The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

While we don't give ethnicities of other scholars when their nationality is known, should we say "Kurdish-Iranian" (Kurdish is not a nationality, it's an ethnicity) or "British-Iranian" about this mathematician in the lead ? (his ethnic background is given in the relevant "early life and education" section). Please note that the question is : should we include his ethnicity in the lead or in the body of the article ?--- Wikaviani ( talk) 02:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I just wanna say that I don't really have a stake in the discussion here, but I feel it would be wrong to call him Iranian-British. He is a Kurd who was born in Iran and lived there before finally getting a chance to flee the country to the UK to get a political asylum. Calling him a UK-based Iranian Kurd is probably the best designation since it both mentions his nationality (Iranian Kurd) and the location where he lives and works (the UK which granted him the asylum; I am not sure whether he holds a UK citizenship, but if he does then we can discuss calling him a British Kurd. I don't understand why he should be called a British Iranian (emphasis added) at all Openlydialectic ( talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Guardian: "Former refugee among winners of Fields medal – the 'Nobel prize for maths'"..."After a year, he was granted refugee status, became a British citizen and began a PhD." I would say, he is a British Kurd.-- Moplayer ( talk) 21:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Maybe i was not clear enough, here is a list of the Fields medalists, as far as i see, none of them has his ethnicity given in the lead. why should we give Caucher's Birkar's ethnicity in the lead ? More, Kurds are one of the Iranian peoples (ethno-linguisticaly), therefore being a Kurd means being an Iranian. I quote from the Iranian peoples' article : "Modern Iranian peoples include the Baloch, Gilaks, Kurds, Lurs, Mazanderanis, Ossetians, Pashtuns, Pamiris, Persians, Tajiks, the Talysh, Tati, Wakhis and Yaghnobis."--- Wikaviani ( talk) 18:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

There is a perfect example among that list: [Alexander Grothendieck]. Born in German (and hence born German). Fled to France as a refugee, his nationality appears as 'none' (for he was stateless, at least for a long time in his life), and then France. If we follow the same pattern, we should write 'none' and 'British', but definitely not Iranian. Askateth ( talk) 15:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• a Kurdish refugee from Iran - After a quick review of sources, multiple sources use "a Kurdish refugee from Iran". This seems like a reasonable descriptor to me. As a sidenote, I can't find any reference for how Birkar self-identifies, which is what I usually look to as the primary method of determining nationality. NickCT ( talk) 16:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Iranian born British with dual citizenship. We should follow standard practice and refer to him in the opening para by his British and Iranian citizenship - at present the British is not covered at all. If his ethnicity is a notable aspect or part of his reason for becoming British, we can use "Kurdish refugee from Iran" in a second lead para, briefly relating the narrative, but trying to cram the whole narrative of his nationality and ethnicity into the opening sentence is just going to make the reading confusing and "upstage" his achievements as a mathematician - which is why he has an article at all. Unless he has renounced his Iranian citizenship, or been stripped of it, he is still Iranian. If his Kurdishness has not been significantly covered, or embraced by him, it should not be in the lead at all. Pincrete ( talk) 12:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

" It’s not easy to be a Kurd." This is the first sentence he said in his nomination video for the International Congress of Mathematicians, which honored him with the Fields Medal. And he hits the nail right on the head, if you consider what we are discussing about for some weeks.-- Moplayer ( talk) 16:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

re "follow standard practice" - I love when people say stuff like that. Who's standard practice? Yours? NickCT ( talk) 13:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I would suggest you to check other Fields medalists, none of them has his "ethnicity" in the lead/infobox of their article, only his citizenship. If you can prove that "Kurdish" is a citizenship, then it's ok to write "Kurdish" for his nationality. I think this is what the other contributor calls "standard practice" and i fully agree with him.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply

So it's your standard practice too, huh? Seriously, what playbook are guys working off of. Is there any policy that supports your argument, or are you making it up as you go along?

re "check other Fields medalists" - Can you point to another Fields medalist who is a refugee or recent immigrant as Brikar is? NickCT ( talk) 14:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply

First, please focus on content, not users. second, we have other immgrants earning a Fields medal, like Maryam Mirzakhani. Strangely, nobody was talking about her being a Persian, a Lur, a Kurdish or any other ethnicity. She is listed as Iranian in her article. The problem is that when you use the word "nationality" about someone, you primarily refer to his citizenship, not his ethnicity, i don't think we need any policy to support this, a dictionary should suffice : [10].---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm focusing on policy, not users. Policy which you were apparently making making up.

"Kurd" in English, is used to mean either "a person from the Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iraq, Syria or Iran" or "a person of Kurdish ethnicity". Technically, there's a little ambiguity as those two definitions may not mean the same thing. Some sources clear up that ambiguity by using the term "ethnic Kurd" (e.g. [11], [12], [13]). Thus, "Kurd" is both an ethnicity and a pseudo-nationality (i.e. in the same sense that "Puerto Rican", Quebecer, Walloon or Scot might be a pseudo-nationality). There are lots of cases where we use pseudo-nationalities in BLPs. We refer to Palestinian refugees for example as Palestinian refugees, not as "Israeli's living in Jordan". NickCT ( talk) 11:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not making a making up of policies, if i did, i would not have opened this RfC. However i agree with half of what you said just above, "Kurd" is an ethnicity but i don't know what "pseudo-nationality" is. Thus, when we say "Palestinian", we don't refer to a nationality but to an ethnicity, i.e someone speaking Palestinian Arabic, this has nothing to do with a supposed "pseudo-nationality"...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Hmmmmm..... I don't think many people think of Palestinian as a distinct ethnicity. I mean, the so-called "region of Palestine" contains peoples of many different distinct ethnicities, right? Plus there are places that used to be in what was once considered Palestine, but is generally not consider Palestine now. For instance, I don't think many Jordanians would think of themselves as "Palestinian" though I guess at one time they were.

Regardless, these conversations are a little philosophical. What we should do is follow the subject's description of themselves or RS's description of them. At the moment a Kurdish refugee from Iran seems like the most common descriptor I can find. NickCT ( talk) 02:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

This is the point, you say "I don't think this people would think themselves as Palestinian", but we don't really care about what people think they are, the key point is what they really/officially are. I mean if an Algerian thinks of himself as being French, because decades ago Algeria was a French colony, this does not makes him really French, right ? and if he claims a French passport or ID, this will be denied by French authorities. The fact that in Palestine, there are different peoples does not contradict what i'm saying, actually, "Palestinian" is not a nationaliyu/citizenship, it's an ethnicity. However, it seems that we're getting closer and closer to a consensus, i agree with the "Kurdish-Iranian" in the lead, but in the infobox, where his nationality is given, writing "Kurdish-XXX" would be a nonsense since again, the first meaning of "nationality" is in fact citizenship.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Ha! But that is the point. You say the "key point is what they really/officially are". There is no "real" or "official" when it comes to ethnicity or nationality. Those things are qualitative and subjective. Not quantitative and objective. If there was some yard stick by which we could measure "Irian-ness" then you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd just refer to the yardstick.

re "Algeria was a French colony," - Exactly! A person in colonial Algeria probably would say "I am Algerian". He might possibly also say "I am French" (as a side-note, I'm actually friends with some Pied-Noir who would call themselves French). Unfortunately, there is no "official" measure for deciding whether the person is actually Algerian or actually French. The best thing to do is either 1) let the person define what they are, or 2) just follow the sources.

So it sounds like the only debate is about the Infobox now. I think I agree with L3X1. In the infobox, when in doubt, leave it out. NickCT ( talk) 04:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

So we have a "deal" for the lead. But i obviously disagree with what you say about nationality and by the way, there is no doubt about the nationality of this man (at least for his Iranian citizenship), therefore, in the infobox, i think we just should write what his passport(s) state(s), nothing less, nothing more. However, since i don't own Wikipedia, if there is a consensus to leave it out, then it's fine for me.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Ok. I'm still a little surprised by your "what his passport states" rationale. Surely you'd accept there are a lot of places we don't look to peoples passports. For instance, a person who calls themselves Palestinian but holds an Israeli passport, we should probably call "Palestinian" not an "Israeli". A Scot who holds a British passport we should call "a Scot" not "a Brit". NickCT ( talk) 12:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't pretend to summarize the identity of a person in his passport of course, i know that a Scott would refer to himself as Scott and not British, a Palestinian as Palestinian and not Israeli, and many other peoples also may consider themselves as belonging to some ethnies and not to their nationality but i would say that this is part of their personal opinions and focusing exclusively on people's personal opinions would be an endless mess. At some point, when it comes to one's citizenship, the passport is the only thing that matters. Otherwise, we should write that Laurent Schwartz was an Alsatian-French mathematician, Georges Pompidou who loved his home region, an Auvergnat-French president, or Charles Michel a Walloon-Belgian prime minister. Quite messy, right ? As a last word i would like to thank you for this constructive discussion. Take care dude.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

re "focusing exclusively on people's personal opinions would be an endless mess" - Well I appreciate that opinion and I used to think like that. I eventually realized is that when talking about qualitative and subjective questions (e.g. Is the Mona Lisa beautiful), opinions sorta do matter. And the real question is that if I don't get to decide whether I'm American or Scottish or Israeli or whatever, who does? Anyways..... Have a nice day. NickCT ( talk) 15:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Personal opinions are very important in real life, but not for us here on Wikipedia. Also, NickCT, when you say who decides if you are American, Israeli or wathever, i would say it's you of course, but on one condition : you have to do the right things for that. Example, Birkar is Iranian born, but he decides to become British. He has to learn English, to live in the UK, to learn this country's history, ask for British citizenship, etc .. and then one can legitimately pretend that Birkar is British. I'm Iranian, if i go around and claim that i'm Chinese while i don't speak Chinese, don't know anything about this country, etc ... this does not really make sense. Had Birkar emigrated in Mexico, learned Spanish and assimilated in this country's culture, etc ... he could legitimately pretend to be Mexican. Have a nice day too.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I think our POV's are pretty close here, but I think you're contradicting yourself slightly by saying "the key point is what they really/officially are", but then also saying "i would say it's you of course". You have to decide whether you think nationality is an objective, "official" or "real" fact, or you think nationality is subjective and qualitative where peoples own opinions of it matter. NickCT ( talk) 00:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

There is no contradiction according to me. It's up to people to decide what they want to be, however they don't instantly become what they want. For example, today, it's quite undisputed that Birkar is Iranian and British (he spent around 30 years in Iran, is living in the UK for 10 years, speaks Persian and English and owns Iranian and British citizenships). Let's suppose that tomorrow he decides to become Mexican. Nobody will say tomorrow that Caucher is Mexican right ? but since he has decided to become Mexican, he can emigrate to this country, learn Spanish, get Mexican citizenship and in a few years, he will be Mexican (and also Iranian and British). Therefore, it's mainly your call to belong to a country, but you have to do what it takes to make it real.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Can you give us a trustful source, which clearly proves his Iranian citizenship? The Guardian says " After a year, he was granted refugee status, became a British citizen and began a PhD.", but there is nothing mentioned about a dual citizenship in this article. Even the ICM says " Fields Medal winner, Kurd and British citizen with refugee status, Caucher Birkar[...]".-- Moplayer ( talk) 17:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Come on man, am i mistaken or you keep denying Birkar's Iranian nationality ? this source says "But for Birkar, an Iranian Kurd who won political asylum and citizenship in Britain, minus one plus one equals gold again.". this one says "Iran's Caucher Birkar, 40, of Kurdish background, had his Fields Medal stolen" and later "After one year, he was granted the status of refugee and became a British citizen.". this one says "Birkar is an Iranian refugee who has been living in the UK for over a decade.". this one says "Second Iranian wins prestigious Fields Medal"... Need more ? i have many other sources in English, Persian and French. Please be serious. The consensus seems to be "Kurdish-Iranian" in the lead and as to his nationality, "British-Iranian" or we just leave his nationality out of the infobox.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Think I agree with Viani on this point. There are a bunch of articles saying he's "from Iran". If someone wants to contend he's not a citizen of Iran, the onus is probably on them to prove that. NickCT ( talk) 00:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Exclude per L3X1.comment in extended discussion. If he is a citizen of Britain and has been living in the UK for over a decade, and is commonly described as such in WP:RS like those cited above, I think it is a bit arbitrary to decide to leave it out and only mention his "ethnicity". (Especially as he also appears to be a citizen of Iran per NickCT). I have to agree with L3X1. Does he identify as an Iranian Kurd or a British Kurd? When in doubt leave it out. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 04:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Hmmm, not sure to understand what you mean Seraphim System. If i get you, your proposal is to remove "Kurdish-Iranian" from the lead and just write "British-Iranian" in the infobox ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Ambiguity of "nationality"

In English "nationality" could mean either "citizenship" or "ethnicity". In Wikipedia it usually means "citizenship". I suggest to put in the lead the word "Citizenship" rather than "Nationality". F.e. see Nikola Tesla

Kot Obormot ( talk) 10:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I would agree with your proposal, however, all other Fields medalists have their nationality given in their articles' lead, but their ethnicity is never given in the lead.--- Wikaviani ( talk) 18:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I do not advocate to put ethnicity in the lead, just to replace "Nationality" by "Citizenship".

Kot Obormot ( talk) 22:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your opinion, but this RfC is about including the ethnicity in the lead or not. Cheers.--- Wikaviani ( talk) 22:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Kurdish-Iranian and let people figure it out, or Exclude per When In Doubt Leave It Out.( Summoned by bot) ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply

If you were talking to me, then please note that here is no doubt about his nationality.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply