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

Template:Vital article

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 Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-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
Untitled Kurds v. Kurdistan

Before I continue let me tell you that there is no land of Kurds. However there are separatist ideas for that and often used for PKK propagandas. But historical southeast Anatolia was called as Armenian Highlands (of course before Armenians get massacred). The speculation about Corduene is enjoyable but irrelevant. It makes more sence that the term Kurdistan came from the turkic tribe of Bashkortostan. See also Bulgaria is originally the name of a turkic Tribe. And bulgarian language and kurdish language are very close. But how comes that Kurds have the name of Turkic tribes? People in the dark ages belived that Gypsys are Turkic. But the fact is before the Gypsies arrived into Europe they migrated into Persia this is known in Luristan where highly probably the ethnic group of Kurds came. 77.2.25.133 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When Corduene is the ancient name for Kurdistan. Then the ancient name of Turkey is Troy. Tyrkir “Trojans” and Tur(i)ci “Turks”. 77.2.25.133 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your input. That's a lot of claims you're making. Do you have any neutral and reliable sources to back those up? ~ Zirguezi 21:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well,

• The Gypsies imagrated into Middle East. Dom people
• They have nomadic lifestyle (in history mistaken with Turkic tribes)
• There are alot of Gypsies groups in the kurdish populated areas (Luti, Qeriçi, Motreb, Mirtib, Luli, Lom and at last Dom)
• In some theories also the people of Luristan are Gypsies. Wikipedia: Lurs are a mixture of aboriginal Indo-Iranian tribes, originating from Central Asia.
• Also the people of Balochistan have Gypsy elements.
• Kurds, Lurs and Baloch people are closely related groups.
• The first source talking about this elements is the historian Hamzah al-Isfahani in year 961. He reported that Bahram Gur requested 12,000 singer from Indian King who assimalted into Persia.
• In Shahnameh Ferdowsi mentions that the 10,000 immigrants were Lurs.
• In year 1020 the Arabian historiographer Al-Talibi included the following Persian text about the immigration of the Luri, in his "Story of the Persian Kings".
• google for PDF file: The immigration of the Luri
• The exodus of the gypsy people can partly answered with the invasion of the White Huns.
• Also Minorsky reports about relations between Kurds and Gypsy.
• Luristan, Kurdistan and Balochistan are a terms (terminus)to describe a province.
• The kurdish historian Şerefxane Cizîrî have the notion that in the kurdish national epic Mem and Zin mentioned Musicians were gypsies
• In kurdish chronicle of Sharaf Khan Bidlisi there are stories about kurdish tribes with gypsy origin. 77.3.87.195 (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest kurdish scripts were 1400 years old. That means the Kurds make their own culture during the islamic era because the iranian traditions were Shia Islam, but Kurds are mostly Sunni. But propaganda tell us that Kurds are one of the oldest people in Middle East with a history about 10,000 years. (Emmanuel Sivan, The Kurds: Another Perspective) Or that Corduene were the ancient name of Kurdistan and many other nonsense. 77.3.87.195 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia get abused by prokurdish Agitators. it remembers me on the nazi-german Aryan ideas or on the pan-Turanism ideas in Turkey (Sun Language Theory) were possibly the kurdish nationalism get effected. 77.3.87.195 (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Are you disputing the existence of Corduene? Are you saying that Kurds are descendants of Gypsies? Before even considering such arguments (or any for that matter) please remember that it needs to be sourced by a reliable and neutral party. You have listed a lot of events which as I understand it according to you lead to a single event (remember WP:NOR) and then you've given one source which I can't find(link?). And how does the PKK fit in all of this? What is the point you are trying to make. ~ Zirguezi 22:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are movements to make us believe that Kurds were one of the oldest people in the Middle East. But the ethnic kurdish identity is NOT an ancient historical heritage. Like most ethnic groups also the Kurdish identity is a invention of modern history she took his beginning during the islamic era. No were the Kurds the descendant of the Medes - this hypothesis is rejected by all Iranologist nor represents the claim that Corduene were the ancient name of Kurdistan an sound science. I want that the view of pro-kurdish Agitators handled separated. 77.3.87.195 (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

brb. 77.3.117.40 (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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. [1].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." [2]. 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)".[3]. 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]

• Despite here presented (mostly ideological) controversies, the modern impartial and abundant biochemic-genomical comparisons in last years on Kurdish populations in S.E. Turkey, West Iran and North Iraq prove quite inverse results from above 'historical' prejudices (despite so-called "mainstream" suggested). Briefly: Turkish Kurds are almost bio-physically the hoary local aborigines descending directly at least 5,000 years ago from the local prehistoric people named Kardu in Sumerian and Kardariki in Akkadian, but Iranian Kurds are only partly of regional proto-historic descendance, while the Iraquian Kurds are mostly a newer immigrant mixture with few local genomic ancestors. These newer data are real an objective (I am independent European scientist without any interests nor links to Kurds or their neighbors). Therefore evidently, this deviant chapter on their origin must be modernized, i.e. radically transformed or otherwise moved. External Controller, 11:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.214.137 (talk)

Why was this article added to WikiProject Assyria?[4] 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]

he so called Kurdistan is NO WHERE IN TURKEY... IT DOES NOT EXIST IN ANY PART OF TURKEY FACT! IF YOU WANNA KNOW WHAT IT IS, IT IS A PLOT OF LAND IN IRAQ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turk.B (talk • contribs) 19:07, 19 January 2012 (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[5]?:

::::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. 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]

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]

There is over 45 million Kurdish in the world. 25-30? are you kidding me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.240.30.165 (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(orthographic_projection) is right. we are only kurds and our state is kurdistasn! thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.119.47 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Kurdish Mountaineer.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}}

81.213.68.140 (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2011 (

You forgot to say what your suggested change actually is. You need to re-edit this section and put your suggestion in between the "begin" and "end" markers. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very exaggerated and inaccurate information .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.54.47.196 (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Iranian people.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 20 March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Iranian people.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1- Kurdistan is place name but map about Kurdish people. West Azerbaijan Province located inside South Azerbaijan. In other words where Kurdish people live is not Kurdistan.

2- Talk in Talk:Kurdish people#Kurdish settlement map show that even the map is disputed for Kurdish people settlement. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The map by the US government of the kurdish regions has been added back because the burden of argument is on you to build consensus that the map should be removed. When someone reads about Kurdistan they clearly want to know where that region is on the map.

Direct response to your arguments:

1- Kurdistan is place name but map about Kurdish people. West Azerbaijan Province located inside South Azerbaijan. In other words where Kurdish people live is not Kurdistan.

Incorrect. The map from the University of Texas which originally comes from the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States government is linked to as "Kurdish Lands (location map) 1992 (235K)" [6] in other words Kurdistan. University of Texas and CIA/US government are reliable sources.

2- Talk in Talk:Kurdish people#Kurdish settlement map show that even the map is disputed for Kurdish people settlement.

This map comes from a highly reliable source the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Many news organizations use this reliable source's information for reporting.

--Guest2625 (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1-You didn't attention the map title. The map title is "Kurdish Lands (location map)", so it is not Kurs Lands or Kurdistan lands.

2- The Azerbaijan boundary is clear. The name of "Azerbaijan" exist in "West Azerbaijan" name. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your statements:

1- This is the introductory paragraph for wikipedia's -stan suffix entry

The suffix -stan (Persian: ـستان‎ -stān) is Persian for "place of", and it is cognate to Indo-Aryan -sthāna (pronounced [st̪ʰaːna]) (स्थान in the Devanāgarī script), a Sanskrit suffix with a similar meaning. In Indo-Aryan languages, sthāna means "place", and is cognate to the Latin terms state and status (meaning "to stand").

Therefore Kurdistan means ---> "Place of the Kurds" or the Kurdish Lands, read the full wikipedia entry.

2- I don't understand what argument you are trying to make with your second point. Are you disputing the reliable US government source, if so please provide a comparable reliable source.

--Guest2625 (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1- Your edit show your idea about Azerbaijn and Kurdistan boundary.

2- Article is about Kurdistan bat map is about Kurdish people.

3- West Azerbaijan province is inside Azerbaijan boundary and there is no scientific claim.

Some of sours for West Azerbaijan:

1-

Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity, By Brenda Shaffer

2-

britannica

3-

azerbaijan

4-

Rural Transition in Azerbaijan, By Zvi Lerman, David J. Sedik

5-

Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z, By James Minahan

6-

britannica and etc sours show that West Azerbaijan is one part of South Azerbaijan. The Kurds live in Azerbaijan, bat Azerbaijan not change to Kurdistan. Your claime is WP:SOAPBOX. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You had this discussion on the Kurdish talk page and the consensus was that there was no problem with the current map. I have no personal opinion on this topic and merely feel that it is important to have a map for an article about a geographical region. Clearly, the map that is currently posted is an acceptable map from a reliable source.

You do realize that one enthnic region can overlap with another ethnic region. It's not like its either Kurdistan or greater Azeri homeland but actually might be both. That is both Kurds and Azeris live in overlapping ethnic regions. I'm indifferent to the exact location of the two ethnic regions and looking objectively as an outside observer I would go with the CIA map as to where the Kurds live, because well, the CIA is a highly reliable source.--Guest2625 (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1- There is not consensus about the map and discussion is open.

2- I repeat that we talk about "Kurdistan" not "Kurdish people", so even the map be reliable source it's not acceptable that West Azerbaijan province to be introduced as Kurdistan.Because it is part of the South Azerbaijan. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2012

(UTC)

Kurdistan is the place where the Kurdish people live. That is what the term Kurdistan means. Also, Kurdistan does not need to be in its own exclusive geographic space. Clearly, various ethnic groups can live in overlapping regions, as appears to be the case with Azeris and Kurds in the region of West Azerbaijan province. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp, only someone with an agenda wouldn't be able to understand this concept.

And, yes there was consensus on the Kurdish people talk page and it was that both the CIA map and the Britannica map are reliable sources. I personally consider the CIA map the more reliable source, given its greater resolution and information detail.--Guest2625 (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please attention to WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ. ))) I understand that one ethnic can live in many regions. And Kurdish people lives in Kurdistan, Azerbaijan and etc. This issue has been written in Kurdish people article. However, according to the article title, map can not be in the paper.))) If you disagree with me we can get help from third person.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is Kurdistan and the title of the map is "Kurdish Lands (location map) 1992 (235K)" [7] clearly the map can be included in this article. If you want you can start a discussion again on the Kurdish people talk page about which maps to include in the Kurdish articles. I'm not sure that you'll be able to build a consensus for your opinion, since a month ago the consensus was that the CIA map was acceptable. I'll gladly discuss this topic with anybody. I'm quite comfortable in stating that the CIA is a reliable source to anybody or on any forum or noticeboard. You've tagged the article with a dispute tag so perhaps some other editors will stop by and voice their opinion.--Guest2625 (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

West Azerbaijan is part of Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijan is Azerbaijan. It's not Kurdistan. "Kurdish Lands" conception is different with "Kurds land" or "Kurdistan". Please attention to WP:GAME. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible for two ethnic groups to occupy the same geographic space, therefore Kurdistan and greater Azerbaijan are able to have overlapping territory. Kurdish lands, Kurds lands, and Kurdistan all mean essentially the same thing.--Guest2625 (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you want to talk about the great Kurdistan. But I do not speak of the great Kurdistan. Our discussion is about Kurdistan and Azarbaijan without "great" adjective. In other words the West Azerbaijan province is a part of Azerbaijan. It is not a part of Kurdistan, but Kurds nationalists have tried to make it part of Kurdistan. This claim is WP:SOAPBOX and against the WP:NOT, so the map should be removed from this article. Also the name of article is "Kurdistan", and it is not "Great Kurdistan"--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say great Kurdistan but rather I said greater Azerbaijan. I used greater in this context because West Azerbaijan Province is not part of Azerbaijan but rather part of Iran. The word greater is being used here to mean lands where there are Azerbaijanis even though they might not be part of the internationally recognized state of Azerbaijani. As to Kurdistan, the map is from the CIA a reliable source and it shows where the lands of the Kurds are. The consensus currently from the Kurdish people talk page is that the map is acceptable. Please take the discussion to that talk page and try to get consensus to your opposing view. It will be more productive, since currently it is only the two of us discussing the issue. However, if you want we can keep on discussing the issue until the two of us can reach a consensus. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've written for your about Azerbaijan boundary [8] ansd the academic sources that showed West Azerbaijan province is part of Azerbaijan. Repeated for several times that the map related to "Kurdish people" not "Kurdistan". Please attention to WP:RS and WP:ORIGINAL.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by what you are saying. The wikipedia article on West Azerbaijan Province states:

West Azerbaijan Province or West Azarbaijan Province (Persian: استان آذربایجان غربی‎, Ostān-e Āzarbāijān-e Gharbī ), is one of the 31 provinces of Iran.

The article clearly states that West Azarbeijan Province is part of Iran, so how can it be part of Azarbeijan the country. However, if we are only talking about the ethnic makeup of the area it appears to me that it has a mixed population of Kurds and Azerbaijanis, therefore, it is part of both the lands of the Kurds and the lands of the Azarbaijanis. However, clearly the geographic territory belongs to Iran as all other nations in the world agree. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no official statistics or census figures on the ethnic makeup of Iran. The bulk of the population in West Azerbaijan Province are mainly Azerbaijanis ^[2][3] and Kurds.^[4] There are three ethnic and religious groups who are native to the province but who have minority status: Assyrians, Armenians, and Jews. There are also immigrants from other parts of Iran in the major cities of the province.

Azerbaijanis are living in Chaldoran, Maku, Khoy, Salmas, Urmia, Naghadeh and Miandoab counties. Kurds are living in Oshnaviyeh, Sardasht, Mahabad and Bukan counties. ^{[5] [6] [7] [8] [9]}

West Azerbaijan is part of Azerbaijan and this claim is a political and nationalist. Please attentin to WP:NOT --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe in what you say? (: You have meant, there is no Kurd in Maku, Salmas, Urmia and Miandoab. Thats a quite funny claim (: --Gomada (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May be 1 or 2 percent of population in Khoy or Maku are imigrant Kurds and are totally negligible in statistics. In Urmia may be as high as 4 or 5 percent (because of being administrative center in western Azerbaijan) and in Miandoab less than 1 percent are imigrant Kurds. In mahabad 25 percent of population are composed of Azeries especially in city center of Mahabad, formerly this number was 90 percent (Mahabad=Savojbolagh, before 1945). Hochvoltag (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources for this? ~ Zirguezi 12:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan is a new, because of the economic issues they demanded its origin is Meds prior to Safavide empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.102.234 (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add Kurdistan to the category Irredentism. 95.114.13.154 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there is not a country called kurdistan. The lands they say they have is Turkey Republic's. file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/turkiye_haritasi.gif

there is not a country called kurdistan. The lands they say they have is Turkey Republic's. file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/turkiye_haritasi.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.101.152 (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kurds have six governorates in Iraq?, what a fantasy!. There's no source for that, the only things I found are Duhok, Suleimaniya and Erbil. This is HEAVILY BIASED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.98.225.17 (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point but it is not completely wrong and it really depends on the context in which you view it. Iraqi Kurdistan when used to describe the area where Kurds live is bigger than the area currently under the control of the KRG. Therefore the six governates refer to Duhok, Sulaymaniyah and Erbil and the disputed province of Kirkuk and some area of Ninevah and Diyala. ~ Zirguezi 20:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is not considerable population of Kurds in Western Azerbaijan in Iran; May be at max 2 or 3 percent of total population (mostly jobless and job seeking male Kurds). There are also some kurds in USA, so parts of USA territories are part of Kurdistan! The map is joke.Hochvoltag (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the list of cities the city Wan does not link to the page for the city. The code should be Van. JMahoney (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for the correction. Rivertorch (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A "Request for Comments" has been opened at Iraqi Kurdistan talk page, whether to include Iraqi Kurdistan region as part of the list of political entities in Asia. The question is whether Iraqi Kurdistan is of similar status of autonomy as Hong Kong and Macau, to be included in template:Asia topic. Please discuss at Iraqi Kurdistan talk page.GreyShark (dibra) 14:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it is against the national law to show one country's borders given to another country. There is no signed negotiation so how can you show that this land belongs to another country. Can I make any map I want to show and claim that half of UK or USA is Turkish???

Having a flag means nothing even companies have flags.

What makes a country a country is currency. What is the currency of Kurdistan? Is it accepted by other nations? What is its value against Euro and US dollars and Turkish Lira?

How can we travel there? Do they claim visa? Do we need a passport? Do they have an embassy that I can apply for a visa? What is the procedure of immigration?

Who is its elected president and what is its laws? (How can you buy/ sell property? How can you get married?)

Do they have schools only teach Kurdish?

First answer these questions then we speak about a country otherwise it is just a company. Now I have a great idea. I will draw my own borders as I wish that will surround New York and then draw a flag and claim that it is My New Turkey. Then I will claim that El Kaide is the leading political party defending human rights. And put Osama Bin Laden's statue on the spot where 9/11 had happened. How does it sound? Nonsense right? That's what I thought! Now close this page and forget the rest. Claims do not prove anything.

Note: PKK is a terrorist organization not a political party because its name is not listed for elections so it is never voted. So how can it be written and claimed as a political party. They keep shooting ppl and bombing the cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.164.92 (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not once say that Kurdistan is a country. So I really don't understand the objective of this? --Ahmetyal (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]