Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:05, 8 October 2006

Template:FAOL

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

• Archive 1
• Archive 2 (?? - 22:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC))
• Archive 3 (24 Dec 2005 - 30 Jan 2006)
• Archive 4 (31 Jan 2006 - 22 Feb 2006) -- Important discussions on neutrality and accuracy disputes.
• Archive 5
• Archive 6
• Archive 7

Removal of text by Heja helweda

According to a recent article from Slate, "Most of the freedoms Turkish Kurds have been eager to spill blood over have been available in Iran for years; Iran constitutionally recognizes the Kurds' language and minority ethnic status, and there is no taboo against speaking Kurdish in public."

On January 3, 2006 Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi, an 18 year old Kurdish girl from Karaj, was sentenced to death for murder by a criminal court of the Islamic Republic of Iran for stabbing a man who she claims tried to rape her and her fifteen year old niece when she was 17. As Nazanin has claimed that she only acted in self-defense, critics have pointed out that in another country she might be acquitted or receive only a short prison sentence. Iran also has a young age of eligibility for the death penalty - 15 years for males, and 9 for females. There has been a great level of international protest at this possible action of execution by the Iranian authorities.

I am putting these here in case Heja decides to remove again. It is especially incredible that she claims "Not every personal incident or death sentence is worthy of mention" when in fact Nazanin's case is even more well known in the world than Qaderi! She is probably the most well known Kurdish girl in recent times because of the ridiculous death sentence imposed on her by the mullah courts. But then again Nazanin is also a Shia Kurd so maybe that explains the removal. That is typical. Khorshid 23:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please! I have nothing against your paragraph.

1) My objection was just that the article was already too long. Perhaps you have noticed the 32 KB warning every time we try to edit the article.

2) How can I be against Shia Kurds? while I am using Mehrdad Izady works as one of the main references, and just in case you do not know, he is Lak from Krmashan region, and I have added lots of stuff to the Kermanshah page, when some users were doing their best to hide its Kurdish character.

3) More than 10,000 Kurds were mudered by the Revolutionary Guards during the period 1979-1983, should we mention all of them by name, creating a useless list?

4) I am not very much in favor of keeping Shwane section either, since it takes lots of space which can be dedicated to better material from research papers.

5) As a final point, Slate is neither academic nor even reputable as a source. If you want to underline the loyalty of Kermanshahi Kurds (or all Iranian Kurds for that matter) to Iran, then come up with better sources please.Heja Helweda 00:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Heja Helweda 00:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Immanuel Velikovsky

We cite Immanuel Velikovsky in support of a point in the article. Since his work is rejected by scholarship as based on dubious theories, we should find another source to back this point. Any suggestions? --CTSWyneken 00:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely nonscientific, political article!

The lack of references to serious, academic, reckognised books, articles and journals gives you a presentiment for the article's character. This article is not scientific at all. It contains so many mistakes that I am not even going to try to put things right. I can remember how the Kurds first tried to link themselves to the Median people of Iran, after they had claimed to be Assyrians, but after no serious historian supported that claim, now they are going even further back to the Hurrites. Well, the Hurrites were not even an Indo-European people (or at least did not speak an IE language). So what is next - Atlantis? First of all, the word "the Kurds" does not describe an ethnically, liguistically or whatsoever-ly associated people. It merely describes an identity that exists a bit more than 700 years, maybe 900. Before that, the people in today's Kurdistan had different identities, as they do today by the way, or do you seriously believe that Kermanshahis and Laks consider themselves the same as people from K.Maras and Malatya? The Iranian and many Iraqi Kurds are different than the Turkish ones as regards ethnicity, language and culture. Even the Turkish Kurds are a heavily diverse people. Zazaki, Kermanshahi, Laki etc. are not Kurdish languages, AND SO ON...

Somehow, I cannot get around the feeling that the author of this article has an rabid antipathy for Iranians (i.e. Persians, to be more specific). Unfortunately, I am witnessing a process of the Kurds copying the Turkish method of inventing their own history from a political point of view. What a pity. --84.226.45.78 05:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Dr Heinrich Westfal, Bonn

Probably you have not heard of the Battle of Ardashir I with Kurds in the 3rd century? (BTW near Kermanshah), which is recorded in the Pahlavi book The Book of Deeds of Arashir Papagan. Please take a look at the History of the Kurds to see that the term Kurd has been in use at least since 3rd century CE. So this term is not 900 years old, but around 1800 years old.Heja Helweda 00:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how the issues in this article never seem to get resolved. Everytime someone finds something they find offensive, they yell "Anti-Turkish", "Anti-Iranian", "Pro-Kurd", "Pan-Iranianism", "Anti-Kurd", or someother POV related comment. This article, though still having issues, is well written compared to some of the other Ethnic group articles I've seen. Achievements and mistakes are mentioned, dates, and an attempt has been made to cite sources. And please people, there are millions of Kurds, and not all of them are editing this article, so don't talk about "them" editing this article. It's a shame to see ultra-nationalists trying to go on the internets and spread their beliefs (Not just Kurds, I can see plenty of other edits here that were spurred by others for violating their beliefs and pride). I know I don't have much power here, I'm just sick of coming to this page, and seeing this stuff get "disputed", where all this effort could go for other articles in need of repair. Oh, and I guess I'll have the guys to put my signature up, and not hide behind false names and Ip's. --MercZ 02:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch

I would caution the editors of this page from relying exclusively on Human Rights Watch as a source on the civil war in Turkey. Though a commendable organization, HRW focuses exclusively on the shortcomings of governments, and will thus provide ample material on Turkish guilt, but none on the atrocities of the PKK. I think any intelligent person would understand that the PKK shares responsibility for the displacement of Kurds from their home villages. Heja Helweda introduces, in my opinion, an unconscionably Turcophobe view, when he asserts that Turkish security sources bear sole responsibility for the population displacement. --Anthon.Eff 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not asserting anything, the info. is given by HRW. If you see shortcomings in their policies, contact HRW please, and let them know about your concerns.Heja Helweda 00:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I have no problem with HRW. They do what they do very well. The problem is when one assumes that HRW is providing a complete picture of events in Turkey. The role of HRW is to criticize governments--not to criticize terrorist groups. HRW will therefore not discuss the PKK's responsibility for depopulated villages, but will discuss the responsibility of the Turkish state. If you are interested in presenting a NPOV in this article, you must also incorporate some sources bearing on the PKK role in depopulation. --Anthon.Eff 19:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Exaggerated

This page is not objective, even the population figures. The references does not rely on reliable sources. For example, about the population of kurds in turkey, www.world-gazetteer.com is given as a source. The total population of turkey is about 73m (2005 estimates). Considering te figures given in the article this means 30 percent of the population of turkey is kurds which is obviously wrong. This page is just seving as a kurdish propaganda rather than giving an information about the kurds. At the end, the editors of this article would say that there is no Turks in turkey, only kurds. If you click on the references givens, you'll see that the information given is not based on relevent sources, but the speculative ones.

Here is a estimate from the German government: The German government based on provincial statistics estimated that in 1997 there was at least 18 million Kurds in Turkey. Perhaps there is other points in the article you may disagree with, but this one is well sourced by the German government and it is the most reliable estimate I have seen since it takes into account provincial statistics. The 18 million also does not take into account Zazas (who are traditionaly identified as Kurds) and also the growth between 1997 and 2006. So the 22 million estimate is also factual. --alidoostzadeh 08:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The reference given by alidoostzadeh above (related with the German government statistics) is not in English (even not in Latin alphabet) for this reason i cannot read it. You should either give a source in English or translate it to English. Even the latin alphabet is enough cause we are concerning the numbers here, we could guess what is about, or check the tables. However, alidoostzadeh put something we could not read. Furthermore, this source is from a commercial web site. Please, give official references (internationally recognized journals, organizations, factbooks,...) available from official sites. How can we sure that the source is not the fake one? E104421 12:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi the document is from the German government parliment member , but translated to Persian. You have a good point that how can we be sure that the source is not fake. Very legitimate. But here is another site that has it: . Please check the last page (pg 98) for the actual source with the actual ISBN and ISSN number. The parlamentarian Amke Dieter-scheuer is also real and the same article is referenced here in a Turkish government website. Unless you suspect the translation to be wrong, then I do not see any problem with the source since it is an estimate based on provincial statistics. --alidoostzadeh 20:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the document would be an excellent source for the Persian, Tajik, Dari, etc. Misplaced Pages, but it really isn't suitable here in the English Misplaced Pages. If the facts presented in the document are indeed widely known among authorities, it should not be a problem to find a good source in English. --Anthon.Eff 01:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The original document is in German and has IBSN and ISSN numbers and is referred to in a Turkish government website. Unless you think the Persian translation is wrong (which I do not believe so), I do not see any problem with that estimate since it i actually based on provincial statistics. I usually do not believe in many statistics, but this one is based on provincial data which is accurate. I think someone that knows German can find it. Here are some sites that mentions the article as well: . The author and think thank that wrote the article believe that in 1997 there were more than 18 million Kurds in Turkey (and I am not sure if they have considered Zazas as separate group or not). --alidoostzadeh 04:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Forget about the population figures for now. That is the least of this articles problems! Khorshid 06:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I still do not understand why the user alidoostzadeh is always pushing the sources other than English. I strongly agree with the user Anthon.Eff that it is possible to find a reliable source in English (especially for this case, statistics). I checked the sources given, but they just increased my suspicion, cause the links do not target the relevent references. Furthermore, the user alidoostzadeh gives references to a parliament member but representing this above as the official statistics report of the German Government and this report could not be found in Latin Alphabet! even not published offically by German Government. As i stated above, the references should be from internationally recognized publications or organizations (most of them have English versions). A single German parliament member's report does not make it a reliable one. In addition, the user alidoostzadeh tries to support this POV by giving references to other unofficial ones. For this reason, this user alidoostzadeh seems to me pushing his POV by forwarding sources other than English (also not even in Latin alphabet) all the time, cause we cannot understand what's written there. His sources are based on beliefs, guesses, opinions, ... that cannot be considered scientific. Rahter than providing us just a single reliable source or even the translation of it, he's just pushing the same POV fork "...18 million kurds in turkey..." all the time, in order to convince us and to stop discussion. What should we do? Sorry, alidoostzadeh, we cannot accept the sources that we could not read. We need neutral statistical data, not the IBSN and ISSN numbers of the reports written in alphabets we are not familiar with. For me, the data itself is enough if i could read the numbers! E104421 08:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The study was done by think-thank along with that parlamentarian I mentioned. I am not trying to push any POV, it is not my POV. It is a study done by German government (members of parliment and German government think thanks count as government). You say you can not accept a source you can not read (I assume you mean German or the Persian translation). I totally agree with that part. But lots of Misplaced Pages articles have referenced non-English language sources. Either way have you tried to access that article since I provided the ISBN and ISSN number? If I find the original German article will you also reject it again? The study as far I as read is the most detailed analysis on Kurdish population and it is not a POV since it is written by members of German government. The reason the study is accurate is that all the analysis are contained and they do not throw a random number out. There is no guesses, opinions or beliefs, I am just quoting that article. If you believe the translation is wrong, then either the translator did make a mistake (which is always possible) or we must seek the German version to resolve this issue. Also do not use we to refer to your and he to refer to me, since you are only a spokeman for yourself as I am as well. Many articles have estimate figures. If you can show the estimate of that document to be invalid (you must obtain the German source and read it) then I have no disagreement. But just to reject the article without reading it and providing a response why it might be wrong is not really an academic approach. Perhaps you have evidence that invaldiates the claim of that article? For example estimates of Kurds in Iran can range really between 4 million to 8 million. (low and high end). Same in Iraq it could be 4 to 6 million. Same in Syria. Same in Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan. Note I do not like many of the internet sites that give random numbers (specially some missionary sites who make the simplest mistakes and have never done any census), but the study above actually goes into some detail and has an author and think thank. So the figure 14-18 million is justifiable. Here is an article that says 30% of Turkey is of Kurdish background: . --alidoostzadeh 14:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Khorshid that there is really some content problems in this article, for example Kurds fighting Summerians is unscientific and has no academic source even if its in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Okay so the Encyclopedia Britannica says it, but where is the actual source within Enyclopedia Britannica? It is true perhaps semi-nomadic Zagros people fought Sumerians sometimes and sometimes had friendly relations, but this does not make those people necessarily Kurds. Also the Ergativity of some Kurdish dialects is like the ergativity of some Persian dialects around Shiraz, Yazd, Kerman and Pashtu, Talyshi and other Iranian dialects and even Indo-Aryan languages. It does not necessarily mean a connection with Hurrians. Also Kurds Fighting Persians is another false point since Sassanids according to some accounts were partially Kurds and the story of Ardeshir-e-Babakan has many mythical aspects, as well as the term Kurd in Pahlavi does not necessarily denote an ethnic group If we mean the Medes(whom I believe to be the ancestor of Kurds culturally and linguistically as well partially in genetics) and Achaemenids then many Medes actually took sides with the Achaemenids against Astyages according to sources and there was strong interaction between these two groups such that in the bible it is called the law of Persian-Medes. Also DNA has given various contradictory reports. One mentions Kurds being related to Jews, another Kurds being related to Hittites and another Kurds being related to other Iranians. Do we want to say Kurds have been fighting Turks or various Kurdish groups have been fighting various Turkish/Iranian government? Or perhaps better way to say it is that a noticeable portion of Kurds feel resentment towards the government of Turkey, Iran, Syria and former Iraq. But to say Kurds have been fighting another ethnic group (Persian or Arab or Turks) seems to me to be written from a POV in order to actually set up various people in the region against each other whereas thankfully so far we have not had a situation like the Balkans or Nagorno-Karabagh in the Middle East. Sure at various times there has been hostilities between say Arabs and Persians, but there was also various times that there was cooperation (Abbasids for example). Or during the end of the Ottoman period, Arabs fought against Turks, but is it correct to say Arabs have been fighting Turks throughout their whole history? I feel there is a bit of hostility presented in this article starting from the unreferenced Britannica quote. Most Kurds of Bijar, Garous, Elam, Kermashan, Khorasan in Iran (about 60-70%) do not have any separatist feelings. If we include Laki speakers, then that number is definitely over 70%. So it is incorrect to say "Kurds" were fighting the "Iranian" government. Also Hurrians, Sumerians, Urartu, Hittites were discovered only in the last century and a half. I firmly believe that the Mede identification of Kurds which has been accepted historically since at least 600 years ago is firm. The word KurManj itself means son of Medes as Mar and Maraj in Armenian denote Mede. We consider any group in the Middle East to be a conglormate of different people's but the main identifier is language and culture which comes from the Indo-Iranian Medes and the rest of the elements are influences from neighbors as well as previous cultures absorbed by the Medes. Also why isn't there any mention of Kurdish mythology which is the same as other Iranic people. --alidoostzadeh 17:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As i told you above, i checked all your sources. I have no objection for sources in languages other than english but why a german parliament member did not publish it either in german or english? i still do not understand. As i explained above, the sources or references should be from internationally recognized journals, organizations,...etc. that can be considered as reliable sources. Why don't you provide a source in Latin Alphabet, alidoostzadeh? The problem is your main reference report is persian, sorry, i do not know persian but is it too difficult to find a source written in Latin Alphabet?

When i asked about reliable sources, you are replying in a such way that "you should find the sources by yourselves". For example, you could present a very simplistic source such as The World FactBook ] which gives July 2006 estimates on population figures also (~14m. kurds "at the very most"(all people except turks) in turkey), but you did not want to do it, cause your aim is to present exaggerated figures and facts. Your exaggerated statement above "the figure 14-18 million is justifiable" has approximately 28.6% difference which is a large percentage difference for such a statistics. To sum up, alidoostzadeh is unable to present reliable sources but still tries to push the exagerated fork on the population of the kurds.

The main problem related with the Kurdish people article is this kind of propaganda based on ethnocentrism. Rather than providing neutral information based on scientific research, pushing the POV fork all the time. E104421 11:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Again you didn't check the source or else you would not have objections. Also you did not read correctly. A German parliment member did publish it. All the information in Latin Alphabet is on the last page of the source I provided!! (read pg 98). If you think the translation is invalid on the 18 million, then provide reasons. I have shown the ISBN and ISSN number and the title and the name of the parliment member in German and it is all on pg 98. Also right now I have provided another source that says 30% of Turkey is possibly Kurdish . You forgot to comment on that. There is no ethno-centerism here and personally I do not like the Turkish government, Iranian government and the Kurdish parties. Or khak bar sareh hamashoon. But I am just discussing a statistics here based on sources. The exact number of Kurds in Turkey is unknown. If you have any reason to claim that the 30% is invalid (for example some missionary sites provide really bad information which I have criticized with knowledge), then provide your sources. Else I have provided two sources now that say higher than 14 million. Any ethnic related article in wikipedia is full of ethnocenterism, but over here we are just discussing about some number. How can an estimate on Kurdish population that is based on two sources I mentioned be considered ethno-centeric? Merhaba. --alidoostzadeh 19:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

An additional note of interest, Wr in the Middle East and the role of Kurds

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361

Related ethnic groups

I have modified related ethnic groups to the following:

1) Baluch , since they also speak a north-western Iranian language, exactly the same branch as Kurdish.

2) Jews, due to the genetic bonds as explained in the article.Heja Helweda 01:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections, but why did you delete everything else? We should still link to the Iranian peoples article in the infobox. —Khoikhoi 01:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Thanks for your reminder. Heja Helweda 01:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I will have to object to this. The Jews are themselves genetically diverse, and whether the term Jews defines a race, nation, ethnic group or religion is up for debate. One genetic article claims Kurds are close to Hittite. Another to Jews. Another to Assyrians. Until these facts become coherent, I do not think one can mention these groups as related just because of some similarities in DNA. Also how can 1 million Yarans and few million alevis as well as 500,000 Yezidis be considered few people?!/--alidoostzadeh 02:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The pseudo-scientific-ethnocentric genetics at the end would make it possible to relate kurds with all the ethnic groups. What about the aliens? E104421 12:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)