Talk:Duhok

message: I would like to know why the category Assyria is allowed while category Kurdistan is being removed? Is there exact boundaries for Assyria? As far as I remember that's the main reason given for removing the Kurdistan category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vekoler  (talk • contribs) 22:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category: Assyria

message: I read from a Swedish women rights and organizations worker who travelled to dahuk that the city was populated mostly by Assyrians before the 1960's.  I was wondering if anyone could verify this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.202.186 (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just Nohadra(Dahuk) but a very large section of Northern Iraq was inhabited by Assyrians, many events have not been favorable for the Assyrians in Iraq, such as Saddam and Kurdish expansion. These factors have resulted in many Assyrians fleeing their homeland for more secure lives in the West. -- 207.210.14.235 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assyrians? 

message: Merci Rafy. But we must compare alternative names with the same condition. We don't have to compare 3,660 with others. Even Google books indicated "3,660 results", we cannot investigated all of them. Most of them are "empty". We have to use 390. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for you note, I didn't know of such a trick on google books.--Rafy talk 10:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Google books

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Dohuk →  – This move is potentially controversial because it is a request to move the page back to its former name. The record of the former move appears to be based on unanalysed Google tests.
While it is clear that the spelling "Dohuk" has had widespread use. The current governorate (http://www.duhokgov.org/) and university (http://www.uod.ac/) both use the spelling "Duhok". I believe that those two examples should carry weight.
The problem with the numerous spellings of the name is partly from the difficulty of pinning down the Arabic , for which the most accurate transliteration is most probably Dahūk. That is "most probably" because the value of the first, short vowel is not written in Arabic. However, in North Mesopotamian Arabic the vowel ū is often rendered as ō (as at the end of "Zakho", the second syllable of "Alqosh", and somewhat similarly in the first syllable of "Mosul"). Many short vowels in the local dialect are reduced to schwas, and this is the case in Arabic pronunciation of the first syllable of the city in question. A schwa could be written in many ways, but it is often rendered with a u (as in the second syllable of "Mosul"). Thus, I would suggest that the spelling that best represents the local Arabic pronunciation is "Duhok".
The Kurdish spelling (seeing as Kurdish is the main language in the city) is , which is transliterated as Dihok. In Kurdish i is the most fleeting of the vowels, and it is left unwritten in Sorani script. The Kurdish spelling "Dihok" is not often used in the medium of English, but it does support the understanding of the two vowels as schwa and "o". Although nowhere near as important, it might be worth pointing out that the usual Turkish spelling is "Duhok".
I believe that the spelling preferred by the governorate and local university, alongside the local Arabic, Kurdish and Turkish pronunciation point to "Duhok" being the preferred spelling. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Gareth Hughes has a point her. I'm still neutral on this though, both renderings are OK imo, if it ain't broke why fix it?--Kathovo talk 18:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2014 

message: Dont make this page to a Assyrian propaganda site. How can we say that Dohuk was just an assyrian city and ignore its Kurdish history, the history about the Kurdish Bahdinan principalitie etc. I corrected it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahdinan
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bahdinan-kurdish-region-river-dialect-group-and-amirate
--Alan Genco (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dohuk. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218145549/http://www.uod.ac/site/en/duhokcity/ to http://www.uod.ac/site/en/duhokcity
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion