Talk:Kurds in Turkey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kurds in Turkey article.
Article policies
WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Kurds in Turkey:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category
WikiProject Kurdistan
Kurdistan Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Kurdistan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Kurdistan-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate.

Happy editing!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Contents

[edit] Khoikhoi Khoikhoi Khoikhoi

This article is about Kurds in Turkey, isn't it? Why are you changing "Famous Kurds in Turkey" to "Famous Kurds in Turkish Kurdistan"? No room for idealogical expressions here. It is within Turkish borders, Turks decide what it is called and I don't remember a Kurdistan province within Turkish borders, deal with it. --Kagan the Barbarian 21:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see that one. What I was mainly reverting was:
  • The changing of a cited number
  • The removal of what the parliament said
  • The bolding of the word terrorist.
--Khoikhoi 21:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


If you have a sources which can prove what parliments said, then you can change it according to your sources. Before showing any sources, be a resoanble editor and let's change it. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Besides, please gaze at any other ethnic page you want, you can find that there is such a conflict can take place. Sounds like a nationalistic propaganda. This page contains all nationalistic propagandas. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let's try to make the page neutral then. I'll add a {{POV}} tag for now.
Here is my source by the way: Leyla Zana, Prisoner of Conscience by Amnesty International USA --Khoikhoi 20:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link; I had read of Leyla Zana before, but not that account. --Moby 13:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It is a local newspaper of USA. I have lots of from Turkey. Unfortuantely, I didn't see any of these shout. Perhaps, this was public affair of some of parliments. so it is far from reflecting general idea toward her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TuzsuzDeliBekir (talk • contribs) 12:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC) diff
I don't understand. I provided a reliable source and you still reverted. Until you can find one that contradicts my source, the information stays. --Khoikhoi 16:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update requested

 This article or section needs to be updated.
Please update the article to reflect recent events / newly available information, and remove this template when finished.

I heard on NPR today that the strife in southeastern Turkey has gotten worse in recent months. There is not much information in the article about events after the invasion of Iraq. -- Beland 00:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to follow the article on PKK. I added a paragraph relating to latest info, although it is not my favorite subject.:( --Cretanforever 21:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preposterous Statistics

I removed this, "Kurdish separatist armed movements such as the PKK and KADEK continue to mount actions threatening Turkey's national unity and are held responsible for approximately 35,000 casualties of civilians and troops over the past two decades." Clearly conflicts take two. Who gives a damn about Turkey's national unity if it isn't just. Is it? "held responsible" by who? Citation?! But more importantly, are there any remotely reliable figures on the death toll of this conflict. I came on here looking for an estimate on the number of Kurdish civilians killed by Turkey, after the BBC reported an ambiguous 30,000 civilian and military deaths on both sides. That could be 100 Turkish military and 29,000 Kurdish civilians for all I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.146.94 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely preposterous — how could Kurds be only 20 million in Turkey when only the Alevi Kurds are at the least 20 million? Ridiculous statistics are shown on the article; How could Turks be 80% and Kurds be 20% — where is the Cerkez, Arabs, Laz, Armenians, and many other little minorities (please lets not give sources such as CIA — it's totally biased). Kurds make up to 35-40 million at the least in Turkey. Due to Turkification even people I know that are Kurdish call themselves Turkish which I find it irretating because the Turkish state and its empire has restricted people to talk their languages and study their history — yes, I am aware that the Kurds and the Ottoman's both did the Armenian Genocide. There is much more Kurds in Turkey then 15 million — that's why the most famous singers, artists, authors, scenarists, actors, food, drink, folklore, Sakharov Prize winner... are Kurdish. Ozgur Gerilla 12:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with people calling themselves kurd but what I understand from a kurd is a person who speaks kurdish as a mothertongue not a person who has kurdish relatives or has some historical sffinity with kurds. By this logic, we should call Rumsfeld a German not an American. If there are 30-40 million kurds in Turkey, then that makes them half of the population, however I can not see so many people speaking kurdish. This means they are either assimilated or do not call them as kurdish but turkish, which enough to identify someone as a Turk. Show some real facts, if you have any arguments. malcolmriver

Please provide reliable sources. —Khoikhoi 00:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello Khoi, I mean is CIA reliable? They don't even mentioning the Laz, Cerkez, Arabs and others who live in Turkey and these ethnicities are above 1 million in Turkey. I'll hopefully find a reliable source but I think the CIA source is not reliable and should be removed. Ozgur Gerilla 11:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Alevi kurds are 20 mil. I am alevi my dear and all alevi population is totaly 20 mil. And actually All kurds that are Alevi are 80% asimilated Turks. start reading history from padisah Yavuz sultan selim. how 20.000 alevis were killed and how these Turkis alevi tribes became asimilated in kurdish population. Kurdish community in England wont take you anywhere.neurobio 01:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
and you dont have the slightest idea what Turk means. Turk is the combination of all the tribes and people not a race. Turk is the person who lives in anatolia for 1000s of years and a mixture and alloy of all since 5000 bc. Thats why Fatih Sultan Mehmet said we avanged Hector(refering to troja war) after concouring Constantinople. thats is why Ataturk said "ne mutlu türküm diyene" "how happy fot the one who says I am a Turk" not "is a Turk". poor guy such ignorance of the ones like you bring always suffering to our people. So you are a Free Guerrilla peeing onthe walls in England. May God save my Kurdish friend from savious like your selfneurobio 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes — That's another way of making people Turkish isn't it? Everyone that lives in the the Anatolian land is a Turk! 'Turks' is a ethnic group not a person who lives in Anatolia for 1000s of years who is a mixture of ethnicities since 5000 bc! There has only been a Turk in Anatolia for the last millenium — get your facts right. Plus why do you have to make the issue personal? Before calling someone ignorant get your grammar and spelling right. Living in Turkey doesn't mean that you would know more about this subject then people who live in England since all this is history and we read it from books or articles or visit exhibitions — which I think poor Turkish Republic couldn't even secure their historical values that are all in the British Museum — Recommended if you could get a visa to UK.
Oh, Ataturk, He betrayed all the Kurds sent Ismet Inonu to Dersim for him to kill the Kurds who didn't accept the Turkish ethnicity. Long live the Dersim Resistance! Why is Ataturk asking everyone to be Turkish anyway? Would it be right if a Turk was forced to be a Kurd? It's war minds — stupid ignorance that I feel sad for people in the 21st century supporting it! My final point is that there is much more Kurdish in Turkey then 15 million — at the least 30 million and soon will find a reliable source and get this out the way. Ozgur Gerilla 10:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Slur and other insults, political ranting, and irrelevant comments are not welcome. Wikipedia is not a forum.
I further advise you to read the definition of ethnicity and nationality since you seem to be confusing them.
--Cat out 10:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you to read history books and realise that there is a ethnic group called Turkish.
What a preposterous way of acting after I get insulted by neurobio I get the blame. Coolcat you do definetely have a sympathy for the Turks! Ozgur Gerilla 11:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess that was for me. I've recommended the user to make better use of Grammar, Punctuation, and Spelling. The word Ignorance wasn't directly said to the user. There were no insults neither slur in my comment and everything was irrelevant. Fortunately, we have the freedom to talk the way we want in the talk pages of the articles and not listen to Coolcat who particularly points at me which means nothing has changed for you matey. Ozgur Gerilla 11:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you do not have the freedom to talk the way you want. Talk pages exists strictly to discuss the content of the article, not a ground for political campaigning, ranting and other nonsense. WP:NPA is an official policy, and can and will be enforced if necesary. --Cat out 11:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Ridiculous, how was I politically campaigning? or ranting or speaking nonsense? that is an absolute opinion and you do not have the right to talk to me in that way. Could you also read what neurobio wrote that's where you can find direct insults. Ozgur Gerilla 11:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
My comment was not just directed at you and just because he is being bad does not grant you the "right" to be worse. In any case, you have been warned. --Cat out 11:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't bad at all—theother user was. He must of went into my home page and has insulted me for the picture I took! That user directly accused me of ignorance and that user wrote irrelevant comments such as:
May God save my Kurdish friend from savious like your self
and I get the warning! I want to know why (specially if it's from a user like you) I got a personal attack warning? Ozgur Gerilla 12:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
To everyone (whether you are or not): please, no more personal attacks, no more incivilities. We must conduct ourselves professionally. —Khoikhoi 17:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality (lack of it)

Just noticed "unique ethnic identity has been harshly repressed" while skiming the article. I am sure there are other examples of non-neutral content.

I do not see how "Turkey's first female pilot and the adopted daughter of Atatürk, took part in the bombing raids against the Dersim Kurds" is relevant to topic either...

--Cat out 05:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind you that in the Turkish ID card people cannot choose their ethnic identity nor their religion. —Ozgur Gerilla 09:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
"harshly repressed" is not a neutral term and is an ambiguous by nature. By whoes standars is it harshly repressed?
Let me explain the matter further. I'll give the US as an example. IDs in the US, for instance US passports, show only two sexes: male and female. That doesn't mean gays, lesbians and others are "harshly repressed" in the US. Also some people, (such as myself) believes that tagging people with ethnicity/race and etc promotes discrimination.
I'd like to inquire if the restriction you mention strictly apply to Kurds? What you can and cannot put on an ID card is strictly a burocratic issue IMHO.
--Cat out 16:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead seems to be irrelevant to the rest of the article. The lead basicaly explains how much kurds are oppressed (which is a contraversial issue) and the remainder explains rebellions. --Cat out 16:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In the section on the post 1970 history, the sentences "PKK's chairman, Abdullah Öcalan, was proud of being from humble origins." implicitly suggests Öcalan's origins were humble. This also does not seem to be neutral.[[[User:Tjswaine78|Tjswaine78]] (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)]

[edit] Disputed

I wonder why the topics related with Turkey are tried to be disputed all the time. Somebody is trying to make their own propaganda by exaggerating figures and facts or doing controversial statements without any reliable references.

The article "kurds in turkey" is expected to give information on kurdish people in turkey (culture, life style, history, kurdish dialects in turkey...), but this article is only stating the turkish-kurdish conflicts or mainly kurdish rebellions in turkey. For this reason, either the name of the article or the content of the article should be reviewed in order to reflect factual accuracy and NPOV. Maybe it's better to label this article as "kurdish rebellions", cause there is almost nothing other than stub on "kurds in turkey". E104421 10:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note

You know, I dont want to get into this discussion but, I feel that some of the posts here are not cool.. I would also like to reply to something that Ozgur said about Turks, Turkics, Turkish etc.. You know (I hope that I am not going to be called a nationalist for pointing out something so obvious) there is a big difference between Turk as an ethnicity, and Turkish as how you define yourself. You can call this assimilation or whatever you like.. You can say that it was because Turkish butchers killed everyone, but the fact of the matter is that what is important is how people define themselves.. Kinda like the USA for example.. There are 50 million people of german descent in the US, but they all define themselves as americans.. Please let's get over this archaic definitions of categorizing people.. A Turk, as of today, is someone who calls him as such, doesn't matter if he is black or Chinese or whatever.. I have met quite a few Russians who have become Turkish citizens and call themselves Turks! Similar to France and et al.. There are many immigrants who have become French citizens and call themselves French, so therefore they are French..Baristarim 05:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As for Laz, Cerkez, a similar argument can be found in France and Italy.. In france, until last century many people didn't speak French, they spoke Norman, Provençal, Oil etc. Now they all speak French and define themselves as French.. And a similar argument is also true with the French as well: Franks that gave their name to France were a germanic tribe that invaded those lands - like the Turks with Anatolia et al.. There are very few germans left in France right now, but these people still call themselves as French because they choose to.. Everyone knows that there are very few ethnic central asian turks in Turkey right now, maybe 5 percent. But what is important is with whom people want to associate themselves - people's origins are completely irrelevant: Ozgur, I remember you telling me once that you were British and etc. Well, in the light of what you have been saying I can also say that you are not English coz you are not German (Eng-land - Angle-land - Anglo-Saxon - a German tribe), you see?Baristarim 05:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You can define yourself as Kurdish, I have utter respect for that.. But pls don't say things like 40 million out of a population of 65 million is Kurdish, then u r also offending those people: they have a right to define themselves in anyway they want.. Nobody can tell them: u r not Turkish coz u r ethnically Kurdish, that also wouldn't be fair even if there were 40 million ethnically Kurds.. Be my guest to talk about how this happened, assimilation, massacres etc. But please note that being Turkish today doesn't imply at all any neccessity to be an ethnic Turk - a black person cannot become Turkish if he wishes? a black cannot become French if he wishes? I have met blacks who call themselves Turks.. They have no right to say so? To imply the opposite is just fascism, pls realise this.. Turkish of today is a mix of all the ethnicities that has lived in anatolia for the last 5000 years, even though ethnic central asian turks only came one thousand years ago, similar to French of today, American of today etc.. If someone chooses to define themselves as such, they therefore are.. If someone says they are Kurdish, they are, even if they are originally Chinese.. Baristarim 05:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am also extremely disappointed because of some really lame ad hominim and degrading attacks that took place above.. I thought some users here were better than this.. Baristarim 05:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The only mistake I found above was the title of the section. I agree with most of what you've said BUT I was talking about ethnicity—I assume that's something we cannot change because it's biological—not about peoples nationality. People should have the freedom to call themselves whatever they like. I don't know how did I discriminate that? But I think it shouldn't be restrcited to question the history of those people. Because what we say clashes if we put Turkification in—do you realise that people in Turkey people haven't got or didn't have the freedom to say they are from x ethnicity. That is my argument—I respect everyone's opinion of whatever they want to call themselves but that doesn't mean looking at the origins of those people is not right.Ozgur Gerilla 08:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, no problems.. I also agree with you on what u said.. Of course it is also right to talk and anaylze the origins of people.. It was only because I got a bit irked when I saw some sniping going on in the beginning of the talk page that's all :)) cheers! Baristarim 03:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

I was thinking that maybe the title should be change from Kurds in Turkey to Kurdish people in Turkey per Kurdish people article.. I don't know if there was a discussion that has taken place before or a particular opposition, so I thought I would ask for people's comments before moving it... Baristarim 21:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think it should be changed? I think Kurds imply Kurdish people — it's the same thing but I think the word Kurds is much more elegant. Ozgur Gerilla 21:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think it just sounds better. For example, we have the Azerbaijani people article, and then the Azeris in Turkey page. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, no problems.. I haven't been to other similar articles, so I couldn't judge.. I was just saying it only because the main article was Kurdish people, I had read a discussion somewhere in wiki where it was said that people as opposed to Brits, Kurds, Turks was more formal, that's all.. I know that they imply the same thing and there is no policy, it was just because of a difference in style.. :) Baristarim 23:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do we actually deserve a better future?

You know, I don't want to get ahead of myself here, but I cannot help to notice that the whole article is about wars, wars, wars and some more wars.. That we know.. We ended up with the fact that the subject matter has absolutely no relation to the title, I think in its current state we can change the title to Turkish/Kurdish wars or History of Kurdish seperatism, since not much has been talked about the Kurds as people..

I definitely don't want to get into a debate about who did what and if Turks killed Kurds or Kurds killed Turks, however, I would like to go one step further and analyze this negativity in another angle, even though it might irk a few people, if some people are going to keep this article 100 percent negativity: I find no mention of honor killings for example, where r they?? Honor killings in Turkey happen almost exclusively among the Kurdish population, I think if we are going to ride on this wave of negativity, let's close the circle.. I am a really democratic person, I have no problem with negative but true stuff being mentioned, however it pisses me off when people don't act the same way for themselves.. 150, and almost exclusively Kurdish, girls have been forced to commit suicide by their families in the small city of Batman in a year alone just because they brought shame on family honor, and when some girls tried to demonstrate against this, guess how many people showed up? NINE (9).. I think that deserves to be mentioned too, no? But no. When there is something negative about Kurds, it is Turks' fault, when there is something good about the Kurds, however, it is Kurds' doing... When there is a famous writer who is Kurdish, wa say hooray, but when a peasant girl gets murdered by her family, we overlook the fact that she is also Kurdish.. Why do these girls kill themselves?? It is the barbaric Turks' fault of course for not building enough schools! Well, I have yet to see a statement or a grass-roots campaign by any Kurdish party, DTP, PKK or whatever, to solve this problem - it is only the Turkish state trying to find a solution to this.. How about the Aga and asiret system?? I don't see any Kurdish parties tackling these issues.. The real problem lies there, and all Kurdish intellectuals know this, am I wrong? You know, come to think of it, I will add sections about the feodal aga and asiret system, as well as the honor killings in the article under a section like lifestyle of Kurds in Turkey.. Leyla Zana is much less important than hundreds of innocent teenage peasant girls being murdered.. I hope that we can agree on that..

So, to stop this article from becoming a 100proof Absolut Negativity, I call on all contributors to this article to improve it by mentioning something more than wars and conflicts, that's the only way we can actually get somewhere.. No mention of Turkish artists of Kurdish origin, Newroz or anything to do with culture, only culture here is the culture of war.. good job.. Do we actually deserve a better future? Baristarim 01:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the way you criticise this article—it makes other contributors realise points that can be easily missed—atleast I do. Of course, I think we should mention what is notable about the Kurds in Turkey. I only disagree with the honor killings (Tore in turkish) issue: not only Kurds force this but Turks do too. Feodal aga and Asiret system - are also notable subjects and need their section in the article - I hope in the near future I can do those. But we are missing so many positive points of the Kurds in Turkey such as; culture(every city has its own halay-folklore), food (dolma, different types of kebabs, kombe, lahmacun..so many that are called Turkish but are from the southeast), arts (the amount of art Kurds have contributed to contemporary Turkey is very high: Ahmet kaya, Yasar Kemal, Yilmaz Guney)...(infinite list goes on) We should mention those as well. Ozgur Gerilla 10:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Özgür, Barış, and E104421, lets do these. deniz 05:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger propositions

I had to remove "merge" proposition: there is no discussion anywhere about a merger of articles... Please open a discussion first with arguments, and then propose a merger. thanks :) Towsonu2003 06:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurdish internally displaced people (IDP) in Turkey

I removed the following text from this section:

Security forces in Turkey forcibly displaced Kurdish rural communities during the 1980s and 1990s in order to combat the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) insurgency, which drew its membership and logistical support from the local peasant population. Turkish security forces did not distinguish the armed militants they were pursuing from the civilian population they were supposed to be protecting. By the mid-1990s, more than 3,000 villages had been virtually wiped from the map, and, according to official figures, 378,335 Kurdish villagers had been displaced and left homeless.[1][2][3][4][5]

The text is removed because it gave an unbalanced picture of the reasons for depopulation. Poverty and the PKK share responsibility with the Turkish state. The text I placed in the article is copied from the Kurdish people#Kurds in Turkey article, and has an academic journal as source. Anthon.Eff 18:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad source

This source apparently has begun some mischief over population numbers:

WATER SECURITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST: GROWING CONFLICT OVER DEVELOPMENT IN THE EUPHRATESTIGRIS BASIN By: Patrick MacQuarrie;Revised: 26 February 2004; Originally submitted 15 September 2003; Thesis, M.Phil International Peace Studies; Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland

On Page 19, footnote 53, MacQuarrie writes: "13.8 million Kurds in Turkey by 1990, or 25% of the population, 19 million in 2000 (29%) and an expected 32.8 million by 2020, or 38% of Turkey’s population. (Population Reference Bureau, 2002, World Population Data Sheet, Washington, DC)." Unfortunately, he's an unusually sloppy thesis writer, since the cited source Population Reference Bureau, 2002, World Population Data Sheet, Washington, DC contains no mention of Kurdish population.

It's very likely that the sloppy Mr. MacQuarrie is ultimately responsible for all of the confusion Wikipedia displays regarding the number of Kurds in Turkey. The CIA Factbook numbers therefore should be accepted as the best available estimate. Anthon.Eff 17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Bad Source

In the section titled "Turkish-Kurdish uprising, 1970s-current" the first paragraph reads "After Özal's suddent death, the Turkish military adopted a dirty war approach which consisted of death squads that killed community leaders and human rights activists and massive evacuation of thousands of villages" The references for this statement are listed as:

http://rastibini.blogspot.com/2007/10/turkish-army-commits-massacre-in.html

http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=14131

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2631279.ece

All three are references regarding events in Iraq and Beytussebap in 2007. These articles say nothing about events within Turkey in 1993 when Özal died. Please provide proper references for this claim. If none can be provided, please change this sentence to something that can be supported.Tjswaine78 (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

These references have not been corrected. I am removing them and tagging this sentence for factural accuracy.Tjswaine78 (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)]

[edit] Hi guys

I would like to thank you all for the ineterst you are showing in Kurdish issues. However please do not copy and paste stuff from other articles into this one. I have removed lots of stuff that could be found elsewhere like in Kurds, Kurdish literature articles. Just a link to those articles at the end would suffice. And please if you add something, please make sure that it has reliable source. Thanks.Heja Helweda 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And, you reverted to a version that is >=90% found in other articles. there are no articles on Turkish Kurdish culture, I copied some parts from Kurdish articles, relevant ones, as much as I can, made changes, too. Ozgur Gerilla was going to improve those parts more, apparently he is busy. Culture part is needed, even if it is a copy now (Arts wasn't copy), as long as they are correct, this is not a page about differences between Turkish Kurds and Kurds in other countries. Also the general Kurdish culture pages don't have references, at least the parts involving Turkish Kurds don't, but despite that we keep them there.

Your arguments imply that this page is unnecessary, I disagree. deniz 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Khoi, please at least use the edit summaries.. Read what I also said in the talk page of Turkish language. CIA Factbook is not a serious source - no academic source would use a perfectly rounded 80-20 number. It exists only as a "source of last resort" - when there are no other reliable sources. That survey is ten times better. The funny thing is, in the commentaries in the Turkish newspaper websites, readers were saying that the percentages were inflated - how ironic that some people here think that they were trying to downplay it. Funny, innit? In fact, that survey gives slightly lower numbers of native Turkish speakers than the Eurostat survey.. In fact, I find it orientalist to say the least that a nation-wide survey involving 50,000 people done my major Turkish universities and NGOs this month is less reliable than rounded CIA Factbook numbers from a decade ago. Why? Just because they are Turkish we are assuming that they are skewing the results or something? Funny, Eurostat survey gives higher numbers of Turkish speakers than that survey, the world must be turning the other way around I suppose.. So, what seems to be the problem, really? Baristarim 04:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is no explanation, I will revert to Atilim's version. The latest revert also took back his reference formatting... Baristarim 05:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Just an outsider view. I dont remember CIA taking census in Turkey or in any other country for that matter. CIA world factbook is not a reliable source in most of the cases since it is overtly simplistic and reductionist. At most, it could claim to be a reference book for "dummies". However, "the Kurdish population of Turkey" as a factual statement has to be controversial because of the inherent problematic nature of "ethnic self identification" or "ascription". It is overtly primordialist and speaks the language of nationalists. Turkey has never used "column 5" in identification cards as Soviet Union did. Self identification can not be a reliable source because the subject is a taboo, many people dont even see a contradiction between "Turkish" and "Kurdish" designations, and many have inter-married beyond any traceable historical records. At the expense of repeating the obvious, I suggest giving a lowest and a highest estimate, with an emphasis that Turkish sources are not altogether unreliable.cs 12:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe my version was better in that it gives an idea of the numbers involved in one place, making an emphasis that all are estimates and mentioning the sources. Why do we have to have a revert-cycle with everything? I didn't remove any information or inserted anything to downgrade the Kurdish people. I'm not like that. I've only tried for the introduction and the article to look and sound better. I wish Khoikhoi used an edit summary, or the talk page, to explain his revert. Atilim Gunes Baydin 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should insert the word for the Kurds in Kurdish language before the Turkish "Kürtler" in the paranthesis in the lead. It looks like it's "Kurd" from the Kurdish version of the article (ku:Kurd). Is that the plural? Could anyone who knows Kurdish please correct that if it's wrong? Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 14:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That survey is more reliable than anything out there - it was the first time that such a major nation-wide and precise survey was carried out in Turkey, and it was not just about the Kurds or ethnicity either. It also includes data on other ethnicities and languages spoken in Turkey, its numbers are precise unlike the rounded werid CIA figure of 80-20, its methodology is clearly set out unlike any of the other "sources" which are nothing more than wild guesses. Plus see the comments above. Let it be known for future reference: those numbers are the most correct numbers out there, whether people like it or not. When the survey results came out, in the commentaries by readers in Turkish newspaper sites some readers were saying that the numbers were inflated, here it is just the opposite. really funny, innit? The latest version's lead is precise, NPOV and sourced + it looks more encylopedic since it attributes the sources correctly. Baristarim 03:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


I have a German source based on provincial statistics that puts it at 20 million. Note Turkey like many government of the middle east and caucus is an ethnic based state (and I mean the government and I have many close Turkish friends). So that is why a NPOV like CIA factbook or Encyclopedia Britannica should have precedence although sometimes these even mistake by reporting official government numbers. Can you give at least a provincial break down first of the population? Here is my source: Dieter-Scheuer, Amke: Möglichkeiten der Konfliktlösung in der Türkischen Republik. ,Deutsches Orient-Institut Hamburg, 1999. ISBN 3-89173-051-9. ISSN 0177-4158 prepared by the German government parliment members. Also my Turkish is not good enough to fully understand your source but from the German government source, the population of Kurdish inhabited provinces in 1990 was 12 million. (Not counting Istanbul, Ankara and etc.) --alidoostzadeh 03:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the basis for those "provincial statistics"? Based upon what methodology? This was a nation-wide survey done among 50,000 people by major Turkish universities and NGOs. In fact, you will be surprised that it gives lower numbers of native Turkish speakers than the latest Eurostat survey (the links are at Talk:Turkey).

The survey says:

So, among adults, 82 percent of the population are Turks, 13 Kurdish+Zaza, the rest Caucasian etc (obviously this was about self-identification, not genetic testing) And no, half the Turkey is not Kurdish or Albanian :)))

As for assimilation:

  • 4 percent of the population self-identifies as Turk even though their first language is Kurdish,
  • 8.82 percent self-identifies as Kurd even though their first language is Turkish.

+ 1.38 percent has Arabic as first language even though 0.7 percent self-identifies as Arab, and there are more Arabs than Zaza.

There is more info in the survey, but those ones were interesting. Those percentages are included in the general self-identification survey. It also includes info on Lausanne minorities.

As far as the language goes, 85 percent have Turkish as a first language, 12 Kurdish, 1 Zaza, 1.38 Arab, Turkic and Balkan languages 0.25 percent each, Laz 0.12 percent, Armenian and Caucasian languages 0.07 percent each, Greek 0.06 percent.

Funny thing is, the latest Eurostat survey gives the number of native Turkish speakers in Turkey at 93 percent [[1]]. Funny, eh? I guess it is the Europeans who are trying to screw the Kurds more than the Turks. (?!) So much for all those lame amalgames about "mountain Turks", I am sorry to say. Please... Turkey is not some sort of rogue state where the government sticks its hand in everything, contrary to what it is made out to be in some countries. That survey is more reliable and precise than anything out there, failure to see it is un-Wikipedian if our intent is to have the best encyclopedia possible. Also see the other user's comments above about the reliability of CIA figures.. Baristarim 03:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As for provincial numbers, it says "Kurdish inhabited regions". More than Kurds live there Ali. This is an individualized survey, not some random rounded figure based on assumptions. It is more scientific.. Please do not do blind reverts, it is also making the referencing format disappear. Baristarim 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually that is the problem. Sampling needs to be done uniformly (is there any proof of that) and to tell you the truth, we can not rely on Turkish source (even university where Hijab is banned and probably Kurds have a hard time). Turkish government is an ethnic government. Note I do not necessarily go with Iran's government either with these issues since it is a religious oriented government. Any sort of ideological (ethnic or religious) government is not trustable when it comes to census. of course CIA factbook is better although sometimes they quote official government numbers. So with this in mind, here are the provinces that have Kurdish majority for sure (and sorry for the misspelling as I am not sure exactly how it is transliterated in Turkish and I am going to use English alphabet). Adiyamian Agri, Baatman, Bingol, Bitlis, Diyarbakr, Lazik, Hakari, Moosh, Mardin, siirat, shirnaak , tunjeli , shanli, ufra, and Van. This is according to the German source. The population of these provinces according to Turkish government in 1985 was 11.2 million and in 1990 12 million (same German source). So let say 90% of this 12 million in 1990. There is Kurdish majority areas in arz-erum, Igdir, malatiya, kars. (same source). There is also lots of Kurds in ardahan, arzanjan, sivas, karaman marash, and Qaziyan and of course Istanbul and Ankara, Bursa, Mersin, Izmir.. have Kurdish communities. Again sorry for any mis-spells. My Turkish friends says 1/3 is Kurdish but anyways if you can dig up provincial statistics, I appreciate it. Provincial statistics are the best way to go and then one can make a reasonable guess about big cities..--alidoostzadeh 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
All of what you just said are your assumptions and guessing which most probably the CIA factbook relies on. What the hell is the connection with the hijab and this?? And I am sorry Ali, but Turkey is not Iran - there is no comparison at that level. These are not government sources, TR govt doesn't even have sources on this!!. So you are saying that a TR survey that says 85 percent of Turkish population speaks Turkish as a first language contrary to the EUROSTAT's 93 is not reliable???? This has nothing to do with "ethnic government" - what utter nonsense is this! This is a major survey done among 50,000 people by major universities and NGOs, with uniform sampling (yes), with precise figures on all languages and ethnicities in Turkey, not just Kurds. "we cannot rely on a Turkish source"...
Your last analysis is way off.. "Assume 90 percent"? Most of Urfa's population is orginally Arab, not Kurdish. But, this is what happens when people present their random guesstimates as sources.. "Provincial statistics"? What does that mean precisely? In the Canada article, the source presented for ethnicity is dependant on individual answers, not Nazi-like origin surveys. First of all, you tell me how a survey that is more "anti-Turk" than EUROSTAT is not reliable. If you can't, all that analysis you put up (and that apparently Khoi is backing) is utter garbage... Did you seriously check the links? Please have a look at the Eurostat survey, then comment please. "One third is Kurdish" - whatever man, how less scientific can we be? Baristarim 04:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I am ok with Khoi's latest version.. I know that CIA Factbook is a good source, and it has the right to be up there. My only protest was to the "banishment" of the other figure to the end of the intro like an orphaned tag-along.. Don't forget, always trying to search for people's origins is the slippery slope is what led to the Nazis.. I don't know how many people are "genetically Kurdish", but it is racist to constantly seek that number - human civilization has passed on to the next level already, mostly. What is important is how people define themselves, and in that survey that's what it was asked - "How would you define yourself?". Food for thought.. Baristarim 04:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Here I found this [2]. It has the provincial statistics. Urfa has both Kurds and Arabs. But I know Kabab Urfa is Kurdish (Kurds have the spicier foods). Lets do a calculation to get a reasonable estimate. Which provinces are predominantely Kurdish? Except for Urfa that you mentioned (lets say 50% for that), is there any other from the list of the predominant ones that was mentioned?--alidoostzadeh 04:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose, but what good would it do except stay as our own original research and estimate? I am sure that's exactly how every single estimate out there except this survey got their numbers. I am sure the CIA people and German parlimentarians in Langley and Berlin did the same thing "so John, can you bring the census numbers and a calculator, let's estimate how many Kurds live in Turkey".. Please read what User:Cs wrote above.. You are not reading my posts Ali, at the end of the day what is important is self-identification. People were free to respond in any way they liked in that survey, and the result was 13 adult, 15 global population. Its figures for native language Turkish speakers are lower than that of Eurostat's, which means that any sort of degenerate capitalist Turkish conspiracy theory against the Kurds is completely unfounded.. Heck, that survey even includes assimilation numbers, which I posted above..
At one point there were all these people coming to Turkey and saying things like 5 million Albanians lived in Turkey and all.. :) I cannot give a whole lecture about the transformations and births of modern republican nation-states and the consequent creation of national identities, but this incessant search for people's origins are really flying over the heads of the realities of the human social evolution.. That's why your classification of Turkey as an "ethnic state" is not correct either as far as notions go: it is a "nation-state". See nation for more info about how they are formed and why ethnicity is a backward consideration that has the potential to take people to this.. Anyways.. Baristarim 05:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The language in which this reference is written sounds like Tartar and Kazak which both are closely related to Turks. Is a Turkish relatedThis [3] reference is related to Turks; is such a reference neutral? Asoyrun 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Me reading Ali doostzadeh's comments...cs 09:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Me reading Ali doostzadeh's comments...cs 09:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It is in Turkish - not just "closely related" - and there is no need to bold it. You must have skipped over all this section and the discussion it seems. Of course it can be cited, to say the contrary is racist, I am sorry to say. I have been trying to get this through for ages, please read the extensive discussion above. That survey is more "anti-Turk" than a Eurostat survey (again see above). Stop assuming that all "those damn Turks" are in some sort of covert global conspiracy together to get someone, it is really annoying and childish really.. Yes yes, I know that the Pyramids were built by the Martians and that all Turks in the world work for the Turkish secret service and have secret Turkic rituals to curse all non-Turks, but I still think that that survey is better than any of those loony guesstimate "research" out there on this subject. Read the discussion above though. Thanks.. Baristarim 05:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, But the first paragraph in the article immidiately involves in demographics instead of a general defination of Kurds. I'll add a paragraph about who the Kurds in turkey are, without touching the content of the first paraghraph. Asoyrun 06:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you are right about that point.. Baristarim 07:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Those statistics from the latest survey are beyond ridiculousness to us Kurds. Now eveyone knows that Kurds in Turkey are much more then 20 million excluding those who are Turkified, Kurds comprimise more then 50% of the cities from Adana to Hakkari and those who inhabit from Istanbul to Ardahan. Assessing 50,000 people and concluding that this is absolutely accurate is yet another way playing the ethnical politics Turkey has since 1923. Ozgur Gerilla 01:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone knows and sources do not provide such proof. That survey is a very good one, in fact it gives a lower percentage of native Turkish speakers than a similar Eurostat statistic to that effect (85 and 93 percent respectively). Ozgur, I am sorry but those are your estimations - and I don't agree that there are 20 million except those who are "Turkified" - that is a gross exagerration. In any case, what is important is how people define themselves, this was discussed before. Incessant search for people's ethnic origins is also not correct. "Turkish" simply means a citizen of the republic as it was founded in 1923 - it is an umbrella identity for all, and is not based on ethnicity. Again, that survey was done by some of the best universities in Turkey and with the participation of NGOs. 50,000, for a survey, is a huge number. Most surveys only use 1000+ participants. That survey also includes info about the language repartition, and not only about the Kurds either. Read it, it is pretty interesting actually - it is definitely better than some loony rounded CIA number in any case. Baristarim 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on and 50,000 (and it isn't even that much it's 40,000) people is enough for it to be accurate, of course not. Turkish universities are well biased anyhow. Turkish is not an unbrella it's an ethnical division and Kurds do not fit in it wheather it is their ethnicity or their language; they are Iranian. The claim that "Turkish" is an umbrella to those who live in Turkey is a brand new polical tactic by those ethnically Turkish politicians in Turkey. The Turkish government is afraid of letting the international media know its real ethnical percentage thus it always bans census which directly show the Turkish ethnicity below 80%. The most important thing here is those who are Turkified by those barbarian ways, some Kurds were included to this process on the Turkish side too. I disagree fully and think these surveys show nothing but bureaucratic fiction, particularly in a country like Turkey which has a long history of oppressing its minorities (religious and ethnical respectively). Baristarim, I am sorry but remember the proverb "yalancinin mumu yatsiya kadar yanar" worst is still to come to Turkey specailly after the rising of Kurdish nationalism and filtering of Kurdish politicians to the government of Turkey (Leyla Zana and Turgut Ozal are notable ones). Ozgur Gerilla 12:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What? Ozal? Anyways, this is also not correct "Turkish universities are well biased anyhow" - that's prejudicial.. You really haven't read any of the posts above, did you? That survey actually gives lower percentage of native Turkish speakers than the 2006 Eurostat figures - so are you saying that Eurostat is more biased than that survey? :) 50,000 is enough for it to be accurate, it was a survey done scientifically over a long period of time. Most opinion polls are actually done among 1000-2000 people. "Turkish" is an umbrella, but not an ethnic one - just like "French" is in France (see Demographics of France - it just denotes a nationality status. When you are a citizen of the US, you are American - as simple as that. Similar. In fact, this incessant search for people's ethnic origins is much worse than a simple nationality-status umbrella. At least in the second case one's origins are not that important. I have seen many blacks in Istanbul last summer who had adopted a Turkish nationality. They are, and call themselves, Turks. If we are to go down the road to divide up the populace based on their ethnic origin, then we would have to tell them "no, you can never be a Turk - you are and will always stay black; nor can you ever become French!" :)) The system you are criticizing was copied from France, in its entireity. Turkey doesn't "ban" census like you said: since it is a republican nation-state, the ethnic origins are not a factor, therefore censi are not done, just like it is not done in France (again see the top of Demographics of France. As for the last comment, no, worst is not to come. What is happening is normal: it took France 150 years to completely consolidate its national identity among the local ones that used to exist in 1789 (like Normands, Bretons, Provencals, Occitans etc). Since there is already a model (France), I can guess in which point we are in that consolidation. However, the only notion that doesn't seem to get through is that Turkish is not the opposite of Kurdish: one describes a nationality status, the other an ethnic background. Evidently any modern-day nation is a blend of many smaller local ethnicities (like France and Italy for example) So what if they are Iranian? There are hundreds of thousands of Russians and Pakistanis and many blacks who have settled in Turkey since the 90s, so what? You know, at the time of the French Revolution, only 5 percent of the "French" population actually spoke "French"... Turkey just needs to set its economy straight and loosen up a bit - then everyone will be cool :)Baristarim 00:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and it does the opposite, it bans the Kurdish language and culture and calls it "Turkish" and massacres the "Mountain Turks" who do not obey and then claims that it is a democracy; who believes it? . See the difference with Turkey and any other country and the lies that these surveys reveal is the fact that Kurds are more than 20 million in Turkey; go into Turkish media it's all Kurdish culture that is being spreading and go into Turkish politics it is the "Kurdish Problem" that is holding Turkey's success. A Turkish university doing such survey will of course, naturally, be bioased because of its oppressive history towards the Kurds. Turkey blocks any neutral census from outside, and shuts scientists (Ismail Besikci who try to talk about the "problem". Turkey is so not France and its situation is parallel to United Kingdom; it either goes federal or stays as a "developing country" in my opinion. Let's not go further on this and stay on topic. Ozgur Gerilla 23:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok.. Baristarim 00:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the understanding. Ozgur Gerilla 00:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant sections

We should remove culture section since it does not belong to this article and it has its own articles. This artic is supposed to be about Kurds in turkey. Asoyrun 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please improve them, especially if you are Turkish Kurdish. There are no articles about the culture of Turkish Kurds. denizTC 07:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish culture is similar to that of their Muslim neighbours with exeption of a few traditions such as their music or traditional closthings, all of which have their respective articles . I see no reason why we have to repeat them here in this article. Asoyrun 09:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
All the cultures in the region are similar, so what is the point? This page is not about the differences between culture of Turkish Kurds and Kurds in Iraq or Iran (certainly the set of differences is not an empty set, but that (whether it is an empty set or not) is not so important). This page is about Kurds in Turkey, with "everything" about them. We cannot put "everything" but culture is a must. It needs improvements, so lets improve. The current version is certainly not worse than the previous version, which was nothing but the rebellions. denizTC 10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the picture about? denizTC 10:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Asoyrun, I am having hard time assuming good faith after having checked your recent additions to the main page. denizTC 10:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Tweaked the intro a bit, but I also wanted to leave a note here for future reference for the article. There needs to be a clear distinction between "Kurds" and "Kurdish political movements" (ie political movements that put the "Kurdish identity" to the forefront of their activities). This is very important since this confusion leads many outsiders to wrongly consider that there is some sort of Nazi-like hunts going on. There have been two presidents of full/partial Kurdish descent. What is at cause are political movements who put the modern national identity at cause, not ethnic origins themselves. This is also important since Kurds are not forced to wear yellow stars on their clothing or anything.

Propagation of Kurdish-based politics is what is perceived as a threat to national unity, since, obviously, all of them lead up to, no matter what road is taken, an ideal for a full/partial secession of some part of Turkey's territory to form a different political structure. Yes yes, there can always be the criticism "but is it right to be assimilating different ethnicities into a single national identity?" - but that is a much different and complex question that concerns much deeper philosophical and social reflexions.. At the end of the day, what is important in Turkey is not the "origins", but "political choices". The article still needs some proofreading at certain instances to make this distinction more clear.

The second paragraph in the intro still needs to be worked on, there are still some weasel words and "defensive" statements, but they need a closer look. Baristarim 05:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish people in Turkey are not just some descendants of some Iranian peoples who have rebelled several times for mostly religious reasons. I believe Kurdish people have lived after 1937 as well, which is 70 years of the total of 84 years of republic. Apparently nobody is against a tiny bit inclusion of culture anymore, maybe I should thank you all for that. I really want to get comments of some Turkish Kurds. denizTC 05:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] opening paragraph

The opening paragraph is wrong;

remnants of ancient Iranians who resided in Anatolia since millennia ago

Since we have it well source that the Median Empire, ancestors of the Kurds, were in Anatolia in 600 BC and how about the Hurrians? The article starts with a false proposition, I don't even want to imagine the rest. Ozgur Gerilla 00:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

The article introduce's itself by;

The Kurds in Turkey (Kurdish: Kurdên li Tirkiye, Turkish: Kürtler) who are an Indo-European people and their name first mentioned around 3000 BC by Sumerians [4] are remnants of ancient Iranians who resided in Anatolia before the expansion of the Median Empire, 600 BC or even earlier that date to the Hurrian period.

I think this is perfect, because the history of the people that live in the region is notable and useful information and a good opening always starts of the history. The user who tries to delete this please explain yourself. Ozgur Gerilla 22:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You cant consider Turk orginated and Kurd originated people as cleary apart.Because there doesnt exist a strong line betweeen Kurdish ethnicity and Turkish ethnicity in Turkey.There exists at least 5 million marriages between Kurds and Turks. But if you are that much curious about the contribution of Kurdish ethnicity on genetic origins of Turkish community, inspect ethnic statistics for finding Kurdish tribes in Ottoman archives established for tax collecting from the local citizens. You will see that most of tribes calling them as Kurdish now are Turkmen tribes assimilated by Kurdish local landlords in Ottoman Empire.Thanks. Butoprak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.232.10 (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


What kind of a wikipedia page is that! Is it some kind of brain washing activity for showing the situation in Turkey like Kurdish originated people are under heavy pressure? Calling editors to write the facts. Write the financial background and support given to Kurdish seperatists, write that every body is equally defined in the constitution of Turkey. Write that (O. Baydemir)the president of Diyarbakır municipality supports seperatists. Write that there doesnt exist an ethnic definition about the people living in Turkey. Write that flags of seperatist leaders are displayed at some Newroz celebrations to turn celebrations into seperatism and racism. I've lost the respect for this page. Just a propaganda page.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.232.10 (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my two cent. The Sumerian stuff is really not correct. Indo-Iranians probably did not have contact with Sumerians (given the oldest Indo-Iranian presence in the Middle East thus far has been the Mitanni from 1500-1600 B.C.). Although a possibility, it has not been proven. The population statistics are wrong too since I have seen a minimum of 12 million and in some western sources about 20 million. Anyways I think the Sumerian stuff should be excised. --alidoostzadeh 01:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact is simple: Kurds' ancestores are a mix of non-indo-Iranians and Indo-Iranians. They got considerable liguistic influence from Indo-Iranians: (Mittani, Gutians[Scythians], Medes, etc). But consider themselves and their ancestores primarily as continuation of original non-Indo-Iranians, and that means that unlike Iranians they do not boast of an Aryan lineage. That is an acceptable fact that many other peoples do; like Egyptians who still consider themselves of pre-Arab blood although they got totally assimilated in Arab culture and language, and Cairo has been and still is centre of Arabic culture and Arabism. There are more similar examples...Brusk u Trishka 07:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Everyone's ancestors are mixed. Specially in the Middle East and Caucus. Unless if your ancestors have been isolated in a remote island, this will be the case. What a group considers itself has nothing to do with what it is scientifically. The term 'Kurd' was a generic name denotic Iranic speaking tribes in the Middle ages. Even Daylamites and Lurs, but also Zazas, Kurmanji, Suranis, Guranis and etc. were group under this term. Some linguists say for example that Armenian contains a Urartuian substratum. Kurdish languages do not have a Hurrian or non-Indo-Iranian substratum. This is an important point to consider. Anyways, I am not interested in origin or even making edits here. I do however believe that to state aa continous existence from Sumerian times in the ME seems like a romantic OR. --alidoostzadeh 22:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless you prove that Kurds have no genetic connection to original inhabitants of ancient upper Tigris, the link between Kurds and their forefathers remasins legitimate. Today Lurs consider themselves as Kurdish or not does not change anything. Arabs themselves did not make up the term Kurd. they may just have generalised it or not. The simple fact remains that Kurds are descendants of their own forefathers. Brusk u Trishka 23:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
All genetic connections go back to Africa anyways. Everyone in the ME region has genetic connections back to at least 10000 years (before even Sumerians) or further. How many What is important is that 10,000 years ago, even the concept of Sumerian or IE or Altaic or Semitic or Hittie languages did not exist. For example, a modern Tukish speakers of Turkey has hardly any relationship with Central Asia and hence have very little Altaic DNA (compare to Yakuts who are pure Turks or we know from Persian literature that Turks were Tang Cheshm (Tang-Chav) and hence were not Caucasoids but Mongloids). But the language Turkish as you know did not exist before Seljuq and the identity is fairly recent. But I am sure many Turkish speakers might have genetic connection to the region back to 10000 years. I brought this example since this post-Islamic example which has many sources. Kurdish and Armenian are much older regionally in Anatolia, less sources exist, but I do not think they go back to Sumerian times. What is important is when an identity is formed and how it is distinguished. Kurd as an identity is based on language and culture which is not that different than Lur or Lak which these two are not much different from Lari or Shirazi dialects. These languages/cultures do not go back to Sumerian times and their origin and culture is Indo-Iranian (Aryan). Eventually, all humans supposedly go back to a man and women in Africa. The question can be approached from different angles but a substratum of pre-Iranic does not exist in any of the Kurdish dialects and languages. Also Hurrians were unknown until the last century. Search Kurdish literature yourself, there is no mention of Hurrian or Sumerian. On the other hand the Sharafnameh provides the roots of many Kurdish tribes that go back to Iranian myths (Bizhan, Gudarz, Bahman-e Esfandyar (the Kalhors claim ancestry from him)). So the myths, language, culture are Iranian. --alidoostzadeh 01:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So you accept that Kurds can genetically connect them to pre-Indo-Iranian inhabitants of Zagros. But the example of Turks is not a good analogue. The so called assimilated Turks did not preserve their original identity, while lets say Egyptians or Azerbayjanis did. Azerbaijanis although lost their Iranic language but preserved their Azeri identity, therefore we easily can connect them to the early inhabitants of Atropatene. The term Kurds and its variants at least partly has been always used to Kurdistan or its inhabitants even under Assyrians. It was used Under Greeks, Romans, Sassanid and Islamic era. In addition to identity Kurds have preserved therancient tribal culture. similar to tribes mentioned in remote times. A poet educated in Safavid court identifying Kurds with Bizhan and Gudarz also is not good example. Kurds even once idebntified themselves as decendants of islamic Arab generals such as Khalid ibn Walid and others. even tody all claim descent from Abraham or Noah. Should we say Kurds have a pure Semitic identity? Brusk u Trishka 09:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I accept that everyone in the region is connected genetically to at least 10,000 years back. This is shown by genetic studies. At least the mtDNA of the regional people goes back to 10,000 years ago. I do not think there is any visible remnant of Hurrian in Kurdish languages. Azeri on the other hand has strong Persian components and simple words like Har kas, Hich kas, agar, na inkeh, Dost, Doshman, Azerbaijan, Zangan, Baku, Darband, Barda', Beylakan, Shirwan are all Iranic. Also they celebrate Yalda, Nawruz, Chaharshanbeh Suri which Anatolian Turks do not. They also identify with Iranic poets and even Zoroastrian scholars (Bahmanyar) and Babak. But on the other hand there is not a single "Hurrian" personality that Kurds visibly identify with. The connection with Khalid ibn Walid is probably made by Arabs also. Arabic books also have connected "fars" to the son of "Saam" to the son of Noah and etc. But Kurdish mythology by itself is Shahnameh based not Hurrian. What is different between Sharafnama and the Khalid ibn Walid connection is that the Sharafnama for example states this group of Kurds identify themselves with Bahman the son of Isfandyar. So it was the group itself identifying with such personality. Of course the name Kardaka (which might be a possible variant of Kurd) has been used in Sumerian time. Even perhaps the term "Kurd" might go back to that time, much like the Safavids used "Roman" for Ottomons. But if you search throughout Kurdish texts until 50 years ago, you will not come across a single Hurrian or Sumerian or etc. personality. All this stuff is new. The only classical identification of Kurds with a pre-historic group is Medes where Armenian texts of Medieval ages have used the term Kurd and Mede interchangeably. And also there is not a substratum from these languages like Hurrian, Urartu, and etc. Anyways it was a nice discussion, but I disagree with your perspective. --alidoostzadeh 02:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm from Kurdistan and never met an uneducated Kurdin in Persian literature who have a clue about Isfandyar or Bizhan or any thing Iranian like that. On the other hand the same as Azerbaijanis got Persian topological terms, Kurds have aslo Hurrian counterparts: Arbil, Barzan, Musasir,Turuqu, Zebari, Zewiya, Teshup, and hundreds more... also as you probably know Kurdish (even the remote Persian of Iran) has linguistic links to Hurrian (Diakonof for example). The name Kurd by itself is a main factor linking Kurds with their Hurrian ancestores as it is is the identity of Hurrians in Semitic teblets. (hittite: Khurrit).
The Modern Anatolian Muslim Turks are largely children of yesterdays Anatolian Christian Romans; in Kurdish classical literature as well as folclore they are reckoned as such, but since they (Anatolian Turks) do not identify themselves as Romans and think that because they speak a Turkic language therefore they are Turks, hence are not considered as Romans. But Kurds speaking a language related to Median/Parthian do not identify themselves as Mede/Parthian but simply as Kurds: the Arabic variation of Assyrian Kurte, and of the earlier Sumerian tablets. Brusk u Trishka 12:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what part of your Kurdistan you are from. Perhaps Turkey but not روژ هه لات ? But in Iranian Kurdistan like Kermanshah, and in Hawrami literature, there exists many versions of Shahnameh. For example have you heared of Shahnameyeh Kurdi from Shahram Nazeri? But it is not only in those areas which I know well [[5]]. Also Kawa is very popular among Kurds in Tukrey. The best Shahnameh is amongst Lurs and also I am not sure if you have heared of Shanameyeh Laki (Laki is considered a Kurdish dialect) which has lots of the same stuff as Ferdowsi's. These are popular among the uneducated folks as well. I agree with you on Ottomons, but some of the names you brought are not Hurrian. Arbil is Sumerian or Semitic (according to Wiki page). Barzan is clearly Iranic (AryaBarzan is a Parthian name from Nisa and also a name of Achaemenid commander).. Zebari (Ziwar,Zebar) sounds Iranic. Musasir sounds semtitic. Teshup is actually a Hittie (Indo-European God). Also similar words happen in a probabilistic fashion in all languages. I have read Diakonoff's work, you should know it is outdated by he does not mention Kurdish being connected to Hurrian. (What page). Although you should know his book on Medes is sort of outdated. Anyways I do not see a sharp cut off, it seems Luri is close to Laki at one hand and Parsi/Lari at the other. Then we get into more Northern Kurdish and Zazaki is supposedly close to Gilaki. So I basically see a continum of dialects left by old Medes,Parthians,Scythians,Persians. --alidoostzadeh 00:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes Im from Rojhelat, but Kirmanshah region which is a small part of Kurdistan, and is in neighbourhood of Iranians, has undergone much influence from them. Kermanshah does not represent all Kurds. Arbil is not from semitic arba ela,but Hurrian, and Barzan was name of a Hurrian god. Zebari comes from Subari, Musasir was an Urartian topynom and today is name of tens of Kurdish villages. Kurdish Zewia and ancient Zamua. Moreover, you are talking about Iranic languages which I have no problem with. But the problem is identity not language. the same as Azerbaijanis which speak definately an Oghuz Turkic language but that's just their tongue. Brusk u Trishka 09:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the etymologies given. Barzan is a word that occurs all over Iranian literature. It is the same as the Kurdo/Persian Barz (biland/buland) plus the plural or placename "an". It is also in AlBorz. Finding similarities between two words does not establish a cognate or root of that word. It is an ardous process to show one word derives from another. --alidoostzadeh 12:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
No dear! Barzan with long /a/ in the first syllable is not related to Barzan with short /a/ in the first syllable, (here even second syllable is short). The old Iranic barz still exist in Kurdish as barz, barzahi, barza, barzi (ALL with short /a/), and this is attested by schollars that the Kurdish topynom Barzan derives from what mentioned above. Brusk u Trishka 18:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
short /a/ gets transformed to long /a/ many times. عزیز = آزیز or طعام تام . There is a tribe with long a Barzan in Baluchistan. Etymology is not about finding words that sound similar, but also showing that they do indeed originate from the same root. For example English "Bad" and Persian بد "Bad" have very similar meaning and are pronounced the same. But it has been shown that they have no relationship with each other and have developed independently. To say Zebari comes from Subari seemsto me more of a stretch of imagination than actual linguistic science. زیوری or زبری is most likely the root just like the famous guys first name is هوشیار. Anyways as far as linguists have shown (David Mackenzie), there is not a pre-Median substratum in any of the Kurdish dialects. --alidoostzadeh 01:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
If Kurdish Barzan with a long /a/ was derived from old Iranc barz with short /a/, naturally it was simply pronouced with a short /a/ as all other variations of this term are pronounced with a short /a/ in modern Kurdish. baluch are of Kurdish origin. and mackenzies studies are not comprehensive since he thinks of Kurdish only as Kurmanji-Sorani, while actually most of todays so called- Iranic speaking peoples of Iran were of Kurdish origin. Talyshs, daylamis, Goranis, Lurs, Baluchs etc all were historically part of Kurdish nation. all have immigrated from adjacent areas of Kurdistan. baluch comming for example from Sham, and so on. Brusk u Trishka 08:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, actually there are 70 million Kurds in Turkey but the authorities are keeping it as a secret :) The percentage of Kurds in Turkey is given as something like %12-15. Why are you so obsessed with numbers? There shouldn't be a difference between "millions" and "hundreds". In both cases, people must be free to use their constitutional rights. Also, how many of these Kurdish citizens stay as "Kurds" and not getting integrated into the Turkish identity? Let us leave the last one to another discussion :) Deliogul 12:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure who you are addressing. Why not just list various statistics from different sites. --alidoostzadeh 22:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish-Kurdish conflict section

This section is missing several citations as to the nature of the PKK. It seems also to enjoy a lack of neutrality. Specifically:

PKK's chairman, Abdullah Öcalan, was proud of being from humble origins.

This implicitly posits that his origins were "humble". This is not a matter of fact but of opinion.

Due to these tactics that target civilians 37,000 have died in the still ongoing conflict

This sentence is phrased an placed in a way that suggests that Turkish millitary's tactics target civilians to be killed. If the anticedant is the PKK tactics the group of sentences should be rewritten. Either way this needs a citation.

... the Turkish military adopted a dirty war approach which consisted of death squads that ...

Without proper documentation describing Turkish military units that as "death squads" seems non-neutral. Even should the documentation show that they killed people as described, this may not warrant the term.

Someone more familiar with the literature than myself should provide the citations and rephase this section. I will check back on this in a couple of weeks. [[[User:Tjswaine78|Tjswaine78]] (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)]