Jump to content

Talk:List of Kurdish dynasties and countries/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

File:Kingdom of Kurdistan.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kingdom of Kurdistan.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

]

Maps

Most of the material in here, and as well as all the maps posted here are lifted from the works of professor M. Izady without mentioning his name. The maps, for example, are re-colored and Izady's name and the copyright logo removed from all the maps before posting them here. This is illegal and considered palagerism.

Why do Kurds do this kind of thing to their own scholars? No wonder they are in a mess that they are, and no wonder no one bothers to study them...

OK, since I am author of some of the maps mentioned here, I feel obligated to answer to this. Firstly, I am not Kurd - I live in Serbia. Second, these maps are my own work and I did not simply "re-colored Izady's maps" and "removed Izady's name and the copyright logo". I draw these maps on completely empty layer in image editing software and I only used Izady's maps as a source for my work (but I did not changed his maps). Inclusion of Izady's maps into Wikipedia articles without his permission would be indeed copyright violation and therefore I did not included his maps but my own (and I do not claim any copyright for my work). Of course, I mentioned in "References" section of these maps that I used maps of M. Izady as a source. PANONIAN 10:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well that map is wrong because it is supposed to be from 1835 but shows Mamluk Iraq that ended in 1831. So either the date is wrong or your map is. Delete or fix it, otherwise it's just misinformation

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Kurdish dynasties and countries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Former dynasties, accepted by authorities as Kurdish in approximately the modern sense

... etcetera

Doubtless the wording could be improved. But could something of this sort provide a better article, acceptable to everyone? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ Amir Hassanpour, Nationalism and Language in Kurdistan, 1918-1985, Mellen Research University Press, 1992, p. 50.
  2. ^ Peacock, Andrew (2017). "RAWWADIDS". Encyclopaedia Iranica. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  3. ^ Jamie Stokes, Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Volume 1, Infobase Publishing, 2009, ISBN 978-0-8160-7158-6, p. 382.

Merge

This page and the content on Kurdish chiefdoms seem to overlap. Editors should consider a merge. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite possible. Alternatively, in view of the disagreements above, possibly it would be useful to have a List of pre-Islamic polities in the areas presently inhabited by Kurds?

Corduene and House of Kayus

@LouisAragon:sources state that these dynasties are kurdish. Frat070699 (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vekoler: Frat070699 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Frat070699 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Like the Limbert citation which literally states that 'Kurd' was a designation for Iranian nomads and did not entail any ethnic connotation..? Yeah no, this is a mix of WP:OR and wrong use of sources. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: Frat070699 (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: sources state that these states are Kurds, some Arab sources of that period may have considered some non-Kurdish tribes in the Persian region to be Kurdish, but you are certain that the states in the region of Sehrizor are Kurdish. Frat070699 (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? Also why do you keep pinging random users? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm waiting for your opinions about the commune@Richard Keatinge: Frat070699 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: You are manipulating the sources, although these dynasties are clearly Kurdish, you reveal your personal order. Frat070699 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I've been pinged here. Would anyone care to summarize the dispute? Am I right in supposing that while pre-Islamic rulers were described as Kurdish, at the time that designation implied Iranian-speaking nomads, rather than whatever group we'd presently agree to designate as within the inexact boundaries of "being Kurd". Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: Used for tribes in the south of Iran It is certain that the people in this region are Kurdish, not for the Sehrizor region. Frat070699 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend that Frat discusses the issue at the talk page with sources. Corduene is not listed as Kurdish in its Wikipedia article so...why add it against resistance? And I couldn't find a source stating it is Kurdish, either. I have the experience that Frat sometimes translate something a bit wrong, like Emir to order. But as I have usually found that what Frat wrote about really exists, and I understand that it is a bit difficult to find sources about Kurdish Emirates, I assumed good faith. But if a Louis Aragon or HistoryofIran remove content, I'd wait and check again until I find a really reliable source. These two editors are good article editors, and make a good job for Wikipedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm just thinking that if sources really do describe the pre-Islamic dynasties as Kurdish, and if reliable sources also state that the definition of "Kurdish" at that point is an Iranian-speaking nomad, not someone who specifically fits the modern definition of the Kurds, then we have a solution. Maybe something like this:
With all due respect, Kurdish identity isn't unclear in the pre-Islamic era, it's pretty much a fact that they didn't exist as a ethnic group back then, heck even in the early Islamic era as well. As seen in the talk page, Frat clear lacks WP:COMPETENCE, and discussing with him isn't gonna get this anywhere. I mean, he couldn't answer me a single time, and instead wrote random comments, including accusing me of "manipulating the sources" (whatever that means). --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I added a lot of resources, where did you get it uncertain? @HistoryofIran: Frat070699 (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a sheer violation of WP:OR, WP:VER and WP:RS. Frat070699 was unable to reach a consensus, as he was seeking to insert original research into the article; I therefore restored the original long-standing revision. Further WP:TENDENTIOUS editing will result in being reported to ANI. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Volume 1, Infobase Publishing, 2009, ISBN 978-0-8160-7158-6, p. 382.</ref> Frat070699 (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

.https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kurd Frat070699 (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Karl Müller, Klaudiou Ptolemaiou Geographike hyphegesis, 1. cilt, 2. bölüm, Alfredo Firmin Didot, 2012, Frat070699 (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

modern sources state that it is kurdish Frat070699 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

All I see here is WP:OR, anachronism, and some kind of ethnocentric POV-pushing. Even if those entries are related to ethnic Kurds in some aspects, none of their main articles call them Kurdish. Could you show me some academic sources that label or call Corduene, House of Kayus, and Shabankara as Kurd/Kurdish? By academic sources I mean works of historians and experts in history not general Encyclopedias. --Wario-Man (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Some good points here. @Frat070699:, can you produce quotations from respected academics that describe Corduene, House of Kayus, and Shabankara as unambiguously Kurd/Kurdish? If so, we can include them in the list without qualification. If you can't, we may have a beginning of a solution below. We do need to assume good faith and accept that Frat070699 has produced some sources, albeit of second rank, to substantiate his point.
I realize how ethnocentric claims and ethnic pride may relate to this issue. In that context, and given modern sources that do use the description "Kurd", I suggest that a good encyclopedia should include these dynasties, with suitable qualifications. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The resources I added can already check academic resources. Frat070699 (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I could if I had a library to hand, and more time than I am presently willing to commit. Frat070699, I presume that you are familiar with these references. Can you tell us which are by respected academics? It would also be helpful if you could post some brief quotations from them here, or wikilinks to those that are available on line. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Just for the record:
Brittanica is non-WP:RS,[1] and makes no mention[2] of the House of Kayus, Shabankara or Corduene.
Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East -- makes no mention[3] of the House of Kayus, Shabankara or Corduene.
Klaudiou Ptolemaiou Geographike hyphegesis -- inaccessible, no page number.
- LouisAragon (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Geography (Ptolemy) is available on line. I can spell out Greek words only with difficulty and can speak about three words of the modern language, but I have looked through the relevant sections of [the Greek text] and I haven't located anything resembling Corduene or Kurd. Perhaps someone whose Greek is better than mine (a large proportion of the world's population including any Greek person over the age of one year) would be good enough to have a look through?
If Frat070699 cannot substantiate his claims we should probably omit the pre-Islamic dynasties. I would suggest however that we should put in a note, perhaps something like "While earlier rulers and realms have been claimed as Kurdish, the term Kurd in the pre-Islamic period indicates an Iranian-speaking nomad; connections with the modern Kurdish ethnicity are unclear". It might also be reasonable to list Frat070699's suggestions under See also. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The British encyclopedia writes that they are Kurdish, but some scholars argue. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tamil Frat070699 (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East She clearly states that she is of Kurdish origin. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=stl97FdyRswC&pg=PA711&lpg=PA711&dq=Kurdish+beyliks&source=bl&ots=u-YjLufvz6&sig=ACfU3U37pkoSzWO2q8jeT2UnXSLqqLi11A&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZrbmEtvjpAhUQyKYKHb0kDksQ6AEwBXoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=carduchi&f=false Frat070699 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

David McDowall, A modern history of the Kurds, s.515 ., I.B.Tauris, 2004 https://books.google.com.tr/books/about/A_Modern_History_of_the_Kurds.html?id=dgDi9qFT41oC&redir_esc=y Frat070699 (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Karl Müller, Klaudiou Ptolemaiou Geographike hyphegesis, 1. cilt, 2. bölüm, Alfredo Firmin Didot, 2012, ISBN 124-999-259-1, s.947 Frat070699 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Kurds. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07 https://web.archive.org/web/20061018061248/http://www.bartleby.com/65/ku/Kurds.html Frat070699 (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Rivista degli studi armeni, vol. 21, 1988-1989, p. 281, della Société des études armeniennes, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, edito dall'Imprimerie nationale, P. Geuthner, 1989. Frat070699 (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Frat, read the Corduene page. Your sources don't match the sources in the article, and Xenophon just describes a tribe called Carduchi not a Kurdish entity. That they are Kurds or the Carduchoi ruled Corduene is an assumption. There is no mention of a "Kurdish" ruler in Corduene. But the Armenians/Urartu, Romans and the Seleucid Greek have well documented rulers in Corduene. With the available sources, (which are rather prominent), I'd advocate against including Corduene in this article as a "Kurdish" entity.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The sources I cite are considered as the first ancestor of the Kurds. Are you sure you have already read it? @Paradise Chronicle: Frat070699 (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Rawlinson, George, The Seven Great Monarchies Of The Ancient Eastern World, Vol 7, 1871 http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16167 Frat070699 (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I added university and encyclopedic resources to avoid biased resources or I would add more Resources here. Frat070699 (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2]]020 (UTC)

So far I can verify three of Frat070699's sources. Two are modern encyclopedias and all merely report a widespread supposition, rather than a solid academic consensus. George Rawlinson is a very long way out of date. "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. ""HISTORY Pre-Islamic Period Although subdued by the Persian ruler Cyrus the Great (d. 530 B.C.E.), the people then known as the Kurds or the Guti or the Carduchi frequently rebelled, and by the fifth century B.C.E. they had achieved independence from Persian rule. A Greek historian, Xenophon (d. ca. 355 B.C.E.), described them as a warlike people who had destroyed a Persian army of 120,000.

"If these two tracts are rightly placed, Cordyene must also be sought on the left bank of the Tigris. The word is no doubt the ancient representative of the modern Kurdistan, and means a country in which Kurds dwelt. Now Kurds seem to have been at one time the chief inhabitants of the Mons Masius, the modern Jebel Kara j ah Dagh and Jebel Tur, which was thence called Cordyene, Gordyene, or the Gordiaean mountain chain. But there was another and a more important Cordyene on the opposite side of the river. The tract to this day known as Kurdistan, the high mountain region south and south-east of Lake Van between Persia and Mesopotamia, was in the possession of Kurds from before the time of Xenophon, and was known as the country of the Carduchi, as Cardyene, and as Cordyene. This tract, which was contiguous to Arzanene and Zabdicene, if we have rightly placed those regions, must almost certainly have been the Cordyene of the treaty, which, if it corresponded at all nearly in extent with the modern Kurdistan, must have been by far the largest and most important of the five provinces"

"From about 300 B.C.E. Kurdistan began to experience population changes and resettlement, resulting in the establishment of many Kurdish polities, or self-governing groups. The Roman advance into the region that the Roman writer Strabo (d. 48 C.E.) described as being inhabited by the "Kurts" subdued all the western kingdoms by the first century B.C.E. In the East, however, the larger independent polities maintained their formal independence and survived as allies of the PARTHIANS until the advent of the Sassanian dynasty of the Iranian Empire in the third century C.E."

Frat070699, before I make a firm suggestion or even a bold edit, can you produce anything better? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeterli kaynak ekledim, aksi takdirde 2 akademik olmayan kaynak var. Ne dediğimi kanıtladım. @Richard Keatinge: Frat070699 (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I have added enough resources, otherwise there are 2 non-academic resources. I proved what I said. @Richard Keatinge: Frat070699 (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ottoman state and Kurdish nationalism p 36-37 https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=IA4z1ryrhNQC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=cemisgezek+emirligi&source=bl&ots=spQWl4SooB&sig=ACfU3U2g0G1qrz8UFVbTPaBIedAhHiQhXg&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwikwNrXp4LqAhWZ7aYKHZNCD4YQ6AEwEHoECAIQAQ Frat070699 (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I presented my wings. If there is no objection, let's add to the article. @Richard Keatinge: Frat070699 (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

.I have seen the edit of Frat. I have also seen the Frat has included the same multiple rejected source again. From my part there is strong objection to such behavior. I've just waited for other editors to also double check.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I added 7 sources, proved the situation, there are only 2 sources claiming otherwise. @Paradise Chronicle: Frat070699 (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

At this edit I have moved the House of Kayus and Corduene to the See also list. I note that Frat070699 has not presented any references that establish the Kurdish nature of these entities. Frat070699, nobody is disagreeing with the suggestions that the ancestors of modern Kurds were living in the area long before the Muslim conquest, that there were rulers among them, and that they would have been speaking languages related to modern Kurdish. The names of Corduene and of Xenophon's Kardukhoi may be related to the word "Kurd". But none of these suppositions are adequate to list either the House of Kayus or Corduene as unambiguously, definitely, Kurdish, and no encyclopedia should list them as such. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

British Encyclopedia, Columbia University and African Encyclopaedia is not a modern and academic resource? @Richard Keatinge: Frat070699 (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Isn't Grässe, J. G. Th, David McDowall and Ilya Gershevitch an academic resource? @Richard Keatinge: Frat070699 (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedias, and passing mentions in academic sources, are not good enough for the assertions that you are trying to make. It's time to drop the stick. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Mehrdad Izady

From Richard Keatinge's talk:

Hi, Hope you are doing well in these uncertain times. I was wondering why you consider Mehrdad Izady a unreliable source on Kurdish history? I feel his credentials clearly make him very credible. Any clarification would be appreciated.

Thank you

Nawabmalhi (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Good question, and thanks for your good wishes. Mehrdad Izady is indeed a credible individual. However, the book in question[1] is not an academic discussion of the origins of the Kurds. It is, as the title indicates, a popular and concise handbook. It's perfectly appropriate for such a book to present oversimplified interpretations, reasonable enough and widely supposed but not actually certain, as fact. And that's what it does. It's not appropriate for an encyclopedia to do so, I suggest. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I for one don't consider him reliable at all. He says a lot of stuff that is nowhere acknowledged by other scholars, without any explanation or anything, but I guess that's the reason the work is called concise. Doesn't help the fact that he claim every living thing as Kurdish, such as the Kurds being big players in the Assyrian era and influencing the Medes, or the dynasty of Pontus being Kurdish etc. Pretty much rubbish stuff that looks like he just made up out of nothing. Out of the hundreds of sources I possess, none of them cites Izady's work, and with good reason I would assume. Also, I'm pretty sure I saw something a few years ago that criticized him for having nationalist tendencies in his work - can't find it anymore unfortunately. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ Izady, Mehrdad R. The Kurds : a concise handbook. Washington, D.C. pp. 50–2. ISBN 978-1-135-84490-5. OCLC 910847841.

New additions

@Kurdishhistorian27: Please take your concerns here. Mind you, dynasty and origin doesn't mean the same. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Systemic bias and/or ethnocentrism

this edit by User:Hvakshahtrah is problematic. I think that this edit was caused by his/her ethnocentric Systemic bias bias and/or ethnocentric approach.

Mr Takabeg, you cannot insult contributors , you have no permission to insult peoples here, keep your vocabulary better please , here is a non-profit ancyclopedia, so stop to prommoting here turkey's propagands! --Alsace38 (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Savavids

The Safavid dynasty Safavid Dynasty comfirmed by many different sources, most importantly by Iranian historians as a Kurdish dynasty. https://iranicaonline.org/articles/iran-ix23-shiism-in-iran-since-the-safavids https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/empires-safavid-and-qajar --AdamPolska (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The Safavid dynasty was a mixture of of Azerbaijani, Kurdish, Turkmen, Georgian and Pontic Greek. As long as I know, no source calls this dynasty as "Kurdish dynasty". Richard Tapper doesn't call it a "Kurdish dynasty". I believe we have to remove this dynasty from list. We don't need ethnocentric pseudo history. Takabeg (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Safavid dynasty is based upon the Safaviyya. Ismail I was 1/2 Kurdish on his father's side (that is, the side that was in charge of the Safaviyya), 1/4 Pontic Greek and 1/4 Turkmen/Turkish. The Wikipedia article on the Safavid dynasty states that the Safavid family originated from what it calls "Persian Kurdistan", and later moved to Azerbaijan. This ought to be enough to classify the Safavid dynasty as Kurdish (at least partially).
Regards, Hvakshahtrah (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
No, we need reliable sources saying this dynasty was Kurdish - please read WP:NOR - our own analysis isn't enough. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
So we have to remove Safavid. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
To consider Safavid dynasty was not Kurdish because it was a mixture -which is only your unsupported claim- first of all the ottoman empire should be removed from List of turkic dynasties and countries because none of Ottoman sultans was Turkish and their entire administrative units was Slavic.

Shah Ismail the founder of Safavid Dynasty was from Erdebil which is tousands of years old Kurdish city. He definetly described himself as Kurdish which been recorded in many different sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1HistoricalCorrecter1 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Zand dynasty

The Zand dynasty was of Lek tribe or Lur tribe. Even the source that is added to this article doesn't call this dynasty as "Kurdish dynasty". I believe we have to remove this dynasty from list. We don't need ethnocentric pseudo history. Takabeg (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying Zand was Leki but not Kurdish is like, Denmark is Danish but not Scandinave. Lek is a sub branch of Kurdish languages. Perhaps we can ask Leks, do they consider themselves as Kurdish or not. Because as i know, a very big amount of them are identify themselves directly as Kurdish, not even as Lek.

Some ideological concerns against a nations histroy, doesnt enough of deny its comfirmed truths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1HistoricalCorrecter1 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The only source that says the Zands were Lurs is David Yerushalmi (according to the Zand dynasty article=. Judging by his article he doesn't seem to be a historian. As for Laks, they are Kurds (I know you can argue this and whatnot), but take a look at the article about them.
Regards, Hvakshahtrah (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 7 By W. William Bayne Fisher, P. Avery, G. R. G. Hambly, C. Melville- "Another Zagros tribal group which returned from Khurasan to their home ranges at this time were the Zand. A minor pastoral people wintering on the Hamadan plains, centred on the villages of Pari and Kamazan in the vicinity of Malayir, they have been variously classified as Lurs and as Kurds: both Luri and Kurdish-speaking groups bearing the name of Zand have been noted in recent times, but the bulk of the evidence points to their being one of the northern Lur or Lak tribes, who may originally have been immigrants of Kurdish origin." p. 64. It just needs to be clear that we are unsure. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Are there any sources (except Kurdish authors e.g. Mehrdad R. Izady) which mentions to the Zand dynasty as a "Kurdish dynasty" ? Takabeg (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm under the impression you didn't look. A search on "Zand dynasty" with Kurdish turns up several on the first page, eg [4] p. 154 Historical Dictionary of the Kurds By Michael M. Gunter, [5] A Modern History of the Kurds: Third Edition By David McDowall, etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Michael M. Gunter doesn't use "Kurdish dynasty". As to David McDowall, I cannot read page on google books. Does McDowall use "Kurdish dynasty" ? Takabeg (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
You are right about Gunter, he says "Kurdish Zand dynasty". However, it amounts to the same thing and it's odd that your objection is based upon minor wording differences. McDowall doesn't either, he just says Karim Khan was the Lur-Kurdish founder of the dynasty, which seems to suggest it is a Kurdish, or Lur-Kurdish dynasty, and certainly is a reason not to remove it from the list. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
As to Lurs,

Takabeg (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Zand dynasty

Please adding the Zand dynasty to, which were a dynasty of Leki-speaking kurdish origin if the Zand tribe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilok27 (talk • contribs) 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dilok27: See Talk:List_of_Kurdish_dynasties_and_countries#Zand_dynasty. at the bottom of this page. Koopinator (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but for example the safavids didn‘t spoke Kurdish as their were a Kurdish tribe, but the Zand princes spoke Kurdish in their house, which makes Kurdish to an Important language in an Dynastic way, so Kurdish culture makes more importence then many other here in this list, so why we don‘t just add it to? Dilok27 (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Zand dynasty.

Could the Zand dynasty also counter into it? Because they originated from the „Lek“ tribe, a Kurdish tribe which setteld in the majority Kurdish lived areas like Kermanshah, or Province of Kordestan KurdîmHeval (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Waiting for answer. 

KurdîmHeval (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

For Zands I agree, seeing as the Zand tribe has multiple sources stating they are in fact a Kurdish tribe. For Safavids there's a good argument for its inclusion as well seeing as Safi-ad-din Ardabili was Kurdish and the Safavid Dynasty article does state a partial Kurdish origin. If nobody has any counterarguments then I think I'll add those two later. --Qahramani44 (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue is mostly not about the ethnicity, but the fact that x ethnicity =/= x dynasty. That would be like calling the Afsharid state for a Turkic dynasty, or Napoleons empire for an Italian one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Afsharid dynasty is a Turkic-origin dynasty though, the same way the Ayyubid dynasty was Kurdish, and so on. This article includes not just Kurdish states but Kurdish dynasties as well, which (assumingly) would include dynasties with a Kurdish origin. An apt comparison would be the List of Iranian dynasties and countries article, which includes the Rustamid dynasty purely because the founder of said dynasty was Persian. I support adding the Zands and even the Safavids to this article on that line too. --Qahramani44 (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Origin yes, certainly not a realm though. And that's because List of Iranian dynasties and countries is a mess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the Safavids should, but the Zand dynasty should definitely be listed here, it's regarded as kurdish in the List of Iranian dynasties and countries as well, not to mention the Zand tribe still exists and they're Kurdish, that's also mentioned on their wikipedia page, as for their Realm the Zands ruled over a good chunk of kurdistan too, much more than the Ayyubids that are listed here. Zageos21 (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Name change

Wouldn't it be more accurate to name the article List of Kurdish entities or something similar? We have dynasties, principalities, emirates, kingdoms, one soviet republic, two current autonomous regions, etc and the term 'country' does (for me) insinuate sovereignty. Thoughts? --Semsûrî (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think List of Kurdish polities would be best fitting. Yeah some kind of name change is definitely needed, preferably one including "polity" rather than trying to be overy specific. --JonahF (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The introduction?

The introduction seems a little farce as it doesn’t add anything to the article other than possible bias? This is due to comparing the page List of Iranian dynasties and countries which (albeit semi-incorrect) groups all iranian groups into one identity without any argument against such.

The usage of the belief that Kurds are nomads not as a possibility but as a sheer fact, is a common way to de-root the identity from the land to devalue said people.

I’m not accusing anyone on wikipedia however this is frequently used by people with an obvious political intent outside of such.

One user edited this article removing a “racist remark” which whilst I assume good faith, does seem to beg the question: If this is a list of Kurdish dynasties and countries, why is the introduction included if not to possibly devalue Kurdish identity?

Everyone has a right to their opinion and research but surely this size for an introduction may possibly be devaluing in nature.

I’m more than happy to hear what all sides have to say, I would prefer coming to a consensus rather than argue. Volkish Kurden (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The introduction should be something more akin to:
This is a list of Kurdish dynasties, countries and autonomous territories. The Kurds are a stateless peoples residing in Eastern Anatolia, Northern Iraq, Western Iran, Northwestern Syria and some parts of Armenia, for more information see Origin of the Kurds.
It’s a little rusty but it’s mainly due to me accidentally stumbling onto this page rather than actually planning out a proper unbiased rewriting of such, if a consensus is achieved it’ll be much better for all editors contributing! Volkish Kurden (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hamdanid dynasty

Hello @HistoryofIran, I find it questionable why you undid my edit.


After all, it is about other dynasties of Kurdish origin. Dynasties and empires were all more religiously oriented back then, so to speak, today nobody can claim this or that for themselves as long as the 100 percent confirmation does not appear. So you shouldn't call the Rum Seljuks Turkish, they spoke Persian and lived in Persian culture.


The point is that the Hamdanids intermarried with Kurdish dignitaries to maintain their connection with the Kurdish tribes east of them. I think this is very relevant and fits perfectly into the "Other dynasties of Kurdish descent" section. - Best regards! Weşanvan (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This article is named "List of Kurdish dynasties and countries", starting to put non-Kurdish dynasties because they intermarried with other ethnicities is frankly WP:TENDENTIOUS territory. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran, Well, according to the fact that the Hamdanids did not have Kurdish blood in the family in the distant sense, but the rulers personally, it can be assumed that Kurdish was spoken in the dynasty house, i.e. that Kurdish armies were also present in the front of the Hamdanids, as well That a manifestation of Kurdish culture was present in the dynasty house thus, do not believe that the Kurdish dignitaries were puppets which did not contribute any part to the Kurdish identity in the Hamdanid house.
Likewise, calling the Hamdanids "Arabic" as a nation-dynasty is incorrect. Ultimately it was a Shia dynasty in northern Mesopotamia and the Levant. As I said, it is under the "Other dynasties of Kurdish ancestry" section. Unfortunately, I still don't feel comfortable with your reasoning. - Best regards. Weşanvan (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
In Wikipedia we follow WP:RS, not the assumptions/deductions of users. Moreover, you are contradicting yourself, if ethnicity does not matter, then what are they doing in an article called "List of Kurdish dynasties and countries"? Why do we even have an article called that? See also WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello @HistoryofIran,
Quite simply, these articles pertain to the array of dynasties of Kurdish identity that the Hamdanids had as evidenced Kurdish identities, so I still find it questionable not including them in this list under the heading "Other dynasties of Kurdish origin", which is not a conclusion of mine Page off, it would be justified to mention you here, unfortunately I don't understand what you are sending me for links, the guidelines have not been broken here, I can read this.
Again: This article means dynasties that have developed a Kurdish identity, as mentioned above and in the article I also had this in the source, that the Hamdanids married Kurdish dignitaries, not just that they were "Kurds" there is, but also culturally arranged to establish good chemistry with the Kurdish tribes in the east. Find it very relevant and worth mentioning in the article. - Best regards.
Weşanvan (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The "Other dynasties of Kurdish ancestry" section should also get removed, it's just a door way to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.
This article means dynasties that have developed a Kurdish identity, as mentioned above and in the article I also had this in the source, that the Hamdanids married Kurdish dignitaries, not just that they were "Kurds" there is, but also culturally arranged to establish good chemistry with the Kurdish tribes in the east. Find it very relevant and worth mentioning in the article.
You've already said this (WP:REHASH), and I've already replied to it. Let me rephrase my reply: Do you have a source that supports that the Hamdanids adopted a Kurdish identity? If you do, then please post a quote and its page from the source that says that. If not, please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:OR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello @HistoryofIran,
A source which describes kurdish and arab armies of the Hamdanids: https://www.academia.edu/21393386/Hamdanids_and_Kurds
I don't know if you speak turkish, go into the source, scroll down a little until you see a page with the heading (kürtler), here you can see that next to the marriage with kurdish dignitaries in the other sources, this is described here Kurdish and Arab fronts formed under the Hamdanids. All these points also contribute to the fact that the Kurdish language also played a role in the dynasty, and a Kurdish identity was definitely present. - Best regards. Weşanvan (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran, I don't think the section "Other dynasties of Kurdish ancestry" is a bad idea, it shows that their were also Kurds who played a role in history from other regions as well. - Best regards. Weşanvan (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
So you have no source which states that, it's just your own conclusion. Moreover, I'm not sure if that source is even WP:RS per WP:SPS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello @HistoryofIran,
I don't understand this at the moment, so what does it look like, don't think there would be anything against it here? I have given the source and also 2 sources in the article which confirm my statements, do not understand the circumstance.
- Best regards. Weşanvan (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but what is it you “don’t understand”? That you’re only allowed to add what a WP:RS states? HistoryofIran (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello @HistoryofIran,
I'm asking because I think this source is justified enough and doesn't hurt Wikipedia guidelines, there are many of these sources distributed on Wikipedia. This source is independent or neutral, it is described exactly what I emphasize in the source, I do not understand that. Weşanvan (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran, PS: The source is no harm to Wikipedia after I've looked it up, with all due respect, their is nothing in the way anymore, thanks. - Best regards Weşanvan (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
It's simple. We add what WP:RS says, we don't add our own conclusions based of what we've read. If you can't show a quote from a WP:RS which supports that they adopted a Kurdish identity and culture, don't add it, otherwise it is just POV pushing. I think we're done here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello @HistoryofIran,
again, this source conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines. so for first, this point is settled.
Next: I am now quoting excerpts from the source in the original Turkish language, then with Google translate for you in English. PS:These are only small sections of many which confirm my statement, for more confirmation I ask for self-reading.
Turkish (Source original language):
Kürtler ile yapilan savaglar digindan Hamdâni ve Kürtler arasinda evlilik yolu ile akrabalk dahi kurulmustur.
Hamdânì emiri Nasruddevle evlilik yoluyla Kürtlerle akrabahk kurmustur. Bu cümleden Fatima bt.
Ahmed el-Kürdi ile evlenen Nâsruddevle'nin bu kadindan Ebû Taglib
Gazanfer adinda kendisinden sonra Musul emirligine geçecek olan oglu dünyaya gelmistir. Muhtemelen bu sebepten dolayi yazarlar ta-
rafindan Hamdânîler bir Kürt devleti olarak kabul edilmektedirler.
English:
Apart from the wars with the Kurds, even kinship was established between Hamdani and the Kurds through marriage. He established kinship with the Kurds through marriage with the Emir of Hamdani, Nasruddev. From this sentence Fatima bt.
Abu Taglib was one of the women of Nâsruddevle who married Ahmed al-Kurdi.
His son named Gazanfer, who would pass to Mosul emirate after him, was born. Probably for this reason many authors describe
the Hamdanids are accepted as a Kurdish state.
See: Page 124 - 125.
For further Confirmation:
  1. Miskeveyh, V, 441-442.
  2. Tori, Kürtlerin Ortaçag ve Yeniçag Tarihi, Istanbul 2000, s. 81.
— Best regards. Weşanvan (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Always the most obscure, inaccessible books in non-English to push an opinion not even remotely supported by high-quality WP:RS. Please see WP:VER, WP:SPS, WP:PST (Miskeveyh), WP:WEIGHT and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Now that I quoted you that, does it have to be in the original English language?
This book "Kürtler" was named by 2 Turkish professors and authors: Prof. Dr. Adnan Demircan and Doc. dr Mehmet Akbaş. As a non-historian, do you now want to speak out against this and declare this to be absurd?
And the accusation that this source does not comply with the Wikipedia guidelines is wrong, colleague, I have read everything you sent me, nothing speaks against me or my source.
You're giving me a bit of a strange impression, on your user page it says that you're not afraid to let go of arguments, now let's go on a more correct path, we're both better off that way, lets come to an fair end. - Best regards. Weşanvan (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
It seems you didn't read the guidelines, specifically WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:SPS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran,
It is an academic report and a book written by 2 professors. It‘s a normal source. I‘ve read it already. Weşanvan (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not going to sit and read those two rules out loud for you, WP:COMPETENCE is required. Let me show you some actual WP:RS, which took me barely 5 minutes to find:
  1. "The Hamdanids are an Arab (i.e., Bedouin but nomadic) family from the Banu Taghlib tribe that has been recorded in the Djazira since pre-Islamic times. Although initially Bedouin, the Hamdanids established an urban regime."" - page 312., Yehoshua Frenkel, Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Routledge
  2. "In some of these, the Arabs retained their old primacy. One family who did so were the Hamdanids, prominent in northern Iraq and northern Syria for much of the tenth century. - page 331, Arabs: A 3,000-Year History of Peoples, Tribes and Empires," Tim Mackintosh-Smith, Yale University Press
  3. "Hamdanids Arab' nomadic Shii clan that undermined Abbasid rule from Mesoptamia (905-991)." - page 107, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, John L. Esposito, Oxford University Press,
  4. "The Hamdanids came from the Arab tribe of Taghlib..[..]...the Hamdanids tended to follow the Shī'ī inclinations..." page 85, Bosworth, C.E. (1996). The New Islamic Dynasties. Columbia University Press.
  5. "Ḥamdānids , Tag̲h̲libī Arab family which, in the 4th/10th century, provided two minor dynasties, which arose, owing to the decadence of the ʿAbbāsid caliphate, in Mesopotamia or D̲j̲azīra (Mosul) and in Syria (Aleppo), and whose most distinguished representative was the amīr of Aleppo, Sayf al-Dawla.", Ḥamdānids, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Brill
  6. "The Hamdanids were from the Arab tribe of Taghlib in the Jazira. For most of the tenth century they established their rule semi-independently from the 'Abbasids, first in Mosul and parts of the Jazira from 905." - page 85, Queens, Eunuchs and Concubines in Islamic History, 661-1257, Edinburgh University Press
  7. "The Hamdanids were drawn from the Banu Taghlib, a tribe which had grazed the Jazcra area since pre-Islamic times. - page 265, Kennedy, Hugh (2004). The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates: The Islamic Near East from the 6th to the 11th Century. Fourth edition is published by Routledge, says it all.
  8. "In the north-western corner of their domains the Buyids had a difficult problem, the troubled and troublesome Hamdanids. These Kharijites turned Shi'ites were as divided in their loyalties as they were amongst themselves. Their interests were more involved with the Byzantines than with their fellow Muslims. These native Arab chieftains had less support from their fellow Arabs than from the conglomeration of races in the region, including the Greeks." - page 169, Islamic History A New Interpretation, Cambridge University Press
  9. "It is astonishing how soon the Arabs fade out of Muslim history, Arabia itself excepted. There are notable instances to the contrary like the Hamdanids and the Banu Hilal, but they are few." - page 567, The Tribes of Syria in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Cambridge University Press
I think you should WP:DROPTHESTICK. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran,
No I don't think so yet, funny but there are links on Wikipedia like what you recommended me to do after citing your sources.
But what you have noticed is that I have not argued against the Hamdanids being of Arabic origin initially, my source as well as the one I added in the Hamdanids article simply confirms the assumption of Kurdish identity, so sending this source is in this one conversation powerless. Again: "The Hamdanids were a dynasty of Arab origin who intermarried with Kurdish dignitaries and adopted Kurdish culture, if along with Arabic culture, in order to improve their relationship with the Kurds in the east, aiming for to stay a powerful Shia empire in northern Mesopotamia and the Levant.“ Have given you under my message where I quoted the source also 2 other sources including confirming this. Think there is still time for nothing but a straight factual way.
Weşanvan (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Funny, none of the nine sources mention anything about them becoming Kurds, you would have thought they would have mentioned such as an important "fact"? Maybe because it's not supported in actual scholarship. I think this discussion is over, I think you should take some time reading our rules, bests. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran, It doesn't work that way, you only have the beginnings of these sources and the sections where the original origins of the Hamdanids are claimed, so we don't get to a point. I think that I have documented this quite well and that this discussion is for me.
PS: Simply using it as an argument that it doesn't seem to be important doesn't work, this is a very simple curtain over the real facts. I think the discussion is for me positive over, but I am waiting on your reply. Weşanvan (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Uh, no. The sources-no matter what page-don't mention a single bit of them becoming Kurdish at all, zero, nada. And please stop pinging me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for pinging I did not know that disturbs you.
Of course, not the sources that focus on the whole Arabic history, but those that basically only deal with the Hamdanids, these sources mention Kurdishness. I believe it is time for acceptance my Iranian friend… ;) Weşanvan (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
So, how does it look, Source reliable being exist. It is a fact you might not knew by your self, which does not matter at all. This Source, quote of a Book which also orienteers on 2 other sources which confirm that the Hamdanids can be accepted as a Kurdish state or as a Dynasty with kurdish origin‘s, or a dynasty with kurdish identity and Cultural livings. - Thanks. Weşanvan (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
My last comment here, unless you actually bring WP:RS up: You are very quick to make observations (or rather, excuses) on 9 sources which you didn't even take a look at. Let's pretend that they're actually "whole Arabic history" sources (whatever that's supposed to mean) then I guess that makes it illegal for them to mention anything else than Arabs? That would be nonsense. And no, repeating yourself (WP:REHASH), spamming this talk page isn't gonna make your case any less weaker. And don't refer to me by background again, I have a username. The fact you say "I believe it is time for acceptance" says it all. If you continue disregarding our rules, you will be reported to WP:ANI for WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Fine, to clarify, it was not my intention to address you personally about your origins, I said this because, as a Kurd, I also belong to the Iranian peoples, but unfortunately I just don't know my way around that well. Hope you don't feel offended, discussion closed. Weşanvan (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Safavid dynasty.

The Safavids were of Kurdish Origin. https://iranicaonline.org/articles/iran-ix23-shiism-in-iran-since-the-safavids

Woudnt be it good to include them also? They were Pro Iranian, and we all know that Kurds are also Iranic people. KurdîmHeval (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Culturally they were Turkic. 46.114.110.239 (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I wait for an anwer KurdîmHeval (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

You've already been answered multiple times several places (including my talk page). If you continue this disruptive pattern you will be reported (again). --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Kurdish_dynasties_and_countries/Archive_1&oldid=1240682369"