Talk:Kurdistan/Archive (Kurds v. Kurdistan)

Discussion moved from Talk:Kurdistan.


 * This article is called 'Kurdistan' not 'Kurdish inhabited areas of the middle-east' (or whatever). So it makes sense for it have section for each of the parts of Kurdistan. Iota 16:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article is called 'Kurdistan' however there is no such thing as Kurdistan. The map shows the Kurdish inhabited regions. Kurdistan officialy does not exists as far as wikipedia goes its completely fictional as otherwise its propoganda. 'Kurdish inhabited areas of the middle-east' (or whatever) because its wikipedia policy not to have propoganda and neutrality. Only a minority within kurds claim it. -Coolcat


 * Your objection here seems to be based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. This encyclopaedia has articles on topics that are real, fictional, theoretical, imaginary, ideological, sensible and stupid. Contrary to what you believe Wikipedia does include propaganda concepts. All that is not allowed is to report propaganda as fact. There is an article on Kurdistan because it is a concept that some people believe in and/or talk about. The same applies to Turkish Kurdistan. If we are describing the concept of Kurdistan we must describe its parts. What this amounts to is not saying there is a Turkish Kurdistan, just that the notional region of Kurdistan is believed to include the notional region of Turkish Kurdistan.


 * The problem with Turkish Kurdistan is, people living there dont refer to it as "Kurdistan" now people who call it Kurdistan is an opinion. --Cool Cat| My Talk 16:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is currently no country or state Kurdistan, but there may be a nation and there has been one in the past. In my opinion, Turkish Kurdistan is more correct. It does not imply there is a country or state with the name: one can also talk about "Euskadi" (Basque Country) or Catalonia, referring to the region generally referred to as such by it's political proponents. Gerritholl 14:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kurdistan is a geographical name that has been used from time of Saljuqs as another name for Aljebal province.This name has been used in Ottoman and Iran agreements (see as an example 1635 Zahab protocol)many times. Some members must remember that here is not a general forum for spreading their politic ideas.Here is a online encyclopedia which every comment must be written with sense of responsibility and having full knowledge of that specific matter. Jamshid


 * Talking about politic ideas "Kurdistan" is a political idea. The region is not refered as Kurdistan by Turkey. Ottoman Empire today does not exist. Naming a large region of a country with some random name is not right. neither Iraq nor Turkey can be considered as "Kurdistan" it is NOT generally refered as Kurdistan as this article claims. I've lived there. No one Ive met refered to the region they live as Kurdistan, they refer it as, the soulth, soulth east, city they live in, etc... It's generally refered as Kurdistan by people who want independece. I have full knowlege of the issue. The nation of Kurdistan only existed at best for a brief time period between the Treaty of Sevres and the Treaty of Lausanne treaties. Since the Treaty of Sevres was not accepted its void. Since that time, over 8 decades, was not reffered in any official documentation... Officialy it's not there. This isn't a forum. --Cool Cat| My Talk 14:59, 24 Feb 2005

(UTC)

No it is not,Just some people turn it to political Ideas.15 years ago saying that there are kurds in turkey was considered a political idea.It is your personal opinion.You don't have right to generelize your personal view point. This does not change and show anything.It is your country politics.Thats all.Here is not a billboard for your country political opinions. It is not a random name. 1)First it is a historical and geographical name that has been used through last 1000 years. 2)It also shows a teritory that some seperatist movements want to build their dreaming country in it.This area was the one of most crtical points in the middle east in last 200 years.So even If this name has not any geographical and historical meaning (which absoloutly has),a neutral encyclopedia should refer to it.(because many events has taken place under cover of this name) It is generally referd in all of the world.Even in turkey.Saying that it is not considered is wrong ,because it is considered. Saying that it must not be considered,is a political and persoanl opinion and must not be mentioned here. This article does not discuss about your pesonal opinions or those you have met,(which surely are turks or kurds that hide their own opinion in front of a turk).This article refers to name that is known for all world.If it bother you or your country (for security reasons)This does not change anything.YOU MUST MENTION THE FACTS,ONLY FACTS AND JUST FACTS and nothing else,regardless of their political meaning or security consequences.If you have any objection you can mention in the article that in Turkey the name Kurdistan is not afficially accepted and it is referd to as turkey southeast or northern Iraq or western and northwestern Iran.You can mention it but you can not change or revert this fact,because majority in the world call this area as Kurdistan. No they are not the only people,but even because of these people this name must be used and then say that Turkey goverment don't recognize this name. I'm sorry you don't have.YOU THINK you have full knowledge. 1)There is not (and was not) a thing as nation of kurdistan.We have kurds that have been living in this area atleast from Xenephon Time. 2)Nation and citizens of a country don't have the same meaning. 3)This article does not speak about a virtual country which has (or had) the name of Kurdistan,It speaks about a REAL geographical region that has this name.(And wether it is offically accepted by you or your govement or not does not change this fact) Not being referd in official documents ,(only  in Turkey,ofcourse), is not a reason that this name does not exist. There are many names that historically used in Anatolia and now Turkey Goverment don't mention it officially. Armenia (eastern part of Turkey), Pontus,Galathia,Bythinia,Asia,Cilicia (ofcourse this name has been used ,but it has no official meaning in Turkey),Paphlagonia,Phrigia,....... All of the above names has no official meaning in modern Turkey,But all of them refer to an ancient geographical region,and because in modern geographical administration of turkey these name are not used, we don't have to erase these names. The problem with the name of Kurdistan (and also ancient Armenia which have many overlapping areas with eachother) is that they are used as a tool for political agenda,this does not change the fact they are geographical names that had been used in reality. (and in the case of kurdistan it is still used .)
 * Talking about politic ideas "Kurdistan" is a political idea.
 * The region is not refered as Kurdistan by Turkey.
 * Naming a large region of a country with some random name is not right.
 * neither Iraq nor Turkey [parts]can be considered as "Kurdistan" it is NOT generally refered as Kurdistan as this article claims
 * I've lived there. No one Ive met refered to the region they live as Kurdistan, they refer it as, the soulth, soulth east, city they live in, etc..
 * It's generally refered as Kurdistan by people who want independece
 * I have full knowlege of the issue
 * The nation of Kurdistan only existed at best for a brief time period between the serves and the loussanne treaties.
 * Since that time, over 8 decades, was not reffered in any official documentation

No here is not,but you changed it to a forum,Here you discuss your political and personal ideas and want to impose it to others,like the Kurdish nationalist that participate with you in changing this article into a political discussion.We don't want to know the personal viewpoints of you and your kurdish friends.We just want to know that this name Kurdistan refer to what and means what.We also want to know its real history.thats all.
 * This isn't a forum.

You reverted this article and changed it many times without giving any convincing reasons behind it .you just discuss your political views.Unfortunately I think you don't have full knowledge on this issue.Many of this omissions and parts of this article are not neutral.I want you if you can't support your ideas with propper reasons,stop reverting back this article to your own version.By signing in in Wikipedia you must respect Wikipedia policy even if it does not coincide with your own opinion. I don't revert back any changes and wait to see your reasons. Jamshid


 * Coolcat, have you read my comments on this above? I agree Turkish Kurdistan is a political idea. Having a subsection called Turkish Kurdistan does not amount to suggesting that it is a de facto entity or that any country recognises it. Please see my comments above.


 * On "the province of Kurdistan in Iran and the Kurdish Autonomous Region in Iraq are both in the area generally considered Kurdistan". Your interpretation of these words is not the meaning I intended them to have. I've reworded the sentence to make it clearer. Iota 16:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks ok. --Cool Cat| My Talk 16:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure who placed the bullets so I refrain from commenting. Kurdistan is however a political idea, like all ideas it has a palce in Wilipedia although I dont agree with it. Article looks fine and Neutral. Jamshid, Discussion supposed to be a discussion area (by deffinition). You are trying to put bias in to the argument while I am trying to make it Neutral. Your views cloud your judgement. I am not accusing anyone of anything, I am not claiming things either in the article. Officialy Kurdistan is not a country officialy it was never a state either. Asside from the time period between the serves and laussane. You have no idea what you are talking about. Learn what neutrality is and come back --Cool Cat| My Talk 04:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)