Misplaced Pages

Talk:Kurds: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:27, 17 January 2015 editAlbinoFerret (talk | contribs)11,178 editsm →Proposal← Previous edit Revision as of 19:16, 20 January 2015 edit undoBawer1 (talk | contribs)84 edits →Proposal 2Next edit →
Line 371: Line 371:
::{{Ping|Bawer1}} I'm sorry that you think I am biased. But once again, arguing against the person (''ad hominem''), is not how we get things done here. Just produce your arguments and sources, and the community will decide. I thought that {{u|DeCausa}} did a great job at including your point of view, as well as the current consensus, which opposes your point of view. Compromise is the best way to go here. Misplaced Pages is not around to only include ]. It should include information that is proportionally representative of multiple views.&nbsp;—]<sub>]/]</sub> 04:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC) ::{{Ping|Bawer1}} I'm sorry that you think I am biased. But once again, arguing against the person (''ad hominem''), is not how we get things done here. Just produce your arguments and sources, and the community will decide. I thought that {{u|DeCausa}} did a great job at including your point of view, as well as the current consensus, which opposes your point of view. Compromise is the best way to go here. Misplaced Pages is not around to only include ]. It should include information that is proportionally representative of multiple views.&nbsp;—]<sub>]/]</sub> 04:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - The first proposition includes both viewpoints in a proportional manner, and this proposal seems to be a bit vague, and moves a bit too far in the other direction. While the ] policy does not require including all points of view, it does require proportional representation of multiple points of view, as evidenced by the sources. The current consensus '''is''' biased, as is this proposal. We should, within reason, be inclusive and representative of the sources.&nbsp;—]<sub>]/]</sub> 04:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC) * '''Oppose''' - The first proposition includes both viewpoints in a proportional manner, and this proposal seems to be a bit vague, and moves a bit too far in the other direction. While the ] policy does not require including all points of view, it does require proportional representation of multiple points of view, as evidenced by the sources. The current consensus '''is''' biased, as is this proposal. We should, within reason, be inclusive and representative of the sources.&nbsp;—]<sub>]/]</sub> 04:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Josh3580 of course you are going to oppose it because you are biased. Despite the fact that I have also provided you with evidence. Not to mention the fact that more people on this talk page agree more with removing the incorrect term of "Iranian." So i don't know why I see no changes? Oh way that is right because you are a biased person who is being told what to do by someone else. That is the only reasonable explanation I can find for your decisions because I cant think of anyone who would deny factual evidenece over and over again if he is not being paid by someone else to do so.


== Kurds are not Iranian. == == Kurds are not Iranian. ==

Revision as of 19:16, 20 January 2015

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one:
  • Denials that the Kurds are Iranian, with claims that they are instead Median or Indo-European. However, the Medians were also Iranian and Iranian is Indo-European, so these denials make little sense.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kurds article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kurds article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconKurdistan Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Misplaced Pages. 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconArmenia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconKurds is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIran Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIraq High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSyria Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconTurkey High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Ismail and Karim Khan

Ismail was from mixed Greek (mother side) and Turkmen (father side) ancestry. The Kurdish ancestry is a very weak link going back to only one ancestor who lived 300 years before his time. He can not be considered Kurdish in any meaningful sense. Please check out the following sources. Ismail was of mixed Turkmen, Greek and distant Kurdish ancestry and his mother tongue was Azeri Turkish. The official language of the his court was also Turkish.

  1. Kissling, H.J.; Spuler, B.; Barbour, N.; Trimingham, J.S.; Braun, H.; Hartel, H. (1997). The Last Great Muslim Empires. BRILL. p. 188. ISBN 9004021043. Ismail must have had much more Turkish and Greek than Iranian blood in his veins, and his mother tongue was an Azeri Turkish dialect; poems, mostly in Turkish, from his pen have been preserved.
  2. Chamber's Encyclopaedia. Vol. 10. New York: International Learnings Systems. 1968. p. 603. ISBN 0-684-10114-9. one-quarter of Ismail's blood was Greek. The home language of the early Safavids was Turkoman Turkish in which Ismail wrote poetry.. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. Towfighi, Parviz S. (2009). From Persian Empire to Islamic Iran: a history of nationalism in the Middle East. Edwin Mellen Press. p. 59. ISBN 0773447792.

So I don't think it is reasonable to include him as a Kurdish personality. He did not speak the language, his immediate ancestors were Turkmen and Greek and his only possible Kurdish ancestor lived 300 years or roughly 10 generations before him. Yes, strictly speaking that may make him less than 0.1 percent Kurdish. So I suggest to remove him from the image gallery.

Regarding Karim Khan's ethnic origins, it is quite disputed and there is no consensus on his Kurdishness.Vekoler (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Karim Khan's origins aren't disputed. He was a Lak, not a Lur, who happened to live in Luristan. His allegiance was solely with his tribe, but Laks are ethnically Kurdish. His classification a Lur is often made because Laks were thought to be a Lurish offshoot, yet linguistic studies have confirmed Laki is more akin to Kurdish. See: Karim Khan Zand: a History of Iran, 1747-1779. Znertu (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The family of Ismail I on his father's side was of Kurdish origin (see bottom). To suggest that he somehow was less than half Kurdish would be original research. And being half Kurdish does make him "Kurdish enough" to be included here. For example, Hosny and Ghalibaf are also included here, despite being half Kurdish. As for Karim Khan Zand, see above. I'm re adding both.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ebn-bazzaz Best, --Spivorg (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"Half being Kurdish does not make him"Kurdish enough"!!! lt is not tied to you. We do not have to add "pure Kurds", "pure Turks" to infobexes. Look at Turkish people. None of them is "pure" Turkish. Tatlitug is Boshniak, Erenler is Arab, Mehmet Oz and Pamuk are Circassians, all the sultans of Ottoman Empire are half Slavic because of their mothers, even Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is not "pure". And also you changed almost all of images, not only these two people's that are not "pure Kurdish". Qazi Mohammad, Nursi, Moshe Barazani, Zaro Agha-world's longest man- etc. With Darin and two lraqi scientists that are not famous at all. Do not change the images just because "you don't like it". There is a wikipedia policy about it, do not forget it. Lamedumal (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: l am not talking about lsmail l. His Kurdish ancestry is controversial. Lamedumal (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
You are misquoting me. Please re-read what I wrote. I did not say "Half being Kurdish does not make him"Kurdish enough"!!!", I said "And being half Kurdish does make him "Kurdish enough" to be included here." That is why I included Ismail I. Now, you claim that I changed most of the images; something I didn't do. I changed around 3/10 of the images, which is far from "almost all of images". Secondly, claiming that Darin isn't famous, but that the ones I removed are (compared to Darin) is wrong. A quick google search for Darin gives me 25 million results, which is much more than Dilsa Demirbag-Sten, Zaro Agha, Said Nursi and Ahmet Kaya put together. Thirdly, the reason I replaced Dilsa Demirbag-Sten and Ahmet Kaya with Bonni and Ala'Aldeen is because of variation. They are both politicians/singers, a reoccurring theme. Fourthly, take a look at the first inclusion of pictures of famous Kurds here. Notice that Darin, Bonni and Ala'Aldeen are all there. So please don't accuse me of changing images because I don't like it. I am, as already stated, adding variation. Fifthly, Moshe Barzani was first and foremost a Jew. Most of the sources I find on google don't even mention that he was Kurdish, but that he was a Jewish immigrant from Iraq. He is far from relevant when it comes presenting Kurds. And at last, I actually thought I included Nursi. I must have removed him without any intention of doing so. So, I will revert your edit, but I will re-add Nursi. I will however wait for a reply (or at least wait a few days) before editing, so we don't end up in an edit war. Best, --Spivorg (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

We DO NOT add people to infobox by looking their "google popularity". Thus, Qazi Mohammad is more important figure than Darin. Moshe Barazani is a Kurdish Jew. "Barazani" is a Kurdish surname. And also we do not have to add "pure" ethnicity here. I gave an example for it(Turkish people). Misplaced Pages is not your kindergarden. Lamedumal (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: lf you really really want to add Darin, Bonni, Fatah etc you can do it without deleting other people such as Qazi Muhammed, Nursi bla bla. Just add them at the bottom. lt is not too hard. And it is a good idea to reach a consensus. Lamedumal (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You say that we shouldn't add by Google popularity, but then what criteria should we use? "Thus, Qazi Mohammad is more important figure than Darin." is not a logical conclusion. You tell me it's a good idea to reach consensus, which is exactly what I'm trying to do, unlike the ones who originally removed Darin, Bonni etc. Don't accuse me of changing the originals. And I am not even talking about pure ethnicity, please don't misquote me. I can't find a reliable source that says Moshe Barzani was Kurdish. Name is not good enough. I don't add Slavs with the name 'Goran' either. You didn't address Ismail I and Karim Zand, so I will be adding them too. Best, --Spivorg (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The image section looks completely messes up now. I propose we use a grid of 5x5 pictures, like it is in most articles of ethnicities, try to use images that actually fit, i.e., aren't wider than they are long, at least. Arrange them by DOB, and then look for a balance in gender, profession/occupation and parts of Kurdistan represented.
-Ziryab likely wasn't Kurdish, but Persian or black African instead
-al-Jazari hailed from a Kurdish region, but we cannot safely say that he wasn't an Arab
-Zaro Aga is not an important figure; Mahwi isn't really well-known either
-There are too many political leaders of the modern era; Qazi Muhammad, Ihsan Nuri, Simko Shikak, Mustafa Yamulki, Mustafa Barzani, Massoud Barzani, Jalal Talabani... Znertu (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


Requested move 23 May 2014

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: page moved. Armbrust 07:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish people → Kurds – Common and standard form. Kurds redirects here as well so I suggest we move it. Jaqeli (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Remove Moshe Barazani

He is Hebrew, not Kurdish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish peshmerga forces and American-backed political order

There's no Moshe Baranzi, there's a Masoud Barzani, he's a Sunni Muslim, and there's no proof he's of Jewish background. P.S Many Jews are of Kurdish background. Guy355 (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2014

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

Musa Obaidi (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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. NiciVampireHeart 16:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Date for oath of Leyla Zana should be changed from1994 to1991.

Saw the date and realized it was probably a typo/incorrect since the oath and arrest were unlikely to occur within 1 month of each other. According to her (Leyla Zana) wiki page she took the oath and caused outrage in 1991. This is confirmed by several internet sites including http://www.nndb.com/people/691/000134289/


SECTION REFFERING TO IS THIS

Leyla Zana, the first Kurdish female MP from Diyarbakir, caused an uproar in Turkish Parliament after adding the following sentence in Kurdish to her parliamentary oath during the swearing-in ceremony in 1994:

I take this oath for the brotherhood of the Turkish and Kurdish peoples. —

In March 1994, the Turkish Parliament voted to lift the immunity of Zana and five other Kurdish DEP members: Hatip Dicle, Ahmet Turk, Sirri Sakik, Orhan Dogan and Selim Sadak. Zana, Dicle, Sadak and Dogan were sentenced to 15 years in jail by the Supreme Court in October 1995.

Hope this helps wiki...

Random U — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.55.112 (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014

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

Please change "....tribal revolt led by Kurdish chieftain Simko Shikak stroke north western Iran....." to "...Shikak struck north..." As a native english speaker this rubbed me the wrong way. William H Shifflette (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor 06:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2014

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

For Nizami Ganjavi as a Kurd there is no reference as he was originally Iranian Miillad (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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. — {{U|Technical 13}} 22:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Problem with other Iranians!

Please don't have blood feud with other Iranians. A whole section is devoted to Ardashir, and then somebody concludes that he was a Kurd himself!! (it really needs not two, but more exclamations points) The reality is that Achaemenidians and Sasanians subjugated all Iranians irrespective of what you like to call them now (Fars, Kurd, Azerbaijani, etc) You making "Kurd" old hard doesn't make it that. Before that in the article, Kurds were made related to Lullubi, Guti, Cyrtians, Carduchi, etc, etc; as if other Iranians are an exception! and they are not related to indigenous Iranian plateau as well as to Arians. Please stop this play.-Raayen (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2014

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

This claim should be removed from the article, History section, Ancient period:

  • At least one author believes Ardashir I to have actually descended from a Kurdish tribe.

Reason: Kaveh Farrokh is not an expert in ancient history. His works are not cited by other well-known experts. Mr. Farrokh's theories are just supported by himself alone. There is no "Kurdish" ethnicity in Ancient Persia. Kurd was a common name for the nomads of Persian empire territory. Farrokh's works are removed from other articles (ancient Persian and ancient Near East-related articles and dynasties). 89.165.98.252 (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Already done Sam 13:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2014

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

at:

Ahl-i Haqq (Yarsan)

change first sentence:
Ahl-i Haqq or Yarsanism is a syncretic religion founded by Sultan Sahak in the late 14th century in western Iran.
into:
Ahl-i Haqq or Yarsanism is a syncretic religion founded by Sultan Sahak in the late 14th century in western Iran.
because:
it's the first sentence to explain that religion and most people have no clue what syncretic means.
77.183.135.82 (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Earliest Mention of Kurds

So the article says: The first attestation of the Kurds was during the time of rule of the Sassanids.

But I was just reading Xenophon's Anabasis, and they travel into the mountains of the Kurds (Karduchians) on their way to the lands of the Armenians. This would have been around 300 BC. Source: http://en.wikisource.org/Anabasis/Book_3/Chapter_5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deinol (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Comprise vs. compose

This article uses the word "comprise(d)" incorrectly. Should be "compose" or similar. For example, Kurdistan comprises parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, not the otherway around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.15.156 (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"Simko Shakak" vs "Ismail I"

The user "ArordineriiiUkhtt" has replaced my displacement of "Simko Shakak" to "Ismail I", on the image template. I think you know that Simko Shakak was an stupid revolt confirmed by Kurds like Mehrdad Izadi; a YAGHI with no clear aim, killing people like Assyrians and Azeris. I think you Kurds don't need to stick to your stupidities in the past as other nations should not do. I think "Ismail I" better reflects your current wise position: "politics".-Raayen (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It was discussed in the talk page and editors reached a consensus to remove it. Because he was only 1/4 Kurdish and therefore not representative. See the archive of talk page to see the discussion. If you want to change Simko Shakak, find another "notable" person instead of Ismail I. Because he was very hybrid. He has Pontic Greek, Kurdish, Georgian and Turkish ancestries. You can add, for instance, Theophobos. As far as I remember he was Kurdish and notable enough. If you find sources to confirm it, feel free to add it. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I respect your opinion and the talk on this above, although it is not conclusive, and seems to me silly. If you want to go for greater Kurds on the image template, "Ismail I" was a greater Kurd than "Simko Shakak". That is what is done in other peoples' articles in Misplaced Pages; greater nationals first. You are doing a grave mistake to distance peoples of close connectivity. That is not good for humanity. How do you know Simko Shakak was more Kurd than Ismail I?! Your criteria seems to be nationalistic or assumed unconfirmed genetics, seemingly due to language, not what people really are; divergent depending on the conditions, taking sides irrespective of what our ideals are nowadays. I tried to add an Arab-Persian called al-Ma'mun to Iranian peoples, and was opposed as you did. That is neither right, nor according to sources and the norm of Misplaced Pages articles that consider people of half blood or 1/4 blood, as you said, belonging to several nations.-Raayen (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ghalibaf

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf isn't Kurdish. He is an Anti-Kurdish Shia from the Persian-speaking region of Mashhad in the Khorasan province. Maybe one of his ancestors was Kurdish but he isn't. I bet no Kurd wants to hear that he is Kurdish and also he doesn't claim that he is kurdish. Please someone remove his name and picture from the list in the article.--193.140.42.137 (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

North Mesopotamian Arabic

Among those Kurds who speak Arabic, is the North Mesopotamian variety the most common one? Furthermore, is North Mesopotamian Arabic spoken primarily by Kurds? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Map of the Median Empire

There is a map of the Median Empire, but the map doesn't seem to relate to anything in the text. I am not taking sides on the Kurds/Medes/Iranians issue, I am just a bit confused about the relevance of this map.46.12.54.46 (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

dilsa demirbag

pls remove her. what's is so special about her? One feels ashamed having her on there when there are so many 10000xxx influential. I mean is this some kind of joeks having her on their?

Kurdish migration to Turkey

Kurds who fled Iran-Iraq war from 1988 Halabja : 60.000-120.000

Kurds fleeing the 1.Gulf War 1991 : 460.000

Kurds who fled civil war in Syria : 400.000 Syria civil war

ISIS terror Yezidis fled : 100.000

Kurdish population in Turkey: Kurdish population in Turkey before 1980 was around 9-11%. Iran-Iraq war of Halabja,First Gulf War,Gulf War 2,Syria civil war Began to increase, Today, the Kurdish population in this migration has reached 14-16%

Bullshit :)

Mislead!

There is no link between meds and the kurds!. image is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.42.134.250 (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish population is false,exaggerated

Kurdish population lived in each country (Turkey-Iran-Iraq-Syria) have shown over-exaggerated and not true. ethnic nationalism is not made objectively.

Cia factbook Turkey : 1985 year- Turkish population % 85 , kurdish populatin % 12 , other group % 3 , 1993 year- Turkish population % 80 -kurdish population % 20 , other group non, 2009 year : Turkish population % 70-75 - kurdish population % 18 , other group % 7-12 .(CIA Factbook accurate and not neutral)

2006 konda Turkey etnic : % Turkish people % 76-81 - kurdish-zaza people % 13.5-15.7 - other group % 5-7 (Turkey put the results of research conducted by research firm with thousands of people in the entire city.)

CİA İran population : 1989 year : Persian & 63 - Turkic % 18 - Kurdish % 3 ,2011 year persian % 51 - azeris % 24 -kurdish people % 7 , 2014 year : persian people % 61 - azeris % 16 - kurdish people % 10

Cia Iraq population : 1957 year : arabs % 70-75 - kurdish people % 15-17 - ıraqi turkmens % 9 ,2014 year % arabs 75-80 - kurdish 15-20 - Turkmens-assyrian-yezidi other % 5

Syria population : former Kurdish population 7% ,now 9% Cia factbook accurate and not reliable In countries without obejktif-real population and ethnic census, it does not achieve real — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.142.219 (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish population is very much being exaggerated, American Greater Middle East Iraq-Syria apply for kurds kullanıyor.pkk-the PYD-peshmerga weapons have anti-Arab -The Turkmen and muhliaf kurds killed in exile, Kurdish nationalism implement fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't pic of Abdullah Ocalan in the opening section on right side?

He is extremely important Kurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.52.222 (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2014

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

".... Dometic Concerns ...." = domestic66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks for noticing. CarnivorousBunny 02:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem--it could have been dometic concerns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.176.59 (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Regarding Kurds/Iran

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This is in regards to the Kurds article. According to the template at the top of this talk page, there is an repeated argument as to whether Kurds are Iranian. I have heard very good arguments to the contrary, but as it stands, the consensus seems to be that Kurds ARE Iranian. I have repeatedly urged a certain editor, Bawer1, that if a new consensus is to be reached, a discussion on this talk page is necessary. Please see my comments here: I don't like being caught in a long term edit-war, but a discussion seems to be necessary here. I welcome other users' comments on the discussion below. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This RFC may be premature (although it can do no harm) as the user has now opened a thread below - to which I have posted a reply and a proposed amendment to the text. DeCausa (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Thank you. I may eventually withdraw this RFC, depending on how the discussion progresses. I have reworded the request above, and will leave it open for now, in hopes that it will attract more editors to the discussion below. As you said, it can do no harm. I am encouraged that a good discussion has begun, and I thank you for your contribution and diplomacy. —Josh3580talk/hist 19:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Kurds

Kurds are not Iranian. The Term Iranian in itself is a very vague term. Nonetheless, it is still important to know that Kurds are not Iranian. First of all, its important to know that many different people have inhabitated Kurdistan such as the Gutians, Hurrians, Mittani, ect. While there is some evidence that the Kurds have a possibility of being descendants of the Medes because of lingustic ties, that does not necessarily make it true.

Kurds have been mentioned many times throughout many different scholarly sources and most of them do not regard Kurds as "Iranian." Finding out the origin of Kurds is very difficult.

I remember one point in time, when many did think Kurds were descendant of Hurrians. It all boils down to how much evidence there is and there is not a lot between Medes and Kurds.

Kurdistan is a very sensitive area in the middle east and has been conquered by a vast amount of different empires and people. The area known as Kurdistan, is literally, in the center of the middle east.

Therefore, to say that an ethnic group belongs to one group of people just because there may be some linguistic ties, does not many any sense. There is genetic, historical, and cultural evidence that shows that Kurds are one of the most distinct people in the middle east. As a matter of fact, Kurds are so distinct that the only reason that they is still discussion today on what origin the Kurds are.

Those people whom have decided that Kurds are Iranian have only looked at linguistics, which is still incorrect by the way. They have not looked to all of the other factors I have mentioned above. Even the celebration of Newroz has been regarded for all the so called "Iranian" people, but it is actually a Kurdish holiday which others also celebrate. Their is evidence because Kawa the Blacksmith was actually present in what is known as "Iranian Kurdistan." Zahak the evil King also had much more influence in the Western part of the Middle East where Kurds are mostly inhabited and not as much as in the Eastern parts such as Tehran.

Kurds, linguistically, have been influenced by Turks, Arabs, and Persian. One many believe that the Kurdish language is a Northwestern Iranian language because of the words used in informal Kurdish. If one takes the time to look at Kurdish when it is spoken formally,however, such as news networks and poetry, then they will see that there is a huge difference. Kurdish, informally, uses many loan words, but if one takes the time to observe the Kurdish language in its original distinct form then they will see that the Kurdish language is a very unique and distinct language.

Overall, the point that is being drawn here is that there are many many factors to look at before coming to a conclusion about an ethnic group, especially that of 38 million people. One has to look at many different factors to realize the identity, which will still be very difficult considering the amount of influence that Kurds have had from others.

I am sure that many people will agree with me if they actually take the time to observe.

Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bawer1: Thank you for opening this thread. (By the way, don't forget to sign your posts by typing: ~~~~) The text of the article should not be changed until consensus is reached here. I see you asked User:Josh3580 where the current consensus was made. If you check the archives to this article talk page you will see multiple discussions on this over the last decade where there have been numerous attempts to make the change you want but with consensus rejecting them. In any event, WP:EDITCONSENSUS states "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached."
If you wish to raise this again it's important you understand that you need to support your argument with "reliable sources" - to see how Misplaced Pages determines which sources are "reliable" please read WP:RS. If you put forward arguments which don't cite reliable sources to support them, as you have done in your above post, they are considered "original research" in Misplaced Pages and is not allowed.(See WP:OR for more detail.) The other isssue which is relevant here is the situation when sources conflict with each other. In these circumstances we follow a policy called "neutral point of view" (see WP:NPOV for more details). This states that the article must cover "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It also means that "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects" (see WP:UNDUE). Furthermore, "a Misplaced Pages article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." (See WP:FRINGE.)
You have asserted in your above post that: most of them do not regard Kurds as "Iranian.". You'll need to provide evidence of that. You seem to be approaching the issue from quite a narrow definition of "ethnicity" i.e. from a genetic point of view. But scholars treat the concept in a number of ways, and these include linguistic and cultural issues and self-identification as well as genetic origins. It would be "original research" for us to make up our own definition of "ethnicity" and apply what we know about the Kurds to define the Kurds ethnicity. So all we can do is look at how the reliable sources define Kurdish ethnicity. Despite what you say I believe that scholarship typically defines the Kurds as either one of the Iranian peoples or closely related to them through looking at a range of issues (lingusitic, cultural, historical etc). Here are some examples:
Having said that, this source is closest to your point of view:
But I find it to be the minority viewpoint. By the way, you seem to be saying that the Kurdish languages are not Iranian. That is very much a finge point of view - I haven't bothered to cite sources on that because the mainstream scholarly viewpoint is quite settled on it. (see the sources in the language article for more on that.) What reliable sources can you suggest for your main point? DeCausa (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Similar to the book by John A. Shoup III I cited above the following refers to the mixed ethnic origins of the Kurds but nevertheless repeats that the Kurdish languages are clearly Iranic:

This seems to me to be quite a thorough source. Having looked over the other sources again I think the bare statement "an Iranian people" is only used by sources giving the most simplistic of labels. The article Origin of the Kurds quotes the Encyclopedia of Islam and, in an excerpt from the Encyclopedia's text cited in the notes, explains that the classification of the Kurds as an "Iranian people" is because of the linguistic and historic cultural linkages but that the ethnic origins are heterogenous. Looking at this in totality therefore, I suggest replacing the second sentence in the first paragraph of the lead with the following:

"The Kurds have ethnically diverse origins. They are culturally and linguistically closely related to the Iranian peoples and, as a result, are often themselves classified as an Iranian people. The Kurdish languages form a subgroup of the Northwestern Iranian languages."

  1. David McDowall (14 May 2004). A Modern History of the Kurds: Third Edition. I.B.Tauris. pp. 8–9. ISBN 978-1-85043-416-0.
  2. ^ John A. Shoup III (17 October 2011). Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 159. ISBN 978-1-59884-363-7.
  3. "Kurds". The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Encyclopedia.com. 2014. Retrieved 29 December 2014.
  4. Mehrdad R. Izady (1992). The Kurds: A Concise Handbook. Taylor & Francis. p. 198. ISBN 978-0-8448-1727-9.
  5. Bois, Th.; Minorsky, V.; Bois, Th.; Bois, Th.; MacKenzie, D. N.; Bois, Th. "Kurds, Kurdistan." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C. E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W. P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2009. Brill Online Excerpt 1: "The Kurds, an Iranian people of the Near East, live at the junction of more or less laicised Turkey".Excerpt 2: "The classification of the Kurds among the Iranian nations is based mainly on linguistic and historical data and does not prejudice the fact there is a complexity of ethnical elements incorporated in them"
  6. Ludwig Paul (2008). "Kurdish Language". Encyclopedia Iranica. Retrieved 29 December 2014.
  7. D. N. MacKenzie (1961). "The Origins of Kurdish". Transactions of the Philological Society: 68–86.

I think this may be more reflective of the sources. DeCausa (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Support. @DeCausa: I like that language. It still represents the position of the current consensus, yet takes the other POV into account with its wording. I appreciate the time and research you have invested here, as well as your outreach. Let's see what other editors have to say, but I like this proposal. —Josh3580talk/hist 18:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Support.. I agree with User:Josh3580, and the entire idea of NPOV is to represent different views, not in equal, but in relevant proportions. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. There is no "pure" race in the world. Persians also heterogenous, Turks, Jews, etc. So what now? We have to change whole the articles? ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course there's no "pure race". I'm not sure of the point you are making - it's solely a question of reflecting the WP:RS. If, as is the case here, the most thorough sources are making a point of saying that the Kurds ethnogenisis arose out of an amlagam of Iranic, Turkic and Semitic groups, we must reflect that. If they didn't then we shouldn't. It's quite simple really. And, by the way, heterogenous origins are often stated in "People" articles already, if they're notable and sourced. See for example second paragraph of the lead to English people. There's nothing unusual about it. DeCausa (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, Kurds mixed with Semitic, Turkic and lranians but it has nothing to do with "ethnogenesis". The name " Kurd" was actively using before the Turks came to the Middle East. Kurds are just neighbours of these people-Semitic, Turkish, Persians- but it does not mean that Kurds arose out of mixture of them. lt is so superficial and there are many sources that contradicts with it. For instance, according to Minorsky and many other scholars they are descendants of Medes. And many Kurds claim that they are descendants of Medes, even Kurdish national anthem embodies that. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
We all have opinions, but this is about sources which is what I've provided. (Btw, no serious modern sources think that the Medes claim is supportable. It's become a politicized claim only.) DeCausa (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@ArordineriiiUkhtt: I appreciate your position and passion, but DeCausa has a point here. Reliable sources are the only thing that article content can be based on. Please familiarize yourself with the WP:NOR guideline. If you feel that the proposal is simply incorrect, then please cite your source. Simply saying "you are wrong" is insufficient. Bring sources to support your position. —Josh3580talk/hist 07:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Support Decausa has presented the facts and the facts speak loud and clear. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Highlighting the sentence "The Kurds have ethnically diverse origins" is some kind of Undo weight .Simply , there is no group of people that is not ethnically diverse .I can understand some nationalistic point of views among Kurds does not like the term Iranic , but that term is a known scientific word with clear usage. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Totally agree with you. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@Alborz Fallah: I don't quite follow, although I agree that Kurds may not like the term Iranian. Which scientific term do you mean? Diverse? Ethnically? Iranian? —Josh3580talk/hist 07:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
@Josh3580:Pardon for my delay . I mean the word Iranian or Iranic . The proposed text first gives weight to ethnic diversity among the Kurds , that sentence plus the other one - I mean They are culturally and linguistically closely related to the Iranian peoples and, as a result, are often themselves classified as an Iranian people - are used to explain the reason of calling Kurds Iranian for nationalist Kurds . In Misplaced Pages we don't need to do this . Anyone who dislikes the scientific terms can change it in scientific texts and not Misplaced Pages .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Alborz Fallah, that's quite an unfair interpretation. The Encyclopedia of Islam a highly authoritative and neutral source presents the topic this way. DeCausa (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa :I think you mean the sentence "The classification of the Kurds among the Iranian nations is based mainly on linguistic and historical data and does not prejudice the fact there is a complexity of ethnical elements incorporated in them". No problem with that fact , but combination of the facts and presenting them as the most important part (lead section ) is the problem . The sentence can easily be added to the body of the text , but using it in the beginning of the article may give the impression that classification of the Kurds as Iranian (Iranic ) is not established and academic ( at least if it is , is still a matter of debate )--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
We should reflect the most reliable sources, not pick and choose what suits us. The fact is that Misplaced Pages articles usually note in the lead mixed origins where the amalgamation of distinct peoples is prominent in the sources and is relatively recent (in recorded history eg in the last 1000 years or so). See for example English people, French people and many others. If one goes far enough back of course all peoples are an amalgamation, but we should follow the sources on how they treat the subject. For example, you probably have to go back well over a 1000 years and well into the neolithic to trace the amalgam that created Norwegian people who have (until recent decades) been relatively homogenous for several millenia. The important thing is to be guided by the sources and not make our own choices - that's how this issue is dealt with in peoples articles in Misplaced Pages - except highly politicised ones where it is a struggle to maintain NPOV, such as this one. DeCausa (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That's OK .Is the amalgamation of Kurds recent ? As I know in Persian sources the direct usage of the word Kurd goes back to the Ardeshīr-i Pāpagān , that is ,I think, not so recent . Also the diversity of Kurds is mentioned on the sources , but almost all of them say the Kurd diversity is internal in the Iranic (Iranian) peoples and not outside it ; as it has been said that outside the Iranian border , every Iranic population is called Kurd (as an example Zaza people with Daylami origin ) . More than that , the proposal's problem is also in not directly saying that the Kurds are of Iranian(Iranic) people , but mentioning that with justification . In the lead section , why do we have to explain the reasons that classify the Kurds as Iranic , just in the first sentence of the article ? Why don't we simply mention it and use the reason in other parts?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not true that reliable sources say that the Kurds' mixture is of Iranic peoples only. See for example David McDowall (14 May 2004). A Modern History of the Kurds: Third Edition. I.B.Tauris. pp. 8–10. ISBN 978-1-85043-416-0., described by The Washington Post as the best history of the Kurds, which states they are a mixture of Iranian, Semitic, Turkic and other peoples. This happened in the last thousand years plus. The origin of the word Kurd is a separate issue. We should mention in the lead because it is significant aspect of the ethnogenisis of the Kurds: a mixed population that was Iranicised/Kurdicised relatively recently. DeCausa (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
What's the main stream and dominant view ? Is the point of view that says the Kurds have an ethnogenesis including Turks and Semitic Peoples dominant ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Fallah's statements are adequate, clear and mainstream. We Kurds are iranic. Some Kurds deny it because of some political reasons-independence movements- and misleading meanings of the word "iranian". Many of them take it as " from iran" instead of being "iranic". Being mixed with other people such as Semitics, Turks and Armenians are different issue-plus there are no nation that are " unmixed" -The discussion is needless i think. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Support I think the proposed language is neutral and is an accurate synthesis of the sources -- which are not unanimous in their word choices and reflect a diversity of descriptions and level of detail. --GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
What is the point of your question and how does it relate to this? I can't even guess. DeCausa (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@GregKaye: I'm glad you have a great sense of humor, but I also don't see how that comment contributes to the discussion. —Josh3580talk/hist 07:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Support this proposed wording. Kurds are Kurds. There is no reason to call them Iranian, unless a specific Kurd happens to hold an Iranian passport. The term Iranian now commonly means "of or relating to Iran or its people." or a native or inhabitant of Iran, or a person of Iranian descent." so the word Iranian is very closely tied to the country of Iran. If Kurds are called Iranian it delegitimizes their presence in Turkey, Iraq and Syria. Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

If the problem is the word "Iranian", then we can use the word "Iranic", instead of "Iranian". Because I agree with user Alborz Fallah's statements about the proposal. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Originally called here by a bot for the RFC. But looking at the well sourced proposal here it is very good. AlbinoFerret 14:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Look all I am saying is that the term "Iranian" is a very loose term and people can get easily confused when they see this. Iranic would be a better term to use. Nontheless, there is no doubt that the Kurdish language is a bit similar to other languages such as Persian but there is also a difference as well. I am speaking as a Kurd myself. There is evidence that the Kurds have the highest chance out of all the other ethnic groups of being descendants of the Medes, all one has to do is look at lingustics. Although, it is also important to know that the Kurds have been in the middle east for a very very long time, and there have been many other empires/people as well. There have also been, for example, claims that Kurds are also descendants of the Gutians. It all boils down to what you believe, but to say that the Kurds are an Iranian people, is sort of going overboard.

Kurds have been mentioned for a very longtime by many different people, including the Sumerians!

Nonetheless, I think there should be a change. I sort of agree with the Proposal above but I believe it can be better. Heres what I think should be written

Kurds are an ethnic group in the Middle East that inhabit adjacent parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syira known as Kurdistan. The Kurds speak a language known as Kurdish, which form a subgroup of the NorthWestern Iranian languages. The Kurds are known to be an Iranic people because of close linguistic and cultural ties with other Iranians. The Kurds are also known to be descendants of the Medes, according to many scholars.

Somewhere along those lines. Saying that Kurds are an "Iranian ethnic group" is is vague, confusing, and somewhat mis-leading. What I wrote is a bit more clear and I wrote why they are considered an Iranic people with the sentences supporting it. Notice how I also said a language known as Kurdish. I do not know on what insane consensus that people decided it should be "Kurdish language(s)." Kurdish is one language which is mainly based of two dialects, that are spoken by almost all Kurds. Those two dialects are Kurmanji and Sorani, both of which are highly similar. All Kurds regard their language as one. I am a Kurdish Sorani speaker and I can understand a Kurmanji speaker perfectly. Kurds in Turkey, Syria, and Half of Iraq speak Kurmanji. Then the other Half of Iraqi Kurdistan speak Sorani, with Kurds in Iran speaking Kurdish Sorani as well. There are also a few other dialects such as Hawrami which is spoken by about 10% of Kurds. Nonetheless, the Kurdish language is one language with 2 main dialects, both of which are highly similar to each other.

Bawer1 18:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Bawer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs)

"It all boils down to what you believe". No it doesn't - Misplaced Pages doesn't work like that. We just summarise the reliable sources and it doesn't matter what we personally believe. I don't think you've understood what I wrote about how Misplaced Pages works in my first post above. DeCausa (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa you are such an idiot. I was talking about the origin of the Kurds. Since Kurds are heterogeneous people, I used that statement. You need to read what I wrote thoroughly. Misplaced Pages is such full of crap, I gave many links to my statement on Joshs page. I know what I am writing is facts. I did what you asked by writing in this talk page. Misplaced Pages even refers to the Kurdish language as language(s)which does not even make any sense. I am a Kurd myself, I know what I am talking about. Please give me at least 2 reliable sources that refers to the Kurdish language as language(s). The facts I wrote about the Kurdish language can even by seen on Misplaced Pages. I have information. I have studied. You act as if I am just using information I got out of nowhere. When in fact, it is those people that you allow to change information, which create these problems. You did not even allow anybody to look at my proposal before you jumped in, I posted this proposal only a few hours ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


Here are links to the Kurdish language. http://www.omniglot.com/writing/kurdish.htm http://www.institutkurde.org/en/language/ http://www.kurdishacademy.org/?q=node/41 http://www.krg.org/p/p.aspx?l=12&p=215

Please tell me where do any of you see that it is says language(s). Kurdish is one language!! Just like how Kurds can not be regarded as an "Iranian" people. That is the wrong term to use. Please look at what I wrote above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but here are four sources that reference multiple Kurdish languages: , , and . You'll note that the last one says scholars call them "languages" but Kurdish nationalists refuse to do so. The websites you refer to are not good enough sources for Misplaced Pages. I don't think you understand how Misplaced Pages operates. What you know or think you know is irrelevant. I've tried to explain but you don't get it. Maybe someone else will try. I'm done. DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What nationalism? Almost every source regards the Kurdish language as one. Out of all the sources you managed to find 4 that said otherwise. One of which, actually did somewhat agree with me. Look at link number 9, second paragraph. It amazes me at how bias you are. Just because I am speaking the truth makes me a nationalist? God, how much did they offer you to be so biased?

I am constantly showing facts. You did not even allow anyone to take a good look at my Proposal before you jumped in. Do you actually think your doing a good job? Wow, wikipedia amazes me more and more each day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bawer1: Please refrain from ad hominem arguments. None of our editors are paid, this is a volunteer project. You aren't getting paid, are you? I only wish I were paid for my contributions here, but that's just not how it works. You have to accept the fact that some will disagree with you. If your proposal is the best way forward, then you will gain a consensus. If it isn't, then you won't. Make your case, as you have started to do here, but don't attack other editors because they disagree. —Josh3580talk/hist 07:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Josh3580 Either you are blind to the truth, or you are biased as well. Out all the sources, this guy managed to four that disagreed with my statement. When in fact almost all the other sources say otherwise. Why did he only pick those four, it is actually 3 by the way since on of them is irrelevant. This guy DeCausa ignored all the majority of the sources that are present and only picked out the very few that disagree with me. Is that bias or what? I am telling you that "Iranain" is the wrong term to describe Kurds and the Kurdish language is one language. I am stating obvious facts that almost any historian or person would agree with me. You say that I need to submit a Proposal, well here it is? I gave links to support my statement, and I carefully explained why my statement was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You haven't produced any reliable sources. We don't go by your personal opinions I'm afraid. DeCausa (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bawer1: I'm sorry that you think I am biased. But once again, arguing against the person (ad hominem), is not how we get things done here. Just produce your arguments and sources, and the community will decide. I thought that DeCausa did a great job at including your point of view, as well as the current consensus, which opposes your point of view. Compromise is the best way to go here. Misplaced Pages is not around to only include one side of an argument. It should include information that is proportionally representative of multiple views. —Josh3580talk/hist 04:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The first proposition includes both viewpoints in a proportional manner, and this proposal seems to be a bit vague, and moves a bit too far in the other direction. While the WP:NPOV policy does not require including all points of view, it does require proportional representation of multiple points of view, as evidenced by the sources. The current consensus is biased, as is this proposal. We should, within reason, be inclusive and representative of the sources. —Josh3580talk/hist 04:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Josh3580 of course you are going to oppose it because you are biased. Despite the fact that I have also provided you with evidence. Not to mention the fact that more people on this talk page agree more with removing the incorrect term of "Iranian." So i don't know why I see no changes? Oh way that is right because you are a biased person who is being told what to do by someone else. That is the only reasonable explanation I can find for your decisions because I cant think of anyone who would deny factual evidenece over and over again if he is not being paid by someone else to do so.

Kurds are not Iranian.

Iran or Iranian are modern concepts to describe a state that was formed by Reza Shah, the Persian King, by use of war, accompanied with suppression of other ethnic groups in the geography which is known as Iran. You cannot find a trace of the word of Iran in any international documents. Persian suppressed the other ethnic groups in this area and established a Persian state and called it Iran. Prior to the Reza Shah, Ottoman Turks and Persia had occupied Kurdistan and had divided it between themselves in a treaty called Zahaw. After defeat of Ottoman Empire Iraq and Syria and Turkey emerged by support of the Britain and France.While Kurds were supposed to have their state based on the Treaty of Serves, their endeavors to reach their right to self determination was suppressed by Turkey and Iran and their leaders were Killed or Executed. Kurds are not Iranian and they are Kurds and their land has been occupied by Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria that is why there have been numerous movements and fights in Kurdistan and so far all of themhave been harshly suppressed by those countries. Kurds leaders like Simko, Dr, Ghasemlou, and Dr, Sharafkandi have been assassinated by Iranians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:7E80:488:E062:EA51:E53E:62AF (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Read Iranian peoples. In the English language Iranian has two meanings. Here it does not mean it concerns the modern state of Iran. DeCausa (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
There is some support for using "Iranic" as a less confusing alternative (see the above discussions). Perhaps replacing "Iranian" with "Iranic" in the lede would solve this issue. Wiqi 13:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that in principle, but it needs to be supported by RS and not merely editors' preference. I only found "Iranic" used once in my sources search (see above - Izady) whilst "Iranian" is widely used. Are you aware of other RS that use it? DeCausa (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Google Books returned a few more sources other than Izady. But I agree, using the more common term should be preferable. Wiqi 19:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Categories: