Talk:Republic of Mahabad

No title
Sorry but where is in this article a problem? --134.147.116.1 00:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute
This article is NOT neutral. It is talking about unsucessfull rebelions as an independent nation, part of Kurdish nationalist propoganda, --Kash 17:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If the rebellion happened, it's worth noting. --InShaneee 23:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is worth noting. But as a rebellion, which is what it actually was, not as an independent republic, which it never was! This was just the cooperation of a group of Kurdish separatists with the occupying Soviet forces in order to separate Kurdistan from Iran and eventually make it part of the Soviet Union, similar to what others tried to do in (Iranian) Azarbayjan. It was a Soviet-backed riot, not a republic or whatever. Shervink 13:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * Your POV is nonsense because the article is well-cited. http://www.bartleby.com/67/3814.html
 *  D iyako Talk + 17:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no real concern, the article is wel-cited. The farsis are for no good reason puting tag on this article.  D iyako Talk + 17:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If what you mean by Farsis is Persian, then I have to tell you that in the way you probably mean it (ethnically), I am not Persian. Neither is, as far as I know, Cool Cat. There is a real concern, and denying it is not an answer. Shervink 17:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

So what is your so-called concern?!! Why u do not say it if there is really one?!!  D iyako Talk + 17:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As stated above, I think it is not impartial to call a failed rebellion backed by Soviet forces a sovereign, independent republic. You might find it strange to hear that from me, but my position has always been that the Kurds have a right to their own state if they like to. My opinion is that it would be dramatically to their disadvantage, as well as to the disadvantage of many others in the region. Anyhow, I respect the opinion of those wishing for an independent Kurdistan. But the so-called republic of Mahabad was not that independent state which some Kurds are looking for. It was a failed attempt at attaching Kurdistan to the Soviet Union. Just look at all the other republics of the former Soviet Union to see how much the Kurds would have been oppressed if that had happened. This unsuccessful attempt was not an independent republic, although I am sure some Kurds hoped it would have become such a thing. For these reasons I think the page should be renamed to something like Separatist movement of Mahabad, or something in that direction. Also, the page should be made more neutral, it looks more like a political announcement at the moment. I am not questioning that at least some of those in favor of the separation were acting in good conscience, but the same holds for others who were against the separation. The article should not be one-sided. The first step would be to choose a more appropriate title for it. Shervink 19:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * I respect your point of view but in a neutral point of view it was an independent Republic of Mahabad which its official name was Republic of Kurdistan. The fact that Soviet helped it or not is another issue which can be mentioned in the article as it is. I see no neutral reason for renaming it. I believe our only choice is to follow neutral point of view. There are tons of neutral sources which can be provided when needed. It was a Kurdish Republic named Republic of Kurdistan and historians call it republic of Mahabad..
 *  D iyako Talk + 19:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it neutral now?  D iyako Talk + 20:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It couldn't be any farther from being neutral. Reasons were already mentioned. Such superficial hasty remarks here and there are not going to solve it. Shervink 20:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * It declared independence in January 1946, though not recongnized by any other state. So it was not a rebellion, it was an independent republic. Read the books written by William Eagleton about the history of the Republic. Archibald Roosevelt also wrote a paper, in which he used the term Republic of Mahabad. In the sources that are provided, it is mentioned as Republic not rebellion. Since I don't see any serious argument, I remove the tag.Heja Helweda 01:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. Not recognized by any other state. What makes a state a state? If I now go and declare that Tehran or Paris or whatever is hereafter called the Republic of Shervink, which would be kind of a cute idea, would I qualify to be mentioned in history books as the President of a Republic? Of course not.Shervink 07:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

With respect to this argument, I'd like to point out the article on the California republic, which doesn't hesitate to use the term 'republic' for something extremely short-lived. While there may be a grey area between actual independent statehood and merely claimed independent statehood in the course of an insurrection (rebellion, war for independence, whatever), clearly there is precedent for using the term 'republic' in even unclear cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blurpflargblech (talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly Kurds are much braver and honourable than Iranians. Most Iranians turn up to be faggots. That's why they should keep their mouth shut. "Republic of Shervink", now where the fuck did you get that shit from. The Republic of Mahabad was backed up by USSR and RECOGNIZED by USSR --Diyairaniyanim (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Some new information
I had found two books lying around in my house talking about the Republic of Mahabad. I added some information on the event itself and its reasons for failure. I hope I didn't mess up the topic to badly, I didn't realize how contreversal it was until I read the talk page MercZ 07:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The first and only kurdish state?
I've one question in different articles and pages there is written, that the Republic of Mahabad, was the first and only kurdish state. Some other articles wrote it wasn't so I'd like to hear what's your opinion bout this topic? Perhaps you can help me, so we can write in this artcile something excatly? --134.147.116.96 11:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It was not the first and only kurdish state, some examples are the Kingdom of kurdistan and the Republic of Ararat. Besides we must not forget that until 1848 there were independent kingdoms or principalities within the ottoman and persian empires. They were independent for all practical purposes but for name, had own border customs, stamps, currency and an independent economy.
 * We cant forget the kurdish dynasties kingdoms like the Ayubids, Zand, Bagratids and Buwayhids plus the ancient kingdoms and empires like Media, Corduene, Cappadocia, Pontus, Halaf, Hurriani among others.
 * I read in some book that the Republic of Mahabad was the first modern national state in the kurdish history, which was sucessfull during a period. --Japan01 02:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Name
The name of the republic was in fact Komari Kurdistan (Republic of Kurdistan) not the Mahabad Republic.
 * But in literature u find it under Republic of Mahabad. So move the article? --134.147.39.4 01:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The official name was the Republic of Kurdistan, but many refer to it as Republic of Mahabad and yet others refer to it as the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad. I say we should rename it. Republic of Kurdistan (Mahabad) or Republic of Kurdistan - Mahabad, sounds like a reasonable name to me, what do you guys think. --D.Kurdistani 02:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why was the name changed back to Republic of Mahabad, it's official name is the Republic of Kurdistan. --D.Kurdistani 09:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no citation that either name is official - not that it matters. The most common name should be used. See how United States is not United States of America (long official version is a redirect) . A quick dirty Google check (Mahabad vs Kurdistan) shows Mahabad is slightly more popular. -- Cat chi? 10:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Flag of the republic
The Flag of Republic of Mahabad was a bit different then to the flag of the actual kurdish region in iraq. So i've changed it. See also the article in kurdish and german wikipedia. --Japan01 19:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I made some fixes, some Wikilinks, etc...Hajji Piruz 17:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No the flag was not different, the flag of Kurdish region of Iraq is the same flag as Mahabad Republic. Do a Google search of the Mahabad Republic and you will find images of the same flag in the background of images with cabinet member and even the president of the Republic present. --D.Kurdistani 21:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay but why it's then in the kurdish wikipedia different??? --Japan01 23:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

D.Kurdistani, could you please provide links to the pictures you mention above? I performed a search but couldn't find anything of the sort. Shervink 09:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The flag of Mahabad republic is different as you can see from this picture:, just as the one which is shown in the Kurdish wikipedia

there was a national flag, which is the same one used today in iraqi kurdistan and there was another republic flag, but the national flag used and introduced during the republic has become the national flag of the kurds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.112.85 (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Offical name added
Official name which was Republic of Kurdistan is added. Mahabad was just its capital. the name republic of Mahabad is used both by Kurdish and non-Kurdish historians just to avoid confusion with other Kurdish movements. Yasvoniaj (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

State atheist or Islamic state?
That seems to conflict.

67.81.221.132 (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It was a secular socialist republic Zageos21 (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

one year republic?
Can we call that as organisation as republic? Because it was very short lived government,and i think using government therm is acceptable than republic,for this one.--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a republic, Soviet enclave inside Iran, Kurds were mere pawns in bigger East - West politics. Hittit (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Republic of Mahabad → Republic of Kurdistan – Looking at the talk page there doesn't seam to be much of a conciseness for what the name should be, so what should the name be? "Republic of Mahabad" or "Republic of Kurdistan" Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't like "Republic of Mahabad" because it sounds like an official name and it wasn't. I don't like "Republic of Kurdistan" because it's vague.  What about Mahabad republic?  It's common enough in sources and sounds like a description rather than an official name.  —  AjaxSmack   03:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no reason supplied for the rename.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support moving to Mahabad Republic. AjaxSmack is right: "Republic of Mahabad" indeed sounds like the official name of a country, which it isn't. "Republic of Kurdistan" is too unspecific and possibly ambiguous. "Mahabad republic"/"Mahabad Republic" (most sources seem to spell 'Republic' uppercase) is quite common in literature (see Google Books hits) --RJFF (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose move to Republic of Kurdistan, that may be the official name but in that its territory covered only a small part of Kurdistan (not even all of Iranian Kurdistan in fact) that title is highly misleading to readers in general. Can argue Republic of Mahabad and Mahabad Republic both ways. What about Mahabad (republic)? Andrewa (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment actually we have many examples where the official name does not encompass the historical territory. Everything from Azerbaijan Democratic Republic to the German Democratic Republic, to the Republic of Korea. --Bejnar (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support move. Republic of Kurdistan is already a redirect, it is a more likely search term, and the lead adequately defines the territory so any ambiguity is quickly dispelled. --Bejnar (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Closing comment: I'm closing this as no consensus because at least 2 additional possible names were proposed and nobody's agreed on anything even after it's been relisted once already. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

CN tag
regarding your edit, source is in the image file. See which points to this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think that Izadi's maps are reliable? Do you really think that, Mahabad hold before such territory including Urmia city? Beshogur (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, why do you think Izadi is not reliable? Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Flag of the Republic
Do we have any sources for the flag currently used on this page other than the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan website? I think it's possible a flag more similar to the present Kurdish flag was used for the Mahabad Republic, see, and this photo appears to show a more circular emblem in the center, though it may be the DPIK logo Thespündragon 21:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for update/addition of bibliographic sources and addition of a new paragraph
Hi, I would like to add the following text to the article in the form of a new paragraph that should be inserted at the very end of the article in the Aftermath section; this new paragraph will present one of the consequences of the Republic of Mahabad which was that the movement of Kurdish independence gained new supporters in the artistic (especially literary) fields and would become one of the most popular subjects in the artistic pieces created during the decade of the 1950s; naturally, I included a new bibliographic source in the form of a essay published by Uppsala University:

In a cultural context, the aftermath of the Republic of Mahabad can be said to have propelled the movement for Kurdish autonomy forward as a theme in the literary and artistic fields as it would become one of the favorite subjects of some of the most prolific regional Kurdish artists starting the following decade who produced artistic works, mostly literary, where the theme of Kurdish autonomy dominated; this in turn spurred the formation of new artistic and intellectual movements which would popularize the movement among the general population and produce new generations more supportive of the prospect of Kurdish independence. After this, I propose a new bibliographic source be added to the article which I am sure would do much to strengthen the facts presented in the Background section: This first source I think should be inserted right after source number 10, by Allain (2004), at the end of the third sentence of the Background section:

And, also, I would like to update the bibliographic source by Meiselas (1997) with the following entry as the source as it is right now is extremely incomplete, I added a newer edition of the book with editors, place of publication, collaborators, chapter title, language and series:

I would also like to update the very first source that is listed in the References list, it has no author but it is a journal article titled "The Republic of Kurdistan: Fifty Years Later"; next is what I think should replace it, it contains author, editor, publisher, issn, issue number, place of publication, pages and the full date: Thanks in advance and have a wonderful day, 177.227.43.209 (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022
Correct the source to Republic of Kurdistan currently 06/04/2022 Corduenekingdom (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Republic of Kurdistan
The Republic was called the Republic of Kurdistan, as the content of the page itself states. The term "Republic of Mahabad" was never used and should be corrected. Heviyane (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Bullshit, They never dared to call it republic of Kurdistan because they didn't even had the major cities like sanandaj and kermanshah. 95.162.195.169 (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2024
The title should be Republic of Kurdistan as during the time of the republic it was officially called republic of Kurdistan and not Mahabad. In all documents and official newspaper of the republic it is mentioned as Republic of Kurdistan. Shoreshvan1 (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Move-protection-shackle.svg Not done: page move requests should be made at Requested moves.  (talk | contribs) 09:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)