Kurdistan B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Syria B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
February 2003 – February 2005 February 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – September 2006
Kurds v. Kurdistan

The Kurdistan article gives reference to Britannnica [[1]], but someone pushes POV fork, probably believing that no one would check it with the orinal source. In Brittannica the Kurdistan article is as follows:

"The name Kurdistan (“Land of the Kurds”) refers to an area that roughly includes the mountain systems of the Zagros and the eastern extension of the Taurus. Since very early times the area has been the home of the Kurds, a people whose ethnic origins are uncertain. For 600 years after the Arab conquest and their conversion to Islam, the Kurds played a recognizable and considerable part in the troubled history of western Asia, but as tribes, individuals, or turbulent groups rather than as a people.

Among the petty Kurdish dynasties that arose during this period the most important were the Shaddadids, ruling a predominantly Armenian population in the Ani and Ganja districts of Transcaucasia (951–1174); the Marwanids of Diyarbakir (990–1096); and the Hasanwayhids of Dinavar in the Kermanshah region (959–1015). Less is written of the Kurds under the Mongols and Turkmens, but they again became prominent in the wars between the Ottoman Empire and the Safavid dynasty. Several Kurdish principalities developed and survived into the first half of the 19th century, notably those of Bohtan, Hakari, Bahdinan, Soran, and Baban in Turkey and of Mukri and Ardelan in Persia. But Kurdistan, though it played a considerable part in the history of western Asia, never enjoyed political unity.

With the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I (1914–18), and particularly with the encouragement of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson—one of whose Fourteen Points stipulated that the non-Turkish nationalities of the Ottoman Empire should be “assured of an absolute unmolested opportunity of autonomous development”—Kurdish nationalists looked to the eventual establishment of a Kurdistani state.

The Treaty of Sèvres, signed in 1920 by representatives of the Allies and of the sultan, provided for the recognition of the three Arab states of Hejaz, Syria, and Iraq and of Armenia and, to the south of it, Kurdistan, which the Kurds of the Mosul vilayet (province), then under British occupation, would have the right to join. Owing to the military revival of Turkey under Kemal Atatürk, this treaty was never ratified. It was superseded in 1923 by the Treaty of Lausanne, which confirmed the provision for the Arab states but omitted mention of Armenia and Kurdistan. Mosul was excluded from the settlement, and the question of its future was referred to the League of Nations, which in 1925 awarded it to Iraq. This decision was made effective by the Treaty of Ankara, signed in 1926 by Turkey, Iraq, and Great Britain."

The claims are merely political and a problem of POV. There are Turkish citizens living as much as Kurd originated Turks. Everyone can see that the progress going on in the northern Iraq is due to natural sources of the area, it is explicit!

İf a comparison is made for the situation, the problem of Cyprus sould be considered as the Turkish Cypriots claimed a free and offical state in Cyprus which is not recognized by many countries on contrary of an imaginary Kurdland. However Turkish C. inhabitated Cyprus and they got their country by force and draw the border, thus no one can claim the area invaded should be given back as the area has always been Turkish Cypriot. But Kudish area is something different, so called Kurdistan doen not exists, they are mostly Turkish or Iraqi citizens! So why USA still fond of an independant state in N.Iraq and S.W Turkey? Petroleum is the simple answer. As not so they sould have accepted the N.Cyprius. What is going on in Iraq and in N.Iraq is not LEGAL and it is a crime! Check out Leo Strauss(85.102.61.61 10:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

In what way is the Turkish republic in Northern Cyprus more real than the Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq ? --Vindheim 17:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan does not claim to be a country unlike Northern Cyprus, Nagro-karabagh, Sealand and etc. Kurdistan is to be treated as a mere geographic region. --Cat out 16:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it's widely accepted as an independent country and it has been claimed by war when it was necesarry. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:#top|talk]] • contribs)

If you have evidence, do not hold back. But that region is not recognized as an independent country at all. Korrybean 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish occupied cyprus is'nt recognised by any country other than Turkey, who invaded and occupied the region. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:#top|talk]] • contribs)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361

The 1820 world map is not a very convincing picture. It shows various countries, administrative subdivisions and regions. However, nothing is well-defined; Kurdistan is not given any real boundaries, just like the territories in North and Western Canada. I'd advocate replacing this map with a new one illustrating the intent behind the Treaty of Sevres. Hugo Dufort 05:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are better of with fewer maps. Some of them dont even seem to be relevant. We do not need every pd map about the general region (some of these are world maps anyways) --Cat out 03:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. Having no map is better than having an unconvincing (or unfocused) map. Hugo Dufort 17:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with that. The aim is to give comprehensive information based on reliable sources. E104421 07:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are kurdistan ???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.98.110.71 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 14 October 2006.

1 - Learn to speak English properly, or don't attempt speaking it.

2 - YES there bloody well is a Kurdistan, just because some horse-riding Central Asian nomads invade a region, and develop their own borders according to how little resistance the indigenous people of the area will show when they attempt to assimilate/slaughter them, and self-important Europeans draw up artificial borders based on negotiations which the people who actually live in the area had no say in, doesn't mean an area which has existed for millenia suddenly disappears, because it is not considered a state by the morons in charge of neighbouring states and therefore not draw on maps. What are maps, and who are "credible" sources to tell the indigenous people of Kurdistan, the Kurds, that their homeland does not exist? If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it fall, does it make a sound? Yes it bloody fucking well does make a bloody fucking sound, so recognise it or don't, it exists. It may not have "official borders" but like it or not, Kurds are concentrated in this area, have been for as long as anyone remembers, and they call their homeland, and yes it is their homeland, Kurdistan. Thats the end of that, so stfu. It doesn't matter at all what the fucking tool in Baghdad, the tool in Damascus, the tool in Tehran and the many, many tools in Ankara say.

It's in the Middle East—the region that Kurds traditionally inhabit. —Khoikhoi 15:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for this person. Many Turks use this phrase of "where is Kurdistan" to show that a state called Kurdistan does not officially exist. The Kurdistan here is just a REGION not a country Korrybean 00:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the northern republic of cyprus doesnt officially exist but the turks recognise it so why shouldnt we recognise kurdistan, it does exist!!! The guy that wrote above knows his stuff, hes abit angry though. YES KURDISTAN Ge0rg10 User:GE0RG10

Merriam-Webster Collegiate® Dictionary

• Kur·di·stan

Pronunciation: ˌku̇r-də-'stan, ˌkər- Function: noun Etymology: Kurdistan, Asia

Date: 1904

an Oriental rug woven by the Kurds and noted for fine colors

Pronunciation: ˌku̇r-də-'stan, ˌkər-, -'stän; 'kər-də-ˌ Function: geographical name

region SW Asia chiefly in E Turkey, NW Iran, & N Iraq

© 2005 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

No Such thing ever existed nor will exist as as kurdistan. None of the countries surrounding area as Tukey, Iran or Syria will allow this. no one has power to do it or it means a war and more killings of human being. THis is a legal issue between Turkey, Syria, Iran and opposition to wikipedia. They MUST remove this from the internet ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.225.40 (talk • contribs)

How about joining the WikiProject Kurdistan Ozgur Gerilla 12:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the history section removed from the article, you can't just remove portions of articles without explanation.

SIGN YOUR POST’S

Please people you need to sign your comment’s added to the discussion page not only for this article but other articles also, it’s stander Wikipedia guideline to sign your comments and posts.

If you don’t know how to sign your posts click the link below.

How to sign your post’s

--D.Kurdistani 04:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is rendudnent on this article. There is a "History of The Kurdish people" (or a similar titled article). This article is expected to give a brief intor to the regional history of the most relevant issues such as world war 1. --Cat out 16:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uyeyimben

both of area is in TURKEY

This article contains a lot of propaganda. All the nations of the middle east knows that the kurds have never been a nation, never had a such thing as a kingdom in the middle east, neither did the name kurd appear before christ, their name appeared in history about 1100 after death. If you believe this or not is up to you but we from the middle east knows the truth about the kurds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.216.185.79 (talk) 09:26 30 October 2006

• • It shows how educated you are, “we knows”. You need evidence to back up that statement. You sound like a Turk, the history of the Turks in the Middle East starts about 900 years ago around 1100 C.E. Up in till the late 19th century your people were known as Gypsies among the Kurds, because of your migrations to the region. I can go on and make more racists remarks about your people, but I won’t waste web space with that and I suggest your don’t waste web space with your rubbish either and next time sign your posts. --D.Kurdistani 05:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until the 19th century. hm...so none of those Greeks heard about Fall of Constantiople in 15th century or the Capture of Athens in 16th? I apoligize for this persons (unsigned one's) comments, but you show complete ignorance Kurdistani. Korrybean 22:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurds are tribes nonunited. Kurdish is a mixture of Iranian dialects. Kurds do not have concrete history or literature. Kurds never had a concrete homeland...they are just being created by puppet masters. Thank you.(cantikadam 13:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There are several things wrong with the new infobox:

1. It looks ugly, and is not an improvement.
2. Your source for the population is the Kurdish people article, but Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source (see WP:RS).
3. Please do not remove the {{sprotect}} tag, the page is semi-protected.

Khoikhoi 23:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I did not mean to remove the {{sprotect}} tag that was a mistake, but there are improvements in the new info box take a look below and compare. But whether the new info box looks ugly or not that is your opinion, I really don’t care much for peoples opinions no offense! --D.Kurdistani 00:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Diyako, Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise. It's not "every man for himself". We work together to build consensus on issues. I'll contact some other people on what they think. Khoikhoi 00:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

کوردستان

Kurdistan

Kurdish-Inhabited Areas
Location	Parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Armenia
Languages Spoken	Kurdish کوردی
Area (Est.)  - Total	190,000 km² - 390,000 km² 74,000 sq.mi-151,000 sq.mi[2]
Population - Total (2006Est.)	25-37.5 Million [3]

Kurdistan

Kurdish-inhabited area
Location	Parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey
Estimated Area	ca. 74,000 sq mi (191,660 km²)-392,000 km² [4]
Estimated Population	About 25-30 Million

This map is false according to Newsweek magazine [[5]] - [[6]]. The current map just basically where ALL kurds live, but this is making the reader misjudge something, it makes it look like in the shaded area, kurds form the majority, which is totally false. For example, Kurdistan does NOT include Mousil, as they dont make the majority. Please, can we create a new more accurate map? Chaldean 03:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This map is not false as you state, Newsweek does not state that this particular map is not accurate. The sources you provided just show only maps of the POLITICAL DIVISION of Iraq not the ETHNIC DIVISION of Iraq. It’s just a map you provided that has no relevance to the topic of this post. Now the map below shows the ETHNIC DIVISION of Iraq. --D.Kurdistani 07:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew a thing or two about the middle east you would know that political division = ethnic division. The map you provide is old, the one I provided is newer thus being more accurate. Chaldean 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The map you provided shows who’s in control of Iraq, it clearly states that at the top of the map. Its shows who is in control and the political division of that country not ETHNIC DIVISION. ETHINC DIVISION does not equal POLITICAL DIVISION, the map proves that. Just look at the Kurdish areas different political groups have influence in different areas, apparently you don’t know a lot about the Middle East.

How do you know that the map I provided is old and outdated? I look around to find the date this map was created, but could not find an exact date for it. Until you can provide a good source for the exact date this map was created or even when first published. Until you provide that information this map is the most current map showing Iraqi demographics. --D.Kurdistani 21:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The map is of questionable accuracy, there are thosands of Jews in Iraqi Kurdistan alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.81.218.12 (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Iraqi Kurdistan region and Kurdistan Province in Iran are officially acknowledged parts of Kurdistan. Officially acknowledged by who? Musungu jim 22:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I added a 'citation needed', which at least is indisputable. 66.92.53.49 04:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They never talk about a "State of Kurdistan". I hope you make that clear. Korrybean 22:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kurds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Khorshid 13:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kurds was considered for deletion on 2006 November 18. The result of the discussion was Keep. --D.Kurdistani 06:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism is truly cretinous.

Khoikhoi: What's up with the reversions? Perhaps we can discuss them here. My concern is you are reverting hard work by several people without an explanation, but I'm sure you have valuable input to include in the article. As described on here, try improving the article, and please offer an reason for edits. Or, as you say above, Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise. It's not "every man for himself". We work together to build consensus on issues. Guanxi 19:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted because the "status of Kurdistan" section is unecessary. Please provide sources that such a debate exists. Virtually everyone recognizes Kurdistan as a region—even the Kurds don't say it's a country. Also, why is it necessary to say "not existing as a country" in the infobox? Is there anyone that claims it's a country? Khoikhoi 19:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should definitely discuss it then (which I will in my next comment). I don't think simply reverting it, along with several other people's work, without comment is the best way to deal with it, and is in fact against Wikipedia's policies. Even if you don't agree with that section, why revert everyone else's work? Also, improve the section, do n't delete it. Guanxi 19:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having friends (or aliases) reverting it (after your hint on my talk page about the 3 reversion rule) does not address the issue. Please address my comments above.Guanxi 20:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copying Khoikhoi's comments from above:

I reverted because the "status of Kurdistan" section is unecessary. Please provide sources that such a debate exists. Virtually everyone recognizes Kurdistan as a region—even the Kurds don't say it's a country. Also, why is it necessary to say "not existing as a country" in the infobox? Is there anyone that claims it's a country? Khoikhoi 19:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Virtually everyone recognizes Kurdistan as a region": That depends on what you mean by "region". The Turkish government has very different ideas than the supporters of Kurdistan. Here is some evidence off the top of my head:

1. As far back as WWI (see the history section), Kurds have pushed for nationhood
2. Turkey has has been fighting an internal rebellion by Kurds for many years (decades?)
3. The leaders of the Kurdish region in N. Iraq have fought for autonomy for decades (again, see the various histories), and even now are pushing for maximum autonomy from the new central gov't.

So certainly there is some controversy. Guanxi 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Kurds have pushed for nationhood hasn't affected the status of Kurdistan as a whole. Britannica says that Kurdistan is a "traditional region" and "extensive plateau and mountain area". Iraqi Kurdistan and the region of Kurdistan are different things. Compare to Tibet. Everyone knows it's a region in China, and although Tibetans want independence, no one claims it's a country. Khoikhoi 19:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I found some useful history here. Many Tibetans say the Tibet is a country, merely occupied by an invader (like Estonia under the USSR). But I think we are disagreeing more on wording than on content. Do we agree on the following?

• Kurdistan is not at this time recognized as a country.
• A significant number of Kurds (and possibly others) want autonomy, and some want it to the degree of nationhood. Certainly, if it were offered, they would take it.
• The countries where Kurdistan is located often try to downplay any suggestion of any cultural or political autonomy, which Kurdistan represents.
• Kurdistan represents both a geographic region and a political entity.

I think we may still disagree on,

• How much the concept of 'Kurdistan' is tied to the political autonomy, and how much it is merely a geographic region, in the minds of Kurds, the Turkish gov't, and the other gov'ts.

Guanxi 20:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Kurdistan can have political meanings. Article isn't neutral and needs work. But what you are doing is not making it neutral. --Cat out 20:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to make it neutral, so what do you suggest? I tried to describe both sides of the controversy without taking a side (I have no personal opinion). Could you suggest improved text? Guanxi 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guanxi,

• Kurdistan hasn't declared independence, making that a null point.
• There's a differance between wanting something and having it.
• Kurdistan mainly represents a geographic region, see the source I provided.
• Kurdistan does not represent both a geographic region and a political entity. You are confusing Kurdistan with Iraqi Kurdistan.

Khoikhoi 20:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you see, I am trying to find middle ground. Where do you see middle ground? Guanxi 20:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it to try to address some of the concerns above. I think the open question is, how many Kurds, both now and in the past, have desired an independent Kurdistan. I will add a 'citation needed' and identify some sources later. Guanxi 21:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Turkish I deleted a vandalism in Turkish in the middle of the page. You might want to protect the page. We have many nationalists jumping around the web.

To all Turks who are commenting on this article: Why you are so hateful of Kurds and Kurdistan?! Isn't that hatred another good reason that Kurds and Kurdistan DO EXIST and you are in the state of denial? Where were Turks 2500 years ago? How did Turks get their country? How did Iraqis get their country? Europe granted them that right after they destroyed an Empire and defeated by Europe. Some of commentators are saying that there are no Kurds and they all are Turks and Iraqi citizens! I wonder how someone claims that all 15-20 millions Kurds in Turkey are all Turks or 3-5 millions Kurds in Iraq are all Arabs and deny the truth about Kurds and Kurdistan. Kurdistan means LAND OF KURDS and no dictionary can deny that. Kurds have history, literature, and everything that a nation should have. Nobody gives them the opportunity to publish them. Once Kurdistan is established, you will read about them!

They are terorist and they kills teachers,women,children. They are putting bombs in the citties and they are the killers,terrorists. Now you can understand why we are so hating these people, for you to understand you should watch these videos. http://youtube.com/watch?v=aBSz0USm_OY&mode=related&search=

http://youtube.com/watch?v=keAgi-rPYmk

I removed the last sentence, because it incorrectly stated that Kurds and Assyrians have adopted Arabic culture. Assyrians in general are culturally, and ethnically distinct from Arabs. In addition, Kurdish culture is very distinct from Arabic culture, is it not?--Šarukinu 05:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it is. But obviously Assyrians, Kurds and Arabs have cultural elements which are same or similar. Ozgur Gerilla 19:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they have similar elements, but that is not to say that those elements were necessarily adopted from the Arab culture.Šarukinu 22:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had it with these random users vandalizing the page. It should be semi-protected. ~~Eugene2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 19:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your maps are wrong.You all know.There is no amet.Diyarbakır is a Turkish city.You cannot change the truth.I hope, may god show you the right way.You couldn't divide Turkey and won't be able to do that.We have been living there since 1071 and will live until life is over.Bonafide

And Kurds have been living in Anatolia since 2500 BC or later so show some respect and let us put this down to history. The word Diyarbakir is not Turkish it's in Arabic but Amed was once the name of the city, so it has to be mentioned for the sake of History. Don't worry words don't divide a country. Ozgur Gerilla 18:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here I don't mean The word, my point is that the city is turkish.If we discuss about the names; Izmir, İstanbul etc. also aren't turkish names.And that shouldn't mean that they're Greek cities.But Diyarbakır is now a turkish city and it has its official name.Kurds may be living in Anatolia since 2500 BC.And Americans used to live in England.Should they come back to England? Should Turks go to middle Asia? Or ıf we go more past should all people go to Jarusalem? Words of course doesn't divide a country.But these words show Turkey divided on some maps. Bonafide

No one here tries to divide Turkey. Diyarbakir is a Kurdish city in the sense that it's predominantly inhabited by Kurdish people but of course it is under the Turkish territory. The map just shows where Kurds predominantly inhabit. So please let's cut the paranoia. Ozgur Gerilla 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the Kurdish Flag page.The flag which is shown in this page symbolizes independence movement from Ottoman Empire and founding new countries on this land which also includes Turkey.Paranoia is a good word, it sounds melodical.But reality sounds better here.It is more convinient.But First problem is "not reading".Bonafide

Every single word written in the "Kurdish Flag" article is correct. What do you want us to do hide that the Kurds fought against the Ottoman's? It's all history and our job is to put it there. I'm not even going to continue arguing. Get over your nationalistic feelings. Ozgur Gerilla 14:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you accept the aim "dividing Turkey".The word "nationalist" is sticked on Turks.But when some Kurds are nationalist they call themselves communist.And let historicians tell about the history.Bonafide

The flag is a issue that may initiate an edit war. I copied the comments here for further discussions. I personally understand those Kurds who historically love the flag as a symbol of independent Kurdistan. However this flag was adopted by Iraqi Kurdistan as an official flag. So the flag has a new official meaning now. Any ideas? objections? I would give it a delete or weak keep with explanation in the middle of the page not at the top. Sangak 19:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ozgurgerilla:The Flag represents the Kurdish people and the Kurdish region; Just like other flags. It's notable enough and it has its history which is longer then the Turkish republic.)
• Sangak:I am reluctant to delete the flag. But it is politically a sensitive issue. Also the flag is now the official flag of Iraqi kurdistan regional government. Any objection?)
• Nareklm:(it says only iraqi kurdistan that still is a part of the united kurdistan and it is appropiate to leave it, since there are many articles on wikipedia with flags that are poltical not accepted)
• Baristarim: (in fact there is, the intro says it is a geographical and cultural region - it is not a political region... therefore it doesn't make sense to have a flag, right?)
• Beh-nam:(rv: there is no good reason to remove that flag.)
• Cool Cat:(remove the Kuridsh flag.)
• Mardavich:(The Kurdish flag should be on the Iraqi Kurdistan page, but not here. As Baris said, this ia a geographical and cultural region, not a political entity. )

Please note that the kurdish flag neither represent Kurdish people nor the region as it is only 80 years old. Rather it always carried a smell of independence and separatism. Sangak 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flag is indeed the flag of the Iraqi Kurdistan, a political entity part of the Iraqi federal structure. This article is simply about the geo-cultural region not about a political entity (defacto or not). Claiming that the flag represents all Kurds is original research.

In addition the flag does not represent the Kurdish people and instead represents parts of Kurdish nationalism. Some Kurds have preferred to use different symbols (see this) and not all Kurds seek independence.

--Cat out 19:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not put our feelings into these issues. It's a flag representing a region. Political or not organisations have flag symbolizing them. The flag can now be representing the Kurdish Iraq but that gives it another reason for it to stay in the article. Flag's cannot be as old as the peoples; no flag is as old as the people so your proposition lacks of truth value. This flag should be in the article for various reasons whether its technical justification is at the top or bottom. Ozgur Gerilla 20:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings? This article is not about just about kurds nor is it in any way about Iraqi kurdistan any more than it is about Turkey. The flag should not be anywhere on this article at all unless we include flags of Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Iran, Armenia as well. --Cat out 20:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan is ONE, if it is Turkish,Iranian,Syria Kurdistan they all fall in the same category of Kurdistan since Iraq Kurdistan adopted its obviously for all the Kurds in those inhabited areas there fore leaving it is appropriate don't you think? Nareklm 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. the flag was adopted by Iraqi regional gov. because Barzani's father were a founder of Mahabad Republic and this is actually the flag of their party.Sangak 20:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Iraqi Kurdistan's authority does not extend beyond the borders of Iraqi Kurdistan and they do not claim the contrary either. Please cite sources that such a claim exist. --Cat out 20:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1946 and the creation of the Republic of Kurdistan at Mehabad, the old "sunny flag" was adopted by its parliament as the official Flag of the Republic. Following these historic background, the National Flag is widely adopted in Kurdistan and has been set aloft by various Kurdish movements and entities in all sectors of the land." Nareklm 20:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flag does not represent the region nor the people. Normally people or ethnic groups do not have a flag. It represents the political movements in modern time. Ofcourse one may mention the flag when he/she writes about the short lived Mahabad republic and the like. These are all about the past. Even at those times it did not represent the whole Kurdish society. At present the flag only represents Iraqi regional government. As Nareklm mentioned the flag was always associated with political movements. No political movement and no political party in Kurdistan enjoyed a support from all Kurds. In any case all of these points belong to the past. Sangak 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It represents part of Kurdish people therefore it's notable enough to be there. Ethnicities do have flags just look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_ethnic_groups. I'd say it again people put their feelings in this issues, Let's not do that. Ozgur Gerilla 21:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then Iranian flag also represent a part of kurdish people and have to be included based on such reasoning. About ethnic groups and flags, I said "normally". Ofcourse we have hundreds of ethnic group most of them with no flag. In any case this is not relevant to Kurdish ethnic group. This ethnic group does not have any flag for sure as discussed before. Sangak 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the following: "With support from the Soviet Union, a Kurdish state was created in the city of Mahabad in 1946 by the Kurdish Movement Komeley Jiyanewey Kurd under the leadership of Qazi Muhammad. Since the minuscule entity extended no further than the small cities of Mahabad, Bukan, Naqada, and Oshnaviyeh in Iran, not even all of Iranian Kurdistan supported the experiment, let alone the Kurds in other states "[7] Sangak 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Than lets just leave it to the Iraqi Kurdistan. Nareklm 20:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create a page that talks about sports and kurds. A page that talks about some of the currnet Kurdish-based teams like Arbil FC, athletes like Hawar Mulla Mohammed, etc. But I dont know what would be a NPOV title for this page. We can't have Sports in Kurdistan like the way Sports in Armenia is, so then what should be the title? Chaldean 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditionally Kurdish Sports/Athletes" is a good idea, but to be honest, I doubt there's any sport native to Kurdistan. Athletes, yes.

Use the relevant country. If the team is inside Iraq, it is an Iraqi team. There is no reason to create unnecessary controversy. -- Cat ^chi? 08:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZAZALÄNDER: Sory bud this Map(Karte) is not Correktly, I am one Zaza not Kurdo and my Land is ZAZALAND and not kurdistan..

whay say the kurd to may contry´kurdistan ?

I have tried to expalin this in the past that these maps posted even by respected sources (usually military) are simply false. The area is FAR more diverse then the map shows it to be. Many Zazas dont want to do anything with Kurds and this is shown in the community [8]. And the same can be said about Yezidis as well, check out recent events with them. Their is a fine line between who considers themselves Kurds and who doesn't. And not to mention the map always ignores the presence of Assyrians, Arabs, Shabaks, and Iraqi Turkmen. Chaldean 15:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your cheap (unofficial, personal thus non-objective and poor designed) websites unfortunately cannot be the source of your virtual argument. Practically, in this issue, we face a contradition to what you're saying; that most Zaza think that they are Iranians and are Kurdish. Not only Kurdish but consider themselves as the "best of Kurds" if you look deep in the history and do a "proper" research this could be clear to you too. Take for instance the Dersim rebellion and other Kurdish uprising and see the position of Zazas in the Kurdish struggle. Özgūr ^{Talk Hist} 00:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source [9], Kurdistan is not part of Iranian plateau. So I removed the category.Heja Helweda 23:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Britannica, "Most Kurds live in a mountainous region of the Iranian Plateau called Kurdistan, an area where Turkey meets Iran, Syria, and Iraq." Khoikhoi 23:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ending of —ene was the Greek suffix for satrapies, as the ending of —stan in the word Kurdistan is the Kurdish suffix for toponyms meaning 'land of', however the original Kurdish equivalent for Kurdistan used by Kurds themselves, has been the word 'Kurdewarî'.

I am an Kurd and i have never called Kurdistan for Kurdewari, which means kurdish culture. We Kurds call our country for Kurdistan (Kordestan) and have never called Kurdewari. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.140.221.115 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

-stan is an Indo-Iranic suffix, notice Indic -sthan in Rajasthan.

Have you ever heard this famous poem or song?

Kurdewarî ey welate cuwanekem!

rolekem, xêzanekem bawanekem!

ey ewaney qet le bîrim nachnewe,

êste bimbînin erê demnasnewe?

Or this folklore song:

Shirine sewze daney henarî,

Kîje cuwanekey naw Kurdewarî.. [10]

Kurdewari is an original Kurdish word, though it is not associtaed with politics. It has been used so much in literature especially in central Kurdistan and actually means 'land of Kurds'. It reminds me of Aryavarta > 'land of Aryans'. Asoyrun 23:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove map this article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StANDby007 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

That map of Kurdistan is not where Kurdistan is, the real map, according to many interntional experts, is this: http://www.geocities.com/kurdistan_map/kurdistanmap2.jpg , or http://www.kurdishacademy.org/images/map-04.gif , or http://chuot.club.fr/zimages/kurdistan/decokurdi/kurdmapphoto.jpg.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.141.25 (talk • contribs)

Which experts are those. What kind of experts tryes to hide the truths. These experts may be PKK experts. The real map is this one http://www.turkishnews.com/DiscoverTurkey/images/maps/map1.jpg while every world knows that, some people tryes to mislead the fact, those region in the maps belongs to the other countries, like Turkey,Iran, Irak, Suriye. You have no rights on these lands and you will never gain rights by killing womens and children! Other interesting point on these web pages, you are giving as 'Experts maps' and they made by kurdish people by theirself. They are kurdish web sides. Can you give us a map from, any countries government side. You are Terrorist and a Lier. At least the map at the top shows as population where kurdish people lieves.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.205.206 (talk • contribs)

How much money that those "international experts" are receiving from US etc. to create and defend such a map? I think this must be the main point. For example, how much would they want if I offer them to exclude some places in this map or are they only working for the "benefits" of Kurds? Deliogul 19:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All this is besides the point. The map doesn't belong to this article as per its own caption. -- Cat ^chi? 23:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]