Talk:Kurdish women

Untitled

Shouldn't the title be in plural form Kurdish Women? Heja Helweda 03:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, in plural form is more correct.

Diyako Talk + 12:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll fix it.

Diyako Talk + 12:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A very meaningless article. a very ridicilous one. I even found no other article like this. Where women have their separate article from men? Wirya 09:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Even though a late reply, I will concur with above... Why is this a seperate article, really? Shouldn't it be merged with Kurds (or Kurds in X articles) and/or Kurdish culture etc? Baristarim 05:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, this article should be merged with "Kurdish people". Timotheos 21:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with proposal to merge "Kurdish women" with other articles. Kurdish women are trailblazers in the Middle East and there is more than enough material to occupy a specialized page on their history, issues and achievements. Commenter8 (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Kurdish Women in Kurdish

Afretí Kurd is a term which is quite problematic for two reasons. 1. Afret is derived from the Quranic/arabic 'Awret and is therefor not a purely kurdish word. 2. the meaning of the original word is approximately: the thing or part of the body which must be covered. A meaning which does not coincide with the traditional kurdish way of life. A better term is therefor "Zhiní Kurd"/"Jinî Kurd" which is purely kurdish and is more neutral in its meaning.

Your etymology isnot correct. According to Professor Jamal Nebez, Afiret is derived from the Greek word Aphrodite.Heja Helweda 06:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I might be wrong, however Jamal Nebez has also been wrong before. For example he claims that the word Gawir means "a follower of Zoroaster", he doesn't even give an explanation to his conclusion. We must remember that Jamal Nebez view of history is nationalromantic. My speculation is that he wants to distance the word from the islamic-arabic and replace its origin to the indoeuropean greek godess. But please elaborate, give me credible evidence on his theory. I'm not saying he is wrong, but he might be wrong and to the sound of it I believe he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.211.101.88 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me just clarify two points here, which make it unnecessary to involve etymology of 'Afret' which is even irrelevant here:

1) the Arabic word 'Awrat' is used already in Kurdish with the same pronouncation and same meaning as used in Arabic.

2)The word jin in Kurdish is used more accurately for married females, while the word Afret is used for females in general. It is also used by feminist groups such as Yeketi Afretani Kurdistan.

And finally the word gawir is the Kurdish variation of Persian gabar and actually it does mean a follower of Zoroaster.

Yet one more thing; the hellenistic or hellenoid words are not uncommon in Kurdish. another example is kouretes (young men); compare it with Kurdish kur.

Sharishirin (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Minorsky and Adíle Xan?

Did Minorsky really meat Adíle Xan or is this just a mix-up with Major Ely Banister Soane? I dont know if Minorsky did or didn't but I am sure Soane did so I just want to make sure it's not just a mix-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.209.254 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a mix-up. Minorsky did meet Lady Adela (and he reported it in his article), and he also wrote about the earlier meetings between her and major Soane. Heja Helweda 04:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it an advertisement article ?

The tone of article is like that the ethnic Kurds are very different in respecting the rights of women in comparison with other ethnicities of the middle east . With full respect , I don't think it is right to show a picture without showing the dark parts . As an example ,in Iran and Iraq, Female circumcision is more prevalent in ethnic Kurds than the other ethnicities . Why the article only talks about certain [positive] points without negative aspects ?thank you --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the article is pretty well sourced so you're free to contribute to it and explain the other side. I guess the original contributor wanted to get a positive point across so you're free to add a PoV tag the article ~ Zirguezi 22:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Police Graduation KRG 03.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Police Graduation KRG 03.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Police Graduation KRG 03.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

blaming mumin women

Gıybet eden, sû-i zanda bulunan, kusur arayan ve kınayan ya karşı tarafla helâlleşmeli ya da dünyada iken başına gelecekleri beklemelidir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.240.192.129 (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kurdish women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041103034103/http://www.utoronto.ca:80/wwdl/publications/english/mojab_introduction.pdf to http://www.utoronto.ca/wwdl/publications/english/mojab_introduction.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Baseless information

This article contains a lot of claim without any sources. Starting to review the article.Ferakp (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Falsified content

A lot of falsified statements have been added. Deleted falsified statement: ..16% rate of female genital mutilation in Western Iran, where it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect.. Source says that among the Kurds, it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shadi'i Kurds who speak Sorani, not mostly among all Iranians.

But in this article about Kurdish women, you should still leave the fact that is practiced by Iranian Kurds who speak Sorani, not delete it.

Deleted this, it was duplicate. 2011 Kurdish law criminalized FGM practice in Iraqi Kurdistan, however this law is not being enforced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakp (talk • contribs) 19:06, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

References

Blackwashing articles

Kurdish women also continue to face numerous problems, including violent victimization through female genital mutilation (mostly in Iraqi Kurdistan), honor killings and forced marriage
They are already explained in the article with more details. The article is related to the all Kurdish women and what you add is simply blackwashing the article. Trying to put all negative things to the second statement.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakp (talk • contribs) 23:27, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with blackwashing. The lead must summarize the contennt of the article. the honour killing and the Female genital mutiliatoin is very well documented in the article. See WP:LEAD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.216.139 (talk • contribs) 23:46, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

Now the lead makes the claim that honour killing and forced marriage is only a problem in Iraq/Iran, but this is also a problem among Turkish Kurds.

Old and unreliable sources and blackwashing

The following statements were added: In Iraqi Kurdistan, since the PUK and KDP parties came to power, thousands of women were murdered in "honour" killings. It was reported that the Kurdish nationalist parties "have violated women's rights and tried to suppress progressive women's organisations", and that in July 2000, the nationalists "attacked a women's shelter and the offices of an independent women's organisation". Widely reported are the Kurdish nationalist parties’ disregard of women’s issues and their attempts to suppress women’s organizations. In the early 2000s honor killings were outlawed in Iraqi Kurdistan, but they have generally not enforced these laws.

First of all, the problem is that the source is not reliable source. It's an "Opinion". The second problem is that the article doesn't mention PUK and KDP but you have mentioned them. The third problem is that you have said Widely reported are the Kurdish nationalist parties’ disregard of women’s issues and their attempts to suppress.. However, the source says: Putting aside for the moment the relative well-being of Iraqi Kurdish women, their lives were somewhat determined by the policies of the two political parties, the PUK and KDP. Critics of the parties claim that, after the parties came to power, hundreds of women were murdered in honor killings, wearing the hijab became a necessity, and girls could no longer attend school.23 More widely reported are both parties’ disregard of women’s issues and their attempts to suppress women’s organizations.24 Between 2000 and 2002 both parties outlawed honor killings in their separate administrative bases, but have generally not enforced the laws. It looks like source doesn't say that the Kurdish nationalist parties, it says KDP and PUK. So you can't simply say all Kurdish nationalist parties if the source doesn't say so. However, here comes another problem. Your source is from 2005 and according to other sources. A new constitution of Iraq was established in 2005, defining Iraq as a federalist state consisting of Regions and Governorates. So, another way to say this, your source is not related to the current Iraqi Kurdistan at all when it says that it is not enforce. It was before Iraqi Kurdistan's federal region was established and it was related to Iraq. You didn't mention any of those, not even that it was from 2005, you just mentioned as it is happening everyday. Also, this source is totally against your source, according to that it is enforced and it is illegal now. .

In all your edits, you are clearly trying to blackwash the article. I don't want to even mention that you have changed your IP address :) (no offence) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakp (talk • contribs) 23:50, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

Reply: First of all, the problem is that the source is not reliable source. It's "Opinion".

The source is very reliable (Houzan Mahmoud in The Guardian) The source is also quoted in other reliable sources like the quoted book.

The second problem is that the article doesn't mention PUK and KDP.

You can change to Kurdish nationalist parties if you prefer that to PUK/KDP. You can also add the disclaimer, "in 2005".

Again, it's an opinion, not reliable source and it is also from 2004. Also, my source is against your source. You can add it if you fix it and take into account what I showed you (above). The current version is not acceptable in any metrics. About leading section, you are blackwashing the article by making those crimes common and not mentioning all things.Ferakp (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a reliable source, an established expert writing in a reputed publication. Also the other sources used in this paragraph are reliable.

Read WP:RELIABLE. I didn't have problem with another source, it's reliable even it's biased. However, you played with statements. As I said, mention the year and exact details from it. Do not use 20 years old study as yesterday's study. It's seriously old. Mention all details, the year and other issues I mentioned. You are welcome to add it. I can help you.Ferakp (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Yazidi and Kurds

The information on Du'a Khalil Aswad, an Yazidi girl was deleted because Ferakp claims Yazidis are not Kurds. So why does the Yazidi article say that Yazidis are Kurds. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.216.139 (talk • contribs) 23:55, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

Please explain this.

@92.106.216.139: She is Iraqi and she is Yazidi. Yazidis are not Kurds. According to the UN, Yazidis are own ethno-religious group. So, we can't call her Kurd, because she is not. That's what also source says. Ferakp (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Add her again. She counts. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Enforced FGM

This was added by random IP:
A 2011 Kurdish law criminalized FGM practice in Iraqi Kurdistan, however this law is not being enforced.

This is already accepted and enforced. Here is the source.Ferakp (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You also deleted that HRW has noted that FGM ban is not being enforced. HRW is a stronger source than AL Monitor, so it must be kept. Even Al Monitor does not say that it disappeared in all of Iraqi Kurdistan, only that it declined in some areas.

I already explained it, scroll down. Ferakp (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Statistics about killed women

User from random IP address added the following statements:
The Free Women's Organization of Kurdistan (FWOK) released a statement on International Women's Day 2015 noting that “6,082 women were killed or forced to commit suicide during the past year in Iraqi Kurdistan, which is almost equal to the number of the Peshmerga martyred fighting Islamic State (IS),” and that a large number of women were victims of honor killings or enforced suicide – mostly self-immolation or hanging.

The first problem is that the link is dead.
The second problem is that such organization hasn't published any publications or statistics. I couldn't find any such statistics or publications from their website.

Another way to say this, there is no source.Ferakp (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is the same source: http://web.archive.org/web/20150402140715/http://basnews.com/en/news/2015/03/05/over-6000-women-killed-during-the-last-year-in-kurdistan/

I accepted, it's added now. Thanks for the source.Ferakp (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

References

About Patriarchial system and Mojab

Following statements were added:
The patriarchal system in Iraqi Kurdistan has been extremely strong. Mojab concluded that the nationalist movement "discourages any manifestation of womanhood or political demands for gender equality."

First of all, you have to mention that it is from 1996. Then you have to add a source. However, I don't see your source. Is it book, if yes what is ISBN of that book? Ferakp (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added the full source. There is no ISBN since it is not a book.

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kurdish women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://basnews.com/en/news/2015/03/05/over-6000-women-killed-during-the-last-year-in-kurdistan/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Further comments on new reverts

• Female genital mutilation was an accepted part of Sorani speaking Kurds and Iraqi Arabs in Iraq.

Three things are wrong with this: It makes the claim that it is only a problem of the past, it claims that is also a problem of the Arabs (unsupported by the UNICEF report) and it claims that it is a problem of the Sorani speaking Kurds (it is more correct to say that it is the problem of a particular branch of the Sunnis (Shafi’i ) among the Kurds in Iraq).

It doesn't mean that it is the problem of the past. It says that it was accepted. Now, it's not accepted anymore. In the study, there is evidence for a trend of general decline of FGM. It seems that nowadays less than 50% of the young girls are being mutilated. Majoroity of regions are showing under 10% statistics. Even the worst regions have dropped under 50% after it was prohibited Ferakp (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• In Iraq, FGM is found mostly among the Kurds in Erbil (58 percent prevalence within age group 15–49), Sulaymaniyah (54 percent) and Kirkuk (20 percent), giving the country a national prevalence of eight percent.

This information was deleted, but is well sourced from UNICEF.

@92.106.216.139: I explained this many times. Let me explain again. The statement is saying "is" but it is not anymore. The report is old and it is now prohibited and the newest sources confirm that those statistics are not valid anymore. However, it's another thing if you add those statistics and mention the year of the statistics. Ferakp (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• You also deleted that HRW has noted that FGM ban is not being enforced. HRW is a stronger source than AL Monitor, so it must be kept. Even Al Monitor does not say that it disappeared in all of Iraqi Kurdistan, only that it declined in some areas.

The HRW surce is old, my source is newer. My source was published much later than the HRW report. Al Monitor clearly says it is law now and victims are allowed to use that law against those who force them.Ferakp (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• You can not delete the text that is sourced to Mojab 1996:73, Nationalism and Feminism: The Case of Kurdistan)Mojab, S. (1996). Nationalism and Feminism: The Case of Kurdistan. In Women's Studies International Forum (Vol. 19, No. 1-2). No ISBN is needed for a paper (it is not a book).

Whether it is a book or publication, you must give us the source (LINK). Add the link and let all users to see and read it.Ferakp (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No, for a paper it is enough to give the author and journal details. Not all papers are available freely online. But this you can find by googling it.

• You also deleted this: In Iraqi Kurdistan, since the PUK and KDP parties came to power, thousands of women were murdered in "honour" killings. It was reported that the Kurdish nationalist parties "have violated women's rights and tried to suppress progressive women's organisations", and that in July 2000, the nationalists "attacked a women's shelter and the offices of an independent women's organisation". Widely reported are the Kurdish nationalist parties’ disregard of women’s issues and their attempts to suppress women’s organizations. In the early 2000s honor killings were outlawed in Iraqi Kurdistan, but they have generally not enforced these laws.

As explained above, the author (an established expert) and the source ((Houzan Mahmoud in The Guardian) ) make this a reliable source. The other sources used in this paragraph are also reliable.

Let me tell you again. Opinion is not a source. Read WP:RELIABLE. Another thing is that your another source is very old. You are allowed to add it if you mention also, the year of source and study. It's history since it's seriously old but it's up to you if you want to add it. Your choice.Ferakp (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Ferakp, please stop trying to put a positive spin on this article. This still happens today, as proven by many reliable sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Kurdish women in Urban area

Even urban Kurdish women are generally not permitted to make their own decisions in marriage and divorce.
The second source is thread in the website, it's not a reliable source. It is referencing to the first source. But the first source doesn't mention what you have written here. It doesn't confirm your statement. No talk page was mentioned, so I read all pages related to urban Kurdish women but didn't find anything which could confirm your statement.Ferakp (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Gross original research in the lead section

All of the lead section is original research and no single sentence in huffingtonpost supports the lead section . I think the article can be nominated for deletion if the problems persists .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it can be nominated for deletion but you are free to change something which you see wrong and of course using a source.Ferakp (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This sentence in the lead section for example : "Since the Kurds have never had a country, Kurdish women's rights have differed significantly and have always depended on the country in which they live. In Turkey and Syria, Kurdish women have had far more rights than Kurdish women in Iran and Iraq " : Very big claims with almost no RS ! "Since the Kurds have never had a country" that is POV pushing , because they did have many Kurdish monarchs in Iran (like Karim Khan and etc ) and local governments in almost all history ! That is pushing for a POV . " In Turkey and Syria, Kurdish women have had far more rights than Kurdish women in Iran and Iraq" that is unbelievably radical for Wikipedia to express such a judgement for any major human population ! Can we publish such a claim , in the most important part of article , based only in few weblogs ? and more than that almost all countries mentioned here ( Modern Turkey , Syria and Iraq ) are very young and in constant change ( Syria for example ) , then how can we say "In .. Syria, women have had far more rights than Kurdish women in Iran .." : Does it includes DAESH period in Syria ?! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Alborz Fallah: I agree with you. The lead should be rewritten. The POV lead is because of Ferakp. Please see also this discussion here.

Since there is a neutrality tag for the lead, I have begun neutralizing the lead:

• have traditionally played important roles in Kurdish history, and politics.
  • this claim is not neutral, since the article and reliable sources make it clear that it was/is a male-dominated society for all its known history, where " women were excluded from public life and political positions"(Sharafnama.) Of course, there were exceptions to the rule, and we can mention this, but the general situation of the womens rights situation should not be misrepresented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.147.141 (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @Alborz Fallah: that the generalizing claims in the lead are problematic. The womens rights situation has changed a lot in these 4 countries during the past decades. If we make such comparisons in the lead, it would also be fair to state that some womens rights problems like FGM and honor killings are particularly serious in the Kurdish regions of these countries.

I propose to rewrite the lead like this:

Kurdish women form a key part of Kurdish society, with clearly defined and important roles in the family and clan structure. Kurdish society is known as a male-dominated society, but throughout history, and in recent times, we find instances of Kurdish women becoming important political leaders. Kurdish women also continue to face numerous problems, including violent victimization through female genital mutilation (mostly in Iraqi Kurdistan), honor killings and forced marriage.

Intend to blackwash the article

The user from 92.106.216.139 address is continuously trying to blackwash this article. All user's edits are negative. However, the main problem with this user is that majority of edits he/she makes are against WP:POV and clearly disruptive editing. This is last time, I will reverse edits, and explain changes even though I have explained the user 4 times before. Next time, I would have to report the user.

diff: [1]
Sources contains a lot of cities, which don't belong to the Iraqi Kurdistan and Northern Iraq. Also, as source says, it is among Sorani speaking Kurds, not all Kurds. Also, it's among Iraqi Arabs, not all Arabs. This edit is clearly against WP:POV and WP:FAKE. Also, because this is 4th time I tell you, you are clearly engaging in disruptive editing.
About this statement: A 2014 survey from UNICEF found a 58.5% prevalence of FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan..* This statement is edited now.

diff: [2]
Let me repeat again, even I have told you above. This edit is clearly against WP:POV. You need to mention, according to who and when. I see that it is very old, almost ~21 years but you show it as a recent study. I saw you Mojab source, it is talking about 1931 and I see you have added it as a recent "Status of women". You haven't mentioned the year, which Kurds (Iraqi, Turkish, Iran, Syria??) and also where exactly. You can't generalize a statement from the early 19th century, which is probably related to the Iraqi Kurds to all Kurds.*

Mojab talks about Kurdish women in the 20th century generally, not just of early 19th century as you claim, and some of his sources are from the 1990s. I have also added a second source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.216.139 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

diff: [3] and [4]
Edited first Amnesty statement to be more neutral and added more details.* About the second statement, you need to mention the page, I didn't find the page (culture).
What are you trying to say with this: Self-immolation, which can be staged to mask honor killings, "occurs in all the areas of Kurdish settlement (in Iran), where it is more common than in other parts of Iran? I see the source says that Self-immolation is a practice that occurs in all the areas of Kurdish settlement, where it is more common than in other parts of Iran. Some alleged suicides may have been staged to cover up “honour” killings.. You have picked up all negative statements from the report and added them to here to blackwash the article.

diff: [5]
There is no scholars, there is one researcher who wrote this. It is neither confirmed or mentioned in other sources. It is more claim. Edited this. This is third time but let me explain again:
Widely reported are the Iraqi Kurdish nationalist parties’ "disregard of women’s issues and their attempts to suppress women’s organizations", as noted by M. Lasky in 2006. is not right, since the source doesn't mention anything like that. It is removed.

The quote is correct, it is on page 5. "More widely reported are both parties’ disregard of

women’s issues and their attempts to suppress women’s organizations.24 Between 2000 and 2002 both parties outlawed honor killings in their separate administrative bases, but have generally not enforced the laws. Still, some women have held political positions and served as" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.216.139 (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

diff: [6] and [7]
Houzan Mahmoud, representative of the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq, argued in 2004 that "the Kurdish nationalist parties have violated women's rights and tried to suppress progressive women's organisations. In July 2000, they attacked a women's shelter and the offices of an independent women's organisation. Both were saving the lives of Kurdish women fleeing "honour" killings and domestic violence. More than 8,000 women have died in "honour" killings since the nationalists have been in control." How many times I have to explain this. Opinion is just opinion, it's not reliable source and it is 12 years old. You havent' mentioned both of them. Also, about honor killing, the newest source is against your source. So I have to remove it. Unreliable source and old claim which is proved to be false with the newest source.

Houzan Mahmoud is a specialist on Kurdish womens rights, the article was published as an article in a reputed publication. So there is nothing wrong with the source. But I have moved it to a footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.216.139 (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

diff: [8]
Reference loop found. Your source mentions the source of Dr.Lasky. I edited the source. Author who wrote this is not probably so neutral, so I also mentioned her other claims about other things.

diff: [9]
A 2013 study concluded that FGM rates for Muslim Kurdish women in Erbil city are very high, with a rate of 58.6%.
The newest source is against this source. I am now sure, is this necessary in the article, since already 2 studies are mentioned from the same city and it looks like the article is full of FGM related things.

diff: [10]
Wordpress is not reliable source...

diff: [11], [12], [13]
You need reliable sources for these claims. If you are referring to the current source, mention the page. You haven't added source for other claims. Such claims need very strong sources, but you haven't added single one.

I have added the page numbers. The text was previously plain source misrepresentation, I have only added the full context and neutralized it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.216.139 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you have filled this article with full of negative statements. I found at least 3 statements against WP:POV, 4 statements against WP:FAKE and all your edits are mainly negative. If you continue like this, first I will have to report you and then I have to make another article only for "Crimes against Kurdish women" and transfer all your edits to there. This article is already full of FGM and honor killing related things. Anyway, I will start to request for locking the article. Ferakp (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Single purposed editor and problems regarding the article

It seems that almost whole article is dedicated to FGM, honour killings and so forth. Of course these informations should be mentioned in the article but isn't it weird to dedicate the whole article to it? It can be summarized and/or creating a new article such as "Crimes against Kurdish women" per WP:BLOATED policy could help to solve the problem. In addition, I have checked the ip's (92.106.xx) contributions and noticed that the editor clearly dismissed particular informations and cherry picked some of them. Plus, when I checked the page's history, i have noticed multiple ips belong the same editor involved in disruptive editing. Some of them:

• 81.62.90.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 81.62.178.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 81.62.232.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

As you see, the contributions of the editor using these ips are not neutral: Mass deletions of sourced contents, offensive edit summaries (many of them censored by admins) and so on... Thus, I cannot "assume good faith" in this case. It would be nice if an admin pay attention to this article.

PS: Despite the fact that user Ferakp does not behave neutral utterly, it is not an excuse for/ not cover the ip's ulterior motive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.221.207.35 (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

A lot of his edits are not neutral. Too much cherry pickings and falsified statements. Added neutrality tags.
Ferakp (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is related to this SPI case and this ANI report. Most probably the same editor using various ipv4s 12,3,4, 5, ipv6s 1,2, proxies 1 and multiple accounts. 78.160.14.85 (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hegvald: and @Wikimandia:, what do "you" think? 78.160.14.85 (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Cherry picking, again

It looks like you have started to continue your edits with a new IP address.
Womens' rights activists have said that after the elections in 1992, only five of the 105 elected members of parliament were women, and that women’s initiatives were even actively opposed by Kurdish male politicians.[14] Honor killings and other forms of violence against women have increased since the creation of Iraqi Kurdistan, and "both the KDP and PUK claimed that women’s oppression, including ‘honor killings’, are part of Kurdish ‘tribal and Islamic culture’".[15] New laws against honor killing and polygamy were introduced in Iraqi Kurdistan, however it was noted by Amnesty International that the prosecution of honor killings remains low, and the implementation of the anti-polygamy resolution (in the PUK-controlled areas) has not been consistent.[16] On the other hand, women rights activists also had some successes in Iraqi Kurdistan, and it was claimed that "the rise of conservative nationalist forces and the women’s movement are two sides of the same coin of Kurdish nationalism."[17]

Here is what the sources says:

Following the elections in 1992, only fi ve of the 105 elected members of parliament were women (Mojab 2004: 119). Th e political leadership of both parties tried to incorporate tribal leaders, leading to the emergence of ‘neo-tribalism’ in Iraqi Kurdistan after 1992 (McDowall 2000 : 385). In this context, women’s initiatives were frequently regarded suspiciously and were even actively opposed by conservative Kurdish male political actors (Mojab 2004; al-Ali 2007 : 207).

Both the KDP and PUK claimed that women’s oppression, including ‘honor killings’, was part of Kurdish ‘tribal and Islamic culture’ (Mojab 2004: 122).

New laws against honor killing and polygamy were introduced in Iraqi Kurdistan, however it was noted by Amnesty International that the prosecution of honor killings remains low, and the implementation of the anti-polygamy resolution (in the PUK-controlled areas) has not been consistent

Despite the hostility they faced from some quarters, Kurdish women’s rights activists campaigned to annul the provisions within the Iraqi penal code that allowed lenient punishment for the murder of women in the name of ‘honor’. Th ey were successful in achieving these changes in 2000 in the PUKcontrolled areas and 2002 in the KDP-controlled areas. Despite this achievement, the prosecution of honor crimes is reported to be low (Amnesty International 2009 ). During the 1990s, Kurdish women’s rights activists also lobbied for reforms to the Iraqi personal status code of 1959 in order to introduce greater equality in marriage and divorce. In the PUK-controlled region, Jalal Talabani signed Resolution 62 (2000), which made taking more than one wife punishable by up to three years in prison and a fi ne of up to 10,000 dinars. However, like the outlawing of so-called honor crimes, the implementation of Resolution 62 has not been consistent.

I see you are again continuing cherry picking and black washing of the article. When are you going to stop this, what is your problem? 90% of this article is related to Mojab's publications. You have gathered 6-7 sources and they all are referring to Mojab publications. You are showing the report from 1992 as it was happened yesterday. You should mention the year and according to who. Also, stop cherry picking. I am tired to edit your changes. This article is totally destroyed and it is nothing else than negative things. Do you understand that the majority of the Kurds live in Turkey and Syria, not in Iraq?

• Shahrzad Mojab is a Canadian professor and one of the highest authorities on Kurdish women. The sources in your extract seem to be from 2004, 2007, 2009. That is not all from 1992. The text about Iraq is clearly marked as about Iraq. Majority of Kurds live in Turkey and Iraq. --92.107.193.198 (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Mojab is never accepted or agreed as an "expert" of Kurdish women's rights. I have read many articles about her, she is badly criticized. Sources are from 2004 but when you check what sources they use and go to check again them from the original Mojab source, you will realize that those things are from the early 90's. I am 100% sure you know that, you are just trying to show them as yesterday events. She stopped to write about the Kurdish women's right after her two publications were criticized by other human rights organizations. If you check her publications, you will realize that they are all absolutely negative and causing full of hatred. About your edits, at least 2 your statements aren't valid anymore. For example, not been consistent.. is not valid anymore. Check the newest source I added last time. I have checked your sources and realized that they are actually all either Mojab sources or referring to it, not even mentioning that you are clearly cherry picking and changing your IP address.Ferakp (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

And what are these sources that claim that Mojab is not a good source? Remember in wikipedia, we have to go by reliable sources. The paper I just used is from 2011, so quite recent. If the polygamy law is now consistently implmented, you can add this information, but it would still not make it invalid for the previous time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.107.193.198 (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Also see this article which is quite recent about women in Iraqi Kurdistan. [14] I'm not using this source in the article, but it shows the situation is even worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.107.193.198 (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

But i'm not opposed to create an article on violence against Kurdish women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.107.193.198 (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

on cherrypicking

Above Ferakp claims I was cherry picking, and on ANI I was "cherrypicking" because I made a change to this:

The original source reads: More or less silent on women an non-princely classes, it makes references to the women of the ruling landowning class, and their exclusion from public life and the exercise of state power. According to this source, the Kurds, following the Islamic tradition, took four wives and, if the could afford it, four maids or slave girls (jariyya). […] Daughters and sisters were given or exchanded in marriage as a means of settling wars and blood feuds. When one side was defeated, the victor took over the women of the enemy as booty and as proof of the humiliating defeat of the adversary. Although state power was execised only by males, Bidlisi mentions three women who, after losing their husbands, aussumed the reins of power in order to transfer it to their sons upon their adulthood.

Out of this, in the wikipedia article it only read: Sharaf ad-Din Bitlisi's 1597 Sharafnama mentions three Kurdish women assuming power in Kurdish principalities.

If THIS was not cherry picking, then what is?? On "blackwashing", one can find enough "blackwashing" by looking at his contribs about Arabs, Iranians, Turks...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.107.193.198 (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

region/area

I changed "Kurdish regions" to Iraqi Kurdistan, because the first source talks about "Kurdistan", not Kurdish regions. With Kurdistan, it means Iraqi Kurdistan (only recognized "Kurdistan"). Feel free to change if you think I am wrong (and you can prove so). Ferakp (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hatun Sürücü illustration

Dear Ferakp, here in Berlin/Germany, the general public associated "Kurdish women" with two things: YPJ and Hatun Sürücü. The latter is even mentioned in the "Diaspora" section, "Honor killings" sub-section of the article. You know that I do not at all intend to blackwash Kurds or Kurdish causes, but I would really like to include the illustration of her memorial plaque in the article. You removed it once, I do not want to edit-fight with you, so can we discuss this here? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

2A1ZA: Of course, sorry if I was wrong. I just heard she was half Turkish and Kurdish because I had read many articles about her. I know how popular she is among those who know about honor killings and I also know that people know her as Kurdish. I will restore the image. My apologizes. Ferakp (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to you know that the new structure of the article is totally terrible. The honor killing situation-title is a little bit exaggerated. Compare number of honor killings to number of Kurdish women so you can understand it. It's not so serious problem as it is wanted to be believed by some organizations. Usually, there is "Crimes against x women"-section and then under that there are subsections named related to the crime types, such as honor killings, FGM etc. It would be much better and structure will be much more clearer. What do you think?

Keep in mind that last time when I edited this article, many users had added tons of terrible things about honor killings, such as very specific details of some brutal honor killings and a lot of falsified/fake sources. Also, it's a part of psychological warfare campaign of the Turkish government to exaggerate honor killings and other internal problems among the Kurds. They have been several times caught from falsifying stats in reports. All kind of "murders" were classified as "Honor killings" as much as possible and in many cases, their own crimes (rape cases and honor killings among Turks and Turkmen) were showed as "Kurdish". In Turkey, there has been systematic "shining" process since the 99. The Guardian and several other sources/organizations tried to bring this issue to the public but failed: Reporting on cases of sexual abuse in Turkey is often difficult; the issue is still taboo in Turkish culture, as well as the fact that much of Turkish media don't report on such cases as they tarnish the country's modern and secular image. Last time, I catch one AKP troll; he/she used the same IP address on Twitter, Wikipedia, Reddit, Forums, chats and in many other places to spread propaganda against the Kurds.Ferakp (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The new structure of the article makes the severe balancing issues in the article transparent. I fully agree with you that all of the country sections need much work to become balanced. I will see to do something about it with respect to the "Turkey" section now. Another immediate action recommendation of mine would be to remove the extremely large illustration on the "Iraq" subsection. Another idea: What so you think about changing "honor killings" to "honor-based violence issues"? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all your changes except the new structure is something I am against. The unbalanced was mainly because of random users who had involved in cherry picking and added tons of random things. At this moment, the structure is actually a clear duplicate. If there was a section "Crimes against Kurdish women", it would be much better to add those honor killings things to there. Remember that there are other crime types than honor killings and thus if we add every crime type like you did in case of honor killings, the article will be full of section duplicates. All other "X women" articles have such structure, thus I would prefer their structures.Ferakp (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hm. A "Honor-based violence issues" sub-section is with three country-sections now (Turkey, Iraq, Iran), not with the fourth (Syria) for lack of content. I am not sure if your suggestion is to get these back into making a separate section of the article or just rename them. For now I do not see much duplication there, the sections just have the content of the previous separate section, and all that I added to any of them was the country-specific contribution of the Turkish state in the sub-section concerning Turkey. Anyway, personally I find it important that these "Crimes against Kurdish women" are "Honor-based". If articles on women of other Middle East ethnicities do not explicitly address this specific topic, I think that it should rather be added there than deleted here. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Just a passing note (don't have much time at the moment to discuss this), but when compared to the relevant section in the article Women in Turkey, where the material is supported by relevant scholarship (sociological studies), the "Honor-based violence issues" section here seems to be frighteningly understating the issues. "There have been reports about honor killings in Turkey"? Really? "In some rare cases"? Rare as per whom? Scholarship on this issue reflects that this is endemic in eastern Turkey, particularly in Kurdish-populated areas, and there is no stigma or shame attached to honour killings, but the article makes no mention of it. Erdoğan's statements have not been properly linked to the topic at hand as well - if they have not been cited as promoting honour killing of Kurdish women, they must be removed, otherwise the link must be made clear. Countering scholarship with unsubstantiated claims (I know of some literature that supports this view even though Ferakp is not citing anything, but this is by no means universally accepted in academia) that this is an example of psychological warfare instigated by the Turkish government frighteningly downplays the seriousness of what women in this region experience, I am afraid. "Honor-based violence issues" also appears to be euphemistic to me: the sections about Turkey and Iraq concentrate on honour killings and FGM deserves a section in its own right, to be frank. Violence against women is an important topic to cover here so if one is afraid of lengthening the sections due to balancing issues, the best approach would be to create a separate article (Violence against Kurdish women, violence against Kurdish women in Turkey etc.) and then summarise its contents here. Finally, before anyone gets personal, a good portion of my work here has been focused on women's rights, not just in Turkey but around the world, and I have contributed a good amount of content regarding problems in Turkish society (see Child marriage in Turkey). Problems in Turkish society are under spotlight (you just need to do a few Google searches) and I have worked and will work to reflect them here. My focus is by no means specific on Kurdish women. --GGT (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Another note: I am by no means claiming that honour killings in Turkey are a specifically Kurdish problem - of course they are not. They are relatively prevalent in Turkish populations as well. This article is not, however, about that. --GGT (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I just briefly went through your Wikipedia contributions, they do not appear focused on "women's rights", but rather focused on promoting a political agenda of aggressive Turkish ultra-nationalism; of your last 250 edits, every single one concerns variants of the latter, and not a single one the former. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear GGT, so why don't you just try to make it sober and sincere encyclopedic texts on the topic here in the respective sub-sections, balanced in length with the other sub-sections of the article, instead of trying to delete the aspects of Turkish state complicity in perpetuating the problem, as you just did? And as to your claim that everything that is not related to honor killings should be deleted from this article, I beg to disagree. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ferakp, you convinced me that the headlines must be changed, as GGT just sought to edit away the crime against humanity which nurturing the barbaric values of the "village guard system" represents, claiming that he/she would see a lack of "honor" relevance. It breaks my heart to say this, because I find this problem of honor-based violence against women one of the major challenges for humanity to tackle in the 21st century, but if that only leads to abuse for POV motivated cherry-picking on the causes, then it probably must be. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• 2A1ZA, my concern is that WP:OR is being used in this article, I am afraid. My latest edits should get the point across clearer; the Guardian article makes no mention of Kurds and it would simply be unacceptable synthesis to link this to Kurdish women in the absence of the like of sources that I added. My latest edit should also have made my concerns regarding the HRW report clearer.
• Regarding my edit history and motivations, I am deeply saddened and I expect you to retract that disrespectful statement, if not for the sake of healthy progress, for the sake of the countless hours I spent working on articles like Assyrian genocide (and many other Turkish war crimes) and Murder of Özgecan Aslan. I acknowledge that my edits might have been rash and apologise if I have offended you. --GGT (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear GGT, my dear friend, just some lines above on this talk page, you have made such a convincing case for rewriting the "honor killing" related paragraphs in this article here, from the present Daily-Mail-style sensationalism to blackwash Kurds, into serious academic presentation of a deep and serious problem that honor-based tribal society poses for the human beings concerned, in particular women, and for all of us as humanity. However, afterwards you did not do what you rightly said must be done, but rather went on to delete everything an the article that points to the disgusting complicity of the Turkish state in perpetuating the problem. I call on you to do what you rightly argued must be done, rewriting the "honor killing" related paragraphs in this article here. Once you do that, I will happily honor you with all the respect which you then deserve. However, if you choose to continue edit-warring for the cause of Turkish ultra-nationalism instead, then respect you do not deserve, and I recommend that you be aware of the 3RR rule. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear 2A1ZA, thank you for your latest approach. I do not believe that our aim must be aimed at removing the "blackwashing of Kurds" or demonstrating "the complicity of Turkish government", our aim must be to reflect what is in the sources, which will integrate an analysis of social norms in Kurdish communities as well as the repressive role the Turkish government is playing. I share your sensitivity on the issue and indeed, it was this sensitivity which drove me to write the article on Murder of Özgecan Aslan (or indeed the page Child marriage in Turkey, which I now see you have edited) from scratch with reference to that "disgusting complicity", and then get it featured on the main page. But sensitivity is only useful if it complies with policies, one of which you have aptly cited, though I believe not to have approached violating it. Now, I ask you, do we reflect our sensitivity by adding our commentary on the sources? Do we do this by taking a report which says that government-employed village guards have been involved in abductions and rape amongst other criminal activity and using it as evidence of "a repressive Turkish government agenda against women"? No, it is only fair that we use this to say that these guards have been involved in abductions and rape, or else we might as well not include anything rather than make inappropriate conclusions. Same with the Guardian article, is it compliant for Wikipedia policies to use an article which does not even talk about the Kurds in reference to the Kurdish women's rights movement, or is it more appropriate, as I have done today, to use a source which explicitly talks about AKP government actions in relation to this? Is it not tabloid-style to include Erdoğan quotations in this article rather than talk about how these policies affect women's rights?

I note that you still refer to Turkish ultra-nationalism with reference to me, which I see as an example of heart-breaking prejudice. Some of my previous works as cited above, some even in my last 250 edits where I talked about Turkish militia bombing the Bayraktar Mosque, would get me targeted (and you know what I mean by targeted) by Turkish ultra-nationalists if they were to be publicised. I cannot afford much respect to you if you do not take relevant actions regarding this rhetoric of yours, I am afraid.

My approach yesterday was extremely unconstructive and may have rightly been interpreted as nationalistic. I apologise for this sincerely. This was a manifestation of my extreme shortage of time, but I should indeed have refrained from editing in such a situation.

So as to facilitate the improvement of the article, I bring up this source to you. I lack the time to integrate this to the article, unfortunately, but I do hope that you will take the required action. In the meantime, I will be bringing over relevant material from the article on Women in Turkey, much of which I myself added. --GGT (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I hope that my last edit has made my vision for the article clear enough, and demonstrate that the causes of the issues are not limited to tribal structure. --GGT (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your long reply, I am confident that we can co-operate to improve the article. I would really love to see this topic complex of honor-based oppression and violence get its due sincere presentation in all sections. In addition, to mention one concrete point, I renamed the first sub-section of every section into "Background and History", so one can now without the potential problems you describe present something like Kemalist and Tayyipist context in the case of Turkey, or Sharia context in the case of the others. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Those contexts are very much relevant, have a good amount of supporting literature about them and deserve due mention, I would love to support you in any way possible to achieve your aims (given my time restraints), supplementing Turkish-language material where appropriate. I am afraid that we actually have surprisingly little coverage (giving the depth of the issue) of Atatürk's and AKP's policies and views on women's rights, violence against women and gender equality, these are both deserving of articles in their own right, given their key importance in understanding current problems facing the women of Turkey; this would also make linking here much easier. I digress, of course, these are just speculations for future development. I currently lack the insight to comment on Iraq, Syria or Iran, I am afraid. --GGT (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Edits 28.11.2016

Added Iranian government as in Amnesty reports there was clearly cited that the Iranian government has brought laws that encourage men to practice violence against their wives. Also, neighboring societies as the neighboring societies have significant affect (no country-> you are living under shadow of other societies).Ferakp (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Editorializing

This sentence clause--"in Syria the Kurdish Rojava revolution even represents the avantgarde in women's equality"--is tagged as editorializing. It is not neutral language. It is an opinion and should not be included in here. Any objections to my keeping it out? Flyte35 (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely object to keeping that sentence out of the lead. That sentence accurately summarizes the respective section of the article, it is well sourced, and as such should be in the lead according to WP:LEAD. If you think that you have a better formulation to summarize the Syria section of the article, go ahed and make your suggestion. Simply ignoring a section (and a major aspect of the topic of the article) in the lead is not an option. And please do not edit the article again against clear objection while the discussion is ongoing, your conduct constitutes edit warring. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I add two more quality sources which literally says what this sentence states, and remove the "editorializing" flag. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@2A1ZA: would you be so kind as to indicate how the sources support the precise statement, "the Kurdish Rojava revolution even represents the avantgarde in women's equality", with quotes from those sources? This would avoid any misunderstanding and mean that we have a maximally constructive discussion - or even not have one at all. Thanks in advance. --GGT (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Example given, this is how the Meredith Tax piece in Foreign Affairs starts: "A new model of social organization is taking shape in the Kurdish areas of northern Syria. Rojava, as it is known (...) In terms of social equality, ethnic pluralism, and antisectarianism, the territory is a regional standout. That is especially the case when it comes to women’s advancement." -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

From this I would gather that the term "avantgarde" used is in relation to the rest of the region. If so, we should make that assumption clear in the statement in the article. --GGT (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

One might also make clear in the lead as well that it is only the progressive ("Apoist") half of the Kurdish political class which promotes and implements such advancement in women's rights, while the programmatically tribalist other half is opposed. Every suitable formulation is fine with me, I just strongly object to infesting Wikipedia articles with the POV anathema sit policy of Islamists and Turkish ultra-nationalists alike towards the Rojava social revolution topic. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The sentence is totally inappropriate for the lead. WP:LEAD doesn't allow for opinion statements in the lead, nor in the rest of the article. If someone is arguing that something "represents" something else, that is an opinion, and should be presented as such: TK argues that "in Syria the Kurdish Rojava revolution represents the avantgarde in women's equality." What something represents is not a factual statement. Furthermore, none of the sources now provided at the end of that sentence say anything about "the Kurdish Rojava revolution representing the avantgarde in women's equality." If you think it's essential to quote from the Foreign Affairs article, the correct way to do that is to say something like that "Meredith Tax wrote in Foreign Affairs that the in Syria the Kurdish Rojava represents 'a new model of social organization... in terms of social equality, ethnic pluralism, and antisectarianism.'" But that doesn't belong in the lead. Rojava isn't even defined until the middle of the article. Flyte35 (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your statement that "if someone is arguing that something 'represents' something else, that is an opinion" (as opposed to a fact) is simply false, at least in these general terms. However, if you wish to replace "represent" with "constitute", I have no objections. As to the remainder of your comment, did you even bother to read the Syria section of the article? Once you did so, would you make your suggestion for its best summary for the lead? Sincerely looking forward to read your suggestion, which you will surely make, because I have no doubt that you are aware aware that a summary of that section belongs no less into the lead as the summaries of all other stuff. Even more so, because the situation in Syria has more English media attention concerning the lemma of this article than any other aspect of it. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to include the statement "Meredith Tax wrote in Foreign Affairs that the in Syria the Kurdish Rojava represents constitutes 'a new model of social organization... in terms of social equality, ethnic pluralism, and antisectarianism'" in the section on Kurdish women in Syria, which is the first place in the article where Rojava is discussed.Flyte35 (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to read the Syria section of the article and propose a sincere summary for the lead? Please do not make it so hard to assume good faith on your part. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The Syria section of the article is the first place in the where Rojava is mentioned. That is the first place where it seems appropriate to me to quote someone's opinion about what the Rojava revolution represents. The line you wish to include is not a neutral sentence appropriate for the lead of this article.Flyte35 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Flyte35, my dear friend, it is the very nature of the lead of an article that it summarizes content which is only elaborated later on in the article. An the facts in Syria concerning Kurdish women are common knowledge and widely available and sourced facts, not just anybody's opinion. If you actually are totally unfamiliar with the factual situation and developments of Kurdish society and polity in Syria, may I suggest that you familiarize yourself with those facts before you make deletions with respect to them in this article? I recommend the Wikipedia articles on Rojava, Rojava conflict and Human rights in Rojava for a start. Or you just try reading the Syria section of this article here and the references/sources given. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Saying what a social movement means is not a factual statement. It's an opinion. You have not addressed that point. The facts in Syria concerning Kurdish women are common knowledge and widely available, yes, but claiming to know what those facts "represent" is inappropriate language. Flyte35 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been asking you numerous times to suggest a sincere summary of the Syria/Rojava section which you consider more appropriate language, yet to no avail. I still hope for a constructive suggestion from you. Anyway, I just removed the term "represent" in the lead which appears to be your main point of contention, and added another quality source. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I wrote that it would be appropriate to include a statement like "Meredith Tax wrote in Foreign Affairs that the in Syria the Kurdish Rojava represents constitutes 'a new model of social organization... in terms of social equality, ethnic pluralism, and antisectarianism'" in the section on Kurdish women in Syria, which is the first place in the article where Rojava is discussed.

I do appreciate your efforts at compromise, but the statement you want to include now in the lead--"in Syria the Kurdish Rojava revolution even sets avantgardist standards for the region in terms of women's equality" isn't appropriate either. The Rojava revolution has not been introduced in the article yet. Claiming that something "sets a standard" is also an opinion. And avantgardist is not a real word.Flyte35 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your suggestion to ignore the Syria/Rojava section in the lead, although it is the aspect of the lemma which gets by far most attention in English language media, apparently is not is not an option in line with Wikipedia rules and policies, in particular WP:LEAD. So if you think the current formulation in the lead should be improved, please make a sincere and concrete suggestion on how to improve it. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we can drop the clause in the lead and include Meredith Tax's opinion on the Kurdish Rojava revolution in the section on Syria. That's perfectly in line with WP:LEAD. I suggest you to take a break from this; it seems the two of us are unlikely to reach consensus independently. Flyte35 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No, we can not ignore the very aspect of the lemma (advancements of women's equality in the Rojava revolution) in the lead which has by far most English language media attention for years. This would be a clear and open violation of WP:LEAD. However, you might consider your own advice taking a break from this and let other editors participate. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kurdish women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160407194238/http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=e6256f9e-e8e4-4f58-af6f-46c19bcc6423 to http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=e6256f9e-e8e4-4f58-af6f-46c19bcc6423
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415205706/http://www.uniraq.org/documents/HR%20Report%20Mar%20Apr%2006%20EN.PDF to http://www.uniraq.org/documents/HR%20Report%20Mar%20Apr%2006%20EN.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210162729/http://www.uniraq.org/FileLib/misc/HR%20Report%20Nov%20Dec%202006%20EN.pdf to http://www.uniraq.org/FileLib/misc/HR%20Report%20Nov%20Dec%202006%20EN.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160616210850/http://www.kurdipedia.org/documents/87353/0001.pdf to http://www.kurdipedia.org/documents/87353/0001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kurdish women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226214203/http://tin.tv/site/show/cat2/fact-2012-uvda to http://tin.tv/site/show/cat2/fact-2012-uvda
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101162717/http://sosyalistfeministkolektif.org/english/928-revolution-in-rojava-transformed-the-perception-of-women-in-the-society.html to http://www.sosyalistfeministkolektif.org/english/928-revolution-in-rojava-transformed-the-perception-of-women-in-the-society.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160809135306/http://isyandan.org/english/the-cezire-canton-an-arab-sheikh-and-a-woman-guerrilla-at-the-helm/ to http://isyandan.org/english/the-cezire-canton-an-arab-sheikh-and-a-woman-guerrilla-at-the-helm/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081005072329/http://globalpolitician.com/25202-iraq to http://globalpolitician.com/25202-iraq
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/088/2008/en/d140767b-5e45-
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/088/2008/en/d140767b-5e45-
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/088/2008/en/d140767b-5e45-

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kurdish women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303191825/http://www.kwrw.org/index.asp?id=110 to http://www.kwrw.org/index.asp?id=110
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509171108/http://www3.baylor.edu/~Charles_Kemp/kurdish_refugees.htm to http://www3.baylor.edu/~Charles_Kemp/kurdish_refugees.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160302215853/http://che.tribe.net/thread/0ae203bb-6aae-4297-a993-83993cf48c7d to http://che.tribe.net/thread/0ae203bb-6aae-4297-a993-83993cf48c7d
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160302215853/http://che.tribe.net/thread/0ae203bb-6aae-4297-a993-83993cf48c7d to http://che.tribe.net/thread/0ae203bb-6aae-4297-a993-83993cf48c7d
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103151030/http://www.kwrw.org/index.asp?id=83 to http://www.kwrw.org/index.asp?id=83
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160302215853/http://che.tribe.net/thread/0ae203bb-6aae-4297-a993-83993cf48c7d to http://che.tribe.net/thread/0ae203bb-6aae-4297-a993-83993cf48c7d

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)