Talk:Urmia

Under the Etymology section it, though with no reference, clearly asseverates that the city is per se a Sumerian in origin since its name contains a part, namely "Ur-". Even if one could take such an etymology for granted, no body could ever relate the city or its founding fathers to any Sumerian at all. Because as far as the hard evidences from archaeological surveys confirm, the city has nothing to do with Sumerians in origin. Such a claim, namely Urmia being originally Sumerian, just reminds me of Pan Turkish craps pretending many various civilizations (from Parthians to Sumerians) to be Turkish, whilst providing nothing outside of whimisical notions instead of scientific material. For more information about the origin of the city please check up The Bronze Age of Iran and The Iron Age of Iran both written by the Iranian archaeologist Dr. Hassan Talai. The Urmia Pottery Tradition, for instance, is absolutely unique and distinguishable from lets say that of typically Sumerian areas.

By the way for the seemingly ever-devastating racial conflicts, which are unfortunately very common within Middle East, I can tell that if I'm not mistaken some 5 years ago after a secterian quarrel, particularly between Shiite Azeris and Sunnite Kurds, in a highschool which resulted in a murder; the authorities ran a census amongst Muslim students within the urban area and allegedely the results gave 55% sunnites and 45% shiites. I unfortunately cannot provide any data on this since its result was secret and I just relate the hearsay. From my personal experience I always hold that the city is a little bit mostly populated by Azeris while regarding to the county, including the surrounding rural areas, the Kurdish populace outnumbers that of Azeri. Although in the recent years many Kurdish individuals have headed all the way to the urban areas and thus you may feel the Kurdish tone of the city more and more.--Kak Language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.13.151 (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

As long as I know majority of the population in Urmia are Azeri. The name of the province, West Azerbaijan, shows this fact. I don't know why the person who provided the content insist to show that the Kurds are majority. I believe we should provide accurate information instead of insisting on opinions without any proof.

The Name Westazerbaijan is given to this Region after the fall of the republic Mahabad it is nothing more than a political Term rather having to do with Azeris. the Big Majority of so called Westazerbaijan is kurdish this is a fact never heared about Azeris in Mahabad. Simar--84.58.181.111 (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.181.111 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do not deny existance of Kurds in Urmia but I am 100% sure that the majority of the population are Azeri Turks. And Turks and Kurds live peacefully in the West Azerbaijan Province.

Thank you.

I don´t know what you mean with Anti-Muslim Assyrians. However here read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Mahabad I don´t deny that Urmiye isa mixed city between Azeris and Kurds but the Kurds make the majority in Urmiye and definitly the majority in so called "Westazerbaijan.Simar--84.58.181.111 (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.181.111 (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

You think your turkish is better than me!!! ok, ok... then I should explain some thing about kurdish accent, if a kurd wants to pronaunce the word Saggiz, he says saggez, and saggiz means EIGHT.

LOL LOL LOL is here someone trying to tell us that the City Saqqez(in Persian), Sêwiye (in Kurdish) which Name comes from the Skythian Dynasty, whom called themself Saka and where Kurds make the majority is actually Azerbaijanian because saqqiz means eight in turkish???? between I also speak turkish sekiz is the word for eight not saqqiz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.181.111 (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I like how ignorant some people are (And to everybody's amazement these are the ones who want to edit wikipedia articles). Kurds are not Scythians, Scythians were an east Iranian people whereas Kurds speak a northwestern Iranian language.حضرت محمود (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am afraid "Hazrat" that the Scythian proper, in case of Kurdish langugae, plays a no doubt pivotal role. Retention of ancient initial "ch-" (such as "chin", cf. Scythian "chu-", Ossetic "tsu-", but Parthian "shaw-" ~ "to go"), ancient "-t-" (such as "chitir" and "kat" vs. Parthian "chihr" and "gah" meaning "face"/"race" and "time"/"place" respectively), and occasional change of initial "b-" to "w-" (such as "werz" ~ "high"/"tall" vs. Parthian "berz") illustrates a serious Northeastern, Scythian in particular, impact on Kurdish. An influence which is just intensified by some exclusive lexical similarities such as Kurdish "zivir" and Sogdian "zyvar" ~ "return" (< Ancient Iranian "uz" + "verte"). I hopefully presume that since talking about the Northwestern Iranian languages then you are already aware that Parthian, which stands away from Kurdish in the aforesaid examples, is a sheer northwestern Iranian language.

Although I hate it most to observe ignorance but on one term I agree with u : peoples with zero scientific knowledge and the vaguest competency edit entries which are supposed to carry scientific significance and thus reliability. Undoubtedly this is why Wikipedia is Wikipedia! (Kak_Language 11:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kak Language (talk • contribs)

I didn't ignore your rights too, I have kurd friends and I respect their cultural and political rights, but you shouldn't be so extermist. Ignoring Turk population of W.Az. doesn't help you.

In your last edit on Urmia you give this data: turks 50%, kurds 50% and 40% christian. we know that most of christians of urmia are armenians not turks nor kurds....then urmia is 140% !!!!!!

Migrants have rights as well as original settelers, but they can't change the history. in most of your articles , you claimed that W.Az cities are originally kurdish!!!

changing the facts ....Does it work? I don't think so.

what happens if kurds establish their own country? 1-Economy of kurdistan will be worse. United Iran has oil and more, but kuristan is a province with no significant mines and oil production or factories or Farmlands.

But why kurdistan economy is poor? the central government does not like to develop factories in kurdistan because of several crisis and wars happened in this area.

Please note that: All iran ppl are in poor condition. ok, there is significant difference between Isfahan and sanandaj, but kurds are not innocent in this progress. Most of them have strong desire to establish their own state, then kurdistan is an unstable area for economy.

Please send your answers to my own talk page, if you want to discuss more. --Dr.Hamed 22:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your answer.

1. Is it srange that my turkish be better than yours?!
2. saqez; the word Saqez here means GUM . And I should explain some thing about saqez. if you study a litle about kurdish language and its pronounciation you will see that it has the ability to pronounce many other languages for exemple Kurdish language, So I mean kurdish speakng people can pronounce the Turkish words saqiz (gum) and sekiz (eight) with no problem (maybe UNLIKE persian speakings) so the way they pronounce it as saqiz has a logic meaning beacause of many trees who produce gum in that region (around city of Saqiz).
3. There are (and have been) enough sources to ptrove Kurds have been in thousand years in this province (area). But in fact this is your claim that is strange!
4. About Kurdish Question I do not think so because kurds do NOT love war, blood and fighting they have been forced to defend themselves because of unjust condition and situation in which they are. In fact this is the faschist goverments and regimes of the Middle East who are not innocent not this oppressed ethnic group (as well as other ones).
5. I see all of iranians are in poor comditions.
6. About political topics I do not like to discuss in Wikipedia.

Thank You

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.43.53 (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply 

 Diyako Talk + 23:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

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. Heja Helweda 22:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Assyria should be removed and replaced with Assyrian (people) Chaldean 22:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Some 15 years ago Urmia in Iran was a half-Kurdish, half-Azeri town. Now it is almost totally Kurdish [1]. Heja Helweda 00:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Presently in and around Uromiyeh over 90% of the population is Azeri, followed by a large Kurdish community, and smaller Armenian, Assyrian and Persian communities. 1 A more neutral source.

Your source Azerb.com, an Azeri source, is definitely not neutral . There are hundreds of Kurdish sources claiming the same overwhelming majority for Kurds. We need a neutral source, neither Azeri nor Kurdish.Heja Helweda 15:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Azeri sources should be treated just like other sources -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 00:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Neutral source provided. [2] SouthernComfort 02:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

As im living in this city i see and i know that azeris are more than kurds as everybody knows urmia called azerbaijan so it wont be kurd's city and population of azeri people is more than kurds Hojjat-yousefi (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am utterly impressed and even more appaled by the fact those who claim to stand for the promotion and protection of Iranian values constantly pursue an anti-Aryan/Iranic/Kurdish policy in editing posts. Now it is an obvious and inevitable fact that Kurds comprise half if not the majority of the city of Urmia, yet this continues/un-ending pursuet to turn this city-on the net-into a "90% Turkic habitat". This is beyond academic honest/integrity and is thus a disgrace to the field of anthropology. What is amusing/tragicomic is that those who explicitly declare themselves to be Zoroastrians are doing their best to promote this city as Turkic and even Semitic without emphasising the grandiose population of Kurds(the true descendents of the Aryan tribes-the real Iranians). Shame upon you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.175.162 (talk • contribs)

In the district (shahrestan) Orumiyeh, virtually all the villages are Kurdish. But the city itself at least in the last 80 year was more Azeri speaking. But since the city has grown and incorporated many of the surrounding towns and villages which are virually all Kurdish, it seems that it is hard to tell. Specially the migrations from many villages in to the towns have been significant all across Iran and Umria is no expection. The majority of villages in West Azarbaijan are indeed Kurdish, but the town Urmia historically was more Azeri. Also The Kurdish birth-rate is much higher and this has also lead the city/province to seem perhaps majority Kurdish. Although it must be emphasized that many Kurds also speak Azeri Turkish as well as Persian. So actual statistics are hard to come by for now.

--Ali doostzadeh 06:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

we know that urmia is an ethnically diverse city, But the majority of Urmia ppl r ethnically Azeris. I had replaced incorrect data which have no reliable reference with the correct data with cited refrences. but Mr or miss 69....(teh ip address) removed them all and wants me to explan here!!!

It's strange that he or she accepts the incorrect and uncited information as a base and does not pay attention to refrences.

Though I want to explain the problem more here:

Any one who visited Urmia knows that the majority of this city are azeri ppl. Urmia is capital of West Azerbaijan province, and the name "azerbaijan" can help u finding the truth out.

The only cited refrence which claims that "majority in urmia is now kurds" is Yuri Nabiev's article about kurds.this article is not about urmia. Nabiev only noted in a sentece that Urmia is almost totally kurdish now. Nabiev's article cannot be reliable by itself due to his ethnicity (he is a kurd originally) and u can see he's nationalist tendency in his site http://www.kurdistan.ru/ I don't mean he is not right because he is a kurd, but I think an article by a kurd is not sufficient to prove that kurds make the majority of Urmia. If u visit the city or visit other refrences (search them in www) u can simply find out the truth.

Here are some refrences that say 90% of Urmia ppl r Azeris:

http://lexicorient.com/e.o/orumiyeh.htm http://www.travel-images.com/az-uromiyeh.html http://www.irantravelingcenter.com/orumieh_rezaieh.htm.

you know Urmia,orumieh and orumiyeh are the same.--Dr.Hamed 12:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also , Parviz Fattah (an example for urmia ppl) is an azeri and it's another reason

Dear Hamed, You said "the name "azerbaijan" can help u finding the truth out". Alas, this is a very absurd and illogical remark, for the name "azarbaijan" is a non-Turkic name that can be traced back to pagan times in ancient Persia. As for the sources you provided, they are old and hence not credible. It is the overall view that the majority of the inhabitants of the West Azerbaijan province are now Kurds. I would like to refer you to Ali Doostzadeh's aforementioned scribbles wherein he quite skillfully elaborated on the current demographics of the city. Until you come up with an up-to-date and credible source of information, I will have to resort to utilising the previous content. Also, the fact that you declare yourself to be an Azari puts you in a biased position.

PS, What in the world prompted you to delete the content about the Assyrian and Armenian inhabitants of the city? This is deemed vandalism and will not be tolerated here.

Shahram12 17:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear shahram

I'll forget about all my refrences, if You provide me some reliable refrences (except Nabiev's article) which says Urmia is almost TOTALLY KURDISH NOW. you are in canada, far away urmia, but I'm here and I touch the fact. kurd population in this city is growing up but urmia is azeri populated city yet

Dear Hamed,

Let me assure you that despite my presence in Canada, I have quite an extensive knowledge about the city of Urmia, as can be implied by my previous contributions (the educational institutions, museums, hotels, etc.). Let me also add that I did not provide the link of Nabiev's essay. I only contributed by making some grammatical/spelling changes to make the overall Urmia-article look more academic. Frankly, the arguements made by both sides(Kurds and Azeris) seem unrealistic. No ethnicity constitutes more than 90% of the city.

The problem is that both Kurdish and Azeri nationalists seem to have turned Wikipedia into a battle ground by altering the facts to their own political/ideological purposes. But this goes against academic honesty. The other problem is that the Iranian Government does not seem to publish census results based on ethnicities. Hence, we are not in a position to make reliable assertions about the demographics of the city. And I, for one, cannot change the information in order to make one party content.

Nonetheless, I agree that Nabiev's article may be biased. If there's concensus we may have to remove that. Shahram12

Nothing but a Joke!

kurds are majority in urmia?!! are you joking? i live in tabriz but i travel alot to urmia and khoy(xoy), because im studing in khoy azad university where i have friends from qoshachay(miandoab) and dash maki too.kurds live in rural parts of urmia and everyone, even in sanandaj knows that azeris are in majority in urmia but kurdish nationalists likes to live in their dreams however, plus u can hardly find any kurd in xoy.maybe these kurd nationalists should see khordad protests in urmia. i doubt any of these kurds even have been to urmia, they just look at democrat party's maps and think everyone in urmia is kurd.

Hello dears.I live in Urmia.this city is ethically dicerse but Azeris are majority.Kurds and Armenians and Assyrians are minority.Please check this in this pagehttps://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_ethnic_composition_of_the_population_of_West_Azerbaijan_Province.PNG#mw-jump-to-license Aryann2656Doc (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am from Urmia and I like kurdish people.But please write the facts. I invite you to Urmia and to see the facts.

The dominant language of the city is Azerbaijani (turkish) because other groups speak it at their communication with other people of the city.

I've reverted your edits because you removed a source and generally left the article with multiple grammar mistakes. Please don't remove sources in the future unless you can disprove their authenticity.

Do have any credible sources to back your claims about Azerbaijani being the dominant language? --334 12:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

also there was a research 6 years ago (2001) showed that the 85% of the samples were azeris(turks).

Offcourse today the population of kurds is increased.there is not a new research about the population of the city, but I think any new researches may show the 25%-30% for kurds with including the country(nearby places)and villages.

We do not need to prove a subject or thing that is very clear and Urmia is one of them, please do not write biased about Urmia`s population and people if you have not been in Urmia or have not seen that. --Siavash515 10:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Siavash, please don't move your edit to the top of the page. New topics are placed at the bottom of a talk page. Also, your claim that you've been to Urmia is no relevance as Wikipedia has a policy of no original research. If there was a census taken that showed 85% of the population were Azeri, show it. --334 14:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I prepared my reference.(منبع: فرهنگ جغرافیایی شهرستانهای کشور شهرستان ارومیه، انتشارات سازمان جغرافیایی نیروهای مسلح، تهران ۱۳۷۹ ص۲۳۹). This is the only research on Urmia`s groups.all other articles are unreliable because they are only estimations. --Siavash515 07:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know that you want to show Urmia more kurdish and I know that you never been in Urmia,I recommend you to call a kurd in Urmia and ask him about the facts because the facts are very clear and we do not need discussion.

I deleted data from nabiev's article-urmia is totally kurdish now- because its fact and neutrality is disputed. (Nabiev is kurd, and we have many references indicating that majority of urmia people are azeris(http://lexicorient.com/e.o/orumiyeh.htm http://www.travel-images.com/az-uromiyeh.html http://www.irantravelingcenter.com/orumieh_rezaieh.htm) But I will not write anything about azeri dominance avoiding edit-wars.

I've switched on semi-protection for this page. There is uncertainty among users about the ethnic makeup of Urmia and this is spiralling into an edit war. Many of those involved are annonymous users or those with newly created accounts. These users seem to have no regard for Wikipedia policy, neutrality or the overall aims of this project, but simply wish to represent their views to the exclusion of others here. Semi-protection stops these users from editing the article. My hope is that a few days of semi-protection will calm things down here, allow us to discuss the points that have been raised and include good points in this article. I also hope that those who are simply trying to disrupt the project will get bored and move off. — Gareth Hughes 12:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The word kurds is prior to azeris every where in people`s subject change their places in some places for justice.

add other spellings of urmia in main page like: Orumieh,Orumyeh,Orumiyeh,orumieh,ormieh,ormia... because people use them in their searches. --Siavash515 07:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

There are eleventy billion variations in the spelling of "Urmia". The one used already is by far the most common. It's really unnecessary to have all the variations on the article page; just have them be redirects. --334 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

the reason is mentioned in previous section by other user.

If we have the other spellings of urmia be redirects can people find this page in their searches? if your answer is no we have to add popular spellings to main page. --Siavash515 06:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why would people use "search" first before "go"? Besides, if they use search, the top of the page will say "You searched for Orumieh", then when Orumieh is clicked, it will take you to Urmia. Really, it's just taking an extra unnecessary step. --334 13:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

On official Iranian documents like passports the Romanian name is spelled as "Oroumiyeh". Although other names are used in publications, the official one is Oroumiyeh and I think we should stick to the official one. 90.181.66.134 (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

There has been no census on ethnicity bases in Iran in recent decades, so all the refrences for who is got the number is baseless realy. Mehrdad 19:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

All right everybody, just take a moment to think how silly it is to revert the text that basically says the same thing just in different order ("Kurdish and Azeri" vs. "Azeri and kurdish"). This is really childish! Arash the Bowman 13:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Anyone taking part in this revert war must be a child, because this is so childish! I can't believe this, who cares whose first and whose second! Sheesh! Fine, I'll just put Kurds first on some of them, and I'll put Azari first on the others. Children....just act your age!Khosrow II 21:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

It should just be alphabetical, therefore, Azeri before Kurd. In the opening line, the non-English names are arranged alphabetically (Persian is first since it's in Iran). --334 22:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

These users who are fighting over it wont accept that, so i just made 2 of the links starting with kurd, and the other 2 links starting with Azari.Khosrow II 22:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please do not insert POV and OR in the article. Also, saying that Kurds are rich because they are active in illegal smuggling is kind of racist.Hajji Piruz 23:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Urmíe can hardly have a population of 90% Azeri, I mean come on this can't be serious. We just don't know how many percent are azeris, kurds or christian but 90% azeri is just ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.211.101.249 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have heard from local people that 90% is high. However, unless we have no reference we cann't change the current number which is sourced. If you bring a reliable reference. We will change it--Larno Man (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

This sentence is meanless:

"Urmia is now concidered as a part of Eastern Kurdistan and is a very important city to the Kurds".

Who did this division? All cities are important to people who live in them. This city could be supposed to be a part of south Azerbaijan, West Turkey and... . so I don't see any writing this meanless sentence just in the introduction part of city, please remove it!

There is an association in the United States that is called the University Risk Management and Insurance Association or URMIA for short. Is it possible to get a link to URMIA from the Urmia page so that should anyone look us up using URMIA, there will at least be a link to our page? URMIA will do the same I'm sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birtanish (talk • contribs) 17:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

My mother and father were Assyrians. My mother's village was Urmia. They told us they fled from invading Kurds and were married quickly before saying a final farewell to my mom's dad and my father's mother, became refugees traveling on foot and horseback. The Catholics helped them. Eventually they boarded a ship in India, traveled to (I think) Japan, to Angel Island in San Francisco, CA. and settled in the Central Valley of California, USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.123.214 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The second part of the following claim (about the Russian author) in the text of the article is to be doubted: The "Provincial Geographical Dictionary of Iran" (Teheran, 2001).[9] provides a figure of 85.7% for the Azeris and 10.5% for the Kurds in the city today. Allegedly a Russian author would have called these findings "ludicrous".[10] 10.^ S.I. Bruk, Narody Peredney Azii (1960); S.I. Bruk, and V. S. Apenchenko, Atlas Narodov Mira (Moscow: Academy of Science, 1964); A. Gabriel, Religionsgeographie von Persien (Vienna, 1971).

The claim cites reference 10 as its sources, but the 3 books listed are 40 to 50 years out of date; there is no way this "Russian author" (which is actually cited as 3 different people) could call a 2001 study of the region "ludicrous" in a book from 50 years ago. I'm petitioning someone with the appropriate priviliges to remove it.

This claim is also out of place: There are claims by Kurdish nationalists that there would be no trustworthy statistics on the ethnic composition of the city or "all that is available are just estimates, and often not so educated."[13]13.^ http://looklex.com/e.o/orumiyeh.htm

There is nothing listed in reference 13 that would imply this. This claim seems to be fabricated and a reference cited in order to legitimize it.

Also, reference 11 (columbia online encyclopedia) is not yet linked but can be linked to as: http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/urmia.jsp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lardman64 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

In history section it is claimed that " Eventually the city was reportedly sacked and destroyed by the Seljuk Turks in 1184." I find this assertion highly questionable. Because Seljuk Empire which was once master of Urmia was in ruins by 1184. An expert may clarify the issue. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I would just like to comment about the discussion about Urmia's Kurdish/Turkish/Chritian population. I agree that the majority of Urmia's population might be Turks (azeri), as mentioned in an article before, and of course and there are also Kurds and Christians there live side by side in a peaceful place. But one thing that makes me to think was that the majority of West Azebajiajn province seems to be Kurds, refering to the existence of The Republic of Mahabad 1945, were that place belonged to the Kurdistani Republic of Mahabaa, although there was another Azebaijani Republic in Tabriz at that time that had agreed to the Kurdistani republic Of Mahabad that Urmia will belong to them, with all human and cultural respect to the Azeris and Chritians, just the history mentioning of course. And of course Urmia is the city of brotherhood of Azeri, Kurds and Christians. And there was also deportion of Kurds by the irani goverment some 50 years ago, buting some million Kurds i the Khorasan province north of the persian city of Mashhad, and most of that Kurds were from the Urmia are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.43.53 (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

first of all, I think both Turks and Kurds should accept each other as their neighbor/friend/citizen/... and this should be the base of any helpful discussion. any other assumption will be nonsense and I think won't lead to an helpful discussion. As a foreign spectator (which may not completely foreign but I'll try to be unbiased here however I'm a Kurd...) and may not with in depth spectrum of the subject, I can say something that in 70% of the cases two parts doesn't pay attention to the fact that you/we should accept some facts which one of the very primitive is the existence of both ppl/culture/language in the region. and second the modern (or even post-modern) way of thinking among men. We're living in totally different era, (just take glance to Europe or North America as an example...) people usually couldn't reach a compromise over mostly dialectic and usually fallacious discussions and reasonings. and each just express his/her thoughts without any burnish or let to be polished by some criticism. isolate mono-logs with their one-sided and totally biased followers....

• the fact is usually the truth is something mix, many sided, and maybe always vague. don't expect any clear and deterministic resolution for such things. and won't believe any final solution or reason. let your mind open to changes

• our history, as the people of middle east, are much complicated and disputed than any other region. there is many reason and as previous fact, prone to controversy. but I believe if you look more precisely to the way of thinking/governing/communicate in the region you will find "the Pattern"!. look at our history!!!!! {Turks,Kurds,Iran,...} there is more than 10 versions of them. you can not neither prove nor reject them totally {actually because it just use a part of a reality for its justifications}. I think this is not the matter of truth to choose one of your version as logical, desired, or any other thing; actually it's the way of your thinking/philosophy and actually your taste of politics which determine the historical version that would be desirable. being Religious, Nationalist, Liberal, Pro-West, Pro-Iran/Turk/Azeri/Kurd/Persian,..., or belonging to educated, bazaar, non-educated, villagers, reach, poor,... all are the actual (and usually psychological) roots of the way how one person arrange his/her justifications {don't be sure about reasons :D}.

• according the previous fact We (especially our intellectuales and historian} have not seat and talk about these things to make it more clear, yet. every group are just developing their ideas and if you pay more attention you can't find any long-term academic conversation about these subjects. this is not just about Turks/Persion/Kurds/Arminians/.... this is common in may other aspects of our life. I just seeing contentions. there is no talk {especially in the contemporary meaning}.

• the fact is that the Kurds should admit the Turkish/Azerbaijani/Azeri {whatever you like upon your political taste :D} spirits of many cities of the province, especially the Urmia. this shows the Turkish majority of the city. and this is why many Kurds in the city speaks Turkish. this is because they're naturally adopting themselves to the conditions {and turks should be welcome to this}.

Pay attention that this is independent of the Past or history. whatever the history be this city is mainly Turkish city.

• another fact is Urmia fate, history, and reality is convolved with existence of their minorities especially the Kurds. many friend or citizen from this side should accept the reality that Kurds are exist. and they can't draw wall or any other separation or barrier to this. there is many villages around the city which had Kurdish inhabitants and now they're part of the city. I think we should accept the fact that Urmia has been place on or clearly close the demographic borders. fortunately Urmia has been well documented in the past and if you be fair, I'm sure you (both kurd and turks) will find the track of each other around.

• It's non-sense to "Just" judge the history based on the language and especially "The names". It's is a very common fallacy that you just judge on part of the truth. As far as I read history of this region you have all beautiful ingredients of this mosaics. I don't want to talk about the exact borders which I don't know but to me it's very clear that this region {in the scale of W.Azerbaijan province} you can find all these ingredients at least for 1000 year co-existance. "So there is long history of co-existence" . neither Kurds nor Turks can deny this existence. btw, pay attention to more global point of view, you must consider the neighboring demography of Turkey, Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, E.Azerbaijan and Armenia. you can't think of west Azerbaijan as something demographically isolated from its neighbors. I think this has been missed in many claims. It's funny to me to isolate the region and actually provide some justification {usually due to racism}.

another thing is the battle of names. there are many alternative names for cities in any language {don't make justification, plz}, but you can't just judge over these fact. actually the name separately can not be the base for preferring or making a conclusion in history e.g. the name of Tabriz isn't turkish but their people are. or the name of Kermanshah (my hometown) was being called qarra-may-seen {a turkish name} but there is no historian to claim Turkish identity of the city. also there is a river in the city very much alike "Shahr-Chay" which is called "Qarra-Soo" {another Turkish name}....and blah blah ....

• another fact is "Past is Past", we have passed the age of tribal wars, and tribal identity {we're as a 3rd world nation may not :D}. I don't talk about Iran,... I just saying that we shouldn't see each other in "Tribal Point of View". I'm ok with controversy about different languages and identities in Iran, and I'm not advocating the central theory of defining iran. I don't talk about that, I just want to emphasize on humanity. and have more humanistic point of view when we talk to each other. " Past is Past" to me means whatever the history was we should pay attention to this fact that we're living in new era which give every human being (and actually living being) its principal rights which are, freedom and dignity. I just want to take your attention more to the other aspect of this co-existence. See European Union I mean that {at least in humanity point of view}. this is because "Past is Past". Nationalism, Racism, Tribalism, and any other form of Fascism (e.g ^_^)... will have a serious effect on our society. keep in mind that we can't take "Culture" from these. There is need to talk about this issues, but there is the necessity to understand that friendly talk is quiet possible. we just should pay more attention to ourself. Land isn't holy the holy things are people...we should take our focus to people, the ourselves.

We'll live together, we're becoming more and more closer. I hope to have more peaceful,friendlier, and happier society then. S_MasterGeek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.15.2 (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

guys,please calm down,i'm half-breed kurd and half-breed turk(azeri),please don't be racist,urmia is a city of love,paris of middle east,please respect each other.we should accept that majority is azzeri,but kurd are 2nd or 3rd ethnic group in the region,for me,all these thing shows the weakness of these groups,that you come to here and change thing way you imagine they are,please don't troll the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamyarg (talk • contribs) 02:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Kamyarg, thanks for your writing. Honestly, my wife is herself from Ghorveh in Kurdistan where people are also mixed of Azari and Kurds. It's only Iranians from abroad (E.U and U.S.A) or foreigners that spread insults and destroy articles to win (what?) for their personnal cause. As for the demographic data, university in IRAN itself states that Azaris and Kurds are almost at the same proportion, even though I believe too that Azaris are slightly more numerous in this province. But who cares finally? The essential is that they live toghether and without problems. Sincerely yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.74.140.242 (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I made some corrections to "Etymology", "Parks and Touristy Centers", "Languge", and "Ethnography" section". I also added the Kurdish pronunciation of the city name, which was discriminately omitted, since Kurdish is spoken by a significant number of the citizens and there is no rationale to disregard it.--Kak_Language 21:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from using assumptions "Kurdish is spoken by a significant number of the citizens". That is your assumption and opinion. This is an encyclopaedia with rules and guidelines. Wikipedia guidelines state that unless the name is pronounced similarly, there is no need to rewrite it for other local dialects. For example, Alman and German are different, then you can write both names for both languages. But Ormia, Urmia, Oourmia or Ooooormia, are all the same, thereby the national/parent language is only required. With the English article, only 2 names are required, if different, the English, and the local. Otherwise we can carry on rewrite the name 10 times for all the regional accents that exist. And as a personal note to yourself, Kurdish itself has become a language with differences, Iraqi Kurdish is totally different to Iranian Kurdish and Turkish Kurdish, I can't understand a word the Iraqi Kurds say, and always remember, Kurdish, New Persian and Azari all stem from one past, and that is Old Persian:Avesta and Sanskrit. The Kurdish language can only be traced back 300-400 years, whereas, New/Old Persian is traced upto 3000 years in all of the Caspian regions including Ormia. Stop trying to use Wikipedia as a means of making political rants. --94.195.194.144 (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please cite reliable data either from the UN or the Iranian government regarding local lingual diversities. A language is not the same as a dialect; the author demonstrates poor understanding of the English language and has produced a non-referenced opinionated political rant probably for personal political satisfaction. There are plenty of statistics out there that can be cited, all regarding the region. Please remember, Wikipedia guidelines state that if the country is a member of the UN, the countries own data must be used over tertiary sources. If the author fails to cite and provide a fair and partial non-opiniated writing regarding the local lingual demographics, the whole section will be removed or rewritten using data from the United Nations and the Iranian governments annual demographic datasheets. The Iranian languages section is a good start. --94.195.194.144 (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Informations being added by DragonTiger23 is very misleading to say the least. To start with the "22 February" and "ruining the city" are mentioned in two different paragraphs but DragonTiger23 made a clear WP:SYNTH by combining them as to show that one resulted from the other. Back to 22 February 1918, the EOI is very vague on what happened on this day since it is all mentioned in a few words, literally: "massacre of the Muslims of Urmiya by the Christians on 22 February 1918", the EOI also gets a few other facts wrong such as the date of Mar Shimun's assassination. Those events are described in lengthy details in other more specialised books, including the ones I used, there they clearly state that the it was the Christian quarter that have been attacked in 18 February.[3][4][5][6] As a matter of fact Urmia never witnessed a Muslim massacre, Kasravi's quote never mentions Urmia, this is made clear by other sources that elaborate more on the events following Mar Shimun's assassination stating that massacres and counter-massacres took place in Salmas and Khoi.[7] The section needs to remain as concise as possible not to give it undue weight, it doesn't make sense to have half the history section covering four years. Cherrypicking for sources to support a POV is not acceptable. The overwhelming majority of scholars describe the events generally as massacres against Christians,[8][9][10][11][12][13] genocide scholars haven't hesitated to call these massacres "Genocide".--Kathovo talk 12:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

So funny..... you are making original research and WP:SYNTH. Why are you removing sourced information? Why are you deleting that also Muslims were massacred? You are accusing me of cherry picking, but I did not delete anything about massacres against the Christians. I have only added information about against Muslims with SOURCES but you deleted them. You have to read the links you gave because they also mention that Muslims were massacred not only in Urmia but also in the surrounding region of Urmia. So it seems according to the sources that there was an inter ethnic conflict (Also between Muslims themselves Kurds-Persian Azeris) in the Urmia region during WW1. Coupled with famine and disease this probably resulted in large number of casualties for all inhabitants. But the article only mentions Assyrians as victims. This is not neutral, the other inhabitants are neglected.

So what I did was adding the neglected populations here but you remove that. So who is POV here?

This source clearly says that there was a massacre against the Muslims on February 22 1918. But it seems we need more sources and information on the massacre I think there is few information because the victims are not Christians so they do not deserve to be mentioned especially in a conflict between Muslim and Christian. Most of the information about the Christian massacres comes from American Christian missionaries, who obviously are not 100% neutral and are biased against the Muslim population. Maybe there are Persian sources about this subject we should use them.DragonTiger23 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

These were the sentences and sources which I added:

After the breakdown of the Russian authority in 1917 there were vengeance attacks by Christians on Muslims, Muslims crowded onto the Russian consulate's grounds for safety.^[1] Online

The Russian Refugee Council implored the Russian army to adopt "extreme measures for the cessation of the violence perpetrated by Christians against the Muslim population".^[2] Online

On February 22 1918 the Muslim population was massacred by the Assyrians, after the war the city was ruined and depopulated.^[3] Online

The original sentence was this: "After a series of tragic and bloody events (Massacre of the Muslims of Urmiya by the Christians on Feb. 22, 1918, the assasination of patriarch Mar Shimun by followers of the Kurd chief Simko on Feb. 25, the arrival of 20,000 Armenian refugees from Wan, fights between Assyrians and Turks), all the Assyrian population collected in the plain of Urmiya and to the number of 50-70,000 set out for the south to put themselves under British protection. .........The peace found Urmiya in ruins and depopulated.

Ahmad Kasravi wrote in his book (The 18 Year History of Azarbaijan) that 10,000 Muslims were killed.^[4] OnlineDragonTiger23 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well of course there were instances of violence against Muslims, jut as other Christians showed surprising benevolence towards their enemies. I just don't think such meticulous details should be included when whole centuries are abbreviated into several sentences. You can create an article named Western Azerbaijan during the First World War if you are interested in documenting these details from that period.--Kathovo talk 21:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would argue that the more details as possible the better, but Im sure no one cars anymore because its 4 and half years later. [1/4/2018]

Britannica clearly declares Turks as the majority and other ethnicities as minorities. Please refrain from manipulating such a WP:RS with such a weak source as askdefine! What is this website? --,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Neither askdefine nor the Britannica should be used. The Britannica is a WP:Tertiary source and has been discussed here.[14]. Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Askdefine uses various sources, including Wikipedia - the page that was cited here is a copy of an old version of this article from 2008. Peter James (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Dougweller The discussion is too long and has no clear result. where was it indicated that EB is not reliable for such a topic? Is it unreliable because it is tertiary? Has any reliable sources provided information contradicting what EB says on this issue? I will keep searching and I think Encyclpadia must have extensive information on this. --,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, one reason is that it is a tertiary source. Another is that the online edition (which is the only current one) is also edited by readers. It has articles which are written from an obvious pov - [15] looks like it might have been written by a devotee - and is unsigned. Most of our RSN threads don't have an official conclusion, but one editor wrote "I believe noone will object if I summarise the dispute as follows: whereas the EB articles authored by reputable scientists or scholars can be used as a source for Wikipedia in the absence of better sources, it would be desirable to replace them with references to reliable secondary sources when such possibility exists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:59 am, 18 February 2012, Saturday (1 year, 4 months, 28 days ago) (UTC+0) (@ Fifelfoo) During famines, not only dogs eat dogs, but even humans eat humans, so, whereas EB should be avoided, in the absence of better sources it is better then nothing. By writing that, I, however, do not support the idea to use EB in parallel with reliable mainstream secondary sources. When such sources are available, EB can and should be removed." And no one did object. Even sources that meet our criteria need to be used carefully. For an issue like this, I'd argue that you need a source that includes a recent census. And note that there are now several editors who agree. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

census in Iran do not study ethnicities. All claims on this are estimations. --,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's right - and what makes you think the EB is correct? According to [16], "Some 15 years ago Urmia in Iran was a half-Kurdish, half-Azeri town. Now it is almost totally Kurdish". Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Because I thought that EB is one of the best known international encyclopedias, it is the first time I see that sb says it is not reliable. I could not understand a RS to be put alongside askdefine. If you really have other sources which are reliable, I do not have any problem with what they say.,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

please check this:c

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_ethnic_composition_of_the_population_of_West_Azerbaijan_Province.PNG#mw-jump-to-license

Urmia has 5 parts that Urmia city is located at one of Azeri parts.Historically, geographically, and demographically, Urmia is Azeri with minotity of Kurdish and Armenian and Assyrian people Aryann2656Doc (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Urmia is predominantly Azeri. please this sources;→ [17]--thanks188.245.11.168 (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

http://www.lesley.edu/uploadedImages/Pub/Journals/Media/figure-2.jpg?n=7245 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdi habib (talk • contribs) 10:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

All Iranian passports I've seen have 'oroumieh' as english place of birth. The same goes with offical translations done through registered english translators. Wikipedia won't let me upload a scan of my passport for unknown reasons. But I can send photo if required I suggest this spelling to be mentioned on top of the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braim (talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello:

I am trying to find out information on the Jewish Cemetery remaining in Urmia. It is my understanding since the 1950's there are no jews remaining (most left in the 1920's), but one muslim family were kind enough to become caretakers of the cemetery. A few questions.

Does anyone know the name of the cemetery?

Is there are a street address or intersection for it?

Does anyone know who the caretakers are?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidYedidya (talk • contribs) 02:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

What about the jews that were there? א. א. אינסטלציה (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please ADD this in the climate section:

Being on the downwind and rain shadow side of the Zagros mountains, its winters are relatively drier and less snowier than Hakkari's (to the west) in southeastern Turkey due to the foehn effect.^[1] 106.69.133.6 (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Done // Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 23:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

In the previous edits which got reverted, I added the name of the city in the Turkish dialects found in Turkey, because I found it noteworthy. The article I used as source is mainly about a type of mulberry found in the region of Maraş, Gaziantep, Adıyaman called "Urmu tutu" and where it actually comes from. Relevance is not clearly stated in Wikipedia policies as far as I know and is left to users to determine. I am not adding the name of the city used by a tribe from Papua and New Guinea but from a community that interacted with the city at least through trade and is just a few kilometers away. I'm also willing to reframe this information, so that the information is combined with the prevalence of mulberries in the region and its economic aspect. Otherwise, the page will be prevented from getting expanded. Ayıntaplı (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

You're asking to add an Anatolian Turkish transliteration, a language which never had nor has official status in Iran, nor ever had a historic presence in Iran, just because its mulberries (!) are famous in Turkey. Not in Iran... in Turkey (!). Its completely WP:UNDUE. So no, we're not doing it. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I will not argue further about its addition, but your style appears offensive to me, which I don't like. Could you please take a look at the talk page of the Iranian Azerbaijanis, because I believe there are more major aspects to be considered like the sources not being truthfully reflected? Thank you. Ayıntaplı (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• GHassani20140405 (1).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rahman ghasemlu.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Urmia اورمو یا اورمیه Is absolutely and in nature is a turkic city. The so-called "Orumiyeh" is totally against historical heritage and ancient scholars which devotes this city to turks! 83.120.39.101 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  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. Jamedeus (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply