Talk:Kurds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Kurdish migration to Turkey[edit]

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

Kurds fleeing the 1.Gulf War 1991 : 460.000 [1]

Kurds who fled civil war in Syria : 400.000 Syria civil war [2]

ISIS terror Yezidis fled : 100.000 [3]

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 :)

Population in Armenia[edit]

The number of 37,470 is arbitrary. It made up by adding Yezidi and Kurdish population numbers together. Yezidis are recognized as a distict ethnic group (it's written եզդի in Armenian in the second line) and the number is shown as 35,305. The number of Kurds however is shown in the fifth line (քուրդ)- it is 2162. The statistic's based on self-identification, so I find that quite incorrect to add these two up.46.241.153.68 (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@46.241.153.68: That seems like a perfectly reasonable argument. I haven't checked the page history, is there someone who disagrees with you, or has reverted your edit? If you are correct, then please make the appropriate change, and cite the applicable source. Thank you for being analytical and critical. —Josh3580talk/hist 05:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The page is protected. So I'll ask you to make the change. 46.241.159.44 (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit to the lead[edit]

@Redthoreau: regarding your recent revision of the lead, there was a recent RFC on this - it's in Archive 14 - which is one of the reasons I reverted you. some of the changes you made are unsupported by the citations. Specifically, making the Iranian connection only linguistic and referring to them only as "sometimes" being classified as abn Iranian people. As you can see from the RFC this was thoroughly debated. DeCausa (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Decausa, I have removed the "sometimes" and kept the mention of being tied to the Iranian peoples. However, the lead prior to my edits mentioned the term "Iranian" 4 times in the first paragraph which was repetitive, and extremely WP:Undue. It almost seemed like someone was writing it to prove a political point, rather than inform. A few other issues I believe merit mention are the geographical regions of Kurdistan, and Istanbul being a chief city in the diaspora etc. If you disagree with any of my edits please revert them individually so we can discuss the matter here, rather than a blanket revert. thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)-- (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
No, it works the other way, per WP:BRD please introduce your changes here and we can introduce them piece by piece. I've reverted back to the RFC version. "It almost seemed like someone was writing it to prove a political point". You seem unaware that this is a highly controversial issue that has been argued back and forth for years by two opposing sides. There was an RFC a few weeks ago which tried to work out a compromise that was at the same time soundly based in WP:RS. Around 10 editors participated and the RFC was closed by an admin. The outcome is what you are trying to change. Neither the "pro-Iranian" editors nor their "opponents" (if I can call them that) were necessarily content with the compromise. But that's the nature of compromises. Importantly, for those of us who are neutral on the political issue, the wording, even if not by any means perfect, was backed by RS. Do you see that it is not particularly helpful re-opening such a long-term issue for which a solution has only recently been found with difficulty? To the extent that your changes don't touch upon the RFC wording, I don't see a problem in you introducing them. But, frankly, you should not change the first paragraph of the lead without first proposing the change here and trying to gain consensus support (if you still wish to re-open that particular can of worms). DeCausa (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
[CURRENT FORM] --> The Kurds (Kurdish: کورد Kurd) are an ethnic Iranian group in the Middle East, mostly inhabiting a contiguous area spanning adjacent parts of modern-day Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, a geo-cultural region often referred to as "Kurdistan". The Kurds have ethnically diverse origins.[32][33] They are culturally and linguistically closely related to the Iranian peoples[33][34][35] and, as a result, are often themselves classified as an Iranian people.[36] The Kurdish languages form a subgroup of the Northwestern Iranian languages.[37][38]
^ DeCausa, Issues with paragraph 1, which is poorly constructed in my view: (a) The lead itself states that they are “often” classified as “Iranian people”, yet the first line of the article states it unequivocally and in Wiki’s voice. When you already have a discrepancy in the first paragraph, it’s a bad sign and shows the lingering residual effects of past edit wars. (b) The air quotes used around "Kurdistan" are not only against mos, but carry a biased implication, like it’s not a real defined place. (c) The word “Iranian” is mentioned 4 times, and the word "Kurd" or "Kurdish" only twice - in an article about the Kurds. Which is absurd and WP:Undue. The first paragraph basically reads like someone who has an WP:AXE to grind, and wants the world to know that in their mind Kurds are not an independent ethnic people, but Iranian, so why even have this article etc. So the reader is repeatedly met with the word Iranian over and over. I believe it is fine to note that they are often grouped with Iranian peoples, and that Kurdish is a Northwestern Iranian language (both true), but that can be done in one sentence which would be proportional, and only require saying Iranian twice in total, not 4 times. I have tried to do that in my edits, but you have now reverted them twice. (d) I think there are too many references for a lead paragraph. It looks sloppy and is likely a result of past edit wars, which should be trimmed down. (e) I also think it should be noted that there are 4 geographical regions of Kurdistan and how they compart to make the greater Kurdistan mentioned. I'd also list the regions counter clockwise starting with Northern. Currently Iran is randomly listed first, when the region with the most Kurds in in fact Turkey -- again, it reads as if someone gratuitously pushing an Iranian agenda. Thus my proposed paragraph 1 would be as follows:
The Kurds are an ethnic group in the Middle East, mostly inhabiting a contiguous area spanning adjacent parts of southeastern Turkey (Northern Kurdistan), northern Syria (Western Kurdistan), northern Iraq (Southern Kurdistan), and western Iran (Eastern Kurdistan), a geo-cultural region referred to as Greater Kurdistan. Although the Kurds have ethnically diverse origins, they are culturally and linguistically closely related to the Iranian peoples, while the Kurdish languages themselves form a subgroup of Northwestern Iranian languages.[32][33][35]
As for paragraph 2, my edits were fairly minor, but I believe still important and valuable. I would mainly add that Istanbul is a significant city for Kurds as it has more Kurds than any city in the World. I also would utilize the name Rojava instead of Syrian Kurdistan, as that’s more accurate and the name of the Wiki article itself, and add “cultural rights” after greater autonomy, as that is a crucial factor in the ongoing demands of Kurdish guerrillas battling Turkey et al. Thus, my paragraph 2 would read as follows:
The Kurds number around 40 million with the majority living in West Asia, however there are significant Kurdish diaspora communities in the cities of western Turkey, in particular Istanbul. A recent Kurdish diaspora has also developed in Western countries, primarily in Germany. The Kurds are the majority population in the autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan and in the autonomous region of Rojava, and are a significant minority group in the neighboring countries Turkey and Iran, where Kurdish nationalist movements continue to pursue greater autonomy and cultural rights.
Of note, I believe that the lead should also be expanded to possibly 4 paragraphs, as critical information is missing, but I first wanted to address these issues.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course you're entitled to your views but consensus is that the second, third and fourth sentences of the first paragraph of the lead read: "The Kurds have ethnically diverse origins.[32][33] They are culturally and linguistically closely related to the Iranian peoples[33][34][35] and, as a result, are often themselves classified as an Iranian people.[36] The Kurdish languages form a subgroup of the Northwestern Iranian languages.[37][38]"
You are making changes to this consensus version which subtly alter its meaning. In particular, you have omitted the statement that they are often classified as an Iranian people. It is not only against consensus to omit it but it is also incorrect to do so. As discussed in the RFC there are multiple sources that define the Kurds as an "Iranian people". As far as the first sentence is concerned, I personally don't object to the removal of the word "Iranian" and it wasn't specifically covered in the RFC. But if you remove it I suspect you will soon be reverted (not by me). As regards changing the references to "Kurdistan": it's a politically loaded to use it in the way you are suggesting and I believe that would soon be reverted (not by me again). So, in summary, I wouldn't revert any of the changes you wish to make (although I think they are unwise and will just spark an edit war) except if you change the second, third and fourth sentences of the first paragraph that I quote above. The reasons are (1) they are the consensus agreed at an admin closed RFC and (2) they are an WP:NPOV reflection of the WP:RS, which your wording is not. So I would revert any change to those sentences. DeCausa (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the version of the lede by Redthoreau seems better, it seems to give a more complete information. It also less Iranian-centric and politically neutral. Khestwol (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
DeCausa, I have adjusted the lead per my proposal above, and left the 3 sentences you mentioned from the RFC alone. Although I believe they are still redundant, by saying "Iranian people" twice. Certainly that sentence can be combined into one can it not (and still retain the same meaning)? I looked through the TP archives, and believe this has been a continuing issue partly because the composition has been so poor. It's odd to be so repetitive, I've never seen it in any other Wiki article.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It's because the "pro Iranian" element object to any diminution of referebces to it. There are similar issues across WP e.g. "Greek" in the leads to ancient Macedonia-related articles. DeCausa (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks better now Redthoreau, but there can be an improvement. Your current version of the lede: ... a contiguous area spanning adjacent parts of southeastern Turkey (Northern Kurdistan), northern Syria (Western Kurdistan), northern Iraq (Southern Kurdistan), and western Iran (Eastern Kurdistan). I think this sentence can be rearranged into: ... a contiguous area spanning adjacent parts of southeastern Turkey (Northern Kurdistan), western Iran (Eastern Kurdistan), northern Iraq (Southern Kurdistan), and northern Syria (Western Kurdistan). This arrangement of countries will appear more neutral, as there are more Kurds in Iran and Iraq than Syria. Khestwol (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
In addition, I would like the mention of Greater Kurdistan from the first line of the lede removed, because it appears as redundant in the lede after all the Kurdistans are mentioned already in the same sentence. Khestwol (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
^ That works for me Khestwol. :)  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just to REPEAT, the article still has 57 "Iranian" in it. The RFC mentioned, is not written on stone. --هیوا (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)