Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Novel articles by quality/44

This article was nominated for deletion on 24/3/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Iragi Kurdistan

Please restore the article Iraqi Kurdistan, as the current REDIRECT to Kurdistan is not accurate, since the former only refers to the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq. Also the REDIRECT in the Kurdistan (disambiguation) is also wrong. It should be Kurdistan Region of Iraq or Iraqi Kurdistan. Also the name for the existing article Kurdish Autonomous Region isnot accurate since this name was only used during the former Ba'ath regime in the 70's and 80's. Such a term is not used in Iraq anymore. Here is the reference to the name of the region in the new constitution of Iraq:

CHAPTER ONE: REGIONS

Article 113:

First: This Constitution shall approbate the region of Kurdistan and its existing regional and federal authorities, at the time this constitution comes into force.

Article 137:

Legislation enacted in the region of Kurdistan since 1992 shall remain in force, and decisions issued by the government of the region of Kurdistan - including court decisions and agreements - shall be considered valid unless it is amended or annulled pursuant to the laws of the region of Kurdistan by the competent entity in the region, provided that they do not contradict with the constitution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html Heja Helweda 23:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Dehkhoda and Sassanids being Kurdish

However, the Dehkhoda Dictionary reports Ardashir I of Persia to be the son of a Kurdish mother from Kurds in the Fars Province. And Dehkhoda calls the Kurds "an Iranian tribe of Aryan origin".(Deh. entry for "Kurd", 2006 ed.)

Is Dehkhoda an authoritative source of history? I don't think so. He was only a good linguist with a knowledge of folklore. Was he a specialist on human race and genetics, of course not. This Aryan racial theory has big problems, and there was a heated discussion on the Kurds page about this over the last few days. (Please refer there for more info.)

Some Kurdish nationalists are also claiming Sassanids to be Kurdish, but I seriously doubt that. Everywhere Sassanids are depicted as persians, and they hailed from the FARS province (traditional center of persians like Achamaenids) and their language was Pahlavi. I have read Pahlavi texts (like the one published by Sadegh Hedayat), however I should say it is much closer to persian and hardly resembles Kurdish. Also if Sassanids were Kurdish then why they tended to live in the lowlands of Mesopotamia, like around Ctesiphon? with a very hot climate? Kurds always lived close to the Zagrus/Taurus mountain ranges, as they don't like to live in the desert, and the region around Ctesiphon or Khuzestan,... in Kurdish eyes are pretty much desert. (dry and hot climate, no mountains, no snow fall,...)

Finally, Are you gonna change the Sassanid page and explicitly say they were Kurdish?. I don't think people will buy that, due to lack of evidence. However if you still believe in that, then it is better to find a concrete proof, like a reference written in the Sassanid period,(like the one I provided in this article) with a clear indication that Sassanids were Kurds. Heja Helweda 03:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Judging sources and references in Wikipedia is illegal as stipulated here where it specifically says:

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research."

In other words, it's not you or anyone else's business to judge Dehkhoda. Wikipedia does not give you that authority.

Secondly, it seems you have a deep misunderstanding of what Iran is. Iran is not an ethnicity. Iran is Kurds + Arabs + Azaris + Persians + Lurs + Gilakis + Baluchis + Turkomens + Gorjis + ... who happen to live in "Land of The Aryan". A conglomerate of peoples who share a history and culture.--Zereshk 20:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

But I am still not able to verify his citation about Kurds. Please kindly provide a verifiable reference from Dehkhoda. About Iran, I know what it is , a country. Conflict can occur among people living within the same country or state. Heja Helweda 21:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems you dont have a good library (such as Berkeley which has Dehkhoda. Also UCLA Library has it, and so doesPrinceton U, and every other major library). But you can also get access to Dehkhoda's dictionary by asking your Inter Library Loan department in your library to borrow this item for you. And also, I can scan the page for you. Good?

Also, "Iran" is not a country. "Islamic Republic of Iran" is. "Iran" is a historical/geographical name, and is defined as "Land of The Aryan".--Zereshk 00:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

and what is Aryan? If there was such an ethnic identity, Ancient Greek historians would have mentioned it. There is no mention of such a name in the ancient world by outside parties. (like Herodot and Xenophon), but what they talk about is Persian, Kardukhi, etc. Can you find the name Iranian in Anabasis (Xenophon)? Heja Helweda 20:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I am just reporting what I have found from some sources. Judging their content is not my concern (and is prohibited by WP). Nevertheless, I've posted your answer here.--Zereshk 23:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

(--About 20 Kb of unsigned, anonymous material added by 24.148.188.235 (talk) on 8 September 2008 has been deleted, because WP is not a soapbox. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)--)

Shbankareh and Kurds in the Fars province

This should be included in the article Kurds or History of the Kurds. But it is not appropriate for the present article, since Iranian Kurdistan is a geographic area which does not cover Fars province in southern Iran. This is like including Republic of Mahabad in the Kurdistan Province (Iran). Though the Republic is undoubtedly part of the Kurdish history, but it was not located inside the present borders of the Kurdistan Province. You can see the history of that page [1]. Heja Helweda 23:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But the article is not about "The present Iranian Kurdistan", is it? If it is, we must then also move out the entire history section of the article to be consistent.--Zereshk 00:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It is about the present-day Kurdish majority areas in western Iran. The history section refers to these areas. For example, Hamadan used to be Kurdish majority, and some Kurdish dynasties were based there, but it is not included in the article since it isnot Kurdish anymore (it is mixed Persian/Turkish now).Heja Helweda 04:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, the paragraph about the origin of Kurds does not belong here. It should be included in the Kurds page, where it has an extensive section about the ethnic and historical roots of the Kurds.Heja Helweda 03:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If there's a history section here, then it belongs here. Stop censoring our Kurdish history.--Zereshk 03:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The area of Iranian Kurdistan is defined in the article. Iranian Kurdsitan covers only the western pronices of Iran, i.e. Kurdistan province, West Azarbaijan, Kermanshahan and Ilam. However, it does not cover the Fars province in southern Iran. So anything happened in the Province of Fars, does not belong here. I am not trying to censor Persian references, that's why I suggested to include that paragraph in the Kurds article. You can also create a new article Kurds in the Fars province.Heja Helweda 03:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't like personal attacks. Instead try to come up with a good justification for the inclusion of your paragraph in the article. As I said, it does not belong here since it refers to events occurred outside this region.Heja Helweda 04:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanx. Now it is fine. There was no need for personal attacks though. Edit summary of Iranian Kurdistan (where you said I know you hate Persians. Take your hatred elsewhere). Again I don't hate Persians or any other group for that matter.Heja Helweda 04:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Look. Either take out the Ardashir and Sassanid confontation paragraph entirely, or be fair and let it all be there. You just cant partially censor out information that is directly relevant to Iranian Kurdistan. And it doesnt matter where today's Iranian kurdistan is. If that were so, Iranians shouldnt even be talking about the Sassanids because they were based in Ctesiphon (today's Iraq). Almost every major dynasty of Iran was based outside today's Iran.--Zereshk 04:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Include your paragraph in the Kurds page or History of the Kurds. This page is about a specific region. Your comparison with Iran isnot correct, since Ctesiphon was part of Iran, but Fars province has never been part of Iranian Kurdistan (In case you don't agree, you have to provide evidence). I am not against your patriotic feelings, I just say include it in the relevant article. That's all.Heja Helweda 05:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Heja. I'll have to disagree with you. I understand your hatred agaisnt Persians. Ive seen your numerous posts on other forums trying to publicize sentiments against Sassanids. Hypocricy just wont fly. You cant talk about Ardashir, who was based in Fars, and defeated the Kurds of fars, and censor the rest. I cant let you turn this place into a personal platfrom.--Zereshk 05:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

When people are talking about the history of Poland in World War II, they do not provide extensive info. on the family background of Hitler, rather they just refer it to its own page. We have a page for Adarshir, right? Why don't you include that info. in his own page. Heja Helweda 06:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ardashir defeated Madig King of the Medes, who were based in the Zagros and north-western Iran. Medes were not based in the Fars province. The battle belongs to this page since the area in question (Iranian Kurdistan) overlaps with the Medes region, however the quote about Fars province does not belong here, since it is not located in Iranian Kurdistan. That should be straightforward. BTW I have nothing against Ardashir. Indeed I think his name has a Kurdish meaning Lion on the Earth. (Ard --> Herd--> Earth)Heja Helweda 05:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Iranian Kurdistan has no boundaries.--Zereshk 06:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It has. Kurdish majority areas of western and north-western Iran.Heja Helweda 06:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I know I may be getting into this discussion a bit late, but wouldn't Iranian Kurdistan be simply the area of Iran where Kurds live in? According to this map, it's not in Fars. --Khoikhoi 06:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I am just saying "Fars province" is not part of this region, and info. about it should be included in other general pages like Kurds.Heja Helweda 06:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Zereshk is trying to say that Kurds used to be a majority in Fars a long time ago--they obviously aren't anymore. That's why he added it to the history section. Perhaps one could make note of this. --Khoikhoi 06:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Excatly. Kurds live in Khorasan too. So does that count or not? Also, Kurds were a majority in Sassnide times in Fars. So are we not talking about the history of "Iranian Kurdistan"? Heja simply doesnt want to mention that Iranian Kurdistan included the Zagors region of Fars as well. Because she has heavily invested in portraying Sassanids as anti-Kurdish. But Ardhasir himself half Kurdish? oops! Bad for Heja!--Zereshk 06:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No that does not count, since Khorasan was never historically Kurdish. The present Kurdish community are descendants of exiled tribes during Safavid period after the Battle of Dimdim in 1609. They are originally from around Lake Urmia and Mahabad region. I suggest to take a look at History of the Kurds to learn more about Battle of Dimdim.Heja Helweda 20:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but how many Kurds live in these other provinces? Is there a significant population? --Khoikhoi 06:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Not many of course. Yet I think that the fact that the passage in question is outside today's Kurdistan region shouldnt be a reason not to mention it. Wouldnt readers want to know how far and wide Iranian Kurdistan was in the old days? It's like trying to talk about the Sassanid history without mentioning Ctesiphon, their capital, because it currently lies in Iraq. And besides, we can mention it in the Kurds article as well. Perhaps in more detail. The Kurds were a majority in Fars in the old days. People dont know this.--Zereshk 07:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Heja Helweda can you get an more lamer? You are using Greek sources when their Elamite, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Summerian sources that talk about Aryans. Scholars use to rely on Greek sources for the Mid-East in the 1800s until they started readin, understanding, and finding Middle Eastern sources that are better and more detailed so stop trying to use Xenophone and other Greek historians who wrote a lot of their infomration from mistranslated sources or hear say or what they saw during travel. All Middle Eastern sources depect the Aryan peoples and their arrival into Kuridsan and the Iranian Plateau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by unsigned (talk • contribs)

Since long ago i was watching this but since it was (and still is) not so important in my opinion i did not interfere, neither re-added nor removed it. I think that irrelevant paragraph about a kurdish diaspora tribe in the iranian Pars region is not needed in this article about iranian kurdistan which has its own defination. instead you can add it to the Shabankareh tribe or even Pars article.

Diyako Talk + 11:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition of the region in the first paragraph: Iranian Kurdistan is a large mountainous region situated in the western and northwestern parts of Iran along the borders of Iraq and Turkey spans including the greater parts of West Azerbaijan province, Kurdistan Province, Kermanshah Province, and Ilam Province . There is no Fars province in that definition. Include your info. about Ardashir/Shabakareh in the relevant articles.Heja Helweda 19:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As Khoikhoi said, and I re-iterate, the fact that Fars in the past was, and in the present isnt, a Kurdish land, is why it has been added to the history section.--Zereshk 00:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure Fars in past was a Kurdish area? I suggest you remove whatever is not related to the article. The fact that some Kurdish diaspora live outsaide the region which the article is covering does not belong here. Irrelevant stuff should go to its own article.

Diyako Talk + 11:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Either Fars was Kurdish dominated in the past and Iranian Kurdistan included Fars in the past, or Fars was not part of Iranian Kurdistan, then the quote about Ardashir would be irrelevant. Some people are trying to redefine Sassanids as Kurdish. If Sassanids were Kurdish then Fars province should have been part of Kurdistan in the past, so the sentence the Iranian Kurdish dominated territories were the same as today contradicts the quote about Ardashir and Shabankareh tribe in the Fars province.Heja Helweda 02:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Heja helweda you can not change articles on unclear grounds. Firstly are does a Kurdish mayor in Tehran mean that Tehran was or is a part of Kurdistan? You can not use such twisted logic to justify such changes. This is very counter-productive. 69.196.139.250 05:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, It's quite controversial. I'll fix it.

Diyako Talk + 11:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

File:Babak kurd.JPG

Dehkhoda: Kurds were a majority in Fars in Sassanid times. Ardashir Babakan was also half Kurdish.--Zereshk 04:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ohh, does it piss you off that Kurds were Iranian and indigenous natives of Fars? Awww, too bad. I've already provided references that discuss this in detail. It's up to you now to censor this fact or not. I'm not arguing anymore.--Zereshk 23:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish diaspora live or have lived everywhere in this planet but it does not mean that region necessarily falls in the area which has been defined.

Diyako Talk + 23:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Diyako do you know what diaspora means??? Look up the definition. The Kurds of Fars are and were not diaspora!!!!! Use proper terms not rhetoric. You are a fabricator of information. Do you work for the ISraeli secret service? 69.196.139.250 01:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dehkhoda Shwankara were Kurduish. Wirya 11:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

(--About 16 Kb of unsigned, anonymous material put here by 24.148.188.235 (talk) between 22 and 24 August 2008 has been deleted, because WP is not a soapbox. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)--)

Iranian Kurdistan?

I would like some academic references which refer to this region as Iranian Kurdistan, preferably not done by Kurdish nationalists --Kash 18:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree most of these articles are heavily controlled by extremist Kurdish nationalist members who will not allow any other sort of opinion. Nokhodi 06:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Kurdistan is called OLd Kurdistan. The Kurds use to live more to the East, but there was a geographic shift westwards when the Turks invaded the region. Hamedan (with its Mede is a marker).

A suggested solution

I suggest we create a page called Geopolitical disputes regarding Kurdistan and put all sides of each argument there. Then, at the top of each disputed Kurd or Kurdistan related page, we can put a link which says "See also Geopolitical disputes regarding Kurdistan". What about this? Merecat 22:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This dispute does not include Iranian Kurdistan. Unlike Turkey or Syria, there is NO sensivity among Iranians regarding Kurdistan. Diyako Talk + 22:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Khomeini Jahad Quote

Does anyone have a source for it? Also shouldn't the article mention a few things about the looting and masscres of Iranian soldiers in Kurdish areas in Iran during the beginning of the revolution?Nokhodi 04:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

North Khorasan Province

1. The two maps here: Demographics of Iran suggest that a large number of people identifying themselve culturally or otherwise as Kurds live in North Khorasan Province and part of the province to the East of it.
2. Seymour Hersh refers to the US provoking violent ethnic conflict among Kurds in the northeast of Iran: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact and the Kurds, in the northeast.
3. an Amnesty International urgent action message http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engMDE130372006 claims that most Kurds in Iran live in the north-eastern provinces" (but continue to say "neighbouring Iraq and Turkey", which is inconsistent).

Did Seymour Hersh make an error (since it would probably be easier for the US to infiltrate through the Iraq and Turkey borders than the Turkmenistan border)?

Did Amnesty just make a chance error? Or did it just badly summarise the (apparent) fact that most Kurds in Iran live in the north-west, but some live in the north-east?

In any case, this present article - Iranian Kurdistan - doesn't seem to talk about the Kurds in North Khorasan and the Demographics of Iran maps. Maybe someone who knows should add more info?

Hmmmm... both of those maps are CIA maps (at least, as far as wikipedia licensing questions are concerned).

Maybe the CIA is wrong?

Boud 14:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Seymour Hersh made a mistake. He should have said northwest of Iran. Although some Kurds also live in northeast of Iran as well (north of Khorasan), those Kurds are descendants of exiled tribes in Safavid period and the traditional Kurdish inhabited lands are located in western Iran. Also Amensty made a mistake too. It mentiones West Azerbaijan province and town of Bokan in the northwest of Iran, then uses the wrong word northeast. For Kurdish areas of Middle East look at this map [2].Heja Helweda 21:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Reform movement and the problem of Kurds

I am removing the mention of Luristan from the end of the second paragraph. Luristan is not a predominately Kurdish province; its predominately Luri :). . —Preceding unsigned comment added by DFront21 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sunni Mosque in Tehran

[3] [4] Isnt this a Sunni mosque? It has one Minaret...Khosrow II 04:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish-Iranian relations

The title of this article is wrong, it discusses the history of Kurds and Iranians from very early times and even when Kurds were not under Iranian rule. The best possible alternative is => Kurdo-Iranian relations. Besides although we have a Kurdistan 'in Iran' there is nothing like Iranian Kurdistan (exept for the new province of Kurdistan). This also goes for the so-called Turkish Kurdistan. this is not an accurate term. a better term can be => Kurdo-Turkish relations.

Awat 12:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Those regions are now called by those names, since they form parts of Iran or Turkey. Although, the governments do not recognize it, however it is widely used in the academia, literature and media. Your argument against using those terms, can also be applied to the term Kurdistan itself, as it is not recognized politically by any government (the whole region), however note that these terms are referring to a geo-cultural region only, not a political entity.Heja Helweda 01:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The stuf used for this article deserves nothing but Kurdo-Iranian relations. What is this so-called 'Iranian Kurdistan'? Since when it has been known as such. Why it is called Iranian Kurdistan but not Kurdistan region ruled by the state of Iran? At least let's rename it to Kurdistan - Iran. Awat 02:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Shabankara are pure Kurds

Hello people, I have problem with this paragraph:

While according to Persian sources such as Dehkhoda Dictionary, Ardashir was the son of a Kurdish mother from Shabankareh tribe in the Fars Province [7], others historical documents such as Fars-nama(ca. 1107 CE) and Maslik al-absar of al-Umari do not consider Shabankareh as Kurdish and differentiate between Shabankareh and Kurds and the Kurdish history of Sharafnama (written by Sharaf al-Din Bitlisi in 16th century), does not mention Shabankareh among the Kurdish dynasties [8]. Moreover, modern scholars are of the opinion that the Kurds mentioned in Islamic and Persian sources as living in south and southwest Persia (Fars) were probably not true Kurds, but nomadic tribes speaking southwest Iranian dialects related to modern Luri and Persian[9].

Is this pragraph supposed to be trying to deny Kurdishness of Shabankara Kurds of Southestern Kurdistan? Brusk u Trishka 21:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry; I cannot tolerate this to label our tribes as non-Kurdish. that's biased (:.

Shabankara were a powerful Kurdish tribe of southern Zagros. After Islamic conquest and defeat of their resistance against muslims, they divided into a few branchs and spread across Kirmanshah, Xorasan, Fars region and Armenia. the branch who lived around Kirmanshah still exists to this day... Brusk u Trishka 22:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I understand and sympathize with your patriotic feelings, however we should keep in mind that in an encyclopedia all relevant scholarly sources must be mentioned even if it goes against our ethnic pride or POV etc. The fact is Kurdishness of Shabankara is not supported by all researchers.Heja Helweda 17:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Heja but it sounds to me like destroying our own history... ((: Brusk u Trishka 23:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Also Kurdishness of Shabankara does not belong here. It has its own article. Brusk u Trishka 23:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

((--About 24 Kb of unsigned, anonymous material put here by 24.148.188.235 (talk) between 4 August and 19 August 2008 has been deleted, because WP is not a soapbox. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)--)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Iranian Kurdistan → Kurds in Iran — The intended scope is info relevant to "Kurds in Iran" just like how it is on Kurds in Turkey and Kurds in Syria. Hence the title of "Kurds in Iran" seems more suitable as that seems to be the intended scope. -- Cat ^chi? 13:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — Cat ^chi? 13:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose: The topic "Kurds in Iran" is different from "Kurds in Turkey" & Syria .In contrast of Arabic and/or Turkic identity, Kurds are one of Iranian peoples. Scottish people are of Britons, and that's resonable to have entries such as "Scots in Germany" or "Irishs in USA " , but moving "Scotland" entry to the "Scots in UK" is not resonable.See also the article "Iranian Kurds and Kurds" by Sirvan Kaveh.--Alborz Fallah 22:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  Scotland is a legal entity in the UK while Iranian Kurdistan is not. Kurdistan province (Iran) is a legal entity as is Kermanshah province. This isn't a similar move to your example. A Scottish United Kingdom or United Kingdom Scotland would be unreasonable. They do not exist for that reason. -- Cat ^chi? 01:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think that's the legality that matters, but the cultural and historical background.Same is true about Iranian Azerbaijan and not "Azeri's in Iran".--Alborz Fallah 07:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  If you want to write about Kurdish history in Iran, thats fine just title it as such. Prior to WW1 there was no "Iranian Kurdistan" so all history prior to WW1 belongs to a "History of Kurdistan" article. Iranian Azerbaijan can undergo the same routine. -- Cat ^chi? 07:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: Iranian Kurdistan is used [5] and in Iran, the usage of Kurdistan also encompasses Kordestan province as well as three others. Also Turkish Kurdistan seems to be used a lot [6]. Even if it is not an official region, then it is a cultural entity. We have also Baluchistan in Iran and from both a scholarly point of view and also Iranian point of view the issue does not carry any baggage of sensitivity. --alidoostzadeh 00:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  Oh not at all. I think the article should cover Kurds in Iran in general and not be restricted to this "Iranian Kurdistans" borders (whatever those are). In fact the article talks about Tehran which I believe is not anywhere close to "Iranian Kurdistan." The article does indeed focus on History related to Kurdish people with minimal to no mention of non-Kurdish issuses. It would only make sense if the title represented this. -- Cat ^chi? 01:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I agree overall. The link you provided is a blog, how about a reliable source. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  That article was first published in a Kurdish official site (KurdishMedia.com)and mentioned in other places (eg:newsweek.washingtonpost.com)but that was deleted from official Kurdish media for unknown reasons (perhaps a technical one ).--Alborz Fallah 07:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Iranian Kurdistan is used in many academic sources. A quick search in books.google.com returns over 500 citations [7]. scholar.google.com also returns 171 articles using this term[8]. I suggest White cat stop his/her relentless push to wipe Kurdistan off the map :)(This is joke, no offence intended !).Heja Helweda 21:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  We do not write an article on every term and there already is a Kurdistan and History of Kurdish people articles which covers the existing material in greater detail. This article does not just cover a "Iranian Kurdistan" as we even have content related to Tehran. This article focuses on Kurdish people and their history and not a region of any kind. -- Cat ^chi? 10:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - as much as I often give Cat (a little bit too much of) a hard time about the Kurdistan thing, I really considered this one. Until I thought about everyone else where there are conflicts. We have Punjab (India) and Punjab (Pakistan), and for the Basque Country, I would support Spanish Basque Country over Basques in Spain. The Evil Spartan 02:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  Both of your examples (Spanish Basque Country and Basques in Spain) are redlinks so I cannot comment on them. Punjab (India) is a recognised Indian state according to the article. Punjab (Pakistan) is a recognised Pakistani region. "Iranian Kurdistan" is nothing like those. It is neither a region nor a state. Nor does it have any political existence. -- Cat ^chi? 10:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

'Bold text'Bazrani or Shabankara Kurd are Yezidi and come Elamite-Dravidian origins.

Shabankara or Bazrani Kurds are pure Yezidi and of Elamo-Dravidian origins who althought are originally extremely ebony black skinned people are pure Caucasian people that came Pakistan or the Indus Vally where Rh Factor originated not in Europe. The Aryan invasion was Semitic Invasion and had nothing to do with Aryans because black Caucasian people they try to destroy were pure Aryan people who worship the Sun God Mitravaruna who is late called Ahura Mazda the Atlantean Astronomer Asuramaya. The Aryan God in August 2003 rose from the Underworld and re-enter in heaven and are now spreading Socialism all around the Earth. The proof is the Federalization of all the Banks around the world is a Coup de tat of the Socialist and Aryan revolution when the Gods or God is finally on the Aryan side beside the Semitic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.188.235 (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bold text They Genetic Map of the real Aryan race in the World.

• File:Http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030063&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030063.g002

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030063&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030063.g002

This is the Genetic Map not just for APOBEC3B gene but the CCL3L1, Rh negative Frequency, GHRH-R,SDF1-3'A, HTLV-Ic,IGHG1G3*f;bob1b3b4b5 RH*cde.IGHG1G3*fa;bob1b3b4b5 RH*CDe. All this genes can be found in the black shared parts of this Map which prove that Aryan have Southeast Asian Origins from Rhesus Monkeys and not in Africa with Chimpanzee.

My Zoroastrian root are Southeast Asian or Rhesus Monkey Roots are clean with CCL3L1 anti-HIV gene in on both side of my mother family from Senegal with Mandenka and the Parsis or Iraqi Jews. I am B Rh negative carrier or cde complex from Asia not Europe which mean I came pure Caucasian which Parsis who Rh negative some the purest and Rh negative originated in Pakistan from Rhesus Monkeys and African Chimpanzee. I have GHRH-R or Pituitary Dwarfism or Dwarfism of Sindh which originally came from Rhesus Monkeys it not found in Africans. The APOBEC3B is mostly in Southeast Asian mainly Melanesian from Rhesus Monkeys and Native America from Central and South America also have some traces or CCL3L1, Caucasoid haplotype, GHGH-R in Aztec and Brazilian Negritos Indian tribes and APOBEC3B anti HIV gene Central and South American Indian and Meztiso are Southeast Asian Aryan origins hence the spread of Socialism in Latin America lead by Native American and Mezitos groups.

mmunoglobin f;b or IGHG1G3*f;bob1b3b4b5 RH*cde in Elamo-Dravidian

Eastern Canadian Eskimos have 13% of immunoglobin f;b, which probably came from Europe where it is now most common, its highest frequencies being in Sardinia, Bulgaria, Greece, and Ireland (79-85%). However, similar frequencies occur in Elamo-Dravidian groups of India and are nearly as high in Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran, suggesting dispersal to Europe from Southwest Asia. Curiously, one Carib population showed 13%, and f;b was found in samples from the Aymarans and from six tribes of the Amazon region, suggesting Indonesian or Indian contact; but much wider sampling is needed