinion. Its something I will stay picky about. I by no means want or hope the return of the serves. :) --Cool Cat| My Talk 16:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(5) Physical force: I've changed physical force to force of arms. I don't think anyone will be confused about what the word means. You may feel that the PKK are guilty of "indiscriminate killing" (you might be right) but that is opinion.

That is fine as well. --Cool Cat| My Talk 16:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(6) Final paragraph of history:

I've altered the wording so it now says that the 30 thousand dead were specifically in Turkey.

You wrote: "fought an armed campaign" sounds like an independece war.

"Fought an armed campaign" simply means fighting using weapons. It doesnt imply anything about independence.

The PKK was not fighting for a free kurdish state.

If the PKK was not fighting for an independent state what would you say they were fighting for?

30,000 people (I prefer the digit version, shorter makes the horror more visible) died in Turkey

Your purpose in editing this article should be to make it as informative and neutral as possible. It is not legitimate to alter the wording in a sentence as a way of presenting a group in either a more positive or a more negative light. Please try to remember this.

People who fought against saddam and against Turkey are two different organisations. Dont unify them

The wording does not suggest that all 'Peshmerga' are members of the same group or that they share the same methods or aims (other than creating a Kurdish state). This is simply about the correct meaning of Peshmerga. The word refers to various guerrilla groups that are all very different.

I just think a distinction is necesarry between the two groups. --Cool Cat| My Talk 16:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(7) 'Turkish Kurdistan': Your objection here seems to be based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. This encyclopaedia has articles on topics that are real, fictional, theoretical, imaginary, ideological, sensible and stupid. Contrary to what you believe Wikipedia does include propaganda concepts. All that is not allowed is to report propaganda as fact. There is an article on Kurdistan because it is a concept that some people believe in and/or talk about. The same applies to Turkish Kurdistan. If we are describing the concept of Kurdistan we must describe its parts. What this amounts to is not saying there is a Turkish Kurdistan, just that the notional region of Kurdistan is believed to include the notional region of Turkish Kurdistan.

The problem with Turkish Kurdistan is, people living there dont refer to it as "Kurdistan" now people who call it Kurdistan is an opinion. --Cool Cat| My Talk 16:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On neutrality

I hate the idea of war hence I oppose Kurdistan. Like all discussions there always are two side. You appear to be a pro kurdistan side. Correct me if I am mistaken here. I do not, however spit my hate and apply the art of propoganda. All I want is neutrality. This is an Extremely fragile article as the number of deaths I and many others "lived" thorugh makes it very difficult to comprihend.

For the record, I do not have strong opinions on the Kurdish issue. I've become involved with the article because I saw you make very drastic changes to it and because you so obviously have strong opinions on the topic, and because people with strong opinions often make (sometimes accidentally) POV edits. I will take your word for it that you are serious about neutrality, but please remember that when we have strong opinions on an issue it is then that we must be most carefull. It is easy to correct POV that we disagree with. It is much harder to make sure our own edits are neutral. I only say this because at least one of your proposed changes seems to be an attempt to attack the PKK, rather than a legitimate NPOV edit. I'm refering to:

30,000 people (I prefer the digit version, shorter makes the horror more visible) died in Turkey

Iota 02:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We are mostly in an agreeent, I do have reservations however (as always) the PKK was declared a terrorist organisation by the EU and the US. They are as terrorist as Al-Quaida. That however can be discussed in PKK so thats fine. You have to understand the very existance of the entier article is quite repulsive to a LOT of people out there. While its not enough for a good number of people. --Cool Cat| My Talk 16:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the 30,000 people can be left out to the PKK article, or expressed as 30,000. --Cool Cat| My Talk 16:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am glad I am dealing with a reasonable person like you. All you want, as I see, is me purging my opinions, which I am tring but sometimes that can be a challenge ;). --Cool Cat| My Talk 16:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

This article is not neutral:

a)In the history section no reference has been made to Kurdistan history before WWI except a very brief sentence "Before WWI most Kurds lived within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire "Thats all.on the other hand majority of the article deals with the Kurdish history (and not kurdistan history )in the 20th century because it has a political meaning,and this support my view that the writers and editros of this aricle used their political opinions in this article.

b)In the introduction section ,there is no reference that this name "kurdistan" how appeared and from what time was used.

c)In the Turkish Kurdistan section ,This paragraph is completely biased and pure propaganda for turkey goverment .It completely omitted the 80 years histroy of turkish kurds.Moreever it deals with the iraqi kurds rather that turkish kurds.(kingdom of kurdistan was based in Soleymaniah)

d)In iraqi Kurdistan no reference has has been made to 1970-1975 kurdish autonomous region and also 1958 treatments between arab and kurds and also completely forgot the the kurdish state of sheikh mahmud in 1922-1925 and 1926-1928. -Jamshid H Jamshid

This discussion page

Coolcat has deleted some of Jamshid H's comments and in response Jamshid has deleted Coolcat's comments. Although I don't think much of Jamshid H's comments are exactly on topic we shouldn't really be deleting each others comments like this. I have restored both sets of comments but I've moved the whole Kurd's Vs. Kurdistan section to a new page, because the section has become really huge. I've also restored the comments moved for discussion section because I think it must contain at least some useful information that can be put back in the article if reworded a bit.

If we are going to keep discussing the Kurd's versus Kurdistan thing can people please stop having a historical debate about whether or not there is or should be such a thing as Kurdistan and remember the only relevant thing to discuss is what should be in the article, how it should be worded, etc. These are actually two separate issues. The second topic is relevant, the first is totally off topic and should be saved for usenet. Iota 16:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to revert my comments. His comments were hard to trace. My apologies if I offend someone (somehow) --Cool Cat| My Talk 11:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Behemoth are POV oriented, ~~he does not even read his Talk page I believe,~~ I know we should not bite Newb's but still... --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, BBC is a pro-Kurdish, "separatist" organization. Listen, Mr. Chauvinist, I am done with your stuff if you are sending these to my talk page. I doubt that you've ever read a book properly dealing with the articles you edit and/or manipulate. Please, mind your own business (i.e. computer engineering) and don't play the "great-Turkish-hero-who-stands-alone-against-people-who-want-to-divide-his-beloved-country". BTW, why didn't you revert "Northern" to your "Northernern"? The usage "Kurdistan of Turkey" (Kurdistanê Tirkiye) is regarded pacifist by hardline Kurdish organisations, which prefer to use "Northern Kurdistan" (Bakûrê Kurdistan) and I think this is another point you don't know either.

(un-signed) Behemoth

ku.wikipedia.org

This link moved to Kurdish language, the aproporate location. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Change in area numbers

I'd like to know why numbers were increased by over 2x. The map barely looks like the quarter of France. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The flag is good where it is. it cluters the text and makes it unreadable otherwise. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Flag is standard wiki when not up there. Look any country profile defacto or not. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I dont think this article is NPOV as it is. Kurdistan can refer to 1. Current largely Kurdish regions within sovereign states, or 2. to a desired name for a new homeland state, which does not yet exist. Without this treatment, it looks more like a POV article proclaiming the imporatance of an agenda named Kurdistan, over the partitioned regions which actually do now exist. Also, the claim of a "restored Kurdistan" is not valid, since the Kurdistan province was under rule of the Ottoman Empire, and not entirely autonomous. -==S V 19:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stevetigo, I've removed the NPOV dispute tag for the time being because I think it is a little premature. If you think the article is flawed please make some edits and if it ends up in an edit war then by all means put back the NPOV tag. Apart from anything else you have tagged the article but we are not to know exactly what changes you want to see made. Iota 00:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

I've undone some of the changes to the archiving of this talkpage made by Coolcat. This is because:

Material should not be archived until the talkpage becomes too long. Then only so much material should be archived off as is necessary to bring the page to a reasonable length. It's not appropriate to archive the entire page.
Archive (Kurds v. Kurdistan) should not have been renamed. It is a topic specific archive with material collated from various parts of the page, and it had a name appropriate to a topic specific archive. This is the practice on other talkpages. The content for numbered archives is not topic specific but merely an unorganised dump, in chronological order, of material found on the talkpage.

Iota 00:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- Well it was discussed and agreed on, wasnt necesary to keep, besides you suggetsed the archiveing. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Article should strictly be about the region NOT the people, ideology for the "free state" is releated, but we should not be carried away. Kurdish people article is out there.
- I do not see the relevance of the naming of an animal to a region related article. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 07:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - I do not see why some users insisting on refering me as Mr. Coolcat, its quite silly. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 07:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - And they do it again. Heh. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...

Iota, any suggestions to the article? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Questions for Coolcat

My first question is, why do you insist that the pictures used in this article should be from a template?

And to answer your question about the BBC external link ('I do not see the relevance of the naming of an animal to a region related article.'): If you read the BBC article, you will notice that it is not just about 'the naming of an animal'. It's about that the Turkish state want to rename three animals, in order remove their references to the people living in the region. Stereotek 08:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do not refer to me as mr. coolcat. stop it. Grow up be civil. I asked you not to meaning you will stop. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Negative concensius on issues with iota have been reached long befire you reached to this article. That weblink is not related to the topic. You simply revert articles add material which have been explained long ago. I will discuss this article with iota not you as I have discussed matters you claim were not resolved. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Templates make it easy to manage. I was planing on using the template on other articles. Its reusable text. I keep tables off of articles as Much as I can. The material is not likely to change. You may not "like" templates, I have a use for them, they dont change anything as far as the page is concerened, you have no reason to rever this. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who the heck deleted the template? Based on what concensius? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Explain to me why you reverted what you reverted. Or do not revert. I do not have time to waiste. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone randomly changed numbers, insisting on numbers that were made larger (by more than twice) is just wrong.
Do not simply revert, you do not have the god given gift to simply declare my edits as pov. If you want to be usefull, rewrite them. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article discussed in Kurds same stuff. I dont like repeting myself. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 17:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) All discusion should go there.

Kingdom of Kurdistan

I can't find any reference for the Ataturk quote. Is it in Turkish and has not been translated, or has it been paraphrased? If no source can be found, this should be removed. - FrancisTyers 08:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't find many references to the "Kingdom of Kurdistan" either and the ones I can find seem to refer to northern Iraq rather than southeastern Turkey, here are some:

Once in power, Mahmud quickly outstripped Britain's mandate, declaring himself the King of Kurdistan in November. While the British continued military operations against Turkish troops and rebels, Mahmud entered talks with the Turks to establish all of northern Iraq as an independent kingdom under Turkish protection. The British, who had granted autonomy to the Kurds to undermine Mahmud's support, had regained enough control over the situation to declare Mahmud ousted. He fled Sulaymaniya in the beginning of March, 1923, and Sulaymaniya was reoccupied by the British in May.

Another Kingdom of Kurdistan was declared at Palu in southern Turkey in February of 1925. Following a clash between Turkish policemen and supporters of Palu's Shaykh Said, the Shaykh was forced by continuing riots to declare rebellion. Over the next few weeks, the rebels moved quickly, seizing several nearby towns and declaring a local Kurdish noble King of an independent Kurdistan. By the end of March, the rebels had overrun an area of several hundred square miles. The Turkish government responded belatedly, but halted the rebel advances. The rebellion was swiftly crushed, and Shaykh Said was captured on April 14. Several hundred rebels, including the Shaykh, were executed in the aftermath.

I think this last source is probably the best one, however I can't find any good sources for this. Was the Kingdom called by another name? I might research it later if I have time.

- FrancisTyers 08:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

hello

Kurdistan, by and for Terrorist

I am writing this in the hope that some responsible and logical will understand and edit articles related to Kurds. As far as I see, separatist terrorist who could not succeed in terrorism are now usint Internet to do what they want that they could not do by killing people.

I am very sorry to see Wikipedia is commonly used to promote and advertise lies and grounds of terrorist claims.

Following article claims "Ataturk trained Kurds against British, then took control of their land with a trick"

[Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres] is prepared by British Kingdom, which "grants" a country for kurds.
Article belows says "Kurds were used againsts British, by promising a state by Ataturk" But British also wants a state for Kurds? NOW WHICH ONE IS A LIE?

The Fact

Most kurdish supported ottoman forces against British invasion. However some cooperated with British. Because this and most Wikipedia articles TRY TO SHOW THAT Turkish and Kurdish people are enemies, things are tied up with this lie below.

After the Treaty of Sèvres, Kemal Atatürk often refered to a "Turco-Kurdish cooperation" during the years of Millî Mücadele ("National Struggle"). This was in accord with acts of the Ankara government such as sending a team of instructors to train the Kurdish rebels, who were then fighting against British troops in modern day Iraq under the banner of the Kingdom of Kurdistan. Atatürk promised Kurdish people in North Kurdistan to respect the conditions of the Treaty of Sèvres, implying self-determination for the Kurdish people in exchange for their crucial help in defeating the Allies. However, as soon as victory over the allies was secured, publishing newspapers and speaking in Kurdish was forbidden, and the Turkish government in Ankara started a policy of denial and systematic suppression of the Kurdish identity. Kurds were referred to as "mountain Turks".

Like many other well-designed Kurd related articles, Kurds are shown as they are not Turkish. In fact, it is believed there are 72.5 nations currently live in Turkey. 0.5 is referred to Gypsy people.

Most of kurds would refer themselves as turkish like most other non-turk nations in Turkey. The term 'Turk' and 'Turkish' is used as Turkish citizen. As it is used in US, American or US citizen.

Propaganda of terrorist claims

What are our sources?

There has never been a country called Kurdistan. However maps existed always.

In this article Kurdistan is defined as if it is a state. Moreover, area called 'Northern Kurdistan' is exactly the same area which kurdish terrorist claimed and killed more than 30,000 people only in Turkey, knowing there is no chance to succeed.

You are letting people make propaganda of terrorists who kills civilians in a sovereign country.

There is no source, no background on this article. There is only support for separationist claims. You editors should feel responsible for this.

If you are telling me we support terrorism as a way of human rights, WRITE IT BOLD so I do not spend my time here explaining things. Otherwise you should seriously consider this article.

If Kurdistan article should exists, It should be clearly visible that have been claimed by terrorists. Let's be factual.

Here is an article about Kurds in Turkey, with references to Ottoman archives. Article about Kurds, in Turkish

According to Ethnologue Data from Languages of the World, authored by P. A. Andrews, there are only 5.852.000 people who can be counted as Kurdish.

Dude, this article you disguise as "Articles about Kurds" are only some propaganda issued by the magazine of the self-imposed "socialist" Turkish nationalist leader Gökçe Fırat Çulhaoğlu written by one of his minions. Please, don't try to fool these nice people because they cannot read in Turkish, salak herif!!! Furthermore, Peter Alford Andrews has never been an editor to Ethnologue, this is yet another lie of yours, mister... User:Behemoth

And if you will carry on vandalising this page, please sign your comments, else I will certainly delete them.

Protected

This page has been temporarily protected becase of repeated page blanking by various IPs. If the page blankers would like to do anything productive with the page, this is the place to discuss. Otherwise I'll lift it before too long. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Please leave this page protected. There are some regions of the world where the name you use to refer to a plot of land can cause violent passions to arise. This is clearly one of those places. However, to remove all mention of Kurdistan from the record would do a great tragedy to both the Kurdish people as well as to history/anthropology/sociology. If this page is left unprotected, vandals will delete it or twist it to suit their own agenda. Dave 02:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Greetings! Wikipedia has many such articles, about contentious topics that often cause people to edit passionately. However, Wikipedia's policy is to leave articles unprotected unless they are actively being vandalized at the moment, in the hopes that the back and forth between opposing sides can actually lead to a better, more neutral article. We try to avoid protection if at all possible; it's a short-term solution, not a long-term one. See Wikipedia:Protection_policy for more explanation. I am unprotecting this page in hopes that things have cooled down since the flood of page-blanking. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Sign your edits

~~Sign the fucks you wrote! Mindspillage~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.109.140.124 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 August 2005.

For the record, in case anyone was wondering, I did not write this. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

i looking for a flag of kurdistan please contact me at : crackwindobe@voila.fr

This is a pure propaganda page

This is a pure propaganda page. It spreads an immense lot of flasehoods about Kurds. Almost every sentence is absolute nonsense from the point of view of a non-partisan. Either it should be edited severlely or removed entirely from wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a separatist newspaper. Please, to express your political ideology you can publish a newspaper or make a website, don't use wikipedia for that. Thank you!

Bias

I really think this article is badly biased, until a person NPoVises it properly please do NOT remove the tag. Thanks. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You have to be more specific about these issues to add your tags Coolcat. -- Karl Meier 21:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No I have bias with the usse, a 3rd and unbiased person should proof read this article, please dont remove the templates, spesificaly the cleanup one, his article has horriible spelling and grammer and overal format. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said, be specific about your PoV concerns Cool Cat, or do not add these tags. I also suggest that you stop harassing me. -- Karl Meier 05:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, delete it all. I find every line unsalvagable... :P Like I said, someone whom knows nothing about the subject should Npovise this page. Please do not remove the templates as you will only cause me to restore them. I do not need to make spesific cases when this thing is screeming POV. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can't explain yourself and add some substance to your claims that the article is "screaming PoV", then I suggest you should stop wasting the editors time here. -- Karl Meier 20:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you cant see any pov on the older version of the article I suggest you read WP:NPOV --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)