Talk:Kurds

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Origins

The first sentence under the 'origins' heading doesn't make any sense. Somebody revise it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.2.56 (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

People write so much about stuffs they don't know anything about. I don't think the kurds have "originated" from different anicient peoples, since all theese peoples have their different places in the present Kurdish community, for example kurdish names of clans/tribes. You can find most of the ancient people of Mesopotamia here like the Metînî, or Zubarî which have etymological identity in the Mittani and Subaru mentioned by surrounding peoples. And the common root for all these, is that they were all called Kurds but in different pronouncations depending on who mentioned them. Karaka, Kurti, Guti, Kardu, Kordo - versions of the name "Kurd". can be found even at the present people surroundning the kurds. The turks call them Kürt, the arabs call them Akrad, the persians call them Goord or Koord.

One of the strongest evidences would be the Sumerians, who mentioned the "Subaru" who lived in "the Land of Karda". Well I think we can tell from now that lines that the "Subaru" must have been a kurdish tribe, just like it is today. Others who don't agree, what do you base your disagreement on? You don't know nothing about the "subaru" but those lines, so why? All these people living in Kurdistan were all kurds.

Kurds haven't originated from them. They were kurds. They didn't come from Central Asia. This is only a theory, and if you think this theory is so strong, why can't I find it in in other articles about Indo-European people? The reason is that thoeries are only theories, it's hard to prove them, and when we talk about history, it's hard to prove anything older then 2000 years, if not impossible.

It's a pity that there are so much trash written about the kurds, all these Turks, Persians, maybe even Arabs, that are so full of lies sits on their computers and write shit all day. That's the only thing they are capable of. --Qahba (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article have probably 60-70% material classified as vandalised, irrelevant, anti-POV, unreliable sources etc. etc. --Qahba (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Kurdish History, opening paragraph

hurrians , mittanies, urardians are western kurds. medes, partians eastern kurds, babylonians and summerians mesopotamian kurds. acadians assirian empire are semitic assirian. persians empire, sasainids are persians.frigians are armenians. ionians mysians, trojans are greeks. kimerrians, kaska are laz and georgians.

"Certainly by the time of the Islamic conquests a thousand years later, and probably for some time before, the term 'Kurd' had a socio-economic rather than ethnic meaning. It was used of nomads on the western edge of the Iranian plateau and probably also of the tribes that acknowledged the Sassanians in Mesopotamia, manyfrigian must have been Semitic in origin."

Is this an appropriate opening paragraph? The section on Kurdish history begins with one account of the use of the word "Kurd" after the Islamic conquest. I'm almost certain this was placed here by someone with an anti-Kurdish agenda, because:

a) This is certainly not where Kurdish history BEGINS b) This certainly does not represent the achievements of the Kurdish people and their history. It is like beginning the account of European history at the Dark Ages, never mind Greece and Rome. Ridiculous! Someone change it.

It's a derogatory agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.42.150 (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the word "sometimes"

No doubt the Kurds are Aryans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.94.103 (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

From the sentence which claims Kurds live in an area "sometimes known as Kurdistan". Sometimes? Really...? Surely that was an attempt at subtly putting into question Kurdish claims on what is essentially always known as Kurdistan, but it stuck out like a sore thumb. Stop being so petty, for the love of God stop! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.141.220 (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Kurds a mixed nation?

Before islam, the kurds did all belong to their original yezidi-religon. And the yezidis never marry a non-yezidi, even if he is a kurd. They never accept anyone who wants to join them because both parents must be yezidis in order to be a yezidi. If someone leaves them he or she is never more welcome to come back. They are very strict on these points and many times kill for them too.

The muslim kurds are not so hard as yezidis , but say you must primary marry someone from your tribe, secondary it may be okey if its a kurd too. But they are not so hard as yezidis, there several muslim kurds who doesnt care about those "rules"

However lets move back to yezidis, all kurds were yezidis before islam (before 600. a.d) then how come many schoolars say that kurds are mixes of Hurrian/Native and Medes? This doesnt fit in at all. Also read down at the bottom what i have written about medes.

One more thing. If kurds got "aryanized" how come they didnt get "turkified" or "arabized" ????? They are not known for giving up their language or culture just like that. They are known fighters who people cant easily break down. --Kurdalo (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

---

There is a big chance both Kurds and Iranians got some "arabification" under islams expansion in the region. Kurds and Persians may be fighters who can resist but they were managed to give up they older beliefs and became muslims. And I have also read that Azeris are Kurds that have bean "turkified" and that the Kurds in North Eastern Iran are Azeris who still speak Kurdish, but I leave that to the historians to investigate.

---

I understand you when you say they got some "arabification" but thats not what i meant. (i didnt mean with religon) According to wikipedia and moste schoolars, the kurds spoke annother language, and then the medes came (from where? read what i have written at the bottom on this page) and "aryanized" the kurds, and according to this the kurds simple forgot their language of some reason and adopted modern Kurdish. Then i ask, why didnt they took turkish too? Why not arabic too? Why not Greek languag too? Why not latin too? The mounatins up there are very closed/tight together. Its not easy to pass through them. And kurds fight almost all the time. Then how?

How much i try i see no logical reason.

The azeris, i have heard too that they were first persians who became turkified. But lets say they were kurds, even if they were kurds, then there are still evidence of 30 million kurds who did NOT became turks. Then it was just some of the kurds who got turkified. You can see the same in religon too, most kurds became muslims, but there are still many ezidi kurds left, as a proof of their original belief.

If the kurds spoke "hurrian", then were are the speakers of this language? Why arent kurds speaking hurrian and WHY would they simply give up their language.

It doesnt make sense.

The kurds must have been speaking kurdish by that time too. And the proof of this is that the oldest written indo-european, is found at the hurrians. And its the same branch of indo-european that kurdish belongs to, indo-arian. Why would we asume that modern kurdish was introduced to them by some other guys? --Kurdalo (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Logic doesn't seem to be your strong point, so don't strain yourself. The "Aryanisation" occured in ancient history, when populations were far smaller than they are now, when the groups were not unified under a collective ethnic designation, as Kurdish is now. The Hurrians lived some 4000 years ago, and their language was not an Indo-Aryan one, but one of the Caucasian languages. Kurdish isn't even Indo-Aryan, it's in the Western branch of Indo-Iranian languages. Why didn't Persians adopt Arabic? Indeed, why didn't the Turks? This all happened a very, very long time ago. Fact is, nobody really knows, and many would have it that we didn't find out, as it might actually validate some claim the Kurds have on Kurdistan. God forbid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.141.220 (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

just a note, Turks didn't become Arabs because they were not subjects of Arab invasion. Expansion of Turkic language in Central Asian and Anatolia happened after expansion of Islam, in less extend by Seljuk Turks, and largly result of Mangol/Tatar invasion of central Asia and Middle-East.

Furthermore, at least based on culture and linguistic evidence, modern day Kurds ARE Aryans. Same way Persians, Pashtuns, Baluch, etc are considered Aryans. Aryans=Iranic, Indo-Aryans are its branch in India. Please don't mention genetic evidences as argument against this classification because genetics at this point of time cannot be considered a reliable source for expansion of any language/culture--74.12.104.7 (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

I've read opinions of Linguastic experts and they believe Kurds were originally more futher south, in wesern Iran. Now the modern they term Kurd, most likely arose after the fall of the Sassanids and was used to describe a region by the Arabs or it was a social label that grew to describe many Iranian tribes as the term Kurds was used to describe nomads during the Sassanids. Modern day Kurds most likely moved further north due to the Arab invasion or were moved by the Sassanids to defend against the Romans. Ok I have a problem with people claiming the Corduene were the ancestors of the Kurds. First of all, the Corduene were most of the time under Roman and then Arab and Turk control, now how can Kurds share similar culture and language with Lurs,Balochi and Persians when the Corduene were known to be unfriendly towards Persians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by STDS9 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Kurds fighting Sumerians?

I don't think this article is very convincing to people that don't belong to the Kurdish community. The Kurds are a people that belong to an ethnic group, I can agreer:Rokus01|Rokus01]] 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Rokus01 20:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Hiia Britannica Online, s.v. Kurds. </ref>

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

You have to come up with a better argument than just I dismiss it as nonsense, the quote is from britannica and cannot be removed.Heja Helweda 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it can. See the wikipedia [[1]] policy.

Britannica is teriatary source and not a primary or secondary source. A strong claim requires strong source and not something authorless. What is the proof that there were Indo-European speaking Kurds during the time of Sumerians? At least one legitimate scholar needs to mention it. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources. Also note this: [[2]]. --alidoostzadeh 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is refreshing to see there is one person here who does not like Britannica. I guess we have to fill a petition to complain to Britannica as well. :)Heja Helweda 23:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote above from wikipedia OR policy. [[3]] [[4]].

I will quote it here:

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

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

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

• Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.

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

As it so happens, finding eye-witness accounts of events which occured thousands of years ago presents a rather unavoidable impossibility. If you can be arsed finding out the name of the archaeologist or scholar who submitted the information regarding the Sumerians into Britannica simply to have your way, feel free to do so. Britannica is a reliable source, and that's all there is to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.141.220 (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous

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

---

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

Zazaki speaking people (Zazas) are not Kurds.

Zazas are kurds. They are seeing themself as kurds, and zazakî is a dialect, that many other kurds understand.

Actually Balochis and Kurds are closer to eachother than anyone else.

Zazas are Kurds. Kurdish language has four dialects; Kurmanji, Sorani, Zazaki and Gorani.

No mention of Kurds in Pakistan?

There is a sizeable Kurdish population in Pakistan who live alongside the Baloch in the province of Balochistan. Furthermore many Kurds live in Karachi and other major urban centres of the country. Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan, was half Kurdish. There are numerous Kurdish origin families who have played an influential role in the early formulative years of Pakistan and even currently vis-a-vis Pakistani politics. How come there is no mention of the Kurds of Pakistan??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.227.144 (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Problematic edits

Please watch this edits: [5]

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

Sumerians et al.

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

even though kurdistan is not a country, they like to claim that it is, kurdistan is a region located in Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Turkey. Kurdish people lived in the northren part of all 4 of these countries, but had never got the land because they are just people living in 4 other countries, so that makes them wanna make up their own country. Source:

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

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

Source:

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

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

Source:

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

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

Source:

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

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

Source:

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

That is the name Karda mentioned in Sumerian. The term Kurd appears but it does not necessarily mean indo-european language Kurdish of today. It looks like Karda might have been a place name and thus anyone from that place was called a Kurd. Similar when Ottomans were called Romans in Iran. There are many sources that says modern Kurds are medes. Source 1 does not have a page number. Kurds could be partial descendants of Guti mentioned by Sumerian tablets. Your first source is unverifiable (no page number). Three of the sources deal with genetics and no one denies that genetic influence of pre-Iranic,pre-Turkic,pre-Armenian people on all the people of the region. Source 4 and 5 do not strike one as academic history sources. Sources 6 and 7 are not academic but they talk about Kurdish land and land of Kurds. Yes the term Kurd or something similar was used in Sumerian times. But Kurds are considered an indo-european people. So these things need to be clarified. There are tons of references with Kurds being medes [6]. Linguistically speaking ,this has the major support from major academics and is the strongest POV.. it should come first. So this is the stronger theory that needs to be mentioned. --alidoostzadeh 06:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

For the third Millennium BC, linguistic evidence is obscure; likely those Kurti tribes mentioned above spoke an isolated language, belonging to no known language family (some say spoke Aryan); but thereafter this term has been evidently used by Semitics of lower Mesopotamia to refer to the Iranian populations of northwestern Iran (Media), namely Aryan Medes mentioned by Ali.

In any case I think it is also important to not forget the traditional name of Kurds for themselves: KurdManj. the second syllable with no doub means Median. The first Syllable (Kurd/Kurt) likely an adjective (?) borrowed from lowlanders of Mesopotamia. Asoyrun 12:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That is what I am saying. Given the fact that 2500 B.C. was probably the time of proto-Indo-Iranian probably, it is hard to say what those Kurti tribes were speaking. And also furthermore no Kurd knew of Hurrian, Sumerian, Kardaka, Guti and etc. 100 years ago. But Armenian sources have used the term Kurd and Mede interchangeably and Kurdish classical mythology and literature (it is amazing sometimes they say Gurani is Kurdish but when I bring mythology from Gurani they say Gurani is obscure or small or etc.) is Iranian. Also Minorsky is much more of scholar then any of these. --alidoostzadeh 17:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Kurds are of Median (Aryan) extraction. Medians themselves were known as Kurti by Assyrians and other Semitics (not always but many times; there is good evidence for this); and Kurds were known as Median by Armenians. It is even impossible to imagine that Kurds have ever forgotten their own language and adopted a new one. The Kurdish mentality is not known to be so feeble. But if Heja likes I think he can somewhere in the article add that the word 'Kurd' is an old name, (though the article already mentions this). Asoyrun 18:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal veiws without any sources are irrelevant and should not be included. Things like I think or That is what I am saying cannot be used to justify anything. You have to provide sources that goes against the Britannica's view. Even is that case, the opposing views can be included only along side that of Britannica. The material from Brittanica is sourced and cannot be removed, as it is verifiable.Heja Helweda 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What is more irrelevant is when your sources are not backed by primary and secondary scholarly sources. We have provided many sources that goes against Wikipedia. Check the links about the medes I brought. I can find at least many from very scholarly sources like Mackenzie, Minorsky,..etc. Britannica does not have priority over primary and secondary sources. --alidoostzadeh 04:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

this is a non-issue. The various toponyms mentioned are indeed found in Bronze Age sources. They have, however, nothing whatsoever to do with the Kurds. dab (��) 07:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Britannica Paragraphs

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

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

The quote is baseless. Kurds as a linguistic-cultural group like any other Iranian speaking group were not neighbors with Sumerians at that time. Also various Kurdish groups have also sided with Persian (Achaemenid, Sassanid..), Ottomans, Safavids and fought amongst themselves and etc. So what you are claiming is a gross generalization. The source is not acceptable by the simple fact that it contradicts primary and secondary scholarly sources (such as Minorsky, Mackenzie ..etc.). Other sources you have brought also had either no relevance or where not scholarly sources. By the way a recent edit of yours was about Medes not being Zoroastrian whereas Diakonoff says they were probably but you used a 1934 source which is out-dated! For example Mary Boyce is a much more recent and scholarly source on Zoroastrian: [9]. --alidoostzadeh 06:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Very amusing indeed :). Now Britannica is accused of being baseless! Moreover, Minorsky or MacKenzie are just two scholars among many. Their position can be quoted but not at the expense of other points of views. Heja Helweda 01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think that in this case Britannica's claim is rather superficial. Considering the sweeping generalization of this statement, it is necessary to investigate whether any other sources make such a claim. Shervink 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

How many times I have to repeat, we can not say Britannica is baseless just because its content is against our POV. I have already provided 7 books (for God sake!) that clearly and explicitly relate Kurds to Karda in the Sumerians clay tablets. In fact you have to provide a source that denies such a link. Even in that case, Britannica's quote can not be removed, since it is sourced material from a reputable organization. Now if you want to learn more, I will explain the relationship between Karda to Corduene and Kurds. In fact Strabo explicitly says that Carduchis were the ancestors of Corduene. Now the suffix -chi or -choi is just an Armenian plural suffix, so the real name is Card. On the other hand, -ene is the Latin suffix, hence the name Cord. Therefore, Strabo has connected Kard/Card to Kurd/Cord, hence making a link between Karda in Sumerian tablets and later Cordueni in Roman/Greek sources.Heja Helweda 07:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you on this, since unfortunately such an obviously wrong remark is found even in Britannica, so there is no reason why it should not be copied into Wikipedia as well! But you know better than I do that speaking of a historical desire for self-determination on the part of Kurds (which is at best very ill-defined when it comes to the time periods in question) is a purely political remark motivated (consciously or not) by contemporary geopolitics. Shervink 17:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

You're trying to connect all of Kurdish history to a few obscure tribes of which we know nothing about. You have to better study the history of Aryan Medes, my friend. That's true that Medes first mentioned or renamed by Mesopotamians to this name, sometime between 1250 BC to 900 BC but they existed in the their homeland corrsponding Kurdistan/land of Karda and surrounding areas to the east, about 2000 BC, <Daniel J Hopkins, Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary, p. 527, 1997, ISBN 0877795460>; and they originally refered to themslves as Aryans. Whatever originally land of Karda meant we know for sure that in later cuneiforms it was used to refere to hostile populations or tribes of Medes and their closely related allies, the Mannaeans < Simo Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 6, Kevelaer, 1970.>

Notice that it has been very common throughout History for a people/nation, to be known to most of the surrounding peoples and countries, or in modern times to the rest of the world, through a name attributed to the people/nation in question by another people. This event does not minimize in any dimension the radiation of that people's culture and civilization. It does not matter.

In Finnish Finland is called Suomi, we all say 'Greece'; but in Greek Greece is called Hellas or Hellada, or in Armenian Armenians are called Hayq and Armenia is Hayastan (Hayq+stan) and so on.

The name Kurd which first applied by peoples of southern and central Mesopotamia as mentioned before, is said to have meant something like warior, warlike, hero, undefeatable, rebellious or something close to these. People of Media or at least some of them may even liked this name and used it to to refer to themselves.it is also possible that maybe they used it to frighten their enemies. any ways centuries later when Akkadians/Assyrians/Babylonian/ cousins the Arabs immigrated northward they used the same name to the same people possibly because they fiercely resisted Arabs invasion and did not want to accept Arabs hegemony. As history tells us the Kurds revolted against Arabs numerous times and for centuries.

Also your attempt to connect all Kurds to Corduchi/Cordyeni does not sound accurate to me either. How is it possible that all these contemporary Kurdish tribes are decsendants of those small Corduchis? that's treu that etymologically the Greek 'Cordyene' is the same as Iranic Kurdistan and Cordyene represents an old word for Kurdistan, but Corduchis/cordyeni/Gordyenis descendants may today be only one, two or at its most three tribes of Kurds, as even Izady suggestes they may well have been ancestores of a traditionally warlike contemporary Kurdish tribe in the same region with the same name. But the problem is that there are at least about two hundred/three hundred Kurdish tribes and clans not only one or two! Misnorsky asks us if all these tribes are not descendants of tribes of Mede then who they are? Can you answer this? Aryan tribes of Adiabeni? Garamaioi? Cyrttioi? of course these all still do not suffice, they were only ancestors of one or some contemporary Kurdish tribes with the same names.

This huge number of Iranian/Aryan tribes can have no origin rather than Iranian/Aryan tribes mentioned above. not ncecessary all from Phraortes and Astyage's lineage but orginally closely related to the tribes to which Phraortes and Astyages belonged to or were related to.

I hope I was able to clarify enough my point. Asoyrun 12:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys have to provide evidence for all your assertions. You can discuss all you want for hundreds of pages, but unless you provide source, you arguments carry no weight. I have provided 7 book and Britannica as source.Heja Helweda 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Heja, In the Parthians article you added: Strabo considered Parthians to be Carduchi, i.e., the inhabitants of Curdistan. Now you want to use the same Strabo and by definition then Parthians were around during Sumerians?? That makes no sense. Also Karda might sound similar to Karduchi but is there a proven etymological relationship (in what language)? The fact is the Median origin of the Kurds has the most prevalance amongst scholars. Classical armenian sources have used the term equivalently with Kurds. Up to about 100 years ago no one knew of Ubaidians, Hurrians, Sumerians..It will be easy to copy & write down all the Mede relationships but since this is the most prevalent view it should have the most weight assigned to it in this article. The fact that Armenian sources call Kurds as Medes in classical times can not easily be overlooked since Armenians are a neighboring people. Parthian origin is not disputed either inlight of close connection between Parthian and Kurdish dialects. [10] and the studies of Professor Paul Ladwig. Also you have been very selective with sources. For example you look up 1934 source to claim Medes were not Zoroastrians and Zoroaster was born in Urmia. Today modernscholarship says that Zoroastrer was born in Eastern Iran and the Medes were Zoroastrian (Boyce) or probably Zoroastrian (Diakonoff). Also the claim by Izady that the Achaemenids transformed the figure of Zahak has no basis either as Zahak/Kawa's story is similarly mentioned in the Vedas. We have a right to challenge the Britannica source since it is not a primary/secondary source. Minorsky for example would be a better source. --alidoostzadeh 21:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

there is no contradiction in that statements if you pay close attanetion of what I said before. I did not say Carduchis existed at the time of Sumerians, I said their ancestors i.e. Karda. Also Starbo is simply saying that Parthians were Carduchi not the other way around. Please would you stop insisting too much on Gorani and Zazaki? All together they account for may be 5% of all kurds (1 million). Zazakis are known to have come from around mazandaran, around the Sassanid period and settled by them to the north of the Kurds. I gave you 7 books, what about them?Heja Helweda 01:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the books you gave were specialized. Three were about genetics. Parthians being Carduchi shows that you can not relate Kardaka necessarily to Kurds. Parthians were originally from the Parni tribe. Gurani by the way was the major language of Ardalan and today's smaller status does not do justice to its historical extent at one time. --alidoostzadeh 02:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

To sum up:

Heja's version: Kurds existed before Medes and just changed their language.

Ali's version: Medians adopted a new name and became known as Kurds.

Isn't there a merging point? Asoyrun 02:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Medians were just one tribe among many others (ancestors of modern Kurds). I basically agree with you, but just don't remove sourced material. If the problem is about fighting persians, then we can discuss on that too. :)Heja Helweda 02:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is sumerian.. Also fighting various groups is gross generalization. For example Kurds fought alongside other Iranians, or fought alongside Ottomons or recently two Kurdish parties had a fight (KDP and PUK).. Also all these are political organizations or governments who have been fought against each other, not normal people.--alidoostzadeh 03:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

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

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

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

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

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

Oh yeah, and the 7 books that I gave you were covert Kurdish nationalists? Come on! the same old story of conspiracy theory!!! I assume Xenophon was also a Kurdish nationalist when he wrote that Carduchis obliterated an army of 100,000 Persians :) Heja Helweda 01:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I can give more than 7 books about mede connection. The fact is none of your books were written by a scholar specializing in history. Mackenzie, Minorsky are two major names. As per genetics no one denies the genetic influence of previous people. he other sources you mentioned brings up the name Kardaka but a name does not necessarily denote an ethno-linguistic group that took the name later on. For example the juxtaposition of ottomans and Romans and Safavid calling Ottomans as Romans.. Or calling Uzbeks as Turanians. Thus name does not necessarily mean the same group. --alidoostzadeh 02:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Have I ever denied the mede connection? Of course not. I even did not remove your paragraph, simply moved it to the relevant section about Kurdish language. So why you are so intent on removing sourced material?. MacKenzie and Miorsky are just two sources among others. I think there is a misunderstanding going on here.Heja Helweda 02:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The relation with sumerian time is basically not scholarly. Also its gross generalization to say Kurds have been fighting this group or that group. We know at various times for example different Kurdish groups fought for different empires against each other, or many more complex situation. So basically the paragraph suffers from lack of academic source of calibre. And note Minorsky, Mackenzie..are academic sources. --alidoostzadeh 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK

OK, we will give more weight to Medes, as major and eminent scholars have done, and because todays Kurds are considered to be predominantly of Median stock. but in the origin section we mention that before Medes there was a people whose name is an earlier form of the name Kurd and were absorbed by Medes.

also I think much of Hurrian stuff should go to the article of Kurdish culture. Asoyrun 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is good time to sort the Hurrian issue out as well. There is a portion: Nevertheless, Hurrian influence on Kurdish is still evident in its ergative grammatical structure . But many dialects of Persian and Talyshi and Pashto have ergative grammatical structure. So do some Indo-Aryan languages of India. Ergative grammatical structure does not necessarily constitute a genetic relationship between linguistic families. For example Sumerian is also Ergative but is a language isolate. Thus is there any evidence for the substrate theory from any prominent linguists? I hardly doubt Hurrian influence on Talyshi, Pashto, Indo-Aryan languages. --alidoostzadeh 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That material is also sourced and can not be removed. What I smell here is just the 20th century nationalist tendencies (Kurds=Medes=Persian or Kurds=nomads) trying to remove anything that feels foreign in the Persian discourse.Heja Helweda 09:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Median is not equal with Persian!! though both are Iranian. Asoyrun 11:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we request for unprotection? (or semi-protection as it was before) Asoyrun 21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should work on the introduction here. I mean out of all the names here, only the medes have been called Kurds by classical sources. Note I mentioned the importance that Armenians a neighboring people have called Kurds as medes in their classical literature. I also thinking the fighting portion is a gross generalization and more like modern political ideas. Also the Hurrian part needs a good professional linguistic reference with regards to Ergativity connection since from what I have read, it is a n independent phenomenon which helds in indo-Iranian languages. A substrate theory needs linguistic proof. --alidoostzadeh 14:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The article needs a lot of improvment. The current version of the article treats Medes as foreigners! we will give more weight to Medes, at the same time won't disregard the Guti/Qurtie heritage of Kurds. I suggest let's request for unprotection.Asoyrun 16:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am all for your suggestion. --alidoostzadeh 19:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we're waiting for Heja's reply. Asoyrun 21:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with you guys is that you reject Britannica here when it does not fit your ideology but support Britannica elsewhere when it suits you. Look at here [11] where Ali dooszadeh is using Britannica to push his theory for origin of the Medes. No cherry picking please. It is unacceptable to use Britannica when it suits you and then reject it when it shows Kurds are somehow older than the Persians, which probably goes against 20th century nationalist ideology in Iran.Heja Helweda 09:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Minorsky was not an Iranian nationalist! Asoyrun 11:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Latest Britannica entry on Kurds

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

[copyvio removed. don't paste entire Britannica articles, even on talkpages.]

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

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

So this edition is newer and more correct.

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

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

And where s your source for Aryan name? Mere bluster is not proof. I provided 7 books for you guys, you still keep repeating the same old lines. Where is your evidence that the name of Kurds was Aryan in the past? Remember it is not just Britannica, there are numerous other sources that say this. Part of the Medes became Kurds later on, but part of them (those in the northwest) became Turkified from 11th century onward. Medes are thought to be just one of the ancestors of the Kurds, there were other people groups like Mannaeans, Mitanni, Carduchoi, Cordueni,...Heja Helweda 06:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Herodotus. Mannaeans were absorbed by Medes and Mannnaeans legacy remained for Medes.

Corduchi and Cordueni lileky have been an offshoot of Medes.Asoyrun 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with regards to a controversial issue it is best to always seek primary and secondary sources. I just wanted to bring the newer edition of article on Kurds from Britannica which supercedes the previous version. --alidoostzadeh 19:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are Pliny and Strabo's writings who mention Cordueni and their link with the older Carduchoi . There are two separate articles in Britannica :Kurd and Kurds. The latter is also recent as it mentions 2003 iraq war.Heja Helweda 06:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Unfortunately some users are confusing two different issues:

A: name of Kurds and its roots.

B: origins of Kurds (i.e. who were Kurds forefathers.)

its is not completely clear what is origin of the name of Kurd. there are scholars who agree that it has a Sumerian root, used ::A: either as a topynom for Kurdish regions or as a name for Hurrians. Some scholars who probably never heard about Sumerians think that it may origin from Corduchi, some others who are too biased say it is an Arabic word, though in Arabic language there is no root for a verb as KRD, for example in Arabic KTB exists and we can derive hundreds of words from this word, yaktubu, katib, maktub etc... but it is not possible with KRD; this means that the word has a non-Arabic root and therefore it has a pre-Islamic origin. before Arab invasion few Kurds were adientified as Kurds; but mostly either as Mede, or after name of their tribes.

B: as for origins of Kurds I think Minorsky is a prominent iranologist. what he says is considered as valid. Asoyrun 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Minorsky is definitely prominent. His book on Shaddadid dynasty is the best that exists even after such a long time. Because of the dearth of materials on Shaddadid's I do not think any new information has been found, but whatever was available to Minorsky from Arabic, Persian, Armenian..was compiled. I also think that the fact that a neighboring people have called Kurds as Medes before the era of modern history is relatively significant. --alidoostzadeh 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: My Britannica is the Academic version. Anyways it just shows tht when there exists primary sources and secondary sources, Britannica should take a back seat given the two viewpoints. --alidoostzadeh 01:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw an unprotection request by user Asoyrun who claimed that there is no discussion on the talk page, and said the opposing party is just one person. However I am still opposed to unprotection. The dispute about the Encyclopaedia Britannica is still NOT resolved. The Iranian editors basically reject Britannica and their argument is very weak.Heja Helweda 04:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I brought a version from Britannica which is the Academic version accessed through a good university. Also do not label editors by their ethnicity or country. --alidoostzadeh 05:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked you are Iranian Heja, even though we know you hate that you were born there. Thats tough! If you really love being a Kurdish nationalist, you should move to Iraqi Kurdistan instead living in comfortable Canada living off of government student loans. Thats Canadian taxpayer money! But joking aside, Heja is turning Wikipedia into a nationalist battleground from day one when she arrived and if she is not careful she will be banned just like the Azeri and Armenian users. I have recommended arbitration against Heja for a long time now but no one listens. She is just as bad and hateful as User:Patchouli, and look what happened to him. Wikipedia is taking actions against these hateful people and Heja should be brought to the attention of these tribunals. Khorshid 21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

guys, this is the article on Kurds, a Western Iranian nation. Of course "their ancestors appear to have lived in the region for millennia", that's a truism that holds for any people whatsoever with very few exceptions. Not worth stating unless we can pinpoint specifics. dab (��) 07:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is worth stating with regards to the Kurds, as many would have you believe they simply migrated from some part of Iran during the middle ages and are not indigenous to the land they now claim as Kurdistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.141.220 (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Kurds & Corduene

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

Pliny on Carduchi and Cordueni

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origin of the Kurds

The work of geneticists like Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and archaeologists like Peter Bellwood suggests that neolithic migrations provided the greatest genetic contribution to most current world populations. These first farmers made the first large populations, and all subsequent migrations added relatively little to them. Southeastern Anatolia was the hearth region from which the neolithic moved into Europe, so it seems very likely that the Kurdish populations overwhelmingly contain the genes of these first neolithic settlers, ten thousand years ago. Cavalli-Sforza has explicitly stated that the central asian turkic peoples made only a small genetic contribution to the current population of Turkey--they contributed language and much culture, but the genetic material is largely that of the original neolithic population, even in Turkish-speaking areas. KURDISTAN IS NOT A COUNTRY! ITS A REGION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHREN PARTO F IRAQ, SYRIA, IRAN, AND TRUKEY. THEY LIVED IN THESE REGIONS FOR A LONG TIME, BUT THATS NOT THEIR LAND. JUST BECAUSE TTHEY LIVE THEIR THEY CLAIM THAT ITS THEIR LAND.

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

________________________________________________

My husband and I hosted a man whose family had some social/political prominence in Jerusalem prior to the formation of the State of Israel. He was a Palestinian Kurd. His last name was "al Masri" indicating that the original Jerusalem ancestors had come to Jerusalem from Egypt. He told me that Kurds were descendents of Job (the Biblical figure associated with the chapter of Job). I don't see this hypothesis mentioned in these pages and I think it is worth considering. It helps to organize the known facts related to the Kurds into a unifying picture.

Following is a presentation of ideas related to this hypothesis.

• Where Job fits in chronological order of oral history documented in the Bible

Consider whether some clues about origins can be gleaned from the Bible. It records history that was prized enough to be carefully passed via oral tradition via professional rememberancers. One of these clues enables some dating based on the life-span of people in its historical record. Prior to the Flood, people routinely lived to the mid 900s.* After the Flood, age-at-death declines. Noah died at 950 years of age. Genesis 11 documents the decreasing age-at-death of successive generations. Abraham's father Terah lived 205 years. Abraham died at 175 years of age.

Job's lifespan was most likely 300 plus or minus 40 years. Consider that Job does not complain about being cut short in his youth, rather he says “For when a few years are past, I shall go the way of no return” [Job 3:13]. Besides being the father of 12 grown children, the text says “Now Elihu had waited to speak to Job because they were years older than he.” [Job 32:4] So it looks like Job is well beyond the midpoint of usual life-expectancy during his season of trauma, and yet he lives an additional 140 years [Job 42:16]. If Job was at the midpoint, his lifespan would be about 280 years. Being somewhat beyond the midpoint, puts his lifespan (conservatively) at 300 – 350 years. This puts the life of Job as preceding Abraham.

• Job as a significant patriarch/ancestor

People of Job’s timeframe placed much greater emphasis on matters of spiritual significance than modern researchers. The fact that the record of Job’s experience and responses was carefully passed down, shows its importance to the local society. And being identified with this special story would be significant enough to define Job’s brood of descendants as a unique socio-political entity. To have Job as a family patriarch would be something special enough to connect families as they migrated to different areas. Job 1:3 says that Job "was the greatest of all the children of the east."

• Claim: There is a precedent for this idea. It is possible for a socio-political group to become defined in social history based on group members being related to an esteemed, spiritually-significant patriarch (this is demonstrated by the example of the Jews)

Consider that for millennia, being identified as a descendant of Abraham through the line of his son Isaac and Isaac’s son Jacob defines another socio-political group, the Jews, or rather the Hebrew people. The fact that Kurds identify with a monotheistic faith in a tradition similar to the Hebrew people supports an alignment with this template for a group identity based on a spiritually-significant patriarch.

• What is predicted by this theory?

The story of Job indicates that his daughters were known for their beauty. Do the Kurdish women have a reputation for being beautiful? It’s hard to know how far the genetic contribution of Job’s beautiful daughters would have been passed down, given the dilution by spouses not related to Job over successive generations. The theory spawned by the hypothesis I am investigating here would predict that there would be a higher incidence of beautiful women among the Kurds than in other populations.

• Clues for where the designation "Kurd" came from

To find out how the name “Kurd” became an identifier of the Kurdish people, I would look in the languages of the Fertile Crescent several generations prior to Abraham for words that might be identified with the story of Job, or some part of it. Or, consider how the word “Jew” is related to Abraham or his life. It is related to the Roman-dominated period, where “Jew” is a person from Judaea.

According to the Wikipedia article on Jews: “There are many different views as to the origin of the English language word Jew. The most common view is that the Middle English word Jew is from the Old French giu, earlier juieu, from the Latin iudeus from the Greek Ioudaios (Ἰουδαῖος). The Latin simply means Judaean, from the land of Judaea.” “Hebrew” refers to the language of these descendants of Abraham. Similarly, Arabic people are identified by the fact that Arabic is their native language. Similarly, “Kurd” could refer to a region or a language.

The main thing to take away is this:
a) it is possible for a socio-political group to become defined in social history based on group members being related to an esteemed, spiritually-significant patriarch (this is demonstrated by the example of the Jews)
b) at least one Kurd (who is tied into family history and meanings) claims that Job is the patriarch who defines the socio-political group known as the Kurds

Sallyshabaka 01:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)sally@placeofunderstanding.us

Population figures

The info box claims 15-20,000 in the US, 6000 in Canada, but in the body of the article, it says 100,000 and 50,000 respectively. That's a big discrepancy. Which is more accurate? Clarityfiend 20:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurds in Denmark

{{editprotected}} The Danish-Kurdish Center of Culture (Dansk-Kurdisk Kulturcenter), which calls itself The League of Kurdish Associations in Denmark (Sammenslutningen af Kurdiske Foreninger i Danmark) estimates that there is af around 20,000-30,000 Kurds in Denmark [15] and around 25,000 Kurdish speaking people [16]. The latter is a reprint of an article published in the Danish newspaper Dagbladet Information. The Council of Europe however says 8,000-10,000. Maybe Denmark should be included in the list of Regions with significant populations?

Bagande 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify the editprotected request, please? Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request. Please feel free to re-enable it if there is a specific request for change. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I would like to replace the current infobox with this (Kurds in Denmark including have been added):

{{Infobox Ethnic group
|group     = Kurds
|image     = <div style="background:black;">[[Image:Med Face.jpg|59px]] [[Image:Ac.saladin.jpg|62px]] [[Image:Jalal Talabani.jpg|58px]][[Image:Sivan Perwer.jpeg|68px]] </div><!--Only freely licensed or public domain images may be used in decorations-->
|caption   = <small>[[Medes|A Median]] • [[Saladin]] • [[Jalal Talabani]] • [[Şivan Perwer]]</small>
|pop       = 27 to 37.5 million

|region1   = <div style="font-size:115%;">'''[[Kurdistan]]'''</div>
|region2   = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Turkey}}
|pop2      = 12 to 15 million
|ref2      = {{lower|<ref>[20% of 70,400,000] to [20% of 74,709,000]: <cite>The World Factbook</cite>, s.v. ''[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tu.html#People Turkey],'' (Langley, VA: Central Intelligence Agency, 2006), https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tu.html#People; <cite>World Gazetter</cite>, ed. Stefan Helders, s.v. ''[http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=1153574088&lng=fr&des=gamelan&dat=200&srt=pnan&col=aohdqcfbeimg&men=gpro&lng=en World]'' (Leverkusen, Germany: Stefan Helders, 2006). http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php.</ref>}}
|region3   = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Iran}}
|pop3      = 4.8 to 6.6 million
|ref3      = {{lower|<ref>Estimate based on 7% of 68,688,433: <cite>World Factbook</cite>, s.v. ''[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html#People Iran];'' <cite>Encyclopedia of the Orient</cite>, ed. Tore Kjeilen, s.v. ''[http://lexicorient.com/e.o/iran_4.htm Iran:Religions and Peoples],'' (N.P.:Lexorient, 2006), http://lexicorient.com/e.o/iran_4.htm.</ref>}}
|region4   = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Iraq}}
|pop4      = 4 to 6 million
|ref4      = {{lower|<ref>Estimate based on 15% to 20% of 26,783,383: <cite>World Factbook</cite>, s.v. ''[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#People Iraq];'' <cite>Encyclopedia of the Orient</cite>, s.v. ''[http://lexicorient.com/e.o/iraq_4.htm Iraq: Religions and Peoples]''.</ref>}}
|region5   = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Syria}}
|pop5      = 0.9 to 2.8 million
|ref5      = {{lower|<ref>Estimate based on 5% to 15% of 18,881,361: s.v.  <cite>World Factbook</cite> ''[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sy.html#People Syria];'' <cite>Encyclopedia of the Orient</cite>, s.v. ''[http://lexicorient.com/e.o/syria_4.htm Syria: Peoples, Languages, Religions]''.</ref>}}
|region6   = <div style="line-height:0.75em;"> </div>

|region7   = <div style="font-size:115%;">'''[[Asia]]''' / '''[[Caucasus]]'''</div>
|region8   = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Afghanistan}}
|pop8      = 200,000
|ref8      = {{lower|<ref name="kurdorama">''[http://www.institutkurde.org/en/kurdorama/ The Kurdish Diaspora],'' <cite>Institut Kurde de Paris</cite> (Paris: Institut Kurde de Paris, 2006), http://www.institutkurde.org/en/kurdorama/.</ref>}}
|region9   = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Azerbaijan}}
|pop9      = 150,000
|ref9      = {{lower|<ref name="kurdorama"/>}}
|region10  = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Israel}}
|pop10     = 100,000
|ref10     = {{lower|<ref>Lokman I. Meho, ''[http://www.slis.indiana.edu/faculty/meho/meho-bibliography-2001.pdf The Kurds and Kurdistan: A General Background]'', in <cite>Kurdish Culture and Society: An Annotated Bibliography</cite>. Comp. Lokman I. Meho & Kelly Maglaughlin (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001), 4. http://www.slis.indiana.edu/faculty/meho/meho-bibliography-2001.pdf.</ref>}}
|region11  = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Lebanon}}
|pop11     = 80,000
|ref11     = {{lower|<ref name="kurdorama"/>}}
|region12  = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Georgia}}
|pop12     = 34,000 to 60,000
|ref12     = {{lower|<ref>''[http://www.eurominority.org/version/eng/minority-detail.asp?id_minorites=ge-kurd Kurds in Georgia]'' in <cite>Eurominority: Portal of European Stateless Nations and Minorities</cite> (Quimper, France: Organization for the European Minorities, 2006). http://www.eurominority.org/; ''[http://www.institutkurde.org/en/kurdorama/ The Kurdish Diaspora]''.</ref>}}
|region13  = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Armenia}}
|pop13     = 42,139
|ref13     = {{lower|<ref name="kurdorama"/>}}
|region14  = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Turkmenistan}}
|pop14     = 40,000
|ref14     = {{lower|<ref name="kurdorama"/>}}
|region15  = <div style="line-height:0.75em;"> </div>

|region16  = <div style="font-size:115%;">'''[[Europe]]'''</div>
|region17  = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Germany}}
|pop17     = 500,000<br/>to 800,000
|ref17     = {{lower|<ref name="kurdorama"/>}}<br/>{{lower|15px|<ref name="coucileu">''[http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc06/EDOC11006.htm The cultural situation of the Kurds],'' <cite>A report by Lord Russell-Johnston, Council of Europe, July 2006</cite> http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc06/EDOC11006.htm.</ref>}}
|region18  = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|France}}
|pop18     = 120,000
|ref18     = {{lower|<ref name="coucileu"/>}}
|region19  = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Sweden}}
|pop19     = 100,000
|ref19     = {{lower|<ref name="coucileu"/>}}
|region20  = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Netherlands}}
|pop20     = 70,000
|ref20     = {{lower|<ref name="coucileu"/>}}
|region21  = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Switzerland}}
|pop21     = 60,000
|ref21     = {{lower|<ref name="coucileu"/>}}
|region22  = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Austria}}
|pop22     = 50,000
|ref22     = {{lower|<ref name="coucileu"/>}}
|region23  = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|United Kingdom}}
|pop23     = 25,000<br/>to 80,000
|ref23     = {{lower|<ref name="kurdorama"/>}}<br/>{{lower|15px|<ref name="coucileu"/>}}
|region24  = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Denmark}}
|pop24     = 8,000 to 30,000
|ref24     = {{lower|<ref>No official figures exist. The folowing unofficial estimates have been made:<br/>
* 8,000-10,000: [http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc06/EDOC11006.htm The cultural situation of the Kurds], Committee on Culture, Science and Education, [[Council of Europe]], [[7 July]], [[2006]].<br/>
* c. 23,000: [http://www.kurder.dk/html2004/kurderdk.html Kurdere i Danmark], Fey-Kurd - League of Kurdish Associations in Denmark.<br/>
* 20,000-30,000: [http://www.olestig.dk/tyrkiet/index.html Kurdisk - Små 25.000 danske borgere taler landets største indvandrersprog], Andersen, Ole Stig, [[Dagbladet Information]], [[4 July]], [[1994]].</ref>}}
|region25  = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Greece}}
|pop25     = 20,000 to 25,000
|ref25     = {{lower|<ref name="coucileu"/>}}
|region26  = <div style="font-size:115%;">'''[[Americas]]'''</div>
|region27  = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|US}}
|pop27     = 15,000 to 20,000 
|ref27     = {{lower|<ref name="kurdorama">''[http://www.institutkurde.org/en/kurdorama/ The Kurdish Diaspora],'' <cite>Institut Kurde de Paris</cite> (Paris: Institut Kurde de Paris, 2006), http://www.institutkurde.org/en/kurdorama/.</ref>}}
|region28  = {{spaces|4}}{{flagcountry|Canada}}
|pop28     = 6,000
|ref28     = {{lower|<ref name="kurdorama">''[http://www.institutkurde.org/en/kurdorama/ The Kurdish Diaspora],'' <cite>Institut Kurde de Paris</cite> (Paris: Institut Kurde de Paris, 2006), http://www.institutkurde.org/en/kurdorama/.</ref>}}

|languages = [[Kurdish language|Kurdish]]<br/>{{smaller|''[[Persian language|Persian]], [[Turkish Language|Turkish]] or [[Arabic Language|Arabic]] spoken widely as [[second language]]s''<br/>''[[Swedish language|Swedish]], [[German language|German]], [[French language|French]] and [[English language|English]] are second languages among [[expatriate]]s''}}
|religions = Predominantly [[Sunni Muslim]]<br/>also some [[Shia]], [[Yazidism]], [[Yarsan]], [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]]
|related   = other [[Iranian peoples]]<br/>([[Talysh people|Talysh]]{{·}} [[Baloch people|Baluch]]{{·}} [[Guilak|Gilak]]{{·}} [[Bakhtiari]]{{·}} [[Persian people|Persians]])
}}

Bagande 18:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers--Bagande 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Under the "religion" section (par. 1), "Deavic" should read "Daevic", and ideally be linked to some article on pre-Zoroastrian religion. Dawud

Need edit

{{editprotected}} Please change links from Hittite to Hittites to help with Wikiproject disambiguation. --Milton 00:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Grazi. --Milton 04:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Culture part, this sentence needs to be edited by someone who understands it: "Yılmaz Güney Yilmaz guney was a hero in turkey still people watching his movies in channels it is illegal but people can find in some stores in channels illegal because yilmaz shows turkey s real life and he was really smart every movie director knows him in the world.." 85.107.254.101 15:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

About the Medes

The assertion that Kurds have mainly descended from the Medes is just a theory. While Minorsky has tried to justify it by pointing to certain Armenian manuscripts, other researchers disagree. For example G. Driver writes:

... some Armenian writers seem to have confused the Kurds and the Medes.

Driver himself argues that the origin of the Kurds should be traced back to Karduchi and Gordyaei:

The Kurds must certainly be connected with the Karduchi mentioned in Xenophon and the Gordyaei mentioned in other Greek and Latin authors, with the Kordukh or Kortschaikh of the Armenians and the land of Gardu of the Aramaic and Syriac writers.

Source: See page 493 in G.R. Driver, Studies in Kurdish History, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, 1922, pp.491-511. Heja Helweda 17:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Kardouchi is just a name preserved in some ancient ethnographers. There is simply nothing meaningful to be said about this. The Kurds can only have developed their ethno-linguistic identity after the appearance of the Medes. Of course they were still descended from some-one (everybody is), but that's prehistory or genetics and completely irrelevant to a discussion of the Kurds as an ethnic group. Yes, you are right, it is very likely that the Kurd ethnonym is related to the name Karduchi, and we can very well state this. But that's really everything there is to it. The name is probably taken from there, end of story. dab (��) 07:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally doubt to consider Medes as an ethnic group. I think they were a political confideration of Zagros peoples against Assyrian harassment. Brusk u Trishka 10:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well unfortunately, that assertion would contradict historical descriptions of the Medes by individuals such as a certain Herodotus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.141.220 (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

desperate need of cleanup

this article is in appalling shape. Is there no-one prepared to invest some effort in it? The reference section is rife with naked URLs. We need proper citations, not lazy internet links. I mucked out some of the worst bits in the "ancient history" section, but this still needs a lot of work. People keep going on about Hurrians and remote prehistory of the region. That's all interesting enough but sadly completely offtopic. Is there no Kurdish patriot with an interest to have a decent Wikipedia on the Kurds themselves rather than harping on prehistoric fantasies? To be frank, this this obsession with digging in the dust of millennia makes it look as if there was not much to be proud of today. Concentrate on the Kurdish people, please, not on some long-forgotten tribes that were mentioned in one or two lines by Greek ethnographers. dab (��) 07:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the page is protected now. I generally agree with you about the ancient history. Unfortunately many editors keep inserting Medes in the article (based on their nationalistic Middle-eastern education), where there is no concrete proof on the relation of Kurds and Medes. The lead paragraph tries to connect the two based on a document written in 1400s whereas the Medes vanished 2,500 years ago! I think that's quite misleading.Heja Helweda 21:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. Very little is known about the pre-historic, but you can tell by sure that they were kurds, all those facts linking them to todays kurds. You just don't want to get it, you don't happen to be a turk or an arab do you? The Medes didn't "vanish" just because it was no more someone writing about them! Kurds in generally has never written anything about neither history or their own culture.

I agree that this article is not in very good shape, and needs quite a bit of work. I am willing to work on it, but the page is protected. I don’t know why it has been protected from editing for this long, protection was put in place on March 17, 2007 and has been in place ever since. I will put a request for unprotection and see how it goes. --D.Kurdistani 09:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok protection level has been changed to Semi-protected down from full protection, so time to start working on this article. --D.Kurdistani 23:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to speak ill of the Kurdish people, but it may be good to use a different picture for Kurdish costumes (or for Kurds in general) than the one shown, which makes them look like leftover costumes from the village people. I understand that these costumes may in fact have been worn long ago, but they are likely very offensive to Islamic people such as the Kurds if they think it makes them look homosexual now.

Merged info

The content in the "List of cities with significant Kurdish population" section, adn its sub sections, was merged here from List of major cities with Kurdish population as per a recent AFD result. the GFDL fistory of that section may be found in the history of the page List of major cities with Kurdish population. DES ^(talk) 14:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The list makes the article look very lousy and unprofessional. Moreover, no sources were provided. In any case, the list is very long and deserves its own article. The current one is already too big.Heja Helweda 14:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't we already have enough info to connect the Kurds to both Medes and Hurrians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_origins_of_the_Kurds#Connection_with_other_Middle_Eastern_and_Mediterranean_Groups

Over on that page it says that they are of mostly Iranian stock, which basically means Medes in this case, but of course mentions how they also have some hurrian in them, so can't one conclude on that note?

Fringe ideas

Kurds are NOT commonly identified with the ancient Corduene, please don't present fringe views as absolute facts. --Mardavich 02:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Columbia Encyc. says they ARE. Take it easy.Heja Helweda 02:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Heja, thanks for all your hard work on Kurdish-related articles. One comment, though, which is not meant in a mean-spirited way: you rely on encyclopedias perhaps a bit too much. Jimmy Wales has made the statement that no encyclopedia should be used in citation. Official policy (WP:RELIABILITY#Types_of_source_material) is that high quality encyclopedias, where the articles are signed by an acknowledged expert, can be considered as suitable sources. Are the articles indeed signed by acknowledged experts in "Columbia Encyc."? And even if the encyclopedia articles are signed, in cases where a peer-reviewed article conflicts with an encyclopedia article, my interpretation would be that the peer-reviewed article would be considered the superior source. The implication would be that if you want your edits to last a while, without eventually being reverted, you should try to use peer-reviewed articles, rather than encyclopedias as sources. --Anthon.Eff 18:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact I have referred to peer-reviewed publications in the text, among them the article by G.R. Driver which connects modern Kurds to ancient Corduene.Heja Helweda 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Population

The following paragraph in the Population section had a footnote (number 42), but the reference was to a page which required a login and password to enter. I therefore removed it. If indeed the high birth rate and attendant "demographic challenge" is a widely acknowledged fact, there should be no problem in finding a peer-reviewed source.

There are other sources which report a higher population for Kurds than mentioned above. Furthermore it is estimated that Kurds especially in Turkey have a birth rate almost 50% higher than that of the Turks. Due to this, they are viewed as demographic challenge to the state. (the reference given was: Own Goal For Turkey?, By David McDowall, The World Today, April 1999.)

Additionally, in the infobox an editor has given the range 15 to 25 million as the population of Kurds in Turkey. The CIA estimate is 20% of the Turkish population, which is about 15 million. I can easily find a source that will give a lower number, but the only sources giving a higher number are clearly dubious. Let's just put in the CIA number and try to avoid a long fight about this. --Anthon.Eff 13:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

It seems to me that the first paragraph in Kurds in Iran constitutes a copyright violation. Anyone willing to rephrase it? Shervink 09:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in population

Clearly there is a mistake in population section when it is calimed that: "According to the CIA World Factbook, Kurds comprise 5% of the population in Turkey,"; if you have a look at the refrence this number must be 20%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azad70 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

corrected. Ellipi (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations (Turkey)

Request for Correction pleas, (less than 5 million). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.255.106 (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Another example of how much intolerance there are against Kurds some places. The number of Kurds in Turkey is not less then 15 million.

Image on the right

Coffee shop in Diyarbakır, 1909.

How do we know the men on the picture are Kurds? Funkynusayri 07:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. Diyarbakır at the time had a lot of Assyrians, though these dudes don't seem Assyrian. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:04 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

POV

How could Driver in 1921 dispute Minorsky in 1953? I removed it because I did not see how he traveled into the future to dispute the statement of Minorsky! It seems synthesis or OR. --alidoostzadeh 18:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC) it doesnt matter what they are.they are happy and they live in peace.this is the importance...nothing else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.142.37 (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

But with Kurdish "history" everything is possible, even time travel. Meowy 20:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurdish People in Cyprus

There are many people in Cyprus. In fact in Limassol there is a "Cultural Centre" or something. Despite this Cyprus is not mentioned as a country that Kurd live in the table at the top of the article.--File:Eunion.pngFile:Cyprus flag large.png Ioannis ✉ 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the pictures of kids? Blonde and red-head ones. It looks like a trick to me about the look of Kurds. I know hundreds of Kurds, only one of my buddies is blondish... The pictures are probably chosen for making a new impression in the heads of outsiders to mean that KURDS ARE NOT THAT DARK-SKINNED AS YOU THINK. :P Really stupid. Fake!!

Kurds are darkskinned because of the sun. Many are blondish. But Dark is beatifuller.

Kurds are proud of having dark hair, blonde hair or no hair etc. We don't have to play games like that. Many Kurds and Iranians have blond hair, but we don't think having blonde hair is better. It's amazing that you make an issue like this about a picture of some smiling kids.

Heja

You can se by once that Heja is kurd, he/she is fighting you all alone.:P

Hejas arguments does make much more sense than the others (mostly Alis). When ali speak, it looks more like you are scared to see that the people sumerians spoke of, were kurds and your argues sound more like propaganda. Don't be afraid of kurds, they are not going to eat you up. :P

We can rewrite the whole worlds history

If we don't accept that the hurrians (in the region called : khurrî), medes, karda, mittanis (a kurdish tribe that exists today, and on about the same place the mittanis ruled) etc. etc. are kurds, then we don't need to accept that the Franks were French. We don't have to accept that Vikings were Swedes, Norwegians and Danes. You can't just say something like that. The kurds has never written anything about their history (with exceptions of some famous kurds) in time. Also, think about the geographical area. It is NOT so easy to just invade the mountains like some say the Medes did. Also, if you've never ever met a kurd in you entire live, dont say stuffs about them like "kurd-mandj". Kurmanci is a DIALECT. And people that moved TO Kurdistan, like Assyrians or other christians that live their today, are accepted by kurds but you still know that they are christians by kurds naming them "ba-file", meaning something like "originally-christian".

Alidoostzadeh

Ali, you don't have to say that they were "iranified" by the persians. Kurds has never written anything in general, and when persians started to write, then the indo-european in the kurdish language was known. I am very sure that the kurds spoke their language even when the Sumerians mentioned them. -83.253.41.41, 13 Nov 2007

Yazdanism = Magian cult?

In some sources we read that there was a significant number of magians among Kurds towards thirteenth century. At the same time Sharafxan tells us that many Kurdish tribes were previously Ezidis in approximatelt same era . Then the question is "is Magian a non-native name for Ezidi cult?" Sharishirin (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, check Magi. Funkynusayri (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In any case both are closely related, and not enough is known about Ezidis themselves. I personally have no sources that equates these two. Thank you for your reply. Sharishirin (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Genetics coverage in motion

It might be good to put a summary of recent genetic studies at the end of the "Origins" section of this article, but there are two competing accounts, one in History of the Kurdish people, and one in Origins of the Kurds, which need to be reconciled before a summary can be easily written. Or maybe the genetic evidence is too much detail for this high-level summary, which at the moment just says that many different groups contributed to the current Kurdish gene pool. (That claim is here mostly due to the reorganization of claims from several articles - fact-checking is welcome.) But reconciling the other two articles would definitely help make this content more coherent for readers (especially since there appear to be multiple points of view which need to be covered). -- Beland (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple Update

Reference to "Medes" in the Language section should be linked to the Wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkshbck (talk • contribs) 14:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurds in Afghanistan????

someone was smoking crack when they said this. I have never heard any kurd living in afghanistan they need to change this incorrect mistake.71.139.43.204 (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Pashtun786

The mention of Afghanistan is backed with a citation to this reference. Now you've heard of it :) Kingturtle (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

haha :P. in fact there are many kurds in afghanistan. Of what i have heard, they populate the regions that are in war, like waziristan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.53.0 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Waziristan was in Pakistan!, i have never heard of or seen Kurds in Afghanistan, whoever wrote this is distorting facts!! as there are NO KURDS IN AFGHANISTAN. There are however, a sizeable Kurdish population in Pakistan to which this article gives no mention of!!! whats going on here????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.227.144 (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There ARE kurds in afghanistan why do you get so damn upset about it!!!!!!! I have been in Afghanistan and actually seen the tribes there. And its true they are at many dangerous areas. And waziristan is very close to Afghanistan its just on the border. --Kurdalo (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is logical that there are Kurds in Afghanistan, because majority of Afghanistan is Iranians like Pashtuns, Balochis and Tadjiks. Knowing that there are many Kurds in North Eastern Iran and Western Pakistan in the Balochi areas, there is a big chance there are also Kurds in Afghanistan.

Indo-European migration

This section should be removed from the origins articles, it's just a theory that is supporting that the indo-europeans migrated from Central Asia. There are many other theories of an indo-european origin, many of them even claims Kurdistan to be the origin for the indo-europeans, so how could they migrate TO it? Although, the indo-europeans started to show up in these places a bit later than other groups (perhaps they learned how to write....?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.53.0 (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mehrad Izady

Can you really belive that this guy is telling the truth just because he is a schoolar? Many thing he says, (i will give one example, he says that many kurdish tribes have hurrian names and he writes which theese are, but the names are in turkish!) are not true. If you can edit anything and write stuffs in wikipedia just because a schoolar said so then it's not a reliable source at all.

The schoolars should prove that they are correct to, otherwise anyone can become a schoolar and say whatever that comes to his mind. Also, if it is hard to control this, just write that the schoolar say like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.53.0 (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

everytime you write schoolar, I want to punch you in the face. scholar's opinions are given, not as fact, but as opinion. there are competing arguments, they are all mentioned... gtfo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.141.220 (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing sourced academic material?

In the last change [17],Heja helweda write in the summery section "Don't remove sourced academic material" .I ask him to show which changes does he mean?The changes show that there are no adding of material after change .How can Heja correct "Removing material" with adding "No material" ? and by deleting some part of the text?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a deceptive edit summery, Heja helweda is the one removing sourced material. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Kurds And "Medes"

According to an aremnian schoolar, i may have forgotten his name but its something like "Harafstian" (book is called Kurdistan in the shadow of history). He writes that in Sumerian language, the term "mada" means "land". That is true too since i have seen this in many places. He also means that the only proof of a "people" called "medians" is Herodotus who have written about them, but he also says that its Herodotus fault that many things in history is mixed up and confusing.

He says too that many times people surrounding Kurdistan has called the "medes" "gutis/kurtis". There is also no proof of a people called "medes" this is just much kurdish nationality, however the people who lived in this "mada" seems to have been kurds too since they were referred as "gutis/kurtis".

I have seen many who writes that Sumerians confused Gutians and Iranian populations. The "iranian" populations you speak about are the ones who people normally refer to as Kurds (medes, mananeas or such thing).

Also i want to see what proof there is that the "medes" (lets say they are a people) came from Central Asia. Many say that they did but with what evidence? There is a kurdish story who in short is like this, a chicken wants revenge against an old woman who broke his legs and is recruiting people with this word:

" Ezê chime Hamadan, ênim leshgerekî giran dênim ser pîra bê diran"  in english : "I am going to Hamadan to bring a huge army to crush the old woman with no teeths"

The "medes" capital was Hamadan/Ekbatana!!!!!!!!! Give me proof of that they were from Central Asia!! --Kurdalo (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

kurdistan - mesopotamia

The edit war between Izmir lee and myself is getting us nowhere. I have tried a compromise solution: substituting Mesopotamia for Kurdistan in the table of Regions, but retaining Kurdistan in the main text body.--Vindheim (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove "kurdistan"? Indeed Kurdistan is northern Mesopotamia, but that's just what the greeks called it. If you are going to use a term for the whole area then you would probably say "Middle East". But if you mean only the place were kurds live, then it is "Kurdistan". Shouldn't we write "Asia Minor" also? I don't see why you switch too mesopotamia from Kurdistan, but please correct me if i am wrong. --Kurdalo (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay I see now that "izmir lee" is the one who changed from "Kurdistan" too "Mesopotamia". However, he is a turkish nationalist/racist. And Mesopotamia doesnt only include Kurdistan, it is southern Iraq too. Kurdistan is a region (the first sentence of the article say so) and kurds mainly live there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdalo (talk • contribs) 15:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The changes of Kurdalo

There are 2 changes:
1- "Mesopotamia" to "Kurdistan"
2- "Iranian-speaking" to "Kurdish speaking"
About the change number one , I do think the political name "Kurdistan" does not correlate well with the broad name "Mesopotamia" . If the name Kurdistan shows the land that kurds mainly live there, then what about the lands like northern Khorasan , that the inhabitants are mainly Kurds ? or what about the definition of "Kurd" ? Does this name includes Laks , Lors , bakhtiyaris and zaza's? (I mean in such place like Iran , that many neighbors talk in similar Iranian languages, that's impossible to draw a line between Kurds and non-kurds ! As an example no linguist knows the ethnic group of "Lak" is Kurd or Lur ....
For the change number two , Wiki-linking do gives information about the difference between Iranian languages and Persian . If we use "Kurdish" in place of that , the whole sentence would be redundant plus no new information in that . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• 1. Everyone knows about the region "Kurdistan" that includes parts of Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq.

That should be Kurdistan and nothing else. Why switch to "Mesopotamia"? While you're at it, switch to "Middle East". However Kurdistan is the correct term.

2. I know that with "iranian-speaking" you dont mean only those who live in iran (often people think of Persian and Iranian as the same). But that's a very stupid term to use. The 100% correct and non-confusing term is "Aryan-speaking" because that's what they call themself. Now I don't know if we can change that one. But many people confuse "iranian-speaking" with "persian-speaking". That's the problem.

Lors were usually seen as kurds, and indeed their language, culture and ethnicity is close to kurdish. But now i dont know what they want to classify themself as. Many Lurs say they are Kurds while others say no.

Zazas are kurds. Their language doesn't count as kurdish, but it may have been a kurdish dialect that got more and more seperated from kurdish. However they have same culture and same ethincity as Kurds. Most important they say that they are Kurds. --Kurdalo (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well , "Everyone" in "Everyone knows about the region..."that you are mentioning is a Weasel word.According to WP:AWW, we should use a clear word . When there is confusion about "who is a Kurd " , then HOW should we use a word such as "Kurdistan" as a geographical name . Please don't get me wrong : I consider both the negative and positive facets of this word : In Iran , using the word may separate the Kurdish speakers from the friendly neighbors and the Kurdish people of northern Khorasan . Anyway , in Turkey(and Syria) , there is denial about a Kurdish inhibited area with the name "Kurdistan" , and using this word may cause conflicts with the Turkish editors of Wikipedia .
  About the "stupidity" of the term "Iranian speaking language" group v.s "Aryan-speaking",you can have your POV , but that's a well-known academic term and we can't change it by opinion.The Aryan language is rather not well defined and the relationship between Iranian languages like Balochi and Kurdish is more than Kurdish and ancient languages of India ( Please see the [18])
  And again , about the Lors , Laks and Zazas , we are not talking about the politics , but the culture.The right to self determination is a political entity irrelevant to history or culture .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• About the "Middle East" or "Mesopotamia" , I think middle East is better , although that term itself is not clear ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You can read about Kurdistan in every encyklopedia and it will say "a region consisting parts of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria were Kurds live". Turks can, instead of editing Kurdistan pages, they can go to their Mongolia pages and edit that.

About "iranian" and "aryan". I myself know that "iranian" refers to kurds/persians/baluchs/afghans and not to Persian or "ethnic Iranian". But many who read this article seem to not understand that. And I can't blaim them, the correct term should be "aryan". Don't get me wrong, i don't mean with "aryan" that Kurds should belong to the group were Indians are. I mean that kurds/persians/baluchs/afghans have called themself aryan too for thousands of years among with their other name. And their language group should been named as "Aryan" and not "Iranian". Iranian is confusing too since there is a state called Iran and the people who live in it are Iranians whom often are identified with Persians.

And finally zazas and lors: Yes, The right to self determination is a political entity irrelevant to history or culture. Lors doesnt seem to be counted as Kurds anymore even though they did before. However Zazas claim themself to be Kurds. --Kurdalo (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thankyou for time and care . As an Iranian, I have no problem with any Kurds , and as you know , Iran is the only country that names a location inside Iran as Kurdistan. Anyway , that Kurdistan in the Encyclopedias is not a clear region : I mean if we use that as a geographical name , there would be confusion about the exact boundaries of that region . From nationalistic Kurdish view there would be also some problems : do we count the coastal regions of Dezfoul (In Persian gulf ) or not ? do we count Shahr-e-Kurd (meaning City of the Kurds in persian) as a place in Kurdistan or not ? Note that almost all of the population of that city are Bakhtiaris : count them as Kurds or not ? I say it again that in Iran that's difficult to distinguish between Kurd and non-Kurd , basically because the language and culture is so alike that differentiation is some times impossible!
  And about the "Aryan" , I can understand what you say , but anyway , what we want or prefer is not important .Besides , term Aryan , after the usage by Nazi's , still have a negative feedback and has a limited function at all . The readers of the Wikipedia can get the information about the Iranian language from it's page .
  At the end , I find both your comment(about the Turkish editors) and the one that is written in Turkish below ,a little bit hursh :) . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyene

Seven Ülkemizde Dursun Birlikte Kardeş Gibi yaşayalım Sevmeyen varsa Siktir olup gitsin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.241.192.243 (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

PKK removed from terror list

Is there a source for this? ~ Zirguezi 20:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

whatever!! where did u learn it from anyways!! PKK is the most terrorist group ever!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.236.116 (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

read here; http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL18920425 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.235.48 (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Its a shame

Its a shame, Kurdistan was chopped up during the 1920"s Turkish War. The words Persia and Iran are Britannia names arrived from there control of Mesopotamia. Whats even worse though, after the years of stopping the Mongolian Empire, Arab invasions, Ottoman empire and Safavid dynasty, to have it's own language called an Indo-European language of the Iranian branch. 8 Thousand years of History slaughtered by ....... 09:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it . What does all that you said have to do with the article ? And to mention neither Persia nor Iran , are British invented terms they are ancient words ( please see Etymology of Iran).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Who wrote it?

Look,I am a Half Kurd,half Turk living in turkey and this article has some parts that cannot be described neural all right?"Human Rights Watch has documented many instances where the Turkish military forcibly evacuated villages, destroying houses and equipment to prevent the return of the inhabitants. An estimated 3,000 Kurdish villages in Turkey were virtually wiped from the map, representing the displacement of more than 378,000 people".What's that now?PKK is wiping out any villages,whether it be Kurdish populated or not,in southeastern Turkey!Please,do you think it's all right to divide the a country in parts?How could it be that when these people out there are killed by a terrorist organization,you can put all the fault on an army? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.228.216.196 (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the PKK destroyed thousands of kurdish villages?--Vindheim (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Vindheim, the PKK has destroyed many kurdish villages, but it is the turkish army who feeds them and support them.

This is widely known among kurds, ask any kurd who is against the PKK.

And now the PKK moved down to Iraqi Kurdistan to "fight for kurdistan". Well if they did fight for Kurdistan they should be blowing their bombs in Ankara/Istanbul/Izmir. They are going into Iraqi Kurdistan, just to give the Turks a reason to invade northern Iraq.

So the Turkish army feed and support pkk for distryoing kurdish villages?? Doesn't make sence to me.

Hmm, bombing Izmir... For what? Just to increase the support to the central government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cizgi (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if you are living in Turkey, it is likely that your information will be biased. consider that turkey is a NATO member and ally of USA, the US source is more likely to be neutral. PKK are libral fighters but misinterpreted some methods such as setting bomb in istanbul. Turkish government do not provide any ethnical autonomous for kurds the kurdish language is banned in education, and assimilation is the goal of the Turkish government however so far that policy only functioning opposite its goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.117.228.62 (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"indigenous"

I have a problem with the following sentence:

"The Kurds are an Iranian-speaking ethnolinguistic group indigenous to a region often referred to as Kurdistan, an area that includes adjacent parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey."

This is not precise in historical terms:

1. "Kurd" is an identity, not a race. The only thing that can be claimed common to all people calling themselves Kurds is that they speak a Western-Iranian language. The identity "Kurd" is not documented in Sasanian times (until 7. AD) nor in the early Islamic times of the Middle East. Hence, whatever the ethnic composition of the Kurds may be, they - as "Kurds" - are not the indigenous people of their inhabited areas, but SOME of their ancestors were.

2. We know from the historical works of Tabari that a number of Kurdish tribes moved westwards from areas of then eastern Persia, a number of them migratin to Balochistan. Another issue concerning that "indigenous" claim.

3. The majority of Iranian "Kurds" used to speak non-Kurdish Gorani. It was only after the expansion of the Kurdish rulers from Suleymania (Sorani speakers) that they took over that language and thus became "Kurds". Let us not forget that neither Gorani nor Zazaki are Kurdish languages, as documented by numerous leading scholars (all mainstream scholars know this). The general problem is that many people in what is considered "Kurdistan" today speak a northwestern Iranian language not related to Kurdish, but are classified as Kurds.

4. What historically is WEST-ARMENIA is today part of Kurdistan. Isn't that funny? In fact, before the Armenian Genocide in 1915, the city of Van and the whole area around Lake Van were merely inhabited by Armenians, but today they are inhabited by Kurds? The reason is that numerous Turkish Kurds carried out the genocide alongside with the Turks and settled in Armenian lands. "Indigenous"?

I am not proposing to replace the term "indigenous", but to leave it out. Dravidian people or Turkic people in Siberia are indigenous to their lands, but the term indigenous is rather strange for identity-based peoples such as the Kurds. Moreover, considering Kurds in West-Armenia (NE-Turkey today) "indigenous" is truly stupid. Same goes for parts of northern Iraq (Assyrian land) and Iran.

Just my two cents :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.1.167 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Assyria" is in southern Mesopotamia and has nothing to do with Kurdistan.

The kurds are a race,. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdalo (talk • contribs) 12:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Kurds do not have the thing which is the main criterion for being a distinct race: Unique physical features. Mention one physical feature which Kurds do not have in common with their surrounding populations. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kurds are a race. This doesnt mean that all kurds look in a special way. You get your racial features from the climate. There are lighter kurds in the mountains were its very cold, but mostly kurds have dark hair.

If you have lived with kurds, or lived with arabs, or turks or persians or anyone in that area for a year or two, you will be able to tell the diffrence between the groups.

Especially kurdish Yezidis are very disctinct, mostly because they never marry with anyother group. Assyrians/Suryoyos have a special look too. (they are christians and muslims are not allowed to marry them).

You can get your racial look from there too, from your herritage. When a certain group only marry with people inside the group they will probably look like eachother.

But these peoples are somewhat mixed anyway. For example the Kurdish Kassites invaded land south of Mesopotamia (and probably mixed ?? ) and the same did the Guti Kurds. During Saladin Eyubis time many kurdish warriors were moved to different countries were they eventually settled. When the Ottomans invaded Croatia/Serbia/Jugoslavia many kurds who served as soldiers settled there. There are many things like this that affects it.--Kurdalo (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Again, do they have unique facial features not shared with anyone? Kurds look exactly like their neighbours. There is major overlap. Of course Kurds don't look like Arabs from for example Oman, but they look exactly like Iraqi Arabs and Anatolian Turks, and show the same internal variation. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen, have i said "unique facial feauters not shared with anyone "  ? I said that they look close to their neighbours, but you can still be able to tell the difference. And sometimes you cant tell the difference.

Note: Anatolian Turks, there are many assimilated Kurds in East Anatolia. Iraq, many kurds live in iraq too, example Bagdad.

--Kurdalo (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Could you mention such a difference? FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes i could, but i dont know how i would describe it. Its easier if you have lived among them for a time. try search youtube on "kurdish wedding" or "iraqi wedding"

--Kurdalo (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have known all sorts of Middle Eastereners. Kurds don't look any different from Iranians, Turks, Iraqi Arabs and Iraqi Syriacs. In the typological sense, Kurds are physically Armenoid, Iranid, and Mediterranid. FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to belive that you have lived among this peoples, because if you had you would certanily tell the diffrence. Im guessing that you live in Denmark and have met many immigrants from the Middle East.--Kurdalo (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Even that Assyrian guy that wrote upstairs "kurds are not a race" claims for example Assyrians to be a race, or arabs to be a race. Probably he sees the difference too.

But with that he meant that the kurds are not a people/ethnic group. Clearly they are ...--Kurdalo (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• If there are physical differences, they can be pointed out. I can't find any physical difference. If you can, point them out. Assyrians don't have any unique physical features either. Arabs as a whole don't either, apart from some South Arabians. Many Saudis would have a hard time being mistaken for anything else than a person from the southern part of the Arabian peninsula, whereas a Kurd could be mistaken for anyone belonging to an ethnicity living next to Kurdish populations. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

None of the points raised by the OP regarding the questionable use of the word "indigenous" have been countered. I have thus removed that word from the article's text. Meowy 20:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Stupid

Read the article before you say that kurds are not a race. They are much older than your Assyrians that invaded from Saud-Arabia.

Kurds don't look like anybody.Because they're Aryans.And Aryan has nothing to do with your that stupid language connection.Just because a European language or a language has a litte similarity with Kurdish that doesn't make them Aryan.I think others and Europeans should go and study their own words and Nazi wich is based on language in fact not even language but word/s.The Aryan-Iran =Kurd-Persian difference is totaly separate and based totaly on race and language not just language.Open your eyes and mind you will see. Even a black from jamaica looks like light colored American,even a Turk from China looks like a light coloured European.This fact is not just by look but it is mentaly too.European,American,Arabic,Turkish,Chinese are very very close to each other by mentality and basic beliefs.

Iranian-speaking?

This formulation, placed in the very first sentence, is liable to be misunderstood, and i have removed it from there. The attribution of Kurdish to the Iranian family of languages is still found in the first part of the article. --Vindheim (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your change is not correct! The Kurds are an ethnolinguistic group . That means the their linguistic grouping plays an important role in definition of them . "Misunderstanding" as counting them as Iranian (citizens of Iran), is not the case here because the word "Iranian-speaking", plus the Wikilink , role out any misunderstanding .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your formulation is misleading. The main characteristic of the Kurdish people is not that they are Iranian. I do not dispute the fact that Kurdish belongs to the Iranian group of Indoeuropean languages, but this does not belong in the very first sentence of the article. Not changing anything now, though.--Vindheim (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it is misleading ? Indeed the only common entity that defines the Kurds is their language group . Almost every other ethnic group in Wikipedia is presented like this in Wikipedia . Why do you think we have to do in other way here ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Which other ethnic group is presented as a subbranch of their neighbours in the first sentence of their article?--Vindheim (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Again , you are confusing the Iranic language group with Iran ! When we use the Wikilinking in Wikipedia , we do that exactly to avoid such wrong understandings . As an example , please look at : Pashtun people,Germans,Dutch (ethnic group),Slovaks,Serbs and etc.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I do understand the difference between a language group and a people, which is why I react. I am also familiar with wikilinking, but still find the formulation confusing as it now stands. --Vindheim (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Vindheim. Identity is a subjective issue, even though Americans speak English which came from the British Isles they don't identify themselves as British. The same is true with the Irish who are mostly English speakers but don't identify themselves as being part of the English people. Kurds don't identify themselves as Iranian in the ethnic sense. That's why including that term at the very beginning is misleading.Heja Helweda (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Although there is no cohort study available to show the wide spectrum of Kurdish speakers , identify with what national identity and also it is unknown if they are homogeneous in all different countries ; but here in Wikipedia we does not write about these points.We only write about the linguistic aspects of that ethnic group.Without mentioning the Iranic classification of the Kurdish speakers , there will be many problems in determining "Who are the Kurds" and "Which ethnic group can be counted as Kurd". I mean such groups as Zaza's in Turkey and Feylis in Iraq are considered as Kurds only because they use an Iranic language and without emphasizes on their language group , they should not be in one group with Badinan or Sorani groups : outside Iran proper , the term "Kurd" , functions as an umbrella to group the the Iranic speakers , and without paying proper value to this fact , drawing a line between Kurd and non-Kurd would be impossible . There is also same importance in Iran : the lurs, laks, Bakhtiari and some other groups in Iran are not considered to be Kurd - dispite their mutual understanding of language - just because the language of Iran is an Iranic language , and if we were going to apply the same criteria of Kurdishness of Turkey and Iraq and Syria, that would mean to count almost all Iranian as Kurds. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Language is not the only factor and not all Kurds speak an Iranic language. Jewish Kurds speak Aramaic yet they identify themselves as Kurds. For more information search for Yona Sabar and the latest book by his son Ariel Sabar.Heja Helweda (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes! The language is not the only factor in grouping ethnicity,but it is extremely important .The whole debate is about deleting this factor or not to delete it .
Although it is not related to our discussion, and there is no reliable study about orientation of identification in various groups of the Kurds , but I think there are some important factors in self -identification of Kurds in various regions:1-language 2-Iranic traditions(Noroz,folklore,music and etc) 3- connection to mountains (that's only my POV) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You still did not explain if language is extremely important in your view, how come Jewish Kurds in Israel who spoke Aramaic in the past and nowadays speak Hebrew, still identify themselves as Kurds?Heja Helweda (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Aramaic speakers of Israel is irrelevant to discussion.We are talking about deleting or not, the citation about Kurdish being a language of Iranic group in the lead section.Again if my personal point of view is important for you , I think that the reason of Jewish Aramaic speakers identifying themselves as Kurd is due to cultural orientation of Iranic peoples.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As Vindheim stated, what other ethnic group has the classification of their language stated in the opening paragraph? It is entirely misleading to anyone unfamiliar with Indo-Iranian languages, and it is irrelevant, as Kurds do not identify merely through language. "Ethno-linguistic group" is also a term with which I take issue, as no other ethnic group I have searched on Wikipedia is listed as such =/

Answer me, asshole! Who gave Alborz the reigns to the fucking article anyway? The cunt's Iranian.

In modern day Iraqi Kurdistan children ARE not learning Arabic but English! Many adults also have next to no knowledge of Arabic too.It is very different to Kurdistan of Iran where people are educated in Farsi or in Turkey where most speak better Turkish than kurdish.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.95.41 (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC) 

Luri and Split Ergativity

Luri is not a Kurdish language, but it does share a large number of vocabulary with surrounding languages. Also the issue of split ergativity is not due to Hurrian influence but it is widely attested fact in Indo-Iranian languages: [19]. For example Sumerian is also a split-ergative language, but this phenomenon does not make it related to Kurdish languages. There needs to be a specialist linguist source on this that contradicts the above Iranica article and mentions Hurrian rather than Old-Iranian as the reason for split-ergativity. This reasoning does not describe split-ergativity from Pashto, Yagnobi, dialects in Fars and Yazd and etc. . --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In case of Mutual intelligibility, almost all of Iranian languages of Iranian plateau are related and that's difficult to group them in different clusters.But anyway , the opinion of the professional linguists may be the determining point in this article.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British (contains proposal for deletion of the British Kurds article). Badagnani (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

kurdistan!!

that does NOT exist!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.236.116 (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ignorant racists? Yes, many of them, just read above.

Oh it exists and IS NOT going away! A culture with a history and language, a strong heart and ALL TOO FEW friends in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.95.41 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 31 includes book review?

Is it appropriate to include what seems to be a full book review in a footnote? (see References list: currently #31, "Jewish Subjects and their Tribal Chieftains in Kurdistan"). Erusse estelinya (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC) ISTAN means country, lands in origin but the haven't got a country, so you can't say KURDISTAN... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.172.20 (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

19-37 Mio KURDS IS IT A FAKE

There must been 35-40mio. here ist the diffe. 5.mio. and your diffe. ist 18.mio. whats that. Please make ist 35-40MIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.214.37 (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

what is this

there is no mention of the kurds being the cradle of civilization or the indigenous people of the middle east. We need to add this. Kurdish Empire (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Number of Kurds in Russia

Kazim22 (15:52 17 November 2008) added Russia to the Infobox with a Kurdish population of 31,273, citing Yazidi as the source for this number. The Infobox in Yazidi indeed shows 31,273 Yazidi in Russia and cites the 2002 population census as the source. When I open the 2002 Russian census, I find 31,273 Yazidi (Template:Lang-ru) and, in a separate entry, 19,607 Kurds (Template:Lang-ru). Could someone knowledgeable please decide on the basis of these numbers how many Kurds there are in Russia? --Zlerman (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of the Yazidis in Russia are from Kurdish stock, and Kurdish speakers. However after the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, many muslim Kurds were forced out of that region by the Armenian forces and had to seek refuge abroad. The rising nationalist sentiments in Armenia also forced many Yazidis to downplay their Kurdish ethnicity and consider themselves apart from the Kurds, an act which was supported by the Armenian government. This may be the reason behind their different classification even in Russian census. Later on, many Yazidis also fled Armenia for Europe due to various factors such as economic deprivation and rising xenophobia. But I guess we can count almost all of them (except the assimilated ones) as Kurdish-speakers. Kurdish section of Radio Voice of Russia, which started its broadcating recently is almost completely run by Yazidis. Here are a list of useful links Eskerê_Boyîk (Yazidi Poet), [20](in Kurdish), Yazidi Center in Berlin (in Kurdish), Yazidi TV, Yezidi Website based in Russia. This last one is interesting, although written in Russian, at the bottom right corner it provides links to major Kurdish TVs such as Roj TV and also Kurdish section of Voice of Russia.Heja Helweda (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Yezidi are not Kurds, and the xenophobia is actually from Kurd nationalst extremists who wish to impose their self-perceived and mostly self-invented one-nation identity onto other ethnic groups. Meowy 20:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Firing squad in iran.PNG

The image File:Firing squad in iran.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Kurds, A Median People

I'm curious to know what is the exact source for the claim The conjecture that the Kurds are descendants of the Medes has been challenged on linguistic grounds.[27]. The cited author Kreyenbroek cites Mackenzie as the source for his claim. But can someone please clarify where Mackenzie claims that? Because it seems to me that a misrepresentation has occurred here. Thanks. Ellipi (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same question. Who cited the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.134.38 (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree too, I tagged the sentence as dubious. If they are not Median then what branch of Iranian language did Kurdish rise from? We need more information on this. --Ddd0dd (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Major Correction

{{editsemiprotected}} Please replace "Iranian-speaking" in the first sentence with "Indo-European language speaking". This is the accurate wording. The current description is part of Iranian propaganda. Thanks!

Fixed. Thanks. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The figures in the infobox

Here, I'm going to discuss the changes I made:

-1-

It says:

Syria 0.6 to 2 million

in the infobox. Now, let's take a look at the reference:

Ethnic groups: Arab 90.3%, Kurds, Armenians, and other 9.7%

Do we see any percentage about Kurds? No. It's blatant misquotation. Thus I removed and replaced it with a figure from "demographics of Syria" article which is a round number. I was going to reference it later on.

But Ellipi saw fit to revert my edit. Ellipi, if you revert it again without an argument, I'll consider it an act of vandalism.

-2-

CIA Worldfactbook estimates 7% of 68,688,433 for Iran. A simple math: 68,688,433*(7/100)=4808190,31 -> 4,8

The source doesn't seem to say anything about Kurds at all. It's strictly about religion, not ethnic groups.

But Ellipi saw fit to revert my edit. Ellipi, if you revert it again without an argument, I'll consider it an act of vandalism.

-3-

A) Zazas aren't Kurds. Like Kurds, they are a West Iranic ethnic group. That's all. They are no more Kurds than Kurds are Zazas. That certain source (which is in Turkish) explicitly says Zazas are included as Kurds in that certain estimate (9m Kurds+3m Zazas = 12m total)

B) Like I said, CIA source about demographics of Turkey is very, very simplistic. It just says "80% Turkish, 20% Kurdish". No mention of Zazas (though it's very safe to assume that they included them in Kurds) No mention whatsoever of officially recognized minorities (Greeks, Armenians, Jews.No mention whatsoever of Balkan people (Albanians, Bosniaks etc), no mention whatsoever of Middle Easterners (Arabs, Assyrians etc), no mention whatsoever of Caucasians (Circassians, Georgians etc) KONDA, on the other hand, is much more detailed and credible. Its estimations are based on a report about an extensive, scientific survey. To lump it together with ultra-simplistic numbers from across the Atlantic just because some people here think "Turkish sources are certainly 100000% biased" would be a violation of neutrality. It's not an official source, btw.

And I, for simplicity's sake, rounded up the number of Kurds in Greece and Denmark by deleting the lower figures, but Ellipi reverted that too. I suspect he's reverting just for the sake of reverting. -- Mttll (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

-1- Here is source for Kurds being 9% of Syrian population: [21] -2- For all other countries CIA do have specified estimates, like 7% in Iran and 20% in Turkey. -3- To this day strong majority of Zazas, despite heavy pan-turkist propaganda, consider themselves as Kurds. Kurd does not mean only Kurmanj, and the term Kurd have been historically used for all west Iranians with the sole exception of Persians. -4- And dont come with arguments that CIA gives high numbers for Kurds and low numbers for Turks. As everybody knows US and its CIA are allied with turkey to turkify all Kurds in Anatolia. Ellipi (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC) You are extremely biased. That's obvious. But I'll take that figure for Syrian Kurds. Thanks. -- Mttll (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mttll's bias

Regarding this edit, Mttll, simply you are not at a position to judge this highly credible source for being wrong. Why it is not wrong where it says there are 80% Turks, ignoring millions of Laz, Arabs, Greeks, Azaris, Circassians, Armenians, all counted as Turks? Ellipi (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC) What I am saying is that CIA source for Turkey is simplistic and ignores all ethnic groups in Turkey except Turks and Kurds and the chances are that they included Zazas in Kurds. KONDA estimate is by far the most detailed and reliable report on Kurdish population in Turkey, but apparently we'll not succeed in reaching a consensus. I'm forced to bring other sources to counter your bias. Whatever. -- Mttll (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Do what you will; still there are sources which puts Kurds numbers much higher. Ellipi (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Other sources have been added which is not from CIA factbook. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That one sentence source doesn't say anything about Turkey's total population. You can't take the percentage there and apply to total population of Turkey from somewhere else. -- Mttll (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

All the sources give a year and that is how it was applied. McDowall is a recent source (2003). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the sources are RS and verifiable, there is no need to discuss this further.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then let be a lowest and highest estimate. Delete the ones inbetween. It distorts the layout. -- Mttll (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We can put all the sources in one ref tag but we should not delete sources. There is always a low to high ranges in the end..--Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Mttll, there are two points that you should note. 1. CIA fact-book is a source used very often in wikipedia when requiring numbers. Now if you have good reasons not to consider CIA fact-book as a WP:RS then go to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and say it. If people agree with you they will let you remove that source wherever you want. 2. When a source says between 11.4 million to 17.5 it means everything in between is likely so no need to worry.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction Needed

On this article “Kurdish people”, under the section of “Kurdish Communities in West Asia”, and sub-section of “In Iran”, in the second paragraph of the sub-section stated as follows:

Quote: In the 17th century, a large number of Kurds were displaced by Shah Abbas I to Khorasan in Eastern Iran and resettled in the cities of Quchan and Birjand, due to Safavid Scorched earth policy, while others migrated to Afghanistan where they took refuge.Unquote.

Which is incorrect, the sentences should say as follows: In the 17th century, a large number of Kurds were displaced by Shah Abbas I to Khorasan in Eastern Iran and resettled in the cities of Quchan , Bujnord, Shirvan, DareGaz, and Esfaraeen due to Safavid Scorched earth policy, while others migrated to Afghanistan where they took refuge.

I am a Kurdish from Bujnord located in north Khorasan province. My ancestors is one of the Kurdish people that have been migrated to north of khorasan province by Shah Abbas I as stated in the article. During that large displacement of Kurdish people they were migrated to Quchan, Bujnord (Not Birjand), Shirvan, DareGaz, and Esfaraeen which all these cities are located in north khorasan province. The previous Khorasan province has been divided into three new smaller provinces now they called North Khorasan, Khorasan Markazi (Razavi), and South Khorasan. The city of Birjand is located in South khorasan and no Kurdish people were migrated to this city during that large Kurdish displacement by Shah Abbas I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.24.130 (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

ALL OF KURDS KNOW TURKISH!

TURKEY HAVE LARGE KURDS POPULATION (10 MILLION) AND THEY ALSO SPEAK TURKISH BUT A FEW KURDS KNOW KURDISH LANGUAGE (APX. 1MILLION). IN TURKEY GENERAL ELECTION KURDISH ULTRA-NATIONALIST PARTY HAVE 2MILLION VOTE? WHICH ONE IS CORRECT WHICH ONE IS INCORRECT? YOU MAY LOOK 2009 TURKEY LOCAL ELECTION AND PLEASE LOOK DTP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.78.74.2 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And you seem to think all Kurds live in Turkey? Why do idiots always type in caps lock? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.91.47 (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Medes redux

This is an interesting commentary on the issue by a Kurdish historian: [22]. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion

This web page does not qualify as a WP:RS. The author, Barbara Robson, is merely a biochemist, not a scholar of Islam or Middle East. We can't use her "opinion" as a credible source for a statement of fact. --Kurdo777 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

---

I added that many Kurds now speak Turkish as a mother language. I didn't cite this as I don't think it should be a contentious fact, given the years of oppression against the Kurdish language and the intermarriage of Turks and Kurds etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

MacKenzie's "challenge"

"Among some scholars however there are some disagreements: MacKenzie challenges relation of Median language to Kurdish"

I, like many of you I'm sure, am baffled by this citation. It does not state what is being said by MacKenzie, who he is, when he wrote it, nor is his name even mentioned in the citation =/

Add to this the fact that this so-called challenge seems highly unlikely, given the fact Median is the ONLY major North-Western Iranian language, thus the only one Kurdish could possibly have descended from, Median's Avestan substratum, and Kurdish's similarity in vocabulary and phonology to Avestan, and you have yourself a very dubious claim which is not correctly cited or explained. Could someone PLEASE pay attention to this? The issue had been raised months and months ago, and still no clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.91.47 (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will correct this later but you are absolutely right. The so called challenge does not exist at all. There is only one point/story: MacKenzie made huge effort to keep his thesis look interesting and when Gershevitch (probably the most authoritative person on Iranian languages in his time) was writing something like "kurdish is more or less like Median and Persian" which contradicted MacKenzie thesis that "Kurdish was already in 20th century far from Median and closer to Persian" (or something like these). This made MacKenzie react strangely... I will find the references and correct thngs accordingly. Xashaiar (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention to the matter, however as of the 26th of November, the citation and claim remain in the article. What exactly has been done about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.9.50 (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding. Check back next week. Ok? Xashaiar (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

DONE. Xashaiar (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mackenzie is about half a century old; since then several other scholars have studied the case and it's better to stay with the most updated mainstream academic data. For instance Gernot Windfuhr, concluded that originally Kurdish was Median but has undergone a strong Parthian influnce. Halys (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is STILL there! Has everything above been said in vain? Who's in charge of this sodding article? Does anyone give a s***? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.94.6 (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. And one note for everybody: It is true that these texts are old, but they were the basis of further works and as long as we make fair and neutral use of them, it is fine. Xashaiar (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed] the sentence "This work of Mackenzie is called by some as MacKenzie challenging of relation of Median language to Kurdish". This is not really what MacKenzie said. (see previous sentences). Also I see wp:synth here, so I removed it. In the article the opinion of MacKenzie as well as the opinion of Gershevitch whom Mackenzie criticises are presented. (update) I woould like to see an excerpt from 44 which can support the sentence "Astarian is of the opinion that there is no special genetic affinity between Median and Kurdish". Thanks.Xashaiar (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

jodkar ari

jodkar ari bave kajin bajarê qamshlo kajin-- kamaf roj9999@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.200.21 (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The No Fly Zones

The autonomous zone created after April 1991 in Dahuk, Erbil & Sulaymaniya was not with United Nations authority. The British & American's (and initially French) pilots and politicians invoked the UN resolutions that demanded Iraq cease attacks on unpopular minorities but the Iraqis were within their legal rights to try to bring those planes down, which it did for 12 years until the order was given to dismantle the Saddam Hussein regime. Boutros Boutros-Ghali called them "illegal" at one point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No synthesis and Peacock terms please

Per WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:PEACOCK, one cannot add the word "some sources classify them..". The fact is there is no contradication as being classified as an Iranic group while also having other elements that were linguistically Iranicizied. For example, Turks of Turkey, Azeris or even Uzbeks are some of the classified as Turkic groups which are not of purely Oghuz or Turkic origin. Actually the bulk of the first two probably had little DNA effects. So to comeup with such a synthesis that these two elements are contradictatory (classification as an Iranic group while having some partial non-Iranic elements as well) is WP:OR and WP:UNDO. This fact that Kurds are mentioned as an Iranic people is is mentioned by Limbert, Encyclopedia of Islam, Asatarian and other top sources while at the same time the fact that there are Iranicized non-Iranic elements among them are also mentioned by the same sources. So this is sufficient proof that we cannot put one statement against the other, since they are not in contradiction.

Iranicized non-Iranic elements are not of Iranian descent, so one can say Kurds are Iranic-speaking people, but not exclusively ethnic-Iranian.Vekoler (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Britannica's opinion also is undo weight as it is a teriatary source. In another article it states: "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. ".

Such contradications in Britannica are many. Encyclopedia of Islam is a secondary source as it is specialized Encyclopedia written by top scholars (Minorsky and others) and I have found much less contradications. If we are to give the contradictory and teriatary Britannica weight in the introduction, it definitely fits under WP:UNDO. Thank you..--Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopdeia of Islam that is referred to in the article is also a tertiary source just like Britannica. Its article on the Kurds refers to many other western sources who in turn refer to original medieval Arabic texts. I hope that you have read the complete Kurds/Kurdistan article. All these sources are academic, there are no top sources. If they are Iranicized or Iranophone, this is not sufficient proof to claim ethnic-Iranian descent, something that the term ethnic-Iranian people seems to propose. The term ethnic conveys a sense of descent in addition to culture and langauge, and since some Kurds are not of Iranian descent then the classification should be used with utmost care.Vekoler (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I partially agree and disagree. Disagreement: Encyclopedia of Islam is not a tertiary source like Britannica. It written by experts in the field and it is seen as an expert source in academia of highest caliber. I have read that complete article as well as the recent article by Asatarian. These are the two most complete surveys currently, with EI being somewhat more dated than the 2009 article of Asatrians.. Both Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islam are seen as specialized soures about the region (of course they should be assessed based on the authors of the article as well). Infact the article on Kurds and Kurdish languages in these two are much more detailed than virtually all books I have seen thus far. The Encyclopedia of Islam article itself is at least 100x larger than Britannica and has many top scholars and authors who are recognized by their peers. By virtue of the name of these authors, one cannot relegate it to the level of Britannica. So really, we cannot compare Britannica with Encyclopedia of Islam. If you want to compare them and say they are on the same level, then we can get a 3rd opinion from reliability noticeboard. Note the same Britannica states: "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 why choose one statement and not this one for the introduction? Britannica falls definitely within non-specialized tertiary sources. Encyclopedia of Islam can be assessed by the authors of its entry's who are usually World experts in the field.

Agreement: I would just say "Iranic group" or as Encyclopedia of Islam/Asatarian/Limbert/Russel say "Iranian people". Scholarship considers Turks of Turkey, Azeris and etc. as a Turkic group and the same applies to Persians, Kurds, Baluchis, Pashtuns and etc. who also have incorporated in them non-Iranic ethnic elements, but are considered an Iranic group. Also it depends how far you take it back, the Armenian tribes Bagtariad and Mamikonians were both non-ethnically Armenian at one time. Why use a 1908 source anyway which is outdated? Bagtariads are considered Parthians today. The first one (Bagtariads)are Parthians and the second one has been said to be Parthian or even Chinese. Even the Old Persians and Medes had incorporated and Iranicizied non-ethnic Iranic elements. So Iranic group does not mean that any of these groups (with the possible exceptions of Pamiris) are 100% Indo-Iranian origin. What do you think of "Iranic group" as a compromise and removing "ethnic"? Another option is of course "Iranian people" per Asatrian/Russel..etc. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Bagratids are not Parthian, please do not promote OR here.Vekoler (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, even saying Iranic group does not do justice to Kurds who are of Turkic/Turcoman/Arab descent. I do not understand the urge to define huge and mixed groups of people using such clear-cut and simplistic categories. The only clear classification is that Kurdish language belongs to Indo-Iranian group.Vekoler (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See also a precise definition here: "In the following discussion of “Iranian peoples,” the term “Iranian” may be understood in two ways. It is, first of all, a linguistic classification, intended to designate any society which inherited or adopted, and transmitted, an Iranian language. The set of Iranian-speaking peoples is thus considered a kind of unity, in spite of their distinct lineage identities plus all the factors which may have further differentiated any one group’s sense of self. These include: (1) divergent specializations in economic organization, environmental adaptation, and other aspects of material culture, emergent differences in oral traditions and folkways; (2) hand in hand with the preceding: different conditioning by already established populations encountered in the area of settlement or absorbed in the course of migrations; (3) further conditioning by the later introduction of non-Iranian-speaking populations. These factors, fostering some degree of diversity within a region’s society, may have worked toward distinctions in dialect, social organization, law, religion, and other aspects of culture. The management of marked regional diversity, in the absence of an established political infrastructure, would have been especially challenging to the earliest efforts at a real hegemony by the Medes and the Persians. Secondly and inevitably, “Iranian” also acquires the broader sense of “[a people] resident on the Iranianplateau,” since the ethnicity of various peoples who are only briefly mentioned in historical sources often is not definitely known. In qualification of the first point, difference in language is not viewed as necessarily a barrier to community cohesion and communications." [23] (Richard Frye). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by Armenian descent? Armenian by itself means Iranian. Even Xenophon in Anabasis tells us that they spoke a Persian-like language. The Trilingual inscription by Xerxes, has an old Iranian dialect (nowadays known as old Persian), Elamite and Babylonian but no Hay language. Also please do not give weight to G. Asatrian; he is notorious for his anti-Kurdish propaganda. Ellipi (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Armenian does not imply Iranian, please read about the subject before engaging in the discussion. Armenian does not even belong to Indo-Iranian language family. I have read Asatrian papers, and he is an expert in Kurdish linguistics and history, and he has shed light on the influence of Armenian language on Kurmanji. If he were anti-Kurdish he would not have learned Kurmanji in such great detail. Please refrain from personal attacks. Vekoler (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I mean classical Armenians. Ellipi (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Mackenzie, Kreyenbroek, Asatrian and others, place the proto-Kurdish homeland at north of Parsumash and south of Media, that is the Elamite highlands. Kurds (< pahlavi kwrt: tribe) are first mentioned as an ethnic group, after the last time existence of Elamites (Khozi, cf. Kurdish hoz: tribe ) is recorded in the early Islamic era. To these, one may add the phonology of Elamite which treates Iranian words in analogous of Kurdish phonology. (ex: initial h before vowel, the case of m<v/w etc.).Ellipi (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What I tried to do was make sure to bring sources that clearly state Kurds are an Iranian people and Encyclopedia of Islam, James Russel and others are some of these sources. This is common knowledge and there was really no need for a citation tag. The other user stated possible semitic/armenian and etc. elements in the formation of Kurds. However, this is unrelated to classification of Kurds, even if true, since it is not suprising and does not have an effect on the classification of Kurds. Like all Iranic peoples with the exception of possible Pamiri Tajiks, they have assimilated and Iranicized some non-Iranic elements. I am not sure if this needs to be emphasized in the introduction, but the Iranic group is the first line from Encyclopedia of Islam and is important knowledge. At the same time, Armenian itself is synthesis of several ethnic elements (Urartu,Parthian,Proto-Armens and etc.). On Asatrian I do not know too much about his political activities, but he wrote a recent complete survey article that will probably have some impact[24] due to the fact that there is not too much detailed study on the subject. This and the Encyclopedia of Islam are really the only two detailed articles I have seen on ethno-genesis. I just used the fact that he is also among the multitude of sources that mentions Kurds as an Iranic people, but I did not put anything that is possibly negative. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

EI's article on Kurds/Kurdistan is also a bit outdated (written around 1960s), it does not talk about the Turkic origins of many Kurdish tribes. Recent research by Van Bruinessen, the most authoritative contemporary scholar of Kurdish studies, has shown that Kurds are not a homogeneous people, and they do not have a common origin. The sources that refer to Kurds as Iranic have been included, but that's only part of the picture. Moreover, Limbert is also not a totally neutral scholar as he was/is more tilted toward promotion of Persian civilization, and his theories regarding battle of Opis have been challenged by other scholars. The same is true for Frye. Vekoler (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

J. van Donzel 1994 summary is a case in point of EI's article being still one of the best. The Encyclopedia of Islam (2009) website edition lists it and it seems to have been updated since Minorsky's time. It also talks about the fact that some Kurdish tribes are Iranicized (thus it would include the Turkic tribes that were Iranicized as well). So if there was a fumdamental contradiction between the two terms, it would mention it. Limbert, Asatrian, Russel, Minorsky are very well known scholars. If Van Bruinessen says Kurds are not an Iranic people that is one thing. But simply pointing out that some non-Iranic tribes were Irancizied is not a contradiction(Limbert, Minorsky, Asatrian and etc.). Van Bruinessen though is not on the level of Asatrian when it comes to linguistic and ancient history. He deals with lots of modern political issues and is obviously not a linguist. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC

We are not here to judge which scholar is better than the other. There is obviously disagreement among researchers. Our issue here is not linguistics, but ethno-genesis and Van Bruinessen has done a lot of research on that. EI is clearly missing important details regarding Turkish tribes who were Kurdified. This is probably due to the fact that at the time Ottoman Archives were still not fully available to scholars.Vekoler (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes there were some Turkish tribes that were Kurdified and Kurdish tribes that were Turkified. But there is no contradiction and no disagreement between what Van Bruinessen states and what Minorsky or Asatrian or Russel or Limbert state. I have listed many scholars that consider Kurds an Iranic people and Iranian people. These same sources also acknowledge the Irancizied elements as well (so that would cover any future group such as Turkic tribes that might have been Irancizied). Linguistic is a major basis for ethno-genesis. Van Bruinessen rarely delves into pre-Islamic history of the region. Do you have a scholar that mention Kurds to be a Turkic or Armenian or Semitic or another group? Van Bruinessen has an article on religion in Turo-Iranian world and mentions Kurds many times. Obviously "Turco-Iranian" world would indicate that Kurds are part of this. Now obviously they are not part of the "Turco" part. Look at any other group in the Near East, there is a ethno-linguistic classification. Kurmanji or Sorani are rooted in an Iranian dialect of the region which would be rooted in proto-Iranians. If there was other groups in the regions speaking these languages other than Kurds, then it would have been possible to entertain different theories, but for now the main basis of Kurds are groups that spoke languages rooted in proto-Iranians. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Kurdish certainly has Indo-European roots, and its connection with Iranian languages is clear. However, Kurdish has a sound law identical with that of Old Church Slavonic. There are also a good number of basic and agricultural words which these two share. But it is not clear whether Kurdish has been originally an Iranian language in close contact with OCS or an heavily iranicized dialect related to OCS. Halys (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if we do not push our theories here. Statements like obviously they are not part of the "Turco" part are not helpful, while we know that some of them clearly were. The existence of a distinct Kurdish ethnic group is attested with certainty only after the Arab conquest and anything that appears before that is mostly speculative. This is what most scholars agree on. But there is no consensus or reliable data regarding pre-Islamic times. Moreover we are not talking about linguistics here. Irish/Afro-Americans/Native Americans/Scots/ speak English as a mother tongue nowadays, that does not make them descendants of Anglo-Saxons. You are mixing language with descent.Vekoler (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your adding "some sources" and trying to make it seem like Van Bruinessen is contradicting these sources is OR. "Distinct Kurdish ethnic group" is not the subject of dispute here. Even if there were Turkish, Armenian, Arabic etc. tribes that were Kurdified/Iranicizied, it does not contradict the classification of Kurds as an Iranic group. Also Frye, Limbert and etc. are well known scholars and your judgement on them is not relevant. Using peacock terms like "some" and trying to make it seem Van Bruinessen is contradicting Minorsky, Russel, Frye, Asatrian and etc. is pure OR and synthesis. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And your example is also not relevant here. Because only Kurds in a contigous (with the exception of Khorasani Kurds who came from Kurdistan) region speak Kurdish languages. So it is not like multiple groups around the world speak Kurdish languages but have very different identities (Afro-American, Anglo-Saxon, Irish). As it says: ""Many people lived in what is now Kurdistan during the past millennia and almost all of the them have disappeared as ethnic or linguistic groups"".. where-as Irish , Native Americans, Afro-Americans have their own identities. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is nonsense: The Kurds are classified by as an Iranic people[15][16][17][18][19][20], but there is a heterogeneity of ethnic elements among them[21][15] including traces of Iranicized and Kurdified Semetic[22][23][24][15][25] and Turkic[26][27][28][29] , Armenian[30][15][31][32][33][34] and possible indigenous Kardu[15][22] origins among Kurdish people.

Do you mean there are Kurdish-speaking groups who identify themselves as ethnic Arabs, Armenians etc? Ellipi (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I agree and I have summarized it. Also I have not seen anything from Van Bruinessen that contradicts what is commonly known. Indeed his texts indicate the viewpoint of other sources. Van Bruinessen: "The surprising similarities between Yezidism, Ahl-i Haqq and Alevism (especially that of Dersim) raise many questions that cannot yet be answered satisfactorily, but recent work on these religions indicates that the Kurdish (or at least Iranian) element in Bektashism/Alevism is more important than has long been assumed"[25]. Which means that it the Kurdish element is a sub-group of Iranian. + - "Kurds, on the other hand, have emphasized the Iranian element in the religion of the Alevis and suggested that even the Turkish Alevis must originally have received their religion from the Kurds"[26]. The ethnic Arab, Armenian, Turkish, Kardu (which some sources as Indo-Aryan), Mede, Parthian, Karduchi and etc. stuff should not be in the introduction in my opinion, but we can simply say "Kurds are a Iranic people whose origins lies in a amalgamation of Iranian and Irancizied(Kurdified) tribes". --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Van Bruinessen clearly in Agha, Shaikh & State says: The Kurds are undoubtedly of heterogeneous origins. Many people lived in what is now Kurdistan during the past millennia and almost all of the them have disappeared as ethnic or linguistic groups (p.122) and

It is certainly not true that all tribes in Kurdistan have a common origin. During more than eight centuries of contact between Turkish and Kurdish (and Arab) tribes, there have been Kurdish tribes that turkicized and Turkish tribes that gradually became Kurdish. (p.117)

I think this should be clearly mentioned in the article. Over-emphasis on Iranic people gives the wrong impression that Kurds have descended from a common orgin which is certainly not true. Kurds came into existence only after 7th century and they have been mixing with Arabs in 8th and 9yh century (Rawwadids), that's a very short time and one can not argue that they were Iranic at the beginning, unless sources from pre-Islamic period are found that make a clear-cut mention of Kurds as an Iranian ( or any other) ethnic group. Unfortunately such sources have not been found so far.Vekoler (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

But, where is the contradiction through? Are Asatrian, Minorsky, Russel, Limbert and even Van Bruinessen giving the wrong impression when they are classifying Kurds as an Iranian group. The fact is the current Kurmanji/Sorani and other dialects are the main identity of Kurds (note in the case of African-Americans or Hazaras, language is not the main factor). That is what separates them from other peoples in the regions and these dialects are rooted in Iranic people. Also the Kurds are classified as Iranian people and this cannot have "however, but, some"(peacock terms, synthesis) or any sort of synthesis or OR or peacock term. It is a flat clear statement not needing any synthesis. Because in order to show contradiction, one must have scholarly sources explicitly stating that they are not classified as an Iranic group (and not by synthesis but one clearly stating "Kurds are wrongly classified as an Iranic group by these scholars (Minorsky, Russel, Asatrian, Van Bruinessen, etc."). None of these scholars as far as I know claim a purely Iranic origin for Kurds (or anyone else in the Iranian Pleateau!).

I had proposed to summarize the intro like here: [27] (without deleting any sources but to make it more readable). Anyhow whatever other non-Iranic elements, these were as Encyclopedia of Islam, Van Bruinessen and others have stated: Kurdified/Iranicizied. So if someone wants to make a laundry list, then these two Iranicized/Kurdified are a necessity for those groups per the statements of the same sources "to an amalgam of Iranian and Iranicized tribes"(WI), "Their process of Kurdification must have been completed before the 18th century, for the descendants of a section of this tribe who moved to Haymana (south of Ankara) around that time also continue to speak Kurdish"(Van Bruinessen)"There can be no doubt that at a later stage certian Arab and Turkoman tribes became Kurdish by culture""Even well before the Armenian massacres(1915), many local Armenians voluntarily assimilated, becoming Alevi Kurds"

The statement: "Kurds came into existence only after 7th century" is false..because the people that spoke such languages as Kurmanji, Sorani or etc. had their root in a Middle Iranian language (which we do not have information about). But 100% such people existed (these languages did not come out of no where) and so the speakers of these languages were able to also assimilate and Iranicize/Kurdicize non-Iranic elements. Hence the speakers of Middle Iranic languages/dialects that are ancestors of modern Kurdish languages/dialects would be the direct ancestors of Kurds as well. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for your assertions. Middle Iranian languages like Pahlavi bear very little resemblance to modern Kurmanji/Sorani, while their similarity to modern Persian is undeniable. Vekoler (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Parthian is closer to Kurdish possibly, it is definitely close to Zazaki. But the fact is that if there is a modern Kurmanji/Sorani, then there has to be a Middle Kurmanji/Sorani and an Old Kurmanji/Sorani. This is simply a linguistic phenomenon (Old Turkic, Middle Turkic, Modern Turkish languages) (Old Iranian languages, Middle Iranian languages, Modern Iranian languages)(Old English, Middle English, Modern English). Simply though we do not have any written evidence currently of most Middle Iranian languages. But the existence of a Middle and Old phase of other Iranian languages is a linguistic assertion. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ellipi your opinion on this version is appreciated [28]. I believe it captures everything in the introduction. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Per this: "Windfuhr, Gernot. "Isoglosses: A Sketch on Persians and Parthians, Kurds and Medes" in Hommages et Opera Minora, Monumentum H. S. Nyberg, Vol. 2., Acta Iranica 5. Tehran-Liège: Bibliothèque Pahlavi, 457-472. pg 468. excerpt:"One may add that the overlay of a strong superstrate by a dialect from the eastern parts of Iran does not imply the conclusion that ethnically all Kurdish speakers are from the east, just as one would hesitate to identify the majority of Azarbayjani speakers as ethnic Turks. The majority of those who now speak Kurdish most likely were formerly speakers of Median dialects" "

I suggest keeping it simple as this: [[29] --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Asatrian and other modern linguists disagree with the outdated Median theory. Vekoler (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes but Asatrian clearly states Kurds are an Iranian people. His source is the most up to date, so there is no need for synthesis. And note the author of the above says the "majority of those who now speak Kurdish most likely were formerly speakers of Median dialects". Which does not mean Kurdish itself as a language is a direct descendant of Median. Rather the bulk of population that makes Kurds were formerly Median speakers. So it is not contradicting Asatrian. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Ellipi (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thaks for editing. I just wanted to say as a side note that Kurdish seems to (based on Asatrian's latest research and examples, and etc.) gave devloped in a SW language region or influenced by it like you said. Probably this is also important to note in the article.

Most likely its position is like Luri in the sense that Luri is a SW language but a transition between the Kurdish (a NW language) and Kurdish is a transition between SW and NW language, with more heavily bent towards NW. Talyshi and etc. is NW languages, but it has many similarities with Kurmanji.

Asatrian (as well Minorsky, Mackenzie..etc.) do a good job here overall covering the term Kurd. But this is no different on how Persian was used widely [30] or even the term Baluch: "The Balōč may have entered the historical record as the settled writers’ generic nomads. Because of the significance of their activities at this period they would gradually have become recognized as the nomads par excellence in this particular part of the Islamic world. It is possible, for example, that Balūč, along with Kūč, were terms applied to particular populations which were beyond the control of settled governments; that these populations came to accept the appellation and to see themselves in the cultural terms of the larger, more organized society that was established in the major agricultural territories; but they remained, then as now, a congeries of tribal communities of various origins. There is also ethnographic evidence to suggest that Balūč, irrespective of its etymology, may be applied to nomadic groups by the settled population as a generic appellation in other parts of eastern and southern Iran.". --Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting links from Kaveh Farrokh as he has no formal training in these matters. He is just a patriotic amateur with no authority on the subject. You are just undermining your own arguments by referring to his website. Moreover, please stay on the topic, here is the Kurdish people's page not Baluch. The fact remains that around the same period that the term Kurd has been used for the first time in an ethnic sense in historical records in 7-8th centuries , large groups of Arabs/Semites became Kurdish. It is important that these early infusions be clearly discussed in the article because this is very important in understanding the Kurdish ethno-genesis. Vekoler (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That is on the side discussion which helps clarify the matter although it has not been included in the article. The comparison with other Iranic groups is on the topic actually and you do not have to read it necessarily as it was clarification for Ellipi. It actually touches upon your own comment because when you say "large groups of Arabs/Semites became Kurdish" you are mistaken. In actuality, the term "Kurd" was used for any nomadic/migratory group in the Iranian plateau at that time and that included Arabs as well as Daylamites and many other groups. How does one quantify "large" with respect to the already existing population? Also the clarifications on Baluch is exactly the clarification of Asatrian on Kurds, it does not necessarily mean Arabs/Semites became Kurdish speakers in mass. Even the peot Rudaki uses the term Kurd as Nasir Khusraw does and etc. Also please refrain from your own synthesis and peacock terms. There is no "some sources". Wikipedia does not allow users to interpret different sources in order to make them seem like they are contradicting. That is against violation of Wikipedia law and I have stated this several times. What Van Bruinessen states does not contradict what Asatrian states with regards to classification. Wikipedia users cannot go against Encyclopedia of Islam, Asatrian and many other sources and say "some". They need to find equally reliable sources which clearly state the opposite viewpoint that "classification of Kurds into Iranic groups is wrong". You are well aware of the Wikipedia Guidelines on Synthesis and Peacock terms. If there are sources that state "classification of Kurds into Iranic groups is wrong" or "some sources classify them as Iranic people", then that is one argument, but if there is no such sources, adding "some" is clear violation of guidelines.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Also what do you exactly have against the summary that Ellipi and I agreed upon? It says the same thing but in a succint manner. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the detalied explanantion, although it would be really helpful if you can explain your views in a more concise manner. Arabs at the time of Ummayyad caliphate did not call themsleves Kurds. It is only Persian Sassanids who used such a designation (Kurds of Surestan, etc.). Arabs never called themselves Kurdish, this is only the how the Sassanids perceived the neighboring groups. The article should stay neutral, and it should not be restricted only to the Sassanid viewpoint. Arab sources well after the conquest are very clear that Rawwadids who were part of the Arab armies, became Kurdish over a period of 200 years. In any case, the paragraph regarding Iranic/Semetic/Armenian/ elements really belongs to the origins section.Vekoler (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Arabs probably never called themselves Kurds. But Arab historians seems to have used such designation (taken from Sassanids). Asatrian states: "As is well-known, the term Kurd had a rather indiscriminate use in the early mediaeval Arabo-Persian historiography and literature, with an explicit social connotation, meaning “nomad, tent-dweller, shepherd”". But I am not sure if these groups called themselves Kurds as an ethnic designator (and not a social one). I am not sure where in the article is not neutral? Do we have any other usage of this term besides the Sassanids and Arabo-Persian history books of the time that have radically different usage? About Iranic classification, this is not the same as origin per se, and it is the first line in Encyclopedia of Islam, where as origin in Encyclopedia is discussed later. There is only one classification but there could be many theories for origin and some states heterogenous origins. Origin of many groups are heterogneous (virtually all groups), but their particular classification is not challenged. That is there is no opposite viewpoint in terms of Classification of Kurds (for example no one has classified them as a Semitic or Turkic group ..). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Baluch connection

I really don't understand this. What evidence is there to suggest the Kurds and Baluchs are related ethnic groups? As I had understood it, related language groups didn't necessarily (and without supporting evidence) mean related ethnicities. Kurds and Baluchs are completely different phenotypes and as far as I have been able to research, the only relation, as such, is a claim the Baluchi people themselves make of their origin. If such claims were taken as uncontested evidence, why is there any discussion on whether Kurds are descendants of Medes? The Kurds claim it, the language family adds up, and according to this logic it must be true.

Can anyone provide an explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.103.141 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The Kurds are classified by some sources as an Iranic people[15][16][17][18][19][20], however they are undoubtedly a heterogeneous people lacking a common origin[21] and there is a complexity of ethnic elements among them[15]. There are traces of Semetic[22][23][24][15][25] and Turkic[26][27][28][29] , Armenian[30][15][31][32][33][34] and possible indigenous Kardu[15][22] origins among Kurdish people.

Why is this information necessary in the opening paragraph? It seems completely out of place, and belongs to a different part of the article IF ANYWHERE AT ALL. A paragraph describing who the Kurds are does not require the addition of information which suggests their CLAIMED ethnic or genetic make up. The Kurds identify as Kurds, and no Semitic, Armenian or Turkic admixture takes place in their sense of identity. Also, Semitic is misspelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.103.141 (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree.. we do not see this enumeration in any other group. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well, that information really belongs in the origins section.Vekoler (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily nationalism

On the removal of :"Many or some{fact} Kurds often claim to be the descendents of the Medes.. "

This has nothing to do with Izady or nationalism. It simply states: "Many Kurds claim descent" from Medes. I do not see the relationship with nationalism in the sources. Even if such an opinion is due to nationalism originally, today many that hold such opinions are not necessarily "nationalists". So I believe the sentence should stay. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And please no need to use to the execuse of "nationalism" , or else the Qardu, Lulubi, Guti stuff really despite being sourced are very fringy by today's standard and if you take it to the wikipedia fringe board...

However what I stated is not a fringe. Since many everyday Kurds, even the universalist-communist type and average people, believe in the Mede theory. It is not necessarily correct, but it is a popular sentiment and still some scholars have lend it credence (Windfuhr, Limbert, Minorsky..). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to Izady though, I believe his article on Yazdânism is fringe. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Population numbers

{{editsemiprotected}}

note-I have changed my sources to more proper ones

From recent readings and old information. Numbers show that kurds go up to 42 million. This comes from the recent articles within wikipedia saying that kurds equal up to 7 million within Iraq . In turkey the numbers reach up to 30 million as claimed by the KRG and in iran the kurdish population is disputed due to lores or Feylis in other terms. Feylis are Shia kurds who make up around 3 million + . These people are also not represented in this article. Concerning Turkey, Massoud Barzani stated in a interview that there are 30 million Kurds . In Iran the oppresive government has been very belligerent and refuses to let Kurds properly speak and does not include Lores in the population of Kurds and I also ask you, with 7 million kurds in iraq, how could there be less in iran? History has proved this fact and shows that the number could be up as high as 10 million kurds. In 1993 Kurdish people made up 16% of the population so how does half off the population leave Iran? Kurds have also 50,000 more people in Israel than this article states . Syria has 1.9 - 2 million Kurds within its borders from historical and population growth over time. I am not saying that kurds are at 42 million but showing it is a possibility so please change 36 million up to 42 million. In turkey 19 million to 30 million in israel 100,000 to 150,000 in iraq 6.5 million to 10 million (due to joint Feyli Kurd numbers) . I don't want to make guarantees but the population should extend up to that range. --Kovan95 (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kovan95 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: The large range in the infobox appears to be sum of the smaller ranges for each region. Those smaller ranges are sourced. If you would like to modify those smaller ranges, you need reliable sources. Wiki articles are not reliable sources, nor, generally, are youtube interviews. The adherents.com site might be reliable, as might the jcjcr.org site, but I would be cautious of both since they don't detail their review process. For now, it seems better to not change these and let you find better sources for this. Celestra (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: It is better to not change your posts after they are replied to; this makes it easier to see what has changed. Your reference for 30 million Kurds in Turkey does not say that. It says that the majority of the 20-30 million Kurds in the world (as of 1996) live in Turkey. I didn't look carefully at the rest of the sources since you are autoconfirmed now and can make these changes yourself. Please be careful to only insert facts which are found in reliable sources. Celestra (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Error in language section

The current article as of Feb 6, 2010 has the following:

---

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Kurdish language has two main groups:[27]

   * The Kurmanji dialect group.
   * The Sorani dialect group.
   * The Zazaki dialect group.

---

Now, I may not be an expert on Kurds, but I can count, and there are three (3) main dialect groups listed here. So either the statement that there are "two main groups" is wrong, or one of the groups listed below should not be there.

Someone who is more of an expert on the subject should make a proper determination.

68.162.106.23 (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Official status

"Kurdish is not a firm and standardized linguistic entity with the status of an official or state language"

Well..could someone change that crap? kurdish is actually the official language in Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.211.197 (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)  Done Fixed. I recovered a piece of text from an older revision. ~ Zirguezi 21:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

the truth about Kurds

Kurds are not ethnic group, and they are not Iranians. Kurds are nation which has a history of more than 3000 years. Kurds are Indo-Europeans, and they are Arians, which means they have an independent language and independent history, land, blood and religion. The Kurdish religion was Izidi, and it's one of the oldest religions of the mesopotamia region, so please, and I repeat please don't claim that Kurds are Iranians, because Kurds are independent from Iranians, and they have a full history supported with evidences. Cyxares "keykhesrew" is the first Imperor of the Impire of Media "the first and biggest Kurdish impire". the body of Cyxares was found in Mahabad "former Kurdistan state in Iran". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baran Hannan (talk • contribs) 23:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Aryan not iranian

In first sentence "The Kurds are an Ethnic-Iranian ethnolinguistic", there is big historical and even logical mistake. Name of "Iran" several hundred years after Median and Kurds pasted to that area and we can not use latter name for former nation. But its true that Kurds are Aryan. So I think its necessary to change that line to "The Kurds are an Ethnic-Aryan ethnolinguistic" --Marmzok (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think they're pretty much the same. See: Indo-Iranian languages ~ Zirguezi 21:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry but page you referred to, is an article about classification of languages, suddenly has only one reference which is not accessible. what I said above is about origin of a group of people. And if you think aryan mean iranian, I think its the problem. Indian are aryan(have aryan origin), but as you know they are not iranian! And same thing for Kurds!--Marmzok (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think on this very picky issue we need WP:RSs that support Aryan and not Iranian. When the term "Iranian" appeared does not really matter in this context, but it matters who are called by that term presently. Aregakn (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Laki Kurdish?

I would like to give you some background about laks in Iran- I don't have too much information about Laks in Iraq:

1) In laki Ergative property exists unlike Kelhuri, Feyli, and Luri.

2) The structure and most of verbs are similar to other Kurdish dialects.

3) Many of Laks practice Yarsan, and also "Shah Xushin" and "Xan Almas" ( most celebrated Yarsan holly people) were born in Lakistan.

4) Most of lak people in Luristan, in comparison with Lurs identify themselves lak, but they got used to introduce themselves as Lur to especially persians and Turks because Laki has not been known to them.

Without any doubt Laki is more close to kurdish than Luri-even Lak people of Luristan. The question is about Kurdish identity not language! because as far as I know there is not such dispute in laks of Iraq and even kermanshah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lekistan (talk • contribs) 03:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)