Talk:Kurdish people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kurdish people article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject Kurdistan
Portal:Kurdistan
 Kurdistan Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Kurdistan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Kurdistan-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate.

Happy editing!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the project's importance scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Kurdish people as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Arabic language Wikipedia.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Kurds fighting Sumerians?

I don't think this article is very convincing to people that don't belong to the Kurdish community. The Kurds are a people that belong to an ethnic group, I can agree with this. But any ethnic group should have something in common, like language or culture, or at least a name. According to my information the most important unifying characteristic of Kurds is their Kurdish language. This Kurdish language is Iranian, and not any Iranian was spoken yet during the time of the Sumerians. It has been generally accepted that all Iranian languages, including the ancestral Kurdish language, came to the region from the first millenium BC on, together with the Medes and Perses, or later. Also it has been generally accepted this was many centuries after the Sumerians had already disappeared from history. If the Kurds already fought with Sumerians, such ancestral Kurds must have been Iranified, or else a reference is needed to sustain those people fighting Sumerians really belonged to the same ethnical group as Kurds. My correction to this contradiction has been reverted for reasons beyond my comprehension, thus I will put a [citation needed] instead to request some valid input from the Kurdish side. Thanks for your understanding, greetings, Rokus01 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. Okay, I missed the reference to the Britannica online. However, to make this point intelligible I miss the inclusion of this extra statement mentioned there: "Although their language is related to Iranian, the Kurds' ethnic origins are uncertain."

Rokus01 20:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Kurds fighting sumerians is nonsense as Kurds who are an indo-european people were not attested during the Sumerian era. In this regard secondary and primary sources are needed by the principle of OR. If secondary/primary sources do not contradict this, then it is fine. Else for now I have removed it to the talk page.

Historically, the Kurds have continuously sought self-determination, and have fought the Sumerians, Assyrians, Persians, Mongols, European crusaders, and Turks.[1] Estimated at about 35 million people, the Kurds make up the largest ethnic group in the world who do not have a nation-state of their own. In the 20th century, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria have suppressed many Kurdish uprisings.[2]

--alidoostzadeh 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You have to come up with a better argument than just I dismiss it as nonsense, the quote is from britannica and cannot be removed.Heja Helweda 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course it can. See the wikipedia [[1]] policy.
Britannica is teriatary source and not a primary or secondary source. A strong claim requires strong source and not something authorless. What is the proof that there were Indo-European speaking Kurds during the time of Sumerians? At least one legitimate scholar needs to mention it. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources. Also note this: [[2]]. --alidoostzadeh 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It is refreshing to see there is one person here who does not like Britannica. I guess we have to fill a petition to complain to Britannica as well. :)Heja Helweda 23:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read what I wrote above from wikipedia OR policy. [[3]] [[4]].

I will quote it here:

  • Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. The White House's summary of a president's speech is a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; newspaper accounts which contain first-hand material, not merely analysis or commentary of other material; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

  • Secondary sources draw on primary sources in order to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims. A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports is a secondary source. A New York Times analysis and commentary on a president's speech is a secondary source. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, constitute secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians.
  • Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. --alidoostzadeh 23:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous

Why are you writing that Kurds are related with the Baloch? The Kurds changed the Balochis language but that doesn't have any thing to do with their people.

Balochi and Kurdish both belong to the north-western branch of Iranian languages. Moreover Blaoch's themselves have legends accroding to which they de3scended from the Kurds. There is evidence that Sassanid Kings like Khosrow I (Anooshiravan) deported Kurds to the south-east of Iran, i.e. Balochistan in the early 6th century A.D.Heja Helweda 21:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Zazaki speaking people (Zazas) are not Kurds.

[edit] Problematic edits

Please watch this edits: [5]

I dont think this edits are constructive. Asoyrun 12:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sumerians et al.

Here is some other sources about the contacts between ancestors of Kurds and Sumerians:

  • The first mention of the Kurds in historical records is in cunieform writings from the Sumerian from around 3,000 BC, who talked of the land of Karda.

Source:

1) Wixman, R. (1984) The peoples of the USSR. An ethnographic handbook. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

2) Ivan Nasidze, Dominique Quinque, Murat Ozturk, Nina Bendukidze, Mark Stoneking(2005) MtDNA and Y-chromosome Variation in Kurdish Groups Annals of Human Genetics 69 (4), 401–412. (see page 401)


  • Sumerians referred to them (Kurds) as ‘‘Subaru‘‘; Akkadians, Assyrians and Babylonians called mountain people from the area (Kurdistan) as ‘‘Guti‘

Source:

3) A. Arnaiz-Villena, E. Gomez-Casado, J. Martinez-Laso (2002) Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective Tissue Antigens 60 (2), 111–121. (see pp.117-118)

  • British scholar G. R. Driver, suggests that the earliest account of the Kurds comes from a clay tablet in 3rd millenium BC, on which the name of a land called Karda or Qarda is inscribed. This land south of Lake Van, was inhabited by the people of Su who were connected with the Qurtie, a group of mountain dwellers. It is with this name Qurtie that Driver makes his first etymological connection.

Source:

4) Hakan Ozoglu, Kurdish notables and the Ottoman State, 2004, SUNY Press, 186 pp., ISBN 0791459934 (See p.23)

  • The term Kurd appears in ancient times, going back as far as 2000 BC. The Kurds are mentioned in Sumerian and Assyrian records.

Source:

5) Yona Sabar, The Folk Literature of the Kurdistani Jews: An Anthology, 1982, Yale University Press, 254 pp., ISBN 0300026986

  • The Kurds are mentioned in Sumerian and Assyrian records as well as in classical Greek and Latin works,particularly Xenophon's Anabasis.

Source:

6) Ora Scwartz-Be'eri, The Jews of Kurdistan: daily life, customs, arts and crafts, Published 2003 UPNE, 272 pp., ISBN 9652782386. (see page 25)

  • Recognition of the existence of a Kurdish land goes back even as far as the Sumerian Cunieform tablets, dating from about 3000 BC, which speak of The Land of the Karda.

Source:

7) Identity Politics: Filing the Gap Between Federalism and Independence, By M. J. (Martin J.) Dent, Published 2004 Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 232 pages, ISBN 0754637727. (See page 99) Heja Helweda 01:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That is the name Karda mentioned in Sumerian. The term Kurd appears but it does not necessarily mean indo-european language Kurdish of today. It looks like Karda might have been a place name and thus anyone from that place was called a Kurd. Similar when Ottomans were called Romans in Iran. There are many sources that says modern Kurds are medes. Source 1 does not have a page number. Kurds could be partial descendants of Guti mentioned by Sumerian tablets. Your first source is unverifiable (no page number). Three of the sources deal with genetics and no one denies that genetic influence of pre-Iranic,pre-Turkic,pre-Armenian people on all the people of the region. Source 4 and 5 do not strike one as academic history sources. Sources 6 and 7 are not academic but they talk about Kurdish land and land of Kurds. Yes the term Kurd or something similar was used in Sumerian times. But Kurds are considered an indo-european people. So these things need to be clarified. There are tons of references with Kurds being medes [6]. Linguistically speaking ,this has the major support from major academics and is the strongest POV.. it should come first. So this is the stronger theory that needs to be mentioned. --alidoostzadeh 06:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
For the third Millennium BC, linguistic evidence is obscure; likely those Kurti tribes mentioned above spoke an isolated language, belonging to no known language family (some say spoke Aryan); but thereafter this term has been evidently used by Semitics of lower Mesopotamia to refer to the Iranian populations of northwestern Iran (Media), namely Aryan Medes mentioned by Ali.
In any case I think it is also important to not forget the traditional name of Kurds for themselves: KurdManj. the second syllable with no doub means Median. The first Syllable (Kurd/Kurt) likely an adjective (?) borrowed from lowlanders of Mesopotamia. Asoyrun 12:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
That is what I am saying. Given the fact that 2500 B.C. was probably the time of proto-Indo-Iranian probably, it is hard to say what those Kurti tribes were speaking. And also furthermore no Kurd knew of Hurrian, Sumerian, Kardaka, Guti and etc. 100 years ago. But Armenian sources have used the term Kurd and Mede interchangeably and Kurdish classical mythology and literature (it is amazing sometimes they say Gurani is Kurdish but when I bring mythology from Gurani they say Gurani is obscure or small or etc.) is Iranian. Also Minorsky is much more of scholar then any of these. --alidoostzadeh 17:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


Guti were Aryan. Their skin was light! their race is described as being very similar to Aryans. The only light-skinned on Zagros and upper Tigris could have been Aryans, in contrast to yellow-skinned and black-skinned non-Aryans. Besides one of their Kings named Tirigan! which is a typical Iranic name! And Guti are recorded after that date you mentioned! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Henisk (talk • contribs).


Kurds are of Median (Aryan) extraction. Medians themselves were known as Kurti by Assyrians and other Semitics (not always but many times; there is good evidence for this); and Kurds were known as Median by Armenians. It is even impossible to imagine that Kurds have ever forgotten their own language and adopted a new one. The Kurdish mentality is not known to be so feeble. But if Heja likes I think he can somewhere in the article add that the word 'Kurd' is an old name, (though the article already mentions this). Asoyrun 18:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Personal veiws without any sources are irrelevant and should not be included. Things like I think or That is what I am saying cannot be used to justify anything. You have to provide sources that goes against the Britannica's view. Even is that case, the opposing views can be included only along side that of Britannica. The material from Brittanica is sourced and cannot be removed, as it is verifiable.Heja Helweda 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
What is more irrelevant is when your sources are not backed by primary and secondary scholarly sources. We have provided many sources that goes against Wikipedia. Check the links about the medes I brought. I can find at least many from very scholarly sources like Mackenzie, Minorsky,..etc. Britannica does not have priority over primary and secondary sources. --alidoostzadeh 04:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Britannica Paragraphs

I have provided the actual quotes from Britannica for all administrators who would like to resolve this dispute. Unfortunately some users are going too far and try to even reject an important Encyclopaedia like Britannica.

Historically, the Kurds have continuously sought self-determination, and have fought the Sumerians, Assyrians, Persians, Mongols, European crusaders, and Turks[7]. Estimated at about 35 million people, the Kurds make up the largest ethnic group in the world who do not have a nation-state of their own. In the 20th century, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria have suppressed many Kurdish uprisings[8].Heja Helweda 01:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote is baseless. Kurds as a linguistic-cultural group like any other Iranian speaking group were not neighbors with Sumerians at that time. Also various Kurdish groups have also sided with Persian (Achaemenid, Sassanid..), Ottomans, Safavids and fought amongst themselves and etc. So what you are claiming is a gross generalization. The source is not acceptable by the simple fact that it contradicts primary and secondary scholarly sources (such as Minorsky, Mackenzie ..etc.). Other sources you have brought also had either no relevance or where not scholarly sources. By the way a recent edit of yours was about Medes not being Zoroastrian whereas Diakonoff says they were probably but you used a 1934 source which is out-dated! For example Mary Boyce is a much more recent and scholarly source on Zoroastrian: [9]. --alidoostzadeh 06:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Very amusing indeed :). Now Britannica is accused of being baseless! Moreover, Minorsky or MacKenzie are just two scholars among many. Their position can be quoted but not at the expense of other points of views. Heja Helweda 01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I also think that in this case Britannica's claim is rather superficial. Considering the sweeping generalization of this statement, it is necessary to investigate whether any other sources make such a claim. Shervink 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
How many times I have to repeat, we can not say Britannica is baseless just because its content is against our POV. I have already provided 7 books (for God sake!) that clearly and explicitly relate Kurds to Karda in the Sumerians clay tablets. In fact you have to provide a source that denies such a link. Even in that case, Britannica's quote can not be removed, since it is sourced material from a reputable organization. Now if you want to learn more, I will explain the relationship between Karda to Corduene and Kurds. In fact Strabo explicitly says that Carduchis were the ancestors of Corduene. Now the suffix -chi or -choi is just an Armenian plural suffix, so the real name is Card. On the other hand, -ene is the Latin suffix, hence the name Cord. Therefore, Strabo has connected Kard/Card to Kurd/Cord, hence making a link between Karda in Sumerian tablets and later Cordueni in Roman/Greek sources.Heja Helweda 07:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to argue with you on this, since unfortunately such an obviously wrong remark is found even in Britannica, so there is no reason why it should not be copied into Wikipedia as well! But you know better than I do that speaking of a historical desire for self-determination on the part of Kurds (which is at best very ill-defined when it comes to the time periods in question) is a purely political remark motivated (consciously or not) by contemporary geopolitics. Shervink 17:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
You're trying to connect all of Kurdish history to a few obscure tribes of which we know nothing about. You have to better study the history of Aryan Medes, my friend. That's true that Medes first mentioned or renamed by Mesopotamians to this name, sometime between 1250 BC to 900 BC but they existed in the their homeland corrsponding Kurdistan/land of Karda and surrounding areas to the east, about 2000 BC, <Daniel J Hopkins, Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary, p. 527, 1997, ISBN 0877795460>; and they originally refered to themslves as Aryans. Whatever originally land of Karda meant we know for sure that in later cuneiforms it was used to refere to hostile populations or tribes of Medes and their closely related allies, the Mannaeans < Simo Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 6, Kevelaer, 1970.>
Notice that it has been very common throughout History for a people/nation, to be known to most of the surrounding peoples and countries, or in modern times to the rest of the world, through a name attributed to the people/nation in question by another people. This event does not minimize in any dimension the radiation of that people's culture and civilization. It does not matter.
In Finnish Finland is called Suomi, we all say 'Greece'; but in Greek Greece is called Hellas or Hellada, or in Armenian Armenians are called Hayq and Armenia is Hayastan (Hayq+stan) and so on.
The name Kurd which first applied by peoples of southern and central Mesopotamia as mentioned before, is said to have meant something like warior, warlike, hero, undefeatable, rebellious or something close to these. People of Media or at least some of them may even liked this name and used it to to refer to themselves.it is also possible that maybe they used it to frighten their enemies. any ways centuries later when Akkadians/Assyrians/Babylonian/ cousins the Arabs immigrated northward they used the same name to the same people possibly because they fiercely resisted Arabs invasion and did not want to accept Arabs hegemony. As history tells us the Kurds revolted against Arabs numerous times and for centuries.
Also your attempt to connect all Kurds to Corduchi/Cordyeni does not sound accurate to me either. How is it possible that all these contemporary Kurdish tribes are decsendants of those small Corduchis? that's treu that etymologically the Greek 'Cordyene' is the same as Iranic Kurdistan and Cordyene represents an old word for Kurdistan, but Corduchis/cordyeni/Gordyenis descendants may today be only one, two or at its most three tribes of Kurds, as even Izady suggestes they may well have been ancestores of a traditionally warlike contemporary Kurdish tribe in the same region with the same name. But the problem is that there are at least about two hundred/three hundred Kurdish tribes and clans not only one or two! Misnorsky asks us if all these tribes are not descendants of tribes of Mede then who they are? Can you answer this? Aryan tribes of Adiabeni? Garamaioi? Cyrttioi? of course these all still do not suffice, they were only ancestors of one or some contemporary Kurdish tribes with the same names.
This huge number of Iranian/Aryan tribes can have no origin rather than Iranian/Aryan tribes mentioned above. not ncecessary all from Phraortes and Astyage's lineage but orginally closely related to the tribes to which Phraortes and Astyages belonged to or were related to.
I hope I was able to clarify enough my point. Asoyrun 12:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You guys have to provide evidence for all your assertions. You can discuss all you want for hundreds of pages, but unless you provide source, you arguments carry no weight. I have provided 7 book and Britannica as source.Heja Helweda 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Heja, In the Parthians article you added: Strabo considered Parthians to be Carduchi, i.e., the inhabitants of Curdistan. Now you want to use the same Strabo and by definition then Parthians were around during Sumerians?? That makes no sense. Also Karda might sound similar to Karduchi but is there a proven etymological relationship (in what language)? The fact is the Median origin of the Kurds has the most prevalance amongst scholars. Classical armenian sources have used the term equivalently with Kurds. Up to about 100 years ago no one knew of Ubaidians, Hurrians, Sumerians..It will be easy to copy & write down all the Mede relationships but since this is the most prevalent view it should have the most weight assigned to it in this article. The fact that Armenian sources call Kurds as Medes in classical times can not easily be overlooked since Armenians are a neighboring people. Parthian origin is not disputed either inlight of close connection between Parthian and Kurdish dialects. [10] and the studies of Professor Paul Ladwig. Also you have been very selective with sources. For example you look up 1934 source to claim Medes were not Zoroastrians and Zoroaster was born in Urmia. Today modernscholarship says that Zoroastrer was born in Eastern Iran and the Medes were Zoroastrian (Boyce) or probably Zoroastrian (Diakonoff). Also the claim by Izady that the Achaemenids transformed the figure of Zahak has no basis either as Zahak/Kawa's story is similarly mentioned in the Vedas. We have a right to challenge the Britannica source since it is not a primary/secondary source. Minorsky for example would be a better source. --alidoostzadeh 21:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
there is no contradiction in that statements if you pay close attanetion of what I said before. I did not say Carduchis existed at the time of Sumerians, I said their ancestors i.e. Karda. Also Starbo is simply saying that Parthians were Carduchi not the other way around. Please would you stop insisting too much on Gorani and Zazaki? All together they account for may be 5% of all kurds (1 million). Zazakis are known to have come from around mazandaran, around the Sassanid period and settled by them to the north of the Kurds. I gave you 7 books, what about them?Heja Helweda 01:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
None of the books you gave were specialized. Three were about genetics. Parthians being Carduchi shows that you can not relate Kardaka necessarily to Kurds. Parthians were originally from the Parni tribe. Gurani by the way was the major language of Ardalan and today's smaller status does not do justice to its historical extent at one time. --alidoostzadeh 02:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
To sum up:
Heja's version: Kurds existed before Medes and just changed their language.
Ali's version: Medians adopted a new name and became known as Kurds.
Isn't there a merging point? Asoyrun 02:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Medians were just one tribe among many others (ancestors of modern Kurds). I basically agree with you, but just don't remove sourced material. If the problem is about fighting persians, then we can discuss on that too. :)Heja Helweda 02:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is sumerian.. Also fighting various groups is gross generalization. For example Kurds fought alongside other Iranians, or fought alongside Ottomons or recently two Kurdish parties had a fight (KDP and PUK).. Also all these are political organizations or governments who have been fought against each other, not normal people.--alidoostzadeh 03:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake

4) Hakan Ozoglu, Kurdish notables and the Ottoman State, 2004, SUNY Press, 186 pp., ISBN 0791459934 (See p.23)

The term Kurd appears in ancient times, going back as far as 2000 BC. The Kurds are mentioned in Sumerian and Assyrian records.

This is incorrect, Ozoglu does not claim that the Kurds were mentioned in Sumerian and Assyrian texts. He claims that the first mention of the Kurds (Kurdan)was in the 4th century AD when they were named as an enemy of the Persia king. Ozoglu's arguement is that the Kurdish link between the Calduci and Medes is impossible to prove and has been constructed for nationalist reasons.

Thus, he argues we should trace the developement of the Kurdish ethnicity from this point onwards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hewleri (talk • contribs) 09:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Minorsky was not a Kurdish nationalist.. --alidoostzadeh 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and the 7 books that I gave you were covert Kurdish nationalists? Come on! the same old story of conspiracy theory!!! I assume Xenophon was also a Kurdish nationalist when he wrote that Carduchis obliterated an army of 100,000 Persians :) Heja Helweda 01:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I can give more than 7 books about mede connection. The fact is none of your books were written by a scholar specializing in history. Mackenzie, Minorsky are two major names. As per genetics no one denies the genetic influence of previous people. he other sources you mentioned brings up the name Kardaka but a name does not necessarily denote an ethno-linguistic group that took the name later on. For example the juxtaposition of ottomans and Romans and Safavid calling Ottomans as Romans.. Or calling Uzbeks as Turanians. Thus name does not necessarily mean the same group. --alidoostzadeh 02:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Have I ever denied the mede connection? Of course not. I even did not remove your paragraph, simply moved it to the relevant section about Kurdish language. So why you are so intent on removing sourced material?. MacKenzie and Miorsky are just two sources among others. I think there is a misunderstanding going on here.Heja Helweda 02:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The relation with sumerian time is basically not scholarly. Also its gross generalization to say Kurds have been fighting this group or that group. We know at various times for example different Kurdish groups fought for different empires against each other, or many more complex situation. So basically the paragraph suffers from lack of academic source of calibre. And note Minorsky, Mackenzie..are academic sources. --alidoostzadeh 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK

OK, we will give more weight to Medes, as major and eminent scholars have done, and because todays Kurds are considered to be predominantly of Median stock. but in the origin section we mention that before Medes there was a people whose name is an earlier form of the name Kurd and were absorbed by Medes.
also I think much of Hurrian stuff should go to the article of Kurdish culture. Asoyrun 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is good time to sort the Hurrian issue out as well. There is a portion: Nevertheless, Hurrian influence on Kurdish is still evident in its ergative grammatical structure . But many dialects of Persian and Talyshi and Pashto have ergative grammatical structure. So do some Indo-Aryan languages of India. Ergative grammatical structure does not necessarily constitute a genetic relationship between linguistic families. For example Sumerian is also Ergative but is a language isolate. Thus is there any evidence for the substrate theory from any prominent linguists? I hardly doubt Hurrian influence on Talyshi, Pashto, Indo-Aryan languages. --alidoostzadeh 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That material is also sourced and can not be removed. What I smell here is just the 20th century nationalist tendencies (Kurds=Medes=Persian or Kurds=nomads) trying to remove anything that feels foreign in the Persian discourse.Heja Helweda 09:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Median is not equal with Persian!! though both are Iranian. Asoyrun 11:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Should we request for unprotection? (or semi-protection as it was before) Asoyrun 21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should work on the introduction here. I mean out of all the names here, only the medes have been called Kurds by classical sources. Note I mentioned the importance that Armenians a neighboring people have called Kurds as medes in their classical literature. I also thinking the fighting portion is a gross generalization and more like modern political ideas. Also the Hurrian part needs a good professional linguistic reference with regards to Ergativity connection since from what I have read, it is a n independent phenomenon which helds in indo-Iranian languages. A substrate theory needs linguistic proof. --alidoostzadeh 14:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The article needs a lot of improvment. The current version of the article treats Medes as foreigners! we will give more weight to Medes, at the same time won't disregard the Guti/Qurtie heritage of Kurds. I suggest let's request for unprotection.Asoyrun 16:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I am all for your suggestion. --alidoostzadeh 19:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, we're waiting for Heja's reply. Asoyrun 21:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem with you guys is that you reject Britannica here when it does not fit your ideology but support Britannica elsewhere when it suits you. Look at here [11] where Ali dooszadeh is using Britannica to push his theory for origin of the Medes. No cherry picking please. It is unacceptable to use Britannica when it suits you and then reject it when it shows Kurds are somehow older than the Persians, which probably goes against 20th century nationalist ideology in Iran.Heja Helweda 09:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Minorsky was not an Iranian nationalist! Asoyrun 11:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


TO Heja. I am not using Britannica to push my theory of medes. Indeed I use primary/secondary scholarly sources first and then if Britannica a teriatary source does not contradict them, I use it in conjunction. I can remove Britannica all together from that link and it would be valid. So no cherry picking. As per Kurds being older than Persian or etc. that is not the point. It has to do with sumerian era and also the gross misgeneralization and also the fact that it is authorless and goes against primary scholarls. --alidoostzadeh 15:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Latest Britannica entry on Kurds

Okay I am using the newest edition of Britannica (which automatically) over-rides any older one. Under the entry Kurd:

member of an ethnic and linguistic group living in the Taurus Mountains of eastern Anatolia, the Zagros Mountains of western Iran, northern Iraq, and adjacent areas. Most of the Kurds live in contiguous areas of Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, a region generally referred to as Kurdistan (“Land of the Kurds”). A sizable, noncontiguous Kurdish population also exists in the Khorasan region of northeastern Iran.

The Kurdish language is a West Iranian language related to Persian and Pashto. The Kurds are thought to number from 20 million to 25 million, including communities in Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Syria, and Europe, but sources for this information differ widely because of differing criteria of ethnicity, religion, and language; statistics may also be manipulated for political purposes.

The traditional Kurdish way of life was nomadic, revolving around sheep and goat herding throughout the Mesopotamian plains and the highlands of Turkey and Iran. Most Kurds practiced only marginal agriculture. The enforcement of national boundaries beginning after World War I (1914–18) impeded the seasonal migrations of the flocks, forcing most of the Kurds to abandon their traditional ways for village life and settled farming; others entered nontraditional employment.

The prehistory of the Kurds is poorly known, but their ancestors seem to have inhabited the same upland region for millennia. The records of the early empires of Mesopotamia contain frequent references to mountain tribes with names resembling “Kurd.” The Kardouchoi whom the Greek historian Xenophon speaks of in Anabasis (they attacked the “Ten Thousand” near modern Zakhu, Iraq, in 401 BC) may have been Kurds, but some scholars dispute this claim. The name Kurd can be dated with certainty to the time of the tribes' conversion to Islam in the 7th century AD. Most Kurds are Sunnite Muslims, and among them are many who practice Sufism and other mystical and heretical sects.

Despite their long-standing occupation of a particular region of the world, the Kurds never achieved nation-state status. Their reputation for military prowess has made them much in demand as mercenaries in many armies. The sultan Saladin, best known to the Western world for exploits in the Crusades, epitomizes the Kurdish military reputation.

The principal unit in traditional Kurdish society was the tribe, typically led by a sheikh, or an aga, whose rule was firm. Tribal identification and the sheikh's authority are still felt, though to a lesser degree, in the large urban areas. Detribalization proceeded intermittently as Kurdish culture became urbanized and was nominally assimilated into several nations.

In traditional Kurdish society, marriage was generally endogamous. In nonurban areas, males usually marry at age 20 and females at age 12. Households typically consist of father, mother, and children. Polygamy, permitted by Islamic law, is sometimes practiced, although it is forbidden by civil law in Turkey. The strength of the extended family's ties to the tribe varies with the way of life. Kurdish women—who traditionally have been more active in public life than Turkish, Arab, and Iranian women—as well as Kurdish men, have taken advantage of urban educational and employment opportunities, especially in prerevolutionary Iran.

Kurdish nationalism, a recent phenomenon, came about through the conjunction of a variety of factors, including British introduction of the concept of private property, the partition of traditional Kurdistan by modern neighbouring states, and the influence of British, U.S., and Soviet interests in the Persian Gulf region. These factors and others combined with the flowering of a nationalist movement among a very small minority of urban, intellectual Kurds.

The first Kurdish newspaper appeared in 1897 and was published at intervals until 1902. It was revived at Istanbul in 1908 (when the first Kurdish political club, with an affiliated cultural society, was also founded) and again in Cairo during World War I (1914–18). The Treaty of Sèvres, drawn up in 1920, provided for an autonomous Kurdistan but was never ratified; the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), which replaced the Treaty of Sèvres, made no mention of Kurdistan or of the Kurds. Thus the opportunity to unify the Kurds in a nation of their own was lost. Indeed, Kurdistan after the war was more fragmented than before, and various separatist movements arose among Kurdish groups.

The Kurds of Turkey received unsympathetic treatment at the hands of the government, which tried to deprive them of their Kurdish identity by designating them “Mountain Turks,” by outlawing the Kurdish language (or representing it as a dialect of Turkish), and by forbidding them to wear distinctive Kurdish costume in or near the important administrative cities. The Turkish government suppressed Kurdish political agitation in the eastern provinces and encouraged the migration of Kurds to the urbanized western portion of Turkey, thus diluting the concentration of Kurdish population in the uplands. Periodic rebellions occurred, and in 1974 a university student, Abdullah Öcalan, formed the Kurdistan Workers Party (known by its Kurdish acronym, PKK), a Marxist organization dedicated to an independent Kurdistan. Operating mainly from eastern Anatolia, PKK fighters engaged in guerrilla operations against government installations and perpetrated frequent acts of terrorism. PKK attacks and government reprisals led to a state of virtual war in eastern Turkey during the 1980s and '90s. Following Öcalan's capture in 1999, PKK activities were sharply curtailed. In 2002, under pressure from the European Union (in which Turkey sought membership), the government legalized broadcasts and education in the Kurdish language.

Kurds also felt strong assimilationist pressure from the national government in Iran and endured religious persecution by that country's Shi'ite Muslim majority. Shortly after World War II (1939–45), the Soviet Union backed the establishment of an independent country around the largely Kurdish city of Mahabad, in northwestern Iran. The so-called Republic of Mahabad collapsed after Soviet withdrawal in 1947, but about that same time the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI) was established. Thereafter, the KDPI engaged in low-level hostilities with the Iranian government into the 21st century.

Although the pressure for Kurds to assimilate was less intense in Iraq (where the Kurdish language and culture have been freely practiced), government repression has been the most brutal. Short-lived armed rebellions occurred in Iraq in 1931–32 and 1944–45, and a low-level armed insurgency took place throughout the 1960s under the command of Mustafa al-Barzani, leader of the Iraqi Kurdish Democratic Party (IKDP), who had been an officer of the Republic of Mahabad. A failed peace accord with the Iraqi government led to another outbreak of fighting in 1975, but an agreement between Iraq and Iran—which had been supporting Kurdish efforts—later that year led to a collapse of Kurdish resistance. Thousands of Kurds fled to Iran and Turkey. Low-intensity fighting followed. In the late 1970s, Iraq's Ba'th Party instituted a policy of settling Iraqi Arabs in parts of Kurdistan—particularly around the oil-rich city of Karkuk—and uprooting Kurds from those same regions. This policy accelerated in the 1980s, as large numbers of Kurds were forcibly relocated, particularly from areas along the Iranian border where Iraqi authorities suspected Kurds were aiding Iranian forces during the Iran-Iraq War (1980–90). What followed was one of the most brutal episodes in Kurdish history. In a series of operations between March and August 1988, code-named Anfal (Arabic: “Spoils”), Iraqi forces sought to quell Kurdish resistance; the Iraqis used large quantities of chemical weapons on Kurdish civilians. In the first attack, on March 16 in and around the village of Halabjah, Iraqi troops killed as many as 5,000 Kurds with mustard gas and nerve agent. Despite these attacks, Kurds again rebelled following Iraq's defeat in the Persian Gulf War (1990–91) but were again brutally suppressed—sparking another mass exodus. With the help of the United States, however, the Kurds were able to establish a “safe haven” in most of Iraqi Kurdistan, where the IKDP and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan—a faction that split from the IKDP in 1975—created an autonomous civil authority that was, for the most part, free from interference by the Iraqi government.


Kurd. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved March 25, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9046466

http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9046466

So this edition is newer and more correct.

--alidoostzadeh 18:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


It is not accurate. Heja's insisting on sticking with the name 'Kurd' and pre-Aryan Kurds is not an accurate attempt for researching Kurdish history. Kurds original name was Aryan, then Mede, and gradually Qurtie/Kurd (al-Akrad). not as Heja says from the begining Kurd. also Britannica's articles are not accurate sources. Asoyrun 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And where s your source for Aryan name? Mere bluster is not proof. I provided 7 books for you guys, you still keep repeating the same old lines. Where is your evidence that the name of Kurds was Aryan in the past? Remember it is not just Britannica, there are numerous other sources that say this. Part of the Medes became Kurds later on, but part of them (those in the northwest) became Turkified from 11th century onward. Medes are thought to be just one of the ancestors of the Kurds, there were other people groups like Mannaeans, Mitanni, Carduchoi, Cordueni,...Heja Helweda 06:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Herodotus. Mannaeans were absorbed by Medes and Mannnaeans legacy remained for Medes.
Corduchi and Cordueni lileky have been an offshoot of Medes.Asoyrun 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with regards to a controversial issue it is best to always seek primary and secondary sources. I just wanted to bring the newer edition of article on Kurds from Britannica which supercedes the previous version. --alidoostzadeh 19:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Primary sources are Pliny and Strabo's writings who mention Cordueni and their link with the older Carduchoi . There are two separate articles in Britannica :Kurd and Kurds. The latter is also recent as it mentions 2003 iraq war.Heja Helweda 06:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a section in the article about genetic origins. that's really crap! it trys to undermine Kurds Aryanness with a bunch of scum sources!!!!! That's BS! [12].

There is another article in Britannica titles Kurds, and the quote is taken from this one[13], which is also from edition 2007. Notice that it mentions 2003 war.Heja Helweda 06:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Unfortunately some users are confusing two different issues:
A: name of Kurds and its roots.
B: origins of Kurds (i.e. who were Kurds forefathers.)
its is not completely clear what is origin of the name of Kurd. there are scholars who agree that it has a Sumerian root, used ::A: either as a topynom for Kurdish regions or as a name for Hurrians. Some scholars who probably never heard about Sumerians think that it may origin from Corduchi, some others who are too biased say it is an Arabic word, though in Arabic language there is no root for a verb as KRD, for example in Arabic KTB exists and we can derive hundreds of words from this word, yaktubu, katib, maktub etc... but it is not possible with KRD; this means that the word has a non-Arabic root and therefore it has a pre-Islamic origin. before Arab invasion few Kurds were adientified as Kurds; but mostly either as Mede, or after name of their tribes.
B: as for origins of Kurds I think Minorsky is a prominent iranologist. what he says is considered as valid. Asoyrun 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Minorsky is definitely prominent. His book on Shaddadid dynasty is the best that exists even after such a long time. Because of the dearth of materials on Shaddadid's I do not think any new information has been found, but whatever was available to Minorsky from Arabic, Persian, Armenian..was compiled. I also think that the fact that a neighboring people have called Kurds as Medes before the era of modern history is relatively significant. --alidoostzadeh 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: My Britannica is the Academic version. Anyways it just shows tht when there exists primary sources and secondary sources, Britannica should take a back seat given the two viewpoints. --alidoostzadeh 01:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw an unprotection request by user Asoyrun who claimed that there is no discussion on the talk page, and said the opposing party is just one person. However I am still opposed to unprotection. The dispute about the Encyclopaedia Britannica is still NOT resolved. The Iranian editors basically reject Britannica and their argument is very weak.Heja Helweda 04:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually I brought a version from Britannica which is the Academic version accessed through a good university. Also do not label editors by their ethnicity or country. --alidoostzadeh 05:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Last I checked you are Iranian Heja, even though we know you hate that you were born there. Thats tough! If you really love being a Kurdish nationalist, you should move to Iraqi Kurdistan instead living in comfortable Canada living off of government student loans. Thats Canadian taxpayer money! But joking aside, Heja is turning Wikipedia into a nationalist battleground from day one when she arrived and if she is not careful she will be banned just like the Azeri and Armenian users. I have recommended arbitration against Heja for a long time now but no one listens. She is just as bad and hateful as User:Patchouli, and look what happened to him. Wikipedia is taking actions against these hateful people and Heja should be brought to the attention of these tribunals. Khorshid 21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kurds & Corduene

  • Columbia has an interesting article about the Kurds and their origin [14]. In the History section it starts by: Commonly identified with the ancient Corduene, which was inhabited by the Carduchi (mentioned in Xenophon), the Kurds were conquered by the Arabs in the 7th cent.Heja Helweda 04:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pliny on Carduchi and Cordueni

  • Pliny in his book The Natural History of Pliny writes:

Joining up to Adiabene are the people known as the Carduchi, now the Cordueni in front of whom flows the river Tigris. (p.29)

Source: The Natural History of Pliny, By Pliny, Translated by Henry Thomas Riley, John Bostock, Published 1890 H. G. Bohn, Original from Stanford University Digitized Jun 2, 2006.

So basically this is an original primary source written at the time of Cordueni and it clearly relates Cordueni with the ancient Carduchi.Heja Helweda 04:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

He's about as reliable as Herodotus. You ignore the fact that given the lack of evidence, the idea is a speculation. It is not a fact that Kurds are Carduchi - even the Columbia source says this, "commonly identified" - that doesn't mean it is a fact. It is stating a theory. Look up the word in the dictionary. Khorshid 21:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


'Commonly', because in past some tried to connect the Corduchis to non-Iranians. but that was not true. Corduchi spoke (and still speak) an Iranian language. Actually Xenophon communicated with them via Median/Persian (= Iranian) captives!!! 'Commonly' means consensus. As for the word Kurd, it is an old word used since thousands of years, but like name of almost all other ethnic groups in the world it originally may was not used for all Kurds. For example the word Mongol is an old word but originally it was not used for all Mongol tribes until Chengiz Khans era! or the name of Persians which originally was used by Assyrians and simply meant other nomads (or a smilar meaning) first had a lifestyle meaning, later when these tribes settles in south of Medes, it had a geographical meaning; people who came from land of Pars were Parsi. Actually not all those who even spoke a Persian dialect were ethnically refered to as Persian but simply were named after their geographical residing area. for example Khorasanis were refered to as Khorasani not as Parsi (Persian). and modern Persian speaking peoples of other provinces. it is a recent development that all those who speak Persian dialects were defined to as ethnic Persian, probably after Islamic conquest. The same is true for Kurds, first it was used for a group of famous ancient Kurdish tribes, like those who dwelled between lake Van/lake Urmia (Corduene, or land of Cordu), when Arabs conquered the area they used the term for all the neighbouring tribes who spoke same language or related dialects. Heluken 11:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the Kurds

The work of geneticists like Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and archaeologists like Peter Bellwood suggests that neolithic migrations provided the greatest genetic contribution to most current world populations. These first farmers made the first large populations, and all subsequent migrations added relatively little to them. Southeastern Anatolia was the hearth region from which the neolithic moved into Europe, so it seems very likely that the Kurdish populations overwhelmingly contain the genes of these first neolithic settlers, ten thousand years ago. Cavalli-Sforza has explicitly stated that the central asian turkic peoples made only a small genetic contribution to the current population of Turkey--they contributed language and much culture, but the genetic material is largely that of the original neolithic population, even in Turkish-speaking areas.

Anyway, from the perspective of what appears now to be the prevalent view in historical genetics, the Kurds are almost certainly autochthonous--they have lived in Kurdistan for probably 10 thousand years. That said, all the assertions about how they are the Hurrians, or are the Medes, really seem irrelevant. Language, religion, culture, changed many times in these areas. The genetic material of the population still derives mostly from the original neolithic settlement. --Anthon.Eff 18:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/u/r/Talk%7EKurdish_people_e9c2.html"