Talk:Kurdistan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 83.249.235.48 (talk) at 16:56, 8 October 2008 (→‎No Kurdistan!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives
  1. February 2003 – February 2005
  2. February 2005 – December 2005
  3. December 2005 – February 2006
  4. February 2006 – September 2006
  5. September 2006 – April 2007


PROPOGANDA

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

It is important to remember that this is an encyclopaedic article that is to convey FACTS and REFERENCED/CITED historical information. This article should not contain opinionated information.

Thank you.--72.140.155.2 (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of Kurdistan

Not Armenia, nor Azerbaijan (the state, not the Iranian one) are not the parts of Kurdistan. Not Britannica [1], nor Encyclopaedia of islam, nor even the dubious map, represented in the article, are not support this OR. Andranikpasha 15:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

You are welcome to remove the map. This was discussed before (#The map) and no one provided a satisfactory answer to why this map should be in the article.
No part of Turkey, Syria, Iran or Armenia is recognized as a part of Kurdistan as Kurdistan exists purely in an unofficial and aspirational manner. Kurdish populated does not equal Kurdistan, quite right however Washingtonpost also seems to include Armenia. That was a 0.15 second goggle search. Looking at the thread, there is no mention of Azerbaijan in the sources so it is out.
-- Cat chi? 01:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
"most Kurds live in the generally contiguous areas of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Armenia and Syria – a mountainous region of southwest Asia generally known as Kurdistan". If you read the article you will see that Armenia never mentioned again as Kurdistan. To finish this discussion maybe its better to search for an "Armenian Kurdistan" (I searched [2], not even one reliable source using such a "term")? You asks: "Kurdistan exists purely in an unofficial and aspirational manner". Surely, than we need to be more careful in this article and mark in the description that the topic of this article is something unrecognized and aspirational. Otherwise we have a large (fantastic) territory of different internationally-recognized countries which looks like the occupants of the "Land of Kurds", which is not a recognized fact (Iraqi and maybe Turkish Kurdistan's can be discussed), but rather a partially POV. Andranikpasha 08:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think even "Iraqi Kurdistan" should be treated as a part of this "greater Kurdistan" as it is merely a Federal State of Iraq just like how New Mexico (a formerly official Mexican territory until United States annexed) is a federal state of the United States and is not a part of this Greater Mexico. Anything else would fall under WP:OR.
As for Armenian Kurdistan, I found this: [3] "Armenian Kurdistan also known as Red Kurdistan (Kurdistana Sor)." Now I do not know if this falls under a reliable source (it ceratainly does not feel reliable) but Red Kurdistan (Kurdistana Sor) does exist as an article. I assume the popular way to referance to Armenian parts of Kurdistan is as "Red Kurdistan" as Armenia did not exist back then when Soviet rule was over the place. According to the article on wikipedia most Kurds were deported which may explain why there is very little mention of Kurds in Armenia on the net which is my ¢2.
-- Cat chi? 15:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is confused

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

I also think so! Also we need to check the accuracy of the description and article's text! Kurdi-Stan means "Kurdish land" or "Country of Kurds". During the history such an independent country never existed (there were few separate autonomies). It is rather a description of some claims, not verifable facts. And we must differ "Kurdish-populated" areas from the "Country of Kurds" which is rather a political term and if we're marking something more than simple "cultural area" in the description, we must detalize what we mean by "Country" or "Land" (is it means for example that Kurdish-populated part of Iran is not the country of Iran but a Kurdish country or land, or maybe both??). Andranikpasha 08:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article nowhere claims to be about "an independent country". The first paragraph plainly states that it covers "a geographic and cultural region in the Middle East, inhabited predominantly by the Kurds". --Vindheim 10:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vindheim, if you're interested in geographics (I awarded a junior prize many years ago:) you surely know that the Armenian and Turkish geographical parts are internationally recognized as Armenian Highland, or currently also Eastern Anatolia. No such a geographical region(s; as according to the map the Armenian part seems to be an anclave) - Kurdistan (Land of Kurds, Land, country is not the same of cultural, ethnical presence), its an obvious territorial claim. If even there is a region in Armenia which is inhabited predominately by the Kurds (??, any facts, as I know Armenia is a mono-ethnic state with absolute Armenian majority in all the regions, there are only separate Kurdish, Russian, Greek, Assyrian villages), it never means this region can be called as a "Country (land) of the Kurds"... Im asking again: is there an Armenian Kurdistan? Andranikpasha 11:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stating the fact that many Kurds live in Aremenia and Azerbaijan does not imply any change in the geopolitical status of these lands. --Vindheim 12:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely! Thats what Im asking. We can state here (or better at the Kurds) that many Kurds live in Armenia, Azerbaijan, also Netherlands, Germany, USA etc., but no sources asking this geographical or even culturel regions are the Lands of Kurds. Many Assyrians live in Armenia, we're not going to include Armenia in Assyria. Andranikpasha 12:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historically the region in question changed many hands. "Greater Armenia", "Greater Turkey", "Greater Assyria", "Greater Kurdistan", "Greater Russia", "Greater Persia/Iran" are all aspirational demands over overlapping territories. Plausibility of such demands are indeed disputed and none of these are official or unofficial countries. They do not even exist on paper on an active internationally recognised treaty. The land was also officially taken over and annexed by many existing countries ranging from Soviets to Romans.
If this article is over a mere geographic and cultural region, it should not have a flow of a country article. There is an over emphasis on Kurds in this article. The article is not on Kurdish people, which is a seperate article, but over a geographic and cultural region. Europe is a geographic region and please check how that article flows.
-- Cat chi? 15:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Article can be moved to a "Kurdish inhabited region" perhaps. -- Cat chi? 15:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it cannot be moved. Kurdistan has an entry in major encyclopeadias such as Britannica. [4].Heja Helweda 17:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't a Britannica clone. Look how much material even Britannica has on the matter? Very little indeed (478 words). Note the lack of a map as well. Should this page were to be moved to "Kurdish inhabited region" there would be more room for expansion with the expanded scope.
By the way the mentioned source does mention "Mountainous area of Kurdistan [...] parts of what are now eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran and smaller parts of northern Syria and Armenia." which includes Armenia.
-- Cat chi? 17:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we must keep this article just by deleting most obvious POV's (we should ask at the description that there isnt detailed borders for this term, its not recognized not politically, not geographically (there isnt such a geographic term, its a political term)). What about "Greater Armenia", "Greater Turkey", "Greater Assyria", "Greater Kurdistan", "Greater Russia", "Greater Persia/Iran" - we must differ them: "Greater Armenia" is not a geographical region but an Ancient Kingdom, "Greater Turkey" (there are two -"Ottoman Turkey" historical and "Turan" (Great Turan) political term), Assyria was an Ancient Kingdom (and there is a term of Assyria connected to the modern political claims of Assyrian peoples), "Greater Kurdistan" never existed, surely its not a geographical term, i dont know if there are modern political claims for a "Greater Kurdistan", if yes, then OK, we can create a separate article dedicated to that claims with the citations from the Kurdish leaders or semi-officials. Until now we even cant understand what Kurdistan means according to this article: is it a geographical region, a region with Kurdish majority, the Kurdish political claims, a "Kurdish-inhabited"(?) area, a platue? To Heja: there isnt a region in Armenia mainly inhabited by Kurds. Its an unsourced OR. Andranikpasha 17:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right. Each of the "Greater" entities I mentioned have unique characteristics. I dare not simplify them.
Most material on Kurdistan is up in the air due to a complete lack of any official or semi-official borders. No one, not even Kurds claim the existence of a "Kurdistan" as a political entity or such a claim is not backed by defacto or dejure government. Some Kurds indeed campaign for an independent/dependent Kurdistan such as the Kurdistan Workers Party, labeled as terrorist by vast number of countries further complicating matters.
Kurdistan is a complicated term with many meanings much like Macedonia and should be treated as such.
-- Cat chi? 18:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Surely!

to Vindheim: and what the mainly Kurdish-inhabited parts of Armenia? US Department of State report on Armenia: "The population was approximately 98 percent ethnic Armenian. The Government did not discriminate against the small, officially recognized "national" communities, although the economic and social situation of such groups has deteriorated substantially since independence in 1991. National communities recognized by the Government included Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Jews, Kurds, Yezidis, Assyrians, Georgians, Greeks, and Germans." [5]. A partisan source (really serious claims): Kurdish prof. Samvel Kochoi (Moscow): "Being the aborigen peoples of the region, Kurds live at the teritory of 500.000 km. This territory is situated between former political borders of Turkey, Iran, Iraq ans Syria, and all of these countries has its "own" Kurdistan: Turkish, Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian (sometimes marked as northern, eastern, southern and western Kurdistans)".[6]. Where's the "platue", where's Armenia? Andranikpasha 19:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


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


Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq could change its name to Kurdia Regional Government. This way Kurdistan could refer to the geographical area while Kurdia could refer to the regional government.

Roots of Kurds

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

WikiProject Assyria?

Why was this article added to WikiProject Assyria?[7] Any specific reason(s)? — Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 02:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Northeastern Kurdistan ?

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

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


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


We know most the Kurds in Armenia and Azerbaijan are Yezidis. Maybe it could be called "Yezidi Kurdistan".

Why The Kurds are not allowed to 'self-determinate'

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


^^^ No there were always Arabs/Assyrians/Turkmen/Armenians living in Mosul, Mosul is not part of Kurdistan, next you will be claiming Baghdad!


The Kurds only claim what belongs to them. Maybe Turkey sould stop claiming North Kurdistan, Iran should stop claiming East Kurdistan, Iraq should stop claiming South Kurdistan, Syria should stop claiming West Kurdistan and Armenia and Azebaijan should stop claiming NE/Yezidi Kurdistan.

Incorrect information

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


Sumerian Cuneiform tablets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What??? the Kurds outdate the Sumerians, now this is bullshit!

Kurdistan = the Future Kosovo

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

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

Removing the duplicated passages

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

No Kurdistan!

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

There is so much wrong that it is hard to be specific and the whole article is probably beyond redeemable. Could it be anything else, given its use of text books and books on scripture from the early 19th-century to justify its POV fantasies. Meowy 01:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Old and well-read sources should give the article more weight (assuming they're easily verifiable) than new and more transient sources, I would think. --70.128.112.146 (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually believe that, I have to ask what parallel, upside-down universe do you come from? Historians build on the work of their predecessors, adding to it, refining it, correcting mistakes in it - so the more recent the source is, the more likely it is to be accurate. Meowy 23:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the identification of Kurds with Carduchis and Corduene can be found in 21st century sources as well. Would you mind checking out the article on Kurds in the 6th edition of Columbia Encyclopedia published in 2001[8]?:

::::Commonly identified with the ancient Corduene, which was inhabited by the Carduchi (mentioned in Xenophon), the Kurds were conquered by the Arabs in the 7th cent.

.

Heja Helweda (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, encyclopaedias cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. Your source is just reproducing that outdated 19th century identification that modern scholarship no longer holds to be true. Meowy 16:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage of Kurdish population?

I came to this article hoping to find out what percentage of the population within the identified borders of Kurdistan are actually Kurdish, and what percentage are not? Does anybody know?Ghyslyn (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It is all Kurds with the exception of Kirkuk that has some arabs and turkmens in it

There are no "identified borders of Kurdistan", but generally, in areas where Kurds are the biggest minority, Kurds have tended over time to become the absolute majority, and areas where they are the overwhelming majority eventually become ethnically 100% Kurdish on the surface. BTW, don't believe anything in this article. Meowy 02:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is a POV statement if I ever saw one. And as an historical statement is it evidently not true. --Vindheim (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that if your undersanding of "Kurdistan" comes just from reading this Wikipedia article, you might well believe my comment is not true. However, what I said, and my advice, is entirely correct. Meowy 15:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine what you like, but please only put documented facts into wikipedia.--Vindheim (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I don't see why we should care about the percentage, the point is that Kurdistan is the area where Kurds are majority.

aftermade history

can anyone tell me documantary the tribe that you relate (kurds) with sumerian till bc 3000, which means due to your ideas some group of people who are since 5000 years on the court of history, why they never had an independent country? thats why ataturk says: to write history is as important as making the history. as a person who was personally in northern iraqi also last years saw all the crime made by us soldiers who were welcommed with american flags in iraq:S history will write different things 50 years later than what i saw and what those people experienced in that geoghrapy. to the kurds: give up being a toy for emperialist countries and believing in promises which were also given in vietnam and afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glupusti (talk • contribs) 21:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the origin of kurds go back to afghanistan, northern Iraq belongs to assyrians and always will it has nothing to do with migrant kurds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclefester89 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Origin of Kurds (Medes) and Persians and other Iranians go back to todays Afghanistan yes, and origins of people are good to know, but the most important thing is, now that the world is in the modern state era, it would be best for every people, as far as it is whished and possible to determine its own destiny, to take responsiblity for its own history, culture and language. Kurdistan is the area today where Kurds are a majority, but since this area is divided in between five countries, Kurds are minority in their own home. There were times when assyrians, babylons were majority in this geography. As a Kurd I would more than love to offer the assyrians a piece of land there so that they would be able to protect and develope their language and culture and history. But this power is at the moment not in the hand of the Kurds, as the matter of fact, they are in the same situation, where they are not free to protect and develope their language and culture and everybody offends them by questioning their history and origin.

Are you insane?

There is no country as Kurdistan. Use an atlas idiots! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.165.129.131 (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you blind? The word "country" does not appear in the article. Meowy 19:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, this section, and many other sections and many comments on this talk page are completely off-topic. Maybe from now on such stuff should be removed. If this is done then perhaps some progress could be made on improving the article, which is of low quality. Meowy 22:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet in Kurdistan

Finally after all the internet problems in Kurdistan (ADSL2+) is available!!! Kurdistan-Net company which started in 2000 now provides high speed internet in(Erbil). it has just started providing ADSL2+ that is why their best option now is 512kb/s. and they said that they are just in the beginnig and they are working on faster speeds!!! They also said that they will be able to provide very fast speeds in the next (6) months...

But the Prices are still High because they are still in development... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhiyar (talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Martin J. Dent, Identity Politics: Filling the Gap Between Federalism and Independence page: 99, Published 2004 Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 232 pages, ISBN 0754637727
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kurdistan&oldid=243927432"