Talk:Kurdification/Archive 1

(no title)
This is not a real term, I will nominate it for deletion. --D.Kurdistani 09:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know what warrants a "real" term. A google search yields 1,690 results for "Kurdification" and, while that's not a particularly large number, it's obviously used by some people. Unless there are reliable sources that prove otherwise, this article should stay as is. Now, the current deletion tag says that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", so I guess the "real term" argument has been dropped in favour of a "delete it because it's a stub" argument. Yes, so far the article is a dictionary definition, but that doesn't mean it can be expanded to include encyclopedic content. If this page is deleted, then you have to delete Turkification, Arabization, and so on. --334 18:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, really. There needs to be more meat in this article as well as some professional uses of the term. Terms like Arabization have some root due to the nature of past absorption through the spread of Islam. "Turkification" is not too set into stone.

Kurdification makes no sense, and this article seems more like a POV article written by someone who laments over the loss of village lands by the Kurds during their tribal wars. In order for this term to be considered as such, there has to be an establishment that the Kurdish boundaries have seen great changes due to such things, not a speck of land added after some tribal feuds.--MercZ 21:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * obviously you will nominate it for a deletion you are a kurd! yes kurds are kurdifying the whole north, they are even claiming shabaks as kurds.

Kurdification of Shabaks?!!!
I'm really sorry but Shabks are a Religous Community of Ahle Haq proper (Kurdish religion). They speak a dialect of Hewrami language. As well as the title "Shabak" exactly is a Kurdish term "shawak"/"shabak" which referres the Ahle Haq origin of this Religous Community. If some want to identify themselves any thing rather than their origin, it's fairly ok. But it must not be a deal to deface the historical, linguistic, and religous roots and origins.(78.38.13.218 (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)).

This article is more of a politically-motivated thing which have become common in these sorts of issues, especially concerning ethnic minorities in these sorts of places. If it was a real term this page would have existed well-before, but its recent creation is indicative of the increasing media blitz these factions are launching at each other, via news and sources like these. I've learned to simply give up on any articles related to Kurds, christian minorities in the Middle-East, any any sort of pan movement. People too emotional and muddle the truth in the process. --MercZ (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

 * There are some reliable sources in English on the Turkish article (which is under construction at the moment). If somebody is interested, they can use those sources. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
Wikipedia is not a dictionary for neologisms. This should be deleted. Runaki (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The term is mentioned over 200 times at google books with some reference going as far as the 1981. I will remove the neologism tag for now.--20:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

AINA articles
Regarding edit "AINA is anti-Kurdish, so its not reliable": perhaps links to some of the conflicting views can live in a "Further reading" or "External links" section until somebody can incorporate them into the text in a balanced manner. Welcome discussion here on how to do so. Pelagic (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oops. Accidentally re-added link in See Also.  Computer had crashed and I thought the change hadn't been saved.  Later discovered that another user had deleted it. Pelagic (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @Noor1r and @Drage100, throwing the titles of a couple of articles into the middle of running text, in boldface no less, does not make for a readable article. Many people would consider it vandalism. I am trying to improve the article and still retain use of the material.  If you want to have it in the main body of the text, please arrange for someone with good English-language skills to write up a balanced POV using those references. Pelagic (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And now @Majdd67 re-doing the same thing. This page is a disgrace and I'm getting sick of trying to help.  Pelagic (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. This page is totally ridiculous. "Kurdification" is very derogatory word with little actual substance. I've never heard it used in a scholarly context, only in Kurdophobic polemics. --Monochrome _ Monitor  01:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's easy to see how Aina.org politically motivated. It's not a reliable source.--Gomada (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This page still exists. It's so ridiculous. --Monochrome  _ Monitor  01:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It's like a parody of itself. --Monochrome _ Monitor  01:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion Request
Please delete this article. I looked at the sources, and have come to the conclusion that this article is, for the greater part, useless and baseless.

Shabaks and Yezidi's are Kurdish ethno-religious communities. This is an established fact, and most Shabaks and Yezidi's identify as such. Just look at the wikipedia pages for these groups. Their religion is Shabak (Yarsan), and Yezidi (Ezidi), but their ethnicity is Kurdish.

You can't Kurdify people who are already Kurdish and have identified as such for thousands of years.

Furthermore, this article is very poorly written. There are several statements that contradict each other. The sources are questionable, and most of the sources don't even support the statements made.

Assyrians are not Kurds, and there is no process to Kurdify them. In fact, Assyrians have their own representative in the Kurdistan Regional Government. Their representation (number of seats) is even larger then what the Assyrian community represents (in numbers).

The Nineveh plains have always been a mixed area. The fact that the most important shrines and locations of the Kurdish Yezidi's are located here, says a lot. It will be up to the people of the Nineveh plains to decide whether they want to join Kurdistan in case of independence, or if they want to stick with the Sunni Arab Iraq. Their choice has already been made.

You can't prevent nationalists from making statement such as those portrayed in this biased article, but, in short, Kurdistan has been praised for its oppenness, multi-culturalism, and insluciveness of ethnic and religious minorities.

I am not even going to comment on the Daily Sabah statement about the Kurdish YPG in Syria. The Daily Sabah is owned by Erdogan's family, and Turkey has a well known hatred against the Kurds. I wouldn't be surprised if this page was created by Turkish nationalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.163.173 (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Too big edits
Hi, you are removing sources, details and adding a lot of statements against WP:POV. Could you explain your changes, here. Ferakp (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Kurdification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150116010104/http://www.minorityrights.org/5742/iraq/yezidis.html to http://www.minorityrights.org/5742/iraq/yezidis.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's OK.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

No sources for Syrian and Iraqi Arabs?
The article is full with Kurdification and razing the Arabic town, villages, ... please revert the edits. Beshogur (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yazidis Kurdification victims?
It's pretty hard to claim they are victims of Kurdification because their language is Kurdish, culture is Kurdish and many of them accept Kurdish idendity. Yazidis are considered as Kurds in the vast majority of sources, only some of them don't see them as Kurds but they even don't strictly separate them from Kurds. Ferakp (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox
Dear editors,

The infobox you are using is not an appropriate infobox for the article. Check out other similar articles, Turkification, Arabization and Germanisation. They they don't use such infobox and despite all of those similar articles, such infobox is not logically appropriate for this article. Beshogur: Stop reversing my changes without using the talk page. I have explained it above, if you are not happy, let's start discussion.Ferakp (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Amnesty International section
Dear editor,

The Amnesty International section is not related to the Kurdification, it's related to forced displacement. Please, explain how is it related to the Kurdification?Ferakp (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Forced displacement of other ethnicities is part of kurdificiation. It does not need to say word to word "it is kurdified".--94.122.76.157 (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable source
 According to Amin Farhan Jejo, the leader of the Yazidi Movement for Reform and Progress: “Since the fall of the former regime, the people of Yazidi religion are victims of the polices of some sides in Kurdistan Region which try to demonstrate the Kurdish identity for the Yazidi people in Nineveh and Dohuk.” 

This source is very likely too unreliable to be added as a source and support the claim. The newspaper is known from its partisan politics. Ferakp (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Lawyer statement
Personal story of lawyer is not a good thing to add to the article. Also, the source is not reliable. Check WP:RELIABILITY. Ferakp (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikileak
Wikileaks is not a reliable source. Ferakp (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Not relevant section
This part is not related to the article: ''In addition to the Kurdish-speaking majority, there are also Yazidi communities that speak Arabic as their native mother language. In 2002, at the request of a group of Yazidis led by Tamoyan, the Armenian parliament recognized the Yazidis as a separate ethnicity. ''

It has been deleted.Ferakp (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

AINA
This section has been removed: ''On 15 August 2005, Shabaks organised a demonstration under the slogan "We are the Shabak, not the Kurds and not the Arabs", demanding recognition of their unique ethnic identity. The demonstration came under fire from Kurdistan Democratic Party militia. '' AINA is pro-Assyrian, anti-Kurdish and biased website. It's not a reliable source. Doesn't meet the WP:RELIABILITY. Ferakp (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 *  The Assyrian International News Agency claimed that the Kurds have annexed some Assyrian, Yazidi and Shabak villages which are now under Kurdish Control in North Iraq and in Turkey. In Iraqi Kurdistan, Assyrian politicians of some towns have been replaced with Kurdish ones. 


 * This section has been removed for following reasons:
 * 1. It's unclear what does it means with "the Kurds". The source says PKK/militants.
 * 2. The source is unreliable and highly biased.
 * 3. Despite unreliable sources and suspicious claims (the content of website), they aren't written neutrally. Ferakp (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

AINA
Looks like the main source of this article is AINA which is unreliable and biased towards the Kurds. AINA news are written by propagandist and in many cases, they don't really know what they are writing: For example, the latest section I removed, for same reasons I mentioned above, is factually incorrect. AINA claims the Kurds force Yazidis to speak and study in Kurdish. The mother tongue of Yazidis is Kurdish and this tells how unreliable AINA news actually are. The source is here Ferakp (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable source
As I tried to mention above, the article has too much AINA news and it is mainly based on AINA source. I cleaned some very suspicious sections from AINA but the article has too many paragraphs which use AINA as a source. Let the tag stay as long as someone cleans the article and add reliable sources.Ferakp (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Concerning the recent edit war:

1) I have reverted mainly because one of the sentences formulated by user Beshogur makes no sense: "... have also claimed that some towns have been replaced with Kurdish ones". Not the town but the politicians have been replaced. (I really hoped that he would notice this after my reverts.)

2) Now I have also looked at the source:

"In the Assyrian town of Alqosh, the local council, which is under the control of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), voted yesterday to remove the Assyrian chairman, Faiz Abed Jahwareh, and replace him with a Kurdish man who is a member of the KDP. Mr. Jahwareh, who is a member of the Assyrian Democratic Movement (ADM), was widely supported by the town residents and was responsible for the administration of Alqosh and a number of smaller Assyrian and Yezidi villages in the surrounding area."

Here it is explicitely stated that the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) is responsible for replacing the chairman and controls the town. This should be in the text.

3) I have deleted another source without any relation to the text.

In addition, I think the doubts about reliability of the sources from AINA as discussed above should be taken seriously. So we may have to remove it anyway. 2003:77:4F17:F587:45A0:3EF0:3F47:8E4F (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Pelagic's involvement
Hi, all, I'd like to drop an informal note here before I make any edits to this controversial article or its talk. Partly I want to affirm my stance as a relatively uninvolved editor before the accusations of POV bias are inevitably made. I also want to let you know that I am an infrequent editor and might not see any updates or comments for a time. If you address something to me and I don't respond straight away, then don't read too much into that.

So here's the background. I routinely add pages to my watchlist when I edit them, even if my change is just a minor copyedit. The fact that I watch this page doesn't mean I have strong feelings about the subject matter. I am not pro-Arabic, pro-Kurdish, or pro-Assyrian (though I do despair for the fate of minority groups in the middle east).

So occasionally I will check my watchlist, and it not unusual to see that there's been yet another edit or revert to the Kurdification page. Sometimes I might even feel like tapping through to see the diff. Then, generally, I'll shake my head and move on, questioning whether I should just unwatch the page.

But the recent pattern of edits, though not unexpected, is concerning. I just hope I won't come to regret getting involved.

Pelagic (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Original research
'' The pro-Turkish government agency AA claimed that Ossama Telcu, a member of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, had claimed that the "PYD" forces set ablaze civil registry and land registry buildings in Manbij shortly after taking city from ISIL. In addition, it was also claimed that the PYD had also been sending away Sunni Arabs and Turkmen residents who want to return to their homes in Manbij on the pretext that ISIL has planted mines inside the house. However, the Reuters, Kurdish and US sources reported that civilians had returned to their homes. ''

There is at least 7 problems with this section. First problem is that the first source (AA) is in conflict with other sources (Washingtonpost and Reuters). The second problem is that the first source is biased and pro-government source, so it's not probably a reliable source. The third problem is that the section is original research as none of those sources mention "Kurdification" or explicitly mention anything about Kurdification. The fourth problem is that the "antiwar" source is also unreliable source. Also, one of those sources is not related to the article at all. It could restored if reliable sources are added that are not in conflict with each other. Ferakp (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @Ferakp, thanks for bringing your concerns to the talk page. Unfortunately I see at least 7 problems with your list of problems.
 * There is not that much conflict between news reports. The Reuters article properly acknowledges that they were relying on pro-SDP sources for much of the article. It doesn't mention particular ethnic or religious groups, so its silence on the question of people being turned away does not directly refute the claim in AA.  What is more pertinent, the Reuters article does mention a claim that the YPG rounded up dozens of young men "because of concerns that some of them belonged to sleeper cells".
 * The WashPost article doesn't conflict with AA, rather it reports claims by Amnesty that YPG forces are intentionally displacing non-Kurds from northern Syria.
 * Where there are competing claims, the correct approach is to note both sides in a balanced way, not to delete all the content.
 * The quote you have provided does identify AA as a "pro-Turkish government agency" so the bias was noted. The source cited for the fact that AA made certain claims is an article published by AA itself.  I know that Wikipedia has a stated preference for secondary sources (like Washington Post commenting on a report by Amnesty International, rather than citing the Amnesty report directly), but sometimes you have to settle for the primary source.
 * Most readers would be able to see that "a campaign of displacement and home demolitions aimed mostly at the local Arab population" (wash. post), and that selectively preventing Arab and Turkmen residents from returning to re-taken or 'liberated' towns are acts that would support a programme of Kurdification, even if the sources don't explicitly label it as "Kurdification". To say tat including those claims here constitutes original synthesis is overstating the case.
 * Sure, antiwar.com has an agenda, but it's not specifically an anti-Kurdish one. What's interesting is that they also provide an alternative theory as to why the PYD/YPG might want to burn the land registry, so they aren't just regurgitating the claims from Andalou Agency.
 * You are right that one citation (the Washington Post article) doesn't relate to Manbij at all. It is, however pertinent to the subject as a whole, and so should be relocated within the text rather than just deleted.
 * I found another article citing "local sources", claiming the SDF burned the land registry after retaking the city. "SDF Burn Properties Records in Manbij", Salaam Masoud, 2016-08-16, Baladi News, http://baladi-news.com/en/news/details/9220/SDF_Burn_Properties_Records_in_Manbij.

Pelagic (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Iraq
Why is this page limited to Iraq? I mean, a kurdification has taken place for centuries of ethnic Armenians, Turks, Turkmens, Bulgarians, Chechens and so on in Turkish Kurdistan, which should be added as well. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A place to start would be to list the third party reliable sources that discuss these processes of Kurdification in Turkish Kurdistan. MPS1992 (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

AINA and Midleeast monitor
Content was removed with the claim that AINA is extremely anti-KRG and the Middleeast monitor is biased as well. If one believes this to be the case, then one has to establish this at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. AINA is used as a source in hundreds of wikipedia articles, from Geert Wilders to Rape in Egypt to Greek genocide, where it would have to be removed too (but only if Reliable Sources Noticeboard agrees with the claim). I'm restoring the content until the case is made at Reliable Sources Noticeboard for Midleeast monitor and [www.aina.org] Hoever, one can note in the article that the source is Assyrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.6.196.156 (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yezidis
Yezidis definitely need their own paragraph and shouldn’t be erased. Nekes62 (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Syria
Please add section about Kurdification of Syrian people which mostly done by PYD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.111.176 (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You'd need a reliable source that documents that such a process takes place. MPS1992 (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have (finally) added a section about Syria. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is poor. The Roy Gutman article used as a source was published on the 7th of February 2017 repeating very unsubstantiated claims by various involved actors such as ISIL and Turkey, however on the 10th of March 2017 a U.N. Human Rights Council report refutes those allegations that were made. As for including also the Kurdish name for the town signs. Under Assad's regime, Kurds were not recognized at all and the Kurdish language was not included either, the Kurds including themselves isn't Kurdifcation. It is common to use also the Latin version, see Afrin town sign as one reference. When the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) held control of the town a council of elders was formed to administer the region, to be "a fair representation of the ethnic composition of the town" which consisted of 15 people, of which ten were Arabs, three Kurds and respectively one Armenian and one Turkmen. I contemplated removing this completely, but if you can provide more sources on the signs or any reliable source that this was Kurdifying the town, I think that is the best next option. TataofTata (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)