Previous discussions:

• Archive 1
• Archive (Kurds v. Kurdistan)
• Archive 2
• Archive 3 ?? - 23:34, 18 December 2005

I've recently removed a lot of information out of some of the sections of this article. Instead of cluttering up this article, major edits should be made to the sub-articles and pointers from here to there given with a brief summary. If anyone disagrees feel free to revert and discuss here. - FrancisTyers 10:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support this action --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 10:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks much better now. Heja Helweda 18:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some anon was casuing havoc on the talk page, I tried to restore the orignal form an keep the anons comments. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 08:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the article of Kurdistan ,it is written as :" The Treaty of Sèvres divided the former Ottoman Empire between the United Kingdom, Turkey, and others. " But, Turkey did not accept instead reject the treaty of Sèvres; therefore , Turkey was not in an agreement with UK and others in sharing the area.Turkey was defending the area which had been formerly determined as "the area in the Misakı milli bounderies" Also , it is written in the "The Treaty of Sèvres" article that The Republic of Turkey rejected this treaty:"The national government in Ankara rejected the terms of the treaty..." --Selinnn 21:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)§ĿŃ[reply]

I've added rejection of Serves. It is more clear now, I think. 81.213.202.47 23:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the maps in the link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kurdistan-maps.htm are not correct. The ones that show the distrubution of the population are OK (I don't know wheather they are true but it is OK to show such a map, actually there are such maps in the article)

There are maps in that link that show distinct borders as if Kurdistan is a separate country, they are misleading the reader. That link shall be removed. 85.99.221.232 10:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

user Khoikhoi has removed "terrorist group" words in front of kurdish workers party claiming that it has a POV. See article PKK, it is accepted as a terrorist group. Do hava a problem with that? What is your source of "PKK not being a terrorist group"? If you have a source how do you grant that your source does not have POV? Or do you just revert edits of anonmyous users whatever they are? 85.99.221.232 11:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does have a POV, as you can see from the Kurdistan Workers Party page which has been in dispute for a number of months. I think he is right to remove it. I think militant group is a fairly good alternative. A couple of things that came up at the PKK page; 1. The EU and US only labelled the PKK group as terrorist recently, e.g. the 90's so was it terrorist before then? 2. Why did the US/EU label the PKK group as terrorist, what actions were it that changed in the 90's to label them terrorist? Note that Northern Ireland does not explicitly label the IRA as a terrorist group even though most countries that call the PKK terrorist also call the IRA terrorist. - FrancisTyers 12:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When we talk about POV we mean that "what we write must be pure facts", right? So why do we need someone to say that PKK is a terrorist group? Isn't that a POV? We have the facts in hand right? They are still killing people, you know? Just turn on the TV. Some countries may not label it as a terrorist group, couse maybe they are supporting it, or it is in favor of them. Say that we have something on the table and we are trying to find out what it is. Do you ask people around to find what it is, or do you look at it to find out what it is?

Do you agree that PKK is killing people? Do you agree that they are killing even the civilians? Do you agree that they are doing this for political gain? Now look at this >terrorist and tell me what PKK is. 85.100.154.135 21:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, maybe someone else can explain it to you. You can start by reading the talk page archives of this page, then try the archives of Kurdistan Workers Party, then perhaps take a look at the talk page of Kurdish people. I recommend reading Northern Ireland and Provisional IRA as well for some good articles covering a "terrorist" group. If you still don't understand, i.e. haven't found the answers to your questions in those pages, then perhaps I can find time to explain to you. - FrancisTyers 22:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They were not questions actually. They were just some facts stated in question form. Let's not go offtopic. What I say is, PKK is killing people, they are killing civilians, they are doing this for political gain. If nobody has NPOV sources stating otherwise, I'll add "terrorist group" words back in there. 85.100.154.135 22:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very contentious issue. I would strongly recommend that you to read the relevant talk pages before embarking on such a controversial addition. - FrancisTyers 00:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched through the archieved pages but did not come up to an objection to this. I don't think this will be an issue. And user Khoikhoi has not yet made an explanation to his edit, but I'll wait a little more if anybody has to say anything on this. 85.100.154.135 01:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I need to make an explanation? Calling a group "terrorists" is clearly POV. --Khoikhoi 01:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You made me laugh on that. So you say that if we are to be objective there is no such thing as terrorism in the world? So what shall we call the people who crash a plane to a building full of people? What shall we call a man exploding himself in public? What shall we call people who are stopping cars and busses on a intercity road and kill all the passangers and rub them? Terrorism has a distinct definition, if you don't know what it is don't edit it, let the ones knowing the subject edit. 85.99.221.232 07:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you find this a laughing matter, I don't. I find it hard to believe you've read all the archives and found no objections. I will search them myself later. - FrancisTyers 09:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say anything to someone who claims "no one can be identified as terrorist", all I can do is to laugh at this. And I'd be very thankful if you looked at the archives and present us the relevant objections to this matter. And it is very interesting that somebody can change the article about this very contentious issue, nothing happens. But reverting it becomes a problem. I guess I've wasted enough time for this and will be adding that back soon. Still no sound objections. 85.99.221.232 11:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just stay away from editing Wikipedia. That's all I have to say. --Khoikhoi 00:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khoikhoi, please understand that this issue is a sensitive one, especially to a turkish citizen, and don't suggest someone to "shut up and leave wikipedia alone" if they are not vandalizing or anything but questioning what you did.. at least not before making a proper explaination. and you didnt. yes, you have to explain, however simple it is. i am not against your edit, but i am against your "if you dont understand my way, then piss off, cause i'm right and you are wrong" attitude, which i believe is not wikipedia.. would it take too much to explain?.. now, to my friend from turkey (who contributes with an ip address) there is no doubt what pkk is, of course, yet adding "terrorist group" in front whenever we use PKK doesnt do any well either. we are just promoting them. a link to pkk page should be sufficient enough. there are kurds who dont support pkk, and putting 'terrorist' here would be an insult to them. hudd 06:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone be insulted when we put "terrorist group" in front of the name of a terrorist organization? I know most Kurds don't support PKK. Why would they be insulted by calling PKK a terrorist group? I don't see a reason. Even the supporters of PKK shall not be insulted with this. They are aware of what they are doing, they do not deny it. PKK is a terrorist organization, this is a fact so it is good to put in Wikipedia. 85.100.155.17 18:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And you, made me laugh again :D. Don't be afraid of the truth. And this is all I have to say to you. 85.100.155.17 18:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When we talk about POV we mean that "what we write must be pure facts", right?

No. Not all statements of fact are neutral. I could factually state, "Such-and-such is a faggot" on the article of a gay man, or "Such-and-such is a kike" on the article of a Jew—factually in a sense that the denotation of the word faggot is a gay man and the denotation of the word kike is a Jew. But both words are incredibly offensive, so adding such a sentence to an article would obviously violate WP:NPOV, despite being factually accurate in a particular sense. The case of the word terrorist is much less blatant, but it's the same idea: it's an inflammatory term, and virtually no one would agree to be labelled as a terrorist. We should strive to use words that do not convey a particular point of view. —Caesura^(t) 12:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term terrorist is not like the term faggot. It's not slang or anything rude. It's more like the term "gay". It's more like an official term so that countries use that world when talking about it. You wouldn't hear a statesman calling gays faggot. If you call someone gay and he feels being insulted it's either he is not gay or he is pretending that he is not. Anyways I guess here is not the place to discuss this, as someone below there pointed out that it is a convention on wikipedia. 85.102.63.85 23:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not flown in Turkey. Sources please or I'll edit that part. 85.100.155.17 18:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've editted it to show that it isn't flown and is actually banned. - FrancisTyers 18:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite a source for that? I cannot find one myself. 85.96.232.32 19:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the link. - FrancisTyers 19:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was expecting an official source actually. I'm not a one who believes everything on the internet, especially if the source is being a puppet of an terrorist organization. And below is extracted from that source under the heading Kurdish Delight where they write about their trip to kurdish parts of Turkey (as if no other lives there, yeah, seperatism at its best!). So which one is true?

"There was much traditional dancing and people displayed their red, yellow and green national colours, making endless and enthusiastic peace signs, waving various Kurdish flags and placards of Abdullah Ocalan, the jailed leader of the Kurdish movement. The police were moderate in their behaviour but the military sent their jets screaming noisily overhead several times and helicopters constantly circled the event." levent 08:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FrancisTyers the flag is only legaly flown in KAR, I really think this flag is inaprporate on this article. This article is not about the country Kurdistan right? Or the porposed country. Article should be about the culture of the people etc. It is currently a collection of contraversial events. Which belongs to the sub history article not here, removning those will leave you a sub as this article is poorly writen as you may agree.

Geocultural region must be about "culture" and we have nothing explaining culture. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How come a geographical/cultural region has a flag? 85.99.199.252 00:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the Kurdish flag for insights on this. El_C 10:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not widely used in Turkey as that article states. That is wrong as well. You cannot correct one false with another one. 85.99.199.252 12:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have been talking on this issue. Better you have a look at the discussion page before making changes. Yet no body could represent us a source on pkk not being a terrorist organization. So I'm reverting your "vandalism". Fell free to put your sources and discuss and show us how pkk is not a terrorist organization. 85.99.199.252 12:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The convention on Wikipedia is, generally, to avoid the term terrorist (versus opponents, as State terrorists) except in designated articles. El_C 12:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it written? 85.99.199.252 12:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not all conventions are written down in a convenient place. There's no magic list of prejudicial words. It's expected that editors will take their cues from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in good faith. —Caesura^(t) 12:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back! :) There is a magic list of prejudicial words! And indeed, terrorist is on it. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. —Caesura^(t) 12:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its that time of the year again, link prune! See Wikipedia:External links.

• The Encyclopedia of Kurdistan - Keep
• The Kurdish Institute of Paris - News site, how many do we need?
• Kurdistan Regional Government in Southern Kurdistan - Should be on the Kurdistan Regional Government page.
• The Kurds: A Concise Handbook Mehrdad R. Izady, Taylor & Francis Group, September 1992 ISBN 0844817279 - Book, does it deserve its own page?
• Martin van Bruinessen "Ehmedî Xanî’s Mem û Zîn and its role in the emergence of Kurdish national awareness", in: Abbas Vali (ed.), Essays on the origins of Kurdish nationalism. Costa Mesa, Cal.: Mazda Publishers, 2003, pp. 40-57 - Advertising
• Sharafnama: History of the Kurdish Nation - WTF more advertising
• Journal of Kurdish Studies ISSN 1370-7205 - move to Kurdish people
• International Journal of Kurdish Studies The Kurdish Library, 345 Park Place, Brooklyn, New York 11238 - move to Kurdish people
• Voice of America, Kurdish Service - Another news site, perhaps move to Kurdish language
• [1] — Kurd and Kurdistan News - More news
• Report D612, October, 1994, "Forced Displacement of Ethnic Kurds"(A Human Rights Watch Publication) - Advertising
• Troubled Times - A Brief History Of Kurdistan - Keep for now, nice photos, we should see if we can get them under GFDL or fair use.
• "Kurds Build Their Own Identity: U.S. Provides a Long-Awaited Taste of Peace and Freedom" Julia Duin, WorldandI.com, October 2004 - Blah, unnotable
• A dozen maps of Kurdistan by GlobalSecurity.org - Useful, although we should see if we can get the flags and maybe make a Maps of Kurdistan ?
• "Kurdish Issue in Turkey Unresolved" Deutsche Welle 11 February2005 - More news
• "Turkey: Justice denied to tortured teenage girls as police acquitted" Amnesty International reports on atrocities committed against Kurdish girls in Turkey - Move to Kurdish people maybe? or Human rights in Turkey
• Abuses By Armed Opposition Groups Amnesty International reports on Indiscriminate and other arbitrary killings see previous.
• "The Iraqi elections are over" www.thinking-east.net 27 March 2005 - Linkspam
• "Vote of the Exiles" An analysis of the January 2005 Out-of-Country vote Ali Tawfik-Shukor www.thinking-east.net 27 March 2005 - Linkspam
• "Turkey renames 'divisive' animals" BBC News 8 March2005 - Keep
• The Kurdish Solidarity Commitee
• The Back of the World Internet Movie Database - Interesting film, maybe list at Human rights in Turkey.

Done, any objections, bring them above. - FrancisTyers 13:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I overlooked that. El_C 13:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) - FrancisTyers 13:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please also 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 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 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - FrancisTyers 23:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]