Talk:Kurdish people/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Protection 2 Kurds are ethno-linguistically Iranian people 2.1 Response 2.2 A Kurds view 3 Wording 4 Ethnic Classification 5 Population of Kurds in Turkey 6 Language 7 Another source 8 Point of view 9 provocative editing 10 Kurds in Turkey 10.1 Update 11 Iranian adjective 12 Solution? 13 What is going on in this article? 13.1 Response 14 Indo-European or Indo-Iranian 14.1 response 15 Percentage of Turks living in Turkiye 16 Indo-European people 17 Surviving Zoroastrian Kurds? 18 Iranian adjective 19 Conflicting statements 20 Neutrality ? 21 Pre-Corduene era 22 Kurds are of Iranian stock 23 Victims of Anfal 24 Kurds Are Turks 25 Real Number of The Kurds in Turkey

Protection

I've temporarily protected this page due to the recent edit war over sources being added. I'll take it off in a day or two, but please use this time to come to consensus over the sources here, and cool down in general. --InShaneee 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for protection. Diyako Talk + 23:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, things seem to have cooled down a good deal here, and I see there's been a lot of talking going on here. Here's hoping it stays that way. That said, I've gone ahead and unprotected the page. Happy editing! --InShaneee 05:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurds are ethno-linguistically Iranian people

Evidence

1- Encarta Encylopedia

• "Two groups closely related to the Persians both ethnically and linguistically are the Kurds and the Lurs. "
• http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567300_3/Iran.html

2- Encylopedia.com

• "Ethnically close to the Iranians, the Kurds were traditionally nomadic herders but are now mostly seminomadic or sedentary"
• http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/K/Kurds.asp

3- Saag.org, Dr. S. Chandrasekharan essays

• "The Kurds are an Iranian-related people totaling over 25 million who occupy mostly the adjoining mountainous regions of Turkey (14 million), Iran (8 million) and Iraq (4 million) with nearly half a million each in Syria, Russia, the Caucasus and Central Asia."
• http://www.saag.org/papers12/paper1151.html

4- MERIA Academic journals

• "The Kurds, an Iranian ethno-linguistic group like Persians, Lurds, Baluch.."
• http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue4/oleary.pdf

I think this justifies it. --Kash 23:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Encarta does not say Kurds are Iranian people. It says they are close to Persians.
2. Encylopedia.com does not say Kurds are Iranian. It say they are CLOSE to Iranians.
3. saag.org does say they are Iranian it says they are Iranian-related.
4. You have that meria link while there are several other Encyclopedia whicg do not agree with that.
5. Britannica clearly states that their ethnic origins are uncertain. The claim that Kurds are Iranian people is not an accepted adn widely used claim. we cannot only take one political link and ignore other Authorative Academic sources. Diyako Talk + 23:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

1. First, don't call academic links "political", its an academic journal.
2. Secondly, there is no question that Kurds are linguistically Iranian people, as Kurdish language is an Iranian language without a doubt, yet Encarta and all the other sources have carefully worded the relation to be "close to" and "related", and the academic journal mentions that they are infact Iranian people both linguitically (which there is no doubt for) and ethnically.
3. Finally, so if your only problem is with the ethnic origin, however latest print version of Britannica mentions that:

The Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC.

So if they shared the same origins, then surely even Britannica agrees to this also. --Kash 23:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

1. That Political link does not claim that Kurds are ethnically Iranian it defines Kurds as an ethnolinguistic group and then claims that this ethnolinguistic group (Kurds) are Iranian.
2. The term Iranian by itself is an unknown term with no accpeted or real definition. If really an 'Iranian peoples' exists it is a simple linguitic term. nothing else.
3. Aryan by itself is ONLY a linguistic term neither a race nor an ethnical term!!! read the Aryan entry in Britannica [1].
4. As far as I know this is the modern academic research whch argue Kurds ethnically being part of or related to Iranians. the most modern research stretchs the history of Kurds thousands years before arrive of ancient Iranians. formerly even Armenians and their language (being Indo-European i.e. Aryan) were considered as Iranian! but nowadays no one accept that. [2] [3].
5. finally, tonight I'm busy, have a good night, till tomorrow. Diyako Talk + 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• 1- I have asked you TWICE now, not to call an academic journal "political", Please stay WP:CIVIL.
• 2- Iranian peoples exists and it is an ethno-linguistical group as you can see.
• 3- Your own link about aryan mentions "from Sanskrit ryaa, “noble”), a people who, in prehistoric times, settled in Iran and northern India. From their language, also called Aryan,"

Clearly both the people and their language is/was called Aryan.

• 4- "As far as I know this is the modern academic research whch argue Kurds ethnically being part of or related to Iranians."

Thats good right? I mean many Kurds have lived under Iran and Persian rule for much of their history, and now modern research also supports that they are related ethnolinguistically.

• 5- I am not sure about what you said regarding the language? Their language is still considered Iranian. Any source would tell you this. Even your source again says "West Iranian language spoken in Kurdistan"

• 6-Good night --Kash 00:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I hoas nothing with civility,
2. It says Kurds are an ethnolinguistic group, which including some small tribes who live in neighborhood to Kurdish people and have not been mentioned in the article then Kurds are an ethnilinguistic group.
3. My own link (Britannica) does not claim aryans neitrher in prehistoric times nor in modern times were or are an ethnic grouop! It says they were a people i.e plural of humans)
4. You provide a source that is the modern researchs claim that, formerely people thought every people who speak Indo-eoropean languages have common parrents: Father Aryan and Mother Aryana! but today it is considered as a myth, as a legend. Diyako Talk + 15:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Numerous authoritative sources have been presented that the Kurds, like Persians, are ethno-linguistically Iranian peoples. --ManiF 00:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurds are a branch of Iranians. They read Shahnama, Bijan o Manija, .. speak variety of Iranian dialects (some of them even closer to standard Persian than other dialects of Kurdish and some like Zazai for example are classified as Kurdish and sometimes as non-Kurdish), celebrate Nowruz, love Kaveh, Rustam.., historically are known as Medes (which was an aryan group). Oldest Gurani poetry also mentions Iran, Zurvan, Ahriman, Ahuramada .. frequently. Majority of Kurds also enjoy classical Persian poetry and many important Kurds like Mastura Ardalan wrote in Persian solely. Also ancient Armenian sources mention Kurds as Medes and Kurmanj could very possibly mean Kur(son)+Manj(Mede), because the word for Mede in Armenian is Maraj (close to Manj). For example we do not have to just take a look at Iranians. Uighyurs, Qirghiz, Uzek, Kazakh, Turkomens are all related Turkic groups. So it is not the linguistic part of Kurds that is just Iranian. But the culture, myth, music and etc. are all Iranians. And btw Kurds have diversity within themselves just like Iranians have diversity, but are all Iranians. I recall in another discussion I mentioned an important quote from Abu-Rayhan Biruni: " And the people of the Khawarazm, they are the branch of Iranians (Al-Fors)". Over here one has to say the same thing, "The Kurds are branch of Iranians". The stupid policites of Iranian government is a reason why some Kurds resent Iran, but turning back on your own background is no the solution. Even if for example the Kurdish entity in Iraq hopefully gains independence, then it is considered an Iranian state, just like Egypt is considered an Arab state and Turkomanistan is considered a Turkic state. http://www.kereshmeh.com/kurdistan.html

--Ali doostzadeh 06:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear friend, Kurds also read Eoropean legends, story, literature, they even wear european clothings, they read Quran and pray and go to mosque, they sing in Arabic, but it does not mean that they are the same as those above menthioned people. Here we discuss the majority of Kurds who are definitely Kurds and not some groups such as Zazaki, (which even modern genetic researchs prove them as an ordinary Kurdish people as every other Kurdish peoples and thank you for reminding I should add that to the article). You said it is not the linguistic part of Kurds that is just Iranian. But the culture, myth, music and etc. are all Iranians I wondered say there exist no Kurd in reality! They have nothing, but Iranian culture, mythology and music! I regret to say that it is not correct Kurds have their own culture, their own, mythology and their own music. For the rest of your comments ir mostly belongs to the Iranian peoples articles. Payandeh bashid.Diyako Talk + 15:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Many papers on modern genetic research use too few samples. I am sure if they take Armenians from the same area of SE Turkey and compare it to Kurds from SE, you would get similar genetic results. For example surely there is variations between Kurds of Kermanshah and one say in Sivas. Many Kurds for example have Armenian background, because the area in SE is Armenian. Anothe research genetic test showed that Armenians and Azaris of the caucus are almost the same genetically. So are you going to suggest that Armenians and Azaris have the same culture, myths, language and etc? Many Kurds in Northern Iraq could also have possible Assyrian background. We are not talking about genetics only, and that concept is very new and not well understood as of yet.

Kurds traditionally do not wear european clothing, they have their traditional colorful Kurdish clothing which by the way is popular in parts of central Iran and neighbors that live close to Kurdish people as well. Also while we are at the topic of religion, two groups of Kurds have much Zoroastrian influence. You say Kurds have their own culture, their own mythology and their own music and they are different in this aspect from Iranians. That is exactly not true since there is regional diversity within Kurds can also be taken account on linguistic, music, mythology and etc. For example the Kurds in W. Azarbaijan use balaban a lot. Or group of Kurds in Kermanshah use the Tanbur. I have seen much diversity within the music. But the main mythology of Kurds at least in Kermanshah is Shahnameh and that is why several different tribes of Kurds claim descendant from Gurdarz, Bahman ibn Esfandyar, Bijan and so on. Also the word Kurd in Mazandarani and Pahlavi dialect does not denote a specific ethnic group! but it refers to variety of Iranian tribes who live more shepardic life. To identify Kurds mainly with the modern Sorani and Kurmanji speakers, is a recent phenomenon. BTW the Medes who are the main ancestor of Kurds are Iranian. Many region that is as large as Iran or even Kurdistan, will have genetic, music, myth, cultural and linguistic diversity. But the concept of Iranianness or Kurdishness (which complement each other) means that the similarities are greater and also most of important of all, we have a common history. That is Mustafa Barzanani said: "Where-ever there is a Kurd, that place is Iran". Also read Sharafnama and many of the Kurdish (and non-Kurdish) tribes identify their ancestors with the heroes of Shahnama. Also Mehrdad Izadi who is probably more of a separatist uses the term "Iranic". Also you know that the Kurdish of Mah-abad is different from Kermanshah and they are both different than the one in Garous. But just like they are all Kurdish they are all Iranian as well as and Iranianness complements Kurdishness and does not contradict it.

BTW if you know something about Iranian languages, you know well that Lari is close to Persian, then Luri is close to Lari, then Laki is close to Luri, and then Kurdish of Kermanshah is close to Laki and them Kurdish of sannadaj is the next step to the Kurdish of Kermanshah and then the next step is Mah-abad. These are all interwined and closely related. The only oddball here is actually the Turkic languages which represent sharp breaks and this language is spoken mainly in E. Azarbaijan, Zanjan and Ardabil, but a minority speaks in W. Azarbaijan, Hamadan, Tehran and etc. But linguistics have defined that language as Altaic. But Kurdish is not and I can give you here a sample of Taleshi for example and you will notice how very close it is to Kurdish:

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/talyshi/talyshlanguage.pdf In fact one Talysh wrote to me that he understands 90% of Kurdish.

BTW the oldest fragments of "kurdish" language is Gorani and the writings there are replete with the name "Iran", and Shahnameh and Zoroastrian lexicons and myths.

--Ali doostzadeh 12:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said before when an ethnic group is discussed one refers to the majority not small minorities. The majority of Kurds (i.e. Soran ann Kurmanj) consider thenselvs as ethnic Kurds not tthnic Iranians!, They have their own traditions and costoms, etc. It is far from reality to include them to a new-born Iranian ethnic group (born in Wikipedia). Diyako Talk + 17:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Diyako, Kurds surely have their own culture, I believe what our friend Ali is saying here is that it is all part of the Iranian people's culture, as the Iranian culture is not just the Persian's culture, but also the other ethno-linguistically Iranian people's culture, such as Lurs, Kurds and Baluches. --Kash 23:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What is this?!! but also the other ethno-linguistically Iranian people's. This sentence is wrong. All these people have their own cultures. What is Iranian culture? Is it a cultural group? Do Kurds practice northwestern part of this cultural group? Dear friend, it is Kurdish, Persian, Pashtun and baluchi languages which are members of a group, of a classification: Iranian languages NOT Kurdish, pashtun... etc cultures. Diyako Talk + 17:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

So what if Kurds are linguistically and (based on some sources) ethnically close to Iranians? We have talked about all this before (those who are not familiar with this article should read the materials in the archive). The article already says Kurds speak an Iranian language and it says that according to some sources they're ethnically close to Iranians. Please read Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Aucaman^Talk 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

But you have been doing just that regarding the "Aryan" issue. All that other editors have been doing is adding sources. SouthernComfort 02:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A Kurds view

As a Kurd who has lived in both Iranian Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan for years, I have to say I have never met any Kurd who does not identify himself as an Iranian as much as being a Kurd. We are brothers with Iranians and have lived together sharing much of our history together. It's almost shocking to see some users denying this fact. This recent political campaigns by some Turkish parties which are trying to give us a national identity are good but we should never forget our roots and brothers in Iran. I suggest a more informative and POV-free intro such as:

The Kurds are an ethnic group closely related to the Iranian peoples such as Persians, inhabiting parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (a region commonly referred to as Kurdistan). Smaller communities can also be found in Lebanon, Armenia, and Azarbaijan (Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh) and some Western countries.

Just my suggestion. --MysticRum 11:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

--MysticRum 11:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear friend, Since when you became a Kurd? this is your other usename, I know and can prove which is your main username! also since everybody can easily change his ethnicity and username in wikipedia, users ethnic background is not important here, I contribute in wikipedia as a neutral wikipedian not as a Kurdish wikipedian. Diyako Talk + 14:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If you go up to a Kurd ask him to identify himself, he's not going to say he's an "ethnic Iranian" person, especially if he doesn't live in Iran. He's just going to say he's Kurdish. Please don't attach labels to people. Kurds are Kurds. They don't need to be part of any other group. Also see WP:V. Aucaman^Talk 12:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

User Doostzadeh's argument I think clears all the objections on the Iranian matter ..the journey from lar to lur to lak plus... "Where-ever there is a Kurd, that place is Iran". Barzani's answer to user Aucaman --Loosekarma 13:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC).

Barzani was a politician not an anthropologist. He has also the most bad words and advices against Iranians, whom he considered as occupiers, historical enemies of Kurds and ***,...***.. etc! Nationalist Kurds may consider them as Aryan but not as Iranian, they even may consider Iranians due to their iranian languages as their cousins but not origion.Diyako Talk + 17:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That he is a politician is very true its only important in so far as it answers the argument put forward by user aucaman &... where he says Please don't attach labels to people & that If you go up to a Kurd ask him to identify himself, he's not going to say he's an "ethnic Iranian" person

as you have noticed the arguments on this page oscillate between the anthropological and the political or what one may label claims on the essence of kurdishness ...now barzani's quote is important in that it shows that kurds do not distance themselves from ancient Iranian history and disown their rightful claim on it kurds are kurds like lurs are lurs ...but how is it that barzani cannot be quoted as saying whrere ever there is a kurd that place is turkey...(with all due respect to that country) I will refrain from posting further one's by Ebdulrehman Qasimlo because someone in Denmark is concerned that Kurds are Kurds. They don't need to be part of any other group is this statement verifiable ,,,??--Loosekarma 17:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said before He was a politician and because of political intersts made a cliam, Otherwise 'unfortunately' he and his followers did not like Iranians. He adviced all Kurdish people to avoid Iranians. He explained for Qazi Muhammad that who are Iranians (based on his pov). These are not my POV, I'm sorry, facts and maybe needs to be mentioned in the articcle. Qazi said: I knew Iranians through Barzani, he was a very clever and wise man (in a derogatory wording). Now please do not say Kurds consider themelves as Iranians or at least not all of them do so. those hwo do msotly by political reasons. Many times they need these claims to rewrite history. Contemporary scientific evidence show that even their language is not originally Iranian but its vocabulary is influenced by Irabnian languages. Kurds say our language is Iranian. As I explained below, this classification is linguistic. The article already says Kurds speak an Iranian language, but if you still like to use that wording, clarify it that what does it mean: They are linguistically Iranian. It can be a compromise and I hope end of this debate. Compromise? Thanks. Diyako Talk + 17:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are having a fundamental misunderstanding. Iranianness and Kurdishness complement each other. For example your name is Diyako. Diyako was the king of Medes. The medes are known as an Iranian people and in fact Armenian and Greek sources explicitly call them "Aryans"(Iranians). Furthermore perhaps the oldest Kurdish kurmanji inscription was found in Armenian church and it contains the lords prayer in several language. http://www.azargoshnasp.net/history/Medes/languageofmedians.pdf One of them is identified as the language of medes and it is just Kurdish. BTW Kurdish is not separate at all from other Iranian languages, and if you read that Talyshi document I pointed to, you would understand. BTW a lot of Talysh are also Shafi'i Muslims and the region of Azarbaijan and Kurdistan was predominately Shafi'i before the Safavids. http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/talyshi/talyshlanguage.pdf

Another point I want to make here is that it was not Sorani/Kurmanji but Gurani that was the main dialect of Mah-abad, Sannandaj, Kermanshah till recently. And the literature of Gurani clearly refers to Iran and Iranianness and Zoroastrian and Shahnameh concepts throughout.

Also as per mythology, Kurds consider Kaveh ahangar and Rustam Dastan to be Kurds. http://www.azargoshnasp.net/famous/ferdowsi/shahkurdarmen.pdf

As per language, I think it is best to let the experts speak. Here is a quote from the famous Prof. David Mackenzie who amongst all modern scholars, has done the most in understanding Kurdish (Sorani, Kurmanji) and also Zazai and Gurani dialects/languages. Here is an excerpt: My first task then should be to define Kurdish (Kd.) by establishing features which distinguish it from other Ir(anian) dialects. Unfortunately I have to admit at the outset that my findings are largely negative, for almost every feature of Kd. has its counterpart in at least one other Iranian dialect.

BTW lets not forget that 50%+ of Kurds in Iran also live in Garousi, Bijar, Elam, and Kermanshah regions and political activity and separatist sentiments here has been virtually near zero. So no one here can claim to speak for Kurds in Iran and I think what is important is to just look at scientific facts: language, culture, mythology and etc and to see if Kurdistani people are also a branch of Iranian people (like for example Bakhtiaris) are not. BTW even if we talking about race, many famous antrophologist define Kurds as part of the Irano-Afghan race. http://www.snpa.nordish.net/troeplate18.htm

Luri/Laki/Lari/Persian/Talyshi.. have also similarities. There is actually a continum. Note the term "Indian", "Chinese", "Iranian".. are terms that are vast. For example the Parsis of India, Tajiks of Tajikistan and Kurds/Zazas outside of Iran are an Iranian people. Just like Turkomens or Uzbeks are Turkic people but are distinct.

--Ali doostzadeh 18:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

First, My name, yes it is misleading and since long ago I have wanted to changed it. Like you that your name is Ali, an Arabic name. It is a reference to this fact that Iranianness has been influenced by Arabic, It does not mean necessarily that Iranians are complement to Arabs. but the relation of Kurdish and Iranian languages: formely people thought Kurdish is descendant from the Median language. but it was a wrong assumtion. Kurdish is remote from Medes language (and old Persian) f .ex. http://countrystudies.us/turkey/3.htm. Nowadays no one claim it, exept some people but they have no scientific support. Originally Kurds themselves are not from Iranian groups and tribes f. ex. [link removed]. There are many scientific that Kurds are not part of Iranians except in linguistical classificatin. Diyako Talk + 19:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about the linguistic part and the link you brought has no real reference. I brought an article from Dr. David Mackenzie, the foremost Iranian who did his PhD thesis on Kurdish language. He clearly states that there is no features of the Kurdish langages(and he means Sorani and Kurmanji here) that is not found in at least one other Iranian language. He has analyzed the language thoroughly. Please read the article first. Dr. Mackenzie who left very recently, was the foremost scholar on Iranian languages.

http://www.iranica.com/articles/sup/MacKenzie.html

This is a powerful statement. BTW the word black in Persian is Siyah but in Kurdish they also use "rash". But for example Talyshi also uses Rash.

As per my name, Islam is universal religion and Ali(AS) is one of the foremost figures in that religion. But this can not be compared to language or culture. Else you can claim that Muhammad Ali (the boxer) was influenced by Arabs as well. Your name Diako is cultural and not religious.

The Medes are clearly known to all as Iranians and Kurds are primarily descandants of Medes and ancient Iranians. Their language reflects this issue best. Their holidays like Nowruz, Charshamba Soori (celebrated by Yazidis amongst other Kurds), their myths like Kaveh, Rostam and finally the oldest suriving literature of Gurani (which Soran/Kurmanj Kurds also regard part of their heritage) all testify to Iranian culture. Also Farhand, Shirin and Khosrow for example is very popular amongst kurds and it is Sassanid story. Also I will add again that if we are to take all evidences scientifically, the term Kurd just being applied for modern Kurmanji/Sorani speakers is a relatively new phenomenon. For example Daylamites of Tabaristan and even Arabs of Iraq are sometimes referred to as Kurds in Iranian literature, because it represented a more way of life than a specific ethnicity. That is why Lurs for example whose language is SW Iranian and closer to Persian have also been termed sometimes as Kurds. Same with Daylamites. The word Kurd infact in Pahlavi language does not denote an ethnic group but it refers to Shepard, just like it does today in Tabari. Also if you want to claim Kurds as distinct group, then you will run into a problem because there is a good deal of diversity with Kurds themselves and one example is the Zazai issue. Or sometimes the poet Baba Taher who wrote in Laki (which is not classified as Kurdish) is called a Kurd. Or some dialects of Kurdish are closer to Persian than to other dialects/variations of Kurdish. The reason is again that the term Kurd here referred here to more of lifestyle. --Ali doostzadeh 23:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The origin of Kurdish language being Medes is no longer accepted. Formerly people thought Kurdish is descendant of Medes but not anymore. The word 'Kurd' has been used among Iranians does not necessarily mean that it means only a life style. The Kurd is a word thousand years old, name of the people who live in mountains of Kurdistan. even Sumerians mentioned it. I forgot to say according to Kurdish mythology Kurds are not Iranian, inseatd they describe many Semitic fitures such as Abraham, Noah...etc as Kurdish! For regional variations among Kurds themselves it is based on local dialects and (formerly tribal classifications) not ethnicity or race or anything else http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2005.00174.x. however thei dilaects are mostly accepted as Kurdish despite of some disputes. http://0-www.search.eb.com.library.uor.edu/eb/article-9046467?query=Kurdish%20language&ct=eb Diyako Talk + 23:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The word Kurd is not mentioned in Sumerian but similar term perhaps or something is used which could mean Kurds or not. As per being descendant of Medes, this is still mainstream theory. http://www.azargoshnasp.net/history/Medes/risefallmedialiverani.pdf

As per genetic data, the fact is that people that live next to each other are close due to intermarriage and other reasons. For example Armenians and Azaris of the caucus (the ones in Iran haven't been tested yet) are also physically very close and they are the most nearest in terms of genetis. Yes we can not group them into one people. What concerns us here is culture, language, myths. Probably the original Aryans themselves showed genetic variations as well. Regional variations in Kurds is not just tribal, for example Northern Kurds and Southern Kurds show slight physical variations. Also many Kurds have assimilated Assyrian, Armenian, Turkic, Arabic and vice versa. Same with other Iranian groups. But what concerns us here is culture, language, and history. Kurds historically identify themselves with Medes, Sassanids and other Iranian dynasties. The terms like Hurrians, Sumerian, Gutii.. were not known until fairly recently, but Kurds from ancient times were identified with Medes. Also your point on mythology is wrong. The Sharafnama identifies various Kurdish tribes with the heroes of Shahnama. For example Kalhurs are descendants of Goudarz and the Guran are the descandants of Bahman the son of Esfandyar. Shahnameh also existed in various Kurdish dialects. As per dialects or languages, I do not want to go to details, but Zazaki and Gurani are for example closer (for whatever reason) to the Caspian Iranian dialects. As per the origin of Sorani/Kurmanji languages, they are NW Iranian languages and as Dr. Mackenzie said, they have no special features that would distinguish them from other Iranian languages. I would read this: http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/zazaki/zazakipositionof.pdf

Also sometimes I wonder about the word dialect since for example even the Kurdish of Mahabad and Garous and Kermanshah show a large degree of variety. I think at least you agree that Kurdish is an Iranian language. Language for a large part reflects culture. For example modern anatolian Turks by definition of genetics are definitely not Turks (you know that also). But they speak a Turkic language and they consider themselves as Turks. With Kurds the issue is stronger. They have Iranian myths, Iranian religion (Yarsan, Yazidi). Many of the tribes associate themselves with the heroes of Shahnama. Also historically Armenians have referred to Kurds as Medes which can not be discounted. So by in large, Kurds are branch of Iranian people. In the mid-east we have three groups: Turks, Semites and Iranians. Of course we are going to go back and forth here here. --Ali doostzadeh 04:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Aa I said, 100 years ago people thought so, but today the claim that Kurds are descendat of Medes is not accepted, Medes were only one layer of 9 main layers tyhat Kurds are desendant of. Which one of these layers are stronger or weaker in Kurds is disputed and there is no consencus on that.

In most cases it is said that their language is Iranian, but the number of references that claim they are an Iranian people is very few. There is no need for claim they are an Iranian people jast in the beging of the article. I had explaind the issue in the second paragrah where their language and close ethnic groups are explaind. The word Iranian should go down there. It is the only accepted way. We cannot reflect one side and ignore the other one. Xebat 12:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wording

There are already several Authorative sources plus some other links which sure can be added in the text, but the most neutral and correct wording for the matter is the last version by me and removing the Iranian word to the second paragraph where it discuss the ethniciy of Kurds. It reflects all existing sources. and I support that. what is your opinion? Diyako Talk + 14:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Diyako. I believe the current version is the correct version as supported by the reference already there --Kash 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not an accepted and widely-used wording in the definition of Kurdish people. Kurds are not defined as Iranians! but only their language. Kurds are defined as Kurds, sometimes close to Iranians, sometimes with uncertain ethnic origions. Diyako Talk + 17:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Classification

I would like to re insert the archived argument of users:shapurAriani and Tombseye As none of the collective (anti-mention of Iranian) logic seems to address it

once archived they are starting the arguments from scratch when confronted with logic ...the response is to verify and when sources are presented we get this:

if you go up to a kurd and ask him?....or saying Kurds are Iranians will create the impression that they are Iranian refugees...??

please .. What is an ethnic group .. ? if the Iranian is erased then it will create the impression that Kurds have been wandering the globe through ages never having been part of a nation.. ?so instead of founders of the median empire in a way a precursor to all the rest of the post aryan kingdoms they are relegated to Corduene at best or the far more accurate statement that their origins are uncertain ? whose origins are certain will the real ...(so and so) please stand up

... how can you verify that 2 or 5 or 7 centuaries ago the people inhabiting the regions refered to as kurdistan would consider themselves distinct in this sense.

it is injustice to the contribution of this member tribe of the Iranian family considering their contribution to the various Iranian empires cultural institutions, works of art and litrature ...

I cant help but laugh anytime I review the archive and come upon the argument of a respected user who mentioned that kurds dance in groups while the rest of Iranian people like to dance individually ...and therefore?? Surely we are in territory of the comical ...by now--193.167.6.96 04:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Population of Kurds in Turkey

15 million Kurds in Kurdistan part of Turkey? This is the stupidest thing I've seen lately, let me tell you about Kurds in Turkey, there are more Kurds in Istanbul, Izmir and Ankara combined than in whole SE Turkey. Kurds in Turkey are not isolated, they have the freedom to move/settle anywhere they please and they do; you are misinforming people.--Kagan the Barbarian 10:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

sure!but i guess that's the only freedom they have:)--Hectorian 17:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Only freedom Kurds didn't have in Turkey were expressing their ethnic identity, this was done to prevent seperatism, although an undemocratic and unsuccesful method. But I wouldn't call SE Kurds democratic either, SE Turkey is still run by aşirets (tribes), you decide. Other than that, Kurds have all the rights a common Turk has, Turkey has Kurdish celebrities, politicians, businessmen etc. Kurds are not discriminated agaist, that is a bullshit lie some use to raise sympathy.--Kagan the Barbarian 09:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

what i meant is that they have as many rights as the turkish government allows them to have.i know that there are kurdish singers,businessmen,or even ex presidents,and that they have the right to settle in any part of turkey they want.but they do not have the rights of using their language,expressing their identity,etc.so,the fact is that the kurds do not have equal rights with the turks of turkey.--Hectorian 00:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Population of new-born country of Turkey in 2006 is 75 millions[4], 20% of this number is Kurdish [5]. so population of Kurds is 15 millions. Diyako Talk + 18:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I need to emphasize certain words for you to understand what I mean.

15 million Kurds in Kurdistan part of Turkey

I didn't question the number of Kurds, I questioned their location. Saying 15 million Kurds in SE Turkey is utterly ridicilous and false information. There are millions of Kurds spread all across the country. I'll change it.--Kagan the Barbarian 09:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the population of Kurds in Turkey is at least 18 million. The German government did a detail province by province analysis. If anyone likes this information, I can email it to them. --Ali doostzadeh 18:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Language

Which Kurds speak Aramaic? Source? Chaldean 17:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The Kurdish Jews [6]. Diyako Talk + 18:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish Christians do as well.

Another source

Thanks to Heja, we have another source: The Kurds, an Iranian people of the Near East, live at the junction of more or less laicised Turkey, ÷9Ê#i Iran, Arab and SunnÊ #Ir§Î and North Syria,-and Soviet Transcaucasia." Doesn't say anything about "Iranian" being a linguistic term. SouthernComfort 00:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, You have only two but on the other hand there are thousands sources which does not accept that. According to wikipedia policy that wording is an uncommon and not widely-used wording and is not the main which says the last word. and there are others which says they are only close to them not completely part of them! In adition the same above mentioned link claims it is not based on ethnicity!! Xebat Talk + 00:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Point of view

Insisting that kurds are iranians, and that this must be the first fact presented about them, is not neutral. The neutrality tag is definitley in order as long as this controversial adjective stands. --Vindheim 01:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Several sources have been provided. SouthernComfort 01:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

and contested --Vindheim 01:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

See WP:V. SouthernComfort 01:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And The Columbia Encyclopedia does not claim they are an Iranian people! it says they are close to them. http://www.bartleby.com/65/ku/Kurds.html Xebat Talk + 01:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the sources, I don't see a POV --Kash 03:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No one asked you for reviewing and mediation. Xebat Talk + 03:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your incivil and rude comments. WP:CIVIL --Kash 04:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I had an interesting discussion a while back on Rumi in the wikipedia entery. Another Kurdish friend from Turkey also said the obvious: "Kurds BTW are an Iranian people". Lets us get back to the points we agree upon. The various languages and dialects commonely called "Kurdish" are Iranian and have close affinity with Persian, Luri, Talyshi and other Iranian languages and dialects. I can list a lot of these dialects and languages: Behdini, Kurmanji, Surani, Gurani, Zazais and various sub-branches like Mah-abaadi, Sannandaji, Hakkari, Garousi, Kermanshahi which are sometimes mutually intelligble. In fact some of these could be closer to standard Persian or other dialects (like Gilaki/Mazandarani) than other Kurdish dialect, for example Zazai is closer linguistically to Northern Iranian dialects. So linguistically we agree people that are Kurds are also Iranian. Now I draw your attention that modern anatolian Turkish speakers are called Turkic while Yaquts (completely mongloid) are called Turkic. Kurds and other Iranians are much closer to each other and that is why many Kurds and some scholar prefer the term Iranic. So perhaps we can use the term an Iranic people. Now another question beside language is myths. If you read Sharafnama, many of the tribes claim descendant from figures of the Shahanama. Even look at Newruz celebrated by Kurds, everything is based on Iranian mythology and Kawa and Zahak. In fact Rustam and Kawa are seen as Kurds by Kurds as well. Next comes the term Kurd, this term is very fluid and for example in Pahlavi and Tabari it means shepard. Also tribes like Guran and Lurs for example have been considered Kurds (see Sharafnama) because of their style of living. Even taking it further, some historians have referred to Daylamites, Arabs of Suristan and etc. as Kurds. I am not here to add to the confusion, but the fact is the term Kurd historically did not necessarily mean the Suran/Kurmanj speakers solely and this is a more modern phenomenon. Vladimir Minorosky who is foremost scholar on Kurdish studies has said: The term Kurd as an ethnic label was begining to be applied to an amalgamation of Iranian or Iranicised tribes.

This is mentioned by this source as well: http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0812215729&id=gOq52_guRUoC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=kurd+iranian&sig=JqItu41QezqPEk0ZmlyIKPbTby0 By the seventh century A.D., the term "Kurd" had been applied to an amalgam of Iranian tribes.

I think at least we can accept Kurdish mythology is on whole part of Iranian mythology. There is a lot of politcs unfortunately inject into this discussion, but in the end Kurds are a branch of Iranians. But if we consider for example Sharafnama, even the heroe Rustam the son of Zal is claimed as a Kurd. Now Rostam is the biggest mythological figure in Iranian history and this important fact can not be overlooked!

They are neither Semites or Turkic. For example both Arabs and Jews are considered a semetic people. Both Anatolian turks (majority of them are really turkified Greeks/Kurds/Armenians) and Yaquts/Uzbeks are consider Turkic. Kurds and Tajiks then are also Iranic people. Note that the encyclopedia Iranica considers Kurds as clearly as part of the Iranian people: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Celebrations/kurdish_celebrations.htm Also let me add that if there is a Kurdistan, I will be very happy since we will have another Iranian state in the world. In fact I totally understand why some Kurds are bitter against the regimes of Iran in the past 500 years. But linguistic and myths and history are the main parts that make a group. Kurds historically (even in old armenian sources) are called Medes. Their language is Iranian. Their myths are Iranian. Most of all they share the important part of the Sassanid, Parthian, Achaemenid, Medes heritages.

Let us not forget the ancestors of Kurds were Zoroastrians. Best proof of this is the numerous fire temples all over Kurdistan (in fact even the oldest Kurdish poem could about a fire temple) and the Gurani literature.

--Ali doostzadeh 03:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this reference. This is a good one. I like it. In adition it says at that time Iranian tribes had been called Kurds. because as even you said the term Kurd became a life style term. many tribes (not only Iranians but even Arabs, assyrians, Armenians) considered themselves or by outsiders as Kurds. By the way it is not bad to have a Name section in the article discussing the word Kurd. Xebat Talk + 04:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

provocative editing

I wonder about the motivation of those people who insist that the first fact to be presented about kurds is the contentious statement that they are an Iranian people. I have placed this statement in a separate pargraph, right after the first paragraph.

Still this does not seem to be enough for certain people.

tell me: Why ?

--Vindheim 12:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Discuss content, not users. --InShaneee 18:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to have such statement in the introductory part?

They have fought the Sumerians, Assyrians, Persians, Mongols, European crusaders, and Turks.

This is creating the impression that history of this ethnic group has known no peace. And there have been no periods where the people inhabiting this mountainous region have been united as part of the greater kingdoms of the region

How related are the people who fought Sumerians (??) with the people who are fighting Turks?? have kurds fought the European crusaders as Carduchi or as proto Kurdish nation if there was ever such a thing?? or as part of another army

Please?? Can the Scandinavian champions of this lost history explain and please don’t give me the link (compton’s) again as proof of the verifiability address these matters with equal weighing of all parallel truths or fallacies.

’’’Isn’t the above provocative and particularistic I am asking for permission to erase this sentence?’’’ It reads like a bloody prescription

like you have always fought all and this is the only way known to a kurd ??

this is typecasting an entire ethnic group with as mentioned varied (predominantly Iranian) genetic and cultural roots??--Loosekarma 14:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

’’’Is not it provocative that you just in begining discuss the unnecessary stuff of linguistical relationtip of Kurds with Iranians?’’’ Jasim

---

Linguistical relationship of Kurds with Iranians:

Hello again

Dear Sir.

I do not think the huge stuff on linguistical relatioship of Kurds with Iranians just in the first part of the article is necessary. It is too childish (between 6 till 16 years old). Mentioning the fact that Kurds speak a language which is classified among Iranian languages is all. I offer either to remove it or move it to a new section in the article.

Sincerely.

God bless you.

---

My brother, They are our cousins we can discuss it with them. I corrected the first sentence which is most common in the case of the Kurds because of their uncertain origins. Zanyar 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurds in Turkey

Hi, whe are hier in Wikipedia and not in Propoganda-Page for Kurds. Ps: Kurds are Only 12 Million in Turkey her the Fakts from a TheKurdistan Page and the News are fresh >>Around 12 million of Turkeys 72 million inhabitants are estimated to belong to the Kurdish community.<<[7]

The CIA World Factbook says that Kurds make up 20% of turkeys population and this source is nor reliable than the one u said.turkeys population is 75 millions as of 2006.there are also sites that claim the kurdish population to be 25%.would u like to include them?the most reliable source is used, not the one that represents any sides propaganda.do not try to minimize the numbers. --Hectorian 13:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hectorian >>there are also sites that claim the kurdish population to be 25%<< who ??

Hello!this one says >>over 25%<< [8],and these 2 up to 25% [9],[10]

so,as i said,the most reliable source is used here... --Hectorian 13:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello And even more... this one says >>30%<< http://www.worldcivilsociety.org/report/EN/06/16-jul-02/summ_16.23.html

That´s what i am saying...the most reliable source is used.and that´s why i told u that the article is intented to serve noone´s propaganda. --Hectorian 14:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many other sources which offer a much larger number for Kurds in turkey. I think it needs at least a mentioning. I also do not like adit of that Turco-Mongolic user. The infobox says Significatnt population in turkey and then in Kurdistan. It was correct.

Update

I've replaced the dispute tag to better reflect the dispute here. If there is more than just one single source, A good compromise would be to include a range of numbers as oppose to revert warring to include a single source. But the sources would still have to be reliable. I'll check the sources when I get the chance and propose a reliable range. Until then it would be very nice if people stop reverting things. The totallydisputed tag is there and people would probably read the talk page before believing the numbers. Aucaman^Talk 17:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I ask you do not add false information to the article as well as in edit summary [11]. You searched whole of the planet and found two outdated links which are exceptions. Nowadays this term espcially in the case of Kurds and some other people whose languages are related to Iranians are not in use. You have found two dead link, I'll provide 200 academic references in an hour that do not claim that and support me. The term Iranian has its own usage which if required I can help by editing that article. Zanyar 13:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"two dead links"? which are you talking about? Please do not remove the dispute tag, and don't change the artricle before discussing here. --Kash 13:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My sources are much outnumbered than your links. It is not a common term. In addition one of your sources clearly confesses that their relationship is simply linguistical not ethnical. I can provide more and more sources for the matter; needed? Also in the article 'Iranian peoples' help needed? Zanyar 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all Indo-European people is not used in encylopedias or anywhere to describe them, but Lets go through your links:

• 1- http://www.hostkingdom.net/ancmesop.html

A personal website. http://www.hostkingdom.net states: "Greetings, and welcome to my Homepage; I am Obsidian (aka Nigel, if you are considering the SCA. When I'm not editing a web document, or re-enacting the Middle Ages, I'm just ordinary ol' Bruce...). Originally a character in an RPG game, more recently an administrator on several MU**s, and the author of a number of Web documents, my journey toward the Real progresses... "

• 2- http://www.fidh.org/magmoyen/rapport/2002/iq315a.pdf

This is a human rights report, not an academic source.

• 3- http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=258160

Again, not an academic source

• 4- http://www.jaimalayalam.com/

Another personal home page, to "TEACH Malayalam!"

• 5- http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/currents/Content?oid=oid:68501

Its a magazine, not an academic source.

..All of these are verifiable and you cannot jadge them sorry. Xebat Talk + 14:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What? you can not use personal home pages and other non-academic sources. And I have explained a hundred times not to remove the dispute tag. --Kash 14:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I add the dispute tag. Xebat Talk + 14:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have concerns add the tag do not remove info from the page. Xebat Talk + 14:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you are the one who is changing the info on the page. The intro is fine with the sources that I have provided --Kash 14:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your way is not common, As you see and know the majority of sources define the Kurds as Indo-European not Iranian. This is the common and accepted way and according to Wikipedia policy the accepted one which hgoes in to the article. I'm going to call admins. Xebat Talk + 14:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make this personal "my way" or "your way", provided academic sources to explain what you mean, and I will agree. Also please do not "threaten" me by "calling admins" - I always welcome admins anywhere on the wiki-land :) --Kash 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Good, There are already enough verifiable sources and it is quite good. I have the right to complain to admins when some people push an uncommon wording into an article. This is not threatening. Xebat Talk + 14:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont see any valid sources, I have discussed the ones here, if you have anymore, put them here so we shall see? --Kash 15:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it curious that "Indo-European" is not opposed by this new editor Zanyar, and yet opposes the more precise term "Iranian" which is sourced. After all, they do speak an Iranian language. SouthernComfort 15:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If we could also examine this source I just came across [12] it would be very good as it examines genetic comparisons between Iranian-speaking populations (including Persians and Kurds). SouthernComfort 15:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no precise mrecise souther comport. You are using an unknown term which is not commonly used. For the genetics I like it, Its similar to what I say. In addition I have other sources for that! Xebat Talk + 15:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention that this source [13], already used and discussed on the Iranian peoples page, clearly says that Kurds are an Iranian ethno-linguistic group, like Persians, Lurs, Baluch, and Bakhtiari. On Iranian peoples, there was discussion as to what that statement says about Iranian peoples, whether they are one ethno-linguistic group or not. I already stated my opinion there. On the other hand, what it says about Kurds is very clear. I think this also favors SouthernComfort's idea of using the term Iranian. But in any case, I still prefer the current version (with the term Indo-European) compared to most previous versions. I would, however, also suggest to incorporate the term Iranian ethno-linguistic group, with the related source, somewhere in the introduction, preferably at the beginning. Shervink 18:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Xebat,

I agree with Shervink; as he mentioned what the article says is very clear about the Kurds. (From what I remember you were very passionately arguing that it is about the Kurds not Iranian people! So lets stick to what you said yourself! )Now if the term Iranian ethno-linguistic group is not defined properly then we should talk about that in the Iranian people’s page and try to fix it over there not here. Problem with that article does not change the facts about this article. That said, I still don’t have a problem from dropping Iranian from the intro and mentioning it in the second paragraph. I recall this being suggested by some Kurdish editors a while back. They did not disagree with the term but did not want it in the intro. That is fine by me but lets see what others think.

Gol 04:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian peoples as in the way you use it is almost an invention. It is not commonly used in this usage. It also has not a common and accepted meaning. Swedish National Encyclopedia the most Authorative and updated Encyclopedia in Sweden explains Iranians as following: People who live in Iran especially Persians who are in majority in Iran. In a histrorical usage it referes to ancient nations who lived in Iran such as Persians, Sarmathians... No reference to Kurds or any condition which make them as Iranians. I did not say remove any mention of Iranians in the article but I say move it to a separate section in the article.

In adition I'm not going to balance the article Iranian peoples anymore except where it is direcly discussing Kurds and not other peoples whom u have included.Xebat Talk + 12:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How about to gather much of info on the relationship of Kurds with Iranians in a new section as almost there is now? We can enlarge it. Zanyar 19:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you as explained above. Xebat Talk + 12:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Xebat, please don't be unfair! The term Iranian peoples in the way that we are using is very widely used in academia, almost any book dealing with the cultural, historical, ethnic, ... aspects of the region uses the term to refer to the people of Greater Iran. The article I linked to above, as you will certainly have noticed, is talking about the Kurds of Iraq, and yet refers to them as members of an Iranian ethno-linguistic group. This means that Iranian peoples in its academic usage is not the same as the people of Iran (the state with the defined boundaries). The term is, of course, also used to refer to Iranian nationals, when the context is political, statistical, and such. But what can be concluded from a survey of all sources brought up so far, is that the term Iranian is used to refer to both groups, with the exact meaning made clear from the context. The only difference is that you never find a source using the term peoples (with s) to refer to nationals of Iran. These citizens are called Iranian people (without s), because they are one nation and including the s would be a gramattical error. Thus, there is still a possibility to distinguish, although sometimes sloppily, authors drop the s while still refering to the people of Greater Iran. This is unfortunate, but it is common academic practice, and Wikipedia is a place where academic results are used, not obtained. Therefore, we cannot attempt at making the distinction here, although it would in general (outside WP) be a good idea (similar to the distinction between Germanic and German). Here, however, we should accept the academic norm and use the term Iranian peoples to refer to the people of Greater Iran, most of which speak Iranian languages (the exception being Azaris and some Kurds who speak Aramaic, for example), and most having cultural elements in common, though each being also distinct in many other aspects. Shervink 16:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

I do not disagree to mention Iranians in the article. It is an unnecessary part of definition of Kurds and move all or at least much references to a separtae section and explain whatever you like. It is not commonly used to refer to Kurds. it is an uncommon and obscure term and I sure will add many info regarding that. Look at usages of this Iranian word:

1. It is commonly used to refer to people from Iran
2. Or to refer to Iranian Persians
3. Or to refer to ancient Iranian nomads
4. Sometimes it is used to refer to Persian-Speakers
5. But quite uncommonly in some exeptions it is used to refer to People who their language is currently related to Iranian.

If you mean the number five then say Their language is related to Iranian the same way as the article states right now. Xebat Talk + 17:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish language is not related to Iranian languages. It is an Iranian language. Yes the term Iranian people is usually used, even in Iran, to refer to citizens of Iran but it does not mean that there is no other definition for it. The same goes for Germanic people; majority of British or Dutch people do not even know that they are Germanic people but that does not change the fact that the category exists and they are part of it. This article [14], very clearly mentions Kurds as part of the iranian group.

And it is not an invention even if we agree that there is no cultural ties between these people( as some editors have claimed) what name do you give to people who speak Iranian languages? No one argued that there is an Iranian linguistic group and that Kurds are part of it. Please remember that this fact was never disputed by anyone and just as speakers of Germanic languages are called Germanic people, they same goes here. Germany is also name of a country and therefore can be confusing but it is still used. The dispute is whether this group is purely linguistic or not and that can be discussed in Iranian people’s page.

Gol 18:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The term is rarely and hardly used as you use it yet I have not disagreed to mention the Iranians and its related stuff in the article. But the most logical is to move and explain it in a separtae section as currently because the article is on Kurdish people not Iranians. Xebat Talk + 18:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

These are the facts:

There is a linguistic group called “Iranian”

Kurd are speakers of a langue that belongs to this group.

Some people believe the members of this group (Iranian) are related to each other in more than just language( that they are genetically and culturally connected as well) but this is disputed and is not clear yet.

However if it is OK to call them Indo European, which is also a linguistic group, then I see no problem with being more specific and calling them Iranian (the linguistic group they belong to) but as I said we can drop it from the first paragraph. However it is a fact and it should be mentioned as one and not just as a possibility or an alternative the way you suggested it.

Gol 02:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Xebat (Diyako, I liked your previous name much more), the problem apparently is your lack of familiarity with some aspects of academic work on Iranian peoples. The term is very common, and has a very clear definition. Iranian peoples are the people of Greater Iran.Shervink 21:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

And mostly by some Iranian authores who sometimes use it and not commonly accepted in the world. According to the wikipedia policy only common terms and wordings are preferred not uncommon words which even have a terminological confussion. So this is why it is preferred that the article have less on the unnecessary relationship of Kurds with Iranians unless in a separate section. But if the article is not on Kurdish people so maybe we should delete and redirect it to the article Iranian peoples which by itself needs a lot of work.Xebat Talk + 21:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranologists are mostly non-Iranian, as far as I know. Many are from America, Russia and elsewhere --Kash 00:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian adjective

Please explain the need to brand Kurdish people as "Iranian" in the first sentence of the article. It is already mentioned that Kurds speak an Iranian language and it is said that some sources say Kurds are ethnically close to Iranians. Pretty much all sources don't call Kurds Iranians in the first sentence of their articles when Kurds are being defined. There's been only one exception, but that's not enough to justify using the term in the first sentence of the article. As I've said many times, Kurds are simply Kurds, a distinct ethnic group. It's also fair to point out that the Iranian peoples article has still yet to produce a consistent definition of who Iranian peoples are and what the category is supposed to represent. Aucaman^Talk 19:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear sir

There is not only no need for that but also it is a totally unnecessary and misleading and almost wrong term as you have already been informed above.

Zanyar. 2006

Okay let's hear what others have to say. Aucaman^Talk 19:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How about the most obvious reason, that they are Iranian people? --Kash 00:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's so obvious then how come most sources don't say it? Does Britannica say it? Does Columbia say it? Do dictionaries say it? The term is not used in reference to Kurds, and if it is, it's not part of their definition. Aucaman^Talk 02:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Not part of their definition? Please elaborate on precisely what you mean by that. SouthernComfort 03:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you should know what the word "definition" means. Take a look at most major encyclopedias and dictionaries and see how they define who Kurds are - i.e., read the first sentence of these articles. In most cases you don't see the word "Iranian" and there's no reason we should have it here. Aucaman^Talk 04:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

if it is OK to call them Indo European, which is also a linguistic group, then I see no problem with being more specific and calling them Iranian (the linguistic group they belong to) but as I said we can drop it from the first paragraph. Gol 07:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Another source:

Anthropologically, they are an Indo-European people [15]

Strong majority of sources more than 99% of them use the term Indo-European for Kurds.

Few [very few: less than 1%] sources use the term Iranian and it has its numerous reasons. The term Iranian be correct or not be correct even in the case of Kurds is not commonly used. In adition to There are many questions and obscure points regarding who Kurds are.

I can provide hundreds sources which use the term Indo-European.

Zanyar 08:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Most Sources give general, not specific, information unless they are very detailed. Indo European is a very common word and it is understood by most people so they use that. It does not mean they are denying that the Kurdish language belongs to the Iranian branch of the Indo European language family. Now should we label people based on language? Looks like it is the academic way these days since you can not label them based on genetic, nobody has stayed pure. Therefore language remains the only system of categorizing people. all that said I think we should avoid such labels in the intro. Gol 08:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned before while they are by all means Iranian people, speaker of an Iranian language, since a few editors were very worried about possible confusion of naïve readers, I personally will not have a problem with mentioning the term in the second or even third paragraph instead of the first but not in a different section and not as a possibility. It is a fact not a possibility. We might have a dispute going on about what is exactly Iranian people (only linguistic or cultural and genetic as well) however that will be discussed in the Iranian people’s page and not here.

Gol 02:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with you, but Kash doesn't. He's been trying to add the term to the first sentence. Aucaman^Talk 02:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand Kash and I agree with him, but I am willing to compromise and drop the term from the first sentence. However, I am not willing to accept Diyako’s version. He wants to mention it in a different section as an alternative or just a possibility. It is not only a possibility, it is a fact about Kurds and a very important one.

Gol 07:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Indo-European should be dropped too and I'll talk about it with other users. But do we agree that no labels should be used? Aucaman^Talk 07:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the best compromise is to remove any label from the first paragraph (just call them an ethnic group for example) However the groups that they belong to should be mentioned in the following paragraphs.

Gol 08:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

If they drop that uncommon Iranian word then I do not insist on using the term Indo-European Altghough it is more precise than the word Iranian in the case of the Kurds. Zanyar 08:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not insist on using the term Indo-European Altghough it is more precise than the word Iranian in the case of the Kurds.

Why? Either you agree with labeling people based on language or you don’t. If you do, then the proper label is Iranian since Kurdish is an Iranian langue and it is more specific to say Iranian or Indo Iranian than indo European which is a very big group and includes so many languages. In fact Iranian is definitely more precise since it is more specific. Indo European is such as big group and does not give us much specific information about who Kurds are.

Gol 08:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Indo-European in comparison to Iranian is more specific in the case of Kurds because while it is accepted that both Kurds ethnic and linguistic origin is Indo-European it is only their language which commonly is refered to as Iranian not their ethnicity or ethnic origins. Zanyar 08:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the branches of Indo-Europeans are well know. The ones in our region are Iranian, Armenian and Greek. So Kurds are Iranian. Read page three of this article as well: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf --Ali doostzadeh 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What? You question whether the ethnicity of Kurds is Iranian, although their language is, but you call their ethnicity Indo European? If you dispute the fact that the members of Iranian linguistic group, which is a much smaller group, are ethnically related to each other, how can you possibly argue that Indo Europeans are? If you question the use of Iranian as an ethnicity, then it must be plain obvious the Indo European is even more questionable.

Please remember what the argument was originally.

Whether Iranian people is only a linguistic group or can it be used as an ethnic label as well. And if it is only linguistic, then should Kurds be labeled by their language group or not. If Iranian is wrong, indo European is even worse.

Also please remember that the reason Kurds are Indo European is because their language belongs to the Iranian branch which is a part of Indo European language family. This is their only connection to Indo European. So I am afraid if you want to argue they are Indo European, you must first accept that they are Iranian.

Again as I mentioned before:

Either you agree with labeling people based on language or you don’t. if yo do, then they are iranian. If you dont then they are not indo european either.

Gol 09:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranians are only part of Indo-Europeans and Kurds are descendant from various Indo-European tribes. Anyway I agree to not lablleing them with any term if you all agree on that. Xebat Talk + 13:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurds only legitimate connection to Indo European is through their language, as is the case with all the other Indo European speakers, who they are connected to genetically is not discussed here since people are not categorized based on genes and frankly it would be impossible to determine such a thing (and some editors were arguing that Kurds have genetic connection to Jews who are not Indo European as you probably know!). Now if you want to use the linguistic group as a label, then Iranian should be fine; if you don’t, then indo European is equally wrong. In any case I disagree with using any label in the intro but should be mentioned later. Gol 20:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the branches of Indo-Europeans are well know. The ones in our region are Iranian, Armenian and Greek. Further out is Slavs and Indians. So Kurds are from the Iranian branch and their language is almost intelligble (for example the Mahabadi dialect) with Taleshi.

Read page three of this article as well: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf The following groups : Medes, Ancient Persians, Parthians.. were all Iranians.

--Ali doostzadeh 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ali - Iranian, as they come! --Kash 23:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Solution?

I have a possible solution to the revert war that happened. Here's what the 1st paragraph looked like awhile back:

The Kurds are an ethnic group inhabiting parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (a region commonly referred to as Kurdistan i.e. Upper Mesopotamia). Smaller communities can also be found in Lebanon, Armenia, and Azarbaijan (Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh) and some Western countries.

We can add all the stuff about their origins/"who they are" further down the page, but there was a similar conflict like this a few months ago and this is how it was solved. Please let me know what you think, thanks. --Khoikhoi 08:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with no labelling. but first should all agree with that we previously had a consensus offered by Dear Gol but only part of people respected that. Xebat Talk + 10:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If tommorow an individual starts this debate for Sindhi people or Punjabi people Classified as Indo-Aryans or Dutch people, classified as Germanic Then would the it be erased just to appease the respective Diyakos or Aucamans of those domains ... the reason that the same people who object the term Iranian would not mind Indo european shows their bias towards the country Iran and their lack of understanding of the linguistic and larger ethnic division ...I think ill copy/paste all the previous arguments from the archives beacuase they seem buried and remain unanswered--130.233.130.42 12:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry there was a edit conflic when I wrote my comment by you repeated my error!!The term Iranian is a problematic word. A few people use it. it hs no definted meaning. it is an uncommon word. There is no obligation to label kurds as Iranian as some uninformed users to the mater formerly wanted. If there is an obligation to inset in adjective which is there not there are many more common ones. Xebat Talk + 13:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I have to say you're completely wrong Xebat (Iranian is not an "uncommon word"), do you agree with the solution? --Khoikhoi 16:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

With not labelling them as you have explained above? It is the most correct and common way. Yes, I agree. Xebat Talk + 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay here is a compromise solution for Kak Xebat. The term Iranic is slowly gaining acceptance in some Academic cricles for Kurds. This means that they are an Iranian ethno-linguistic group, but not necessarily citizens of Iranian. BTW here is a source from a major party of Iraq: http://www.knn.u-net.com/kurd4.htm BTW the articles political content I disagree with and there are names like Rojan, Roojin, Hiwa..in Iran. But here I just wanted to talk about what a major party thinks. Else the article is definitely not pro-Iranian and in even considers Laki, Luri.. as Kurdish. But I just wanted to point out that even a not necessarily pro-Iranian site, states that Kurds are Iranian (Iranic). --Ali doostzadeh 18:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to request cousin Xebat to agree to Iranic for the sake of all that we share, listen to this http://www.kurdistany.com/Musics/Shahram_N/01%20-%20Khor%20Aavaaz.WMA from Shahname Kurdi/Avaz e Asatir it may help you digest some of our love --Loosekarma 20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Use every thing you like but not as definition of Kurdish people because it is hardly used in this way. I've agreed with Khoikhoi's proposal which even formerly once again was agreed on. (Thanks for your link. Kurds have a distinct literature and culture [16]) After all of these AFD's with your turki friends against Kurdish articles I'm glad that you still call us as Cousin or Kak! Xebat Talk + 21:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What is going on in this article?

It says 15 million Kurds in Kurdistan parts of Turkey? This is a ridicilously false information. Kurds are everywhere in Turkey, they are not isolated in a certain region, only in Istanbul their numbers are more than 1 million. When the page is unlocked, please correct this information. These are little games from Kurdish nationalist users here, they are checking how much they can distort information without getting noticed.--Kagan the Barbarian 15:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not say Kurdish nationalists as we maybe already have several turco-Mongolic ultra-natioalists here. You knwo that in next several decades Kurds are in majority in turkey instead of turks?!!72.232.89.58 21:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the number of Kurds in Turkey is at least 18 million (in 1997) and there are about 1-3 million Zazas. The German government did a detail provincial by provincial analysis. You may view the detail census here (in the Persian translation): [[17]] This is the most detailed census on the Kurdish population of Turkey that I know of. The actual number of Kurds in my opinion is 4-5 million in iraq 1-2 million in Syria, 18-20 million in Turke, 6-7 million in Iran (based on 10% which is reported in an actual census done on number of newborns). So the upperbound right now would 5+2+20+7=34 million and the lower bound is 29 million. This data should be reflected on the page. and I would appreciate it if someone wants to translate the detail information above into English. (Perhaps Kak Diako?). Also since 1997 to 2005, Kurds who have a good population growth rate relative to the national average of Turkey. So I think we can easily state above 20 million Kurds in Turkey. --Ali doostzadeh 17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes It is a very good source I read it. Also there are many reliable sources which state much higher figures as 25% or 30% of turkeys population, i.e. about: 22,5 million Kurds in turkey. The infobox says significant population, in addition we can use the word Mainly in front of the word Kurdistan. Xebat Talk + 21:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I really wonder how these so-called sources decided the percentage of the Kurdish population. Because nobody asked me or anybody I know if they are Kurds. Did they make a survey and ask 1000 people if they are Kurds? So if 20% of the group said yes, that equals to 20% of Turkey's population? Hahaha, brilliant. Ever heard of the Butterfly effect? A %5 increase (50 more Kurds) in the survey equals to % 5 increase in Kurdish pop. ratio in Turkey, which is 3,500,000. 50 to 3,500,000. These surveys are bullshit in calculating population ratio. In near future Turkey must do its own research and determine how many people there are in this country who identify themselves as Kurds and how many of them actually support Kurdistan. I am pretty sure the number won't be as exaggerated by Western sources or by Kurdish nationalists. Many Kurds live in western Turkey, integrated with us through marriage and business. Kurdish nationalists are a bunch of thousand mobs who abuse the poverty of some Kurds through populist propaganda. Have you seen the events in Diyarbakır? A couple of thousand vandals destroyed what you'd call a Kurdish city. They trashed down stores and banks, now the people of the city can't even get basic food because every store is closed. These are not rebels, these are vandals controlled by a few. 95% of the mob were kids, 5% I assume the organizers, providers and provocators. Kurd or Turk, people want stability and prosperity. Your Kurdistan dream will only bring thousands of death to the region. But what do you care, right? You are probably somehwere in Northern Europe posting these. There'll always be poor ignorant Kurds to fight your good war and die, eh?--Kagan the Barbarian 07:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not discuss Turkish politics here, because it wont' convince anyone here. Now back to the populaton statistics, actually if you read the detail analysis above, it is very accurate because it uses Turkish government statistics based on provincial data. I hope Diako (Xabat) translates it or I will do it myself later. It uses growth rate factor and all the data that is available and makes reasonable estimate. Just the very fact that it uses all the sufficient statistics makes it very important and it has more weight than the CIA factbook. It is actually the best and most accurate census of the number of Kurds we have on Turkey and it was over 18 million by 1997. Now i believe it is easily over 20 million. So we should say 20 million Kurds in Turkey in the article. --Ali doostzadeh 18:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean translate the tables and statistics in the article? dont you? Ok, Its very nice! I will try. Xebat Talk + 18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• O yeah, we should make it 20 million because Ali believes so. And we should show this talk page as the source of that information. I am loving how people here gather information. There are 50 watchdogs on the Turkish people page and nobody here except for the Kurdish natioalist gang, lovely, they are getting away with everything--Kagan the Barbarian 08:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Again you are wrong. The information is from the German government and based on all available population statistics available from the Turkish government. None of it is based on any Kurdish nationalist data. Wait till the information is translated (Hopefully Diako is working on it or else I will do it) and then make comments. As far as I know there is a not more detailed analysis on the Kurd population of Turkey --Ali doostzadeh 05:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

The CIA Factbook says 20% of Turkey is Kurdish and that Turkey's pop. is 70 million. A simple calculation shows that there are 14 million Kurds in Turkey. Do you have any other official sources? Aucaman^Talk 23:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, what's the average IQ level here? or are you people deliberately trying to divert the subject? It doesn't matter if there are 50,000,000 Kurds in Turkey. They do not all live in what you call Kurdistan parts of Turkey. The infobox suggests there are 15 million Kurds in Kurdistan parts of Turkey. Read everything and understand before responding.--Kagan the Barbarian 06:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. This will be fixed. But that's not what I heard you complaining about. I think I saw you changing the numbers. Aucaman^Talk 07:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where I changed any number: 12:35 March 29 2006 --Kagan the Barbarian 08:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It only needs one word: Mainly we use the word Mainly in front of occupied Kurdistan by turkeys. Xebat Talk + 15:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Occupied? Pfftt. When was the last time that region wasn't a Turkish domain? 10th century? Your Kurdistan and everything related to it is imaginary and created on paper.--Kagan the Barbarian 16:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

barbarian! turk! turks occupied it and today are drinking the blood of Kurdish people.Xebat Talk + 17:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I prefer tea.--Kagan the Barbarian 17:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Good, so you are not from them. Sorry. Xebat Talk + 17:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoooohooo!Troll baiting is not frowned upon when a Kurd does it?Xebat you look like a blazing adolescent to me.--Turkish Legacy 22:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it says there's a significant population in Kurdistan. It doesn't say all Kurds are living there. Don't you agree that there are some parts of Turkey with a larger Kurdish population? Aucaman^Talk 17:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Indo-European or Indo-Iranian

Again the branches of Indo-European are clear: Slavic, Iranian, Armenian, Greek, Germanic, Tocharian, Albanian, ... etc. Kurds(Soran/Kurmanj/Behdini..) belong to the Iranian branch. Read page three: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf

The most important characteristic of any group in the middle-east is its language, myths and history. Racially there has been lots of moving around and mixing by different groups throughout history. For example Anatolian Turks are at most 9% Turks but they are called universally as Turks. Kurds are linguistically Iranian. Their myths are Iranian. Their holidays are the same as other Iranians. Their language is understandable by various other dialect speakers of Iranian dialects. So to be accurate even if Indo-European is there, it should be the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-Europeans. Just like the Germans are from the Germanic branch. Kurds are branch of Iranian people just like for example Turkomens and Uzbeks and Kazakhs and even Anatolian Turks are branches of Turkic people. Same with Anglo-Saxons who are a Germanic people. --Ali doostzadeh 18:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Use it in the article but not as definition because there will be no Indo-Europan lablleing and nothing. The way as Khoikhoi suggested. I dont know have you agreed on that?Xebat Talk + 18:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think nobody is trying to label anything or anyone. The point is simply a technical fact, namely that the Kurds are scientifically speaking an Iranian people, or as a smaller number of people would say, an Iranic people. It is not wrong to state that fact within the definition, because it is both true and essential. If you don't like it to be within the first sentence, it should be immediately afterwards, because the introduction would not be complete without it. Look for example at the Dutch people. They are defined as Germanic people even though they have their own country, culture, language and everything. There is nothing wrong with it, and it is not an attempt of putting labels (in a negative sense). Can we agree on this? Shervink 19:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

I agree with that. Drop it from the first sentence or even the first paragraph but it should be mentioned immediately after. the suggestion earlier was to mention it in a different section and perhaps as an alternative or possibility, this is completely unacceptable. It is not a possibility, it is a fact and should be mentioned as one. Funny thing is that those editors who were strongly against using Iranian, with exception of Aucaman, were happy with Indo European! This just shows how uninformed they are about the matter. Kurds only connection to the linguistic group known as Indo European, is through their Iranian language! So in order to ever argue that they are Indo European, we must accept that they are Iranian first. Gol 23:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

response

Like I've said, just because it's a fact it doesn't mean it has to appear in the first line of the article, especially when the label is controversial and ill-defined. See WP:POINT. Aucaman^Talk 14:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So drop it from the first line. I thing we all agreed on that. However it is not acceptable to mention this fact in a separate section or as an alternative or possibility the way Diyako suggested earlier. Gol 06:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As stated before, and supported by many sources, this fact is universally accepted among scholars, it is neither controversial nor ill defined. It is moreover essential to the Kurdish culture as the larger part of it can be traced back to Iranian origins (meaning Greater Iran, rather than the current state). It is thus inevitable to mention it in the introduction. If you feel more comfortable we can leave it to the second or third sentence/line whatever, but it must be mentioned in the introduction. Shervink 19:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

You are making it too personal; Neither Iranian is a common and universally accepted term nor that wording which you offer for Kurds. I have even sources from the same scientist who suggests the so-called outdated Iranian grouping that clarifies by himself that this groupping is disputed and not common!! You are making it too personal because as this edit by Xebatê was correct and sourced and there are yet hundreds sources which support that but you reverted it because you thought it is not common in that way! If it is not common for Persians to be defined with Kurds it is not common for Kurds too to be defined with Iranians. In addition, the reason why I added the term Indo-European, just was because I wanted to show you that there are other alternative terms for your suggestion that are quite more common. But in fact the most common one is not to labell them. Yet if you want to go on your uncommon way I will provide sources for that; Both for Kurdish people article and for the so-called Iranian people article. Zanyar 11:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by personal? I don't understand you. There is nothing personal about this, I'm simply stating the facts and try to find the best way to incorporate them into the article. What's wrong with that? Shervink 15:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Percentage of Turks living in Turkiye

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TurkBirDev/message/2663

---

We are Kurd. We are not Irani which support terrorism.

I feel myself more close to Iraqis, people of Syria, Jordan...etc than to Iranians.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.232.89.58 (talk • contribs)

Don't write bullshit. Kurds are Iranians and not Arabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.153.163 (talk • contribs)

Indo-European people

I think we can improve this article by a better introduction. An example I think which would work out best is Pashtun people, so I propose:

The Kurds (trans.) are an ethno-linguistic group inhabiting parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (a region commonly referred to as Kurdistan i.e. Upper Mesopotamia).

Agree? --Kash 22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. All racial references in the first paragraph should be removed, as Kurds are a mixed people.Heja Helweda 01:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Mixed does not mean that there is not a predominanet feature or set of features. --Ali_doostzadeh

I agree with removing all labels from the first paragraph as I mentioned above but I disagree with Heja’s reasoning. These labels, Iranian, Indo Iranian, Indo European, are NOT about genes. they are about culture and language. But as I said it is best to mention them in the second and third paragraph.

Gol 02:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Surviving Zoroastrian Kurds?

It seems interesting to me. Are there still any Kurds practising Zoroastrianism? Can one of our friends provide a reliable source for that? Zanyar 21:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There are no Zoroastrians among contemporary Kurds. The religion was removed, there is no evidence for it.Heja Helweda 01:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This should be investigated IMO -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 19:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Kurds never were Zoroastrians in any large numbers, this beleife that Kurds were zoroastrians is based on the Kurdish nationalist scolars during the 1930's and later, for example the poet Jigerxwen, as it was a trend to be an aryan and zoroastrianism was regarded as the true aryan religion, apart from the semitic ex. christianity. This trend sprang from the German scolars at the beginning of the century. But in fact the Kurds weren't Zoroastrians in any large numbers they were found mainly in the Bijar area. The Kurds were Yazdanis(not to be confused with the Yezidis) wich has many features in common with Zoroastrism. Yazdanism later, during and after the medieval times, fragmented into three main groups Alevi, Yaresani and Yezidi that have survived to this day. 1/3 of all Kurds are today Yazdanis(Alevi, Yaresani and Yezidi). But no Zoroastrians have survived from the original small number.

Iranian adjective

The word "Iranian" appears more than the word the word Kurdish in the second paragraph of the article. Is this an article on Kurds or Iranians? How many times do you want to emphasize that Kurds speak an Iranian language? Aucaman^Talk 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting statements

This sentence at the beginning Linguistically and ethnically, Kurds are categorized as closely linked to Iranian people. is contradicting the sentence from Britannica Their ethnic origins is uncertain. The best way to remove the confusion is to say according to this source they are close to Iranians, and according to that source their ethnic origins are uncertain.Heja Helweda 02:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you cannot give such vastly different accounts of an ethnic group, in an encylopedia, when there is more certainty than that about their ethnicity. Britannica says their origin is uncertain, yet, they and Columbia and most other sources say they are closely linked to Iranians (linked is the key word); that is as a good a description as can be.Zmmz 02:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you know there is more certainty? We have got different sources saying different things, all of them should be included. Since there is no consensus among major encyclopaedias, your first sentence "ethnically and linguistically close ..." is not appropriate, and it is also not sourced. All we can say is According to X they are this and according to Y they are that.Heja Helweda 02:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean more certainty than you indicate. Again, both encylopedias say they are closely linked, not are of, the word link is excessively descriptive here. As a compromise, one can write; although their origin may be uncertain, yet, they are closely linked to..... By the way, that sentence is sourced by both Columbia Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Britannica[18].Zmmz 02:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I drafted and submitted a more concise sentence to serve as a compromise. This was an effort made in the hope of purging any future edit wars in this article, so I hope you all agree and get along. Zmmz 03:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The compromise is good. I've modified it a little to quote the sources more closely. Aucaman^Talk 10:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

1)None of those sources categorize Kurds as Iranian but say they are Close. 2) Those sources do not clarify what they mean by Iranian so its better not to use link.

Zanyar 12:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Kurds are an Iranian people if you discuss the sources they are applying closeness and proximity to other ethnic groups within the Iranian peoples. 72.57.230.179 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality ?

Hello I have a question, which is that ? --> http://img101.imageshack.us/my.php?image=748pxkurdish861zq.jpg

Yes, the image is a bit out of date. I'm too lazy to update it, but you're welcome to do so. Cheers, Khoikhoi 05:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Corduene era

In fact there is a common consensus on their 2 thousands years ago history but before that era remains dark. Almost ALL of historians agree on the fact that Kurds are desendant of Corduchis but there is no compromise whether who are their (Corduchis) main ancestors. There have been several thesis on behalf of that.

Kurds are of Iranian stock

Let us make something very clear...Kurds in Turkey are not Turks, Kurds in Iraq are not Arabs...Kurds in Iran however, should feel right at home, since Kurds and Persians share common ancestors, among them the Medes, which many Persians can also trace their roots to...Kurds are an Aryan/Iranian people. Kurdish and Persian are sister languages...of the various Kurdish dialects, in fact, one of them, Zaza, comes so close to Farsi, one would immediately think it is a Persian dialect. Kurds are of Iranian stock...Kurds in Iran, are Iranians...even their biggest holiday, Nowruz, is the same as that of Persians. The problem in Iran is not that Kurds are not Iranians, because they are, the problem is only religious. In Iran, Kurds are Sunnis (except Kermanshah Kurds and Kurds of the Chardoli tribe in Azarbaijan Province who are Shi'ite) living in a Shi'ite state. Kurds complain that Shi'ite Iran mistreats them for being Sunnis...this is ridiculous! How does Sunni Turkey treat them? How did Sunni-ruled Ba'athist Iraq under Sunni Saddam Hussein treat them? Iran has had the best record on Kurds compared to the other two, and it is because Iranians do not see Kurds as being a nation separate from them, and see them as fellow Iranians. If certain Iranian Kurds wish to betray Iran and think they will succeed, they need to remember what happened to Mr. Semitqoo under Reza Shah, and Qasemloo decades letter. Iran will NOT give an inch of her territory to anyone. Besides, Iran can count on Turkey...Turkey will NEVER recognize and independent Kurdistan next door in Iran, nor will Iraq. I don't know how to say keep on dreaming in Kurdish unfortunately, even though my own great grandfather was a Kurd from Qoochan in Khorasan (a Shi'ite Kurd).

Victims of Anfal

this sentence cited O'Leary [[19]] as a source. The sourced article uses the number 300 000 victims of the anfal campaign. If you wish to dispute this number, you must use another source. --Vindheim 18:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. I think to be on the safe side, it is better to include both figures. The lower number (50,000) is from Human Rights Watch which compiled a comprehensive report on Anfal. Here is the report [20]. It says ... the mass murder and disappearance of many tens of thousands of non-combatants--50,000 by the most conservative estimate, and possibly twice that number. So at least 50,000 were killed.Heja Helweda 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe 50 000 is far too low. The KRG claims to have the names of 182 000 kurds that disappeared during 1988. --Vindheim 16:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I belive the official number is 182 000, and thats also the number stated for the trial against Saddam & CO

Kurds Are Turks

Roots of Words in Kurdish Language:

3,080 Turkish

2,230 Persian + 370 Pehlevi Persian

2,000 Arabic

220 Armenian

108 Chaldean

60 Circassian

20 Georgian

300 unverified

Source: Prof. Dr. A. Haluk Çay, Her Yönüyle Kürt Dosyası, pg.119

Arabic words joined the Kurdish Language by Ottoman.That's to say Kurds are Turks who mixed with Iranian people.532 words in Kurdish are Göktürk Turkish which was spoken 1,300 years ago(source:German prof. De Groot).Fathers of Kurds were Scythians(Sakas) who were Turkic People.Kurdish sentence structure is Subject+Complement+Verb just as Turkish Language.Some morphologic makings of Kurdish is like in Turkish.Lots of phonological makings of Kurdish is same with Turkish.

The guru of Kurdology -V. Minorsky- has proved that Gurans and Zazas were definitely not Kurdish.Kurmanch was a name of a Turkish tribe(L. Rasonyi).Hungarian sciencemen and historicians have proved that "Kurd" means "snowdrift" in old Turkish.Even still today, that has same meaning in Cheramis people who are of Finnic origin.

Eyyubi Family was Turkish as well.Names of Selahaddin Eyyubi's brothers were Turan, Tuğtekin and Böri.Selahaddin Eyyubi has written that after he conquered Aleppo: "Arabic nation has rised by Turkish empire.Ehl-i Salip(Cross) crusaders were leaved undoned by the son of Eyyub".

Father of Kurds was Becen.Becen name comes from Pecheneks who were one of the 24 tribes of Oghuzs.Epigraphs in Yenisey Elegesh approach about Kurds.Byzantine Archives of the year of 840 say that the "Kurd" tribe, who lived in Western Sibiria, were "Turk".Colours of green, yellow and red are still used in Nevruz festivals in Central Asia.Nevruz is a Turkish(Kurdish) festival also.The fire which is burnt in Nevruz, symbolizes the fire in Ergenekon(creation legend of Turks) epic.The Turkish-Kurdish museum is still remain in Bishek(the capital of Krygzistan) which was tried to destroy by Britons, Germans, Frenchs, Russians and Americans in many times.

That's to say, Kurds are of Turkic origin who mixed with Iranian people.The only diffrence between Kurds and Azeris is that Kurds are a litte bit more mixed with Iranians.Turkish and Kurdish nations must live in peace at Anatolia as they have done for centruies.They must NOT fool by the tricks of Western Countries.Regards... Dandanakan 23:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is even worth replying, but you do realise that Kurds and their ancestors lived in the region since history can remeber? And the ancestors were defenitively not Turkic. They were indo-europeans for example: Hurrian, Qutil, Mittani, Urartu, Guti, Kurti, Mede, Mard, Carduchi, Gordyene, Adianbene, Zila and Khaldi ect.

These statements made here that implies that Kurds are Turks are not based on and also contradicts any historical facts.

Real Number of The Kurds in Turkey

These are the results of last elections in Turkey:

• AKP : %34.27
• CHP : %19.40 (Leftie Kemalist)
• GP : %7.25 (Nationalists)
• ANAP : %5.12 (Liberal rightist)
• DYP : %9:55 (Rightist , close to natinalists)
• MHP : %8.34 (Nationalists)

• DEHAP : %6.22 (Kurdish Party)

• SP : %2.48 (islamists)

So please could anybody tell me; how can be %20 - %25 of Turkey is Kurdish?.Regards... Dandanakan 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)