Talk:Iranian peoples/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Azaris

To you whom are writing and editing that the azeri are a turkic people have absolutly no scientific or historic basis on this claim, please research on the subject and you will find out that a) they are desendents of the Medes in Persian Maadha, and they have been living in on the Iranian plateue since 1000-700 bc. b) their language have been changed into a turkic dialect in the 12 century AD, but this not change the fact that they are an Iranian people.

your claims are deeply disturbind and have no historical basis, please stop rewriting history in this way, I am myself an azari, and I know my past, I have nothing against turkic people but we share the same language, not the same DNA or culture, we are Iranian!

the fact that the Irish and Scotts speak english does not either make them english

/an Azari —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.74.71 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 29 October 2005

Actually, Azerbaijani people are closer to the people of the Caucasus and not the Iranian peoples genetically speaking. Culture is another issue however and as for language, well obviously the Azeris can't be considered Iranian peoples since they also don't speak Iranian languages either. This has all been thought out, but there is a relationship that the Azeris have with the Iranian people that is based upon history and some intermingling as well, but this doesn't qualify the Azeris as an Iranian people for the purposes of this encyclopedia. Tombseye 21:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The people of the Caucasus have such close similarities with Iranian peoples that some argue for them to be considered as one genetic cluster. So even that is not a relavant excuse to exclude Azeris as Iranians.

Azerbaijan and Azeris are Iranian the proven and exposed fact that the Pan-Turkists have fabricated issues is proof enough not to trust people saying Azeris are Turks. Azerbaijanis are Iranians.

Kurds in regards to the term Iranian people

Ethnicitically Kurds are not an iranian people. Kurds only speak an iranian language (Linguistically). The Kurds are a combination of indigenous peoples who were living in the Zagros Mountains, Aryan tribes, and numerous other invaders and migrants. Genetic tests of random Kurdish populations show links to the Caucasus, various Iranian peoples, Europeans, northern Semites, and Anatolia. "Ethnicity and language are different issues".

Actually, all Iranian groups are a mixture of the Aryan tribes and indigenous peoples. Also, to say that Kurds have no cultural links with other Iranians is far from the truth. Historically, the Zagros mountain range has been a part of Iran. So, if there are no cultural link it would probably be amongst those Kurds who exist outside the Zagros mountain range. The primary cultural link between Kurds and other Iranians are for example: norooz/newrooz, mythology, societal structure...if those are not enough cultural links I don't know how you define cultural links. If you want to be very picky anyone can make the argument that Zaza's are not a Kurdish people and that there is no such thing as a Kurdish language; only about a half-dozen languages that are not mutually intelligble.

Mesopotamia 14:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

READ THIS FROM ONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS ON THIS PAGE: My brother is genetican he claims that Kurds/Pashtuns/Tajiks/Persians are the nearest related group, even physicial anthroplogist provide this. Now this anti-Kurdish joke is spaming, because he knows that Kurds are Iranians, and he dislike this, because this doesn't fit in his world where Kurds are Turks. Thus I don't accept your suggetion, because the racial difference between Kurds/Persians/Pashtuns/Tajiks and other Iranians is so small, that we must see them as an own group beside the Arabic/Turkish/European world! --ShapurAriani 13:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you cite some neutral and credible sources? SouthernComfort 21:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Please provide neutral evidence for Kurds being an Iranian People. They only have a linguistic connection not ethnic. Webster and Encyclopaedia Britannica don't mention the term Iranian People under the Kurd entry.Heja Helweda 21:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Likewise can you cite any neutral sources for them not being an Iranian people? If I cite you a hundred academic sources that state Kurds are an Iranian people closely related to Persians, Lurs, etc. are you going to dismiss them as "not neutral" and "not credible"? SouthernComfort 22:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Americana, which I own, refers to the Kurds as linguistically Iranian AND refers to their partial Aryan forebears who brought the Indo-European language that they now speak. Iranian people is actually used by Encyclopedia Brittanica as well: The movement of Iranian peoples. Other encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia of the Ukraine (!) also use the term. [1] It's a general academic term. The common linguistic association is what we're going for here, as well as SOME genetic similarity. Tombseye 23:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Hello, I'm actually the one who input the genetic studies and the studies do show some relationships with other Iranian peoples. I added the genetic studies on the Kurdish people page as well and I re-wrote this page as well. The article makes clear, and I've changed it to emphasize this, that the Kurds are Iranian people due to their language and other factors. The Kurds do cluster more with the Caucasus generally, although wider testing amongst Kurds in Iran may not correlate with other findings, they ALSO show some genetic ties other Iranic populations. What probably happened is that early Aryans, Medes etc. conquered an original group living where the Kurds are now and mixed with them and vanished into their larger population, BUT imparted their Kurdish language to them. This qualifies the Kurds as an Iranian people. Remember that these genetic tests haven't tested all Kurds. For example, Persians living near the Iraq border don't always cluster with Persians near the Afghan border. The Czechs show a relationship with the Germans although the Czechs are still considered a Slavic people. You can't take this literally as Kurds are Iranians and thus Iran owns them or that the Kurds are Persians or Iranians of modern Iran. The Kurds are Iranian in much the same way that the Hazaras are, although the Kurds probably have closer genetic ties to the overall Iranian peoples than the Hazaras do. In addition, the genetic tests revealed that the peoples of the Caucasus in many cases cluster closer to West Asian peoples than Europeans, but this varies. The usage and inclusion of Kurds is valid and you'll find its supported by academic institutions. Hope this clears things up. Tombseye 23:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Kurds are of Iranian Stock

Kurds are of Iranian stock and it is common knowledge. The people who try and repress this fact are foreigners or traitors to Kurdistan.

Examining the sources in the "Iranian peoples" article

Examining the sources provided at the end of this article.

http://www.parstimes.com/Iranians.html This is obviously not academic.

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90019 This one is credible but it just talks about Iranian Language Group not Iranian people.

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9368164 This one is also just about language not ethnicity.

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Languages/iranian_languages.htm This is also only language.

http://www.cais-soas.com/articles/iranian-peoples_articles.htm This is the one that is supposed to talk about Iranian peoples. It has a section for Kurd, but it refers to some other articles as follows:

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/Kurds/kurdish_tribes.htm This does not mention anything about Kurds being Iranian people. It just says Kurdish tribes are found throughout Iranian world including Iran proper, eastern Anatolia and northern Iraq. But it does not explain what does it mean by the Iranian world. I guess the region in which Iranian languages are spoken.

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/Kurds/milan.htm This one does not mention the term Iranian.

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/Kurds/hamavand.htm

This one is interesting, because it makes the problem even more clear. It says : An Iranian stock of Kurdish tribe of northeastern Mesopotamia which has been described as "the most celebrated fighting Kudish tribe" (Edmonds, pp. 39-40). The Hamâvand reportedly moved from the Kermânšâh in mainland Iran, to the Bâz-yân district, between Kerkuk and Solaymâniya, early in the 18th century.

The tribe is originally from Kermanshah inside Iran, so probably he means a tribe which was originally hailed from the Iranian territory, and that's why it calls the tribe as being Iranian.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n5/40813/40813.html This one is the most credible in the genetic study of the population of Middle East/Central Asia. But Its sample just contains Iranian Kurds not Iraqi Kurds or Kurds of Turkey. This article has never used the term Iranian peoples, just neutral terms like Iranian plateau or Iranian populations(people who live inside Iran). Also it does not prove anything like Kurds being racially Iranian people as intended in the article Iranian peoples. Please remove the reference to Kurds, or just say Iranian Kurds.

For the geographic grouping, we divided populations into four regions: the Anatolian/Caucasus region (Anatolians and Caucasus populations), the Iranian plateau (Persians, Iranian Turks, Lurs, Iranian Kurds, Mazandarans, and Gilaks), the Indus Valley (Baluchi, Brahui, Parsi, Sindhi, Pakistani-Karachi, Pathans, Makrani, Hazara, and Gujarat) and Central Asia (Uzbeks, Turkmen, Kurds from Turkmenistan, Shugnan, Hunza Burusho, and Kalash). Heja Helweda 19:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I added two more studies, but you need to understand that language is often the main link with disparate groups anyway. It's clearly stated that sometimes language is the link, but also culture, history etc. The Kurds don't show ZERO genetic ties to Iranian peoples, just not pronounced genetic ties as they do with the Caucasus in particular. The article's not being inconsistent here in that the Iranian Peoples is referring to the various aspects AND similarities of the Iranian peoples rather than their differences which anyone can make note of by checking out each page of the peoples listed. It's the same reason why the Azeris are still listed as Turkic people as are the Turks. This has nothing to do with their predominant genetic background. The Kurds clearly speak an Iranian language AND have cultural traits from Iranian peoples (the Baluchis in fact speak a language that is very similar to Kurdish and have folk tales that discuss their origins in Aleppo which may be an indication of their migration from Kurdish lands). The article is now going through great pains to explain that the Kurds aren't necessarily entirely or even mostly related to other Iranian peoples. Don't you think that should suffice at this point? It's a pretty fair rendition. No absolute insistence and the genetic tests are one indicator and not the sole indicator and obviously a wider sampling of the Kurds will probably reveal variations as well. By such a reckoning the Kurds might also be broken up and some groups considered Kurds and others not. The categorization is not meant as an absolute, but a general view as stated. Tombseye 20:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Persian speakers are genetically remote from Kurds

Hi again. I checked out the sources you provided. Very interesting. Please read this:

Genetic distance comparisons have revealed that the Turkic and Turkoman speaking peoples in the Caspian area cluster with the Kurds, Greeks and Iranis. The Persian speakers are genetically remote from these populations; they are, however, close to the Parsis who migrated from Iran to India at the end of the Seventh Century A.D.[2]

This basically says that Kurds/Turks are far from Persians genetically speaking. So If the issue is only a language classification as you have emphasized in your recent edit, then some other serious problem comes up: What is the justification for having the current name(Iranian People) for this article, which no matter how we much try implies a common ancestry for all the people listed, which is by no means certain, and even contradicted in some papers as above?

There is already an article for Iranian languages. What is the point of having the present article, implying something that is unproven (common genetic ancestry)? Heja Helweda 23:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has been suggesting any common genetic ancestry, only common cultural and linguistic ancestry? That really cannot be denied. This is why I don't give much credence to genetic tests, because they don't say anything about cultural and historical ties - for example, Azeris are a Turkic group, and yet they are very close to Persians culturally and historically. And I think the definition of Iranian peoples elucidates that point, that the overriding factor is cultural, linguistic, and historical - not genetic. I am not the one around here talking about genetics. Everyone else is. I don't care about racial or ethnic differences or whatever. I prefer to think in terms of culture and language and history. That is the academic definition of a term like Iranian peoples. SouthernComfort 12:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
As well, the academic definition of Iranian peoples has almost nothing to do with genetics. It is a term born out of cultural, linguistic, and historical connections. I don't know what on earth any of this has to do with genetics or race. That's as clear as I can put it. SouthernComfort 12:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Just want to point out that different studies of different populations of the Kurds may be partially to blame for varying results AND the results also vary from mtDNA and Y-DNA, which only measure accurately several generations back, but are often useful when the results for a wide subject group are used. Thus far, we've seen genetic testing that has linked the Kurds to all of their neighbors to varying degrees. The Kurds, not surprisingly have relationships with the Caucasus, Semitic peoples, and Iranian peoples. That's ALL of their neighbors. In addition, as these tests continue we may find regional variations amongst the Kurds. There are obviously, for example, intermarriages all the time and have been for centuries. It's absurd to believe that Kurds aren't related at all, or even to large degree, to Iranian peoples as their language is an obvious indication of some relationship and the Iranian peoples live in close proximity to the Kurds as well. I think the Kurds can and should be considered an Iranian people simply based upon the wide range of criteria given. The Kurds are unique and there is no reason not to dispute that, but there are no grounds for claiming that the Kurds aren't an Iranian people. Tombseye 18:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Kurds are the Closest Relatives of Jews

There are a lot of sources regarding Kurds are not ethnitcically an Iranian people.

The Genetic Bonds Between Kurds and Jews

Diyako Talk + 12:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to User:Mesopotamia that if he would like to get his point across, to not accuse others of vandalism or to be so hostile. Quite frankly I'm tired of that nonsense. I have no problem with the inclusion of this sort of information, but at least word it properly and include more detail. For example, who are the "Iranis" supposed to be? Do you have access to the full text? If so, include more information so that is not so ambiguous - the report is about genetics and being vague will not help convey what you are trying to get across. SouthernComfort 12:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to disturb you. I just believe there are some mistakes in the article. Mesopotamia 12:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, reverting and putting in this vague information is not helping anything. You have not added any detail nor does any of this talk of genetics have anything to do with the actual meaning of the term Iranian peoples which is not a racial term. I'm sorry, but this entire issue has become racialized for no reason at all. SouthernComfort 13:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is absolute bullshit. I know a lot about genetics, and the Kurds are very different from Jews. Sure there are some boundaries between Jews and all Iranians, this is due they are all Near Easterns. But is this a suprise or any kind of prove for your stupid theory Mesopotamia? You listen more like a non-Kurd, who is trying to tell bullshit about us Kurds. I think you are a Turk who want to claim Kurds are Turks. This is my opinion! --ShapurAriani 13:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is just your POV!! Mesopotamia 13:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Mesopotamia = Diyako Talk +

It is funny how Mesopotamia always agrees with Diyako Talk + and also tries to force everyone to beleive Kurds are not an Iranian stock and that Jews and Kurds are the same.

In response to the genetics of Kurds and Jews and how it is out of context

I would like to point something out. There are genetic similarities between certain Jewish groups and Iranian peoples that is because those 'groups' within the Jewish population are Iranian Jews, either Tats, or Persian Jews or Kurdish Jews. Jewish people are not an ethnic group they are a faith or religious group. There are Jews from many gene pools and various races. There are Negroid Jews from Africa and Dravidian Jews from southern India. One of the largest populations to have Jews is that of the Iranian peoples. In fact the state of Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel. The similarity of these people, Jews and Kurds in particular is due to shared Iranian genes among a few other minor ones. There is an article about Kurdish Jews and Persian Jews. It is called the "Children of Queen Ester." Ester was the Empress of Queen of Iran and wife of Emperor Xerxes who fought the Athenians and Spartans in what classical scholars refer to as the Persian Wars. A large portion of Israelis are Iranian Jews like Israel's head of state, Moshe Katsav [3] who is from Yazd, Iran and the current Israeli defence minister.

The genetic similarities between most of the Jewish populations, including the Farsi one living in Israel, US and Iran today, have more in common with one another than with their neighbors in their respective historic diasporic residencies. A Minority (about 13%) of Jewish genes sampled have paternal links in common with 50% of European and Turkic peoples. There are also commonalities in the genetic backgrounds of Kurds, Jews, Armenians and Syrians. This does not necesasarily indicate direct descendancy or relation, but rather that these peoples are descended from common stock in the Northern Middle East. Its is likely Northern Semitic or Aramean ancestry that roots them all genetically. The Kurdish Jews are surmised to either be remnants of the exiled northern Ten Tribes, or more likely, descendents of the Turkic Khazari and Adiabene Kingdoms that converted en Masse To Judiasim.

Ehtnically, Kurdish ancestry is roted in the ancient Hurrian people of the Zagros Mountains. Centuries of invansion and assimilation of other cultures has added successive layers of Aryan, Hakk (Armenian), Turkic, Indo-European and Proto-Iranian (Medes and Farsi) stock to their gene pool. It is safe to say that modern Kurds share some genes with Iranians, but the ethnic roots of the people are less clear.

The article ciiting a legitimate study with verified claims does cite that Kurds are close to Jewish populations, but it did not Study Kurdish genetic commonalities with a Persian sample, nor does the study claim that kurds are closer to Jews than Iranians. It studied Jewish populations in relation to other populations, Kurds being one of them. One would need to conduct a similar study sampling thousands of Kurds from the various Kurdish populations and compare them to representative populations from Iraqi Arab, Sephardi Jewish, Syrian, Persian, Turkish and other ethnicities to establish a more conclusive root of their genetic connections to those populations. The citation of the study is out of place here as it does not examine Kurdish or Persian genetics primarily.

Suggestion

I suggest we put a rest to this absurdity of genetics as it relates to the definition of Iranian peoples because it doesn't make any sense in the first place. The term Iranian peoples was never meant to be connected with "race" or genetics in the first place. I believe we should disconnect the term from any talk of race or genetics because it is simply creating too many problems and I'm uncomfortable with this sort of discussion anyway because it is just getting too "racial" for my tastes. Academia never defined such terms according to such a narrow view anyway, and I am absolutely stunned that everyone except me is viewing these things in terms of race. It is absurd to do so. As I have stated, there is literally no evidence to link any Persian groups together either, as far as genetics! So what are we really talking about? SouthernComfort 12:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that we are beginning to find a common ground. So if you are suggesting that the term Iranian people is just a language classification, then why the article in the very beginning implies some sort of genetic bond, when it says, The Iranian peoples are the ethno-linguistic descendants of the Iranian branch of the ancient Indo-Iranians.
I suggest to remove ethnic words from the article. Heja Helweda 20:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I totally disagree because Kurds are ethnic Iranians and you can not distinguish from any Western Iranian ethnic group a part. It is a common genetic heritage. Accept the truth Kurds are of Iranian Stock.
Because it's more than just a linguistic connection, but also cultural and historical. Issues of race and genetics are totally speculative and unreliable due to the fact that such studies only "sample" small numbers of peoples, not vast majorities. One cannot use these theories and ideas to generalize an entire population or group of peoples. That I can agree with. However, and I've had to say this again and again, it cannot be denied that the groups labelled as "Iranian peoples" all share a common cultural, linguistic, and historical background. In academia that is all the term means. It is not a "genetic" term or classification. Even the definition of "race" as purely genetic is controversial since there are many who have proposed a traditional definition of "race" limited to cultural and historic connections. To disconnect the term "Iranian peoples" from the Kurds is not unlike the Turks who, in their attempts to wipe out and deny Kurdish identity (and ethnicity), refer to Kurds in Turkey as "Mountain Turks." That cannot be justified in any way whatsoever. SouthernComfort 04:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Also Heja, please note that the following sentence in the intro: The Iranian peoples are the ethno-linguistic descendants of the Iranian branch of the ancient Indo-Iranians states that the Iranian peoples are the "ethno-linguistic" descendants of the ancient Iranian peoples. That does not say anything about racial connections in the modern age, which are ambiguous at best. SouthernComfort 04:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree, because it still claims that the so-called Iranian people (according to the article including Kurds) are decendatns of ancient Iranians i.e. Medes, Persians, Parthians while the disputed point is here. By this you mean Kurds are mainly decendanst of Medes which is not true. I do not say that Kurds have not medes blood but it is not true to say the medes were the main or even one of ancesstor of the Kurds SO Kurds are Iranian!

I strongly suggest that remove any term about ethnic ties at least between Kurds and other Iranians if not among all of them. Mesopotamia 15:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


My brother is genetican he claims that Kurds/Pashtuns/Tajiks/Persians are the nearest related group, even physicial anthroplogist provide this. Now this anti-Kurdish joke is spaming, because he knows that Kurds are Iranians, and he dislike this, because this doesn't fit in his world where Kurds are Turks. Thus I don't accept your suggetion, because the racial difference between Kurds/Persians/Pashtuns/Tajiks and other Iranians is so small, that we must see them as an own group beside the Arabic/Turkish/European world! --ShapurAriani 13:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please act civil, and don't turn it into a personal fight. Thanks. Heja Helweda 20:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

KURDISTAN OBSERVER, A NON-POLITICAL PRO-KURDISH BODY MADE OF KURDS SAYS:

Go read Kurdistan Observer and what it says. It is fair and unbaised and talks to regular Kurds.

READ THIS ALL IT RIGHTEN BY AN ORGANIZATION THAT WANTS TO ADVANCE KURDS. IT GOES AGAINST WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. YOU ARE CLEARLY BIASED YOU EDIT THE TERM THAT KURDS ARE AN ETHNIC IRANIAN GROUP WHICH IS A FACT.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~konews/23-11-02-kurds-iran-cling-homeland.html

[While Iraqi Kurds map out post-Saddam Hussain scenario that they expect following U.S.-led campaign to overthrow him, their counterparts in northwestern Iran cling to their motherland. As the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), which have been ruling two-thirds of Iraq's Kurdish region for 11 years, implicitly fan the flame of separatism, Iranian Kurds accentuate their Iranian origins and assure that "we are more Iranian than Iranians." Asadollah Darvish Amiri, Deputy General Governor of the province for security affairs, said: "Kurds are the purest Iranian in this country and they are first Iranian and then Kurd. So they have never intended to separate from Iran." Abdolmomen Mardokh, a political activist and the head of political parties in the western Province of Kurdistan, said: "Many times we get accused of trying to create a Kurdish state or separate from Iran. However, we want a situation in which the Kurds can live as first-class citizens and as full partners to other Iranians in the government." Despite their division on a number of issues, Iranian Kurds seem to be united in their vision of the future. They look at incidents in Iraq as a pattern for their destiny, not a plan that can be practically implemented to change Iran's political system or lead to federalism in Iran's political structure. Tehran, despite its recent warming up of diplomatic relations with its neighbours, says "it never put all its eggs in Saddam's basket, and is spending its honeymoon with two major anti-Saddam parties KDP and PUK." Jalal Talibani, Chief of PUK, recently visited Tehran and promised to curb Iran's arch-foe Komoleh party, which is now in Talibani's territory in Soleymaniah, north of Iraq. Talibani plays a key role alongside Massoud Barzani, head of KDP, in the Iraqi Kurdistan, and their role is expected to grow bigger in the post-Saddam era. Iranian Kurds say they can breathe more easily in their relations with their Iraqi counterparts for they have informal trading relations with Iraq's Kurdistan. Moreover, Iranian contractors are dealing with reconstruction of the Iraqi Kurd cities. In the case of a U.S. attack on Iraq, Iran's Kurdistan border can also be a haven to accommodate a huge influx of refugees. "They are our Muslim brethren. Why shouldn't we help them? Some of us are married to Iraqi Kurdish women, and some women from our province are married to men over there. You can say that we are members of the same family," said Ahmad, 24, an educated unemployed young man. When President Mohammed Khatami took office in 1997, he created a liberal atmosphere for Iran's Sunni Kurds by appointing a Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, a Kurd, as General Governor. Although three dissidents have been executed recently in the Kurdish area of western Azerbaijan, Kurds are now free enough to criticise the central government on issues related Kurdistan. "This is the very first time in our contemporary political history that we are articulating our vision for what we want," said Mardokh, comparing the current situation with a decade ago. "Kurdish rights can be realised within the framework of a state under the full control of central government like that in the U.S.," he said. Iranian Kurds, however, say they are unhappy with the fact that the "government does not employ us in high-ranking positions. President Khatami tried to calm them down by appointing Kurds in senior positions in his government. However, Kurds believe that the moderate pro-reform President "didn't keep his words in employing many Kurds even in their own province."Amiri said that they have selected Kurds for top administrative positions in the province as much as they could. "Some four governors out of nine and some 320 top administrators out of 400 in the province are Kurds." Khatami's popularity has fallen among Kurds in recent years. He got less than 50 per cent of the votes in Kurdistan in presidential election last year, while he gained more than 70 per cent in the presidential election in 1997. Unemployment also adds fuel to the fire of people's unease regarding political incidents while they keep their eyes open to what is going on in Iraq. While Iraqi Kurds are waiting for an American-led attack to share more power with next Iraqi government, Iranian Kurds are trying to be a full partners of power in central the government.]

That is a Kurdish source from outside Iran which is neurtral. FIrstly is shows you the Kurds demands in Iran and shows that they are treated well and it also shows you that they have power. So like I said don't think cause you are a Kurd that you are an authority to speak about Kurds in Iran. With your propaganda. You have been proven to be biased and have no credit. As your conversations with other memebers show. As it says many Kurds see themselves as the purest people of Iranian stock.


When certain individuals keep editing and hiding the fact that Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group it shows they are bias and oppressing the truth. Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group

The scholastic issue of the Iranian peoples is being attacked through slow "Balkanization"

There is No Pure Race and this is the first thing that one learns as an anthologist studying race, but the Kurds are undoubtedly of Iranian stock. It is true that they mixed with other races through time, trade, invasion, and 'yes' conquest. Do not forget the Kurds ancestors the Mede were the masters of the Middle East’s and partners with their Persian kinsmen in the empires of Cyrus and Darius. That does not change the fact that the balk of their genetic makeup, phenotype, genotype, language, and culture is of an Iranian characteristic and origin. Yes, the Kurds background is eclectic, but so is that of the Persian and Lurs. In fact so is the background of all Europeans. The German, the French, the British, and so on.

Besides scientific proof there is the Kurds own traditional tales of origin and historical records in the Middle East that support their Iranian identity. The Kurds cultural is without question an Iranian one with many ancient Iranian traditions and celebrations such as Noruz. A major problem today is that the Kurds are still the victims of long regional wars and the legacy of European Imperialism. When the Ottoman Turks conquered Iranian lands from the Shahs of Iran (which was called Persia in the West, but always referred to Iran by all Iranians) this divided the Kurds from each other into halves. About two-thirds being under Turkish rule within the Ottoman Empire and the other one-third in the multi-ethnic empire of Iran under the Safavids. Later after World War I the French and British divided most the Kurdish and Arab portions of the Ottoman Empire and set the foundations for repression of the Kurds and/or ethnic struggles in their mandates. They played ethnic groups against each other and prayed on their hatred so as to rule over them. Over hundreds of years of separation from the mainstream of Iranian peoples and even other Kurds has left many Kurds with one surety and that is the fact they were Kurds and Kurdistan is their homeland. Kurds are a proud people and that is a source of great strength and weakness. It has made them fight with pride against fellow Kurds and ally with governments that repress Kurds. One major problem in the terminology of defining Kurds as an Iranian people is that Kurds outside of Iran equate the term Iranian with Persian or see the term Iranian as a national title much like the artificial titles of Iraqi, Syrian, and Jordanian. Even many citizens of Iran use the term Iranian and Persian interchangeably, which is inappropriate and wrong. Calling Iran by the name of Persia and all Iranians by the title Persians is like referring to Britain as England, when in reality England and Englishmen are a portion of Britain. Britain is made up of other states and peoples like Scotland and the Scottish, but Englishmen and foreigners still wrongfully refer to the whole of Britain and the United Kingdom as England. The same mistakes of title were conducted in regards to addressing citizens of former Soviet Union as Russians. Or calling the whole USSR by the name Russia when in reality Russia was one of the republics of the USSR.

Back to national titles which starts with; one major problem in the terminology of defining Kurds as an Iranian people is that Kurds outside of Iran equate the term Iranian with Persian or see the term Iranian as a national title much like the artificial titles of Iraqi, Syrian, and Jordanian. One needs to even look at a map of the Middle East and see that Iraq, Syria, and Jordan have strait lines as borders just as many African countries have which means that they were drawn by men in a board room. This is a sad fact that the ethnic tensions of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East are all the results of European Colonialism.

In reality Iranian is a term for a group of people which has been used as national identity for an Iranian based state, meaning Iran, like the Slavia’s such as Slovakia and Yugoslavia in Europe denote their Slavic origin. A perfect case of title and terminology would be the former state of Yugoslavia which meant land of the Southern Slavs.

Yugo=South Slavia=Slavic Land

That means all the majority of peoples in that state were Southern Slavs. I hope your following. Well Bulgarians were also Yugoslavs or Southern Slavs and the term Yugslav was additionally equated with the nationality of Yugoslavia, which was made up of Serbs, Croatians, Slovenians, Slavic Macedonians, and Bosnians, and the southern sub-branch of the Slav peoples which included Bulgarians. There are also many Croats who try and disassociate themselves from this reality and Serbs who think that Yugoslav only means them.

In fact Yugoslavia is n excellent case study when it comes to classification of ethnic groups.

Finally, I am afraid that presently politics is victimizing this academic subject. Certain governments such as the Israeli and American are strongly supporting the disassociation of Kurds and other Iranian groups from each other. This is a balkanization process and it is starting with the omitting of vital conversations on this subject in academic and regular circles. An age old policy that the British used in Africa, India, the Arab World, and with Native Americans is being used again in the Middle East, "Divide and Conquer."

Too long, many claims and no evidence. You could provide the rest of us with some concrete evidence, some links to articles/books, instead of a lengthy rhetoric. We are all here to learn something. By the way the term Balkanization, is not 100% negative. It used to be hostile, but recent usages of the term show the potential of Balkanization vis-a-vis democratic processes.
Heja Helweda 21:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually the evidence is presented before you. I think the kind of evidence certain individuals want is phony websites with seperatist propaganda and spin about how Kurds are not Iranian. All people hve to do is read text books. It is all there. It is obvious this place is becoming a forum for lies. Kurds are ethnic Iranians.


Heja Helweda you as an individual that has proven and demonstrated that you are not neutral and not crediable. All one has to do is read all your statements and discussions. You are even saying that Kurds are Jews just so you can say "Kurds are not an Iranian people." Shame on you Heja Helweda! You look for every excuse to disassociate Kurds from their Iranian stock.
I am of Kurdish background and I can tell you that most Kurds know they are Iranians, but some are to proud or want to make a false origin in the beleif they can advocate for a state in doing so. The best way to create a Kurdish state is with our Kurdish identity which is Iranian. Take it or leave it. At the end of the day we are still an Iranian people!


Regarding the Kurds

I would like to explain a few things about the Kurds inclusion here. First off, the genetic tests are still in the preliminary phases so it's more accurate to say that some Kurds tested cluster with certain groups. In addition, even if most Kurds cluster with say the Caucasus, this only means that there was widespread language replacement and cultural assimilation. Inevitably we all know that people intermarry as well. Kurds in Iran may cluster with Persians for example while Kurds in Syria and Iraq with Semites and Kurds in Turkey with the Caucasus. Thus, the genetic tests need to be read with the caveat that though the Kurds are diverse, we don't know how diverse. Their inclusion as an Iranian people is justified in the same way that peoples such as Czechs and Bulgarians are Slavs. There isn't 100% similarity with the Russians, but there doesn't need to be. The two extreme views are just that, too extreme. The Kurds are an eclectic Iranian people, but this does not lend any credence to soem sort of Pan-Iranist view either. In addition, I'd like to add that groups such as the Baloch who live quite far away from the Kurds speak a very similar language and have an oral tradition that explains their migration to the east. Genetic testing may reveal that they are related to the Kurds so simply saying the Kurds aren't Iranian people also doesn't make much sense. WE need to find some common ground and access all the information rather than picking and choosing what suits people. One genetic sampling showed the Kurds to be Iranians, another shows some relationship with Semites, and another sampling with the Caucasus. This may be due to regional diversity as well and larger samples will be needed to make better conclusions. I'd like all of you to just keep these aspects in mind before taking up extreme positions here. Tombseye 23:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

When you say Pan-Iranist you mean use the fact that the Kurds are of Iranian stock for political means and I agree with you that you are right. Also yes a lot of Persians in Northwestern Iran also show genetic similarities with the Caucasus. The base of the Kurds genes are Iranian. The Baloch are an excellent example and their language is even closer to Kurdish than Persian and they are an Iranian peoples found in Iran and Pakistan.
Both statments forgot to mention that Iranian peoples and the peoples of the Caucasus are very similar in genetics. The similarity is so uncanny that some experts want to classify them as one genetic stock. If Kurds have that similarity with the Caucasus this further strenthens their relationship with Iranian peoples.

Added a new genetic study that includes all of the previous studies and focuses on the Kurds comparatively and with their neighbors

The findings of the study show that the Kurds do cluster with the Iranian peoples OVERALL, but with variations from region to region and also shows that they have ties to other regions as well. Hopefully, this will end some of the controversy, but I kind of doubt it. Tombseye 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Genetics Proves that Kurds are an Iranian Ethnic Group

Kurds are an Iranian people and many of them See themselves as the pure Iranians. I already provided a webpage but it was edited off. I would like everyone to look at the citation provided in the Kurdistan article about how it is criminal in Iran to have the Kurdish flag. Please look at the citation it is a fake one that has nothing to do with the Kurdish flag which is not banned in Iran. This is the sort of evidence provided. Heja Helweda has also said that it does not matter if something is true or not it is varification that is important. The main problem is that ethnic terms get very mixed up in the Middle East people still call Georgians by the term Russian.

As for the groups for Heja Helweda's reasoning that there were other ancestors that is very true for both Kurds and Persians who are both a mixture of Aryan peoples and the origian inhabbitants of Anatolia and the Iranian Plateau. Both are equally mixed with the natives of the area which were Semetic, Caucasian, and Dravidan peoples.

As for the peoples of Caucasian stock their genetics is so close to peoples of genetic stock that at times it has been argued to be or has been consider as one group or cluster.

Furthermore Heja Helweda used this citation to justify saying Kurds not an Iranian peoples, which has (thank God) been taken off becuase it is very problamatic:

Other genetic distance comparisons have revealed that some Turkic and Turkoman speaking peoples in the Caspian area cluster with the Kurds, Greeks and regional Iranians. The Persian speakers are genetically remote from these populations. They are, however, close to the Parsis who migrated from Iran to India at the end of the Seventh Century.

This citation was changed so many times, I recall the term being placed as Irani which meant Iranian. SO it said Kurds are in the same cluster as a group of regional Iranians. That is a direct link. As for Persian speakers being remote from these populations. It does not say not related. it says remote, meaning the odd one out. It is also to generic a statement, but I am sure I know what it wants to say. It means that many Persian speaking groups in the east (that means eastern Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia) are the furthest link. Of course Greeks are related to Kurds and other Iranian peoples they are all from a common ancestor. A Proto-Indo-European peoples. Persian and Kurds have strong affiliations with European peoples through their genetics.

The peoples of the Caucasus also show a great deal of similarity with the Iranian peoples as well, but to a degree that is somewhat reduced in comparison to their relationship with fellow Caucasian peoples. Here is the citations as your final proof and they are not home made or politically inspired websites. This is science which you can not argue with:

the peoples of the Caucasus also show a great deal of similarity with the Iranian peoples as well, but to a degree that is somewhat reduced in comparison to their relationship with fellow Caucasian peoples, but greater than their relationship with Europeans north of the Caucasus.[4]


A simple pattern underlies the mtDNA variation in this region: a west-to-east divide with a sharp boundary. Populations located west of the Indus basin, including those from Iran, Anatolia and the Caucasus, exhibit a common mtDNA lineage composition, consisting mainly of western Eurasian lineages, with a very limited contribution from South Asia and eastern Eurasia (fig. 1). Indeed, the different Iranian populations show a striking degree of homogeneity. This is revealed not only by the nonsignificant FST values and the PC plot (fig. 6) but also by the SAMOVA results, in which a significant genetic barrier separates populations west of Pakistan from those east and north of the Indus Valley (results not shown). These observations suggest either a common origin of modern Iranian populations and/or extensive levels of gene flow amongst them. There is a virtual absence of both common South Asian lineages (M*, U2a, U2b, and U2c) and the more autochthonous U9, R*, R2, R5, R6, N1d, and HV2 lineages in the Anatolian/Caucasus region and Iranian plateau[5]

Someone please add Figure one to the Iranian peoples chart and the meaning for all of the symbols. West Eurasian means=Iranian and Caucuasian stock, East Eurasian=Mongolains, Turks, and Asiatic peoples, and South Asian is the Dravidan Peoples.

-It's erroneous to make Dravidian synomous with all south asians. In fact, most are of partial or full Indo-Aryan descent, making them closely related to Iranian peoples to a certain extent.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n5/40813/40813.html

This is evidence and if it is tampered with then it well be considered vandalism!

Also the same link shows that Azeris are ethnic Iranians and that the population of Turkey is also strongly afflicated to Iran and non-Turkish. Look at the chart. It would be good if someone added Figure 1 from the link.

"Here is scientific proof that says Azeris are not Turks: You can argue with people but not science"

Azeris are mixed of Armeno-Iranian heritage:

Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus: evidence from the Y-chromosome

Nasidze I, Sarkisian T, Kerimov A, Stoneking M.

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Inselstrasse 22, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. nasidze@eva.mpg.de


A previous analysis of mtDNA variation in the Caucasus found that Indo-European-speaking Armenians and Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanians were more closely related genetically to other Caucasus populations (who speak Caucasian languages) than to other Indo-European or Turkic groups, respectively. Armenian and Azerbaijanian therefore represent language replacements, possibly via elite dominance involving primarily male migrants, in which case genetic relationships of Armenians and Azerbaijanians based on the Y-chromosome should more closely reflect their linguistic relationships. We therefore analyzed 11 bi-allelic Y-chromosome markers in 389 males from eight populations, representing all major linguistic groups in the Caucasus. As with the mtDNA study, based on the Y-chromosome Armenians and Azerbaijanians are more closely-related genetically to their geographic neighbors in the Caucasus than to their linguistic neighbors elsewhere.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12596050

So, both the mtDNA (female line) and the Y-chromosomes (from father to son) seem to prove the fact, that modern Azeris are predominantly Turkic-speaking Armenians and Iranians. Their DNA has Europeana and Middle Eastern traces, but not Eastern Asian ones , which one would assume if they really were Turks.

Pallava

Pallavas arent Iranian?

Pallava as in Pallava? Good question. SouthernComfort 07:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
And yes, it appears that they are already listed. SouthernComfort 08:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Pahlavas' ancestors include the Parthians one of the three main Aryan tribes ( Mede, Persians, and Parthians ) in Ancient Iranian history before the establishment of the Mede Empire.

People or Peoples?

Is the use of the word "peoples" correct ? (I didn't change it because I was not sure)

Yes, it refers to the various peoples who are considered Iranian either linguistically or otherwise. Iranian people would simply mean the people of Iran by contrast and thus the usage is correct. Tombseye 00:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Tajiks and Tats are "Persians"

Abbas The Great, p.71-75 The Encyclopaedia Iranica uses the word "Tajik" as a synonym for "Persian" ... Tajik 02:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, and I am guessing that this is your personal opinion as well, but I'm sure the Tajiks of Tajikistan and Afghanistan don't see themselves as Ethnic Persians. --Khoikhoi 02:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This is NOT my personal opinion, but that of many scholars and historians. It seems to me that you are pushing for your personal opinion in EVERY article. You ignore sources, and you even exeggerate the sources you support (see the article about Azeris). The Encyclopaedia Iranica, the AUTHRITIVE encyclopaedia of Iranian studies, says that "Tajiks are Persians" - end of discussion. Besides that, how many people in Afghanistan do call themselvs "Tajiks"?! Most of the people who are considered "Tajiks" do not even know the word ... go and ask some "Tajik" from Herat ... Tajik 14:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The authoritativeness of Encyclopedia Iranica is indisputable. However perhaps it would be best if KhoiKhoi supplies everyone with a counter evidence that says Tajiks are not Persian. We can then add that in to our discussion and article.

Now, if we are to take the definition of "Persian", then Tajiks, Kurds, Azeris, Aremnians, and a whole bunch of others are "Persian".

That's why "ethnicity" doesnt mean much in reality. Because it is based on loose definitions with overlapping loopholes top to bottom. What is it based on? Genetics? Language? Culture? If "ethnicity" is defined to be based on parameters like language, culture, religion, and racial background, then yes, Tajiks and Persians are effectively one and the same. If it is modern nationality, then they are not.

Hey, even the BBC treats them the same: Persians, Tajiks, and Afghans have the same BBC portal.

I think "ethnicity" is a ploy used by some groups and governments to merely try to break down countries into sub-entities, inorder to prevent them from possibly ever rivaling the dominance of established western countries.

"Ethnicity" is just a tool to further "divide and conquer".--Zereshk 21:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to speak for Khoikhoi, but I think we've come to the agreement following a discussion on the subject that Tajiks are simply Central Asian Persians so there is, hopefully, no more argument. Also, race is meaningless here as I think the Persians of Iran have often confused the Hazaras who make up a large proportion of Afghan refugees in Iran with Tajiks, although there is some overlap between the two in Afghanistan as is the case with most groups that live in close proximity to each other. Cheers. Tombseye 21:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)