Contents

Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iraqi Kurdistan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2

Kurdistan B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iraq B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Apparently "it is the most stable and secure region of Iraq where not a single coalition soldier or foreigner has been killed, wounded or kidnapped since the 2003 invasion of Iraq" - but the government website can hardly be considered a fair source, especially in the light of reports that the kurdistan government may be attacking and killing journalists, attacks on whom have risen sharply since the election of the new regime.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YThjZjBiNmIzZmJmYmJiNzcxM2RlZTg5MzVlM2VlOTg=

Perhaps because the victims are not foreigners but local journalists the statement might hold true, but it is nevertheless incredibly POV and does not represent the reality of Kurdistan as a very corrupt, unstable place. Does this deserve its own section in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.57.168 (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this news story "Iraq protests Turkey's cross-border shelling" from Sunday, June 10, 2007 but I'm not sure what article it should be included in. Seems pretty note-worthy its at http://www.sundaytimes.lk/070610/International/i503.html It begins with "The Iraqi Foreign Ministry today issued a formal protest to Turkey over the cross-border shelling into northern Iraq."

--Wowaconia 13:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Its capital is the city of Arbil derived from the old latin Urbilium"..didnt "Arbil" derive from the ancient aramaic (which predates latin) name for the city "Arbela" (Arba-Elu meaning for Gods) ILLeSt (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbil nor Kurds have nothing to with Latin, and yes the region was dominated by the ancient aramaic language, since it was assyria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabananahana (talk • contribs) 15:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SInce this is not a nation how can it have either an anthem or capital? -- Cat ^chi? 02:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Without getting in to the vexed question of how to define "nationhood", many non-independent entities have both anthems and capitals. Wales has its capital at Cardiff and a national anthem, Hen Wlad fy Nhadau. All of the US states have capitals; most also have anthems ('state songs'). The Basque Country, Catalonia, Scotland, Quebec and the Canadian provinces, the German Länder, the isle of Åland, New Caledonia, Tatarstan and all the other autonomous republics in Russia – all of these have local autonomy with various attributes and symbols of sovereignty (such as flags, anthems, coats of arms, constitutions) without being independent. This is the de facto state of affairs for Iraqi Kurdistan right now. QuartierLatin1968 15:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Taiwan. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Also don't forget that outside powers such as the USA and Britian have used these peoples ideals as tools of manipulation on the world scene.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Kurdistan IS a nation and HAS a capital as well as a heart and a long memory! Kurds in Iran and elsewhere look to Iraqi Kurdistan as a great role model and stonghold of the culture and language. It is time some from other nearby nations accepted this and treat the Kurdish people with respect as they will try to treat others. This is hard for a people with few friends, long forgotten and let down back in the first part of the 20th century! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.182.70 (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be Kurdistan RegionorIraqi Kurdistan. It is mentioned as Kurdistan Region in the Iraqi Constitution, not Kurdish Autonomous Region. The latter was only used during the Ba'ath regime in the 70's and 80's. Here is the reference to the name of the region in the new constitution of Iraq:

CHAPTER ONE: REGIONS

Article 113:

First: This Constitution shall approbate the region of Kurdistan and its existing regional and federal authorities, at the time this constitution comes into force.

Article 137:

Legislation enacted in the region of Kurdistan since 1992 shall remain in force, and decisions issued by the government of the region of Kurdistan - including court decisions and agreements - shall be considered valid unless it is amended or annulled pursuant to the laws of the region of Kurdistan by the competent entity in the region, provided that they do not contradict with the constitution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html

Please kindly restore the page Iraqi Kurdistan. Heja Helweda 23:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to REDIRECT this article to Iraqi Kurdistan, since according to the consititution there is not such a thing as Kurdish Autonomous Region anymore. In Iraq they use Iraqi Kurdistan Region instead. Also in the dismbiguation at the top of the Kurdish Autonomous Region the REDIRECT of Southern (or Iraqi) KurdistantoKurdistan is also wrong, it should be to Iraqi Kurdistan. Heja Helweda 00:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HiHeja Helweda, there are two things going on here that I think you're asking to be conflated. The first is moving this article to something like Kurdistan Region (probably a good idea). The second, though, is what to do with Iraqi Kurdistan. This used to be a redirect. Before that, we tried having separate articles for Iraqi Kurdistan the broad geocultural region (it was called Southern Kurdistan), and Iraqi Kurdistan the autonomous regional government (called Kurdistan Regional Government); in my opinion, it wasn't a success. All of the information on the one article would also have been useful on the other.

So I think having one article makes good sense. If we want that article to be entitled Iraqi Kurdistan, however, it would be preferable to move this article there so as not to lose the revision history that's preserved here. For that, we need an administrator.

In any case, I recommend waiting a couple days to give others a chance to air their objections and suggestions. Best, QuartierLatin1968 22:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[PS: For technical reasons, it would be easiest to move this article to Kurdistan RegionorRegion of Kurdistan, and make Iraqi Kurdistan redirect there. QuartierLatin1968 22:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)][reply]

HiQuartierLatin1968, My suggestion is to stick with the official names, as mentioned in the Iraqi Constitution and Kurdistan Regional Government(which uses the term Iraqi Kurdistan: Information&SiteID=3), and at the same time in order to avoid confusion retain the name Iraq, so a name like Iraqi Kurdistan seems appropriate. About Kurdistan RegionorRegion of Kurdistan, it may be confused with Kurdish inhabited areas of neighboring countries. As a very crude test, I googled for these names: Iraqi Kurdistan (334,000), Region of Kurdistan (13,100), Kurdistan Region (55,600), Iraqi Kurdistan Region (589), Kurdistan Region of Iraq (829). So I suggest to keep Iraqi Kurdistan and make Kurdish Autonomous Region a REDIRECT to it. The term Kurdish Autonomous Region is an old one (adopted in 1970) and is no longer in official use. Heja Helweda 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me. Now we have to find an administrator though! Never mind, looks like we don't need an administrator. Some things do get better! QuartierLatin1968 22:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CRAP! The reason it worked is that I mistyped the name. Now we're really in trouble. Hang on a jiffy.

Okay, we're now back where we were, but there's an official request at Wikipedia:Requested moves#21 January 2006. In five days, unless somebody offers a vociferous objection, we should be able to move to Iraqi Kurdistan. QuartierLatin1968 22:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a move to Iraqi Kurdistan. LuiKhuntek 08:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (for the record) for the reasons Heja Helweda outlines above. QuartierLatin1968 01:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per discussion above. Jonathunder 11:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There was an Autonomous region of Kurdistan in the Soviet Union (Azerbaijan), so this will certainely prevent additional confusion. --Kuban kazak 22:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I think we should make this a redirect to Kurdistan (or the regional government). We used to have two articles, one for Southern Kurdistan and one for Kurdistan Autonomous Region, and it proved to be unworkable – there was too much overlap. On the other hand, Kurdistan has a lot of material specific to Iraqi Kurdistan. QuartierLatin 1968 18:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QuartierLatin,

Southern Kurdistan is the same Iraqi Kurdistan and it covers a larger area than Kurdistan Autonomous Region does. I think it is a good idea to redirect it to Kurdistan but if it is possible to the part of the article which is about Southern Kurdistan (i.e. middle of the page); is it possible? Thank You. --Diyako Talk + 19:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, something like #REDIRECT [[Kurdistan#Iraqi Kurdistan]] ? I think that would be a tremendous idea, but I'm not sure if it works. We could always try it and see.

Part of me agrees with you, Iraqi Kurdistan is a broad area with centuries of history which extends as far as Kirkuk and stretches southeast along the Iranian border for a long way, etc, while the Autonomous Region is just a political entity established a few years ago over part of that area. On the other hand, much of what we would say about the one thing would also apply to the other -- it's impossible to talk about (for example) culture in the Autonomous Region without the same comments applying outside those boundaries. And since the Autonomous Region claims Kirkuk and wants to expand its boundaries to the rest of the Kurdish region... QuartierLatin1968 01:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said about Iran. Political Iran is not the actual boundries of Iran. This can be said about Albania too. Political Albania is not the historical boundaries of the actual area and so on. It is a part of world evolution. Boundaries change.

This Revolution was the greatest Kurdish revolution and the most conclusive in the history of the Kurds, which ended as a result of the treasonous Algeria’s agreement between Iraq and Iran.

This really needs re-wording, as does a lot of the article, other than that, the article is looking quite nice :) - FrancisTyers 13:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All, please see the discussion at Category talk:Kurdistan (Which articles should have the tag 'Category:Kurdistan'), and weigh-in if you like. Thanks, --Moby 14:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The map is very false. Iraqi Kurdistan does not include Mosul. It only has a 15-20% Kurdish population. Chaldean 12:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first map yes it is not accurate: The population of Mosul is principally Kurdish, but with a large minority of Arab-speaking Christian Assyrians although resettlement plan instituted by the Ba'th Party government beginning in the 1970s tried to increase the presence of Arabs in the city but after the fall of the Baath regime many (muslim) Arab families left Mosul and returned to their cities and many Kurds who had left Mosul came back to the city. Now it is safe to say that the population of Mosul is mainly Kurdish and Christian. The problem with first map is that it confuses Kirkuk and Mosul. Now in 2006 Kirkuk has a strong majority Kurdish population more than it is in Mosul (more Arabs left Kirkuk and more Kurds returned back to the city in comparison to Mosul) but you see Kirkuk is shown half Kurdish but Mosul totally Kurdish. So I agree with you and think we should replace the first map with the old one. Jalalarbil 14:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is safe to say that the population of Mosul is mainly Kurdish and Christian.

No it is not, all you gotta do is look at the election results, where in Mosul Sunni arabs got 75% of the votes. Chaldean 00:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mosul traditionally was Kurdish and Christian until Baath increased the number of muslim Arabs in the city and forced the Kurds to leave the city. After Baath this process converted to decreasing muslim Arabs number and increasing Kurdish number. Right now it is going to be so and this is a process not a sudden event. The elections are not the same as census since many Kurds did/do not agree with Kurdish alliance and may prefer to vote to a secholar party which wants a united secholar Iraq rather than to Kurdish alliance or more probably not to participate in the elections especially in a city such as Mosul with a muslim Arab population which may worried many Kurds about their lives to go out and vote. Like I said it is a process and the same as Saddam did not arabize the city in 'one' day, the Kurdification of the city too, requires a time to be done. Besides the elections were several months ago and still there were no enough possibilty to the leaving-returning process. I heard that even christians have a such a process, to increase the Christian population in the city since unlike many Kurds who do not really have a claim about the city of Mosul most Christians have a nationalistic claim for that (whether they will be able to do that or not is not clear yet). Most Kurds claim the surronding areas of Mosul not necessarily the city of Mosul, while Kurdish government believes that the city traditionally has been Kurdish-Christian and thence they say it should be included into the federal government of north (currently known as KRG). Indeed in 2005 the city of Mosul was included in the map of Barez Mella Baxtiyar which provided to Baghdad government... Jalalarbil 09:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nearly half of mosul population is kurdish and 60% of the population of kerkuk is kurdish the arabs in mosul attacked kurds on several occasions arab election workers have manipulated kurdish votes all over the arab parts of town and a lot of yezidis votes for allawi and a lot of shabak kurds voted for the shia alliance , the sunni arab got votes from the turkmen , some 50.000 turkmen voted for the sunni parties

Mosul is not Kurdish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabananahana (talk • contribs) 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article about KRG or Iraqi-Kurdistan? Chaldean 03:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Kurdistan is a region comprising of cities, mountains, rivers etc.. while KRG is comprising only of politicians, parliament, Police, etc.

The article discusses both. Jalalarbil 11:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it can't - those two are totally different topics. The article's title "Iraqi Kurdistan" refers to a region while Kurdistan Regional Government refers to a much smaller region. Which one is it? Chaldean 13:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan Regional Government is not a region, but a government.Jalalarbil 14:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Government over a region. For example, Germany is the region under the Germany goverment. I dont know, maybe I'm making this issue too confusing. Chaldean 14:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Exactly. The Kurdistan Region is the lands and cities, such as: Slémani, Pirmam etc, but the KRG is: Nechirvan Barzani, Parliamnet etc.

Wow, I really shocked by this edit! Does this man think he is keeping it correct? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_Kurdistan&diff=next&oldid=64875634

1. It's written in some Kurdish constitution or another that the official languages are Kurdish, Assyrian, and Arabic (in that order). No question here.
2. "Chaldo-Assyrian" is a broad term with varying meanings. It can either be:
   1. A newly-invented title that describes the union between the names "Assyrian" and "Chaldean" (not "historically known as..."), or
   2. A person who belongs to the Chaldean Catholic Church who also wants to be identified as Assyrian. (Thus, this does not include those who refer to themselves as Assyrians).
3. They have never always been referred to as "Aramean" even though they speak the language. Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Middle East for hundreds of years. At the time of the Great Jewish Revolt in 70 CE, Jews in Palestine spoke Aramaic. Any sane person would not call them Arameans.

Chaldean's edits in question were completely legitimate. --334 22:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know why you put first language in list as Arabic? Should be Kurdish, Assyrian and then Arabic in THAT order!!! Lots of Kurds have next to no knowledge of Arabic now. Too busy learning English and making sure their children do the same. Many speak and understand good Farsi too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.181.235 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is about the Kurdistan Regional Government it might as well carry that title. Objections? -- Cat ^chi? 08:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's about the region governed by the Kurdistan Regional Government, as well as the government. We store our article about Wales at Wales, not at Welsh Assembly Government. (The latter article exists, but it's exclusively about the cabinet members and the government as a corporation.) If at some point this article grows to the point where a separate article about the cabinet and government is needed, then by all means we should revive the Kurdistan Regional Government article. QuartierLatin1968 15:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to have a separate article about the Kurdistan Regional Government, and to have most of this information transferred there. I agree however that we should keep this article here - a bit like the difference between Wales and National Assembly for Wales articles. AndrewRT - Talk 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that would be wise. There is a Kurdistan Regional Government (Wales equavalent) and a Kurdistan Regional Government assembly (National Assembly for Wales equavalent) (they have a parliment of somesort). "Iraqi Kurdistan" is the contraversial name merely to imply occupation in other parts of Kurdistan. This is like saying Wales is a part of eastern Ireland (granted its a bad example)...

I really want to break the kurdistan pov fork chain. Syrian Kurdistan was deleted for being a pov fork, same should happen to Iranian Kurdistan and Turkish Kurdistan (more like lists of kurdish revolts).

Let me put it another way:

• If we are going to write about a proposed kurdistan country I am all in for that.
• If we are going to write about the existing regional entitiy, I am all in for that.
• If we are going to write about the geo-cultural region, I'd be ok with that too.
• If we are going to write about kurdish revolts, I am fine with that.
• If we are going to write about kurdish history, I am fine with that.
• If we are going to write about kurds in general in a specified region I am fine with that too.
• I am however against doing all of the above in one page as it is done now.

-- Cat ^chi? 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This page is happy where it is. The term is in wide scholarly use [1]. You are welcome to apply standard MOS procedure to sections. For example split out some information into Kurdistan Regional Government. In fact, I'll do that now. - FrancisTyers · 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - FrancisTyers · 22:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The flag, coat of arms, and practicaly everything else in the infobox should go there too. No region should have a flag or coat of arms unless its a state or a country. No other geographic region has such info. Governorates certainly dont belong to this "mere geographic region". History section is a dupe of a number of articles. A regional history cant start with ww1. This should either have its own article (like "history of the kurds" or something similar).

We do not and should not have an article on every scholar term. "Kurdistan" is a fine article for information regarding "Iraqi Kurdistan" and other "Kurdistan"s. After removing information irrelevant to a "region" article, we can merge it to Kurdistan

-- Cat ^chi? 00:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the objective of the article? What is it explaining? -- Cat ^chi? 00:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool it, Cool Cat. There's no use gunning for a quick fix; you may be reverted just as quick. Let's work on building consensus first. I want to talk about just the infobox first: "No region should have a flag or coat of arms unless its a state or a country. No other geographic region has such info." This is easily falsifiable. Sardinia (an autonomous region of Italy), Karelia (an autonomous republic of Russia), Chubut (a province of Argentina), Saskatchewan (a province of Canada), and the Western Cape (a province of South Africa) all have infoboxes, and every single one of them shows either a flag or a coat of arms – or both when available. Not one of these is "a state or a country".

As with these other articles, the point of this article is to describe a bit of the history, politics, demographics, economics, and geography of a region which does have a legal existence and personality today and about which Wikipedia users may wish to know something. QuartierLatin1968 03:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of cooling something that isn't even warm, I am not in conflict with anyone. I am mearly acting in what I feel will make wikpedia a more neutral place.

I have absolutely no objection for an article to explain the current political entity in northern Iraq (Kurdistan Regional Government). I do not object in anyway to articles that explain the general (controversial) region known as Kurdistan. I do not object articles explaining Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and etc (Kurds in Turkey, Kurds in Iran, Kurds in Iraq...). I however object the existance of articles about Iraqi Kurdistan, Turkish Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan. I believe they exist as POV forks. I'll post my reasoning below in bullets.

• Iraqi Kurdistan
  • The regional government is often referanced controverisaly as "Iraqi Kurdistan" (correct me if I am wrong)
  • The official accepted title is Kurdistan Regional Government. (correct me if I am wrong)
  • Deducing above, I believe it would be prudent to use the official full name rather than the contraversial and unoffical one. It would be more logical.
• Turkish Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan
  • These are not political entities (defacto or not). (correct me if I am wrong)
  • Turkish Kurdistan seems to be more of a list of Kurdish revolts and history than anything. Infact the entier article is about general history of the kurds and nothing else but additional trivia which are barely if at all encyclopedic. (correct me if I am wrong)
  • As for iranian kurdistan, article is also strictly about history going as far back as the 12 century. Some random referances to "human rights" issues as well which should be in Kurds in Iran. (correct me if I am wrong)
• Suggestion
  • Detailed information about Kurdish history should be confined to articles explaining the kurdish history. Take Europe article for instance. It does not give info on every skirmish that had happened in europe. Nor is the topics covered confined to the history, politics, and etc of one ethnicity, race or religion.
  • Detailed information about Kuridsh people should be confined to articles about Kurdish people. Again see Europe. There is a diverse culture section mostly one paragraph per culture with a more detailed explanation on linked articles.
  • The contraversial region Kurdistan should be treated just like Europe and should not be confined to Kurds. Kurdistan should not provide a hole lot of information but rather brief introduction to related topics just like Europe.
  • I am puzzled what Turkish Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan artilles supposed to explain. Why do they exist?

-- Cat ^chi? 14:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with Cool Cat's logic/reasoning (or his spelling :-) j/k, Cool Cat), I do agree that his suggestions are valid. There is too much Nationalism in Wikipedia and Nationalism doesn't lend itself to neutrality. "Kurdistan" as a region/state/political entity is controversial at best. The Iraqi Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan and Turkish Kurdistan articles are blatantly obvious POV forks. The general region claimed as "Kurdistan" is home to many people groups other than the Kurds. There are already individual articles for Kurdish people, Kurdish culture, etc. All that info should remain there. Articles about such topics as the "Iraqi Kurdish Region" should have a neutral name, deal specifically with the details of current state of the region: demographics, form of governance, econimic situation, notable political considerations, borders, geography, etc. and not contain Kurdish Nationalist propaganda.--WilliamThweatt 17:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Kurdistan is different than KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government). In the current article, there is a large section about the history of the region in 20th century. From 1920 to 1991, there was no KRG. As for the William's objection, I have to remind him that the term Iraqi Kurdistan appears in the Iraqi Constitution which was ratified in September 2005. This was the main reason to change the name of article from Kurdish Autonomous RegiontoIraqi Kurdistan. Please read my discussions with QuartierLatin1968. For Turkish Kurdistan, the term appears in the Encyclopaedia of Islam here [2].Heja Helweda 18:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "Iraqi Kurdistan" thing in the Iraqi constitution proveked a level of outrage domesticaly in Iraq. More so diplomaticaly among many countries such as Turkey. There is no mention of this in the article or anywhere on wikipedia for that matter and was not even part of the renaming discussion. Furthermore the rename was entirely inaproporate.

Kurdish Autonomous Region or KAR is a historic entity that lasted a decade plus. There must be a seperate article about it as the current political entity and KAR as they are nothing alike . Kurdish Autonomous Region had two main rivaling factions for power among others. It being abolished/renamed/restructured/united is entierly irrelevant.

I'd like to ask for one clarification. Is Iraqi Kurdistan a cultural region or a political entity in the body of the federal Iraqi structure. If it is so what is Kurdistan Regional Government then? If it isnt a political entity, what is the coat of arms and flag doing here?

While verifiable (as stated above), "Iraqi Kurdistan" is not a neutral term. By all means all this above makes terms "Turkish Kurdistan" and "Iranian Kurdistan" entierly inaproporate imlying political existance along with the Iraqi counterpart.

-- Cat ^chi? 19:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add that if we are going to talk about Kurdistan as a term it should be more like Macedonia (terminology). Please take special care that article has 96 sources. Also take notice of the difercity of the sources from different points of view, culture, and languages.

Infact Kurdistan should be a disambiguation pace just like Macedonia.

-- Cat ^chi? 19:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary edit point

Cool Cat wrote: "The regional government is often referanced controverisaly as "Iraqi Kurdistan" (correct me if I am wrong)" and "The official accepted title is Kurdistan Regional Government. (correct me if I am wrong)". You are wrong. The Kurdistan Regional Government refers to itself as the Kurdistan Regional Government. It refers to the region it governs as Kurdistan (or Iraqi Kurdistan to be avoid confusion with other regions, such as the Iranian province of Kordestan). You can find any number of examples of this usage at the KRG website: the page "About the Kurdistan Regional Government" refers to the KRG when describing the structure and institutions of the state, while the page『A Brief History Of Iraqi Kurdistan : Position on Federalism,Declaration of the Iraqi Kurdistan National Assembly』talks about Kurdistan and the Kurds when talking about the region and its dominant ethnic group. If we distinguish between governments and the regions they govern, you can perceive that the Iraqi Kurdistan region has certain geographic, cultural, historic, demographic, economic and other features which are well within the scope of this article. Now, if you feel the history section (for example) is biased so as to emphasize Kurdish nationalist preoccupations, by all means, why not add information to correct the imbalance. QuartierLatin1968 04:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'll give a similar example then to emphacise my point.

• Consider Republic of Turkey (defined borders) and Anatolia (undefined borders). Anatolia does not come with the Turkish flag or coat of arms nor it should. Anatolia focuses on the regions general geography and is more or less a list linking to relevant articles.
  • Mind that it links to Geography of Turkey and not Geography of Anatolia.
  • AGeography of Kurdistan Regional Government (defined borders) is fine while Geography of Iraqi Kurdistan (undefined borders just like Kurdistan) is not.
  • AKurdistan (a general region) is approporate while a Iraqi Kurdistan is not. Borders of Kurdistan is disputed. There is no valid claim that suggests that the borders of Kurdistan is defined by the borders of Kurdistan regional government. In fact the KRG is working on aquiring more territory (according to this article).
• Your assesment is somewhat self conflicting. From what I know the official title of "Kurdistan Regional Government" is "Kurdistan Regional Government". KRG webpage verifies this hence the "KRG" and not "IK".
  • Every bits of information about the "Kurdistan Regional Government" should be avalible at Kurdistan Regional Government article and nowhere else. We dont want duplicate info.
• Consider History of Turks/History of Turkey/History of Anatolia and contrast with History of the Kurds/History of Kurdistan.
  • (ethnic history) History of Turks talks about the history of the Turkish people as a whole.
  • (political entity) History of Turkey talks about the history of the country Turkey. (political entity)
  • (geographic entity) History of Anatolia talks about the history of the geographic region.
  • (ethnic history) History of the Kurds talks about the history of the Kurdish people. (ethnic history)
  • (geographic entity) History of Kurdistan does not exist. Should talk about the regional history ranging from the Turkish war of independence to the Urartu also with elements from Turkish Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan
  • (political entity) History of Kurdistan regional government does not exist. Should talk about the KRG's history. Tho this can probably be done in Kurdistan regional government alone since the KRG is just 2 years old and does not have much of a history.

When compared to similar articles, Iraqi Kurdistan doesnt fit anywhere. Article is unorganised and confusing.

Basicaly all I am asking is juggling the information off of this article to more approporate locations...

-- Cat ^chi? 10:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What does 'arbitrary edit point' mean?

I'm honestly not sure whether you have paid any attention to what I wrote above, or had a look at the KRG website, so I won't waste my time repeating the same thing. Perhaps, however, if you're a visual learner, an illustrative table might help:

The point being that regions and their governments aren't the same. They're not always even called by the same name.

The Iraqi Kurdistan region does have defined boundaries. In fact, they check your passport when you cross those boundaries, from what I hear.[3][4]

Comparisons with Turkish and Iranian Kurdistan are completely unhelpful, because Turkish Kurdistan has no legal existence, defined boundaries, or constitutionally recognized autonomy, while the Iranian Kurdistan province is only a (non-autonomous) part of the informal region of 'Kurdistan' in Iran. It's much more fruitful to compare Iraqi Kurdistan with other regions that actually do have autonomy of one form or another.

I'm trying to follow your Anatolia analogy, but it just doesn't make sense to me. History of Turkey is a disambiguation page: it points you to History of the Turkish people, History of the Republic of Turkey, and History of Anatolia, among others. We are, however, in agreement that information concerning the political history of the KRG should be at Kurdistan Regional Government until it grows worthy of a separate history of the Kurdistan Regional Government article.

Your ideas for changing, moving, or reorganizing the articles on Kurdistan, Turkish Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan sound fine, but what relevance do they have here? QuartierLatin1968 20:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary edit point creates the "edit" link at a conviniant location so that I dont have to scroll up and down. I really think it is prudent to break long discussions so it stays managable.

Let me elaborate my stand point. Treat each bullet as a seperate issue.

• For the History of Turkey link, what I ment was History of the Republic of Turkey link.
• This article is like Wales region being discussed in a "British Ireland" article (I just made that up). Name is somewhat problematic no matter how one looks at it.
• Anatolia anology points an example of a geographic region. Geographic regions by definition can't have flags nor coat of arms nor political borders as they would be political regions if they do so.
• The Iraqi Kurdistan you mention is the claim by the Kurdistan Regional Government. Kurdistan itself still has a disputed set of undefined borders. You can google (image search) for "Kurdistan" or "Kurdistan map" to find inconsistant maps from various sources.
• Historicaly speaking an Iraqi Kurdistan officaly existed as of last year. Any information prior should not be presented here. Only information since the Operation Iraqi Freedom and the aftermath should be present here. Information about the decade of defacto existance prior for instance should be presented in Kurdish Autonomous Region article. KAR was very different from KRG after all.

Removing/moving KRG data and unnecesary history data leaves almost no content to this article. And remaining content is better off being in Kurdistan than here. My reasoning is based on treating Iraqi Kurdistan as a geographic region and not a political one.

-- Cat ^chi? 21:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I have updated the Infobox, added more information to it and also the coding for this new Infobox is much easier. The old one was just a table made into an Infobox, but this new one is the right Infobox for this article, compare them side by side the old one and my new one. And this new Infobox looks much better than the old one. Comments and suggestions are welcomed. --D.Kurdistani 03:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the Infobox be at the Kurdistan Regional Government page? Chaldean 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think so. But I think the article Kurdistan Regional Government be renamed to Politics of Kurdistan Regional Government, or similar names such as Politics of Kurdistan-Iraq.

Moreover, I believe that a more accurate title for this article is Kurdistan-Iraq, with a hyphen. This is exactly what KRG officials use. Awat 12:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this name Iraqi Kurdistan Region that I put on the Infobox, personally I believe it should be Kurdistan - Iraq like Awat said, but in the Iraqi constitution it is officially known as the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. Until it is officially changed by the Kurdish authorities in Northern Iraq, we will keep it that way. --D.Kurdistani 08:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 'Kurdistan - Iraq' is what today Kurdish authority are insisting on instead of 'Iraqi Kurdistan'. We can for instance refer to Adnan Mufti's recent explanation of this title. moreover the new draft of Kurdistan constituation has a passage in its introdiction which explicitly explains usage of 'Kurdistan - Iraq' from a linguistic, historic and political point of view. Awat 13:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This article needs to be broken apart. I am not sure what is the intended topic here but insignificant stuff like the anafal campaign should not even have a mention here. Nor does the infobox belong here, this article is about the geo-cultural area along with Turkish Kurdistan and Iranian Kurdistan. -- Cat ^chi? 03:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Events that happened prior to regions recognition should go to Kurdistan Autonomous Region, the defacto entity that existed prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I'll do this myself if no one else volunteers. -- Cat ^chi? 03:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the anafal campaign is part of the history section of this article. Moving it does not make any sense, and creating a different article for Kurdistan Autonomous Region prior to the US invasion of Iraq does not make sense either. Not much has changed besides being recognized as an official federal region by the central government so why make all these changes? --D.Kurdistani 08:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it this way, the ottoman wars are not described as a part of "Turkey" but rather "Ottoman Empire", anything happened before the establishment of "Iraqi Kurdistan" belongs to the respective article of the past entity or entities -- Cat ^chi? 14:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the new army they are talking about in media: the Armed Forces of Kurdistan? Should this be mentioned in the article? Samrendshere 00:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be the peshmergas, I presume. There's a section on the military in this article. If I'm right, they're not really new ... which media report are you referring to? Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read in the article that, official name of Northern Iraq Kurdish federal region is Kurdistan-Iraq not Iraqi Kurdistan, we should also use this name. For example, for Burma article's name is Myanmar, which is the official name of Burma.Ayasi 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your right Iraqi Kurdistan is not the official name of the Kurdish Region of northern Iraq. I have done some research to find the official name of the region as stated by the Kurdish and Iraqi authorities and the official name as stated in the Iraqi constitution. I came up with many different names. In the Iraqi constitution it say’s Kurdistan Region, on the official webpage or the Kurdistan Regional Government I found two names for the region, Kurdistan – Iraq and Kurdistan Region – Iraq. There are many other names like Iraqi Kurdistan Region, Iraqi Kurdistan, Kurdistan Region and some others. If someone could find a direct link to a official government webpage or some other reliable source stating what the official name is then I say we go ahead and change the name. --D.Kurdistani 08:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The visa stamps from Arbil airport say "Republic of Iraq - Iraq Kurdistan Region - Arbil International Airport"--Vindheim 10:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know this country! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StANDby007 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This article is mixing Kurdistan region with Iraqi Kurdistan it should be only about Iraqi Kurdistan since the title is Iraqi Kurdistan.--Aziz1005 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this isn't a country, it's a state. On their visas, it says "Iraqi Kurdistan" and the "Republic of Iraq".

I don't think Northern Iraq has recognition yet. Neither de jure nor de facto. Why doesn't it clearly stated in the article? Deliogul (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The introductory paragraph states that the article concerns a " semi-autonomous, federally recognized political entity located in northern Iraq." Perfectly clear to me, and also correct.--Vindheim (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or to use more academic language, it's not internally consistent with regard to spelling of place names even within the same paragraph 82.110.248.146 (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see how confusing this can be having so many terms about Kurdistan and its different part and having several articles about it and its several parts whit its several names.

Kurdistan is a geographical area in Middle East. It is in SE Anatolia, NW part of Zagros Mountains and N Mesopotamia. In Southern Kurdistan there is a Kurdish Autonomous Region with its own regional government. Terms like Iraqi Kurdistan, Turkish Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan etc. doesn't sound good. Better to only call it "Southern Kurdistan", "Northern Kurdistan", "Eastern Kurdistan" etc. And it would be better if Kurdistan Regional Government called it self "Regional Government of Southern Kurdistan". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatma2008 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would love it if we called it south Kurdistan. I just don't think turkey Iran and Syria would be too happy about it. 188.221.24.172 (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The demographics of this article are incorrect in my opinion. 95% being Kurdish makes no sense to me. Assyrians and Turkoman make up about 5-7% of Iraq, and majority of the turkoman and especially Assyrians live in Northern Iraq. How can it be possible that they are still only 5% of Iraqi Kurdistan?

from CIA Factbook, Assyrians and Turkomans are 5% or Iraq, that makes their population at about 1.5 million, now lets assume that 500 000 live outside of the borders of Iraqi Kurdistan, that would still leave 1 million Assyrians and Turkomans in Northern Iraq (which is a good estimate in my opinion) and that would make Assyrian/Turkoman population at about 15-20% of Iraqi Kurdistan.

Please provide a source of the 95% claim of this article or remove it -- Malik Danno (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1- Population is estimated 7 million on the side bar but is said to be 5-6 million in the Demographics section. 2- There is no mention of Feyli Kurds who are Shia and are estimated to be 2-3 millions. 88.97.164.254 (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

90% is correct in my opinion but that Assyrian and turkmans make up 15 to 20% is to mouch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.181.127 (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 85.227.181.127 (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)shnoy xhoshewist[reply]

Population is not right, in kurdistan live min.8mil people, please make it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.178.78.171 (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the population of the kurdish is 4,864 millions at the end of 2010 oplease change the iraqi fiogure as it is only a biased estimate by the iraqi central government who has no authority to conduct a survey in the kurdish region

http://www.kurdishglobe.net/get-pdf-file/KurdishGlobe-2011-54-16.pdf?ID=286 According to the Kurdist tan Regional Government, 1 million and 300,000 people in Kurdistan are government employees, while the population of Kurdistan Region is 4 mill lion and 864,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.112.85 (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

again http://www.kurdishglobe.net/display-article.html?id=C3671E729D6BEAF68BD67183604D4A00 According to the Kurdistan Regional Government, 1 million and 300,000 people in Kurdistan are government employees, while the population of Kurdistan Region is 4 million and 864,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.112.85 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Population is not right, in Kurdistan live 7 million people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.40.87 (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kifri is already under KRG, acording to the new konstitution, are KRG claiming the district of Khaniqin and Mandali in the Province of Diyala —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.181.127 (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==WHAT TO CALL IT?

Iraqi Kurdistan refers to that part of northern Iraq where ethnic Kurds predominate. The Kurdistan Region refers to that part of Iraqi Kurdistan that is administered by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). The problem is located in the dispute over the official boundary of the Kurdistan Region that was to be determined in accordance with Article 140 of the Constitution of Iraq by the end of 2007.

The so-called 'green line' was actually the 'Saddam Line' that cut Iraqi Kurdistan almost in half. It was established in the dark of night in October 1991 by the Iraqi military erecting dirt barriers. Checkpoints that acted like border control stations were also constructed. It was not mandated by the UN as some in the mainstream press have reported. This line ceased to exist with the overthrow of the regime of Saddam Hussein in April 2003.

The Saddam Line is not to be confused with the no-fly zone that was established earlier in 1991 by US-led coalition forces. Contrary to some news reports, it was not established by the UN. The no-fly zone did not cover all predominately Kurdish areas. Many were south of the line. Strangely, the no-fly zone included Mosul but not Suleimaniyah.

The so-called "safe haven" was actually only a part of Duhok governorate (province) from where most of some 500,000 Kurdish refugees in Turkey had fled from. Though double this number had fled to Iran - some one million, no safe haven was specifically established for them. They returned anyway.

All this leaves open the question of what is a Kurd in an area where Kurds predominate. The word "Kurd" refers to ethnicity and is not to be confused with religion. It denotes the primary culture of an area. There are Muslim Kurds, Christian Kurds, Jewish Kurds, Yezidi Kurds, Shabak Kurds, and Kakayee Kurds, etc., all in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Some Christians do not like being called Christian Kurds; some assert the are ethnically Assyrian and some go so far as to say the area is Assyria and not Kurdistan. Christians in Kurdistan have a hard time deciding what to call themselves. Some say "Asyrian", others ChaldoAssyrian, others AssyroChaldean, others Assyrians Chaldeans Syriacs, others Syriani, others Ashuri. Most Christians in Kurdistan speak Syriac, a derivative of Aramaic spoken by Jesus Christ.

There are also Armenians in Iraqi Kurdistan who certainly are not Kurds. And they are not Assyrians, Chaldeans, or Syriacs. They are Armenian by ethnicity and by religion, the first (only?) ethnic group to become a religion.

Yezidis and Shabaks speak Kurdish, their mother language and the language they use to pray. Same with the Kakayee who are a very small group. Some Yezidis and Shabaks assert, however, that they are not Kurds, perhaps because they are trying to avoid be drowned among the Muslim Kurds and prefer to maintain a separate identity.

All Jewish Kurds migrated to Israel by the 1950s. Some have come to visit their ancestral homes. Jews, and Christians, in Kurdistan had virtually no problem with Muslim Kurds. Kurdistan is one of the few places in the world where there were rural Jewish villages living peacefully among Muslim villages. A former Israeli defense minister is a Jewish Kurd from Iraqi Kurdistan.

There are also ethnic Arabs and Turkmens in Kurdistan; they certainly are not Kurds.

Instead of calling the people of Kurdistan "Kurds", perhaps it would be more acceptable to all concerned to call them "Kurdistanis" - people of Kurdistan - regardless of their ethnicity or religion. The name of the area is unlikely to change, but the people may differ in their backgrounds or whatever they prefer to call themselves.

I served with the UN in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1991 and personally witnessed the establishment, or separation, of the Kurdistan Region by the regime of Saddam Hussein. I am personally familiar with the no-fly zone and the specificity of the "safe haven". I was there in May 1992 when regional elections were held and when the Iraqi Kurdistan Parliament (IKP, what it is called today) and the Kurdistan Regional Governt (KRG) were formed during the summer of 1992. Clarrysf (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Hewleri[reply]

Monarchy?! someone's been screwing with this 86.14.106.237 (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It currently states that "Most Kurds live in the large cities such as Arbil and Sulaymania". But if you add up the population of all 8 cities listed in the previous table, it is much less than half of the claimed total population. And it's hard to argue that all of those 8 cities are "large cities" given than some of them have less than 1/10th the population of Arbil and Sulaymania. Given the information about total population and city populations in this section, this sentence seems both incorrect and unnecessary. So I am going to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglaswyatt (talk • contribs) 03:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IT IS NOT "IRAQI KURDISTAN" but AUTONOMOUS REGION OF KURDISTAN! PLEASE CHANGE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.190.161 (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is an autonomous region of Iraq. Neither Kurdistan or Kurdistan Region is an independent nation state. "Autonomous" is a description of its status, but not an actual part of its name, so it does not belong in the article title. The only other acceptable article names would be along the lines of Kurdistan Region of IraqorKurdistan Region (Iraq). Either way, the area has to be identified correctly as being part of Iraq. I appreciate that some people wish it was not part of Iraq but changing something in Wikipedia does not make it happen in the real world. It just makes Wikipedia inaccurate. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I like to point out about new kurdish loby in europe and america .

As recorded on library archives points out real kurdish population was born in iraq .Nothing to do with turkish clans who were stated in turkei for centuries .lately kurdish groups reported kurdistan lands covers eastern turkish lands even they have gone further then expected in the turkish parlemant they wanted to be counted as part of turkish politicians .since from 1990s there is many kurdish immigrants was given entry visa to stay in the turkei .since then crime levels were rising terror attacks started .taking to many political refuges wasnt ; such a good idea last 5 years terror attacks gone worst and many soldiers were killed unnecasserly while they were serving their army on iraq borders....

what I like to point out about that matter turkish government must bring taugh laws to stop 

that political refugees coming to turkei and european countries .. strick rules and changes in the governmant legislations needed . turkish authorities shouldnt be used as channel by those only lives on terrorism act this isnt a place or land for any PKK terrorist groups I hope they solve that crises on the iraqy borderline most of the terrorist breeding etnic groups landed on turkish iraqy side ./ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.245.243.152 (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wrong area !

here true:

Kurdistan covers 50,000Km2 – four times the area of Lebanon and larger than the Netherlands.

UNDER HELLO ERBIL-ABOUTH KRUDISTAN PAGE http://www.erbilairport.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.190.120 (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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!!!