Talk:Kurdification

"Kurdification of Yazidis" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kurdification of Yazidis and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 26#Kurdification of Yazidis until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Semsûrî (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Kurdification?

If a pro-Kurdish party wins elections it is deemed a Kurdification? This is WP:OR. And a source which doesn't mention Kurdification but names the HDP as the political wing of the PKK is just not NPOV. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Liz Sly quote

Hi Ayıntaplı. The Kurds have sure not unilaterally detached Tell Abyad from an existing Syrian province of Raqqa. It was ISIS, an UN designated terror organization, who controlled Tell Abyad before and it was ISIS that controlled most of the rest of the Raqqa province at the time. The Latin script is well known among Syrians as it was and is visible on traffic signalization throughout Syria before and after the capture of Tell Abyad. They have also not officially(per source formally) renamed it into Gire Spi as can be seen in a source of the PYD (the party that is often referred as linked with the YPG, the militia that captured Tell Abyad) themselves like here and here. They just allowed the Kurdish name to be used as well. Also the SDF did not officially rename into Gire Spi, they call it Tell Abyad. If it was officially renamed as the source claimed, Tell Abyad would not be used anymore. More arguments can be seen here at the Tell Abyad talk page. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your informative explanation. Wasn't Tell Abyad a part of the Euphrates Region that also includes the Kurdish-dominated region around Kobane? I think that is what the source is referring to. I don't think the usage of Latin signs is enough of a reason to broadly claim that Syrians knew that script. This is mostly an international practice. We would need to have some sort of statistics to refute it, and more than that we're talking about the Kurdish alphabet, which is much more specific. When it comes to the name change, frankly, I was leaning to your argument until I read Tell Abyad's talk page, where a user also had some arguments and further shared links to photos of the name getting used in signs on buildings tied to the rule of SDF. Also, changing the name of a place "officially" doesn't mean to deny other names. That would only be a practice. I believe here what "formally" actually refers to is unclear. I respect your concerns, but I don't think it is enough to remove that bit. Ayıntaplı (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

So if Kurds use latin script, its Kurdification but if others like the Arabs in Syria do it, its International practice? If Kurds translate a name into their language its Kurdification, if others do it its international practice? The town was not renamed, this is not true. Tell Abyad was and is still used. Just the Kurdish translation was also allowed. Tell Abyad was and is still used by the Kurds. And the source refers to the Syrian Province of Raqqa which in majority was controlled by the Islamic State at the time. So it was sure not unilaterally, the islamic State detached it before which not to mention is just not NPOV. Not to mention that Assad denied the Kurds their language and deprived the Kurds of their Syrian IDs, but accusing the Kurds of unilaterally detaching Tell Abyad from a Syrian province is also not NPOV. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say that. The source basically claims that Kurdish-Latin script is not readily understood by the Syrian Kurds and more importantly, the Arab population. In addition, this international practice I mentioned is not the same as including the name of a town in Kurdish on top of the name of the place in the majority language on a governmental building. Latin script is mainly used for international traffic as far as I know. And this is the case in all over the world from Mongolia to Greece. It is also more like a transliteration and not translation. I will go a bit further, but I personally believe we must question how old of a name Girê Spî is. If we eventually find a source, Syria's section will be way longer, and this quote will become insignificant.

We can interpret every bit differently all day, but it seems to me "unilaterally" could also apply for the fact that SDF did this without the consent of Syria. And looking at the following events, the defeat of ISIS, this part eventually becomes the truth. I personally believe that arguing about "unilaterally" is nonsensical, because in the article, the author already shared a map, and as a native-speaker, she surely has her own logic, and apparently knowledge, to decide whether to write "unilaterally" or not.

I wouldn't want to comment on your last sentence, because that is out of context. But according to that logic, we should remove sources that accuse Israel on articles, because the ancestors of many Israelis were killed. Your view is also not NPOV. As I said, this is the most objective way of presenting a source. And the author herself is a third person according to where they came from. This being an "accusation" is not a reason to be not NPOV. By the way, there are tons of subjective sources. If we were to remove this source and deem ourselves as "fair," we should have removed a huge part of Wikipedia. Ayıntaplı (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not about Israel, it's about Kurds. And on the out of context, I contest the quote with sources that show it is not true what she claims. Latin script was used on traffic signs throughout Syria also before the Kurds governed. And the Arabic name of the town stayed in use, it was not renamed. The Kurdish Latin script was developed and used in Syria decades before Turkey recognized Kurdish as a language. And worded in a clearer way: do you really think if Kurds use latin script beside the Arab script it's Kurdification and if Arabs use Latin script while denying the Kurdish language (one of the main languages in North East Syria) it's international practice? And on your hypothesis that the Syrian section of Kurdification would be much longer, add it if you find a source. The social contract (constitution) provides education in the native language to Arabs, Assyrians and Kurds... If people are permitted to speak, communicate, be educated in their native language it is not a Kurdification, it is cultural freedom. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know that; I just gave an example based on your stance. As I said, this practice tells nothing about what the population can read for the aforementioned reasons. I would totally contest such an argument, because it doesn't add up. I would kindly suggest you to find statistics about the knowledge of Syrian Kurds and Arabs about Latin script. It would even be better if the source was about the Kurdish-Latin script and the population of Tell Abyad.

This page particularly refutes your claims about the Kurdish script. It clearly writes that the alphabet was for the Turkish Kurds, created by Ottoman intellectuals from an area that is in Turkey today. They might have operated in the French Mandate, but that's not enough. We can assume that Turkish Kurds have a knowledge of the Latin script, but for others, it's not so straightforward, because as a largely rural population, not all Kurds necessarily know Kurdish intellectuals' reforms that isn't spread governmentally. (Note that the place we're talking about is rural, too.) Even today, Kurdish is largely a spoken language with natural dialects.

Lastly, if Syria forces Arabic on Kurds, it is also Arabization, and if Kurdish becomes a governmental language in an area with non-Kurdish population, it is also Kurdification. I would really like to settle this dispute and was planning to ask you to add refuting sources on this page, but there is a shortcoming to almost every bit, to which I would react by adding counter sources, bloating the page for the wrong reasons. It also seems that the discussion on Tell Abyad's page didn't end up to your wish 1-2 years ago, and you seemingly removed the quote part when no one noticed and disputed with presumably "several easily to verify info," which I currently dispute and refute. I appreciate your effort in explaining your stance, though. Ayıntaplı (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)