{{Controversial}} should not be used on pages subject to the contentious topic procedure. Please remove this template.

Template:Calm talk

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Kurdistan 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Turkey 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Iraq High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq 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.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Syria 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Iran High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Armenia High‑importance Kurdistan is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Assyria High‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Western Asia (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Western Asia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia

Archives
February 2003 – February 2005 February 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – April 2007
Kurds v. Kurdistan

Please add "East Turkestan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Crimean Tatars, Gagauzia, ..." to see also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.237.25.227 (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2009 (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]

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)

by reading the first two paragraphs of this article, the one thing you will not know is "what is Kurdistan"

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

• a Macedonia (terminology) like Kurdistan (terminology).
• a Macedonia (Greece) like Kurdistan (Iraq) (Iraqi Kurdistan).
• a Macedonia (region) like Kurdistan (region).

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.

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? I know they are not Arayans their root come from SUMMER they have lived in there since 12.000.000 years ago you can look at the book which its name is AFTER SUCH KNOWLEDGE WHAT FORGIVENESS has written be J RANDAL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijebglRDZ3k&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.124.54 (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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".

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]

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!

Rubbish! Demographic manipulation is a fact of the Middle East, and especially northern Iraq. Most especially with regards to Kurdistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.122.29 (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The intro map claims to show the Kurdish area; but it fails even to highlight the majority Kurdish speaking area let alone the majority Kurdish-inhabited area. For Insatnce the western Kurdish areas such the area of Afrin is completely absent here. Ellipi (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a better map for Kurdistan Kurdish 86.jpg Ojanfar (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone from a related project please run an eye over this new article (Kurdistan independence) to assess its neutrality/viability? Thanks. Man of wealth and taste (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says now "Other Kurdish areas were assigned to the new British and French mandated states of Iraq and Syria under both treaties." .. Where is the evidence that any area in Syria was a kurdish area? Hassake was majority Aramaean/Assyrian and Armenian Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.133.89 (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has progressed fairly well despite propaganda attacks by certain users. The only issue I have currently is that there seems to be way too many pictures in the middle part of the page. Or at least they give an impression of cluttering.MercZ (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A full article edit was just completed. Primary tasks included editing for encyclopedic character, removing filler words, delinking second occurrence interlinks, diction, syntax, spelling, grouping material, removal of subjective qualifiers, and removal of off-topic material. Two secondary tasks, of equal or greater importance, were also undertaken. First, the use of non-self referential place names - that is, the use of the common names of locations and geographic features. The second was diction that did not confabulate through tone or advocate a position. Both of these fall within 'encyclopedic character' and neutral point of view, but, while a matter of policy, may run counter to the agenda of some. Keep this in mind when reviewing the edits.Mavigogun (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the area(marked in map) is a part of Turkey named "Southeastern Anatolia Region". There is not a inhabiting named kurdistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.175.19.234 (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current map shows areas where Kurdish people live, spread over several countries. Kurdish Nationalists would like to see most, if not all, of the shaded area made into a new state called Kurdistan but Kurdistan is not a country yet and we do not know what borders it might have if it ever becomes one. The map is only meant to show where Kurds live. It is not meant to legitimatise a territorial claim or speculate about changes to borders. As you say, the Turkish don't call that area Kurdistan. It is quite common when people don't agree over land that they sometimes have different names for the same areas. Wikipedia is not taking sides. It is just explaining which names cover which areas, even when they overlap. There is an article on Southeastern Anatolia Region which makes it clear that this is an official name and the article on Turkish Kurdistan makes it clear that this is an unofficial name.

Earlier on today there was a very different map which really did make it look like Kurdistan was a separate country. That was wrong and I have removed it. Maybe that is the map you saw. If so, it has gone now. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Item number 18 in references, is not available anymore. I found this link that asserts same claim, by same reference (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition , 2008) could I replace it? here is its link--Marmzok (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some claims hadn't references, and replace them with other claims with it reliable and verifiable references. I made the change I talked about above. --Marmzok (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Kurdistan" is a Kurdish word, and its meant is "land of kurds". Is it matter what it does mean in Arabic, Persian or Turkish languages? I think it should be changed, in first line of article.--Marmzok (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? What exactly is the etymology of "Kurdistan"? Does the 'stan' suffix originate with Kurdish? The question is, where does the form used for the article title originate from- not where is it used now.Mavigogun (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course its not about where it is used now; And yes 'stan' is Kurdish suffix and I can give you so many examples for this, like this one: daar (tree), daarstan (forest), daarstan is used for a place that has too many trees in it, land of trees!

Its true that "stan" maybe has same, or different meaning in other languages (turkish, persian, arabic, indo, chinies, russian), but I think the article should use local meaning of words (due to content of article).--Marmzok (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not 'is the suffix used in Kurdish', but 'what origin is the use of this suffix in this context'; as indicated by Marmzok, the suffix is used in many languages. Presumption that popularized use originated from Kurdish may or may not be likely, but is speculation. Assertion without citing a reference is opinion.Mavigogun (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly!!! The statement ".. persian meaning.." in beginning of article, has no references and it is just an opinion, isn't it?--Marmzok (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coining the word is attributed to Seljuk Sultan Sanjar, monarch of the Great Seljuq Empire- of which Persian was the official language.--Mavigogun (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: One abusive comment removed. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not happy with continue discuss on this subject this way!!!--Marmzok (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Disagreement and discussion is welcome but not in those terms. I invite the author to restate his objections civily. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mavigogun, why did you restore the word whilom in the lede? Is it a word in Kurdish that I mistook for an English archaism? It is really very uncommon in English. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Whilom' may connote a more distant state, where as 'formerly' does not; the use was intended to indicate that the spelling change was not contemporary. Perhaps we could label it 'archaic'?--Mavigogun (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had to look up the meaning of the word whilom, I even checked with a cousin in Canada who's a native speaker of English and she had never heard of the word either. Dictionaries suggest erstwhile and quondam as (also archaic) synonyms. I would have recognised those, but the latter only because I took Latin in school. I suspect the nuances of meaning would be lost on most readers since they would likely not recognise the word either. On the other hand, I am rather pleased I learned the word whilom, and I'm looking forward to trying it out on unsuspecting, innocent bystanders. ;-) Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erstwhile is a word that will more readers will understand than whilom or quondam (which are both very obscure) however I think "archaic" is our best bet. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mavigogun, who I suspect (most like correctly) to be a Turkish nationalist whose interest lays in sabotaging this article to the best of his abilities, has long been incorrectly citing the name of Kurdistan as being Persian. There is absolutely no source stating this and no basis in fact. Nobody has ever argued this. -stan is an Indo-Iranian suffix, not only in Iranian languages such as KURDISH and Persian (therefore not originating in any modern language, but from proto-Indo-Iranian) but also in Indo-Aryan langauges, such as -sthana in modern Hindi as descended from Sanskrit. It is totally incorrect to refer to the name as being Persian. It is no more Persian than it is any other Iranian language, and it is certainly incorrect to say it is anything but Kurdish as it is the Kurdish self-designation, and as Kurd is the self-designated name of the Kurdish people and -stan an Indo-Iranian suffix native to the Kurdish language, it cannot be argued that the name Kurdistan is anything but Kurdish. There is no source for this argument, and no basis for its continuation. THE END. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZanLJackson (talk • contribs) 17:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please address issues without resorting to making disparaging remarks about other editors. Also please note that it is not for any individual editor to declare "the end" of discussion of an issue. It is "the end" once we reach a consensus. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Farhad Pirbal, an academic specializing in Kurdish language and literature, the first association of Kurd with the 'stan' suffix occurred in 1150 when Sultan Sanjar partitioned the eastern portion of the region of Jibal, naming it 'Kurd Ustani'- 'ustan' being the Persion inflection of 'stan'. While there had been reference to a 'land of Kurds' previous to that date, the label 'Kurdistan' was then a new invention. A brief write up of Pirabal's article on the subject is cited [9].--Mavigogun (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of issues here. First of all, Farhad Pirbal appears to be the only source on this issue, therefore it is not conclusive. His area of expertise does not make him an expert on this particular issue. This claim needs to be backed up by supporting sources. Secondly, the first "association" refers to the first official declaration or recording of that term as a region within a state. There is no basis for the claim that the suffic -stan entered the Kurdish language in this way, as it is a native suffix to ALL Iranian languages. Do you understand this? As long as Kurdish has been spoken, the suffix -stan must have existed within the language. Third, the Kurdish name, Kurdistan is not identical to the Persian Kordestan (note the different pronunciations and forms of the cognate words, indicating a separate development) nor does it in any way resemble Kurd Ustani. This is a totally separate term unrelated to the Kurdish name of Kurdistan. Fourth, it cannot be said to descend from that term as there is no proof the term did not exist prior to this. You cannot make such an all-inclusive claim with an insubstantial source and complete lack of evidence. Until this issue has been settled, the meaning of the name must represent the Kurdish translation of Kurdistan, which means "land of the Kurds". Until such a time as you have provided an explanation, or a source conclusively explaining the inconsistencies and the lack of evidence, no mention of a Persian origin for the Kurdish name of the Kurdish lands shall be recorded in the article. This is the editorial policy. If, Mr Daniel Rigal, you wish to discuss, then discuss before making unsupported assertions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.92.118 (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I may add, no other such region is required to provide origin of the terminology within the first sentence of its article. There is no precedence for it and I move we remove the reference entirely if we cannot arrive at MY CONCLUSION.

Rather than inserting line-by-line addressing of the above issues, I offer commentary here as a unit.

There has been a source cited to support the Persian origin assertion; the source appears credible. There has been no source cited to support the Kurdish origin assertion- only supposition. Supporting articles would be of benefit in either case.

The assertion is not, as indicated above, that the suffix entered Kurdish language by this mechanism- rather, it is that it is the Persian use that is the first recorded use of the term and simultaneously marks the start of its popular use.

Any association or derivation from 'Kordestan' is not asserted in this article, or in the cited material.

Kurd Ustani, in both a simplistic/cosmetic and language morphology sense, very much resembles Kurdistan. More importantly, the association is made not by an editor of this document but by a cited reference. The contemporary or speculative historic use by Kurds is not relevant, as the lead does not refer to the origin in a specific language but rather that which has, through reference, primacy.

It is not our business to establish fact, but rather to document assertions through summary and reference. Likewise, it is not the purpose of this Encyclopedia to wage proof arguments in support of establishing fact.

Proof that contrary undocumented assertions were or were not true is not our standard for deciding merit of inclusion of documented assertions.

The cited source, while singular, has merit, and contains a variety of evidence. I would like to see a list of the authors referenced material- perhaps inquiries will produce them.

The conclusion that the origin indicated in this document MUST be Kurdish is wishful, as are the edicts that the Persian not be indicated or that no origin be indicated if a specific POV can't be supported.

Before changing the origin from that supported by reference, referenced material that clearly supports the change needs be provided.--Mavigogun (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding the claim that Kurdish nationalism seeks to unify the Kurdish state into an independent entity. This claim is unsourced, irrelevant and inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZanLJackson (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is uncontroversial. In fact, the only valid objection to the statement is that it is so obvious that it is almost a pointless tautology. What else would Kurdish Nationalism seek to do but create a Kurdish nation? It is referenced in the linked article, which is why it is not essential to reference it here, but I will add a reference, if you like. You should not use the lack of a reference as an excuse to simply remove content you disapprove of. If it could be referenced you should tag it as requiring a reference. If you think it is inaccurate you should reword it. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This space, as well as the article, have been plagued by discord, political punditry, hate speech, and POV advocacy- characteristically volatile and emotional. This article is about the region falling under the label 'Kurdistan'; in that region, the question of Kurdish nationalism is a major and present issue. Covering the issue of nationalism in depth in this article would prove counter purpose, controversial, and lead to an inevitable devolving into petty partisan squabbling. That said, a link out to the topical and related page is appropriate- and would serve the interest of this article by directing those who are seeking the other page to an appropriate venue. Mavigogun (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I agree. We should not duplicate coverage but we do need to acknowledge that there are those who see Kurdistan as becoming a nation state and not just the name of some regions where Kurds live. I see this as important enough to belong in the lead section but there is no need for more than a sentence or two. The Conflict and Controversy section could be trimmed a bit but I don't intend to do anything with it myself. I am very aware that almost any changes can be controversial and lead to claims of POV but it doesn't have to be that way. By writing in an encyclopaedic style and neutral tone we should be able to find a wording that reflects the facts without endorsing any particular view of them. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were drafted in response to the genitive entry in this thread -but posted late; I concur completely with what has been said by DanielRigal.Mavigogun (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That thing about "kurd" + "ustani" is definitely wrong (and not supported by the references, BTW). -stan/-istan is a Persian suffix of location. Hence, Kurdistan means more or less "land/province of the kurds", but not - as the article states - "state". The word "state" is too politically charged and cannot be backed up by the historical use of the -stan suffix. Hence, I suggest editing that part and inserting some, um, scientific stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.109.36 (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion is supported by reference. The contextual meaning of the first recorded use is documented. Challenge the assertion through reference. Historic use need not mirror contemporary meaning/use/preference. Conforming content to suit contemporary political palatability is counter purpose to the mission of an encyclopedia- and would not be 'scientific stuff'.--Mavigogun (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]