Talk:Syrian Kurdistan/Archive 5

Removal of CIA quote
User Applodian removed a CIA quote here: claiming "95% of it was already mentioned in one way or another in the article anyway"

But that's not true at all. Kurds had equal rights, received fair treatment, kurds not wanting to integrate, Beirut and Damascus becoming centers of "Kurdish nationalist propaganda", "immigrant" kurds provided most leaders for the kurds, "non-native immigrant Kurds" "retained their traditional hatred of alien domination", kurds wanting the "creation" of a "kurdistan" including parts of Syria. All of this is nowhere to be found in the article and by removing this documented CIA quote this valuable historical information is completely absent from the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All what was not mentioned by the quote can be added to the text without the quote. In addition, some of the information is not very important here, as the "equal rights" you mentioned are about the situation under the French Mandate. The CIA document is from 1946. A lot has changed in the last 70+(!) years. Also, the importance of immigrants for the development of Syrian Kurdistan is already mentioned several times, such as here: "and refugees arriving from Turkish and Iraqi Kurdistan helped foster Kurdish political consciousness, engendering a "pan-Kurdism" that complemented pre-existing Kurdish identities". Applodion (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also thought the quote was misplaced and gave it an elevated prominence in the article. Per MOS:QOUTE, we are encouraged to write in our own words.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the above, the CIA is not a reliable source. Levivich harass/hound 15:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Historical impossibility
These sentences that are currently in the article say:


 * "During the 1920s, use of the Latin alphabet to write the Kurdish languages was introduced by Celadet Bedir Khan and his brother Kamuran Alî Bedirxan and became widespread in Syrian Kurdistan, as it did in Turkish Kurdistan."


 * "By the 1960s, after the eventual settlement of the borders of the successor states after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Kurdistan was frequently divided into four regions corresponding to the Kurdish-majority areas of four adjacent modern states: Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria."

So these two sentences are implying that during the Ottoman empire there was a "Kurdistan" inside Syria. But if we take a look at this CIA source from 1946 at page 12 it says: "these Kurds have tended to regard the creation of an independent "Kurdistan" as their only salvation. The area to be included in such a state is variously defined. In all cases, however it included portions of Turkey, Iraq and Iran, as well as Syria, and the supposition is made that a unified Kurdish movement for independence must exist in all four countries."

So if kurds in 1946 wanted the "creation" of a "Kurdistan" in Syria, then a "Syrian Kurdistan" couldn't have possibly existed prior to that date, during the 1920s or Ottoman Empire. These claims are therefor a historical impossibility. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, there has never existed an independent country (politically recognized) called Kurdistan, a cultural, historical Kurdistan (academically recognized), a country where Kurds live, has existed also during the Ottoman Empire, and this span also over parts of present-day Syria.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The source I linked to above confirms that as of 1946 no "Kurdistan" existed in Syria. Do you have a RS that confirms the opposite? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

How is this 1946 CIA report an WP:RS? Levivich harass/hound 16:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a secret report written and distributed by the CIA concerning a situation in Syria. The report was for the US president and other high ranking US officials. Its information is reliable.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You think it's an WP:RS because it's a secret internal US government report? What is this, Alice in Wonderland? Levivich harass/hound 17:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reluctantly p-blocked SD for disruptive editing. —valereee (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Disputed content requires recent scholarship for source
I've added a restriction to the GS banner; any disputed content must be sourced to recent scholarship. —valereee (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * hate to be that guy, but you technically also need to add it into Template:Editnotices/Page/Syrian Kurdistan as well (done in the same way as the talk notice using restriction1) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @ProcrastinatingReader never with me worry about being that guy. Let me see if I can figure that out lol... —valereee (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, check my work. Also tell me what I should have been aware of to know I needed to do that? —valereee (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Er...that wasn't a demand, I meant it as a request for help, and please add "please and thank you" to the rendering. :) —valereee (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah that works. GN mentioned it at WT:GS. It's not properly documented on the WP:GS/SCW page, though it is on other sanction pages (eg WP:GS/COVID19), likely because the GS subpages are an inconsistent mess, but I think it stems from Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions: "Enforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pages and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages." imo when in doubt with GS, ignore every GS page and follow WP:AC/DS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @ProcrastinatingReader, so that's "the page's edit notice" that GN mentioned? God I hate how stupid I'm clearly admitting to being, but how do I even know whether a page has an edit notice, and absent someone helpfully being that guy  where do I find it? —valereee (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. If the page doesn't have one, you can create one. If you go to Syrian Kurdistan, click "Edit source" in the top right you'll see a small blue link called "Page notice". Clicking it takes you to the editnotice page. If you click "Edit source" on a page that doesn't have one, for example Syrian Army, you'll still see "Page notice" but it'll be a redlink. Clicking it will take you to the page to create it using the editnotice template (Gs/editnotice). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @ProcrastinatingReader always something new to discover here lol... —valereee (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you unblock Supreme Deliciousness now? Shadow4dark (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd quite like to do that; let's give it a bit to see what the reaction to this is. —valereee (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer an explanation for the move attempt to Kurdish occupied regions of Syria from Syrian Kurdistan during the Siege of Kobane by ISIL (and Turkey). Then SD would have to accept that Turkish and Assad POV are not academic scholarship (not worth to discuss) and also commit not to remove academic scholarship (without foregoing discussion) like they did before the GOLDLOCK was instated.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * —valereee, I guess you haven't seen my reply. So there is now an ANI thread on if you are even allowed to impose such a restriction. Could you also unblock GPinkerton who actually brought in most sources of academic scholarship into the article and is the leading editor of the article? Or could you give at least an explanation for to only allow the ones who have opposed academic scholarship as Kurdish POV, but exclude the one who brought them in?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Paradise Chronicle, GPinkerton isn't blocked, they have a topic ban. That topic ban wasn't placed by me, and I couldn't remove it without at minimum discussing first with the admin who placed it, and even then there might have to be a discussion, as the topic ban was placed via a discussion among multiple admins. A removal of the topic ban probably requires an appeal at AN, and frankly I'd recommend a good few months of trouble-free editing in other places. FTR, always feel free to ping me when you are looking for me to comment! I never mind being pinged. —valereee (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

History
Currently, the "History" section spends six paragraphs on pre-modern-Syria, and one paragraph on post-modern-Syria. This is disproportionate. In the "Background" section of Michael Gunter's 2014 book Out of Nowhere, page 7, this is how he introduces the topic of Syrian Kurdistan (I added wikilinks for anyone who is not familiar with the terms):

Gunter then discusses the starting with Krak des Chevaliers (Castle of the Kurds) in the Alawite mountains, and the : Afrin, Kobani and Jazira (p. 8), before continuing with the history starting with WWI and forward (p. 9 and on).

The current History section has too much pre-20th-century, and too little 20th-century history, for a topic (Syrian Kurdistan) that is a 20th century concept (because modern Syria is a 20th-century concept, not because Kurdistan is a 20th-century concept, as Gunter explains). I plan to revise the history section to re-balance it, by cutting down on the pre-1918 stuff and expanding the post-1918 stuff. I wanted to share this to explain the reasoning for forthcoming edits. Reverts welcome as always. Levivich harass/hound 21:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your removal of French population numbers, immigration from Turkey and Algun information is unjustified and not accepted. It actually contradicts what you say above about importance of focusing on historical background from the 20th century. Why are ethnographic maps and population censuses unneeded in an area to which Kurds lay national claims while numbers (from the 20th century) show otherwise? If you are not using French mandate numbers, then which numbers should we use and believe? French scholarship from the 1950's is very relevant and necessary to this article as this is when Kurdish nationalistic claims started to appear in Syria. Your approach of 2020 snapshot is missing the context and evolution of things, which is misleading (with all due respect), to say the least. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because they were not sourced to modern scholarship. It's not a 2020 snapshot, it's using modern scholarship. To the extent we include historical figures, they need to be sourced to modern scholarship not historical scholarship. Levivich harass/hound 02:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , according to the newly implanted rule, modern scholarship are only required "For any disputed content", is there a dispute about the french population numbers? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that an editor disputes something makes it disputed content. —valereee (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You will not find copies of original research and census data published earlier in modern scholarship because that's called PLAGIARISM. You might find very brief mentions with no details, such as this . The details provided in earlier scholarship (such as the quotes from French authors) about mandate-era ethno-social changes happening in Jazira are all important for a claimed cultural/national territory by a specific group of people. Also, you removed the French mandate numbers from Algun's work (2011) under a different pretext. The census numbers you removed show ethnic composition of different parts of Jazira and population evolution with time. There is no justification to removing these numbers, unless one wants to hide the history of the area. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The 2008 edition (p. 475) says This demonstrates the importance of citing recent scholarship, as historiography changes; even this source changed slightly over a three-year period, no doubt in response to feedback from the 2005 edition.
 * The population table I removed here covers 1929-1954, placing WP:UNDUE focus on the post-war period while excluding the 1920s, and it's sourced to the 1956 survey. Similarly, this content I removed cited to a 1953 survey highlights certain post-war years, which is UNDUE. None of it provides the context that modern scholarship provides. (Note that both the source I quoted above, and the 2008 version of the source you quoted, focus on Turkish Kurd migration specifically in the 1920s.)
 * The whole History section, and really the whole article, is the sum of years of POV battles. It's really noticeable in the way that it talks about certain minor things in great detail, while barely mentioning other major events. Another tell-tale sign is that the article is based almost entirely on dozens of sources, each of which is only cited once. This is a give-away that editors are including sources to make certain points. What everyone should be doing instead is summarizing the best sources available; that means the article will cite multiple sources multiple times, as those are the sources that are summarized.
 * Anyway, the reason for the removal of those population figures was because they were sourced to 75-year-old surveys. Levivich harass/hound 04:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, if you feel that a certain area/event is not covered enough, all you have to do is expand it, not remove other info to make everything look balanced. The French articles do talk about multiple aspects, not just immigration, and were providing great context. The evolution of the population is also important to show how this area developed, and how it was affected by events in neighboring Turkey, and how it started to thrive under French mandate. At the end of the day, it's the history section and relevant info might only come from older sources. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Why recent academic sources
This is the opening to Katharina Lange (2018), "Syria", p. 275, in Sebastian Maisel (ed.), The Kurds: An Encyclopedia of Life, Culture, and Society, ABC-Clio (links added):

On the same page, Lange writes:

Lange discusses population estimates by other recent scholars (McDowall, Allsopp). We can cite Lange and the others for population estimates, and everything else. This is a topic where basically all the scholarship is very recent. Levivich harass/hound 05:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Is this a good academic source? Syria's Kurds History, Politics and Society - Jordi Tejel, Published by Routledge: "The KDPS continued to promote the teaching of the Kurdish language in Latin characters and to cultivate the nationalist doctrine of the Syrian Kurds, using Kurdish myths (Kawa and "Greater Kurdistan")" . Where in the article do you think we should ad this scholar information that the Kurdish Democratic Progressive Party promoted the "Myth" of "Greater Kurdistan" to Syrian Kurds? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As to me, it could be added that it was the KDP-S (or an at the times influential Kurdish Party) promoted the teaching of the Kurdish language and mythology. Just add it in NPOV way and mention it with context. The Greater Kurdistan Myth is not an invention but together with Kawa a cultural heritage. The teaching of Myths was used often by the Greek philosophers.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * First we should add some content about KDPS, what it was, etc. And as part of that we should include discussion of what KDPS promoted and didn't promote. And when. And why. Levivich harass/hound 16:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is about "Syrian Kurdistan" not "KDPS", that's a different Wikipedia article. So the focus here, in this "Kurdistan" article should be on the "Kurdistan" part, and what the academic professor scholar Jordi Tejel said about "Greater Kurdistan" and him identifying it as something. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you seriously just argue that in the article Syrian Kurdistan, we should focus on Kurdistan, and not on the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Syria? It seems to me the only thing you care about is saying Kurdistan "doesn't exist". Levivich harass/hound 18:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats not what I said. There should be info about several subjects related to the article including the KDPS. But the focus, should be on the "Kurdistan" part as that is what this article is about. In your comment you only talked about adding info about KDPS, and not the most important part of the quote which was about "Greater Kurdistan" and it being identified as something by the academic professor scholar Jordi Tejel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the focus should not be on the "Kurdistan" part. Syrian Kurdistan, according to the scholars, is not just a part of Kurdistan, nor is it just a part of Syria, it's something else. The focus is on Syrian Kurdistan, not on Syria, not on Kurdistan. We have separate articles about Syria and Kurdistan. Syrian Kurdistan is where the two overlap. In some senses it's part of both, and in some senses it's part of neither. It's a third type of thing altogether. Levivich harass/hound 18:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This quote from Lange that you added above shows exactly why the info. you removed from French scholarship is CRUCIAL here. Remember that was repeated in the Algun (2011) work you also removed. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What is your obsession with these numbers? Levivich harass/hound 17:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought that was obvious, but explicitly; in an article called " ... Kurdistan" it would be very helpful to know how many Kurds (and non-Kurds) are there and how their numbers/proportion evolved over time. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But we don't need to cite the 75-year-old French source to say how many Kurds and non-Kurds there are. That's what Lange is saying explicitly. We can cite Lange. It's more reliable!
 * Also, Algun 2011 is a PhD thesis.
 * I'm sorry but I feel like I'm talking to someone who has never edited Wikipedia before. I'm really losing patience with having to spend my time explaining the very basics of WP:RS. PhD theses, primary sources, and CIA reports, are not RS. Levivich harass/hound 18:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is why I am not taking part in these discussions so actively for now. This is also why I have not removed the CIA quote. About the PhD theme we had a long "discussion" as well, in which I alone lost by far by edit war. Only the now topic-banned GPinkerton was able to remove it. I am discussing with Amr Ibn since months, not just one month.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

There's been a lot of attention to Tejel calling "Greater Kurdistan" a "myth" in Tejel 2009 (before the Syrian civil war). I thought I'd share his explanation from Tejel 2020 (both cited in the article) about the use of the term "Kurdistan", or rather why it wasn't used in the past. The suppression of "Kurdistan" is an example of why older sources are not as reliable as newer sources for this topic. Levivich harass/hound 06:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any connection at all between this text and Tejel describing GK being a "Kurdish myth". But I am seeing something else. "new political party, the Kurdish Democratic Party of Syria (KDPS) in 1957. As in previous organizations, the KDPS’ members were divided regarding the Kurds in Syria and the very idea of Kurdistan.".... But according to texts in the article, "Kurdistan" already existed in the 1920s.... how does that make any sense?. How can it have existed in the 1920s if the academic scholar historian Tejel says that in 1957 it was an "idea" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe because the idea was older than the political party named after the idea? Levivich harass/hound 08:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the text I quoted, as of 1957 it was still an idea. But how could it be an idea in 1957 if it is presented in the article right now as being a reality in the 1920s? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Quote where the article presents Kurdistan as a reality in the 1920s. Levivich harass/hound 15:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1920s: "During the 1920s, use of the Latin alphabet to write the Kurdish languages was introduced by Celadet Bedir Khan and his brother Kamuran Alî Bedirxan and became standard in Syrian and Turkish Kurdistan." also same argument goes for the 1940s: "Syrian Kurdistan appeared alongside Persian (or Iranian), Iraqi, and Turkish Kurdistan as one of the principal regional divisions of Kurdish-inhabited territory in the Middle East.[32][33][34][35][36][37] Three discontinuous areas Kurdish-inhabited areas on the Syria–Turkey border constitute Syrian Kurdistan"... This is the beginning of the 1946 Syrian Arab Republic section. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't say Kurdistan existed in the 1920s (or 1940s). It doesn't even talk about (Greater) Kurdistan, it talks about the lesser Kurdistans: Syrian, Turkish, Iraqi and Iranian. Nowhere does the article say Kurdistan existed as a reality in the 1920s. It says the exact, literal opposite: the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne made no provision for an independent Kurdistan. It also says the Kurds are stateless, right at the beginning of the History section. Levivich harass/hound 15:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "During the 1920s...became standard in Syrian and Turkish Kurdistan." How does this not say that Syrian Kurdistan existed in the 1920s? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Syrian Kurdistan existed in the 1920s (after 1923 Treaty of Lausanne set the Turkish-Syrian border). Kurdistan, as in Greater Kurdistan, as in a united, independent, sovereign nation of Kurdistan, never existed. Levivich harass/hound 07:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We are going around in circles. How could Syrian Kurdistan have existed in the 1920s if the academic scholar historian Tejel says that in 1957 it was an "idea" ?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Tejel wrote not "Syrian Kurdistan", so it's Kurdistan he refers to as an "idea", not Syrian Kurdistan. Also, I'm not sure where you're getting this interpretation from, that because he wrote KDPS was divided about "the very idea of Kurdistan", that means that Kurdistan was an idea and didn't exist. One can be divided about the "idea" of something, and that "something" may still be real or exist. For example, people might be divided about "the very idea of the Middle East", or "the very idea of a united Germany", but it doesn't mean the Middle East or Germany don't exist. (Similarly, one might use "the myth of the British Empire" to cultivate nationalism; that doesn't mean the British Empire is a myth. In the US, we have many "founding myths", or one might refer to "The Myths that Made America"; it doesn't mean the US is a myth.) Levivich harass/hound 07:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw an example of "the very idea" in NBC News today: "...disdain for who Obama was and the very idea of someone like him occupying the White House." Nobody would say that means Obama occupying the White House was an "idea" and thus not a reality. Same with this Tejel quote and "the very idea of Kurdistan". Levivich harass/hound 17:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Academic scholar information
The historian academic scholar Matthieu Cimino: has written something very important and notable concerning "Syrian Kurdistan"

"By relying on unpublished maps and school books, dating from the sixteenth century to the present day, Tejel demonstrates that the Kurdish territorial imagination, comprising myths, mobilizing stories and political ambitions, is relatively plastic and fluctuating. Recently established, "Rojava" (Syrian Kurdistan) is part of a mythology of pan-Kurdish unity which does not constitute a political objective for the Syrian Kurds in itself, but is rather a "cultural abstract". For the author, "like Arab nationalists in Syria, the Kurdish movement has produced a political discourse that combines pan-Kurdist references intertwined with local patriotism and limited territorial claims". Yet the author shows that this imagined community is nevertheless very well documented..."

Syria: Borders, Boundaries, and the State p.19.

How is the best way to incorporate this valuable academic scholar information into the article? Any suggestions? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have an academic scholar source, you are free to edit yourself. A Greater Kurdistan myth sourced more directly with Tejel (and not Cimino) already exists at the Etymology section, though. The footnote there pretty elaborate.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We should have opinions from different academic scholars, both Tejel and Cimino views are notable and deserves to be included. I was only asking for suggestions for a good text to ad. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that's not Cimino's view. Cimino is summarizing Tejel's view. What you're quoting is the introduction to the book. Tejel's view is already in the article. To add Cimino would be like "Cimino says that Tejel says that ... " It's unnecessary and awkward. Levivich harass/hound 17:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right. But reading this quote from this academic scholar. Do you feel that his words are represented in the lead and the rest of the article? The "myths" and "Kurdish territorial imagination". Why is this absent from the lead? ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of academic scholar information
Levivich, why did you remove the academic scholar information that Tejel identified "Greater Kurdistan" as being a "Kurdish myth" that was promoted to Syrian Kurds by the KDPS? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove it, I updated it, and the reason is given in my edit summary. (You should link to diffs so that others will know what edit you are referring to and can judge it for themselves.) Anyway, the article doesn't (yet) even say what KDPS is, and this isn't an article about "Greater Kurdistan". That KDPS promoted pan-Kurdish nationalism, at some points in time but not at others, is important content to add. But just cherry-picking that 12-year-old Tejel quote is not NPOV. Context matters. So I updated it with Tejel 2020 instead of Tejel 2008. BTW I do wish you'd stop single-mindedly focusing on trying to prove that Greater Kurdistan is a myth. This isn't an article about Greatee Kurdistan. There is a lot more work to be done. Why not add some content about Syrian Kurdistan, instead of focusing so much on pan-Kurdish nationalism? Levivich harass/hound 17:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes you did remove it:. The text I added said "Historian Jordi Tejel has identified "Greater Kurdistan" as being a "Kurdish myth" that was promoted to Syrian Kurds by the KDPS".... while the text you changed it into said "Historian Jordi Tejel has described "Greater Kurdistan" as "a powerful amalgam of myths, facts and ambitions". So the information about a "Kurdish myth" being promoted into the minds of Syria's Kurdish population by the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Syria was completely removed. And instead you added a sentence that frankly, doesn't say anything at all to the reader. The reason you gave was "why tell the reader what Tejel wrote in 2008 when we can tell the reader what Tejel wrote in 2020, after the war)", but your sentence doesn't contradict the text I added. If you wanted to ad that sentence that's up to you, I feel personally that its pointless, but that doesn't give you any right or reason to remove the much more notable and different information that was in the text I added. It says in the lead of the article "one of the four "Lesser Kurdistans" that comprise "Greater Kurdistan"," ... this is the lead you supported. So this information about Greater Kurdistan, Syrian Kurds and the KDPS is highly relevant to the article and belongs here. It doesn't matter if the article doesn't say what the KDPS is, if people want to read more about it, they could click on the link and read more about the KDPS, or you could ad more info about KDPS if you want, no one is stopping you. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Levivich clarified the "myth" in Tejel own words and actually improved the info available in the source. That KDP-S is removed has been explained and I can also understand it as it improves the flow of the article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The source (p. 92): This is apparently the only time the words "Greater Kurdistan" appear in the entire book (Tejel 2008). This single mention of Greater Kurdistan as an example of a Kurdish myth does not verify the content I removed:, particularly when the same author, 12 years later, wrote an entire book chapter specifically about what he thinks "Greater Kurdistan" is (which is what I replaced the 2008 content with). According to Tejel (2020), Greater Kurdistan is an amalgamation of fact, myth, and hope, and it long predates the KDPS's establishment in 1957 (e.g., Tejel describes maps of Greater Kurdistan from the 19th century), so it's just not accurate to say that Greater Kurdistan is a myth that was promoted by KDPS; that would falsely suggest KDPS invented the myth. What Tejel 2008 is actually saying is that KDSP "assumed the function of cultural framing" by promoting Kurdish language and culture, including Kurdish myths such as Greater Kurdistan. And yes, I do plan on adding more information (a lot more information) about KDPS and other Syrian Kurdish political parties, but there's over a millennia of Syrian Kurdistan history that I'm working on writing first, prior to KDPS's establishment in 1957. Levivich harass/hound 18:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Tejel saying in 2020 that "Greater Kurdistan" is an "amalgamation of fact, myth, and hope" does not contradict him saying in 2008 that it is a "Kurdish myth", He identified "Greater Kurdistan" as a "Myth" in both instances. What is also important in this context is how the idea of "Greater Kurdistan" came into the minds of Syria's Kurds. Who implanted this idea there? The KDPS was involved in this, and you removed this very important information from the article. If you feel the sentence implies that the KDPS invented the myth, then we could change it to: "and that the KDPS was involved in promoting the "Kurdish myth" of Greater Kurdistan to Syrian Kurds." - we can have this sentence after the one you added, so we don't need to remove anything. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

13th century history?
, what does the Ayyibid and mamluk 13th century history in Syria have to do with a 20th century concept of Syrian Kurdistan? Your edit is clearly WP:UNDUE. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The Ayyubids were Kurds who ruled Syria, which I think is relevant to include in the history section of the article Syrian Kurdistan. Levivich harass/hound 07:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But you deleted historic Ottoman map. Shadow4dark (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, because, as I said in the edit summary, the map was not from a reliable source. Levivich harass/hound 08:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyright infringement
Levivich, you are copying straight from the sources and pasting it in the article. This is copyright infringement.

You added: "the KDPS promoted teaching Kurdish language using Latin characters, and cultivated Syrian Kurds' nationalist doctrine using Kurdish "myths" such as Kaveh the Blacksmith and "Greater Kurdistan", "martyrs and heroes" such as Sheikh Said and Mustafa Barzani, and "intellectual and literary figures" such as Ahmad Khani, Celadet and Kamarun Bedirxan, Osman Sabri, and Cigerxwîn."

While the source says: "the KDPS promoted teaching Kurdish language using Latin characters, and cultivated Syrian Kurds' nationalist doctrine using Kurdish "myths" such as Kaveh the Blacksmith and "Greater Kurdistan", "martyrs and heroes" such as Sheikh Said and Mustafa Barzani, and "intellectual and literary figures" such as Ahmad Khani, Celadet and Kamarun Bedirxan, Osman Sabri, and Cigerxwîn."

Is everything you have added to the article like this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not what the source says. The source quote is in the footnote. Here is the correct quote from Tejel 2009, p. 86:
 * Source: The KDPS continued to promote the teaching of the Kurdish language in Latin characters and to cultivate the nationalist doctrine of the Syrian Kurds, using the Kurdish myths (Kawa and “Greater Kurdistan”), the martyrs and heroes (Shaykh Sa‘id, Mustafa Barzani), and literary and intellectual figures (Ahmad Khani, the Badirkhan brothers, ‘Uthman Sabri, Cigerxwîn).
 * Article: According to historian Jordi Tejel, the KDPS promoted teaching Kurdish language using Latin characters, and cultivated Syrian Kurds' nationalist doctrine using Kurdish "myths" such as Kaveh the Blacksmith and "Greater Kurdistan", "martyrs and heroes" such as Sheikh Said and Mustafa Barzani, and "literary and intellectual figures" such as Ahmad Khani, Celadet and Kamarun Bedirxan, Osman Sabri, and Cigerxwîn.
 * I don't think that's a copyright violation but if consensus is it's too-close paraphrasing, let's revise it. Levivich harass/hound 19:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right, I must have mixed them up when I was copying the text here. But its still to close to the source, so imho its still copyright infringement. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It presents the same ideas in the same order using nearly identical language. I have removed it.— Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time imagining an attributed statement (with quotations) that does not present the same ideas in the same order using nearly identical language. To do otherwise would be to misattribute. Come to think of it, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of any attributed sentence being copyvio, given the attribution and length. Levivich harass/hound 21:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to bring some context to the "copyright infringement": The opposing party makes it really difficult not to closely paraphrase and then tries to remove what they don't like through some apparently suddenly important rules which before they fought. Before Levivichs edit, they tried to include that (Greater) Kurdistan was a Kurdish "Myth" using probably about the same page as a source which at the time was acceptable for them. So we tried to clarify in the article what with a "Myth" is meant, and it was meant to teach Kurdish heritage and culture. The same party likes to include way longer quotes who according to them then would be a copyright infringement and following their removal would start discussion about why they were removed. Here I link to the discussion SD started at the talk page of Diannaa so explain why what happened.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A Quote would be allowed per Sysop Diannaa which approved way longer quotes at Tell Abyad. Just a paraphrase not.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I dont like quotes though, I prefer Wikipedias language: How about? According to historian Jordi Tejel, the KDPS encouraged the teaching of the Kurdish language with Latin script and cultivated Kurdish "myths" such as Greater Kurdistan or Kaveh the Blacksmith, then "martyrs and heroes" like Sheikh Said and Mustafa Barzani, and "literary and intellectual figures" such as Cigerxwîn Ahmad Khani, the Bedirxan brothers, Osman Sabri, and Ahmad Khani. I'd add it myself, but I must admit in sourcing Levivich has much more experience than me.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is not about Kurds in Syria. Thats a different article, its about Syrian Kurdistan. The only thing important here is Tejels comment about Greater Kurdistan. Everything else doesn't belong here. Its to much detailed information about non-Syrian Kurdistan things. And your suggestion is also copyright infringement, its almost the exact same copyright infringement text that Diannaa removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A couple weeks ago a wise editor said "This is why I am not taking part in these discussions so actively for now." I am going to start following that example. Levivich harass/hound 02:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

New academic information revelation
I have found new academic information that talks about Kurdish nationalists influencing scholars:

"Kurdish nationalists in the diaspora, as long-distance nationalist actors, have played a crucial role in the development of Kurdish nationalism both inside and outside the region. They strongly hold on to a Kurdish identity and promote the territoriality of this unified nation. In line with the contemporary international normative framework, they use the rhetoric of suffering, the incidents of human rights abuses and their right to statehood to influence the way host states, other states, international organizations, scholars, journalists and the international media perceive their case and the actions of their home states. They promote the idea that Kurdistan is one country artificially divided among regional states and that this dividedness is the source of Kurdish suffering."

Kaya, Zeynep N. (2020). Mapping Kurdistan: Territory, Self-Determination and Nationalism. Cambridge University p 183.

This information is of extreme importance to take into consideration because we have talked a lot here about the importance of academic scholars (and I agree) and here have an academic scholar that straight out says that Kurdish nationalists are promoting "the territoriality of this unified nation" and influencing the way scholars perceive their case.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This "new academic information", Kaya 2020, is on the list at the top of this page from two months ago. Last month, you added this source to the article. Both the content you added to the article, and the content you're quoting above, is about "Kurdish nationalists" promoting "the idea that Kurdistan is one country artificially divided". That is not new: everyone knows that Kurdish nationalists believe and promote a single, unified, sovereign Kurdistan. I mean, every book about Kurdistan says that. And every book about Syrian Kurdistan points out that many if not most Syrian Kurds do not believe Syrian Kurdistan should be part of a Kurdistan nation (although a significant number of others do believe that). Indeed, this is one of the things that Syrian Kurds have been fighting with each other, and with non-Syrian Kurds, about... and this has been going on for like a century, since the partition of Ottoman Kurdistan in World War I, going back to Xoybun if not before that. In any event, this is all subject matter for the article Kurdistan and Kurdish nationalism, more-so than Syrian Kurdistan. SK should have content about the relationship between SK and Kurdish nationalism, but the details of Kurdish nationalism should be documenting in other articles not SK. Levivich harass/hound 20:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The source isn't new but the information I extracted from it and added above about Kurdish nationalists influence on scholars is completely new. Levivich, you have been proclaiming and proclaiming both here and at the Arb case how awful it was that some editors were saying that some scholars were following a Kurdish perspective. You used this and wanted those editors banned. And here we have an academic scholar that straight out says that Kurdish nationalists have an "influence" on how scholars "perceive their case". Doesn't that tell you something?


 * Zeynep also says "They promote the idea that Kurdistan is one country artificially divided among regional states"... an "idea" huh... where is this reflected in the lead of SK? The lead that you created is undisputedly saying that SK is: "one of the four "Lesser Kurdistans" that comprise "Greater Kurdistan"" and presenting this to the reader as a fact... why aren't we following this academic scholar Levivich?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

temporary full protection
Editors who are about to be topic-banned or banned are trying to get in the last word. I've full-protected for two days, but if any other admin wants to change this, I have no objection. I note that w/re content disputes I've recently declared myself involved here. —valereee (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

sourcing restriction removed
Removing restriction as with the arbcom case closed, I hope this will no longer be needed. —valereee (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

New era?
The case is closed. I believe that we can work together. I have already shown that I prefer compromise and historical accuracy, and I will assume good faith on the part of other editors, and hope that they will do the same. I reverted the banned user GPinkerton additions that were inserted while he had no right to edit this article, yet I can recognize that these edits have good material in them, just not in the confrontational one-sided language of the said user. So, if what he wrote is important for this article, it can be discussed here (so that the language will be more neutral for example). Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which terms and words would you oppose specifically? The points of the Arab cordon policy are sure an important and informative expansion. And Hafez al Assad is portrayed rather in a good way as the one who abandoned the Arab Cordon policy.
 * My suggestions are:


 * Illegally infiltrating => illegally immigrated or => immigrated?
 * Destroy its Arab character => dilute Arab culture?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is important that a banned user does not force his way. Imagine if I would introduce a text written by the recently t-banned users? GPinkerton will not have it his way as he had no right to write anything for this article after he was t-banned. So ofcourse the Arab-Cordon policy is important to mention (and Assad portrayed positively is not important), but there are those notes:

1-Your suggestions are changing direct quotes from a book, fine by me, just remove the quotation signs, though these words are used to describe what the government thought, not facts, so I dont see the merits, but fine.

2-It seem that the banned user copied this: Nazdar, Mustafa (1993) [1978]. "The Kurds in Syria". In Chaliand, Gérard (ed.). Les Kurdes et le Kurdistan. I do not mind the source, but a single source for several paragraphs with no other point of views? Thats not really NPOV, but since I currently have no interest in doing any research for this article, I wont object, but Nazdar's words should be qualified when he does not list his primary sources (as we all know, we dont use primary sources, but secondary source, i.e. what scholars write based on primary sources. When Nazdar does not mention his primary source, then the words are his and should be presented as his view or opinion not facts). Hence, for example: "In 1967, the land of the Kurds in al-Jazira Province was nationalized" should be changed. It is claiming that Kurds lost their lands in al-Jazira province! is this backed by any actual data? Do Kurds not own lands anymore? I checked the book and no source is given for such a claim. In reality, what happened in 1968 was part of a policy that affected the entirety of Syria, connected to the socialist policies of the government (based on the Soviet model). As can be read here. Why is such background not given? Lands were not taken from simple Kurds but from feudal land owners (Arabs and Kurds) and redistributed on the farmers. (Ofcourse, maybe Arab farmers were more privileged, and got more land redistributed to them, but this needs sourcing)

3-Why are the Hilal's steps given such a prominent position! Such a degenerate plan was never officially adopted, nor implemented. Kurds did face oppression, but that plan was not issued by the government nor adopted by it and there is no source proving otherwise. Mohamed Talab Hilal said what he said, but he was not a policy maker, and the the banned user's version portray him otherwise, thus demonizing the whole government as Nazis (thats the only word I can think of). I would see these steps removed from the article (move them to an article about Syrian racism against Kurds?). If anyone (scholar) think that this plan influenced Syrian strategy against the Kurds, then that scholar should be mentioned by name.

4-The banned user, when mentioning the Kurdish Democratic Party of Syria wrote that the objective was not the liberation of Syrian Kurdistan. This should be "liberation" as it is not a fact but the view of many Kurdish nationalists (and Kurds- everyone have to right to think what they want). In reality, Syrian never occupied a Kurdistan, and no state nor international organization recognize a Syrian occupation of Kurdistan that should be ended and Kurdistan liberated.

Do you think this is reasonable?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Mohammed Taleeb Hilal influenced The Arab Belt policy rather strongly and was a rather high official of Majority Kurdish areas in Syria. His views are described in several books by Michael Gunter, Jordi Tejel, Amir Hassanpoor, Sebastian Maisel, etc. Several mention the 12 points, and some even specially one by one. Hilals booklet is actually quite well known if you google his name and Kurds in Syria. The HRW and the UN also describe the Arab Belt policy or Hilals 12 points. Currently it is only mentioned at "see also". 1968 (or 1967?) is not as important to me, it is just one phrase. The ideas of Hilal influenced the Arab Belt policy which was implemented in 1973. Sebastian Maisel even mentions it was formally accepted, but other sources do not mention this, so I'd just mention Hilal influenced the Syrian politics on the Kurds.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources where to read can be found here, the Danish defense college the UN agency OHCHR even mentions the twelve points each, here about his prominent influence on the Kurdish politics of Syria, here also with the 12 points by the London School of Economics (December 2020) pp. 4-5. But I agree that the twelve points might bet better mentioned specifically at the Arab Belt article in the background section. Here there could just be mentioned "Mohammed Taleeb Hilal influenced the Syrian Politics towards the Kurds through the twelve points, which included resettlement, oppression of the Kurdish culture etc. and providing financial aid, arable land and weapons to the Arabs in territory before inhabited by the Kurds with the laws and decrees number ...“ etc. Every phrase included would have additional sources to the ones provided by GPinkerton and be copy edited (where appropriate).Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I did not mention anything about how well known his views are, but I asked whether anyone has evidence that these views affected the policy? Lets agree (which is a fact that does not need agreeying) that scholars do not create facts, and unless they have evidence (primary source) then their opinions and arguments, even if they all agree on one, remain their hypotheses. So, do Sebastian Maisel have evidence? No. In reality, there is not a single piece of evidence that his plan was adopted or influenced Syrian policy (actual concrete evidence, such as a leaked official edict...etc) So, a hypothesis should be presented as a hypothesis. This Hilal thing does not belong here, or at best, it should be noted that it is just scholars guessing. As for the banned user, his text should absolutely stay out. He had no right writing it. You can either write a new section, or let me do that- Ofcourse, since this article is now strictly supervised, its better to write a disputed content here and achieve consensus before moving it to the article (apply to both you and me and anyone else).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To start with: Following ... "The Arab belt policy was applied between 1973 2nd source and 1976 which included the arabization of a strip along the Syrian Turkish border between Ras al Ayn and Al Malikiya and the establishment of dozens of Arab villages, while land owned by Kurds was expropriated here an other source on the subject. More sources from books can provided once the Arab belt is included.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks okay, and if you are keen on mentioning Hilal, then by all means do: just qualify it and dont present the notion that it affected the policy of the government as a fact (you can mention his "study" and then mention that many scholars suggest it affected the policy).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Remarks
I'm planning to do a review of the body of the article and post my remarks here on the talk page. More later. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Kurds, the world's largest stateless ethnic group, are a nomadic people inhabiting a mountainous region known as Kurdistan that spans parts of several sovereign states in Asia, primarily Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.[4]" -- I suggest changing "mountainous region" to "mountainous geo-cultural region" (same as in the lede of Kurdistan).
 * "Although Kurdish origins and migration remain the subject of scholarly investigation and controversy, and several different groups throughout history have lived in Kurdistan, Kurds are traditionally considered to have descended from Indo-European tribes migrating westward toward Iran in the middle of the second millennium BCE.[5]" -- do the sources specifically state "Indo-European" or "Iranian" or "Indo-Iranian"?
 * "In antiquity, Kurdistan was ruled, in turn, by the Median, Greek, Roman, and Persian empires.[6]" -- Median, Greek, Roman, and Persian empires... in that order? Ladies and gentlemen, really, History 101; the Greek and Roman empires were not successors of the Medes, and the Persian Achaemenids were not successors of the Romans. This is implied when you write "in turn". Also, why are the Semitic-speaking polities and other Indo-European polities ommitted, amongst others? This retroactive WP:POINT sentence, bordering WP:OR, is problematic IMO, but if you're gonna keep it, at least do it "correctly".
 * "After the advent of Islam in the 7th century CE, Kurdish tribes in Upper Mesopotamia and western Iran resisted advancing Muslim armies, but ultimately most Kurds converted to the Shafi'ite school of Sunni Islam.[7]" -- "Kurd" in that era referred to Iranian nomads, per WP:RS. This is a no-brainer. This verifiable fact should be added in the form of a note. Also, "advancing Muslim armies" is linked to Muslim conquest of the Levant. Western Iran was/is not part of the Levant. I suggest swapping "Muslim conquest of the Levant" with Early Muslim conquests.
 * "Kurdish cultural and political power re-emerged over the next three centuries, as Kurds in Kurdistan lived semi-autonomously within the Islamic caliphates.[8]" -- How can it have re-emerged when there wasn't a notion of a Kurdish ethnos at the time? I see Izady has been cited who is considered to be a problematic source for Kurdish topics.

Comment:I also have some problems with this section. This section should be about the history of those three regions inhabited today by Kurds not about Kurdistan in general. Yet, it goes into the history of Kurds in Iran and other states. The scope of this article should really be clearly defined. Also, as discussed earlier, Izady is no reliable source for Kurds as he is engaged in pseudo-history (detailed here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking I agree there is a bit too much about Kurdistan in general (that is, "greater Kurdistan") in this article, and it could be trimmed or rearranged to focus more on Syrian Kurdistan in particular. However, I'm not sure those five quoted passages are examples of this. All of those passages are sourced to multiple sources, all about Syrian Kurdistan. For example: #1, "mountainous region", not "geo-cultural region" (I do not understand what a "geo-cultural region" is... "region" means an area of land; Kurdistan is an area of land). #2: Indo-European. #3: The sentence doesn't say Greek, Roman, or Persian were successors of Median, but they do say that Kurdistan was ruled or conquered by those empires, in that order. Semitic-speaking polities and other Indo-European polities aren't "omitted", they just aren't in the sources cited. #4: The sources aren't talking about "Iranian nomads", they're talking about "Kurdish tribes in Upper Mesopotamia". It's just per the sources cited. #5: "Re-emerged" is per the sources cited (which say that there was a notion of a Kurdish ethnos at the time, and for millennia prior to 7th c. CE). As for Izady, the reliability of his work should be discussed at WP:RSN. Levivich harass/hound 16:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I'll just note that the sources cited for those passages have links in the citations to Google books previews, which should make verification easy. Levivich harass/hound 16:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you read the summary in the link I provided regarding Izady? Its a work of nationalistic history that has been criticized by many scholars and does not need some Wikipedia editors to argue about it and decide if it is reliable or not. As for the sources, maybe other sources should be consulted. A Kurdish ethnos existing in the seventh century is not something taken for granted just like "Arab" may have not indicated an ethnos but nomads before the Hellenistic period and even after.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion about Izady in talk page archive 2 that you linked to was between you and two other editors, and the other two are now banned. Izady is cited as a source by many other reliable academic sources, including, I think, most of the sources currently in the article. Izady is also published by highly reputable academic publishers like Routledge. So at least at first glance, Izady qualifies as an RS, and if anyone wants to challenge that, it should be done by starting a discussion at WP:RSN. If consensus at RSN is that Izady isn't a reliable source for this article, then we can take him out. If there's an RSN discussion, I'd point out that the source at issue is a book about Kurds by a wiki-notable (Mehrdad Izady) Kurdologist published by Routledge and cited by other Kurdologists in works published by other academic publishers (such as the sources in this article, such as Maisel). I don't know if you think an RSN thread is worth it—up to you—but I'll also note that Izady is not cited alone for anything in the article currently; so even removing Izady as source shouldn't require any change to the prose. (Not that I'm opposed to changing the prose, I just don't see the connection between "Izady is a bad source" and anything currently written in the article.) As for consulting other sources: absolutely, as always. Levivich harass/hound 18:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didnt refer to my discussion, but the scholarly analysis of that work. You are telling me that you believe Izady is reliable because many sources cite him? The scholar that "traces the existence of Kurdish culture back more than 50,000 years, to include the Neanderthal findings in the Shanidar caves" is reliable?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. An RSN thread will be visited by editors like us, so whats the point? its not like we are going to an academic board.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyways, I started a thread to discuss this valuable source written by a very impartial scholar about the Kurdish Neandertals: See the case here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Another note: Im not asking to change the prose, just remove Izady as he is an example of bad scholarship where an academic uses his status to push theories that support nationalistic myths.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for starting the RSN thread, I'll reply about Izady there. Levivich harass/hound 19:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK no objection here to removing Izady based on the RSN thread. Levivich harass/hound 18:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Kurdish languages map.svg