Talk:Kurdish nationalism/Archive 1

The largest people without a piece of land
"the largest people without a piece of land"? In the sense "without a nation state", the English and the Han Chinese are also "without a piece of land", being, like the Kurds of various countries, citizens of multi-ethnic states. dab (𒁳) 10:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the correct (neutral) phrasing would probably be, "the largest people who are not the ethnic majority in any country". But this isn't correct. With some 30M, they beat the Tatars, Zhuang and the Romani people. But the Tamils with 77 M are an ethnicity twice as large as the Kurds, and they don't have their sovereign nation state either. They do have significant autonomy in Tamil Nadu, but that's still under the rule of the Republic of India. The same holds for the Marathi people (70 M) or Gujarati people (50 M). The Sundanese people, Hausa people and Yoruba people are of  comparable numbers with the Kurds.  Thus, the statement is clearly false. At best, we can say that the Kurds are "the largest people that are making a big noise about their irredentist demands".  dab (𒁳) 11:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The source says what is said... I guess the reference author is wrong. --Vonones 18:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This page deals with the national political movement, rather than nationality (which is itself an elusive category, in that the Kurds do not possess a nation-state). Remove material about the nationalist struggle that appears on other pages, and focus instead on issues such as Will Hanley (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * the civic rights of Kurds in each of the four states that divide Kurdistan
 * Kurdish migration and diaspora, and the nature of their citizenship abroad
 * political, social, civil, military, cultural programs of authorities in autonomous regions of Kurdistan.

West, East and northern Kurdistan
In the article, User:Lapsed Pacifist , changed my edit due to "Reference is made to the current political delineations". I want him to discuss more about this .If that is a geographical name, the definition of them is unknown. If it a POV naming policy, according to unify every Kurdish region , then it is against the NPOV. As an example : where is east Kurdistan ? Is it every region of Iran, that the Kurdish speakers are in majority? Then what about the eastern parts of Iran ( North of Khurasan) that is a Kurdish inhibited region ? Or if it is supposed to be any Kurdish language place in continuity with other Kurdish language places, then what about the Bakhtiari's , Laks or Lors in Iran ? almost every Iranian language in the western regions of Iran are more than cognate languages to Kurdish and there are no real dividing line between the Kurdish and non- Kurdish languages. Same is about the Zaza's in Turkey, or Dilimis .Again , same about the Fili's in Iraq and Surani and Kurmanji's .... Such a naming policy is imprecise and unfamiliar. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See Kurdistan.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replay, but in brief I'm saying the "West Kurdistan " , " East Kurdistan" and etc , are obscure names and does not show a known geographical entity.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

They're not obscure terms to the Kurds. They're parts of Kurdistan.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Indo European" is a linguistic devision not ethnical. Kurds are grouped as "Iranian peoples" according to genealogy. It does not mean that they all must be a citizen of today Iran, it is just a category according to genetical similarity, please one correct that strange mistake. thank you. Saman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.139.220.61 (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The terms northern Kurdistan, southern Kurdistan etc. have not only been used but was the most common usages to define the specific areas in Kurdistan in official documents issued by for example the British foreign office and the Swedish UD etc. it was also used in literature and scientific reports, as archaeological excavations made in Kurdistan. The ban on using the name Kurdistan and instead using south eastern Turkey, northern Iraq etc. is a more recent phenomenon and politically motivated by the states of for example turkey, Iraq and Iran. While the use of Kurdistan is originally not politically motivated and in fact more substantive. Northern Iraq is for example used for the Kurdistan in Iraq, however the term is not consistent with the Kurdish areas of that part of Kurdistan, as not all of northern Iraq is Kurdistan and Kurdistan also stretches along the border with Iran in the east. A better term is thus to use the term that is closest to what we are referring to i.e. Kurdistan, in stead of using politically motivated terms that are more problematic and inconsistent.

I think using a name that has controversy should be avoided ....--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The term is unidentified and it is not defined . Please tell me the borders of East Kurdistan ( = Western parts of Iran ) as an example.I think that is impossible because the Bakhtiyaris, Lors , Laks are in one hand Kurds , and in other hand not Kurds . The West Azarbaijan province of Iran is a mixed region with combined Kurdish language and Azeri language population : is it a part of so called eastern Kurdistan or not ? What about the Kurdish populations of Iran in northern Khorasan ?

Secession
The Kurds are officially a secessionist movement. In order for Kurdistan to be an irredenta there must be a pre-existing state to which they can join. Otherwise, they want to create their own state which is technically a secession —Preceding unsigned comment added by RCDMCS (talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A pro-Kurdish nationalism polemic
From start to finish that's what this article is. Which would be perfectly fine, if Wikipedia were not representing itself as an encyclopedia.Haberstr (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Kurdish name
About this edit: is sentence: including the giving of Kurdish names to infants have been removed true ?

Berrin Karakaş, Bir isim koydum, hayat değişti: 'Açılım bebeği' Hêlîn Kurdîstan 4 Ağustos itibarıyla Helin oldu', Radikal, August 25, 2011.

Takabeg (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg, this I belive is an isolated case where the 2nd name of the infant was found to be provoking. Imagine naming your child Taliban or such in America, this is the exact response one would have at the name "Kurdistan". Further more the naming laws were removed as a part of the EU process in 2003. The new laws no state that a foreign name can be given if one of the parents is of a different ethnicity. The reference I have given before also show that there are no limitations imposed upon Kurdish names. So if we look at the bigger picture and not indivicual cases we can see that there are next to no restrictions although contrary cases may occur. Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC) (P.S Can you please look at the Iranian Azerbaijanis page and the archives and give 3rd person opinion on the inclusion of human rights sources) Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As per Tugrulirmak's removal of Grey Wolves in Cyprus, stating that, "The embassy of cyprus is not a reliable source in the slightest" and the source from the "Embassy of Cyprus" which states that a "U.N. reports confirm that much of the violence appears to have been carried out by members of extremist groups, including the notorious Gray Wolves. The Turkish attackers seemed to be in accordance with a plan "to hit as many [Greek Cypriots] as possible," a senior U.N. official in Cyprus, Matt Cosgrave, told the Irish Times (August 27).", which was ignored by said editor. Tugrulirmak removed the entire Cyprus section, yet adds a ".tr"(Turkish government site) as a source for Kurdish nationalism?? The Turkish government is in no way a neutral 3rd party source concerning Kurds. Is there a 3rd party source that corroborates the Turkish government site? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow talk about wiki stalk. Here is a source from milliyet which is a major new paper. The article from 2003 states that there are no restrictions on naming which again is a part of EU laws. The new naming bill was passed in 2003. The Turkish state is not a banana republic stop portraying it as such.It is unthinkable to say that the department for identity and population would publish such things in Turkish as international propaganda .If the government site places something it is to instruct its citezens unlike Southern Cyprus whose purpose was propaganda. Here is a Turkish passage which states that Diyarbakir Council has printed a book giving a list of Kurdish names one can give to their new born. This list consists of 500 names and comes with a new law regarding Turkey's EU process. " DİYARBAKIR - Avrupa Birliği uyum yasaları çerçevesinde yasalarda yapılan değişikliğin ardından Diyarbakır Büyükşehir Belediyesi, Kürtçe isim kitabı çıkardı. Çocuklar İçin Kürtçe İsimler (Jıbo Zarokan, Naven Kurdi) adlı kitapta Kürtçe erkek ve kız isimleri yer alıyor. Amed Tigris tarafından hazırlanan kitap, Diyarbakır Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü tarafından vatandaşlara ücretsiz dağıtılıyor. Kitaptaki Kürtçe erkek isimleri arasında "Arda, Bünyamin, Boran, Cihan, Erdem, Ferda, Ferhat, Haydar, Levent, Merda, Mervan, Niyazi, Polat, Rüstem, Ruşen, Sercan, Serhat, Sertan, Şahan, Şahin", kız isimleri arasında ise "Arzu, Berma, Canan, Esmer, Fidan, Gül, Gülcan, Gülçin, Gülşen, Jale, Lale, Narin, Nermin, Nilüfer, Pakize, Pelin, Perihan, Serpil, Sibel, Sinem, Sema, Şengül, Şermin, Şebnem, Yasemin, Zara, Zelal, Zerda ve Didem" gibi isimler yer alıyor. Yaklaşık bin 500 ismin yer aldığı 105 sayfalık kitapta ayrıca, ilk Kürt devleti olan Mahabat ve Kürdistan isimleri erkek isimler arasında gösteriliyor." Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I think we can explain the circular of the Minister of Interior, the law (Soyadı Kanunu) and its applications in short.

Takabeg (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Case of Helin
 * Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararı, Esas Sayısı: 2009/47, Karar Sayısı : 2011/51, Karar Günü : 17.3.2011, Resmî Gazete, July 12, 2011 (decision of the Constitutional Court of Turkey that prohibits Turkish citizens to have foreign names.).

Soyadı Kanunu’nun 3. maddesindekine benzer düzenleme 1587 sayılı Nüfus Kanunu’nun 16. maddesinde de mevcuttu. Nüfus Kanunu’nun 16/4. maddesindeki yasal düzenleme şu şekildeydi: “Çocuğun adını ana ve babası kor. ANCAK MİLLİ KÜLTÜRÜMÜZE, ahlak kurallarına ÖRF VE ADETLERİMİZE uygun düşmeyen veya kamu oyunu inciten adlar konulmaz, doğan çocuk babasının, evlenme dışında doğmuş ise anasının soyadını alır.” '''Ancak 15/07/2003 tarihli ve 4928 sayılı Yasanın 5. maddesi ile Nüfus Kanunu’nun 16. maddesinde yapılan değişiklik sonucunda madde şu şekli almıştır.''' “Çocuğun adını ana ve babası kor. Ancak ahlak kurallarına uygun düşmeyen veya kamuoyunu inciten adlar konulmaz, doğan çocuk babasının, evlilik dışında doğmuş ise anasının soyadını alır.” Görüldüğü üzere yasa koyucu, Nüfus Kanunu’ndaki bu düzenlemelerin çağımızın ihtiyaçlarının dışında, '''insan hakları ve demokratik toplum yapısı gereklerinin gerisinde kaldığını fark etmesi üzerine bu şekilde yasal düzenleme yoluna gitmiş, dolayısıyla salt Türkçe kökenli isimlerin kullanılması şeklindeki kısıtlama kaldırılmış oldu. Buna benzer yeni bir düzenleme Soyadı Kanunu’nda da gerekmektedir. Bu değişlikte ancak işbu defi yoluyla itirazımız üzerine verilecek olan iptal kararı ile veyahut yeni bir yasal düzenleme yoluyla gerçekleştirilebilir. This shows us that the mother and the father can give Kurdish or names of foreign origin to their children, however as the current law stands they cannot give foreign surnames to their children and the prosecution wants to ammend this Buna benzer yeni bir düzenleme Soyadı Kanunu’nda da gerekmektedir.''' So my point still stands, an infants' forename can be given in Kurdish but a surname can not, this can be included in the article. Tugrulirmak (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararı, Esas Sayısı: 2009/47, Karar Sayısı : 2011/51, Karar Günü : 17.3.2011, Resmî Gazete, July 12, 2011

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Claims of "Persian ethnic exclusivity" in Iran
I removed this disputed sentence:
 * The new theocratic regime developed a new exclusionary conception of nationalism based on very conservative Shia Islam but retaining aspect of Persian ethnic exclusivity. Despite heady initial promises of protection and cultural and linguistic freedom, this did not materialize, although the Islamic Constitution enshrined the equality of all Iranian citizens. Shia Muslims, especially ethnic Persians, were given preferential state treatment, economic and occupational opportunities, and dominated the government.

Such claims makes little sense since rulers of former regime were of Mazandarani origin and since 1979 Iran's head of state is Azeri (Khamenei), not to mention vast number of high-ranking non-Persian politicians (major of Tehran is Kurd). Such baseless claims were made by Denise Natali who isn't Iranologist at all. Iranologist Philip G. Kreyenbroek in his book The Kurds: A Contemporary Overview (p. 141-142) states this:
 * In spite of the official hostility of the government, there are strong ties between the Kurds and the Persians. The Kurdish language is related to Farsi, and the Kurds share much of their history with the rest of Iran. This may explain at least partly why Kurdish leaders in Iran do not want a separate Kurdish state. Also, there have been attempts to assimilate the Kurds into the ruling apparatus. Some Kurdish chiefs held important positions in the government, and received many favours from the authorities: they were allowed, for instance, to keep their land after the land reforms of 1962. During the reign of the Shah some members of parliament and high army officers were Kurds, and there was even a Kurdish Cabinet Minister.

--HistorNE (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering newer situation (post-1979), consult R. Howard's book Iran in Crisis?: The Future of the Revolutionary Regime and the US Response (p. 185-186):
 * The Kurdish language is now used more then at any other time since the Revolution, including in several newspaper now printed and among schoolchildren, while the presence of thirty Kurdish deputies in the 290-strong parliament has also helped to undermine claims of discrimination.

--HistorNE (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan level of autonomy
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)

File:Kurdayeti.png
I've removed this image from the article. I've never seen it before and don't even know what it stands/used for. The caption claims it is a "Symbol of Kurdayeti", whatever that is suppose to mean. The original image doesn't give a source and a reverse image search shows zero results. If someone can point me to a reliable source about this file I'd be very happy. ~ Zirguezi 10:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan–Rojava relations
I've created a draft article about relations between Iraqi Kurdistan and Rojava using a paragraph from Foreign relations of Rojava. It needs a lot of work and I'd truly appreciate some help in developing it. Charles Essie (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kurdish nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011225529/http://www.turkishweekly.net/articles.php?id=15 to http://www.turkishweekly.net/articles.php?id=15

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

New development in Iraq: Independence referendum planned
I am reading that leaders in Iraq's northern autonomous Kurdish region are planning an independence referendum for September 25, 2017. I think this merits inclusion in this article somewhere. I am not an expert on the Kurds or on the Middle East and want this edit to be done well, so I will not be making the edit(s). (Consider this an invitation to make an edit if you are knowledgeable on this subject)

Sources

Thanks so much! TenorTwelve (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Wilson's "14 Points" and the treatment of the Kurds
Within the sections "History" and "Ottoman Empire," I think that greater mention should be made of Wilson's idealistic promoting of self-determination for ethnic minorities. Perhaps including something such as:

Although President Woodrow Wilson had crusaded with his "Fourteen Points" (8 January 1918) at the end of the First World War to assure the political rights of nationalities such as the Kurds within the former Ottoman Empire, he faltered after he was mortally stricken in Europe by the worldwide Influenza Epidemic (a.k.a. "Spanish Flu").

Later, the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres (negotiated without the dying Wilson) did promise an independent Republic of Kurdistan to be preceded by a popular referendum. Kurdistan was to be located in what is now Turkey, including the region around Mosul, Iraq. But that proposal was never implemented, since that treaty was replaced by the more imperial, pro-colonial Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

Dr.Bastedo (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Treaty of Sèvres and borders
Hi, the Traety of Sèvres has never included parts of Syria to be given to a Kurdistan state. The lede here is wrong. References to Kurdistan have focused on Turkey, Iran and northern Iraq, but not Syria. Reference to Kurdish-inhabited region in Syria started after the Syrian civil war when YPG militias (started and led by PKK fighters) took control of several towns in northeastern Syria. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The source you linked (without page number) doesn't mention anything on Iran in relation to the Sèvres treaty. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Louis and thanks for responding to my comment here. This is a map of the treaty of Sèvres clearly showing Syria's current international borders vis-a-vis the suggested Kurdistan state. You can see that the suggested Kurdistan border do not even touch the Syrian border except at The Tigris tri-border point at Jazirat ibn Umar. As for the other reference I had posted, this is one example of many that show that the Kurdish question has not historically involved Syria, as the history and demographic proportions in this country are different than the other three countries where Kurds live. I hope this clarifies my point. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)