Talk:West Azerbaijan province/Archive 2

My position: '' there is no official statistics or percentages on ethnic numbers in Iran. There is no reliable other source as well. The CIA and others only give guesstimates. However, Azeris are in a strong majority in the capital city of Urmia (followed by Kurds), and in a slight but certain overall majority in the province. The exact percentage numbers however, are not known for a fact.''

I've been to the province 3 times btw.--Zereshk 03:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I know Wikipedia and what is an Encyclopedia.

I agree with this that "..there is no official statistics or percentages on ethnic numbers in Iran.."


 * About capital city of Urmia it depends what is your defination about majority here, in fact the percentege of the Turks and the Kurds in this city is very similar but turks mostly are in sight specially because of the name of the province and their jobs and business in this city and their presence in central parts of the city but there are many many kurds specially in environs. (here we talk about the city). So there is a very close figures for the Turks and the kurds in the capital city of Urmia.


 * But in the township of Urmia in rural areas that includes a large area with a large population the Kurds are in majority.
 * This also is true about most of northern cities of the province but in Khoy which the city (and NOT the township) is mostly Turkish.
 * Even with a minimum figures for the Kurds in the northern Turkish-Kurdish cities and townships of this province the result is a high majority for the Kurds. (But certainly it never does mean that a specific ethnic group such as the Kurds or the Turks are the owner (!!) of a province.)


 * Thank You [[Image:Hopetoun falls.jpg|38px| ]] D iyako Talk + 03:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Diyako, trust me, the Turks say exactly the opposite of what you are saying. That's why it is better to take an impartial 50/50 approach. And I'm really reaching out here, because the Azaris are indeed a STRONG majority in Urmia and some of the cities in the province, contrary to what you claim. Dr Hamed even doesnt agree with 50/50. Ask him.


 * Therefore, since there are no official stats, and since there is a standoff here, I strongly suggest that if youre going to cite and present pro-Kurdish sources as fact, then you must be impartial enough to do the opposite and add opposing Azeri sources as well. Only then can the article become balanced.


 * Unfortunately, your edits have made the article look like as if the province belonged to the Kurds, the Turks took it over, gave it the name Azarbaijan, and that there is a full scale turf war going on between the Tehran backed Azeris on the one side, and the independence seeking Kurds on the other. Which is totally false.


 * Also, the problem of the map must be resolved. Problems with the map: 1. It is an ethnic map of the 30 provinces of Iran, not the province of West Azarbaijan. 2. It inaccurately shows Urmia under Kurds (which is why you keep pushing for it). If you want to show it, fine. But you must also show its counter map (which shows Urmia under Azeris).--Zereshk 22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Zereshk, Thank you for all your steps toward resolving the problem.
 * 1) The Kurds as an Iranic ethnic group have lived in this province since many millinioums ago.
 * 2) The name of the province has political reasons.
 * 3) I had (and have) accepted your map but you kept removing mine. I think both maps must be put on the article.
 * 4) If we calculate the demography of the province we will see that the population of the Kurds is more than 70% and they are in strong majority. So we must do so.

 D iyako Talk + 22:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) "My map" is not on the page right now. You took it off.
 * 2) The source you keep posting does not say: "70% of West Azarbaijan are Kurdish".
 * 3) Your claim that the province is named Azarbaijan for political reasons can be mentioned, if provided with a source. You cannot present it as fact. Because the Turks think exactly the opposite. Iran already has a province called Kordestan.--Zereshk 23:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 D iyako Talk + 23:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) You can cite your map but you kept saving another one. (You can not remove other credible maps or sources.)
 * 2) But we can calculate and then we we will see (aabout the population).
 * 3) I have not yet put my claim about the name of the province in the article
 * 4) Iran already has a province called Kurdistan is another matter, that province is only a small region that does not cover all of iranian Kurdish lands.


 * Item 2 is unacceptable, because it is an example of "original research" which is prohibited by Wikipedia guidelines.--Zereshk 00:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, this Item proves that Kurds are in majority but about being an example of original research we must ask others too.

 D iyako Talk + 00:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are these maps on the page - neither of which depict the province - either not at all or only peripherically. Can we please remove these and can we please become a lot more civil with each other? Refdoc 23:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Solution?
Judging from Diyako's talk page, there seems to be a proposed solution. If there is an agreement, a request can be made at WP:RFPP, where other admins can look and comment on it. --Wikiacc (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Page unprotected
I have unprotected the page. I will closely monitor it. I will enforce the 3RR rules. Please be civil. Refdoc 23:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

RefDoc, what do you thin about this map?



Better, or wose than other 2?--Zereshk 23:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It shows large parts of irrelevance for the province. I also does not show the borders of the province - in consequence it is rather useless to the non-initiated. Sorry Refdoc 23:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In that case, the other 2 maps currently on the page must go as well then. for the same reason.--Zereshk 00:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The initial province map is part of the overall scheme of things, puts matters into perspective etc. It must stay. The kind of map I envisage should look like this one here - only with ++ more detail + obviously accuracy checked. As said above I have no clue about the exact distribution of people groups, but the basic idea is clear I guess Refdoc


 * So I gather you are against having the map I propose, and yet support having the incorrect 2 maps?


 * I was one of the original writers of this article. There was no "initial province map". The first person to bring a map into this article was Diyako . And it was an ethnic one. Not even geographic.--Zereshk 00:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we are cross purposes - the 'initial map' I refer to is the one at the very top showing the province highlighted in a administrative map of Iran - it must stay. The two maps at the bottom Kaukasus and All Iran ethnic groups etc both are irrelevant as they stand. The third one you suggested suffers the same problems. The one I put up is useless in its current form and is only meant to clarify what I mean - an ethnic distribution map should concentrate on the province discussed and shoudl show the province borders. Otherwise it is pointless here. Refdoc 00:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed.--Zereshk 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Urmia also is not a turkish city; it is a Kurdish-Turkish city. [[Image:Hopetoun falls.jpg|38px| ]] D iyako Talk + 00:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hash this out between you too. I will remove both irrelevant maps now and suggest that a good solution is first shown here on the talk page + agreed upon before the main page is edited again. Refdoc 00:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Mahabad
A significant event, indeed. All detail should be in the relevant article. I have therefore shortened the paragraph significantly. I woudl suggest that the second bit (about fighting between 1979-1990) warrants also its own article and should not expanded upon here. Refdoc 00:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly, this is why I did not expand them more than one paragraph.

 D iyako Talk + 00:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. And this is why I have shortened it even more. I guess you have no problem with this. Refdoc 00:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Other problems
The last paragraph in the history section has a problem. It misquotes its source:


 * 1) It says "Kurds" whereas the cited source says "Kurdish guerillas". That's a big difference.
 * 2) The last sentence of the paragraph is also misquoting the last sentence of the cited source.--Zereshk 00:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, RefDoc, you must be aware that it's not just me and Diyako to "hash it out". Diyako is against the consensus of the page: Me, Dr Hamed, TimBits, and others. And that (the consensus) has not been respected.--Zereshk 00:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Zereshk, Minor edits that you find (and there is a source) you can correct, it's not a problem.
 * 2) Here Number of editors is NOT important. The important is true and correct edits.

 D iyako Talk + 00:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect Diyako:


 * 1) Consensus is an official guideline to be followed in Wikipedia:
 * 2) The problems are minor to you, not me. Hence the term POV.--Zereshk 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

At that time only you two were fighting. This is why I said "you two" must hash it out. The fighting has now stopped. Thanks. Others will be happier to contribute, I guess. Consensus is indeed the aim. Consensus might also dictate "the exact proportion sof the various populations are disputed" And BTW Diyako, please adjust your signature - it is pretty admittedly, but I find it is quite disruptive on the reading of a page + flow of discussion. Refdoc 00:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I had to step in only because Diyako would not cease reverting Dr Hamed and TimBits. There are also 2 other admins involved on this page.--Zereshk 01:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine, now no one is fighting, unless we restart it. What do you think of my recent edits? I have cleaned up the style + the grammar and have taken out a lot of gruft. Refdoc 02:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Factual accuracy
I have cleaned up a lot of the style, repeated sentences etc. I also think currently there is little  worthy of dispute left or rather all disputes are described. I will therefore remove the factual accuracy disclaimer. WRT the ethnic distribution map - I would suggest that anyone who comes up with a suitable map should put it up first here on the talk pages to avoid a new edit war. The criteria for a new map are clear, but I repeat them:
 * covering the province only rather than whole of Iran,
 * clear demarkation of province border
 * some distinction between country side and townships seems to be necessary
 * my suggestion is to not have any monocoloured "Kurdish" or Turkish" areas, but to have "stripey" bits for mixed settled areas - without the map making any exact assertions about percentages. In this way we can keep the dispute in the text where it is a lot easier to explain. Refdoc 13:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Inaccuracy: The sentence: "The goverment nevertheless mentions the Kurds as the main group in the province" cites a government reference which does not mention anything about Kurds being the "main group of the province". Please correct.--Zereshk 18:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Zereshk, I do not mean the government can (or dare) say the Kurds are the only main group. They say the Kurds and the Turks together are main groups.

 D iyako Talk + 19:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The sentence in the article is clear. Change it.--Zereshk 19:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and changed it.--Zereshk 20:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming of Urmia/Orooomiyeh/Urumiyeh etc
One version please. Too many spellings which are all proonounced more or less alike, but look decidedly confused. Refdoc 13:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

ZERESHK UN IS NOT CREDIBLE??? OK SO I DO MY BEST TO DO WHAT YOU ARE AFFRAID OFF. THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!  D iyako Talk + 19:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

latest revision
This is very good and the pictures are absolutely excellent. Refdoc 07:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Histiorical Liars
To inventors of Kurdish Azerbaijan!!!

I don't ignore kurdish population in west Azerbaijan. Kurds are about 20% of W.Az population, but in this article I read somethings about a kurdsih azerbaijan!!! then where are Azeri turks?! they are prodominant in only one city (miandoab), all iranian people knows azerbaijan as a Azeri poulated province, I don't care about source given in this article, I can establish many sites and then use them as sourses. I can see the situation of W.Az. IN ALL NORTHERN CITIES (north of naghadeh) you can see Azeri Turks anywhere, and Kurds are about 10% of these cities, however Kurd are dominant in southern cities. Mahabad and Piranshahr are kurdish cities now.

Iran government is not Turkish nor kurdish, in other hand Kurds are ethnically an iranian subgroup, but Turks are not iranian ethnically. Then why should iranian government name a kurdish province  "Azerbaijan" ????

Oh, it's too dificult to prove that england belongs too english people! not indians.

and about Mahabd republic: Most of kurds in Iran live in Kurdistan province. Then Why they establish their own autonomous government in Mahabad!? Because Kurds of Mahabad are politically active, more than ones who live in kurdsitan.

Mahabad is called "Sabilagh" by kurds. Sabilagh is derived from Turkish name " Sough - Bolagh" (cool spring).

Anyway this article can't change the facts,it only can change reliability of wikipedia

West Azarbaijan is not Kurdish
This is a stupid game, and the lie simply wont fly. Urmia is not "Kurdish-Turkish". The same for many Azari cities that have been presented as "Kurdish". That is a comic blatant fabrication.

Please do not remove the tag until the matter is resolved.

You cannot hope to achieve anything by "downplaying" the Azeri majority.--Zereshk 22:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

West Azarbaijan is mixed province with no real geographical boundary between ethnics
regarding to article there are some points that must be considered 1)there is a big difference between "shahrestan" and "shahr" in Persian language, (city and small province??) 2)up until now there has not been any statistics that deal with ethnicity in Iran so every estimation will be with approxiamtion, and so many approximation coul change the whole picture of the fact. 3)names of provinces in Iran do not neccessarily represent the real ethnic or historical background or exact geographical boundaries. 4)Azarbaijan is actually a geographical region with some how defined boundaries and its name has more than 2000 years background. It is not a "ethnical" name with vague boundaries like kurdistan or Luristan.

west Azarbaijan is a long and vast province with a very complicated geographical features that make controlling it actually impossible.just for example the distance between Takab and Bazargan is 605 km and still it must be considered that the roads are narrow and very dangerous and are completely in mountanous areas. Thats why it is actually impossible to have direct and centrlized rule over the province and again because of that there is not a homogenous culture in this province, actually this province can be divided into four or five different region with different culture and geographical features. Azeri and Kurdish are predominent ethnicities here (historically Assyrians were the third group but after the world war first they are now a small minority) just the name west azerbajan does not prove that the majority of population of province must be azeri.It is a mixed province and although Azeri was predominent culture in the province (becasue azeris mostly lived in cities and kurds in rural areas) but as kurds migrate from rural areas to cities, this predominent culture will fade away and will be repalced by a mixed or two hostile culture. Mahabad and Mokrian region are different stories, so please Kurdish nationalist don't hang me here, but apart from this region in other parts of province up to 30 years ago Azeries mostly lived in cities and kurds in rural areas.

Orumieh(urmiah is old assyrian name that has been obsolete for many times)is name of a city and also small province. As city traditionally it was a mixed Assyrian and Azeri city with big minorities of kurds and Armenians and jews.After expelling the assyrians and migration of Armenians to Tehran and Us and jews to Israel, this city became an Azeri city with a kurdish minority (who could speak azeri fluently), but after revolution with wrong policies of province governers and also Iranin regime who were suspect of kurds, Kurdish rural area were kept in a very poor condition and combining it with disappearance of security in the border regions create a big immigration of kurds into the city and as they came in city and they want new cultural rights.much of the current city population grow is attributed to these wave of immigrants.

As small province "Shahrestan e Orumieh" is a vast region with more than 5000 sq km and nearly half of population lives in rural areas and majority of them are kurds.traditionally this Shahrestan is always divided into two region, city and its rural mountaines area that were kurdish.So nobody can say that orumieh is not (or was not) kurdish and they were moinority in this Shahrestan,kurds were minority up to 30 years ago in the city but definitly not in shahrestan and all kurdish immigrants to city actually belong to the rural population that rushed in the city and this is happening for all the cities of Iran. So we can say that Orumieh is defenitly mixed as a shahrestan and somehow mixed as a city.

Another problem, verb "belong " has no meaning in Iran.West azarbaijan belongs to persians and baluchs same as Azeries and kurds.

Hey

The Kurds form 70% of the population and the Turks form the remaining, this is a fact and this fact is visible because there are 5 cities in the province which their populations are 100% kurdish and just 1 city which is completely turkish.The remaining are a mix of kurds and turks.

Urmia with its surrounding areas is 80% kurdish and the turks make up just 20%.However, even if the kurds form 20% Urmia is a kurdish city, not turkish, because: the surrounding areas of the city is 100% kurdish, in the west, north, and the south, except the eastern side which is water.If you use your logic you will find that Urmia is kurdish and not turkish, because inside the city kurds are 55%(majority) and with its surrounding areas kurds will reach more than 80%, turks are less than 20%.

the most populous citis in the province are kurdish, the 5 cities, they are among the historic cities. there is just one city which is 100% turkish.

Oshnaviyeh is the most historic city in the province, and it is a populous city, and 100% kurdish, not turkish, so oshnaviyeh belong to the kurds not turks


 * hello mr Hey


 * first of all I don't know from where you brought these statistics 30% or 40 % 20% 80 % because there is not any source that prove your claims or similar claims, so what you say is just based on approximation not on facts and it just shows your wishes or thoughts.


 * about the 5 citites in southwest of province (namely Mokrian) they all have around half an million population (more or less) and it is just 20% of population of province and this does not prove that from every 8 remaining persons 5 are kurd, (and if it is true, you can not prove it, you just think it).


 * please tell me how could you calculate the percentage of kurdish people in Maku or Khoy or Poldasht? how about Takab or Shahindej? In takab one village is speaking Azeri the other speaking kurdish and in the third people are bilingual and mixed. names also can not help because many villages with Turkish names have kurdish populations and many village with assyrian names have turkish or kurdish populations on the other hand around Miandoab and keshavarz there are many villages that didn't have turkish names but their populations are azeri.


 * you said kurds compromise 55% of Orumieh why 55% ? why not 53.7% what about 39.6 % or 63 % please be serious, except Daneshkadeh Bld which its population desity is very low and Islam Abads ,which their population densities are high but they are relatively small areas, there is not any part of Orumieh which completely or predominantly be kurdish.and about your logic in surrounding area well it is not 100% because eastern parts are completly azeries, and more ever many kurds have two home one in city and one in rural areas this must be considered too, another problem it that while majority of kurds know to speak azeri, very few Azeri could spoke kurdish.your logic is like panturks who thinks 80% of Tehran is Azeri, so by current knowledge this city is mixed that is all.


 * about Oshnavieh it belongs to Iranians, and about its history it was not a city it was a big village or at the most a very small town.actually in the one hundred years ago there was only 5 cities with considerable size in this province, Orumih, Salmas, khoy, Maku and Mahabad, the reminder were only small towns or villages.


 * And History majority of cities in south west of province has been destroyed in Othman and Iran wars or in the mongol invasions, Mahabad has only a slightly more than 3 centuries history, and the other are far much less. on the other hand Salmas and Orumieh and Maku has been named in Armenian sources in 5th and 6th century.


 * with regards.

The Kurds in Northern parts of the province
The demographic section is verified and the related source has been cited. The tagg must be removed.

 D iyako Talk + 12:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the section and the table are still unsourced. The gazetteer doesnt say anything about a Kurdish or Turkish majority in each city, and as for the second paragraph, the links given only refer to Salmas.

We can take the tag off, but then you must be prepared to accept opposing sources as well. Fair enough?--Zereshk 13:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Zereshk

The cited source is not only about Salmas. about Khoy, Urmia Maku.. etc and the source of the ethnicity of table is this one. source of the population is gazetter. So there is no problem about second paragragh and the table.  D iyako Talk + 13:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes but it doesnt say anywhere in it about percentages and numbers compared to Turks. It only says so and so Kurdish tribe lives there. That's not conclusive. Is it now?--Zereshk 13:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes this is also true about percenteges and numbers compared to Kurds. Regarding northern cities of the province there is no conclusive ethnicity statistic source hence the only logical way is to accept biethnicity of the cities and not 51%(!) is Kurdish or Turkish.  D iyako Talk + 13:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

So the tagg must be removed.  D iyako Talk + 14:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The tag will not be removed. You havent been convincing. There is no support for what is being stated there. The only way to bring the tag down is to accept opposing sources in the text, OR fix paragraph 2 and column 3 of the table.--Zereshk 13:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Why you ask me to accept your sources? My answer is clear and does not need your question or putting taggs, "If your sources like all of my sources are credible so they are accepted otherwise wikipedia cannot accept biased sources. So do not put unverified tagg for no acceptable reason (It's not a game); and Do not put protected tagg because there are many people who want to edit the article and add new materials. (Respect others also).

 D iyako Talk + 13:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The Kurds in West Azerbaijan Province of Iran
Request mediation for article West Azerbaijan. User:Zereshk keeps putting unverified (+ protected) tagg for no acceptable reason regarding the Kurds in Northern part of the province, despite of numerous credible sources. Thanks you  D iyako Talk + 02:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

To kurds
I am here targeting kurds here argueing non-sense and wrong statements.They think they are outnumbered.They say there are 20 million kurds in Turkey.This is false There at most 13 million kurds in Turkey however millions of them(esspicially kurds are who are shias)assimilated into Turkish.Many kurds speak Turkish as native language.and they say we are majority in western azerbaijan,they are right because all of the world is kurdish and mountainous and also idiot according to kurds here I talk.Western azerbaijan is Turkish(except mahebad and its around).This fact is out of discussion.Kurd must discuss their ends after american soldiers go out.As a collaborators they will take what they deserve.