Talk:Khorasani Kurds

Population numbers
Source 1 gives a population of Kurds in Khorasan of about 500,000, which is listed in the info box on the right. Source two gives a number of about 1,500,000, though in the text in the wiki article where this is cited this is put as "about more than a million". This is a huge disparity, this article needs better sourcing for an accurate population figure.

We shouldn't restrict our attention on Iranica Encyclopaedia. It's obviously a false source, when it comes to the population of the Kurds. Iranica also estimates the number of Yazidis around the world at 200k -300k which is a widely underestimated number. There are alone in Germany more than 250k Yazidis (see the official German census), also some 300k in Iraq, at least 150k in the former SU, some 50k in Syria, and other parts around the world and europe. Several sources give an estimated number of at least 1 million Kurds. Even Iranian people themselves say there is a big Kurdish community in Khorasan of at least 1 million Kurds. You've also just have to look up the number in Wikipedia and sum them up to get 1+ million. Alone in Razavi there are 400k as in Wikipedia stated, and approx 50% of the 570k people in Northern Khorasan are Kurds. Not to forget the Kurds in the surrounding Khorasani provinces. And these are just iranian estimates. Thus I think we should change the number in the box to 1.5 million. --Safetheplanetearth (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Iranica is a reliable source while both cskk.org and pen-kurd.org are unreliable self-publishing websites/blogs with made-up stats like this one:
 * "In Northern Khorasan (with total population of 850.000); the population of Kurds is about 70% of the Province (about 595.000), Turks (who are the remnant of Uzbeks and Kazaks invaders of Iran, 16 Centaury) about 18% of the Province (about 153.000), Fars about 7% of the Province (about 60.000), and Turkmen is about 5% of the Province (about 45.000) who are in Jargalan rural district / border with Turkmenistan. About 600.000 Kurds live in the west and Northwest of the Razavi Khorasan Province. About 13 to 15% of Mashhad population (Capital of Razavi Province, with the population of about 3.000.000) is Kurds, which in figure becomes about 400.000 as estimates. The total population of Kurds in Khorasan estimates slightly more than 1.5 million."
 * Baseless claims and estimates. They're not WP:RS. I have already removed them. Ethnologue estimate is 350,000 (Stanzer 1988). I ping two other editors since they're familiar with this topic. Your thoughts on this? --Wario-Man (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * How is, according to you, Encyclopedia Iranica an unreliable source ? This sounds like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT comment. cskk.org and pen-kurd.org are by no means reliable sources. I would suggest you to read WP:IRS. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I've already explained why Iranica is unreliable in some sense. They estimate the number of Ezidis (Yazidis) at 200k - 300k. That's below every reality. Especially, when it comes to numbers Iranica is way to distant from the reality. I can list up several other examples. But the best one is the Ezidi estimate, as I'm very familiar with this group (our religious family background is Ezidi). As I already mentioned, there are at least 250k Ezidis alone in Germany, and way more in the Middle East. Not to forget those from the former SU and so on. Iranica also lists them as a Kurdish religious minority, whereas a non-insignificant number of Ezidis see themselves as en ethno-religious group (even in Armenia they're recognized as an own ethnicity).
 * I also mentioned the Wikipedia sources, so how you come to ignore them? Go to the Northern Khorasan Wikipedia page which itself talks of 47% Kurds. And not to mention all the other parts of historical Khorasan. So what kind of estimate should this 350k from Ethnologue be? And 1988 is 30 years ago. The Kurds have an estimated population growth of more than 2.4% per year, meaning they (more than) double every 30 years. These are known facts. What I also have to mention: How are iranian sources reliable, when they set the number of iranian Kurds at roughly 4 million? Even the FBI states the number of Kurds at 10%, meaning more than 8 million. It's well-known that iranian sources set the number of Kurds below. They also exclude the Feyli and Laki Kurds from the group of the Kurds, which evidentially speak a Southern Kurdish language. So they basically just count the Soran and Kurmanc as Kurds. How should one trust these sources? I'm a Kurd myself, you apparently have no idea of the politics of the iranian, turkish, syrian and iraqi government and also people. Even the Kurds denied our existence 30 years ago. So how should one trust the iranian sources, when they also deny the existence of the kurdish Feyli and Laki and count them as Lurs and other stuff? --Safetheplanetearth (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * By "Ezidi" do you mean Yazidi ? Wikipedia goes with what published reliable sources state. The fact that you have Yazidi background" or not does not make you an expert for that topic. Also, the sources you added were unreliables, this has been said by two editors ( and me). As to the northern Khorasan province's population being 47% Kurdish, this was an unsourced POV with a july 2017 tag, thus, i removed it just now. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. Regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  16:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, By Ezidi I mean Yazidi. Well, I didn't say I'm an expert on that topic, but iranica is obviously not. And how does Wikipedia go with these numbers? Just search on the internet and you'll see they number the Ezidis at at least 1 million. It's also known that the Kurds, especially among the Ezidi the women have a high fertility rate. So what kind of reliable number should these 200k to 300k be? https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/gruendung-eines-bundesverbandes-jesiden-in-deutschland.886.de.html?dram:article_id=377337 See here, at least 200k Ezidis in Germany. You can also add up the number of the Ezidi refugees in Germany since 2011, it'smore than 80k. There is nothing to add, but just to mention: There are more than 200k Ezidis in Germany and their main living space is in Iraq, meaning there are more Ezidis in Iraq than in Germany. These are facts you can look up everywhere. So again: How is Iranica reliable, when it comes to numbers concerning kurdish groups? --Safetheplanetearth (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Brill: The Kurds of Khorasan
Where did you get that 2,600,000 from?! Can you take a look at this? --Wario-Man (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Source
 * From the abstract of cited source: "...The total number of the Khorasani Kurds can be estimated around one million."
 * I found the source, verified it, and it says this:
 * "The biggest part of the Khorasani Kurds is sedentary, although there are also some groups of seasonal pastoralists. All the Kurds of Khorasan are Shi'its. Generally, there are 696 villages with the compact or pre vailing Kurdish population registered on the territory of Greater Khorasan. Due to the lack of the exact census data on the ethnic groups in Iran, the reasonable figure on the Kurds cannot be either; yet, judging by some demographical parameters, their total number in Khorasan can be estimated around one million."
 * So? --Wario-Man (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that there is nothing else to say, the editor himself bolded the relevant part of the source and it contradicts that 2600000 figure. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hamza Aksüt
Dear @LouisAragon, why would Hamza Aksüt be non-RS? His work is currently being used as source in a plethora of pages about Kurds and Alevis. @Semsûrî Ayıntaplı (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears said source, published in Turkey, has been cited for multiple tribes and villages of Turkey itself. However, Turkey (just like Iran, Azerbaijan, China, Russia etc., amongst many others) is a country without freedom of press (see Censorship in Turkey, Mass media in Turkey). I wouldn't really use any of such sources for anything remotely controversial. For controversial topics, such as populations in other countries, Turkish sources have a tendency to write a pan-Turkic and pro-Anatolian Turkish POV (Pan-Turkism). Its always best practise to cite English-language, Western sources. Not only are such sources readable to the majority of our public, but they are also published in countries with proper scholarship and freedom of press (hence WP:RS). I'm not sure about the extent of 's use of said author's works, but suggesting that they only used them for tribes and such in Turkey itself, doesn't really sound like a super controversial move. Correct me if mistaken. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If there are any proper secondary/tertiary English-language sources that make mention of the same claim, by all means, please do add them. The cited Brill article (jstor link) as well as Iranica's article on the ethnic groups of Khorasan don't mention anything about Anatolian Turkish nor Azeri in the region. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this is a translation of a primary source (17th-century author Iskander Beg Munshi). Please see WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:RSPRIMARY. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @LouisAragon, since there is some context to censorship in every country, I believe this alone wouldn't be enough to rule out sources due to alleged Turkic nationalism, unless we dive deeper into the source. Turkish pupils are taught from an early stage that Alevism is a mixture of Shamanism and Islam, and is exclusively a product of the Turkic civilization. However, Hamza Aksüt, in this book, has claimed that the majority of Alevis are Kurds and sought the origins of Alevism in Mesopotamia and linked it with Iran. That directly goes against Turkish educational policy. So, I don't think the given reason is enough to remove Hamza Aksüt, because he doesn't seem to be a "Pan-Turkist." I also believe that limiting (possibly reliable) sources to their country of origin wouldn't really be logical, because that would implement an unnecessary filter on certain articles in favor of different viewpoints, creating pseudo-countries within Wikipedia. So, if Aksüt is indeed not reliable hands down, let's remove this book from Wikipedia. Moreover, if using the terms Turkish or Azerbaijani is the sensitive spot, we could drop that part, which isn't unprecedented and is something I'm not concerned about. Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey. Wikipedia should be written using proper, reliable sources. I for one never use any source published in aforementioned countries, because there's always some sort of state-government bias vis-a-vis topics which the respective government's have turned into a contentious matter. Basically, if the claim can't be found in English-language sources, don't include it. Its either not noteworthy, or simply does not exist in proper scholarship.
 * Having said that, if you really think Aksüt is a well-known scholar within Turkey, I guess you could keep it in the article, but please do attribute the claim to him specifically (i.e. "the sociologist/historian (not sure what his credentials are) Aksüt states that ..."). And yeah I'd say remove the Turkish/Azerbaijani terms. Its just too much uncertainty. If future English-language sources make mention of it, we can consider re-adding the remainder of Aksüt's claims. For the record: Aksüt might have to be brought to WP:RSN at some point in the future. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)