Jump to content

Talk:Lorestan province

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Northern Region

[edit]

This section states the "Atabegs" controlled Northern Luristan from 55ce to the 17th century. This seems clearly wrong. How can a foreign group (Turkish atabegs) rule a region in the heart of the Parthian/Sassanid dynasty? Turks did not even beging migrating to the region in great numbers until the 12th century.


What does it mean, Lurs are Aboriginal Iranians? you mean elamites or Medians? there is a distinguished difference, if lur is closely related to persian, i assume you mean medians,any ways the term aboriginal is not clear what about bakhtiaryis, what are they?


Like all other Iranic groups, Lors are a mixture of indigenous (Elamites) and Aryan/Iranian (Median/Scythian/Persian).

are you sure about this?any evidence?
Yes, I'm sure. Evidence? Well, we know that Luristan was part of Media, which was conquered by the Scythians, reconquered by the Medians and passed onto the Persians. This is common knowledge. Also, the land of Lorestan was part of Elamite/Mesopotamian cultural realm. As witnessed by the Luristan bronzes.
Lurs are of pre-Aryan stock with high Arabic and Iranian influence. Zanyar 07:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Arabic influence are you refering too? --68.4.210.29 06:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lur people

[edit]

The article is about a province (a place) while much of the article is on the Lur people. please if you have more info on the Lurs add it to its own article. Zanyar 07:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lurs form the vast majority of the province, as Luristan is the Lur heartland. A separate article is unnecessary and some of your edits are POV. SouthernComfort 12:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no!!! You think that lak people in Luristan are Lur!!!! they are Kurd, and most of laks in Kermanshah, Ilam, and Iraq consider themselves Kurd. Even Laks in Luristan consider themselves Lak not Lur.--Lekistan (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be more information about the Lur people in the Lurs article than this article. The Lurs article is described as the main article, but has little information. The Lurs page itself links to here for more details! This should be changed. The Behnam 01:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. - GTBacchus(talk) 17:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Loristan Province → Lorestan Province – per WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:USEENGLISH

Takabeg (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

History - Cave painting

[edit]

After all we know about horseback riding, the alleged date for the cave painting is absolute nonsense. At least, the date must be removed until scientific attestation. 93.199.19.108 (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lorestan Province. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lorestan Province. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

@Rizorius: are you just using the survey because it fits your POV or do you actually know if it exists. Also it counts Laki as Luri which is a Kurdish language, so why do you consider it a reliable reference when it clearly contradicts the info in the demographics section? --Semsûrî (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Semsûrî: The survey does exists. I'm not an inexperienced user and it's not my first time. these results have been used in many Wikipedias (including English) for a long period of time and I just added them to this article. Besides, some linguistics and ethnologists count laki as luri dialect and laks as lurs (which is not important here), and that's why it's not that wrong. except for this survey results, you keep deleting many other contents about demographics which is not true.
Another weird thing is the Kurdish name of the province, I guess it's Sorani Kurdish which is never used in this area. these are examples of your none-neutral POV and unaccepted. RIZORIUSTALK 13:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rizorius: Lets say it exists then, you wanna add a survey that erroneously considers Laki a Luri dialect when it has been ascertained that the language is Kurdish? How is that not a POV-push? You used Ethnologue as a reference yourself, but they consider Laki a Kurdish dialect[1]. You can't have it both ways. --Semsûrî (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The province is called 'لورستان' in Laki so that can easily be changed from the Sorani but the template would stay the same. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Semsûrî: the situation of laki is disputed, and if there was a Kurdish identity, then we would definitely had higher percentages, let's start from here. POV-push happens when you delete the whole text about Lurs' existence in their motherland, Luristan. I used Ethnologue report for a totally different part, you should not mix it, although this disputed situation can be mentioned.
it's not just about 'لورستان' itself, ′پارێزگای′ is not used in laki. as I checked in laki incubator. this is POV man. RIZORIUSTALK 21:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rizorius: It's پارێزگەێ لورستان in Laki. But back to your POV-push. Laki is not disputed. Iranica Online, Ethnologue and specialists in Laki like Anonby ascertain it as Kurdish. So please don't blatanly lie. Secondly, you admit you use Ethnologue when it fits your POV but you're going to ignore the fact that they declare the language as Kurdish. Now my question is, again, why are you adamant in using a survey and a map that counts a Kurdish language as Luri? The survey finds 0.5% of the province to be Kurdish-speaking because it considers the main Kurdish language in province, Laki, as Luri. If you keep this up, I will involve admins. --Semsûrî (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Semsûrî: It's ′استؤ لورسو′ or ′استو لرستان′ in laki. پارێزگەێ is completely alien to laki and belongs to a whole different branch of Kurdish languages.
The classification of laki is definitely disputed but not important here. even it is mentioned in Laki language and Lak (tribe). many other authors and linguistics through the history mentioned laki and laks as a branch of luri and lurs. even in a 15th century book they are mentioned as one of the lur tribes (the author's article in Persian wikipedia). again I repeat it is not important here.
the survey did not "count" laki as luri (even if it did, it didn't make it wrong though), they asked weather you speak luri or kurdish, and laks of luristan province "preferred to choose" luri. you can't blame me or the survey for this. this is the sense of identity of laks in luristan. you should get along with it. I think it's better to call an admin, because you are obviously trying to Kurdificate the whole province. RIZORIUSTALK 07:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rizorius: My point is still that the methodology of the survey is wrong if it counts Laki language as part of the Luri continuum and thus misleading for the viewers. Iranica Online considers Laki to be a Kurdish dialect[2], so does Ethnologue and linguist Anonby[3]. Many other experts on the Iranian languages like Mann and Windfuhr also put it as Kurdish. The belief that Laki is part of the Luri continuum was an old erroneous belief that existed decades ago but modern research ascertain it as Kurdish. --Semsûrî (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also I noticed you added Vladimir Minorsky to back your claims up[4] but he also considers Laki as Kurdish[5]. Your biased use of references is very concerning. You did the same with Ethnologue. --Semsûrî (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Some kind of resolution is needed here. --Semsûrî (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Semsûrî: again, I repeat, the survey did NOT count laki as part of luri. laki was not even an option. the lak people chose luri and of course there are still many linguistics who believe laki is not part of kurdish like William Frawley in International Encyclopedia of Linguistics and there is no ″certainty" as you say, in the situation. you are clearly trying to add a whole different language and identify to a land. RIZORIUSTALK 10:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
many of the laks do not count themselves and their language as Kurdish. this idea is reflected in the survey results, too. They'd rather to be counted as Lurs or an independent ethnolinguistic group. it can be seen by looking at some lak-related pages in the social media, including [6], [7] and [8] in Instagram and many others. the point is the survey reflects the ideas of people and it does not publish its own's. the scientific situation of laks and their language is disputed. I don't think adding a different scientific point of view creates problem; but of course trying to remove it and adding an alien language for this article, does. RIZORIUSTALK 10:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Semsûrî, I can't even figure out what's going on. I see @Rizorius is changing Kurdish to Luri and Laki in the infobox, and then in the section adding ethic makeup sourced to a survey by the government of Iran, am I understanding correctly?
I don't want to get into the content, but Rizorius, policy tells us we prefer secondary sources, the higher-quality, the better -- that is, if scholarly sources are available, we should use those, and if they aren't, we should use reliable media, and only if none of those are avaiable should we be using primary sources, and even then with caution. I can't get to the survey -- when I click to English, I just seem to go to a general home page? -- but a government survey sounds like it would qualify as a primary source? —valereee (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: The main issue I have is the unreliable results of the survey: It inflates the Luri-% insanely and underestimates the Kurdish %. I don't have access to it, let alone can I find any info on it, but I am questioning its methodology because of these results. The survey either erroneously considered Laki as a Luri language or they excluded Laki as an option. Whatever the case is, the results do not mirror reality because Laki is a Kurdish language. I have given plenty of scholarly references that ascertain the status of Laki as a Kurdish language/dialect and not Luri. Conversely, Rizorius points at individual Laks claiming they are Luri on social media and one Frawley who makes the mistake of counting other Kurdish dialects like the one spoken by the Feyli (tribe) and Kalhor (tribe) as Luri. The second issue was the presence of "Kurdish: پارێزگای لوڕستان" in the intro, which I agree can be problematic because the only Kurdish language spoken in Lorestan is Laki and that text was in Sorani. "استو لرستان" would be more appropriate, but, again, the template would stay the same since its still Kurdish. Hope my explanation makes sense. --Semsûrî (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: yes. Kurdish is not a single language, and when it's mentioned as a single language, it usually means other varieties which are official and kind of standards (Specially Sorani which is official in Iraq) and not this laki language. so it has to be clear which kurdish. about the survey, it was done by the order of Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance of Iran and published in (I guess) 32 books. the results have been used in many wikipedias and I just added the Lorestan one which Semsûrî seems to disagree with. this category collects the linguistic maps of that survey. RIZORIUSTALK 13:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
plus, Semsûrî talks about laki belonging to kurdish with a certainty like there is no other option. the situation of laki is disputed, although the pro-kurdish group is stronger, but still there are many who believe it is a luri dialect and regarding the fact that many laks of lorestan believe so (as I showed some social media examples below), it makes sense that we see a higher luri percentage. the ethnic and linguistic groups who are settled between proper lurs and proper kurds (including laks, feylis and kalhors) have both pro-kurdish and pro-luri scholars and we can't say one of them is %100 kurd/lur and it is accepted every where. one hypothesis for each is usually stronger, though in English wikipedia articles are shown mostly pro-kurdish and sometimes the lur hypothesis is totally removed (as it was in this article) and it makes problem. the Persian version mostly shows both ideas.RIZORIUSTALK 14:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rizorius so then, yes, it's a primary source? Again, I don't want to get into content, and I have zero opinion on this content; I'm talking only about policy w/re: sources. In general we prefer not to use primary sources, and particularly not when the assertion they're supporting is disputed. Because the Wikipedia:ONUS is on the person who wants to include the information, you should try to find this information in a reliable secondary source. Preferably a scholarly source, as I would imagine there are many scholarly sources for this kind of information.
@Semsûrî is correct that instagram and twitter and other social media cannot be used to support anything even slightly controversial. We don't even like to use them for noncontroversial information. I recommend you read WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, as you seem to not be familiar with what kinds of sources Wikipedia uses. Whether or not other wikipedias use a source has nothing to do with whether enwiki uses it; our standards may be very different from theirs. —valereee (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: although I didn't intend to show Instagram and Twitter as reference, but ok I deleted the survey results. anyway I don't see any problem in the other parts. RIZORIUSTALK 14:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rizorius: If the survey did not take into consideration the second largest language of the province and the only main language spoken in Kuhdasht, Selseleh and Delfan districts... why should we consider this a reliable source then? And Frawley seems to even count Feyli (tribe) and Kalhor (tribe) as Luri, thus unreliable.

Let's not use Instagram as a reference. You can probably find Kurds who think they are Turks... Does that mean Kurdish is a Turkish dialect? --Semsûrî (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Semsûrî: you can't call the references which are opposed to your idea, unreliable. he is not the only one who counts laks as lurs, same as feyli and kalhors. I also found some tweets written by laks, like [9] and [10], in which it is mentioned that they prefer to be counted as lurs. these examples are shown to help you understand why laks of luristan did not choose kurdish. and still, I didn't understand why you delete the whole text about lurs and add the province's name in a far language. RIZORIUSTALK 11:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instagram and tweets are not reliable references for language classification. I get that there can be Laks who consider themselves Luri, but what does that have to do with language classification that is done by experts on the field? The methodology of the survey is misleading and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. I do support adding the local Laki name over Sorani but the template would stay the same. --Semsûrî (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not going to get into assessing individual sources as supports for specific content. Doing so would mean I could no longer act as an admin here. The most I can do is talk about what kinds of sources are the highest-quality, and reiterate policy: Secondary sources are preferred over primary. Your own knowledge is not enough. You would do well to find in recent scholarly research the information you want to include. I very strongly suspect some scholar somewhere over the past ten years or so has discussed these language/ethnicity/demographics issues. Rizorius, you need to go study what we mean by WP:Reliable sources. Read that page and the pages it links to. —valereee (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

[edit]

I've added a discretionary sanctions notice to this page. Editors working at articles under DS need to ensure they understand our policies w/re such sanctions, as uninvolved admins are authorized to take extra measures to minimize disruption at contentious articles. I would especially recommend that editors here familiarize themselves with our policies on WP:Reliable Sources, as that tends to be where we see problems in this subject area. In general, Wikipedia prefers higher-quality sources over lower-quality. The highest-quality sources are recent scholarly research. —valereee (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People of this province

[edit]

People of this province speaks Lurish by 91.5% based on Iran's official claims.[1][2][3] Kurdish is almost non-existent in this province(0.5%) based on official references.Setenly (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lurs in Iran
Lurs in Iran, Lorestan province is 91.5% Lurish.
Kurds
Kurds in Iran, Lorestan province is 0.5% Kurdish.
These images are from an official resource from Iran in 2010, Lurish is majority of this province by 91.5%.

As explained above, we don't use primary sources for this matter. Why should we trust Iran and their surveys? --Semsûrî (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Semsûrî: Just because you disagree with "Iranian government" surveys, doesn't means they're not true and they're are lies. This survey, just asked people what they are, and these were the results. Laks are their own people, they're not Lurs and they definitely are NOT Kurds. I don't get why you and people like you want to "Kurdify" everything. I bet you don't wanna use primary sources just because you want to label Lak people as Kurds with secondary sources such as some random website whose validity is unclear. ChipsBaMast (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even checked the references used at Lak (tribe) and Laki language? Removing well-sourced info because you don’t like it is not how you edit on Wikipedia. Laks are an ethnic group now? That’s just hilarious. --Semsûrî (talk)

We're not talking about Iran's government, this is a study. Wikipedia works based on references, and for this matter this is one of the few reliable resources. mostly an independent survey published in 2010 and based on 31 books! Setenly (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The survey is done by Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, no? If the survey counts Laki as Luri, why do you want to use it? --Semsûrî (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Semsûrî- The survey asks people what they call themselves, which ethnic. It's not about government including Laks as Lurs, this is based on what people beleaved they are. Since there are several theories on Laks it should be called Lak, not Lur or Kurd.Valereee

Setenly (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.britannica.com/place/Lorestan
  2. ^ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Kurdish-inhabited_provinces_of_Iran,_according_to_a_poll_in_2010.PNG
  3. ^ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Luri-inhabited_provinces_of_Iran,_according_to_a_poll_in_2010.PNG

AGREED.Im from Lorestan and I can prove these informations are made by kurds.90 percent of lorestan are Lurs and Laks aren't kurd. Esi1903 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alborz Province which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2022

[edit]

Add Luti name because it is majority language here it is اُستونِ لۆرستان 12.25.223.163 (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Additionally, please be more precise when submitting edit requests. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lorestan kurdish name

[edit]

Dear editors, I added the Kurdish name of the province for the Article, but there seems to be some problem that some editors don't want that change, and it has been deleted. I want to understand why the Kurdish name cannot be added to the article. Thanks. Abdulbasetaziz (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your question was already answered here [11], where you said "Ok thanks". HistoryofIran (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lorestan_province&oldid=1230478614"