Talk:Kurdish diaspora/Archive 1

Untitled
I have no idea whether we should keep the history section or not. but about Shabankare I think there are some evidence referring they were Kurdish. not by mentioning by other writters and their personal idea but even by evidence found from them. I heard (from a KurdistanTV interview with a renwoned Kurdish intelectual from Mehabad) that one of the first Kurdish books was written by a writter from this tribe. and that he was among the first individuals who used the modern term Kurdistan. Wirya 09:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Vonones
Can you please double check the source, that it says 18 to 22 million. DenizTC 06:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

the arab world
turkey and balkans are mentioned under the arab world ?!? weird Quinlan Vos (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Serious problems
Maybe this page belongs on a propaganda site for Kurds, but it doesn't come close to meeting Wikipedia standards. There is one listed reference (a provincial U.S. newspaper), and dead links for the external links. And there are some really puzzling assertions as, for example, the assertion that if some Baluchis have some Kurdish ancestors, then that makes them Kurdish.

This passage: "Most Kurds who comprise a small portion (about 1.2%) of total population arrived in Georgia at the time of the Ottoman Empire, having fled religious repression there. They now live mainly in Tbilisi or Rustavi. Kurds are mostly urbanized and socially integrated, but preserve their ethnic identity, language, and cultural traditions. " is copied verbatim from the given source (see WP:copyright).

And this passage: "During the secon half of the last century a large population of Kurds living in Northen part of Kurdistan (Turkey) were forced to live their villages and towns. Because of this displacement, large communities of Kurds live in Turkish cities. In some Turkish cities because of a large number of migration, Kurds are the majority and the origin people of those cities (Turks) have become minorities, especially in cities like Adan and Mercin. Also nearly one milion Kurds in Ankara and 4 milion in Istanbul and Izmir are other big Kurdish communities in metropolitan areas of Turkish cities, in addition of 2 milion Kurds living around Konya. But the Kurds living in Konya have been displaced 4 centuries before by Othoman empire." Poor knowledge of English doesn't seem to be the excuse for this prose: the writer can't even spell the names of Turkish cities correctly (Adan?).

This page needs work. WP is a place for information, not for propaganda. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Serious Problems 2
Also, I'm not sure with the validity of the statement: "the diaspora from their ancient homeland of Kurdistan"

First off, you can't reference ancient states as a center of modern Kurdish civilization, it's more accurate to say the modern state, which in this case, there isn't one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.91.239 (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Diaspora or not
If the page is about the diaspora, Kurds living in Turkey or Iraq should not be listed. A move discussion can be opened. Kavas (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea :) Because some users remove those information (Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria). They insist that Kurdistan is their homeland and Kurdish people living in Kurdistan couldn't be consider Kurdish diasora. But Kurds of Central Anatolia (In Turkey) and Khorasan (In Iran) live outside of Kurdistan. Takabeg (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Kurdish population in large cities such as Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, Mersin, Tehran, Baghdad etc. may be considered as diaspora. Yes a move discussion can be opened. Merci. Takabeg (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Kurds living anywhere in Turkey, Iran, Iraq or Syria are not part of the diaspora because they are born in these countries. It does not matter if they migrate internally within these countries they are still citizens of these countries. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 09:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Mhalmoye
These people are not Kurds but infact Syriacs who converted to Islam by force in the 1630's. This should be taken off from this page! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ILLeSt (talk • contribs).


 * Can't they just be "Kurds of Syriac origin"? Don't they consider themselves Kurds today? Khoikhoi 04:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Gazo would know about this, but I thought they considered themselves to be Arabs. Chaldean 14:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mhalmoye are actually Syriacs, they even called themselves Suryoyo, so the information is wrong ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 01:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources being used
I am concerned about the sources which are being used for this article. I have removed the following sentence from the article: According to the National Security Council’s controversial report, Kurds would make up 40% of the population of Turkey by 2010, and 50 % by 2025

The source only says that the NSC had fears that Kurds would make up 40 pecent of the population by 2010, and 50 percent by 2025. This is not scientific and obviously not a fact. We are in 2010 now do Kurds make up 40% of Turkey's population? Of course not! Please use reliable sources otherwise I will probably never keep away from this article.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 20:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the explanation of Woodrow Wilson Center. It is considered as an encyclopedic information.Takabeg (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Takabeg, it is currently 2010, do Kurds make up 40% of Turkey's population? You know that the answer is NO. The way you are using this source is very misleading and you know it. I cannot allow such ludicrous contributions to go ahead.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

These analyzes are important and known widely in Turkey. Maybe you don't know. For example "Çözüm felaket mi?". Takabeg (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Takabeg, you are trying to back up your argument using an article from Radikal! Show me some academic references at least! Turco  85  ( Talk ) 22:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, if you read your source properly this 'fear' was expressed in the Milliyet newspaper in December 18, 1996. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 23:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Gündüz Aktan, former diplomat and journalist, analyzed that Kurdish population will reach to the half of total population of Turkey in 2035. In Turkey many analyzes like this and affected not only Turkish nationalist's sentiments but also politics. Speech of primer Erdoğan, for example, Every family must have at least three children are explained on the ground of these analyzes about the rapid increase of Kurdish population in Turkey. Anyway Takabeg (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the population of Kurds in Turkey today is disputed. So I do not see how we can be certain about 2035! All I ask is for reliable sources. You may think I am anti-Kurdish but I honestly am not. I dedicate a lot of time on wikipedia because I believe in its cause. What you are doing [i.e. using unreliable sources such as this and Joshua Project] is misleading. You may have not known this before; but you should know by now. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 23:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I also think Kurdish population in Turkey is not clear. Ethnic Turkish population in Turkey is not clear in the same way. Many people (not only Turkists but also Turk:sh government) had said "There is no such thing as Kurd" (Kürt diye birşey yoktur) 20 years before. 10 years ago, most of citizens of Turkey didn't (maybe couldn't) refer to their real ethnicities, when they were asked whether Kurdish or not ? Zaza or not ? Laz or not ? Armenian or not ? etc. But now more people can refer to their ethnicities openly, especially after the Kürt açışımı. We can see the physical increase of Kurdish population. At the same time we can see the increase of people who can say "I'm Kurdish", "I'm Zaza", "I'm Laz", they were Turkish yesterday. Our duty is to transfer information about these issues with sources. Takabeg (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to reliable sources. But this is not a reliable source. It is merely quoting an article from 1996- which was just speculation. Have you seen any academic sources which claim this? Turco  85 ( Talk ) 00:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Both of you are getting very close to edit warring on this topic so I'd urge you both to tread very carefully (and remember that you don't have to break 3RR to be guilty of edit warring, especially if you game the system by waiting 24 hours and one minute for example). As for this particular disagreement, it's irrelevant whether Kurds make up 40% of the population now as that's not what being asserted. The assertion is that the "NSC had fears that..." and that is a fact supported by a reliable source (as an organisation's own publications are nearly always a reliable source as to that organisation's views even if it wouldn't be reliable in any other way). Hence this isn't a sourcing issue as we have a reliable source to back up what is being asserted. What is at issue here is whether such a statement should be included in the article. Dpmuk (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Dpmuk, the source it citing a 1996 newspaper. This does not make it a fact, just a mere 'prediction' of 2010 and 2025. We are currently in 2010, the Kurdish population in Turkey is still estimated at around 20% as hundreds of sources would show you. I have not found even one academic source which claims that Kurds make 40% of Turkey's population. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 20:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You've missed my point. The text added to the article is about the prediction and so we need a reliable source that confirms that prediction and what it said.  It's the prediction itself that's the fact.  It's fact that the prediction happened and we have a reliable source to prove that.  If the prediction was so widely inaccurate, as you say it is, it's very debatable whether the prediction should be in the article (certainly shouldn't be without a caveat saying how wrong they were) but the decision there is an editorial one relating to content not one relating to verifiability - we have (what I assume to be) a reliable source that verifies the prediction' happened and what it said.  In short if someone was trying to add the text "40% of the population is Kurdish" then you'd be correct this source is useless but it's not saying that, the addition is saying "there was a prediction that 40% of the population would be Kurdish in 2010" and the source confirmed that prediction did happen and that it did say that.  Dpmuk (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You make a fair point. However, other than that 1996 article from Milliyet which this source cites there seems to be no other reliable sources to back this up. Furthermore, I think we should avoid such speculations. I have never come across such a statement about the Kurds in Turkey; and believe me, I have read a lot on this subject. At this point in time the Kurds in Turkey make around 20% of the population. In fact some sources place it between 15-18% which this article does not present [for obvious reasons].  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 23:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, my main point is that we need to use reliable sources which can be backed up. That is all I am asking for. Otherwise I would not bother wasting so much time on these discussion pages. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 23:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we have a reliable source that a prediction happened but in many ways that is irrelevant. I don't think we need a predicted percentage for 2010 as presumably we should be able to find a recent enough actual percentage to go in the article (although of course this may be a range if there's disagreement).  Additionally although I think a prediction for 2025 could be a valid thing to include in the article, IF what you say about the number today is right (and I don't know enough about the subject to know if you're right) then I don't think this particular prediction for 2025 belongs in the article as they got the 2010 prediction so wrong.  Even if they hadn't got it so wrong a more up-to-date prediction would still be more useful. Dpmuk (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well here are some of the most recent publications which I have found:
 * BBC News (18th October 2010): Kurds make up up to a fifth of the population of Turkey. (so around 20%)
 * The Economist (21st October 2010): ...Turkey’s Kurds, who make up 14% of the population, most of them living in the country’s poor south-east.
 * The New York Times(3rd November 2010): ''...now more than 12 million people out of 78 million...' (so around 15.5% of the population)
 * The Wall Street Journal (1st November 2010) ''Up to one-fifth of Turkey's population are ethnic Kurds...' (so around 20%)
 * Academic books and journals also give similar estimates. For example, Michael M. Gunter (2008) in 'The Kurds ascending: the evolving solution to the Kurdish problem in Iraq and Turkey' (United States:Palgrave Macmillan) says the following: '...a reasonable estimate is that there may be as many as 12 to 15 million Kurds in Turkey (18 percent of the population)'.
 * There are many many more sources if you wish for me to provide more evidence. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 11:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's easily enough! In that case I agree that the "prediction" has no place in the article.  Thanks for finding the sources.  This is not an area I know at all and I only came across it due to some move issues a few months back.  As such I'm trying to stay independent and offer advice rather than get too involved in the subject. Dpmuk (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest I am happy that you are here. I try my best to improve many articles but when I touch an article based on Kurds, Greeks or Armenians users usually call me anti-x (as you have seen). So it's really great to have a neutral third person!  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 23:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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: Move to Kurdish population (note the lowercase "p" - presuming uppercase "P" in proposal is typo as others used lowercase "p" in comments and that is correct). No opposition. Born2cycle (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Kurdish diaspora → Kurdish Population — Initially the Kurdish diaspora and Kurdish population articles were identical [until I made improvements to this article] therefore I requested they be merged. I suggest that we move this article to Kurdish population because Kurds in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq are not part of the diaspora. Thus, if we leave the article as it is, it will open the flood gates with seperate diaspora and population articles being created with identical information. It is unnecessary to have two articles which are exactly the same being placed under two different articles just because there are Kurds who live in an extra 4 countries. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 13:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The history of these pages is a bit more complicated than that but essentially the recent history is that Turco85 started to heavily edit the Kurdish diaspora article and then someone created a copy and paste copy of that article at Kurdish Population, as it has been before Turco85 edits. Hence there was nothing to merge and I tagged Kurdish Population as a G12 given that it only existed as a redirect before so we'd lose no history.  However this still left open what the most appropriate article title was so I suggested to the users involved a requested move discussion given the problematic history of these articles (which goes back much further than I've just described).  I don't feel able to comment on the move as I don't know enough about the subject but I would say that, per our naming conventions, the proposed new name should be Kurdish population. Dpmuk (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that User:Takabeg has argued the following: Kurdish population in large cities such as Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, Mersin, Tehran, Baghdad etc. may be considered as diaspora. This clearly shows that more disputes could arrive in the future. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 13:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the title must be changed to Kurdish population. Otherwise, some anti-Kurdish users tried to remove information about Kurds in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria. But their edits are not correct. Because Kurds are living in territories of Turkey outside Turkish Kurdistan. For example some Kurdish groups have been in Inner Anatolia some centuries before. They are different from other Kurds who are living in Turkish Kurdistan and new emigrants from Turkish Kurdistan. In Iran different Kurdish groups who live outside Iranian Kurdistan. For example, Kurds also live in Khorasan. Some people may think that all Kurdish people are in diaspora. So term Kurdish diaspora is ambiguous. Some people don't want to see Kurdish in Turkey and they can remove information and datum about Kurdish people living in Turkey. Our most constructive way is changing title of article Kurdish diaspora to Kurdish population. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * some anti-Kurdish users tried to remove information about Kurds in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria. Takabeg, I think you need to fix up and learn some respect. I am merely trying to improve the article. It is you who is using pro-Kurdish tendencies to create your propaganda.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to be (just) about any kind of diaspora, so it seems it ought to be moved to Kurdish population or (perhaps better) simply merged into the main article on Kurds.--Kotniski (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.

Admin assistance required
After a close like this, normally I would tag the destination for deletion to make room for the move, but in this case there is a real article and I think the histories need to be merged. Where do I ask for admin assistance on this? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Copied
Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2cycle (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Move?

 * 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: Moved per previous discussion (above) and as a Copy per comments below. Born2cycle (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Kurdish diaspora → Kurdish population —
 * RM discussion closed in support of this move, but need admin assistance to merge histories. Born2cycle (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The text in page Kurdish diaspora is distinct from the text that was in page Kurdish population before it was made into a redirect. History-merge is impossible because WP:Parallel histories. The previous message's "RM discussion" is further up in this talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, then per WP:Parallel histories the correct thing is to copy the text from Kurdish diaspora over the text at Kurdish population, change Kurdish diaspora into a redirect to Kurdish population, and leave templates at both talk pages.  I can do that.  I don't understand the point in restarting the same RM discussion again.  The decision has been made, only the technical details of how to effect the move needed to be resolved, and now that is done too.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ (see next section - Copy) --Born2cycle (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 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.