Wikipedia

Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan/Archive 2

< Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Anonymoosy13 in topic Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021
Archive 1Archive 2

"Southern Kurdistan" in Intro

Latest comment: 9 years ago35 comments3 people in discussion

One of the alternative titles that is used in the intro of this article is 'South Kurdistan'. I don't believe the use of this term as an alternative title is fitting in a neutral article. It is more of a term that I would consider irredentist and nationalistic, not one that is neutral. Moreover, 'south Kurdistan' is not used in mainstream media, where it IS used is almost solely in Kurdish media/sources. I have also noticed that a similar term is used ('North Kurdistan') in the Wiki article Turkish Kurdistan.Verdia25 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

3 of the 4 Kurdish regions all refer to it as Southern Kurdistan. Erbil doesn't for political reasons with Turkey, but Wikipedia doesn't censor based on trade deals. It's not "nationalistic" to make note that this is what the region is called by the vast majority of Kurdish people and their media outlets.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Noting it isn't necessarily nationalistic, it is the term itself what I call nationalistic and not neutral. It could remain mentioned in the Etymology paragraph, but as a term only used by a specific group of people it isn't fitting to use as one of the alternative titles in the starting sentence. Just Kurdish media and sources refer the region that way and therefore it isn't a general alternative name.Verdia25 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan or Southern Kurdistan was not always autonomous. Since 1991 it is. But it was and still is in fact part of greater Kurdistan. Like on the Wiki-pages of Turkish, Iranian and Syrian Kurdistan, it has to be mentioned which part of greater Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan is. Best Regards --Moplayer (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

for that there are already the terms Iraqi, Turkey, Iranian, Syrian etc to be used within which part of the region is refered to. Using wind directions instead of country names, is not used in mainstream media and sources. It's solely used by a specific ethnic group, and is therefore no general alternative term that everyone uses. If you would however use this on Wikipedia, you can also start referring other countries or parts of other countries by the country it borders with a wind direction attached. Quick examples would be referring Armenia as Western Azerbaijan, or Flanders as Southern Netherlands. Just because some people use it but is no general neutral term to refer to those regions.Regards Verdia25 (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Please read the history of Kurdistan or the History of the Kurds. As you maybe know, Kurdistan was divided into four parts ONLY about 100 years ago. But it still has an ancient history as you can read here History of the Kurds. Today millions of people use the wind directions for each part of Kurdistan. Therefore you cannot only define a part of Kurdistan by the country it is lying on. --Moplayer (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Your claim does not sudddenly make south Kurdistan a general alternative term to refer to the region. It's only used by a specific ethnic group. Wiki does not represent specific groups of people or specific organisations, neutral and general used terms should therefore be used here. And again, if you would allow this, you can also start refering other regions by other names that are only used by certain groups of people, like in my examples given. Verdia25 (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read my answer thoroughly. I have never said it is a general term, if so I would claim to change the article name to "Southern Kurdistan". But I did not. Your understanding of Wikipedia is wrong. Wikipedia is there for giving mankind ALL relevant information about topics. You can not deny that this term is used by about 40 million people. Again, please read the History of the Kurds to know the importance and meaning of the term "Southern Kurdistan". And if, as you said, Wikipedia is only there for general terms, why is the article of "Ayn Al-Arab" named "Kobanî"? Because it is more common.--Moplayer (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed Kobani is more common, it's used in a wide range of media & sources. However you can't say the same thing about 'southern Kurdistan', where this really isn't the case. I wonder if you have any evidence for your claim that it's used by 40 million people, but regardless, outside Kurdish media & sources it is not used. That is the objection. Verdia25 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Like Erbil is known as Hawler, Iraqi Kurdistan is known as Southern Kurdistan. You can not ignore the native name of the region, which millions of people are using. It is like you would say "Kurdistan" does not exists, just because it is not neutral to use the term "Kurdistan", like Turkey did for decades. But Wikipedia is not Turkey or any other country. It is the FREE Encyclopedia. I also can not repeat my sayings over and over. --Moplayer (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is indeed not Turkey, but Wikipedia is neither Kurdistan. So using Turkish or Kurdish exclusive terms that are not used in any other media beside their own, shouldn't be used as alternative titles on a neutral site. This is the point I am trying to make. You can still mention and explain those in the etymology paragraph where they fit. Verdia25 (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"Southern Kurdistan" is a well known and used term in the Kurdistan region. This is a fact. You absolutely can not deny this. As I said, Kurdistan was divided into four parts and each part still has the wind directions in their Wikipedia articles. See the Wiki-pages of Turkish Kurdistan, Syrian Kurdistan and Iranian Kurdistan. And Iraqi Kurdistan is still part of it, no matter it is a federal region.--Moplayer (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, the point is is that it's a Kurdish-exclusive term not used anywhere else. Also the wind directions variants have not always been used in the Kurdistan articles. So while they could be added, they can also be removed from the article.Verdia25 (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, the term is used by a large group of persons. And therefore it has to mentioned in the article. It is as simple as that. Even the Kurdish wiki-page named it "Başûrê Kurdistanê", which means "Southern Kurdistan". You may not ignore the native name of the region. --Moplayer (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Like Redthoreau said: "It's not "nationalistic" to make note that this is what the region is called by the vast majority of Kurdish people and their media outlets." --Moplayer (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
But it will continue to remain mentioned in the article, in the etymology paragraph where it already is mentioned & explained, so the term would not be 'ignored' or 'denied'. But I don't believe it's fitting as an alternative title, because it's simply not referred to this way outside Kurdish exclusive media/sources.Verdia25 (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The introduction of an article is there to summarize the main facts of a subject. As long as it is an important fact that Iraqi Kurdistan belongs to the greater Kurdistan Region and is called "Southern Kurdistan" by the kurds themselves, it has to be mentioned in the introduction of the article. --Moplayer (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Greater kurdistan is a different subject than the one of this article, which is specifically Iraqi Kurdistan, so I don't see why it should necesarilly be used this way as you say. But in the end the use of 'Southern Kurdistan' to refer to a certain region is only used within a particular community only (in this case it is the Kurdish people), but outside this community it isn't used. As you won't find this use in any other mainstream media. Verdia25 (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
That is why the name of the article is "Iraqi Kurdistan", but the alternative or common name of the region is "Southern Kurdistan". And as it is a standard in Wikipedia to mention all common names in the introduction, I see no reason why to delete this term. --Moplayer (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
But it is no common term in English language. It is almost solely used in Kurdish sources only to refer to the region.Verdia25 (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
But it is a common name in the Kurdistan region. This is how they call themselves and it is absolutely legit to mention this in the introduction of the article. --Moplayer (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
In such case you could argue that it it could be used in the Kurdish language Wikipedia, but not quite for the English wikipedia, because it isn't really used in English language sources and media.Verdia25 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You can not deny what the people there call their own place. This is a fact, not nationalism. Just because we do not use this term in English media, it does not mean we can ignore it. And Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, is there to mention every possible fact. --Moplayer (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Like I have said before, this would not be denied. This term remains mentioned and is explained in the article, specifically the etymology paragraph. Where any (other) terms related to the subject of the article are stated and are explained.Verdia25 (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
It already is mentioned in "etymology" section and repeated in the introduction because it is the second common name for the region. Again, it is a term which is used by millions of people. Another example for you: "Iran", which also is known as "Persia". Should we delete this term from the introduction now, just because it is not used in English media? I think your argument is invalid. --Moplayer (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of how many people use it, it is not used outside of this group and you won't really find it in English sources. You bring up the term 'Persia'. That is a term that IS definitely found in English language sources. Even though it's uncommon today, in many older sources especially prior to 1930 it was a commonly used term. It was also not a term used by its inhabitants, but was actually the internatinal Western known term. However, I wouldn't have a big issue if people think it's better to delete it now as an alternative title, because it is barely used today. But it's not a similar case as 'Southern Kurdistan' which is neither used today nor in the past in mainmedia and sources.Verdia25 (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are some examples, where the term "Southern Kurdistan" is used in:

As you can see, the term was used and still is being used, with approximately 800.000 search results in Google's search engine. I think the discussion should have an end here. You got a lot of arguments and examples why the term "Southern Kurdistan" still should stay in the introduction of the article. --Moplayer (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

These are several individual cases where it is used, but that does not suddenly make the term a mainstream or common (Enlgish) term, which isn't quite the case for "Southern Kurdistan". Also, if you search the term between double quotation marks you get a significantly lower number than the 800000 that you brought up.Verdia25 (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Please stop ignoring these facts and being nationalistic. You call it "several individual cases", if a work of an author is published by the "Cambridge Scholars Publishing"? Or an author is writing for the renowned Seoul National University with exactly this term in the titles of his books? And the mentioned examples are just some of thousands. If you put the quotation marks, you get about 58.000 search results, which is quite enough for Englisch media which allegedly is not using this term. The whole Kurdistan region, with a population of approximately 28 million, is using this term including many renowned English media.--Moplayer (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I call it several individual cases if it's not a mainstream English term and is mostly limited to Kurdish sources only (these are not necesarilly sources written in Kurdish language, but also sources dedicated to Kurds, for example a Kurdish human rights site is a Kurdish site). The bottom line is is that this term is almost solely used by a particular people, but outside of this group it's hardly used at all. A few scholarly sources where it is used that you brought up, does not change the fact that it's still not a mainstream term. Verdia25 (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I am providing evidence and facts, but you are only presenting your opinion. However it has to stay in the article as it is a term used by the Kurdish people. And the article is about a part of Kurdistan. I am not pretending to change the name of the whole article to "Southern Kurdistan", but to mention a term which is widely used in English literature (see examples). I have no time to repeat my sayings every time. I saw on your Wiki-page that you probably are an Iranian citizen. Please avoid to implement your own subjective (maybe political) opinion in Wikipedia. Thank You. --Moplayer (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You yourself are also giving your own opinion on why you think it should stay. There is also no need to repeat your saying if you react to my counter arguments, whether it's the counter argument on the argument 'a native term used by millions' or the claim of 'widely being used' which I repeat in my last post. Also, saying that because I may be an Iranian citizen (which I actually am not) that I am implementing an 'subjective (political) opinion in Wikipedia' is just prejudice.Verdia25 (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I gave you many evidence and examples, you did not anything of this. Your are just giving one unproven argument, which is based on your own opinion. You also are not the one who can decide whether a term is common or not. As long as you can not prove that this term is NOT in use in English media and literature, you are not allowed to simply delete this term from the introduction. --Moplayer (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary:
Search results in Google's search engine for the exact term Southern Kurdistan: 58.000
Search results in Google Books for the exact term Southern Kurdistan: 6.900
Search results in Google's search engine for the exact term South Kurdistan: 300.000
Search results in Google Books for the exact term South Kurdistan: 1.500
= 358.000 general search results for the exact term of South(ern) Kurdistan and 8.400 search results in Google Books
I do not think that are just only "several individual cases". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moplayer (talk • contribs) 15:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There is more than enough basis to include "Southern Kurdistan" in the introduction. The article itself isn't being renamed, just a note made that the aforementioned name is an alternative one used by a considerable amount of people. Most Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan will also use Southern Kurdistan interchangeably depending on the context of the discussion (i.e. when referring to the greater Kurdistan for instance). As an Encyclopedia we are here to help illuminate information for greater clarity, and that is what including this does.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Economic Data

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

GDP data section is filled with fiction, I'm reverting it back to 2011 data which says GDP is $23.6 billion... If anyone has information of $172billion GDP, must support it with actual sources. Current source on the page leads to nothing... http://www.iraq-jccme.jp/pdf/arc/04_krg_Investment_factsheet_en.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.170.48 (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A move discussion relating to this article is open at Kurdish languages' talk page. Khestwol (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The autonomous region

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It doesn't matter whether there is only one autonomous region within Iraq, this sentence:

  • "Iraqi Kurdistan ... is the autonomous region of Iraq"

Is just bad English.

(One wouldn't write "Iraqi Kurdistan is the region of Iraq", but you can say "Iraqi Kurdistan is a region in Iraq".)

If you use "the", then the next word should be its distinguishing feature. To say that it "is the autonomous region" implies that the remainder of Iraq is the non-autonomous region.

So, if you are going to use "the ... of" you need to be more specific, like

  • "Iraqi Kurdistan is the only autonomous region of Iraq", or
  • "Iraqi Kurdistan is the autonomous, Kurdish region of Iraq".

But the first sentence of an article should define the topic for an international audience. Iraqi Kurdistan is an autonomous region (of which there are many in the world), and it is located in northern Iraq (a description of the location that most people would understand). Thus:

  • "Iraqi Kurdistan is an autonomous region in northern Iraq".

The fact that it is the sole autonomous region is not essential to its definition. Iraq could create another autonomous region somewhere else, and Iraqi Kurdistan would still be "an autonomous region in northern Iraq".

If you are hell-bent for political or ideological reasons on emphasizing the fact that it is (currently) the only self-governing region recognized by the Iraqi government, the you could write something like:

  • "Iraqi Kurdistan is an autonomous region in northern Iraq, and the only official autonomous region of that country", or
  • "Iraqi Kurdistan is a region in northern Iraq, that achieved political autonomy in 1992" (oh, hang on, that doesn't say it's the only one), or
  • "Iraqi Kurdistan is a region in northern Iraq, and the only autonomous region of that country".

Personally I find these too clunky for the first sentence when combined with all the alternate names, but I offer up the last one as a potential compromise.

Pelagic (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Names in opening sentence

Latest comment: 8 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Markblue10, in what world is this a sensible phrase: "Kurdistan region ..., officially known as the Kurdistan Region"?

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_Kurdistan&diff=prev&oldid=684984947 )

You could at least make the effort to edit the whole sentence, rather than blindly changing a couple of words.

Note that the article title is "Iraqi Kurdistan", so this name should come first in the opening sentence. If you have a problem with the title, then open a request-for-move discussion as described at WP:RM#CM. (For example, "Kurdistan Region (Iraq)" could be a reasonable title, if it can be shown that "Iraqi Kurdistan" is not the established common name in English.

Pelagic (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The page was moved and un-moved in 2006:
  • 12:07, 22 October 2006 とある白い猫 (talk | contribs) moved page Iraqi Kurdistan to Kurdistan (Iraq) (boldy move. Since "Iraqi" was used in a disambiguative manner. Region itself is simply referanced as "Kurdistan")
  • 03:25, 29 November 2006 Bnguyen (talk | contribs) moved page Kurdistan (Iraq) to Iraqi Kurdistan over redirect (official name is Iraqi Kurdistan http://metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20061127-102806-7482r)
Pelagic (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Despite what I wrote above about having the article title near the beginning of the sentence, the following could also work:

"The self-governing Kurdistan Region of Iraq (Kurdish: هه‌رێمی کوردستان, Herêmî Kurdistan) is known in English as Iraqi Kurdistan, and by Kurds is also called Southern Kurdistan (Kurdish: باشووری کوردستان, Başûrê Kurdistanê). It borders ..."

Ideally, the gloss for the official name should be given in Arabic, if that is the language of the Iraqi constitution.

Pelagic (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the article as a whole, I see that there is separate Etymology section. So is it overkill to make the existence of alternate names the subject of the leading sentence as has been done in my example above? Pelagic (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I found this name كردستان العراق in Khestwol's and CathFR's versions of 28 Sep. I decipher that as something like krdstan al‘raq. I can guess at the short vowels, but could someone with knowledge of Arabic provide a proper transliteration? Pelagic (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The transliteration for كردستان العراق is Kurdistān al-ʻIrāq. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
And, for what it's worth, Kurdistan Region is إقليم كردستان Iqlīm Kurdistān. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I see "إقليم" in an old version from late 2006. I wonder, do Arabic speakers outside Iraq join both together as إقليم كردستان العراق (Iqlīm Kurdistān al-ʻIrāq), corresponding to "Kurdistan Region of Iraq" or "Iraqi Kurdistan Region"? Pelagic (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The Arabic article uses both (and only) Kurdistān al-ʻIrāq and Iqlīm Kurdistān al-ʻIrāq in the lead, but I don't know if that's common usage. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Article name

I hope it isn't too tediously obvious for me to point out that this article is called "Iraqi Kurdistan". Despite this, we see changes to the content that seem to give the name "Kurdistan Region" primacy. I don't think we can have this both ways. If the title "Iraqi Kurdistan" really is wrong then that is fair enough (Just prove that this is so and we can rename the article.) but I think we have to be consistent. We can't have the title on the article say one thing and the heading on the infobox say something else. That is confused and confusing. It makes the article look stupid. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

As nobody has objected to my point above in about 4 weeks I have put the article title, "Iraqi Kurdistan", back into the infobox. I have not removed "Kurdistan Region" so now it has both names. That seems reasonable to me as it should minimise confusion. If anybody thinks that this is incorrect then we should discuss it here and we can work out what it should be instead. In theory at least, I remain open to the possibility that the whole article is misnamed but the onus is on those who do not agree that "Iraqi Kurdistan" is the primary name to prove this. Given that this article name is far from new, and has been discussed before, I think it is unlikely to be changed. Whether or not this is the case, the article content and the article title need to agree. We don't want a confused and fragmented article which chops and changes its terminology in different places. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@DanielRigal: The fact that nobody has objected on the talk page of course means that nobody can hold the edit against you. I'm sorry to say your edit still isn't correct. It is clearly stated on Template:Infobox country that {{{conventional_long_name}}} represents the "Formal or official full name of the country in English" which is "Kurdistan Region," while {{{common_name}}} represents the "Common name in English."
I therefore changed the infobox accordingly. Finally, mere style-issues with the infobox should be improved at the templates {{Native name}} and {{Infobox country}}. --PanchoS (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. I think I see the problem a bit more clearly now although I don't see a clear, correct, solution. I think my edit made the box look more correct on the page but I can see why you say that it was not correct. I was putting incorrect values data in parameters with specific meanings and, while that rendered more correctly on the article page, that could lead in incorrect metadata popping up elsewhere. So, I think that we need another solution. I still maintain that having a different name shown in the infobox to the name of article is definitely confusing and suboptimal. I find it weird that the common_name parameter (which is the one set to "Iraqi Kurdistan") is not actually displayed. So, if you fill in the template correctly according to the instructions, you don't get the common name displayed at all. Is this maybe a problem with the template itself? If so, I'm not going to edit it myself as templates are not my thing (and I certainly don't want to risk messing up all the high importance articles that use that one!) but it might be worth moving discussion onto its talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Halabja became the fourth province of Kurdistan. I posted the new map with halabja in it.

And the Links 85, 86, 87, 88 are corrupted, I replaced them with the new working links.

http://www.krso.net/Default.aspx?page=article&id=899&l=1&#krso2

http://www.krso.net/Default.aspx?page=article&id=1142&l=1

http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/08022015?keyword=gender --BaranKurd (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Falsified information

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Such 60% number was not mentioned in the source. Only "nearly half" was only measurement was used to assess all who are involved, but as they said it is "survey".

Also, nothing was mentioned about "only by the Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan". This was also falsified. Here is copy of the section:

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)
In 2009 Human Rights Watch found that health providers in Iraqi Kurdistan were involved in both performing and promoting misinformation about the practice of female genital mutilation. FGM is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as all practices "involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
The investigation found that FGM was practiced by midwives, but that its prevalence and harm were routinely minimized by physicians and government medical officials. For example, one physician explained to Human Rights Watch that she counselled patients that "circumcision is nothing; it does not influence life because a woman is sensitive in all her parts."[8] Government medical providers routinely told Human Rights Watch that FGM was uncommon-despite surveys finding nearly half of all girls to be circumcised-and promoted false information in media campaigns. One woman told Human Rights Watch that on television "a [government] doctor explained that FGM is normal.... The doctor said, ‘If you do it or not it's still the same.'"
 The UN Human Rights Committee has said that FGM violates protections against torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment found in the ICCPR. The UN Committee against Torture has repeatedly said that practices such as FGM violate the physical integrity and human dignity of girls and women. In Iraqi Kurdistan, medical personnel are both complicit in action, performing FGM or providing patients patently false information about it, and inaction, failing to halt the practice in their role as government officials.
Ferakp (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Iraqi Kurdistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

President

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section below the coat of arms of Iraq Kurdistan should include that Massoud Barzani is the president of Kurdistan region.

It does, it is just rather further down, under "Government". MPS1992 (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Referendum for independence

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With Iraqi Kurdistan in a war with ISIS and a dispute with the central Iraqi government we keep hearing about an independence referendum. This keeps popping up every 2-3 months with a new news outlet claiming it's going to be in the next X months. This is very unlikely and probably used as a political manoeuvre. I suggest that until there is an actual referendum that we don't mention it. ~ Zirguezi 20:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarized map

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The map posted here as "Kurdish Independent Kingdoms and Autonomous Principalities circa 1835" is lifted, redrawn and posted here without mentioning the source, namely, Dr. M. Izady. It is sad that such unethical, in fact illegal, steps are allowed by Wikipedia. Of course the person who lifted it, redrew it and posted it, had no problem stealing things. But why Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C686:B00:223:32FF:FE9A:1153 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

[edit: I'm reformulating my response, previous comments are in old version.]
Dear IP user,
Rather than getting all emotional, you could help to fix the problem:
  1. Provide links demonstrating that M. Izady is the originator of the map and not just another copyist. For example, pointing out that there is a Wikipedia article for Michael Mehrdad Izady, that there is a different version of the map at Cornell, and that he has also contributed articles to kurdistanica.com [1] [2] would all have helped.
  2. Edit the map, its caption, or the file information to provide better attribution. That would address the ethical aspect. Note that the file information page does already say that it is based on a map at two original locations. But additional information would be beneficial.
  3. If you really want the file taken down, rather than attributed, then you could file a deletion request as per Commons:Deletion policy. However, be aware that the situation for redrawn maps is far from clear, see Commons:Derivative works#Maps. Your assertion of illegality may be unfounded.
    Further comment: In one sense, all maps are redrawn from other sources, so how different does a version have to be to qualify as not-stealing? For example, the course of a river or mountain range may be used as the boundary of a territory, the position and shape of this line would normally be taken from pre-existing data.
  4. If you are in contact with Dr Izady, you could encourage him to donate some maps to Commons under a By-SA license. That would ensure attribution and provide a chance that his work could be directly featured in one of the world's most widely-used encyclopaedias.
Cheers,
Pelagic (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I looked on http://www.oldmapsonline.org/en/Iraqi_Kurdistan I couldn't find any contemporary maps that delineated these emirates. It would be great if we had more information about how Dr Izady derived his boundaries. Does anybody have links to publications describing this?
Pelagic (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The article mentions Baban, Badinan, and Soran; but the map shows only Baban and Soran. A better map for this article would show all three, and omit the extraneous principalities. Pelagic (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC) However, the map is still valuable for other articles about the individual emirates. [edited 01:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)]

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Iraqi Kurdistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Only archived copy I could see was an "Oops, not found!" page. Pelagic (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan–Rojava relations

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 16:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Barzani's abolition of democratic institutions

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just noticed and tagged the following info in the article as dubious: "As of July 2016, the democratic institutions have effectively been suspended by the Barzani presidency.". This sentence uses what seems to be an op-ed piece to state something as fact. Likewise, the piece doesn't seem to directly support the statement; The closest it seems to get is saying that the Kurds could have done more to prepare their institutions. Eik Corell (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iraqi Kurdistan. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Iraqi Kurdistan. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

independence vote

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just read this article, but don't see anything yet about it on wikipedia. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to make an update, but it seemed relevant to this page. --Lasunncty (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

article trolled with Israely flag

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see the israely flag and something involving Israel in the article, i think somebody trolled. Could somebody fix it? Thanks. --Capiscuas (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Have fixed it now, maybe the article writers should lock it for the time being? Culloty82 (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Post-independence article ruling

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If/when the territory formally declares independence, Iraq refuses to recognise the decision, what is the Wikipedia convention in relation to same? Culloty82 (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

See Kosovo for how we deal with this sort of thing. Basically, we need to make it clear that Iraqi Kurdistan is a de-facto state, and that it's a disputed territory, and we also need to make mention as to any international recognition/ lack of. --Jahelistbro (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Map explanation

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

What does "Disputed territory within its official borders which is controlled by Iraqi Kurdistan" even mean? It's disputed but also part of Iraqi Kurdistan? What? --Poklane 21:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poklane (talk • contribs)

I agree that this map is confusing. I'd like to see it be simplified down to just two shades of red: land controlled by Iraqi Kurdistan and land claimed by Iraqi Kurdistan. --Lasunncty (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
And what about land that is controlled by Iraq, and land that is claimed by Iraq? Jahelistbro (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Poklane, it's confusing because the situation is confusing. The "official borders" is the area which the KRG have officially incorporated. However, that doesn't mean the Iraqi central government accept these borders. The area inside the official borders which is disputed by the central government is hatched in dark red. Showing areas outside of the Kurdistan Region that are disputed, but not showing areas inside the Kurdistan Region that are disputed, would be in breach of WP:NPOV.
Lasunncty, showing all the land controlled by Iraqi Kurdistan, without distinguishing what has actually been officially incorporated, would be a bit bizarre for a map which is suppose to illustrate where the Kurdistan Region is located. The Kurdistan Region, officially, does not yet include much of the area controlled by Peshmerga, such as Kirkuk. I believe Sinjar is largely self-governing and likely won't fall under any of the four existing governorates.
The claimed area is very broad, beyond what the KRG realistically wants, but it allows them to at least seem as if they are compromising when official borders are agreed with the central government. This is also why the central government does not recognise the official borders yet.
I think we should first look at if we can clarify the caption. I tried to be concise, but maybe it is too concise?
Rob984 (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I am not very familiar with this situation, and am just trying to make sense of what the different colors mean. The one I still don't understand is the "other territory". Is this land that they control but do not claim to be part of their territory? --Lasunncty (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
It's land they control and claim, but have not officially incorporated. It's mostly the Kirkuk Governorate and the Sinjar District. Rob984 (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, then maybe instead of "disputed" we could say "controlled and incorporated but not recognized by the Iraqi government" and instead of "other" we could say "claimed and controlled but not incorporated". --Lasunncty (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think "disputed" and "official" are both a bit misleading. It's only "official" according to the KRG, not the Federal government. I was thinking something like:
Iraqi Kurdistan/Archive 2
 
  Borders of the Kurdistan Region (disputed)
  Kurdistan Region
  Unrecognised incorporated territory
  Other claimed and controlled territory
  Other claimed territory
  Rest of Iraq
or, as a plain vertical list...
Iraqi Kurdistan/Archive 2
 
  Borders of the Kurdistan Region (disputed)
  •   Kurdistan Region
  •   Unrecognised incorporated territory
  •   Other claimed and controlled territory
  •   Other claimed territory
  •   Rest of Iraq
I'm not sure it needs to be quite as explicit as: "Unrecognised incorporated territory" then "Claimed and controlled but not incorporated territory" and then "Claimed territory but not controlled". I feel like the reader can infer this from the context of the caption?
And likewise, I'm not sure we need to explicitly say "unrecognised by the Federal government". I feel like that's a given when we're talking about a federated entity.
Rob984 (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, that seems clearer at least to me. Thanks! --Lasunncty (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the past month (time of writing 10/2017) Iraqi Kurdistan declared independence from Baghdad after another independence referendum. But there is no mention here. Should I go ahead and try to compile a section mentioning dates, vote figures, declaration and international reactions? 137.222.122.11 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes please, but keep it short and neutral. Large numbers of international reactions are not required -- in this case it would appear that most countries have not recognized the region as independent, so really at most a reaction from the U.S. and from the E.U. or U.N. would be enough. Plus any sovereign states that have recognized the region as independent. MPS1992 (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Map needs major update

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The Kurds just lost Kirkuk, Tuz Khurmatu and Sinjar, as well as several other territories, the map needs to reflect that. 70.59.227.82 (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The situation right now is pretty volatile, and there isn't confirmation for a lot of towns, like Makhmur. I don't think we should update it until things become clearer. Rob984 (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I updated it to roughly show the situation as of right now, it's not accurate for every village etc. but it shows major towns that were transferred to / captured by federal forces. Rob984 (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iraqi Kurdistan. 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:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I updated the UoD link, but the other ones look ok to me. --Lasunncty (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

i want to add more information Reaberkurdi (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for permission to edit the article. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article; however, you can do one of the following:
  • If you have an account, you will be able to edit this article four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
  • If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this article.
  • You can request unprotection of this article by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. An article will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no Jewish community in Kurdistan

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia became a host for fake news currently you need just one link and you can post everything here. The news about Jewish families in Kurdistan are false made up by politicans and media controlled by them to get western support. Not everything state media posts is true.

"Israeli expert says media reports of 430 families in region incorrect. There is no Jewish community in Kurdistan,” said Dr. Mordechai Zaken, head of minority affairs in the Public Security Ministry. http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/So-are-there-Jews-in-Kurdistan-432756 --BaranKurd (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Populatio numbers

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Kurdistan Regional statistics office annually actualizes the population numbers. To exaggerate the number by nationalists up to 10 million is false. The last population update for 2017 was 5.8 million. The number of refugees can not be added to the population because they are not residents of Kurdistan and now most of them started to return after the end of the war. The same goes for diisputed areas. People playing with the population datas and are trying to exaggerate while wikipedia should give us realistic infols. --BaranKurd (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Refugee and IDP

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Diceplaced Iraqis in Kurdistan Region are not refugees they are IDP (Internally Displaced People) because Kurdistan is part of Iraq.

I updated the population numbers of Syrian Refugeees and IDP in the Kurdistan Region. --JapanerRusse (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Update needed

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Peshmerga section needs to updated with more recent improved information. The biography definitely needs fresh content... ReberGovend (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Article full of politician and war

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is the article full of only war, uprising and politicians? There are separate sections for each one, don't put everything here. There is nothing about Geography, climate, education, and economy!!!

Slaw Halwest20049 (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

ancient period section

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This section is simply full of factual errors and paradoxes. I will go ahead and remove the whole section in a week if no reliable source attesting the claims is added.--Rafy talk

Slaw Halwest20049 (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan in Iraq (de-facto and disputed hatched).svg

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've updated this map so that the official area conforms with what the sources on this article show. The disputed areas I have not checked. It's easy to fix this map so please just comment any issues and I will try to fix them as soon as I can. The older maps don't show the recent gains that the Peshmerga achieved during the current war against ISIS. If the updated map has inaccuracies, please help find sources to fix them. Regards,

Slaw Halwest20049 (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

History

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

My last edit should was reversed, and though it should have been more refined, the information provided wasn't wrong. Assyria was not anymore a geo-political entity before and during the Islamic conquests. The ruling dynasty of Adiabene was Iranic, and the population was very mixed, with both Aramaic and Iranic populations. This article makes it seem like there were nothing but Assyrians in this region until after the Islamic conquests. I will add the page numbers when I edit it, but the Kurds were indeed mentioned by Baladuri and Tabari as resisting the Arabs during the Islamic conquests, leaving the Kurds out is distorting history. There are even pre-Islamic Syriac sources mentioning the Kurds in this region. Znertu (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

One more thing, the reference to 'Assorestan' in the 'Ancient' Section should also be removed. Asorestan (Land of the Assyrians, also known as Beth Oromoye/Land of the Arameans) was used to refer to Southern Mesopotamia in the Sassanid era, not Northern Mesopotamia. Znertu (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

1) You didn't include an edit summary. Any edit that is potentially contentious (which your edit definitely was), should include an edit-summary (WP:FIES).
2) You removed mention of the Muslim conquest of Persia from the article, even though its a verifiable fact that the area was held by the Sasanians when the Arabs conquered it.
3) "Kurds" were not an actual ethnic group in the 7th century; it was a loose designation for all Iranian nomads. The word only became an ethnic identity after the 12th century. This is a no-brainer. Some references;
  • J. Limbert. (1968). The Origins and Appearance of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran. Iranian Studies, 1.2: pp. 41-51.
  • G. Asatrian. (2009). Prolegemona to the Study of Kurds. Iran and the Caucasus, 13.1: pp. 1-58.
  • James, Boris. (2006). Uses and Values of the Term Kurd in Arabic Medieval Literary Sources. Seminar at the American University of Beirut, pp. 6-7.
  • Martin van Bruinessen, "The ethnic identity of the Kurds," in: Ethnic groups in the Republic of Turkey, compiled and edited by Peter Alford Andrews with Rüdiger Benninghaus [=Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B, Nr.60]. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwich Reichert, 1989, pp. 613–21. excerpt: "The ethnic label "Kurd" is first encountered in Arabic sources from the first centuries of the Islamic era; it seemed to refer to a specific variety of pastoral nomadism, and possibly to a set of political units, rather than to a linguistic group: once or twice, "Arabic Kurds" are mentioned. By the 10th century, the term appears to denote nomadic and/or transhumant groups speaking an Iranian language and mainly inhabiting the mountainous areas to the South of Lake Van and Lake Urmia, with some offshoots in the Caucasus. ... If there was a Kurdish-speaking subjected peasantry at that time, the term was not yet used to include them."
  • al-Tabari (1999). The History of Al-Tabari: The Sasanids, the Lakhmids, and Yemen, translated by C.E. Bosworth (Vol. 5): "A looking-forward to later Islamic times when, certainly from the 'Abbasid period onward, Kurd, "shepherd, nomad", is virtually a synonym for "robber, bandit, brigand"." p. 11 (note 39)
  • Potts, Daniel T. (2014). Nomadism in Iran: From Antiquity to the Modern Era. "In Tabari's (838-923) much later account of Ardashir's rise, drawn from the no longer extant Pahlavi Khwadaynamag (Book of Kings), the last Parthian king, Ardavan (Artabanus IV/V) insulted Ardashir as follows: "You have presumed beyond your rank in society, and have brought down on yourself destruction. O Kurd (al-Kurdi) brought upon amongst the tents of the Kurds. Here "Kurd" seems to have been clearly employed as a pejorative, quasi-professional designation meaning "(lowly) herder/nomad", rather than a true etnikon." p. 121
  • Potts, Daniel T. (2014). Nomadism in Iran: From Antiquity to the Modern Era. "The use of "kurd" as a general designation for nomad/herder, rather than a specific ethnolinguistic unit, in the early works just discussed is also attested in the work of Hamza al-Isfahani." p. 164
So that information should be added with proper attribution, with a note, to explain readers what it actually meant at the time. Pinging @Kansas Bear:, @Wario-Man:, @HistoryofIran: and @Meganesia: for more opinions.
- LouisAragon (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I shouldn't have changed the Muslim conquest of Persia part. However, many ethnicities were ill-defined in the Middle Ages. Every article containing Persians, Arabs, Turks etc. doesn't contain notes on how these terms could be synonymous for Zoroastrians, nomads, Muslims etc. This is information left for the respective pages for those ethnicities. The views you cited aren't nuanced either, the Kurds had a legend of origin already in the 9th century (Dinawari), were differentiated from other Iranics, and groups and individuals (well before the 12th century), designated as Kurds included mystics, townsmen, villagers, muslims and non-muslims, tribes etc. Please also read 'Boris James: Arab Ethnonyms ('Ajam, 'Arab, Badu and Turk): the Kurdish Case as a Paradigm for Thinking about Differences in the Middle Ages' (2015), you cited one of his earlier works after all. There were 'Kurds' in Northern Mesopotamia in the 7th century and before, they didn't suddenly become an ethnic group in the 12th century, this was a gradual process and ethnographic uses can definitely be detected before that time. Znertu (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
You hit the nail on the head, LouisAragon. There's nothing I can further add. The sources that you provided and their descriptions are spot-on. - Meganesia (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Slaw Halwest20049 (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan (geographical area) ≠ Kurdistan Region (juridicial area)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there a specific reason that the geographical region of Kurdistan of Iraq and the autonomous Kurdistan Region have been merged into one article? The autonomous Kurdistan Region doesn't even encompass all of Iraqi Kurdistan, which makes this article very misleading. I really believe that it's odd that we don't have two separate articles, like Ireland and Republic of Ireland. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kurdistan Region which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

A region, not a country

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Error adjustment Ahmedtamimi-iraq (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Parts of Kurdistan

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

A couple of user insist adding parts of Syria in the lede for this article. I have two issues with that; first it's UNDUE and second it is presented as a fact when so many other sources talk about three parts of Kurdistan; in Turkey, Iran and Iraq, but no Syria. See these reference books on Kurds/Kurdistan for example:

While Kurds do live in Syria (various parts), no Syrian territory is considered part of Kurdistan, which is also echoes in the Treaty of Sevres map. We can refer to the presence of Kurdish-inhabited areas in northeaster Syria, but it is a mistake to refer to that as part of Kurdistan. Otherwise, we would be also calling Armenian Kurdistan, German Kurdistan (parts of German suburbs)? If this is not fixed I'll be adding a neutrality template and I'll take it further. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. See Western Kurdistan. Konli17 (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Based on the non recognition by a "western Kurdistan" by any respected entity (as the article says), I believe adding it here as a fact is a huge POV pushing. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'll bite. What article are you referring to? Konli17 (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, this will my last edit on this page concerning western Kurdistan. (Please carry on the discussion at the Syrian Kurdistan talk page) But which reliable source doesn't recognize that a part of Kurdistan is in Syria?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
2A01:C22:8C9F:2300:59C2:397E:F7FB:590D (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

In 1988, the 10-15 km wide security cordon along the Iranian border established in 1975 was extended to 30 kilometers also now also included the area bordering Turkey.[1] No villages were allowed to be inhabited along the border to Iran and Turkey and mass deportations directed at the Kurdish population were were carried ou

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  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. Furthermore, the reference you provided is empty. Reactivate your request by setting the answered parameter in the {{edit semi-protected}} template back to no. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Independence movement

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi could anyone find more information about the referendum for the Independence of Kurdistan? I found everywhere sources. But what is the wright story?

They are a bunch of insurgents. They don't have any independence. That's why you can't find the right story about it Anonymoosy13 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Jacob Bideman (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a statement which mentions that Kurdistan stretches across Turkey. This is in fact false. Maybe it is recognised in Iraq and especially Iran, though not self-governed. In Turkey this is a completely different situation. It is very offensive to say this as many people have given there lives to prevent Turkey from being diminished into Kurdistan. I have been to Turkey and talked to many people about it including Kurdish people. Only the PKK (A known terrorist organisation), and its supporters are calling it Kurdistan. May I also remind you that Kurdistan is only recognised in two countries both of which I have already mentioned. Therefore Turkey should not be mentioned in this or it should clearly state that this is an opinion of people who support the PKK or the dismantlement of Turkey. There is proof of this in Google Maps. When you look up Kurdistan only part of Iran comes up, nothing more.

See the linked articles Kurdistan and Turkish Kurdistan – Thjarkur (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Just because there is a source doesn't make it true FFS. Oh here look at the source. Thjarkur get your head out your backside please and look at the other problems with this page. Everything on it is WRONG Anonymoosy13 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I would to suggest an additional sub-section to this article on Iraqi Kurdistan: Human resources: Iraqi Kurdistan has been investing in the growth of its human capital in general.[1] Public sector employees are often enrolled in local training programmes or sent overseas to participate in training courses, technical classes, and professional development programmes.[2] However, factors such as the lack of a practical and formal HRD framework specific to the KRG's public sector, the absence of evaluation process, inadequate civil service training institutions, and corruption have hampered effective and efficient professional development and training in the public sector.[3] Therefore, an assessment of such programmes and their outcomes is needed to identify any misuse of public funds, as well as to assist in the reducing of administrative and political corruption and to make policy recommendations. The government's policies for the public sector have also had an impact on the private sector. However, the government has played a much smaller role in the private sector.[4] In Iraqi Kurdistan, the Ministry of Planning has primarily concentrated on activating training in the public sector, with the goal of expanding opportunities and improving the efficiency of the training process.[5] In the long run, this will have an effect on private sector training and growth. Minibrowni (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Minibrowni: Wouldn't it be more appropriate to add it to the Kurdistan Region page? --Semsûrî (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Maher, Asaad Hamdi (30 June 2017). "Trends in human capital formation in the Kurdistan Region - Iraq". Journal of University of Human Development. 3 (2): 333. doi:10.21928/juhd.v3n2y2017.pp333-353.
  2. ^ Khodr, Hiba; Zirar, Araz Abdullah (December 2013). "International briefing 30: training and development in Iraqi Kurdistan: Training and development in Iraqi Kurdistan". International Journal of Training and Development. 17 (4): 295–309. doi:10.1111/ijtd.12014.
  3. ^ Khodr, Hiba; Zirar, Araz Abdullah (December 2013). "International briefing 30: training and development in Iraqi Kurdistan: Training and development in Iraqi Kurdistan". International Journal of Training and Development. 17 (4): 295–309. doi:10.1111/ijtd.12014.
  4. ^ Ahmad, A.B.; Shah, M. (2016). "The rise of private higher education in Kurdistan". A Global Perspective on Private Higher Education: 219–228. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-100872-0.00013-6.
  5. ^ Khodr, Hiba; Zirar, Araz Abdullah (December 2013). "International briefing 30: training and development in Iraqi Kurdistan: Training and development in Iraqi Kurdistan". International Journal of Training and Development. 17 (4): 295–309. doi:10.1111/ijtd.12014.

What about a section on the lies which were written? Kurdistan claims that which is not theirs Anonymoosy13 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraqi_Kurdistan/Archive_2&oldid=1255934255"