- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus. I'm going to apply ((npov)) as well. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not seem to be of any real use, I think the very few 'nationalist' Kurds contributing to this are carrying out research in a biased way, e.g. User:Heja helweda just mentioned in a dispute here an article of a recent study which claims that Kurds are Iranian people who settled in to the West of Iran, however he has focused on the non-Iranian 'studies' he finds to contribute here, perhaps to continue the Anti-Iranian attacks reported here by 'Kurd nationalists' Kash 10:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Encyclopedia Britannica and other authoritative sources [do not] recognize such a genetic test, in fact, they all state the origins of the Kurds are unkonwn. It's "original reaserach" and can't be backed by any of athoritative, or scholary sources'. I have extensively researched this, and all scholars agree [britannica.com/ebc/article-9369506].Zmmz 02:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Encyclopedias are LESS authoritative than current research. They are inevitably several years or more out of date -- except WP, of course. Zora 06:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Very informative.Diyako Talk + 02:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. Appears to be sourced from reliable published material (which I am not competent to evaluate technically). I don't think this is pseudoscience; I do know that similar mDNA studies regarding the historical genetics of the Jewish people have received wide publication and academic and media attention. MCB 03:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup per MCB Golfcam 03:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Far from being "original research" by "Kurdish ultra-nationalists", the articles cited are peer-reviewed articles, written by authors from many nations (France, US, UK, and Spain are prominent), and published in prestigious journals. Those trying to suppress this information should be ashamed of themselves. That said, I feel that the article itself is a bit unmoored -- I don't know anything about how "Kurd" was defined by the writers of the WP article OR by the writers of the scientific articles cited. I'd prefer the article to have more context, and in particular have more links to the WP articles on population genetics and on the wider genetic history of the Middle East and Central Asia. Questions of labeling and boundaries are all-important here. Zora 03:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please don't make personal attacks, telling editors opposing your views, to "be ashamed of themselves". --ManiF 18:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete The article is not supported by any legitimate scientic evidence. It is also racist and in violation of Wikepedia's Neutral Point of View policy. --Houshyar 05:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To understand the POV warring going on, it's probably necessary to note that proponents of the Kurdish national cause (see Kurdistan) seek to maximise claims of a distinct Kurdish ethnic/cultural/etc. identity, while opponents of that cause (mostly people describing themselves as patriots or nationalists from Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria) seek to minimise such claims. Judging from their userpages, most users seeking to delete the article hail from Iran. In wikipedia terms, we should establish whether this article is sufficiently non-original research to warrant inclusion, in which case it's probably an encyclopaedic topic, as noted above. Right now it's a keep and cleanup per Zora and MCB for me. Sandstein 08:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that you are judging our opposition to this unscientific paper, based on our nationality. Please note that it is a Wikipedia guideline to assume good faith and not use "someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views", my opposition is based on the fact that this article is original research without any credible references. The article is not encyclopedic and does not conform with NPOV. --ManiF 09:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (Clean up and merge) Complete rewrite and integrate to Kurdihs people article. Because :
1. It is not supported by any legitimate scientic sources. (Just a handful of external links are not considered to be credible specially in these type of articles)
2. Article is a mere original research rather than being an encyclopedic article.
3. Article may not conform with NPOV.
4. These kind of articles needs an expert in its field. Amir85 08:44, Saturday 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Zora. Legitimate topic, and the article references papers in academic journals from reputable publishers. Any NPOVing that may be needed should be done using similar references. u p p l a n d 09:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Wikipedia needs credible article.
- Strong Delete The article is a very interesting example of pseudo-science, research which is done with the sole purpose of finding out what you already had decided was true. Such things should have no place in Wikipedia. Shervink 12:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]
- Comment The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA is pseudo-science? The American Journal of Human Genetics is pseudo-science? Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza is considered to be the most influential population geneticist working today, and all the articles mentioned are based on his work. See also Human Genome Diversity Project and Genealogical DNA test. Zora 14:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the articles are scientific peer-reviewed articles in academic journals. But taking selected excerpts out of them to promote anti-Iranian hatred and Kurdish separatism is wrong. Taking scientific articles out of context in order to prove one's prejudice is pseudo-science, or mis-using science, whatever you name it. You can likewise make pages on genetic origins of a lot of people, all of which would result in virtually the same thing: The people over there are mixed beyond recognition, which is what makes the whole point of this article ridiculous. There are artices relating Kurds to most other groups of people in the region. So, what is your conclusion? My conclusion is that the genetics of the people in the region is mixed, and singling out Kurds in such an article is thus irrelevant. Even if this is to be discussed, it does not need a separate page. There are people here who propose deleting every mention of the word Iran from Wikipedia, but those same people go to this extent in describing Kurds. Why?Shervink 16:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]
- Move to wikispecies or delete. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What oher ethnic minority/race has genetic origin articles? --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Such articles could be written. Studies on Mongolian and Jewish men, and on Lebanese, have been recently published. Hmm, also a study of genetic differences between Rajputs and Rajasthani tribals. Note that these studies never, EVER, show that some groups have a genetic trait that is not shared by other groups. There is always intermarriage, always a gradual blending of populations, and local populations are best characterized in terms of percentages, not absolutes. This goes for every single human group on the planet. HOWEVER, it is still possible to distinguish some populations as relatively homogenous, and others as relatively mixed. Kurds are genetically heterogeneous, as are most Iranians. A map would show this better than words. Zora 16:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT a place for such material. Treatng ethnicity based on genetics can be viewed as racism. This article establishes who is kurd and who isn't. What percentage of match makes someone a kurd? Who is to question User:Diyako's (assuming he is a kurd) or some other persons ethnicity based on his genes?
- Historic origins is fine (migration paths from historic documents etc (such as jews migrating to most of the world from middle east) which can be expressed in a sngle line or paragraph on Jewish people), genetic is not. Kurds are an ethnic group that is not "geneticaly distinct" unless we talk about pure races, then it can easily get nasty.
- --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry But as your POV you even do not know the difference between racism and science. Among many Middle Eastern people such as Turks (for ex. Cool cat), Iranians (for ex. Shervinak) every thing is redefined in another way. race, ethnicity, linguistic family, DNA test, Human rights, Wikipedia policies! When I show them by credible sources they reject and reply with nonsense. Currently there is a Turkish-Iranian movement against any Kurdish-related article even if it is well-cited. Diyako Talk + 17:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not a Turk, please be more creative in name calling that one was just boring. There is no Turkish-Iranian movement against any Kurdish-related articles, there is no cabal. I know the difference between racism and science. In the name of science, racism is still racism. Such articles should not be tolerated on wikipedia. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Shervink, not Shervinak! And I totally agree that ethnicities should not be categorized by genes. It is simply impossible, and additionally has a racist connotation. Shervink 15:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]
- You are a Turk and genetically quite similar to people from Mongolia. It is not a bad thing. But unfortunately many people from Middle East due to their society structure have very strange standpoints to life. I think Everybody from outside of the region can understand the feelings of a Turk or Iranian who exteremely love their country which by itself occupies homlelands of other ethnic groups against Kurdish people who never accepted assimilation. Let's others judge. Thanks.
Diyako Talk + 18:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: No need for it. We can not categorize people based on genes. It would be impossible. Articles such as these can get extremely confusing and irrelevant.--Gol 05:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep or merge with Kurds and neutralize either way. These studies, as with most genetic samplings of populations, were severely limited in their scope and cannot be used to generalize or make assumptions about an entire ethnic group which numbers in the millions, spread out over a large area. SouthernComfort 07:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But genetic sampling IS used to generalize, and the people doing the generalizing publish in many prestigious journals. Could it perhaps be that the scientists who do peer reviews for PNAS, Human Molecular Genetics, and the British Medical Journal know more about this subject than you do? Zora 14:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Including the scientific POV is one thing, but like everything else in this world, science isn't perfect, and neither are scientists, and their theories don't always prove right in the end. Particularly in the area of genetic analysis, which is still very much a young field and results often remain subjective due to limitations in how broadly they can study populations. And this is to say nothing of the issue of bioethics, which is a strong topic right now in the medical and scientific communities (as well as amongst theologians and thinkers), and the various ethical and moral issues surrounding the studies of genetic relationships and "race." SouthernComfort 15:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the general issue: Coolcat says that "Treatng ethnicity based on genetics can be viewed as racism" and that WP shouldn't discuss this. I don't think that there's anything that WP shouldn't discuss. Genetic differences between local populations are fair game for scientific study, and help us learn about our past.
If science shows that all the peoples of the Middle East and Central Asia are genetically all-mixed-up (chop suey, as we say in Hawai'i), then that's a fact. If people have based their beliefs re ethnicity, and who is REALLY an X, or a Y, on supposed descent, and the descent turns out to be a myth, well then, that's a fact. It doesn't mean you can't have a group -- it just means that group membership has to based on criteria other than genetic. Which seems healthier to me. Surely group identity should be based on willingness to take responsibility for each other, to love, and not on "blood".
How about broadening the article and using it to discuss recent linguistic, archaeological, and mDNA research on Middle Eastern/Central Asian population history? Zora 01:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If science shows that all the peoples of the Middle East and Central Asia are genetically all-mixed-up (chop suey, as we say in Hawai'i), then that's a fact. More racist vitriol. SouthernComfort 07:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep does anyone care that there are lots of AfDs of Kurd & Kurdish related articles and categories? Is WP going to take a stand that Kurds and related topics are unworthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia? Carlossuarez46 18:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but wikipedia is not a collection of random information. Some of the recent articles such as this one does not belong to wikipedia. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.