Talk:Kurds/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Urgent: Impossible Population Numbers

The CIA factbook says that 20% of Turkey's population, at most, is ethnically Kurdish. (As opposed to 7% who speak Kurdish as their primary language)

If this is the case, how can there be 21 million Kurds in Turkey? (30%) Exaggerated, impossible number.

Besides, what is the rationale of including the Jews who immigrated from Kurdish-populated areas to Israel? Jews are a different ethnic group. Tauphon 17:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you knew about the history of Turkish Kurds, it would make sense. Kurdish was illegal in public until 1991, and if you have actually been there, tis quite obvious that both are true, 20 million Turkish Kurds with 7% of turkey speaking primarily Kurdish. In the heart of Kurdish Turkey, you can ask for directions in Kurdish to a Kurd, and in a lot of the situations you'l get a Turkish response telling you they don't speak Kurdish. Jews actually have many natives in Kurdistan, it is believed by many that the Biblical figure Sarah (wife of Abraham) was a Kurd, which makes sense because there is a mountain called Sarah on the outskirts of Suleimaniyah in Iraq.

Language

This article doesn't make it very clear the chief Language of the Kurds. Kurdish is a combination of Persian, Turkish and Arabic. Most Kurds speak Arabic as a second language if they live in the Middle East. Sandy June 20:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sandy, Kurdish is a language in itself, it is not a combination of languages from different language trees. And if you didnt notice, Kurdistan is in the middle east, so a majority of kurds would live there... you make it sound as if Kurdistan is somewhere else. Ignorance, pure ignorance. Doindo 08:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Sorry the Kurdish dialects are not a combination of Persian, Turkish, and Arabic, but have

absorbed many words from these languages into their daily speech.

Educated Kurds can speak kurdish without a single Persian, Turkish or arabic word, in fact Arabic and Turkish don't belong to the same language familly. However, controlling land of Kurds for so many years and imposoing a foreign language and culture on them has had some effects that obviously has confused you. Turks and Arabs came very late to Kurdistan.

i didn't see any Turkish word in kurdish!!. kurdish and persian are having same root. "pAhlAvi Farsi" (from 400CE) is very close to now "pAhlEvAni Kurdish". Farsilogists in iran are beliving Kurdish is very close to old farsi root as like as Baluchi. saying kurdish have farsi word is like saying Kyrgyz has alot of Azerbaijani Word !!!!!

Dear Sandy, Kurdish is a language in itself, it is not a combination of languages from different language trees. And if you didnt notice, Kurdistan is in the middle east, so a majority of kurds would live there... you make it sound as if Kurdistan is somewhere else. Ignorance, pure ignorance. Doindo 08:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's actually impossible to speak Kurdish fluently and correctly without using at least two of these: Arabic, Turkish, or Farsi; because Farsi and Kurdish are almost intertwined linguistically, Arabic words are used for modern devices/technologies; and Turkish is mixed in with the Turkish Kurds, at least for the Kirmanji dialect. The Sorani subdialect uses mainly farsi, and the Badini subdialec uses a combination of Arabic and Turkish and Farsi. take from someone who's been there and lived there

Removal of text by Heja helweda

According to a recent article from Slate, "Most of the freedoms Turkish Kurds have been eager to spill blood over have been available in Iran for years; Iran constitutionally recognizes the Kurds' language and minority ethnic status, and there is no taboo against speaking Kurdish in public." [1]

On January 3, 2006 Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi, an 18 year old Kurdish girl from Karaj, was sentenced to death for murder by a criminal court of the Islamic Republic of Iran for stabbing a man who she claims tried to rape her and her fifteen year old niece when she was 17. As Nazanin has claimed that she only acted in self-defense, critics have pointed out that in another country she might be acquitted or receive only a short prison sentence. Iran also has a young age of eligibility for the death penalty - 15 years for males, and 9 for females. There has been a great level of international protest at this possible action of execution by the Iranian authorities.

---

I am putting these here in case Heja decides to remove again. It is especially incredible that she claims "Not every personal incident or death sentence is worthy of mention" [2] when in fact Nazanin's case is even more well known in the world than Qaderi! She is probably the most well known Kurdish girl in recent times because of the ridiculous death sentence imposed on her by the mullah courts. But then again Nazanin is also a Shia Kurd so maybe that explains the removal. That is typical. Khorshid 23:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please! I have nothing against your paragraph.

1) My objection was just that the article was already too long. Perhaps you have noticed the 32 KB warning every time we try to edit the article.

2) How can I be against Shia Kurds? while I am using Mehrdad Izady works as one of the main references, and just in case you do not know, he is Lak from Krmashan region, and I have added lots of stuff to the Kermanshah page, when some users were doing their best to hide its Kurdish character.

3) More than 10,000 Kurds were mudered by the Revolutionary Guards during the period 1979-1983, should we mention all of them by name, creating a useless list?

4) I am not very much in favor of keeping Shwane section either, since it takes lots of space which can be dedicated to better material from research papers.

5) As a final point, Slate is neither academic nor even reputable as a source. If you want to underline the loyalty of Kermanshahi Kurds (or all Iranian Kurds for that matter) to Iran, then come up with better sources please.Heja Helweda 00:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Heja Helweda 00:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Immanuel Velikovsky

We cite Immanuel Velikovsky in support of a point in the article. Since his work is rejected by scholarship as based on dubious theories, we should find another source to back this point. Any suggestions? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely nonscientific, political article!

The lack of references to serious, academic, reckognised books, articles and journals gives you a presentiment for the article's character. This article is not scientific at all. It contains so many mistakes that I am not even going to try to put things right. I can remember how the Kurds first tried to link themselves to the Median people of Iran, after they had claimed to be Assyrians, but after no serious historian supported that claim, now they are going even further back to the Hurrites. Well, the Hurrites were not even an Indo-European people (or at least did not speak an IE language). So what is next - Atlantis? First of all, the word "the Kurds" does not describe an ethnically, liguistically or whatsoever-ly associated people. It merely describes an identity that exists a bit more than 700 years, maybe 900. Before that, the people in today's Kurdistan had different identities, as they do today by the way, or do you seriously believe that Kermanshahis and Laks consider themselves the same as people from K.Maras and Malatya? The Iranian and many Iraqi Kurds are different than the Turkish ones as regards ethnicity, language and culture. Even the Turkish Kurds are a heavily diverse people. Zazaki, Kermanshahi, Laki etc. are not Kurdish languages, AND SO ON...

Somehow, I cannot get around the feeling that the author of this article has an rabid antipathy for Iranians (i.e. Persians, to be more specific). Unfortunately, I am witnessing a process of the Kurds copying the Turkish method of inventing their own history from a political point of view. What a pity. --84.226.45.78 05:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Dr Heinrich Westfal, Bonn

Probably you have not heard of the Battle of Ardashir I with Kurds in the 3rd century? (BTW near Kermanshah), which is recorded in the Pahlavi book The Book of Deeds of Arashir Papagan. Please take a look at the History of the Kurds to see that the term Kurd has been in use at least since 3rd century CE. So this term is not 900 years old, but around 1800 years old.Heja Helweda 00:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how the issues in this article never seem to get resolved. Everytime someone finds something they find offensive, they yell "Anti-Turkish", "Anti-Iranian", "Pro-Kurd", "Pan-Iranianism", "Anti-Kurd", or someother POV related comment. This article, though still having issues, is well written compared to some of the other Ethnic group articles I've seen. Achievements and mistakes are mentioned, dates, and an attempt has been made to cite sources. And please people, there are millions of Kurds, and not all of them are editing this article, so don't talk about "them" editing this article. It's a shame to see ultra-nationalists trying to go on the internets and spread their beliefs (Not just Kurds, I can see plenty of other edits here that were spurred by others for violating their beliefs and pride). I know I don't have much power here, I'm just sick of coming to this page, and seeing this stuff get "disputed", where all this effort could go for other articles in need of repair. Oh, and I guess I'll have the guys to put my signature up, and not hide behind false names and Ip's. --MercZ 02:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Zazaki is definetly not a Kurdish dialect. Zazaki is an Iranian language similar to Gorani,Belutchi and Mazderani. A Kurmanci speaker and a Zazaki speaker can not communicate with eachother.

Human Rights Watch

I would caution the editors of this page from relying exclusively on Human Rights Watch as a source on the civil war in Turkey. Though a commendable organization, HRW focuses exclusively on the shortcomings of governments, and will thus provide ample material on Turkish guilt, but none on the atrocities of the PKK. I think any intelligent person would understand that the PKK shares responsibility for the displacement of Kurds from their home villages. Heja Helweda introduces, in my opinion, an unconscionably Turcophobe view, when he asserts that Turkish security sources bear sole responsibility for the population displacement. --Anthon.Eff 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not asserting anything, the info. is given by HRW. If you see shortcomings in their policies, contact HRW please, and let them know about your concerns.Heja Helweda 00:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I have no problem with HRW. They do what they do very well. The problem is when one assumes that HRW is providing a complete picture of events in Turkey. The role of HRW is to criticize governments--not to criticize terrorist groups. HRW will therefore not discuss the PKK's responsibility for depopulated villages, but will discuss the responsibility of the Turkish state. If you are interested in presenting a NPOV in this article, you must also incorporate some sources bearing on the PKK role in depopulation. --Anthon.Eff 19:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Exaggerated

This page is not objective, even the population figures. The references does not rely on reliable sources. For example, about the population of kurds in turkey, www.world-gazetteer.com is given as a source. The total population of turkey is about 73m (2005 estimates). Considering te figures given in the article this means 30 percent of the population of turkey is kurds which is obviously wrong. This page is just seving as a kurdish propaganda rather than giving an information about the kurds. At the end, the editors of this article would say that there is no Turks in turkey, only kurds. If you click on the references givens, you'll see that the information given is not based on relevent sources, but the speculative ones.

Here is a estimate from the German government: [3] The German government based on provincial statistics estimated that in 1997 there was at least 18 million Kurds in Turkey. Perhaps there is other points in the article you may disagree with, but this one is well sourced by the German government and it is the most reliable estimate I have seen since it takes into account provincial statistics. The 18 million also does not take into account Zazas (who are traditionaly identified as Kurds) and also the growth between 1997 and 2006. So the 22 million estimate is also factual. --alidoostzadeh 08:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The reference given by alidoostzadeh above (related with the German government statistics) is not in English (even not in Latin alphabet) for this reason i cannot read it. You should either give a source in English or translate it to English. Even the latin alphabet is enough cause we are concerning the numbers here, we could guess what is about, or check the tables. However, alidoostzadeh put something we could not read. Furthermore, this source is from a commercial web site. Please, give official references (internationally recognized journals, organizations, factbooks,...) available from official sites. How can we sure that the source is not the fake one? E104421 12:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi the document is from the German government parliment member , but translated to Persian. You have a good point that how can we be sure that the source is not fake. Very legitimate. But here is another site that has it: [4]. Please check the last page (pg 98) for the actual source with the actual ISBN and ISSN number. The parlamentarian Amke Dieter-scheuer is also real and the same article is referenced here in a Turkish government website[5]. Unless you suspect the translation to be wrong, then I do not see any problem with the source since it is an estimate based on provincial statistics. --alidoostzadeh 20:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the document would be an excellent source for the Persian, Tajik, Dari, etc. Wikipedia, but it really isn't suitable here in the English Wikipedia. If the facts presented in the document are indeed widely known among authorities, it should not be a problem to find a good source in English. --Anthon.Eff 01:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The original document is in German and has IBSN and ISSN numbers and is referred to in a Turkish government website. Unless you think the Persian translation is wrong (which I do not believe so), I do not see any problem with that estimate since it i actually based on provincial statistics. I usually do not believe in many statistics, but this one is based on provincial data which is accurate. I think someone that knows German can find it. Here are some sites that mentions the article as well: [6] [7]. The author and think thank that wrote the article believe that in 1997 there were more than 18 million Kurds in Turkey (and I am not sure if they have considered Zazas as separate group or not). --alidoostzadeh 04:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Forget about the population figures for now. That is the least of this articles problems! Khorshid 06:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I still do not understand why the user alidoostzadeh is always pushing the sources other than English. I strongly agree with the user Anthon.Eff that it is possible to find a reliable source in English (especially for this case, statistics). I checked the sources given, but they just increased my suspicion, cause the links do not target the relevent references. Furthermore, the user alidoostzadeh gives references to a parliament member but representing this above as the official statistics report of the German Government and this report could not be found in Latin Alphabet! even not published offically by German Government. As i stated above, the references should be from internationally recognized publications or organizations (most of them have English versions). A single German parliament member's report does not make it a reliable one. In addition, the user alidoostzadeh tries to support this POV by giving references to other unofficial ones. For this reason, this user alidoostzadeh seems to me pushing his POV by forwarding sources other than English (also not even in Latin alphabet) all the time, cause we cannot understand what's written there. His sources are based on beliefs, guesses, opinions, ... that cannot be considered scientific. Rahter than providing us just a single reliable source or even the translation of it, he's just pushing the same POV fork "...18 million kurds in turkey..." all the time, in order to convince us and to stop discussion. What should we do? Sorry, alidoostzadeh, we cannot accept the sources that we could not read. We need neutral statistical data, not the IBSN and ISSN numbers of the reports written in alphabets we are not familiar with. For me, the data itself is enough if i could read the numbers! E104421 08:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The study was done by think-thank along with that parlamentarian I mentioned. I am not trying to push any POV, it is not my POV. It is a study done by German government (members of parliment and German government think thanks count as government). You say you can not accept a source you can not read (I assume you mean German or the Persian translation). I totally agree with that part. But lots of Wikipedia articles have referenced non-English language sources. Either way have you tried to access that article since I provided the ISBN and ISSN number? If I find the original German article will you also reject it again? The study as far I as read is the most detailed analysis on Kurdish population and it is not a POV since it is written by members of German government. The reason the study is accurate is that all the analysis are contained and they do not throw a random number out. There is no guesses, opinions or beliefs, I am just quoting that article. If you believe the translation is wrong, then either the translator did make a mistake (which is always possible) or we must seek the German version to resolve this issue. Also do not use we to refer to your and he to refer to me, since you are only a spokeman for yourself as I am as well. Many articles have estimate figures. If you can show the estimate of that document to be invalid (you must obtain the German source and read it) then I have no disagreement. But just to reject the article without reading it and providing a response why it might be wrong is not really an academic approach. Perhaps you have evidence that invaldiates the claim of that article? For example estimates of Kurds in Iran can range really between 4 million to 8 million. (low and high end). Same in Iraq it could be 4 to 6 million. Same in Syria. Same in Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan. Note I do not like many of the internet sites that give random numbers (specially some missionary sites who make the simplest mistakes and have never done any census), but the study above actually goes into some detail and has an author and think thank. So the figure 14-18 million is justifiable. Here is an article that says 30% of Turkey is of Kurdish background: [8]. --alidoostzadeh 14:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Khorshid that there is really some content problems in this article, for example Kurds fighting Summerians is unscientific and has no academic source even if its in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Okay so the Encyclopedia Britannica says it, but where is the actual source within Enyclopedia Britannica? It is true perhaps semi-nomadic Zagros people fought Sumerians sometimes and sometimes had friendly relations, but this does not make those people necessarily Kurds. Also the Ergativity of some Kurdish dialects is like the ergativity of some Persian dialects around Shiraz, Yazd, Kerman and Pashtu, Talyshi and other Iranian dialects and even Indo-Aryan languages. It does not necessarily mean a connection with Hurrians. Also Kurds Fighting Persians is another false point since Sassanids according to some accounts were partially Kurds and the story of Ardeshir-e-Babakan has many mythical aspects, as well as the term Kurd in Pahlavi does not necessarily denote an ethnic group If we mean the Medes(whom I believe to be the ancestor of Kurds culturally and linguistically as well partially in genetics) and Achaemenids then many Medes actually took sides with the Achaemenids against Astyages according to sources and there was strong interaction between these two groups such that in the bible it is called the law of Persian-Medes. Also DNA has given various contradictory reports. One mentions Kurds being related to Jews, another Kurds being related to Hittites and another Kurds being related to other Iranians. Do we want to say Kurds have been fighting Turks or various Kurdish groups have been fighting various Turkish/Iranian government? Or perhaps better way to say it is that a noticeable portion of Kurds feel resentment towards the government of Turkey, Iran, Syria and former Iraq. But to say Kurds have been fighting another ethnic group (Persian or Arab or Turks) seems to me to be written from a POV in order to actually set up various people in the region against each other whereas thankfully so far we have not had a situation like the Balkans or Nagorno-Karabagh in the Middle East. Sure at various times there has been hostilities between say Arabs and Persians, but there was also various times that there was cooperation (Abbasids for example). Or during the end of the Ottoman period, Arabs fought against Turks, but is it correct to say Arabs have been fighting Turks throughout their whole history? I feel there is a bit of hostility presented in this article starting from the unreferenced Britannica quote. Most Kurds of Bijar, Garous, Elam, Kermashan, Khorasan in Iran (about 60-70%) do not have any separatist feelings. If we include Laki speakers, then that number is definitely over 70%. So it is incorrect to say "Kurds" were fighting the "Iranian" government. Also Hurrians, Sumerians, Urartu, Hittites were discovered only in the last century and a half. I firmly believe that the Mede identification of Kurds which has been accepted historically since at least 600 years ago is firm. The word KurManj itself means son of Medes as Mar and Maraj in Armenian denote Mede. We consider any group in the Middle East to be a conglormate of different people's but the main identifier is language and culture which comes from the Indo-Iranian Medes and the rest of the elements are influences from neighbors as well as previous cultures absorbed by the Medes. Also why isn't there any mention of Kurdish mythology which is the same as other Iranic people. --alidoostzadeh 17:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As i told you above, i checked all your sources. I have no objection for sources in languages other than english but why a german parliament member did not publish it either in german or english? i still do not understand. As i explained above, the sources or references should be from internationally recognized journals, organizations,...etc. that can be considered as reliable sources. Why don't you provide a source in Latin Alphabet, alidoostzadeh? The problem is your main reference report is persian, sorry, i do not know persian but is it too difficult to find a source written in Latin Alphabet?

When i asked about reliable sources, you are replying in a such way that "you should find the sources by yourselves". For example, you could present a very simplistic source such as The World FactBook [[9]] which gives July 2006 estimates on population figures also (~14m. kurds "at the very most"(all people except turks) in turkey), but you did not want to do it, cause your aim is to present exaggerated figures and facts. Your exaggerated statement above "the figure 14-18 million is justifiable" has approximately 28.6% difference which is a large percentage difference for such a statistics. To sum up, alidoostzadeh is unable to present reliable sources but still tries to push the exagerated fork on the population of the kurds.

The main problem related with the Kurdish people article is this kind of propaganda based on ethnocentrism. Rather than providing neutral information based on scientific research, pushing the POV fork all the time. E104421 11:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Again you didn't check the source or else you would not have objections. Also you did not read correctly. A German parliment member did publish it. All the information in Latin Alphabet is on the last page of the source I provided!! (read pg 98). If you think the translation is invalid on the 18 million, then provide reasons. I have shown the ISBN and ISSN number and the title and the name of the parliment member in German and it is all on pg 98. Also right now I have provided another source that says 30% of Turkey is possibly Kurdish [10]. You forgot to comment on that. There is no ethno-centerism here and personally I do not like the Turkish government, Iranian government and the Kurdish parties. Or khak bar sareh hamashoon. But I am just discussing a statistics here based on sources. The exact number of Kurds in Turkey is unknown. If you have any reason to claim that the 30% is invalid (for example some missionary sites provide really bad information which I have criticized with knowledge), then provide your sources. Else I have provided two sources now that say higher than 14 million. Any ethnic related article in wikipedia is full of ethnocenterism, but over here we are just discussing about some number. How can an estimate on Kurdish population that is based on two sources I mentioned be considered ethno-centeric? Merhaba. --alidoostzadeh 19:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop spreading kurdish ultranationalist POV! And read yourself your POV-Sources. In your "worldcivilsociety" link you can see an organisation named "Kurdistan National Congress" which was represented by Mr. Nilufer Koc. "Kurdistan National Congress" is founded by the terrorist organisation PKK (Kongra-Gele) and cant be taken as a Wikipedia Source. --LACongress 15:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Here everyone can read himself:

http://www.statewatch.org/news/nibarch2002.htm "The challenge to the listing of the PKK as a terrorist group by the Council is summarised in the Official Journals, case in Court: C 233/32 (pdf) plus challenge by the Kurdistan National Congress also to the Court of Justice" --LACongress 15:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

i find german book of alidoostzadeh's PDF in ebay. this is link. http://product.half.ebay.com/_W0QQprZ6032555QQcpidZ1194033799

An additional note of interest, Wr in the Middle East and the role of Kurds

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361

Related ethnic groups

I have modified related ethnic groups to the following:

1) Baluch , since they also speak a north-western Iranian language, exactly the same branch as Kurdish.

2) Jews, due to the genetic bonds as explained in the article.Heja Helweda 01:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections, but why did you delete everything else? We should still link to the Iranian peoples article in the infobox. —Khoikhoi 01:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Thanks for your reminder. Heja Helweda 01:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I will have to object to this. The Jews are themselves genetically diverse, and whether the term Jews defines a race, nation, ethnic group or religion is up for debate. One genetic article claims Kurds are close to Hittite. Another to Jews. Another to Assyrians. Until these facts become coherent, I do not think one can mention these groups as related just because of some similarities in DNA. Also how can 1 million Yarans and few million alevis as well as 500,000 Yezidis be considered few people?!/--alidoostzadeh 02:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The pseudo-scientific-ethnocentric genetics at the end would make it possible to relate kurds with all the ethnic groups. What about the aliens? E104421 12:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the "pseudo-scientific-ethnocentric genetic" studies are more reliable than relating different ethnic groups to each other, genetically, according to what language they speak, especially in an area as complex as the Middle East. That may work culturally, but not otherwise.

Kurds are not iranian people. Just speaking an iranian language doesnt make them somekind of iranians. Thats ridiculous. Thats a typical kurdish ultranationalist POV. --LACongress 15:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Might I add that most Kurds feel an antipathy towards Iranians, and the second last thing they'd want is to show genetic links to them (first being genetic links to Turks).

how did you find "most kurd" Idia? form your town or friend?

According to the article on Iranian people:

"According to a recent study, the ancestors of the Kurds were from an old Mediterranean substratum, i.e. Hurrian and Hittite groups. According to this study the Aryan ancestry of the Kurds and other Iranian-speaking populations in Anatolia is not supported by genetic analyses.[39]"

The Kurds related ethnic groups are uncertain, and many genetic tests seem to show that the Kurds links to Iranian people stems more so from a shared language than shared genetics, therefore the listed related ethnic groups are not entirely correct.

?

I dont understand what that edit war was about..I understand the "origin" question, but let's not get too caught up in it. We can go to all sorts of articles and add "they were the descendants of Babylonians", "X are the descendants of the Ethiopian tribes of 100 thousand years ago" (which is true for humanity btw).. So instead of going back three thousand years to see who is really who, let's contextualize.. Who is anyone? X is the descendant of Y, who descends from Z, who descends from A and goes to Adam and Eve (if u r religious) or to the 2000 strong confederation of Ethiopian tribes of 100000 years ago (if u r scientific).. So just cool it!! :))) Probably in three hundred years we will all be speaking English, so what's the fuss? :)) Baristarim 12:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

I rated the Kurdish people article: B-Class, with the following comments:

• Very through coverage of topic; an impressive number of references. The references, however, are improperly formatted. They should be formatted such that the full details of every reference appears in the references section (as opposed to simply a set of square brackets with a number inside, e.g. [35]). See Taiwanese aborigines for some examples of fully formatted <ref> tags.
• POV disputes.

You can give this article (and any other article) a rating, as described below.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the article's talk page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 00:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree this Y cromosome trend is just ridiculous. genetic sub strata to some extent always is present while civilizations come and go.

Rastafarian origin of the Kurds

The Kurds are a Assyrians that were converted by Rastafarian missionaries in the 10th Century BC long before the movement took root in Jamaica mon.

Oh yeah, and how can you prove that? Ozgur Gerilla 15:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got references: [11] --Calibas 03:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Most sources say that Kurds are related to the Hurrians. In fact, half of the language is Hurrian, the other half being Kirmanji

TfD nomination of Template:Kurds

Template:Kurds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Khorshid 13:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Khorasan Kurds

About a million Kurds live in Khorasan, Iran (north of Mashhad) since the Safavid period. Should it be considered a diaspora, or a well-established Kurd community? If so, the maps showing Kurdish population distribution should be expanded to enclose it. -- Hugo Dufort 07:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

kurds fighting sumerians?

kurds were orange seeds during the reign of sumerians. the fact is that bulk of kurds were accepted into asia minor by ottoman sultan selim I. who massively de-turkmenized amed and neighboring areas. a hattian background for the kurdish culture is totally unscientific. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.170.116 (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Number of Kurds in Turkey

This is a dead link: [12], and since it is being used to justify the very high figure of 30% as the Kurdish percentage of the population of Turkey, we need to quickly find a new source. Anthon.Eff 20:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad source

This source apparently has begun some mischief over population numbers:

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

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

MacQuarrie is listed as footnote 37 in the current article. Footnote 36 is to a password-protected source. Both of these need to be removed. Anthon.Eff 17:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Most estimates that I have seen so far (CIA, Council of Europe, etc.) say Kurds make up 15-20% of Turkey's population.Heja Helweda 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Encylopedia of Columbia suggests following numbers as of 1990s:

Turkey: More than 20% of the country.

Iran: 10% of Iranian population.

Iraq: 23% of Iraqi population

Awat 07:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies from the "sloppy thesis writer" for the bad link. I'm not sure what happened but the attribution for the Kurdish population figures should have came from Dr. Mehrdad R. Izady from Harvard and Columbia Universities who is a well published expert on Kurdish peoples. He is referenced on this article on footnote #11. He has published these figures (should have been my attribution) in:

Izady, Mehrdad R. "KURDS and KURDISTAN: Facts and Figures," The International Journal of Kurdish Studies, Vol. 5, Numbers 1 & 2 Spring-Fall 1992.

or can be found at this link: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/facts/ under Demographic Trends.

At the time of writing, the link http://www.kurdish.com contained updated data on these figures but the URL has been taken over by someone else. Fortuately I saved the data myself. A portion of it is provided below along with Dr. Izady's comments on how he predicted the future population figures. Data: Population (% Kurdish). Based on 3.65% avg. annual growth rate.

Country	1990	2000	2020
Turkey	13.8 (24.3%)	19.0 (28.8%)	32.8 (37.5%)
Iran	6.1 (11.0%)	8.4 (11.3%)	15.0 (11.5%)
Iraq	3.9 (20.7%)	5.6 (24.8%)	9.6 (25.1%)
Syria	1.2 (9.5%)	1.6 (9.3%)	2.9 (10.4%)

His notes are as follows: The figures for Iraq assume the return home of some 200,000 Iraqi Kurdish refugees from Iran by the year 2000. The large proportional increase of Iraqi Kurds is due to the emigration from Iraq of 2 million, mostly Arab, workers by 1992. Kurdish growth average for the 1990s is assumed to be the median between those of Syria and Iran; for 2000-20 those of Iraq and Iran; for 2020-2050 the same as that of Iran. Figures are rounded to the nearest decimal point. For state population figures and projections, the figures are those of Population Reference Bureau, World Population Data Sheet (Washington, DC, 1988)

Patrick R. MacQuarrie 19:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Subscription Source

Footnotes 10, 11, and 12 direct one to the Encyclopedia Britannica Online, which is a paid source. The source should be accessible to everyone who looks at the article. These footnotes need to be removed. BTW, the figure of 35 million is miraculously transformed to 20 million in the Britannica, which is the cited source for the figure. Anthon.Eff 02:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The paid service is for access to the full article, not for the current link which is free. It mentions at least 20 million Kurds live in Kurdistan. Since the data used in this article, is taken from the available portion of the Britannica's article, there is no need to remove it. For the 35 million, I agree that it is just a big exaggeration.Heja Helweda 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that the 35 million figure is in the article, but the source says "at least 20 million." We need a new source. Anthon.Eff 18:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Kurds in Turkey

Bringing this here from Heja's talk page Heja, you deleted sourced text that I contributed to the Kurdish people article. Can you explain why? The usual procedure would be to use the talk pages. Anthon.Eff 04:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the numnbers given by Ethnologue before, but the problem is they are very outdated, as most of their sources are from 70s and 80s. Normally we should not include estimates from 30 years ago. Since there are no reliable figures, in my view it is better to use more recent estimates like those in the report by the Council of Europe(which I used for some of the diaspora numbers) or CIA World Fact Book. As for assimilation, please see here [13]: The government's main strategy for assimilating the Kurds has been language suppression. Yet, despite official attempts over several decades to spread Turkish among them, most Kurds have retained their native language. I tried to add a 2006 report by European Council, which confirms the same 15-20% ratio for Kurds of Turkey.Heja Helweda 06:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The text was not about numbers of ethnic Kurds, it was about numbers of speakers of Kurdish-related languages. The point of the section that you dropped was that in Turkey the number of speakers is much less than the number of people who identify themselves as Kurdish. That's an important point and it belongs in the article. The source you present suggesting that most Kurds have retained their language (The US Country Study for Turkey, 1995) gives a figure for the Kurdish population in Turkey as 6-12 million, much less than the 15 million from the CIA factbook. Obviously the source has a narrow definition of what it means to be a Kurd. The fact remains that a very significant number of people identifying as Kurdish in Turkey speak only Turkish. Anthon.Eff 18:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely much more Kurdish people here in the UK then 80,000. The Kurd-Turk population here in London is estimated 350,000 and Kurds are the majority. Ozgur Gerilla 00:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I don't understand. Either this is a non sequitur or I've missed something important. Anthon.Eff 03:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you ever studied logic or mathematics but 80,000 of 350,000 can't be the majority. This means that there has to be a mistake. You guys were talking about the total of the Kurdish population and I'm telling you guys that some figures are definetely wrong. Whether it makes the total less or more. Ozgur Gerilla 15:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, got it! You are talking about the infobox. Find a good source for the number of Kurds in London and we can revise upward the UK number. Are most Kurds in the Greater London area, or are there also significant populations in Birmingham and the north? Anthon.Eff 00:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry didn't mean to be rude. I think most Kurds live in Greater London and particularly in North London. I would try my best to find a source. Ozgur Gerilla 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR ?

This entry below is in question, since it grossly lacked actual sources to verify the Kurdish diaspora population. Kurds do live in the U.S., Canada and other countries, but I never came across the information on how many Kurds or Kurdish people live in the US, in part of the US census never created a new ethnic/ancestoral category of Kurdish Americans. At this time, the estimated population of Kurds in the US is in dare need for complete research in order to have verification to stay in the article. I appreciate your efforts and let's clear things up, as well to look at Kurds living in Canada and Australia. 63.3.14.129 21:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

<<There was substantial immigration of Kurds into North America and elsewhere, mainly are political refugees and immigrants seeking economic opportunity. An estimated 100,000 Kurds are known to live in the United States, with 50,000 in Canada and less than 15,000 in Australia, but the Kurds in other continents are classified under an individual's land of origin: Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian and Turkish nationalities or passports confirmed their citizenship to these countries. [citation needed] >>

Intro needs rewrite

The intro needs total rewrite. To be a Kurd, you don't need to consider yourself to be indigenous to any region. One is not identified as a Kurd, only because they feel indigenous to a region. --Rayis 02:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Under "Regions with significant populations", it says "Kurdistan" with the countries list underneath. This is problematic because:

1) Kurdistan is a vague term. Is it referring to the region that connects Iran+Turkey+Syria+Iraq or is it referring to everywhere the Kurds inhabit?

2) Sources refer to how many ethnic Kurds live in a country. Kurds live, all over for example Iran, and in fact much of the population live in the North Eastern borders of Iran which is not part of the proposed "Kurdistan" borders that is usually assumed for "Kurdistan" (See above)

3) If you are going to count all ethnic Kurds in a country, then I propose removal of this "Kurdistan" as a region in the info box. --Rayis 15:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

. Is it referring to the region that connects Iran+Turkey+Syria+Iraq or is it referring to everywhere the Kurds inhabit? - it refers to where Kurds inhabit in the middle east.

Sources refer to how many ethnic Kurds live in a country. Kurds live, all over for example Iran, - this is not true. All Kurds in Iraq live in whats considered Iraqi Kurdistan. The same with Turkey and Syria, with a small expection. Iran I am not sure of thou. Chaldean 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

File:Iran peoples.jpg

Demographical map showing Kurdish community in North West and North East of Iran

]

"Where Kurds inhabit in the middle east" - according to which source?! so the whole Iran is basically part of Kurdistan?!

Also you just said you are not sure about Iran, so why do you think it is not true? It is certainly true in case of Iran. Sure, there are two major communities in Iran (and one lives in the west while the other in the east), but they can be found in all main the cities as well. --Rayis 16:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What User: Rayis says makes sense to me. If we use the term "Kurdistan" then we should have a map that shows exactly what we mean by that word. And it needs to be a single contiguous region rather than a bunch of discrete patches scattered all over the middle east. Is there such a map available? If there is a map, but there are copyright problems, I would be glad to help make a new one with a GIS. Anthon.Eff 21:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that they are in small groups scattered all over Iran as you can see by looking closer in the map, so I am not sure if that would be possible --Rayis 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added "Kurdish diaspora" because I believe thats what the data refers to --Rayis 11:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Rayis, "Kurdistan" is the name for the geographic/cultural region shown here (i.e. it is the region that Kurds traditionally inhabit). Kurds living in Sweden do not live in Kurdistan. Khoikhoi 15:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ARAMAIC LANGUAGE

I was under the impression that there were Christian Kurds whose Faith dates back to the 1st Century a.d. and who still spoke the language of Jesus of Nazareth, Aramaic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.68.240.118 (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2007 (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 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 [[14]] 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: [[15]]. --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. [[16]] [[17]].

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: [18]

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 [19]. 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[20]. 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[21].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: [22]. --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. [23] 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)