Talk:Kurdistan/Archive 5

DELETED

I have deleted the portion of the article which blatantly states that the Kurds were later arrivals to the land we, rightfully, call Kurdistan. The Kurds, although not specifically known by that name, have lived in the area of Kurdistan for well over 9 thousands years, beginning with the Hurrians etc etc. They HAVE lived there for as long as the Assyrians or the so called Babylonians and Sumerians have. Northern Iraq cannot be claimed by any of those groups exclusively. If you do wish to write about the Assyrian or other populations who do live in Kurdistan, do not make it so fucking biased next time, or I will continue to delete it. P.S. there is a fucking distinction between Assyrians and Kurdish Christians. They are both completely separate groups.

Wikify

The article is only about Kurdish people and their history which both have their own pages. I think we should improve the article by adding info about other sides of the issue i.e. geography, economiccal situation, militarization of the region, even cliamte etc... Thanks. Mesopotamia 00:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to talk about the other peoples living in "Old Kurdistan!" Kurds, Persians, and Azeris are not the only people living there. Those other peoples identities shouls be included.

Mannaeans

I suggest to add Mannaeans article to the history section. The reason is that the center of Mannaean Kingdom was in Mahabad, a Kurdish city in western Iran, which is part of the geo-cultural region of Kurdistan.[1]

Heja Helweda 17:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

KURDS ARE ETHNIC IRANIANS

The individuals that are not to be trusted and have a anti-Iranian agenda are Mesopotamia , Aucaman , and Heja Helweda . Do not trust them and read through the history and see the changes they made and when they provide evidence you must all double check. Also look at the discussions and you can see the methodology of their agandas. Mesopotamia fabricated information and pushes it. Aucaman pretends that he wants compromise, but is in favour of the vandals and false information. It is so transparent. Heja Helweda gives half truths, which are lies. Like the genetic information. Everyone read it carefully. Irani means Iranian. it sys Kurds are in the same ethnic cluster as Iranis. If you look at that whole article on its direct source you will see that the individuals who placed it there are liers who changed the information that actual study says Kurds are Iranians. ALso please look at all of Heja Helweda contributions as well as the others and you will see what is on their minds. MY SUGGESTION IS TO GO EDIT THEIR ARTICLES BECAUSE I SEE A LOT OF MISTAKES. Heja Helweda is abusing this site.

I don't know about others but you're abusing the site by making personal attacks and being rude towards contributors. Try to help the site by adding your thoughts on the article and providing evidence with it not by attacking people. Finally, Kurds have a relation with Iranians but I don't think they are descendant of the Iranians. If you believe so you need good manuscripts to back it up. Ozgur Gerilla 22:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What's an "ethnic Iranian"? Nymos 00:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Their Language is mix of fars, arabic and turkish. So why you ask that stup.d question. onur80

Kurdish is not "a mix of fars, arabic and turkish". Kurdish is an independent language and not a "mix" of other languages it has a long history and has no relation with arabic and turkish at all. It is related with Farsi but is not a "mix" or dialect of Farsi. The relationship between kurdish and Farsi is like German and Danish. So your statement is not historicly or linguisticly correct.

Kurdish is not even a single language. They have dialects which are different from each other. Like Kurmançi and Zaza. You have to learn the other if you are native to one. So when you say Kurdish which one you mean? You can just check the Kurdish wikipedia to see that. They have 2 intro text. --Gokhan 04:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish is a completely separate language from Arabic, Turkish and Farsi. It has been influenced, no doubt greatly, by Farsi and other Iranian languages, but it contains separate, older, and non-Indo-European words which are unique to the indigenous Kurdish people. Just as English adopted many Latin and Greek elements, Kurdish did so with Iranian languages, albeit to a much greater degree as the Greeks and Etruscans did not invade Britain and subjugate its people. This cannot be denied - it is pure and simple FACT. Kurds are NOT Iranian people ETHNICALLY. They speak a language which has been transformed into one which can be called Iranian, but that is all. If history and linguistics is not enough to prove this fact, then DNA is. There are many studies into this area as well, I suggest you read up on this before making your STUPID FUCKING CLAIMS!! YOU FUCKING ARSEHOLES ARE REALLY STARTING TO GET ON MY FUCKING NERVES. WHY MUST YOU COMPLICATE THINGS BY BASING YOUR CLAIMS ON NON-FACTUAL "INFORMATION"

?? WHY CAN'T YOU JUST ACCEPT THE FACTS. FOR GOD'S SAKE, DROP YOUR PETTY AGENDA AND DO SOME REAL FUCKING OBJECTIVE RESEARCH.

Kurds, like Tajiks, speak a form of Persian. Unlike Tajiks, their language is invaded with words from Arabic, Turkish, and several other languages, because Kurds are too illiterate and primitive to know Persian fully. Those who say Kurdish is a totally different language than Persian must be kidding. Persians, for instance, count "yek, du, se, char, penc, shesh..." and so forth, and so do Kurds! So either Kurdish is Persian (as one of the earliest aspects of a newly developing language are numbers, and objects like sun, water, flower, etc.) or Kurds are so (blatantly racist hatred deleted) so they learned them from Persians. (Just check out English. English count, for instance "one, two, three..", the German count "ein, zwei, drei..." or English say "water, sun, house...", and German say "wasser, sonne, hause...". Got the point?

Sorry, but kurds are not like Tajiks. Kurdish is a indoeuropean language like persian. The example words you mentioned are not all equal they are similar and they are very old words. You can find similarities to other indoeuropean languages e.g. for "water"(lat. aqua, span. agua, french eau, avest. ap, sanskr. ap, pers. ab, kurd. aw; http://www.boehmgeol.ch/de/wasser/sprachenw.php?action=indogermanisch). The numbers are similar but not equal, either. In persian "four" is "chahar", in kurdish it is "chwar" or "char", "five" in persian is "penj", but in kurdish it is "pens" and so on. Our comment is worthless. DaraG

Kurdistan?

Can we have some academic sources of anyone else beside Kurdish nationalists recognising such a thing as Kurdistan (Land of Kurds)?! --Kash 17:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• • There are no academic sources that state there is a "Kurdistan". The sources cited below are "made-up" by Kurds.

Yes offcourse!

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9369506 Diyako Talk + 19:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is not the full article and is distorted. User:Diyako does not know left from right on this issue and only fabricates information. He Just wants to push his rhetoric that gives a political make-over to Kurds. 69.196.139.250 01:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9369506 Britannica is my POV? Your Iranian friends added that sentence i did not. You even can delete it. I do not disagree. and please do not bold the word "jerk" to me in tour comment.

Diyako Talk + 02:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry your source does not use the word 'Land of Kurds', please see -stan for more info. --Kash 13:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

http://0-www.search.eb.com.library.uor.edu/eb/article-9046466

Diyako Talk + 15:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Strange..There is no mention of Armenia for the location at here have they missed this out? if Armenia is included, then that'd make a strange looking geographical location! I will leave it until an expert can comment.

Also I noticed in your link.. Persian Kordistan and Arab Kurdistan are these the proper names for Iranian Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan? --Kash 15:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No they are not you have just exposed his lack of credin\bility on the subject. 69.196.139.250 06:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Nuage bulut 16:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Excuse me, but this article is just the nonsense fiction of some Kurdish nationalists. There is no place such as kurdistan, yes I'm repeating, and there will NEVER be one. It is ridicilous that some people claim a region they hadn't even fought for their land. This article is just a lame attempt to make people with no idea on the subject believe that there is kurdistan. Funny it still hasn't been removed.

Your ignorance and lack of historical knowlege is embarrasing.

Kurdistan Litterarily means the land of the Kurds. As -istan means land as in HindISTAN (the land of the indians), KazakISTAN (land of the Kazaks) also England is called EnglISTAN in Kurdish. The -istan is part of the kurdish language another example is the word forest, DarISTAN (lit. land of the trees).

Wrong tag!

Cleanup has its own tag !!!! {{cleanup-date|March 2006}} why you put pov tag ??????? Diyako Talk + 16:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Because article has fine grammer and spelling. Material covered is bad taste. What about this article explains kurdish culture? Nothing. It only talks about kurdish independence movement(s), displays a flag and even talks about Kurdish ecomonmy and militarization. Looks like a country article to me and not a geo-cultural region. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Climate and historical atractions are photo galeries... Wikipedia is not a tourist guide. Kurdish nature? Come on! How is nature kurdish?

The only source is "Essays on the Origins of Kurdish Nationalism, edited by Abbas Vali"....

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurdistan is a militazied, undeveloped geocultural region. what is wrong with that? You want citiation? off course we should provide. Have u any other concerns? Ok you can ask admins for mediationDiyako Talk + 17:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you aren't dictating this article or bulliying me. And one being an admin cannot interfere with article like that.

Who is we? Kurdish government? Anfan? Starfleet intelligence? Other wikipedians?

One minor issue: Define the borders for me? Who gets to decide? You? Me? CIA? Some random Texas A&M prof?

Geo cultural region has to do with CULTURE, I see no evidence of culture. All I see is a region portrayed and treated as a country with flag and map and all... By definition a geocultural region cannot be confined to provinces with artificial borders.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been asking this but none could answer. It is now in the archive. Flag shall be removed as it belongs to a terrorist movement trying to estabilish a country. And the flag represents the proposed country, while article is about a historic/cultural region. --levent 08:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it a fact that there are millions (10 - 40?) of ethnic Kurds living in the areas shown, and they want to be recognized as Kurds? And since millions of people consider themselves Kurds, and want to establish their own country, with their own flag, its something to be considered on a web page. For the flag, I think it should say just what it is: That only millions of Kurds (if not all Kurds) consider it their own (apparently, but if there are any Kurds here, please let us know which flag you would prefer), and stress that it is NOT an actual country recognized by other countries. Because for a country to be a country, the US (or Europe, or NATO) needs to recognize it. Or can it still be a country if a another little country recognizes it? ----- One other note on flags is, many different organizations have flags, even companies, or similarly, for families, family crests (which resemble flags), and also, countries from history, that are no longer there, also had flags, and that can be shown for historical significance. So I vote, keep the flag, and state that it is not recognized by other countries. But to not show it is like pretending it does not exist --User:NYC-ALB 2006 March 16.

I have made this suggestion several times before, surprisingly without any of the Kurdish editors showing interest in it: To discuss issues of Kurdish separatism, dedicate a page to it, rather than spreading separatism-related issues allover Wikipedia in places where actually other things should be discussed. Most of the content of this page should be moved to a page with a name such as Kurdish Separatism or Separatist Movements among the Kurdish People, or Kurdish Efforts for an Independent State, or something like that. In the present way, the article could essentially be renamed to those. Another option would be to create a separatism page, additionally keep this one and change it into a cultural article, which is what it should be. Again, probably if you create an article which deals with Kurdish culture, you could essentially merge it with the already existing Kurdish People article. Shervink 15:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Your POV is quite irrelevant. Maybe you are unfamiliar to writting articles or at least the issue of Kurdistan. Kurdistan is a place on this planet. It has a geography, a history. This region has been politically, economically dinstinct from its other neighboring regions. it has a people, its people are distinct from their neighboring ethnic groups. I do not know what you mean by limiting its stuff to only cultural issues. If you are really unfamiliar with Kurdistan issue then I agree to write the article the same way as credible encyclopedias do.Diyako Talk + 16:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Your pov is also irrelevant, drop the hostile attitude.

You are saying kurds are completely unrelated to anyone else, is that it? Region is a geo cultural region. Firstly you cannot just display information regarding kurds. You will have to explain every minority and majority living there. Not just kurdish politics, kurdish history, kurdish flag. Or esle article is one sided and frankly pointless. Also article should be limited to culture since after all thats the purpose of this article. History should be trimed to nada as we have a seperate article for that as middle east has a VAST history to say the least. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that every response of yours to a comment that I have made starts with the words Your POV? Which part of my suggestion was POV? It was a suggestion, in good faith, in order to bring more organization into the Kurdish issues on WP. Do you realize that I am suggesting to discuss Kurdish separatism on WP? Is that not what you want? What is the problem with it? I am quite familiar with writing articles, not only on Wikipedia, but also in scientific journals. I am also very familiar with issues of the Middle east, especially those of the Kurds and other Iranian peoples. Please stop insulting me at each and every occasion. Shervink 16:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

No, I've not asked for creating that article which by itself is a good suggestion. but I wonder why some people wish to remove irrelevant info from this article. the article still is a stub and if you are familiar with the issue of Kurds and their struggles, uprisings, poverty, lack of primary human rights then please help wikipedia by creating that article. maybe we can use info from that to expand this one.Diyako Talk + 16:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is not whether you asked me to create an article. The point is whether you agree with it. I am quite busy unfortunately, and so I leave it to others to start the article. I think it would be a valuable one if written impartially. The suggestion was to move info from this article to that one, not vice versa. This article defines itself as a cultural one. If you have an article on Kurdish politics then that's where Kurdish politics should be discussed, not here. I'm sure you understand my point. It is quite clear. Whether you accept it is something else, and quite frankly, I don't care! Shervink 16:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Your suggestion is quite irrelevan. there are or there will be many articles on Kurdish culture or other Kurdish cultural related articles. But Kurdistan (THIS article) is not on kurdish culture but on the land of the Kurds, a region on this planet. This region has a history. this history has been shortly explained here (on the article). the same as any other enciclopedia. I belive that credible and neutral encuclopedias are acceptable, What u think? are not they?!

Diyako Talk + 17:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I find myself once again in the unfortunate situation of discussing with you, Diyako. There is no point in discussing since you have no interest in finding out the truth. Your objective is to prove you are right, not to learn, and so I - once again - quit dealing with you here. As a last remark, there is no reason to have several articles in WP on Kurdish culture. One is completely sufficient. I already stated that I agree with keeping this article, but you should make its content more relevant. Dedicate another page to separatism, and if you can still make this article sufficiently informative and distinct from that of the Kurdish people, keep it. I have no problems with that, so I don't understand why you are attacking me. Shervink 17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Dear shervink, I'm neither pushing my POV nor attacking you, never. but the page does not discuss Kurdish separatsim at all. It is small parts of the history of this region. The history of this region is Struggle and blood. Just looks like separatism! but it is a relevant fact.Diyako Talk + 17:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Geez and I thought there was pov pushing... </sarcasm> --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute?

OK, what exactly is disputed here? Make a list of very specific concerns. Aucaman^Talk 18:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

For one article portrays kurdistan as a country. A flag is displayed and even a map establishing artifical borders. This article supposed to explaina geo-cultural region. What it should have is stuff related to culture. I am also questioning the necesity of this article when we have Kurdish people explaining kurdish culture (or at least its supposed to) we do not have an article for "Land of the latinos" or "Land of the Blacks" on US related topics.

There is excessive coverage of history (this article is not the place) and remove history and you have a bare stub.

Remaining material talks about "usual definition of Kurdistan" for example. There is no usual definition of Kurdistan according to the lead (The exact borders of Kurdistan are hard to define.) Hence artcles factual acuracy is disputed, article is self conflicting.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't know what you're talking about. For the article to be factually inaccurate, you should be able to point at to a sentence, paragraph, or statement and say "this is not correct!" Exactly which part of the article is not correct? Maybe you mean to put in an NPOV dispute tag? Aucaman^Talk 04:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• using the map and other related material in the article is encouraged. You just keep repeating Kurdistan is not a country. it has nothing to do witth the matter.Diyako Talk + 19:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC) You do it for no good reason. but I'm happy that wikipedia is an internationally project, and Kurdistan article is not alone. Diyako Talk + 19:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Acuman how come when someone clearly explains things to you that you disagree with you do not understand? You are being very problamatic and counter-productive. FOr a change address the problems and concerns instead of pushing them aside or waiting them out with your allies. 69.196.139.250 05:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand his problems, but none of them are factual accuracy concerns. Which part of the article is not factually accurate? Aucaman^Talk 16:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The usage of the term "kurdistan" is factually inaccurate. You can NOT see a kurdistan when checking an Atlas for instance. The usage of the term may only be accurate if the Turkish government announces: "From now on, the ..... part of our lands is named kurdistan" which is virtually impossible. (This also means that the usage of the map, too, is inaccurate) The usage of "kurdish economy and militarization" is inaccurate too. There is no such thing as kurdish economy, there is Turkish Economy. Nuage bulut 16:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, yes you can see "Kurdistan" on an atlas, like National Geographic for example. If you don't believe me I can scan it for you. But I do agree that the term should only be used in a geographic way on Wikipedia, not politically. —Khoikhoi 01:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see it along with the article to see it's usage purpose. It won't make a difference, though. Since it is NOT an official name, and National Geographic is NOT an official source. If you show me an official announcement by the Turkish Government stating the land's name as kurdistan, i'll be convinced. 18:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was offical. The fact of the matter is, most sources show Kurdistan as a geographic region. —Khoikhoi 18:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Most sources? You could only give NG as an example and now you say most sources. Even if a million sources show kurdistan as a region, which they don't, the usage is still inaccurate because it is NOT official. The word kurdistan does not have any meanings when the name is not recognised by the government. Even you said that it's not official so I'll simply demand a deletion.

Ok, I'll give you sources:

Encyclopædia Britannica: Kurdistan - traditional region, an extensive plateau and mountain area inhabited mainly by Kurds, including large parts of what are now eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran and smaller parts of northern Syria and Armenia.

Columbia Encyclopedia: Kurds - a non-Arab Middle Eastern minority population that inhabits the region known as Kurdistan, an extensive plateau and mountain area in SW Asia (c.74,000 sq mi/191,660 sq km), including parts of E Turkey, NE Iraq, and NW Iran and smaller sections of NE Syria and Armenia.

Dictionary.com: Kurdistan - An extensive plateau region of southwest Asia. Since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, it has been divided among southeast Turkey, northeast Iraq, and northwest Iran, with smaller sections in Syria and Armenia.

Please show me a source that says "Kurdistan" isn't are region. And what's with this "offical"? It's already acknowledged that it's not a political region. Is Tibet "offical"? No, the TAR is, which only comprises a small portion of the actual region. And what about Iranian Azarbaijan? It is by no means "offical", yet it's still a region.

If you still want to delete the page, please see our articles for deletion page and read the instructions. Selam. —Khoikhoi 05:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Were these the sources? Let's start with the first one. It says "now eastern Turkey," which means THERE IS NO PLACE CALLED KURDISTAN ANYMORE. The articles you have given explains the once existing kurdistan. None of them claim that the region exists now. Whereas the article on Wikipedia explains the once existing region as though it exists now. If you want a similar example, when the Byzantine Empire existed, Constantinople comprised a smaller part than the current day Istanbul and was called Constantinople. But guess what.. Constantinople DOES NOT exist ANYMORE. Istanbul does. Besides, the name is not official so it doesn't matter even if a million websites use the term. (I'm tired of repeating myself so pleace understand it this time) As for the official thing, it doesn't matter to me whether other people used unofficial region names or not. If they did, it is wrong too. I'm sure their situation is different, though. And come on.. it's obvious that no source will just say "kurdistan is not an official region" so it's not so wise to ask for one. If it was official, it would be listed in the list of the regions of Turkey. You said it's not a political region right? Then what region is it do you claim?? What the article says in the first line contradicts with what is written below it. For instance, how can a non political region have a seperate economy and military? I assume my points are clear and I am right to ask for a deletion. The only article I would approve of would be a "the place Kurds are living" that explains the historical value of the place without using the name kurdistan.

As I said, you're more than welcome to nominate it for deletion. —Khoikhoi 17:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

See, you can't even reply to what I say. It will be hard for the page to be deleted though. As most of the admins at wikipedia do not choose to be openminded.

It's not onnly admins who vote at AfD, in fact, most of the people that vote aren't admins. —Khoikhoi 19:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The article clearly explains that it is not a country in the first line, Kurdistan (literally meaning "the land of Kurds") [7] is the name of a geographic region and a cultural region in parts of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Armenia, and Syria inhabited by Kurds. It is not an independent state. About history, the region clearly has a history and it should be discussed, but it can be summarized a bit. Since I don't see any major dispute, I am removing the tag.Heja Helweda 02:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh so we can write self conflicting articles... I see a major dispite, firstly its a proposed county, it has the category. Do not remove the tag and do not rush things, this would be in everyones best interested. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, who's said Kurdistan is a country? Aucaman^Talk 12:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont know/care, article still has the category. Also. Flag is inaproporate if it isnt a country as a region cannot be about just kurds.

Why inst GAP mentioned?

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Flag is not a good excuse. All US states and Canadian provinces have their own flag, yet none of them is a country. Using a flag does not automatically translate into being a country. I don't see any serious arguement.Heja Helweda 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

USA and Canada are federal states, that's why and the flags of states/provinces are recognized by the federal governments. Using especially the flag in this article is idealogical propaganda.--Kagan the Barbarian 12:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

GAP, Good suggestion, the reason is because no one has tried to write on. such things should be mentioned.Diyako Talk + 20:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me answer to the GAP question. It is not included because it won't help Kurdish nationalists make promotions of their fictional region. Nuage bulut 16:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Kurdistan IS an offical region. there is a kurdistan in irag and a kurdistan in iran. turkey is not the only county with parts of kurdistan in it. Pure inuyasha 00:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Then someone should take off the information regarding the part of "kurdistan" which is claimed to be in Turkey. It is not an official region in Turkey so the borders of "kurdistan" in the map should be diminished to other countries excepting Turkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.207.137 (talk • contribs)

Map and flag has to be removed

I am not against this article but I am against it being used to promote a seperate Kurdistan state. The map and flag are furtively being used for this purpose. They should be removed otherwise this article is a tool for an idealogy.--Kagan the Barbarian 10:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The map is fine. It's just showing an ethnic map of where Kurds mainly live in the Middle East. I find it to be helpful, how certain people interpret it is something else. There's also nothing wrong with the flag, there are many articles about separatist movements that show the flag, besdies, it's not saying anything like "Free Kurdistan". --Khoikhoi 22:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What is this flag doing here? This is becoming a farce instead of an encyclopedia. I suggest an impartial person/admin mediates this issue. In our part of the world, a flag means statehood. This article do not reflect a country or a federative state. The flag clearly is put there for political purpose. I immediately demand a mediator for this issue. Is there a place in Wikipedia where I can demand this? --Gokhan 08:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, not necessarily. Many ethnic groups without states have flags, and many Wikipedia articles show them. Examples: Assyrian people, Tibet, Western New Guinea, Crimean Tatars, Sami people, Aymara. Yes, I know Kurdistan is only a geographic region, but it's predominate inhabitants are Kurds, and it doesn't say "Flag of Kurdistan", it just say "Kurdish flag". I think a mediator is only necessary when there's a conflict that two users cannot solve, but here's the link anyways: WP:MC. —Khoikhoi 08:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

see also: WP:RFM, however it is for mediation between users, not mediation of specific content issues. I agree with Khoikhoi that the map and flag are fine; their presence does not constitute advocacy. --Moby 08:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I know you guys are good in this. I cannot try to compete, I feel so tired and hopeless. My wife will soon ban me from even reading Wikipedia. I'll just shut my mouth now :) --Gokhan 09:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on man, don't give up that easily! Well, if you must, you must. But FYI, I do not support the actions of the PKK, or of any terrorist organization of that matter. I think that they should come to a peaceful solution, and that includes all of the PKK. —Khoikhoi 09:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't feel ganged-up on. I wrote my above comment before reading Khoikhoi's and had an edit conflict because he saved first. That we both responded at the same time is simply a coincidence. You've spoken up on a number of controversial topics today and all-in-all this is good. Controversial topics can be quite frustrating -- trust me, I know this. (and I just had another edit conflict!) --Moby 09:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Khoi+Moby, thanks. After our government allowed publications and media in Kurdish, I'd thought it was a good step towards peace. I was hopeful. But still bombs are exploding, people are dying. Each week young men in military service are sent home to their families in coffins covered with flags. Today there was a bomb in Hakkari injuring soldiers, children and civilians. In contrast, in Europe and in southeastern mountains there are a lot of bitter Kurds invested too much in their cause, they can't stop now. A generation grew up with PKK terror since it started in 1984/5. These kind of mutual things create a tension between people in Turkey. It's not good for a healthy social environment. I know from outside it may seem different, I lived in Europe for 5,5 years. I know some things are different there. However as much as Kurds are our own citizens, we Turks also are :) And I don't want to live in fear or die in a PKK bomb attack in Istanbul just because Apo isn't released from prison. Me and my family also have a right to exist as well. In Istanbul I had armenian, jewish, half-german, kurdish friends and we didn't have any problems before. Anyway it's refreshing to see your approach in this matter. Let's keep the mutual good will going and work together to create better and healthier articles in Wikipedia. --Gokhan 09:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The issues in Turkey involving the PKK, Kurds, and Armenian Genocide do not get a lot of coverage in the rest of the world. Maybe it's just that there are lot of people dying in other places that keep pushing these issues "below the fold". When situations get nasty, people don't forget wrongs (and there are plenty of wrongs by all sides in all such situations). Social wounds take time to heal, and in this case it will likely take a generation of good-will. There are signs of progress but there is still much to do. I believe that progress on articles here contributes, in a small way, to progress in the real world. --Moby 09:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

As per Khoikhoi and others above, there's nothing wrong with using maps and flags. But if it makes you feel better, we can make a flag a little smaller and move it further down in the article. But there's no reason to remove it. A lot of places have their own flags. Aucaman^Talk 22:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the flag kinda has to be on the large side because the caption (complete with 6 footnotes!) is extensive. It would appear that this has been rather contentious. --Moby 09:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I was going to joke why don't we put a national anthem as well and to my suprise today, hell there is one. What else do we require to declare this new country on Wikipedia? Currency perhaps? Hmm, Kurdish Dollar? What else? Political system? Saddamesque regime of Massoud Barzani?

Is this article political or social? If it is social then why do we have so many seperatist suggestions in it such as the flag? Don't tell me it is innocent, the same flag and anthem are on the Iraqi Kurdistan page. If it is political and since Kurdistan has no political existence then isn't that idealogical propaganda on Wikipedia? Political part of this should be examined in another article such as Kurdistan Seperatism or something like that and this page should link to it. And keep in mind that Kurds consist of many tribes and not all of them are pro-Kurdistan.

My main concern is Turkish Kurdistan article. Open a political map of Turkey, can you see a Kurdistan? Turkey is not a Banana Republic like current day Iraq, we have our constitution, laws and a map thankfully; Wikipedia has to respect that if it claims to be neutral. We already have a Kurds in Turkey article and it is sufficient. Now as an admin you tell me, is Wikipedia to be informative or provocative?--Kagan the Barbarian 09:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

So what do you think?--Kagan the Barbarian 14:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I repeat the infobox has to go. Which legal or Wiki language you want me to speak for you to do something about it. And the problem with the map is there is no consensus about it, choose from one of these [2], [3].--Kagan the Barbarian 15:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I thought you are an admin, apperantly you are not, sorry.--Kagan the Barbarian 07:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

kurdistan?

Article is almost looking like a country article. What is trying to be done? --levent 23:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

THere are USers using Fake sources

The sources that say Kurdish is banned in Iran are not even sources. They led to nothing. One only led to to a Google search. This is suppose to give credibility to these arguments. How could this be allowed after I even pointed out. if my removal of that statment is reverted I am giving due warning that the Administration will be getting involved for falsifying information and vandalism. This is giving fuel to the people who want to remove the Kurdish flag so I suggest all aprties keep their eyes open. Once again I specifically warn user:Acuman and user:Heja Helweda not to revert this vandalism and falsehood. 69.196.139.250 00:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright user:Diyako is using fake sources that have nothing to do with his claim. Basically he is fabricating. YET ANOTHER SOURCE, EH! Your vandalism has gone to far the Admin will get involved here. The three sources he has placed are not even sources they are just random webpages. This is how this site is being vandalalized! 69.196.139.250 01:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You can listen to this non-Kurdish and reliable source.

Diyako Talk + 15:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish tactic on this article

is closing their eyes and ears to any kind of dispute and hoping to get this obviously idealogical page running as long as possible. The flag, the infobox, this page is a joke. I gave my reasons, remove the flag, remove the infobox. If you don't, I will, this page is not under your dictate.--Kagan the Barbarian 07:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The reasons have been explained. If you still have any concerns on this matter it is a good suggestion to ask a mediation. Diyako Talk + 15:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Diyako, I don't mean to be hostile but you have to compromise with people here and rid this article of seperatist undertones if you don't want to get it vandalized till the end of free editing in Wikipedia. Regards.--Kagan the Barbarian 18:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

If you think that link to Britannica is a reliable source then why not add the info about origins of Kurdish people in Kurds article? It says ethnic origins of Kurdish people ae uncertain. [4]

Also that source does not give exact numbers for area, just an approximation. It does not mention anything about national anthem or such. It has no autonomy in Turkey. There can't be an native language for the area. What are the sources for these?

Why don't you just turn the page into a country article so people will understand that this is a joke and just laugh and pass on? --levent 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Joe 02:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)My suggestion for a source is Robert Fisk's book The Great War for Civilisation. It's recent, and I don't have the full bibliographic reference to it, so if someone else has the added details, it should be added. An epic backgrounder on the Middle East.

Which articles should have the tag 'Category:Kurdistan'

All, please see the discussion at Category talk:Kurdistan (Which articles should have the tag 'Category:Kurdistan'), and weigh-in if you like. Thanks, --Moby 14:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the invalid information under the flag

Flying the Kurdish flag in Iran is nnot a criminal offence and the cited sources do not verify this. 69.196.139.250 04:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Here is the correct link [5].Heja Helweda 03:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Continuing problems?

Okay if people have some problems with this article they should probably be specific and propose solutions. Saying "The article is wrong", "There's no such thing as Kurdistan", "Kurdish Kurdistan doesn't exist", and other such statements are NOT helpful at all. I'm not sure what exactly you want me to do. If you want the article deleted by all means go ahead and request an AfD.

There are some very legitimate concerns about the political ramifications of the idea of a Kurdish Kurdistan, and this definitely deserves some discussion. The problem seems to be that some people want to remove information - instead of adding the critical points of view and letting the readers decide for themselves.

In any case I appreciate people's openmindedness about this issue and their willingness to discuss some of the differences. Aucaman^Talk 10:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason we want it to be removed is because kurdistan is NOT NOT NOT an official name for the area. If it is, give me some evidence. Would you all accept it if I pointed a place and say "This place is now called the Land of Nuage" and created an article on it? I don't think so. This situation is no different. If they really want an article on their culture, they should make a page called Kurds. Nuage bulut 14:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Kurdistan is at least the official name for parts of the area. There are regions named Kurdistan in both Iraq and Iran. The Turks obviously have a problem about accepting that their country includes a large minority whose rights are daily trampled down. This should not be an excuse for demanding that wikipedia continue the same discrimination. --Vindheim 14:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course Kurdistan is a real place -- and real places. The Turks should take a read of East Timor to see what could happen if they don't move towards a more just approach to the issue of Kurds. The endless arguments about official status are just strawman arguments. --Moby 14:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You are forgetting that I actually like in Turkey and know more than you about my country. You just know what the media reflects you. You do not question it. Even a parrot can do that.. Prove me that it is a real place accepted by the government then. Your claim that "kurdistan" is an official name means that you have absolutely no idea about Turkey. Oh btw, the issue between Turks and Kurds is not any worse than the relations between White Americans and African Americans or Indians.

What discrimination are you talking about? Did I ever claim that there are no Kurds? I didn't. Most of the Kurdish people take what they deserve in my opinion, do you have any idea how many people were killed by PKK? I do accept my country includes a minority, but NOONE can rename any part of my country. Especially not a minority group. So some people should solve their own problems and THEN try to solve others'.

Kurdistan only existed in history. Is there Byzantine Empire now? NO. So there is no Kurdistan either. The area may only be called the South Eastern part of Turkey.

So your argument, mr, No Name, seems to be that since Kurdistan is not the official designation of any part of Turkey, then Kurdistan does not exist. However the fact remains that Kurdistan is the official designation of provinces in both Iraq and Iran, and also that kurds are the majority in parts of present day Turkey. --Vindheim 17:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to reply, be reasonable. At least try to reply to my points. I don't care if it is official in the other countries, but it is NOT official in Turkey. It doesn't matter if Kurds live there or not, only the government can name a region, not the people living there. As you could answer to none of my points above i won't state new ones. My name is not the main point there so it doesn't seem wise to state it. I am "Nuage_bulut" I just didn't log in if it is your concern. You don't have to agree, but I at least demand better understanding of what I say.

You keep stating that Kurdistan does not exist. It does. I was there a few weeks ago, it is even stamped in my passport : Iraq Kurdistan Region. So your argument is at most valid for the Kurdish areas of Turkey. I agree that officiaøl names are only given by governments, but many areas are also known by informal names. The name "kurdistan"# implies an area where Kurdish people live. Do you agree that in some areas of Turkey there do live Kurdish people?--Vindheim 19:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course I do, many Kurds live there in fact. But this artcile has economy, military & even a flag in it. I am no way opposed to an article about a culture, but if the article has other reasons.. I do not say that kurdistan doesn't totally exist, but it just doesn't in Turkey. I don't know about the other countries. I know this article creates confusion for the foreiners for it is made as if Kurdistan is seperate. I know the first line states that it is not, yet the below information contradicts it. Nuage bulut 19:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Vindheim, how can we make this clearer? Plain and simple: There's no region, section, part, place, city, village, or anything called by that name in Turkey. Turkey is not a federation nor it's occupied, so we don't have separate passport stamps, names nor states. There's no such name used in Turkey. Except the separatist terrorists and their supporters. Is that clear? Thanks. --Gokhan 08:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Som people living in Turkey, mainly the Kurdish part of the population, use the name Kurdistan for parts of the current state of Turkey. Your labelling of all such people as "terrorist" and "separatist" really highlights the problem. --Vindheim 09:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh I feel like talking to a brick wall.. that some people use the name in Turkey does not mean it's official. I didN't label everyone terrorists. I just mentioned the harm Pkk caused after someone told me Kurds are being discriminated unjustly. Nuage bulut 19:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Who ever claimed "Kurdistan" was official in Turkey? But you actually did state that the name "Kurdistan" was only used by "the separatist terrorists and their supporters". Which is labelling a large part of Turkish Kurds and many other Turkish people too. --Vindheim 10:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Vindheim (btw any unsigned comment is not mine), how can you speak for that large number of people I don't understand. Yes I label them - what's wrong, only people with bad intentions will use Kurdistan or North Kurdistan for southeast part of Turkey. And this is not blind nationalism. It's a daily life for us. Each family in Turkey has past members KIA or WIA. Maybe it's a big joke for you people but I'm listening the stories each time I see my grandmother. --Gokhan 17:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This article simply does claim that it is official by using it. And yes, most people who use that term are seperatists. Because noone who loves their country would name the place they live as though it is a seperate country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.159.14 (talk • contribs) diff

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. -- Albert Einstein

--Moby 14:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So says Einstein. However this category is the flagship of Kurdish nationalism. Do you have a point with that quote? --Cat out 14:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

ya --Moby 08:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a pity that some Turks feel offended by the simple fact that parts of Turkey are inhabited by people who identify themselves as Kurdish and their homeland as Kurdistan. However Turkish suppression of Kurdishness cannot rule Wikipedia. --Vindheim 18:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but DO YOU READ WHAT I SAY? You state the same things and I answer them and yet you keep stating them again. How many times did I say I accept that Kurds do live in my country? Just because they live there doesn't mean they can rename the land. Though it is my fault that I'm having a dispute with a person who knows nothing about the subject but has fun getting in disputes. Oh and btw, your over-dramatic quote is just something to be laughed at. Nuage bulut 19:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

(Sigh!) You keep repeating yourself without replying to my points. You seem to be offended by the fact that some of your compatriots claim to live not only in Turkey, but also in Kurdistan. In my homeland, Norway, there is a minority of Saami people. Saami also live in the neighbouring countries, Sweden, Finland and Russia. There are maps of the saami homeland (Sameland / Saami Aednan) which include parts of all these countries. No problem. --Vindheim 21:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No points were made in your previous post. When saying "you repeat yourself" you actually repeated me as I said it right before you to you. You probably do not read your posts really, as even the last things you wrote are what you stated and got answered by me yesterday. Do not give me examples from your country as I don't really care since the issues are different. Here in Turkey, there is no kurdistan, and the fact that Saami people live in your country doesn't mean that there is a place called kurdistan. And I'm sure the Saami people do not kill and creat seperatist acts there (for example, creating an article, a lame way to decieve others) It is clearly explained why the issues between our countries are different below so you'd better read the below post carefully. Nuage bulut 15:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Vindheim, do Saami people have a terrorist organization? Do they kill government civil servants, soldiers, civilians? Do they riot and cause civil unrest? Do they have an agenda of carving a country out of your country, with some land from the neighbouring countries? Do these people call some part of your country west or east sameland? Does Sweden or Finland support the saami people in Norway with money, guns and political asylum?

Can you even understand what's going on in this part of the world? Or did you just listened some people while getting your iraqi kurdistan stamp on your passport? --Gokhan 05:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I take the abuse hurled at me as indicative of the situation of Kurds in Turkey. As for the saami in Scandinvaia, thye have been accepted by the majority population; the saami language is taught in schools, government officials have to know saami to serve in saami areas, the saami flag is flown on government buildings and there is a separate saami parliament. There are of course also saami delegates in the national parliament, and they sometimes wear saami national dress and speak saami during parliamentary proceedings. If the situation had been the same for kurds in Turkey, i doubt PKK would have been able to evolve it's violent agenda.

So Vindheim you really think the PKK violence is justified after all. I hope some day you'll understand that violence won't help to improve the daily lives of the people. I also kindly suggest you to read more about PKK before blindly supporting them. Anyway let's stop because I started to feel sick. Bye. --Gokhan 17:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your command of English seems lacking, Gokhan. I never said the PKK violence was justified, I was just trying to explain to you some reasons why it emerged. --Vindheim 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please grant me the benefit of doubt. I'm from Turkey and 30 years old. I know about PKK better than you and believe me, we live with it every day. No offense but, the last thing I need is a lecture about PKK from a Scandinavian. I beg you(!) to get more information before forming an opinion, please read the history of the last 600 years of this region. Wikipedia has a lot of articles. By the way please read this news article. Sorry for my command of English, that's the best I can do. --Gokhan 06:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to sound like a preacher. I know the shoe hurts the one wearing it. However I do know a lot of turkish Kurds. most of them are sceptical about the PKK, but they all insist that Kurds experience oppression in Turkey, and that this is a main reason for the supportthe PKK has known. I also know Joost laagendijk, and agree with most of his views. However this political discussion is getting too long for a wikipedia talk page. --Vindheim 09:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't really understand.. Kurds are not the same with the Saami people. (i mean most) because they want their OWN LAND. That's way they are suppressed. Nuage bulut 17:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right - I got tired as well. There's no end to this discussion. Anyway, let's hope for the best for all. --Gokhan 10:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Nuage bulut, Vindheim was making a comparison why is he/she automatically not understanding the issue? Kurds want their own land, so! what is the problem here? Turks have a country! why not the Kurds? the Saami people example is a good one but we know that they have freedom, Kurds haven't for centuries.

Gokhan, instead of telling people how much you know about PKK and your countrys history tell us about it. We are humans we can communicate well.

Vindheim, please don't read the history of the last 600 years of this region you would just waste your time. you won't find much about PKK because PKK has a history of only 30 years. But if you want to learn other thing then do so. Ozgur Gerilla 01:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So let me try to sum up: Since 19th century Turks saw their empire broken, lost wars to old rivals, humiliated, civil wars leading independence declarations... Then the WWI, Mudros, Sevres treaty, invasion by Greece, France, UK, invasion of Istanbul (the capital at that time), then national uprising with Mustafa Kemal, war against European powers for independence and survival, declaration of republic, then internal struggle against religious groups supporting sultanate, struggle to modernize the country towards democracy, again some internal conflicts, several coups by military, right-left struggle taken a lot of lives in 70's... If someone reads the history of Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, it would be easier to understand the psychological and historical reasons of today's problems. Turkey is based on a huge history and experience some identity crisis since its foundation. That's why I suggested the reading. Because any red blooded man who knows the history could understand why Turkey wouldn't even think to lose one mm2 of its land again ever and how this creates an historical fear factor on politics, economics and social life. It's just 80 years away for us.

And Ozgur, I believe Kurdish people deserve their cultural and social freedom. I also know we have grandfathers fought and died together in Canakkale, still lying side by side. Turks, Kurds, Circassians, Albanians... What PKK does actually hurt the hopes for the better future for our country. Because people die. I know you don't live in Turkey but at least try to be more positive and hopeful for all of us. Support peace and progress, not PKK. --Gokhan 06:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You've written a couple of important historical events in your own point of view. Not only Turkey and the Turks but many other ethnic groups in the region has formed the huge history you mentioned. you don't need to argue about the importance of history because I don't know anyone that will disagree to its importance. I also don't agree with connecting these events to the reason why Turkey wouldn't lose one mm of its land. That is an ideological point of view. oh, and I'm red blooded too!! So disagreeing with political cases has nothing to do with biology.

Living in Turkey doesn't mean you know a lot about Turkey. Before prejudice please understand that I've lived in Turkey and I have brothers and many cousins living there why wouldn't I not be positive and hopeful for the people there? It's the Turkish politicians that I have problems and objections with. If you seriously believe Kurdish people deserve their cultural and social freedom try to understand that Kurds in Turkey are discriminated and have suffered and still are suffering from Turkeys regime. Kurds didn't have that freedom during Ottoman and Turkey and still haven't got it. Kurds don't want to live under the Turkish government particularly after the Turkification. I don't blame them because no ethic group would want to live under a government where is controlled by another ethnic group especially if that is a fascist regime where they try to restrict your language, culture and make you what they are. Also, its not the PKK who is attacking Turkey, its Turks who attacked Kurds and PKK had enough and retaliated. You should know that I believe in the Satyagraha philosophy and want peace with no violence included but I cannot ignore the violation to the Kurds. Canakkale is a good example of Turkeys dishonesty. Kurds were used and then told that if they want freedom they could get it by turning to Turkish. Ozgur Gerilla 00:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a hopeless discussion. Everybody has a fixated opinion anyway. Let's stop here and we'll see what will happen in the real world. --Gokhan 10:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, please talk for yourself. I go to an argument with no opinion; I make it up as I go along. Ozgur Gerilla 17:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How are they suppressed? Give me evidence and examples. Moreover, If someone is not fond of the regime, terrorism shouldn't be the way to fix it.

They aren't just suppressed individuals/groups were/are discriminated, tortured and often killed for being Kurdish. Examples; Semdinli, Yilmaz Guney, Ahmet Kaya, The fact that the Kurdish language was forbidden by Turkish politicians and it still isn't socially right to speak it by many Turks, Turkification!, millions of refugees around the world (especially in Europe) who run away from all this. These are MODERN examples I recommend you to read some history books about the region and people; good books provide detailed events. Ozgur Gerilla 17:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you even know who ahmet kaya is? He is a TERRORIST. A terrible one. Those kind of people are bound to die, i guess. That you give him as an example of "innocent citizen suppressed for his opinions" shows that you have absolutely no idea on the subject.

Ahmet Kaya was an artist. Could you please tell me why you think he's a terrorist? Also your prejudice shows that you form an opinion without knowledge of the facts. Ozgur Gerilla 00:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

LMAO (sorry I couldn't help it) I'm shocked not only at your not knowing why he is a Terrorist, but also at your telling me I have no knowledge seeing that you have absolutely no knowledge about him. I'm not going to explain what crimes, deceptions he did, here. If you really wanted to learn you would have checked some information about him.

You could help us all by providing what you know, obviously with source, why how he's a terrorist in his article. Ahmet Kaya Ozgur Gerilla 20:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll look for sources. I won't even have a look at that Article since Wikipedia has been filled with nationalists writing simply wrong articles. And oh yes, we all know what "gerilla" means.

Ok, if you provide good sources then maybe I could help you insert information on his article as you are unable to visit the page because of your beliefs. Ozgur Gerilla 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Kurds were used by Turks in Dardanelles? Ozgur Gerilla! How easily you show that you are a Kurd! Kurds did not fight in Dardanelles. Just check out the cemetery records of the War in Dardanelles. Most of the people that have fallen in Dardanelles were from the western cities of Anatolia. The Kurds, if they did, fought against the Armenians in the east, but many objective historians denote that the Ottoman empire hardly could recruit Kurds to the army.

The Map

For people that are aware of this subject, they would clearly see that the map is pure properganda. It is also highlighting areas that have Kurds with 20% or less. These areas are not "Kurdistan." How can it be "the land of the Kurds" when they only make up 20-30% of the population of those perticular areas? I am specifically talking about Iraq and Iran. I am not to sure of Turkey's area. The map needs to be changed. This map is more accurate: [6]Chaldean 03:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually you make a good point: this article and its contents are for people who are NOT aware of this subject -> It's a Kurdish propaganda article. It's to legitimize their terrorism and separatism. People from western countries will read it like it's a separate country under hardship. I also objected to the map and the flag but I don't have wikipowers to correct the issue :) --Gokhan 06:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems everything is Propaganda

We live in 2006 not in 1800 , so please save it for someone else.. I don´t say anything wrong with Category Kurdistan or with anyother Kurdish categories.. But it seems a lot of people doo.. so the question is why??

OtrO DiAOtrO DiA 15:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

what? haven't you read all the dispute going on? It seems you didn't, since the answer to your question has been stated a million times. Nuage bulut 17:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Flag

The flag window text says "unofficial flag of...". I think it should be made clear that it is the official flag of the Autonomus Kurdistan in Iraq.

Since kurdistan is not a country, it's flag can no way be official.

Yes it can, and is in the Autonomus Kurdistan in Iraq. It is officialy recognized an officialy flown by the kurdish parliament and government.

Name

The "NAME" article states: "This province was located between Azerbaijan and Luristan. It included the regions of Hamadan, Dinawar, Kermanshah and Senna, to the east of the Zagros and to the west of Sharazur (Kirkuk) and Khuftiyan, on the river Zab.[2]"

But Sharazur is not Kirkuk as here stated, Sharazur is the ancient name of the city of Slemani/Sulaimani. Don't know if this error is because of mis understanding but it should be changed.

Military and Economy deleted.

I have deleted the Military and Economics part without any notice since their existence in this article is illogical. The first line states that kurdistan is not a country so how can it have it's own military and economy?

You did not understand the text. It does not claim what you said. It talks about militarization and economical devolopment level of its people. Jalalarbil 20:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you are the one who didn't undersand it. It doesn't talk about the people, it just explains the oil extraction etc. As they are peoples of the country, their military and economy cannot be explained in a seperate article than that of the country's. Quote at least one sentence that explains the people's level and development and I won't delete it again.

Thanks to whoever deleted and merged the undergound resources to another category. It looks much more appropriate now.

Kurdish Areas 2002 CIA

2002 CIA

1992 CIA

re: [7] It is a map with a more recent date (2002 vs. 1992) and I thought it a good addition. --Moby 03:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but could try to find one that is less ugly? (no offense) Also, I don't see a huge difference between the two maps. —Khoikhoi 03:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

True, the basic data seems just about the same and, yes, the map uses a less appealing style. I actually think that the more to-the-point style is better at showing the Kurdish region. Maybe the infobox in Kurdistan is not the best place for this particular image, but I believe the fact that the CIA continues to show basically the same region as "Kurdish" bolsters the claim that this is the region that is Kurdistan. Note also the inset caption characterising it as the traditional Kurdish-inhabited area. --Moby 03:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

True, but as I said before, it's kinda ugly. Could you find a nicer-looking one? —Khoikhoi 04:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It does kind of look like drippings from a green candle. However, it is a valid and more recent reference. I'm going to drop this whole conversation on to Talk:Kurdistan and see where it goes. --Moby 04:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the map is omitting an isolated pocket of ethnic Kurds in northeastern Iran, but I guess it is OK. I think the Kurdish independance movements have no claims in that area whatsoever.

Ref 1 - travel map: http://geo.ya.com/travelimages/az-kurd-map.gif Ref 2 - Iran ethnic map: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/images/iran-ethnic-groups-2.gif

Hugo Dufort 08:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Lake Van saline or not?

I have noticed a contradiction between this article and the article on Kurdistan. This article describes Lake Van as a non-saline body of water; the Lake Van article describes Lake Van as a saline body of water. Would those of you working on these two articles mind sorting this out? I am posting this observation on the other site's Talk page, also.RNavigator 13:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's some information from http://lakes.chebucto.org/saline1.html

A widely accepted demarcation line between fresh and salt water occurs at 3 grams per litre, or 3 o/oo. (Freshwater lakes contain 0 - 3 g/L of salt and saltwater lakes anything over 3 g/L). Here are data for some lakes:

Lake	Salinity (g/L)
Great Salt Lake	10-12
Caspian Sea	150-280
Dead Sea (Israel/Jordan)	>300
Lake Van	24

I think it's clear that Van is definitely a salt lake, but obviously much less salty than the Dead Sea.

Various salts contribute to the salinity, not just sodium chloride. In particular, the presence of sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate in some salt lakes makes the water alkaline. Lake Van has a pH of 9.8 which is distinctly alkaline (data from http://www.internationales-buero.de/_media/Abstract-Sari.pdf).

Hope that helps. Euchiasmus 05:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Independent Kurdistan

Kurdistan has to be independent, Im not a kurd my self, but everyone in the world needs an proper identity, nationality, I hate all occupation of etnic peoples land.

--why are you shouting "I know nothing yet I comment here" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.207.137 (talk • contribs)

Only once all people are identified as equal, will there be true everlasting peace. Pure inuyasha 21:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

EB

Do we really need to use the EB as a source for this article? As an encyclopedia its surely not good form to source from other encyclopedias. Barnaby dawson 17:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sections should be deleted

There seems to be consesus that "Kurdistan" is not a nation or anytning like that and shouldn't be presented as such. I have a problem with the sections Geography, Climate and (to some extend) Historical attractions, since they are - or should be - well covered in the articles of the nations the Kurds inhabitates. Right? Medico80 16:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Reason for revert

In this this edit, way too much POV was added, such as:

Another militant terrorist group, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), has fought an armed campaign in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran for over thirty years. In Turkey, more than 30,000 Turkish people where killed as a result of the terrorist actions of PKK.

Also references of Armenia, Kurdistan in the Ottoman Empire -- they were all deleted. I suggest we start from reverting the anon's edit, then adding the deleted information, but it would take too much work to individually undo his edits. —Khoikhoi 03:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Praytell, how is that POV? It's just pointing out the facts. I can provide sources for that 30K, even from Wikipedia: Abdullah Ocalan for one: Approximately 30,000 people were killed by PKK as a result of these attacks between 1984 and 2003. You have a funny way of detecting POV, in that it's quite wrong and you're reverting factual adds, which is against WP policy. MonsterOfTheLake 01:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Kurdistan?

Kurdistan is not a geo-political region. There's a region called Kurdistan in Iraq. There's a region called Kurdistan in Iran. There's no region called Kurdistan in Turkey. That's akin to placing an Algeristan in France, and making an article that treats it like a country. There are some country articles on wiki that list less facts than a supposed region. Kurds are a minority in Turkey, just like the Hispanics in USA or Algerians in France. As ludicrous as it would seem to place a Mexicistan or Algeristan on those countries where those minorities are heavily populated in, it is to list a Kurdistan that includes Turkish territory. As long as we don't declare San Diego Mexicistan, which Mexico actually did own at one point and not just have a ripped-up treaty claiming it, it is equally ridiculous to list Kurdistan in Turkey. In Iraq, a country that was set up by the British merging 3 territories, a region called Kurdistan warrants an article, as the Kurds were just placed together with other ethnicities by a colonizing force. But I call BS on Turkey being listed under Kurdistan, as Turkey does not have a region named Kurdistan, and Kurds are Turkish citizens, not living under a Kurdish "state" like in Iraq, whom prints their own passports and such. MonsterOfTheLake 01:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between the Kurds in Iraq and in Turkey? why is it that the Kurds in Iraq have a region called Kurdistan in Iraq and those in Turkey haven't? there is more then 25 million Kurds in Turkey and quarter of this in iraq. So that you know people in here call Kurdistan in Turkey those regions inhabited predominantly by the Kurds. Not because they have that passport so all of them have to be called Turks in Turkish region. 25 million is not as little as the Arabs in France, the difference is vast. Ozgur Gerilla 11:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ozgur Gerilla, please state the source of your comment on there being 25 million Kurds in Turkey. That would be 1/3 of Turkey's estimated population in 2008, and would also be close to 1/2 of the population of Turkey according to its last census, (67 million) which was held in 2000. A population of 25 million would ensure a place in the Turkish Parliament for the Kurds, yet since the establishment of the state Kurdish parties have never passed the 10% barrier. (Kurdish parties gained a total vote between 4% to 8% according to CIA world factbook.) In local elections Kurdish parties have occasionally gathered 30%-40% vote, (never above 40%) hence able to elect local officers for municipal and other such positions, but that fact in itself undermines the Kurdish claim of majority in the region. The sound fact seems to be that although there are about 10-15 million Kurds in Turkey (half of which are eligible to vote), them having scattered all around the country for economical reasons has made them unable to claim autonomy due to clear majority (as in +50%). This appears to be the main difference between the identification of the populations in northern Iraq or western Iran versus southeastern Turkey. Please bear in mind that if the Kurds in Turkey had some sort of a majority in any part of the country, Turkish parlimentary system would have clearly allowed them to call that region whatever they wished to call it. Oh and, I wonder if anyone realizes that the area called "Kurdistan" encompasses the two major rivers in the region along with all undepleted oil reserves? Turks should stop being political, ignore the bs from european and our (american) liberals, and state the facts once and for all. Regards, 24.193.243.114 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A population of 25 million cannot ensure a place in the Turkish Parliament for the Kurds because the Turkish Parliament is ruled by the Turks, example, Leyla Zana. You realise that there was a ban to Kurdish parties and many Kurdish civilians cannot vote for many reasons so connecting this to population and statistics of the Kurds is not correct especially when there is Turkification going on. Oh, and CIA world factbook is biased. Ozgur Gerilla 09:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ozgurgerilla I do not understand how Leyla Zana event supports your claim. From what I've read here in wikipedia and from the links on that page, I understand that four members of the parliament were arrested, and one of them was Leyla Zana. The reason was speaking a language other than Turkish in the parliament(?) which is illegal (?). I could not find the numbers (as in how many members from the Kurdish party there were in the parliament besides the four that got arrested) anywhere, but it appears that Kurds could, and still can enter the Turkish parliament? So if Leyla Zana spoke Kurdish in the parliament after she and her friends changed/made an ammendment/tried to make an ammendment to the law, there would not have been any problems? And since they were already elected, the turkish state and its laws gave them the right to change the law? Why would someone with that kind of power choose not to exercise the power and simply break the law, other than a show of separatism? I do understand that i may sound pro-turkish here, but on this case, i do understand the reaction of the turkish government. If a congressman, representative or a senator starts wowing in arabic before making any explanations in english, the dohs and/or the fbi would immediately start an investigation. (And the new york times would publish it, we'd all talk about the first ammendment, and most of us would not like that he's been arrested for speaking arabic (at least here on the east coast)) but he would still get arrested/investigated.. I also haven't read about a ban on Kurdish parties (CIAWF mentions a "shp" and "dtp," though i don't know whether they are parties or something else?) or Kurdish civillians not being able to vote, but if there is a Kurdish population in Turkey close to 25 million as you've stated i believe things would have been drastically different. A Kurdish population of 25 million would have been too hard for the turkish government to suppress, it's more than the population of most of its neighbors! But anyway, hope the best, 68.174.90.135 10:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh americans executed their own citizens for possesing the soviet flag. Later it was revealed that they were not KGB spies at all. This happens in many countries. Kind of an idiotic reaction due to regional tensions. Its unwise chant in arabic in US airports these days I bet. Wasnt smart to posses a soviet flag during the cold war in the US. Same aplise to Zana.

Also what is the point of this discussion? This isnt a forum you know.

--Cat out 10:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

For the first time I got to agree with User talk:Cool Cat about the pointless of this discussion. But for the IP user I'd recommend you research a lot more on this subject because it is very deep; to the 16th century where Kurds and Alevis grewed their moustache over their top lip for them to be recognised by people from the same ethnicity and sect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozgurgerilla (talk • contribs)

I dont think that would apply to women. Also moustaches were hardly uneque to Kurds and Alevis. But I guess thats a debate beyond the scope of this article and perhaps wikipedia. ^_^ --Cat out 12:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to point out that Ozgurgerilla needs to show some sort of a source to back up his statement on there being 25 million Kurds living in southeastern Turkey. All other stuff i've written down is to show that the information he presented in his replies are not direct answers, as they do not prove that there are 25 million Kurds living in Turkey, and that they are not allowed to exercise their democratic rights. I have no intention to spark a debate, i'd like to know whether 25 million Kurds live in Turkey or not, with proof, or some sort of a semi-intuitive approach. (i have a research paper coming up and the turkish census bureau doesn't list the ethnicities of its citizens) Regards, 68.174.90.135 06:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

68.174.90.135, In fact it's impossible to get a accurate statistic of the population of Kurds in Turkey because of bans and many other reasons relating to the Turkification. Did you know Ismet Inonu, second President of Turkey, was a Kurd but hated Kurds. Ozgur Gerilla 15:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The PKK is listed as a terrorist organisation internationally by a number of states and organisations, including the USA and the EU [1], and Ankara blames it for the death of more than 30,000 people. [2](taken from PKK en.wikipedia page

InfoBox

کوردستان

Kurdistan

File:Flag-of-Kurdistan.png(Flag of Kurdistan) (Coat of Arms)
National Motto:   National Anthem: Ey Reqîb
File:LocationKurdistan.png
Location	Parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Armenia
Language	Kurdish کوردی
Capital	Not Established
Capital's Coordinates	N/A
Largest City	Arbil or (Irbil)
Area  - Total  - % water	Ranked (?)th 190,000 km² - 390,000 km² 74,000 sq.mi-151,000 sq.mi NA
Population - Total (2006Est.) - Density	Ranked (?)th 25-37.5 Million “Inside Kurdistan”[8] (?)
Time zone	(UTC+2 to +3)

I made this info box for the Kurdistan Article, I put it up but "Khoikhoi" told me that I damaged the Kurdistan Article with it. I think it looks much better than the infobox on the Kurdistan article right now. I don't know about the map, I made it with Photoshop trying to as accurate as possible, any suggestion's or comments is appreciated. Another thing I noticed is the population figures are incorrect. On the article "Kurdish People" it has the following estimates.

Turkey 14 - 22 Million Iran 4.8 - 6.6 Million Iraq 4 - 6 Million Syria 0.9 - 2.8 Million Armenia 42,139 Georgia 34,000 - 60,000

Do the math and you get 25 - 37.5 Million People. But this guy keep's telling me that my information is incorrect and I need to support or give sources which I did when I posted the changes to the article. So I think some of this information needs to be updated.

Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D.Kurdistani (talk • contribs) 00:24, 20 August 2006.

Hi D.Kurdistani. First off, the infobox seems to be based off {{Infobox Country}}. We don't want to fool readers into making them think something Kurdistan is not—it's a geographic and cultural region. Secondly, your map appears to include Baghdad and Hatay Province in Kurdistan, and I just think that the one we have right now (drawn by the CIA) is going to be the most accurate. As for the numbers, not all Kurds live in Kurdistan. The numbers at Kurdish people are for Kurds worldwide, not just in Kurdistan.

Anyways, I apprecaite your efforts, but you have to understand that this is a sensitive subject and controversial changes are most likely going to be reverted. —Khoikhoi 00:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep this for possible future use (though the map needs work IMHO)! If (admittedly biased) authors like Peter W. Galbraith, Kevin McKiernan and others are right, it won't be too long. For significant Kurdish areas outside of Iraqi Kurdistan you could use a diagnal stripe shading perhaps? Hoping you can use this infobox one day! Khirad 08:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This looks excellent. Why not put in on the main page? SmokeyTheFatCat 19:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Existence

Now one has to show passports when entering the Kurdish part of what used to be Iraq from the rest of that soon to be ex country. So Kurdistan de facto exists. It is just a question of when any other state will recognise this. This will only create more distability as the Kurdish minority in Turkey will wish to secede and become part of this 'new' putative state. But if the 40 million Kurds get a homeland it will be worthwhile. SmokeyTheFatCat 19:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

factual accuracy

After reading all the contributions on this talk page and then checking the article with reliable sources, i can safely say that the factual accuracy of this article kurdistan is disputed. Lets try to solve the problems in this discussion page, instead of pushing POV. E104421 22:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 08:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)