Talk:Kurds/Archive 8

message: The CIA factbook says that 20% of Turkey's population, at most, is ethnically Kurdish. (As opposed to 7% who speak Kurdish as their primary language)
If this is the case, how can there be 21 million Kurds in Turkey? (30%) Exaggerated, impossible number. 
Besides, what is the rationale of including the Jews who immigrated from Kurdish-populated areas to Israel?  Jews are a different ethnic group. Tauphon 17:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent: Impossible Population Numbers 

message: This article doesn't make it very clear the chief Language of the Kurds. Kurdish is a combination of Persian, Turkish and Arabic. Most Kurds speak Arabic as a second language if they live in the Middle East. Sandy June 20:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: We cite Immanuel Velikovsky in support of a point in the article. Since his work is rejected by scholarship as based on dubious theories, we should find another source to back this point. Any suggestions? --CTSWyneken(talk) 00:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Immanuel Velikovsky]] 

message: The lack of references to serious, academic, reckognised books, articles and journals gives you a presentiment for the article's character. This article is not scientific at all. It contains so many mistakes that I am not even going to try to put things right. I can remember how the Kurds first tried to link themselves to the Median people of Iran, after they had claimed to be Assyrians, but after no serious historian supported that claim, now they are going even further back to the Hurrites. Well, the Hurrites were not even an Indo-European people (or at least did not speak an IE language). So what is next - Atlantis? 
First of all, the word "the Kurds" does not describe an ethnically, liguistically or whatsoever-ly associated people. It merely describes an identity that exists a bit more than 700 years, maybe 900. Before that, the people in today's Kurdistan had different identities, as they do today by the way, or do you seriously believe that Kermanshahis and Laks consider themselves the same as people from K.Maras and Malatya? The Iranian and many Iraqi Kurds are different than the Turkish ones as regards ethnicity, language and culture. Even the Turkish Kurds are a heavily diverse people. Zazaki, Kermanshahi, Laki etc. are not Kurdish languages, AND SO ON... 
Somehow, I cannot get around the feeling that the author of this article has an rabid antipathy for Iranians (i.e. Persians, to be more specific). Unfortunately, I am witnessing a process of the Kurds copying the Turkish method of inventing their own history from a political point of view. What a pity.
--84.226.45.78 05:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably you have not heard of the Battle of Ardashir I with Kurds in the 3rd century? (BTW near Kermanshah), which is recorded in the Pahlavi book The Book of Deeds of Arashir Papagan. Please take a look at the History of the Kurds to see that the term Kurd has been in use at least since 3rd century CE. So this term is not 900 years old, but around 1800 years old.Heja Helweda 00:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolutely nonscientific, political article! 

message: I would caution the editors of this page from relying exclusively on Human Rights Watch as a source on the civil war in Turkey. Though a commendable organization, HRW focuses exclusively on the shortcomings of governments, and will thus provide ample material on Turkish guilt, but none on the atrocities of the PKK. I think any intelligent person would understand that the PKK shares responsibility for the displacement of Kurds from their home villages. Heja Helweda introduces, in my opinion, an unconscionably Turcophobe view, when he asserts that Turkish security sources bear sole responsibility for the population displacement. --Anthon.Eff 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not asserting anything, the info. is given by HRW. If you see shortcomings in their policies, contact HRW please, and let them know about your concerns.Heja Helweda 00:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry if I wasn't clear. I have no problem with HRW. They do what they do very well. The problem is when one assumes that HRW is providing a complete picture of events in Turkey. The role of HRW is to criticize governments--not to criticize terrorist groups. HRW will therefore not discuss the PKK's responsibility for depopulated villages, but will discuss the responsibility of the Turkish state. If you are interested in presenting a NPOV in this article, you must also incorporate some sources bearing on the PKK role in depopulation. --Anthon.Eff 19:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights Watch 

message: This page is not objective, even the population figures. The references does not rely on reliable sources. For example, about the population of kurds in turkey, www.world-gazetteer.com is given as a source. The total population of turkey is about 73m (2005 estimates). Considering te figures given in the article this means 30 percent of the population of turkey is kurds which is obviously wrong. This page is just seving as a kurdish propaganda rather than giving an information about the kurds. At the end, the editors of this article would say that there is no Turks in turkey, only kurds. If you click on the references givens, you'll see that the information given is not based on relevent sources, but the speculative ones.
:: Here is a estimate from the German government:   The German government based on provincial statistics estimated that in 1997 there was at least 18 million Kurds in Turkey.  Perhaps there is other points in the article you may disagree with, but this one is well sourced by the German government and it is the most reliable estimate I have seen since it takes into account provincial statistics.  The 18 million also does not take into account Zazas (who are traditionaly identified as Kurds) and also the growth between 1997 and 2006.  So the 22 million estimate is also factual. --alidoostzadeh 08:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reference given by alidoostzadeh above (related with the German government statistics) is not in English (even not in Latin alphabet) for this reason i cannot read it. You should either give a source in English or translate it to English. Even the latin alphabet is enough cause we are concerning the numbers here, we could guess what is about, or check the tables. However, alidoostzadeh put something we could not read. Furthermore, this source is from a commercial web site. Please, give official references (internationally recognized journals, organizations, factbooks,...) available from official sites. How can we sure that the source is not the fake one?  E104421 12:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi the document is from the German government parliment member , but translated to Persian.   You have a good point that how can we be sure that the source is not fake.  Very legitimate.  But here is another site that has it: .  Please check the last page (pg 98) for the actual source with the actual ISBN and ISSN number.  The parlamentarian Amke Dieter-scheuer is also real  and the same article is referenced here in a Turkish government website.  Unless you suspect the translation to be wrong, then I do not see any problem with the source since it is an estimate based on provincial statistics. --alidoostzadeh 20:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sure the document would be an excellent source for the Persian, Tajik, Dari, etc. Wikipedia, but it really isn't suitable here in the English Wikipedia. If the facts presented in the document are indeed widely known among authorities, it should not be a problem to find a good source in English. --Anthon.Eff 01:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The original document is in German and has IBSN and ISSN numbers and is referred to in a Turkish government website.  Unless you think the Persian translation is wrong (which I do not believe so), I do not see any problem with that estimate since it i actually based on provincial statistics.  I usually do not believe in many statistics, but this one is based on provincial data which is accurate.  I think someone that knows German can find it. Here are some sites that mentions the article as well:  .  The author and think thank that wrote the article believe that in 1997 there were more than 18 million Kurds in Turkey (and I am not sure if they have considered Zazas as separate group or not).   --alidoostzadeh 04:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still do not understand why the user alidoostzadeh is always pushing the sources other than English. I strongly agree with the user Anthon.Eff that it is possible to find a reliable source in English (especially for this case, statistics). I checked the sources given, but they just increased my suspicion, cause the links do not target the relevent references. Furthermore, the user alidoostzadeh gives references to a parliament member but representing this above as the official statistics report of the German Government and this report could not be found in Latin Alphabet! even not published offically by German Government. As i stated above, the references should be from internationally recognized publications or organizations (most of them have English versions). A single German parliament member's report does not make it a reliable one. In addition, the user alidoostzadeh tries to support this POV by giving references to other unofficial ones. For this reason, this user alidoostzadeh seems to me pushing his POV by forwarding sources other than English (also not even in Latin alphabet) all the time, cause we cannot understand what's written there. His sources are based on beliefs, guesses, opinions, ... that cannot be considered scientific. Rahter than providing us just a single reliable source or even the translation of it, he's just pushing the same POV fork "...18 million kurds in turkey..." all the time, in order to convince us and to stop discussion. What should we do? Sorry, alidoostzadeh, we cannot accept the sources that we could not read. We need neutral statistical data, not the IBSN and ISSN numbers of the reports written in alphabets we are not familiar with. For me, the data itself is enough if i could read the numbers! E104421 08:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The study was done by think-thank along with that parlamentarian I mentioned. I am not trying to push any POV, it is not my POV. It is a study done by German government (members of parliment and German government think thanks count as government). You say you can not accept a source you can not read (I assume you mean German or the Persian translation). I totally agree with that part.  But lots of Wikipedia articles have referenced  non-English language sources.   Either way have you tried to access that article since I provided the ISBN and ISSN number? If I find the original German article will you also reject it again? The study as far I as read is the most detailed analysis on Kurdish population and it is not a POV since it is written by members of German government.  The reason the study is accurate is that  all the analysis are contained and they do not throw a random number out. There is no guesses, opinions or beliefs, I am just quoting that article. If you believe the translation is wrong, then either the translator did make a mistake (which is always possible) or we must seek the German version to resolve this issue.  Also do not use we to refer to your and he to refer to me, since you are only a spokeman for yourself as I am as well.  Many articles have estimate figures.  If you can show the estimate of that document to be invalid (you must obtain the German source and read it) then I have no disagreement.  But just to reject the article without reading it and providing a response why it might be wrong is not really an academic approach.  Perhaps you have evidence that invaldiates the claim of that article?   For example estimates of Kurds in Iran can range really between 4 million to 8 million.  (low and high end).  Same in Iraq it could be 4 to 6 million.  Same in Syria.  Same in Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan.  Note I do not like many of the internet sites that give random numbers (specially some missionary sites  who make the simplest mistakes and have never done any census), but the study above actually goes into some detail and has an author and think thank.  So the figure 14-18 million is justifiable. Here is an article that says 30% of Turkey is of Kurdish background: .  --alidoostzadeh 14:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   I agree with Khorshid that there is really some  content problems in this article, for example Kurds fighting Summerians is unscientific and has no academic source even if its in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Okay so the Encyclopedia Britannica says it, but where is the actual source within Enyclopedia Britannica?  It is true perhaps semi-nomadic Zagros people fought Sumerians sometimes and sometimes had friendly relations, but this does not make those people necessarily Kurds.  Also the Ergativity of some Kurdish dialects is like the ergativity of some Persian dialects around Shiraz, Yazd, Kerman and Pashtu, Talyshi and other Iranian dialects and even Indo-Aryan languages.  It does not necessarily mean a connection with Hurrians.  Also Kurds Fighting Persians is another false point since Sassanids according to some accounts were partially Kurds and the story of Ardeshir-e-Babakan has many mythical aspects, as well as the term Kurd in Pahlavi does not necessarily denote an ethnic group  If we mean the Medes(whom I believe to be the ancestor of Kurds culturally and linguistically as well partially in genetics) and Achaemenids then many Medes actually took sides with the Achaemenids against Astyages according to sources and there was strong interaction between these two groups such that in the bible it is called the law of Persian-Medes.   Also DNA has given various contradictory reports.  One mentions Kurds being related to Jews, another Kurds being related to Hittites and another Kurds being related to other Iranians. Do we want to say Kurds have been fighting Turks or various Kurdish groups have been fighting various Turkish/Iranian government?  Or perhaps better way to say it is that a noticeable portion of  Kurds feel resentment towards the government of Turkey, Iran, Syria and former Iraq.  But to say Kurds have been fighting another ethnic group (Persian or Arab or Turks) seems to me to be written from a POV in order to actually set up various people in the region against each other whereas thankfully so far we have not had a situation like the Balkans or Nagorno-Karabagh in the Middle East.  Sure at various times there has been hostilities between say Arabs and Persians, but there was also various times that there was cooperation (Abbasids for example).  Or during the end of the Ottoman period, Arabs fought against Turks, but is it correct to say Arabs have been fighting Turks throughout their whole history?  I feel there is a bit of hostility presented in this article starting from the unreferenced Britannica quote.  Most Kurds of Bijar, Garous, Elam, Kermashan, Khorasan in Iran (about 60-70%) do not have any separatist feelings.  If we include Laki speakers, then that number is definitely over 70%.  So it is incorrect to say "Kurds" were fighting the "Iranian" government.  Also Hurrians, Sumerians, Urartu, Hittites were discovered only in the last century and a half.  I firmly believe that the Mede identification of Kurds which has been accepted historically since at least 600 years ago is firm.  The word KurManj itself means son of Medes as Mar and Maraj in Armenian denote Mede.  We consider any group in the Middle East to be a conglormate of different people's but the main identifier is language and culture which comes from the Indo-Iranian Medes and the rest of the elements are influences from neighbors as well as previous cultures absorbed by the Medes.  Also why isn't there any mention of Kurdish mythology which is the same as other Iranic people.  --alidoostzadeh 17:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Again you didn't check the source or else you would not have objections.  Also you did not read correctly.  A German parliment member did publish it.  All the information in Latin Alphabet is on the last page of the source I provided!! (read pg 98).  If you think the translation is invalid on the 18 million, then provide reasons.  I have shown the ISBN and ISSN number and the title and the name of the parliment member in German and it is all on pg 98.  Also right now I have provided another source that says 30% of Turkey is possibly Kurdish .  You forgot to comment on that.  There is no ethno-centerism here and personally I do not like the Turkish government, Iranian government and the Kurdish parties. Or khak bar sareh hamashoon.  But  I am just discussing a statistics here based on sources.  The exact number of Kurds in Turkey is unknown.  If you have any reason to claim that the 30% is invalid (for example some missionary sites provide really bad information which I have criticized with knowledge), then provide your sources.  Else I have provided two sources now that say higher than 14 million.  Any ethnic related article in wikipedia is full of ethnocenterism, but over here we are just discussing about some number.  How can an estimate on Kurdish population that is based on two sources I mentioned be considered ethno-centeric?  Merhaba.  --alidoostzadeh 19:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop spreading kurdish ultranationalist POV! And read yourself your POV-Sources. In your "worldcivilsociety" link you can see an organisation named "Kurdistan National Congress" which was represented by Mr. Nilufer Koc. "Kurdistan National Congress" is founded by the terrorist organisation PKK (Kongra-Gele) and cant be taken as a Wikipedia Source. --LACongress 15:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here everyone can read himself:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/nibarch2002.htm
"The challenge to the listing of the PKK as a terrorist group by the Council is summarised in the Official Journals, case in Court: C 233/32 (pdf) plus challenge by the Kurdistan National Congress also to the Court of Justice" --LACongress 15:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exaggerated 

message: I dont understand what that edit war was about..I understand the "origin" question, but let's not get too caught up in it. We can go to all sorts of articles and add "they were the descendants of Babylonians", "X are the descendants of the Ethiopian tribes of 100 thousand years ago" (which is true for humanity btw).. So instead of going back three thousand years to see who is really who, let's contextualize.. Who is anyone? X is the descendant of Y, who descends from Z, who descends from A and goes to Adam and Eve (if u r religious) or to the 2000 strong confederation of Ethiopian tribes of 100000 years ago (if u r scientific).. So just cool it!! :))) Probably in three hundred years we will all be speaking English, so what's the fuss? :)) Baristarim 12:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: Hello,
WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.
I rated the Kurdish people article: B-Class, with the following comments:
:* Very through coverage of topic; an impressive number of references. The references, however, are improperly formatted. They should be formatted such that the full details of every reference appears in the references section (as opposed to simply a set of square brackets with a number inside, e.g. [35]). See Taiwanese aborigines for some examples of fully formatted <ref> tags.
:*POV disputes.
You can give this article (and any other article) a rating, as described below.
:-->How to assess articles
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner  that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the  template on the article's talk page.
Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at  Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also  enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.
Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit  :Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.
Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 00:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Khorshid 13:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Kurds}} 

message: About a million Kurds live in Khorasan, Iran (north of Mashhad) since the Safavid period. Should it be considered a diaspora, or a well-established Kurd community? If so, the maps showing Kurdish population distribution should be expanded to enclose it. -- Hugo Dufort 07:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khorasan Kurds 

message: kurds were orange seeds during the reign of sumerians. the fact is that bulk of kurds were accepted into asia minor by ottoman sultan selim I.  who massively de-turkmenized amed and neighboring areas. a hattian background for the kurdish culture is totally unscientific. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.170.116 (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  kurds fighting sumerians? 

message: Footnotes 10, 11, and 12 direct one to the Encyclopedia Britannica Online, which is a paid source. The source should be accessible to everyone who looks at the article. These footnotes need to be removed. BTW, the figure of 35 million is miraculously transformed to 20 million in the Britannica, which is the cited source for the figure. Anthon.Eff 02:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paid service is for access to the full article, not for the current link which is free. It mentions at least 20 million Kurds live in Kurdistan. Since the data used in this article, is taken from the available portion of the Britannica's article, there is no need to remove it. For the 35 million, I agree that it is just a big exaggeration.Heja Helweda 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact remains that the 35 million figure is in the article, but the source says "at least 20 million." We need a new source. Anthon.Eff 18:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subscription Source 

message: Bringing this here from Heja's talk page
Heja, you deleted sourced text that I contributed to the Kurdish people article. Can you explain why? The usual procedure would be to use the talk pages. Anthon.Eff 04:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen the numnbers given by Ethnologue before, but the problem is they are very outdated, as most of their sources are from 70s and 80s. Normally we should not include estimates from 30 years ago. Since there are no reliable figures, in my view it is better to use more recent estimates like those in the report by the Council of Europe(which I used for some of the diaspora numbers) or CIA World Fact Book. As for assimilation, please see here : The government's main strategy for assimilating the Kurds has been language suppression. Yet, despite official attempts over several decades to spread Turkish among them, most Kurds have retained their native language.  I tried to add a 2006 report by European Council, which confirms the same 15-20% ratio for Kurds of Turkey.Heja Helweda 06:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text was not about numbers of ethnic Kurds, it was about numbers of speakers of Kurdish-related languages. The point of the section that you dropped was that in Turkey the number of speakers is much less than the number of people who identify themselves as Kurdish. That's an important point and it belongs in the article. The source you present suggesting that most Kurds have retained their language (The US Country Study for Turkey, 1995) gives a figure for the Kurdish population in Turkey as 6-12 million, much less than the 15 million from the CIA factbook. Obviously the source has a narrow definition of what it means to be a Kurd. The fact remains that a very significant number of people identifying as Kurdish in Turkey speak only Turkish. Anthon.Eff 18:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely much more Kurdish people here in the UK then 80,000. The Kurd-Turk population here in London is estimated 350,000 and Kurds are the majority. Ozgur Gerilla 00:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I guess I don't understand. Either this is a non sequitur or I've missed something important. Anthon.Eff 03:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if you ever studied logic or mathematics but 80,000 of 350,000 can't be the majority. This means that there has to be a mistake. You guys were talking about the total of the Kurdish population and I'm telling you guys that some figures are definetely wrong. Whether it makes the total less or more. Ozgur Gerilla 15:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, got it! You are talking about the infobox. Find a good source for the number of Kurds in London and we can revise upward the UK number. Are most Kurds in the Greater London area, or are there also significant populations in Birmingham and the north? Anthon.Eff 00:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry didn't mean to be rude. I think most Kurds live in Greater London and particularly in North London. I would try my best to find a source. Ozgur Gerilla 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurds in Turkey 

message: This entry below is in question, since it grossly lacked actual sources to verify the Kurdish diaspora population. Kurds do live in the U.S., Canada and other countries, but I never came across the information on how many Kurds or Kurdish people live in the US, in part of the US census never created a new ethnic/ancestoral category of Kurdish Americans. At this time, the estimated population of Kurds in the US is in dare need for complete research in order to have verification to stay in the article. I appreciate your efforts and let's clear things up, as well to look at Kurds living in Canada and Australia. 63.3.14.129 21:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOR ? 

message: The intro needs total rewrite. To be a Kurd, you don't need to consider yourself to be indigenous to any region. One is not identified as a Kurd, only because they feel indigenous to a region. --Rayis 02:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro needs rewrite 

message: I was under the impression that there were Christian Kurds whose Faith dates back to the 1st Century a.d. and who still spoke the language of Jesus of Nazareth, Aramaic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.68.240.118 (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARAMAIC LANGUAGE 

message: hurrians , mittanies, urardians are western kurds. medes, partians eastern kurds, babylonians and summerians mesopotamian kurds.
acadians assirian empire are semitic assirian. persians empire, sasainids are persians.frigians are armenians. ionians mysians, trojans are greeks. kimerrians, kaska  are laz and georgians.
"Certainly by the time of the Islamic conquests a thousand years later, and probably for some time before, the term 'Kurd' had a socio-economic rather than ethnic meaning. It was used of nomads on the western edge of the Iranian plateau and probably also of the tribes that acknowledged the Sassanians in Mesopotamia, manyfrigian must have been Semitic in origin."
Is this an appropriate opening paragraph? The section on Kurdish history begins with one account of the use of the word "Kurd" after the Islamic conquest. I'm almost certain this was placed here by someone with an anti-Kurdish agenda, because:
a) This is certainly not where Kurdish history BEGINS
b) This certainly does not represent the achievements of the Kurdish people and their history. It is like beginning the account of European history at the Dark Ages, never mind Greece and Rome. Ridiculous! Someone change it.
It's a derogatory agenda.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.42.150 (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurdish History, opening paragraph 

message: No doubt the Kurds are Aryans.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.94.103 (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed the word "''sometimes''" 

message: There is a sizeable Kurdish population in Pakistan who live alongside the Baloch in the province of Balochistan.  Furthermore many Kurds live in Karachi and other major urban centres of the country.  Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan, was half Kurdish.  There are numerous Kurdish origin families who have played an influential role in the early formulative years of Pakistan and even currently vis-a-vis Pakistani politics.  How come there is no mention of the Kurds of Pakistan???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.227.144 (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Kurds in Pakistan? 

message: Please watch this edits: 
I dont think this edits are constructive. Asoyrun 12:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic edits