Jump to content

Talk:Kurds/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Yazdanism

The article about kurds religion is totally POV except to the fact, that nearly all kurds are moslems. The religios founder of the yazdanism was an arab named Sheik Adi. The Yazdanism was founded 1090 (AD). It is definitly not the "indigenous religion" of the kurds. Yazdanism is a new religion in the middle east and a mixture of many older religions, including the Islam. --MichaGreen 03:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Most kurds may officially be moslems. This does however not at all reflect the true beliefs, which are not an easy task to get hold of. I have added prof. Mehrdad R. Izady's, The Kurds A Concise Handbook to the ref list of the Yazdanism article. Read it and consider how taqqiyya may have influenced your misconceptions. ): Kurtan 08:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Islam

The Person who made this article wants to make Kurds look the least religous as he/she can, but this will never happen if im alive. I am the one that always changes it, and sense you dont accept my changes, i will just always delete the religon section from this article.

What is your problem, the text was quite normal, since here we cannot preach neither Islam nor atheism. Your lack of tolerance is inappropriate, this is not a battlefield. If you have any neutral sources supporting your claims then provide it. Asina 23:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My problem is people like you, who will do anything in their power to make Kurds look unislamic and nonmuslim. And what sources? You want sources to prove that Kurds are majority muslim? If so, ask, and i will give you a book of sources. --Sala7addin 00:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep calm and take aside your indignation. The article already says muslims are in majority. Dont vandalize the page anymore. Asina 00:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Vandalize?? Your whole article is irrelvant to the subject! Kurds and Jews! WTF is that? That is not even proven yet you waste no time in putting it in the article. Nobody cares about what Kurds "used" to be, people care about what Kurds are right now. Now are you going to accept my changes that i make to the religon section, or do i have to keep deleting it? Becuase I will, I have no problem with just deleting it over and over again. Your choice --Sala7addin 00:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Let him delete the religion section. Go ahead and delete it. Jalalarbil 00:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kurds in syria

After fall of Baghdad in 2003, or more exactly one and half a year ago Bashar Asad in a TV interview recognized the Kurdish ethnicity in Syria and said Kurds are part of Syrian social structure. This lead to official recogniztion of Kurdish comunity in Syria as Kurds; being the second alongside Arabs. I think this was an important development for Kurds in Syria. This is not mentioned in the article. The other important issue of those 300,000 who were deprived of citizenship and later were promised to recognize them in recent months has already discussed in the article. Other important issue of Kurds in syria which are not discussed are the 1945 rasing, the 1960s massacres by the government. 66.79.163.189 16:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Kurds in Iran

Do Kurds in Iran face difficulty in relation to their cultural and traditional issues? I dont think so. Any body claiming that at least should provide one reliable source. Cities like Mehabad, Sine (Sanandaj) and Urme are considerable centers of Kurdish culture and press. Jalalarbil 17:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Identification of Kurds throughout history

I have some problems with the text as it is, since it unequivocally identifies the Kurds with any historical reference to a name that sounded like "Kurd":

The first mention of the Kurds in historical records was in cuneiform writings from the Sumerians (3,000 BCE), who talked of the "land of the Karda."

Even if "Karda" is related to the name "Kurd", this says nothing of the people or the language.

In fact, it is pretty much impossible for Kurdish to have existed as an already differentiated Iranian language by 3000 BC, given that the Proto-Indo-Iranian language was said to have existed until the late 3rd millenium, and that Proto-Iranian, the common ancestor of Iranian and Kurdish, is dated to approximately 2000 BC (the Andronovo culture). --Saforrest 06:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The ancient Greek historian Xenophon referred to the Kurds in Anabasis as "Khardukhi...a fierce and protective mountain-dwelling people" who attacked Greek armies in 400 BCE.

The identification of the "Khardukhi" with the Kurds here seems probable but not definite. --Saforrest 06:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of Proto-Indo-Iranian or whatelse. It is about original Kurds and their mentioning in the historical records. Since early times of history the mountains of Zagros and Taurus was continuously home to a people commonly called with this name. (Karda, Kurda, Kord etc..) We know nothing more about them whether they all spoke an Indo-European tongue or not unless there were IE speaking tribes among them. But whatever we know is from writings by their historical neighbours, such as Assyrians, Akkadians, Persians etc.. about their presence. and this is the point of that. However, this is an well established fact, and for example the above statement is an exact quote from Prof, Wixman. Yet other scholars such as prof. Piotr Steinkeller, professor of Akkadian and Sumerian languages date back it to 4000 BC i.e. even one millenium before that...
Wirya 09:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It is incorrect to write that Kurds are related to Hurri or the Karda. What would be correct would be to write "Several scientists propose that Kurdish culture could be traced back to the Hurri culture and certain phrases in Pathian and Sumerian records may be referring to the ancestors of Kurdish peoples." It is important to remember vocal similarity does not imply a direct connection, and furthermore, even if such a connection does exist, it does not imply direct cultural descendance. When we talk about ancient languages, we do not have vowels, for example, the Old Testament reference to the Hittites is actually "ht", and "Hittite" is a modern name; and the name of Hittites was actually Neshilli, so vocal similarity would be a definitive way of not discovering the relationship between the old testament "ht" and Neshilli tablets.

Similarly, the root of "krt" or "krd" or "hrt" or "hrd" could be found similar to many words in many ancient languages. (And in fact in the case of Hurri, only two of the letters match.) See this article [1] for a mathematical explanation why such similarities should be ignored. A similar mistake is made with the neighboring Turkish heritage: The Turkish history is traced reliably to Gokturks, and not before. (7th cent.) because Gokturks left a writing system, unlike for example, the Huns. There are mentions of "trk" and "tk" roots in ancient Chinese records, so Turkish nomenclature can be traced to earlier times, but this is essentially speculation. The Kurdish history could be traced to 11th century, because that is when Kurdish states actually appeared.

Kurds in diaspora

There are already material on Kurds living in those countries where in they have historically done, but for Kurds in diaspora because the number of those countries in which Kurds have been scattered in is too much, please include them in this already existing article: Kurdish diaspora. Beriwan 13:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No Islam!

Is it true that Kurish nationalist parties are enthuastic towards de-islamization of Kurds? Is it true that PKK is encouraging its members to convert from Islam to either Zoroastrianism or Christianity? I heard that PKK says that Zoroastrianism is what the Kurds should actually practice.

Thats the biggest load of bull Ive heard in a long time. If you have any credible resources to back that up, please post them.

Kurds are not doing de-Islamization. There are still some strict Kurds, but some Kurds are moving towards some more secular ideals. But I have yet to read anything that you are suggesting. MercZ 04:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


In Kurdistan Autonomous region of northern Iraq, many people regard to islamism as baathism, and there is a growing secularization movement among them. Although there have been some tiny numbers of converting to Christianity in recent years but the main stream is towards secularism. This is also true about Kurds in three neighbouring countries of Iraq, Iran and Syria. (except in turkey where people -both turks and Kurds- are more enthuiastic about Islam and Islamic Issues because of its own reasons). In Kurdistan the major Kurdish parties are not islamist. for example while Kurdish nationalist alliance gaind about 55 seat the united islamic Kurdish front (a tine but main Kurdish islamist party) only gained 5 seats. Even a few mounths ago when this small islamist Kurdish party flow the Kurdish flag over its bureau in a most islamic region of Iraqi Kurdistan (Badinan) people protested, attacked them, killed and injured numbers of its members saying either be muslim or be Kurd, as islamist you have not the right to flow Kurdish flag. The current and widely used propaganda of converting muslim Kurds to Christianity by KRG is by this tiny islamic group which are opponents to the Kurdish alliance. Wirya 23:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC) .

What about Christian, or Communist Kurds?

How come no mention of how there were Kurdish people and Persian people in Church of East one time before Islam.شيطان

There are many Kurds who are communist but communism is not a religion. the section about religion in the article already mentions that there are Kurds who are Agnosticists. But due to long historical background of Kurds practising christianity, this needs at least a small explanation in the article. I will fix that. Wirya 14:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Aramaic?!

Hi!

Can someone tell me, how Aramaic can be consider a/the language of the ]]Kurdish people]]? Neither is Arabic, Turkish or Persian. Although they are spoken by many Kurds as FOREIGN LANGUAGES, they can no way be regarded as the languages of the Kurds. (Ferhengvan)

Kurdish Jews and Kurdish Christians have spoken Aramaic as their mothher tongue and they consider themselves as Kurds (as well as by Kurds). But since this has been a historical fact and not a recently foreign language this is considered as [a native language of Kurds]. Wirya 14:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

I am curious why do we have to use images of people who have "rebeled" against their government? Surely there are kurds notable for "kurdish culture" rather than "kurdish independence"... --Cat out 19:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree with keeping the two images of the right side. Wirya 20:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Two of the people on the current article are politicians one an activist, nothing wrong with that but but I do not believe kurdish culture is restricted to politics and independence movements etc. Consider German people. The four images displayed are:
Famous Germans (left to right):
Disagreements?
--Cat out 02:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


FYI: I think Mozart was Austrian...

Elam?

I was just wondering, not suggesting just, interested in finding out from people more informed than I... Elam was a civilisation in the Zagros mountains, a homeland of the Kurds, right? So what happened to the Elamites? Why are they not listed as ancestors of the Kurds? They did not disappear, Kurds did not replace them. I am confused by this and many other things when it comes to ancient peoples and modern peoples such as the Kurds. Consider the Minoans and the Greeks. If they are considered part of Greek culture/history, then surely Elam is a part of Kurdish culture/history. Other groups make a great fuss over their history and ancestory, so why not with the Kurds.

As far as I know Elamite main center was in Susa and parts of Pars province and Luristan. Also linguistically Elamites spoke either an isolate language or as some other scholars have proposed: Elamo-Dravidian. So their language and history is not related to any people in the region. --Ali doostzadeh 02:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

where? what history?

Historically, Kurds have repeatedly tried to become independent. They have fought the Sumerians, Assyrians, Persians, Mongols, European crusaders, and Turks.

the arguments of an entity in sumerian times having a link to this modern ethnic classification grouped soley on the basis of a language of the Iranian subgroup of Indoeuropean ...and that if they fought some neighbouring tribe or people it being the same struggle as lets say that of a minority with an 20 centuary opressive dictatorship is just cut and paste to suite some fantasy of an everlasting history of heroic otherness

and then the kurd and jews to suggest that ya in the same vein as the diaspora this lost brothers too have had it tough ...the samples are limited for conclusion in encyclopedia article and that too placing it above the kurdish & Iranian link

where the study used only three non jewish groups none of them apart from the kurds belonged to west Iranian ethnic groups ... ok the samples should contain the Lors and Laks and some Azeris, plus for any conclusion to these should be added some armenians and then hail all as the confusion of similarity will silence any unique conclusion

as if the people inhabiting the claimed mountainous regions never in their history formed an integral part of a larger entity and always wanted to be distinct this is not verified in the manner which it is presented and therefore I am taking it out ...

if so why did Salladin fight for an arab empire ....and why so many ancient kingdoms of Iran had essentialy kings and emperors hailing from that very region and carduchi and all are fringe offshoots of sporadic rebellion through ages ...one can argue that Sassanids were more Kurdish (West Iranian language speakers) or that azeri speakers are more closely linked with Shaddadid

why not say that syrians are Carduchi who have in time adopted arabic .... why not mention much of the area mentioned was inhabited by armenians and assyrian christians who have been cleansed by Ottoman empire

ham khar o ham khorma ham claim bar asas geography ham bar asas farhang moshtarak

if its the culture thats unique one may argue that it shares all festivals with other Iranian people and that is why there was such an attempt by some editors to craft a different Norouz ...

if that argument is that who ever lived in the region labelled as Kurdistan in history was a kurd then what if the majority of those inhabitants have migrated elsewhere

so maybe the Karda or the Guti in some later form converted to Judaism and left as part of diaspora so who is Kurdish somebody with links to the region or someone who speaks one of the dialects like Sorani or Kermanshahi

I am taking out the line suggesting a notion of some proto kurdish drive for the current Kurdish struggle which in Turkey and Iraq was as an ethnic minority and in Iran as part of all the people of a nations unified against forms of tyranny

--144.32.128.75 08:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No friend , the quote is from Britannica, the link was dead I come with the fresh one [2], Here it means ancient Persian governments not modern Persian people, I will correct that. Also for the state issue, Kurds were independent or semi-independent in much of their history but it is different with a country or state. Regards. Jalalarbil 09:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC), Jalal.


.....sorry those semi independent entities have nothing to do with the modern ethnic classifiaction which populates this region ... if there have been phases in the history when some people not proven as having direct links to Kurds (could be proto Lors) have revolted against the bigger Iranian empire (which itself as a whole at times has been ruled by people from what is currently labelled Kurdistan...Safavids even though speaking a turkic language hail from there so do somee Sassanid kings) then nothing is proven "Kurds were independent" the usage of the word in its current sense is based on more than anything lingual classification.... if the area at some point in history had majority Armenian or Assyrian population and that it would have semi independent existence then what is that to do with current Kurdish struggle for independence in Turkey or a colonial tailored nation (Iraq)and as for their problems in Iran it is a struggle the whole nation is engaged in

in one word Kurds (and other western Iranians) have been an integral part of Iranian kingdoms, culture, and history just like the people to the east of it or the centre or Mazandaran ...

how about calling the pahalvi dynasty a Mazandarani nation and include qajar safavi and saljuk in the history of Turkmanistan or Azarbaijan ....

this even if from Britanica is not something to define this peaceful people with you are labelling an ethnic group as non conformist agitators and nontolerant this is wrong introduction if you love it so much find some other place --144.32.128.75 19:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Sorry but the source (provided) is more legitimate and acceptable than your personal arguments. Wirya 19:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


I only wanted to say kurds weren't majority in that region in history. Higher birth rates than Turks made them the majority. When I read this article(kurds in Turkey) I understand(like all readers) "they were always the majority in that region" but this is not true. Kurds in Turkey have higher birth rates than the other Kurds too. This is a reality.

You should find a source claiming that. I guess you have heard that Turkish people used to be migrants, so the Kurds have probably been in Anatolia much longer. Bertilvidet 18:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This kind of datas(birth rates) can only be official. We don't know even official Kurd population in Turkey but you can say 20 percent of Turkey population is Kurd. Higher birth rates of kurds is a well known reality even by Kurds. Turks can be immigrants but this doesn't mean they weren't majority any time in that region.

If you believe this is the case, then please come up with a source (WP:RS) claiming so. Bertilvidet 18:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
It is proven that unfortunately Turkish gov systematically tries to minimize the Kurdish population. This is a research by a Turkish university about the birth rate issue. I hope it helps. [3]. Wirya 18:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yilmaz Guney

Since long ago I have been looking for a free image of Yilmaz Guney but found nothing notable. Here this website has good images: [4], [5], but I could not find its Copyright page unless this note here just above Lenins image where the copyright mark stands: [6]

Module's Name: News
Module's Version: 1.1
Module's Description: Module for news publishing.
License: GNU/GPL
Author's Name: Enrico Fedele & Francisco Burzi

Is it related to the images copyright? Wirya 18:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Carduchi and modern citizens of turkey

It is a well known fact that people of turkey even though speaking a turkic language have ethincally diverse background they share genes with the greek, and other mediteranian people and many too with Armenians even though a genocide might have been carried out So too with many Iranian people (or Indoeuropean speakers of Iranian branch) historically much of the region has been inhabited by non turkic people but they are part of the history of the modern state of turkey


so if lets say there had been a kingdom with name having the sound K in this region or something like the Hurrian or Halaf how are these part of the history of an as yet unborn nation state and not part of the history of let say Turkey or Syria

first you calssify a people according to cultural and lingual affinity

then you take a region and say that who ever was in this region is a kurd so who ever hit somebody on the head in this region it was because the Kurds really always wanted independence

come on Arbil jan the history of kingdoms in that region have nothing to do with modern kurds who if anything were mobile enough to even shift to as far as mazabdaran and baluchistan and not only under force but like every cattle herding tribe would move under changes in climate so the Kurds dont end in the region labelled in the map but whole of Iran is Kurdistan like whole of the areas inhabited by Kurds could be called Iran (not the modern nation state but historical Iran) & Iam not pan Iranian or pan anything

The fact that you share your land with us, and share ours with you etc. shows a clear pan. :-). BTW Kurds are the direct descendants of the people who lived there, like the muslim Persians are descendants of ancient people who lived in their region. For every thing in the article which you think sounds untrue please help by asking evidence. I will be glad. Wirya 19:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Respected Sir ... no pan anything makes any sense but what is not there cannot be created out of nothing untill recently it was an agreed thing that what today is called Kurd can be traced to ancinet Media since it was a proto Iranian kingdom and it was limited to the north west which is where most modern people classified as Kurds live?

so how is Corduene part of Kurdish history and not western Iranian history and did ayyubid identify with them....

see we have lets say a link between sassanids and achemenids or even though lets say the qajar are turkish speaking they call themselves the king of Iran

but if there is an entity in that western region ruled by salladin with no element of what is now the Kurdish culture and traditions then ??how does it add

and you dig something in anatolia from the Hurrian and then you link it to something else which might have been in the vicinity ....and then you go on

ok iam not even contradicting it now salladin didnt call himself the king of Kurds and neither did those other names identify (shaddadid...and all ) identify themselves with rest in the list

how is Adiabene kurdish history ....it does not even have a K sound but its in anatolia

but ok I rest my case with these they need more sources to contadict

but but.... the bit from Britannica mentioning that they have fought Sumerians .....and so on is an insult and not a defintion

and then you follow that immediately with 20 cent. history

keep your love for the shortlived semi independent cultures of the west Iran and identify with them if you want instead of saying the sassanid and the safavid were kurds (keeping in mind that what they call persians is a false phrase...

the history I dont debate but the region and the various people living in that region have also lived long peiods as integral parts of greater empire in peace

in short what you have to prove is that people of western Iran in the region labelled Kurdistan have had in comparison with eastern Iran (greater khorasan) and lets say Mazandaran and lets say just a about any other of the Iranian people (or if you dont believe in such a term... any of the peope speaking indo european languages of the iRanian branch) have shown lesser tolerance to central rule or greater dynaties and then name another ethnic group who for most of the history has formed the core Iran (or Persia...or Iranshahr or Iranzamin)or which people from which part of Iran other Kurdistan have formed the core of dynasties mentioned in the article history of Iran

so who is a persian a person speaking the language or a person from shiraz or a person from bloody ghom

who is more Iranian an azeri or someone from Ilam province or someone in samarkand see there is nothing that is in Iran which is alien to the history of people speaking Kurdish ...full stop I ask you again not to insult the Kurds

how much Halaf or Guti or Adiabene can you trace in modern kurds if any link can be established it would be shared not by kurdish speakers but by armenian speakers and turkish speakers as languages have been adopted by different people living in anatolia so you may have modern citizens of turkey who dont identify themselves as kurds having more genetic links to hurrians ...but ok now they speak turkish and in school they are thought about the ottomans as their daddy

now there maybe more Guti or Carduchi in a person living in Hamedan who may not even speak kurdish but goes by the surname Kalhor ,,,,

see this wide wild sketch is not part of my argument but I put it so you would understand why the sentence about the fighting crap is not an essential definition

...barzani's grandpa fighting gilgamesh ...now that is more bollywood action flick than you can imagine--144.32.128.113 20:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The closest languages in the Iranian family to the Kurdish language are Gilaki and Balochi. All of these are north-western Iranian languages. On the other hand, Persian is a south-western Iranian language, so it is not as close as Gilaki and Balochi. In the info. box, we have to mention the closest ethnic groups which would be Gilakis and Balochis. So I suggest to replace Persian and Lori with Balochi and Gilaki inside the Parantheses in the related ethnic groups entry of the info. box.Heja Helweda 20:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 

Yes, Baloochi.

Linguistic affiliation is not the same as ethnic affiliation, according to sources provided in the article Persians are ethniclally related to Kurds.

No Objective Comments&Datas in the Article

First of all the article is unfortunately rather aggressive and deliberately hostile towards Turkish people and its Government, asserting certain claims such as demolishing or destroying residence areas where Kurds live by Turkish Military Forces or such. As far as I know that PKK which is recognized as rebels by certain groups yet it is an offical terror group declared by E.U. teror groups list. PKK which so-called Kurd rebel party is resposible for killing more than 30.000 civilians in Turkey terrorizing civilians causing phyisical and psychological damages for more than 20 years. Therefore the article should be observed in a serious and more eloborate way of considering that the issue is rather sensitive and serious. It creates prejudical feelings about Turkish people moreover I suppose that it emerges sypathetic feelings for an offically recognized terroist group and thus for Kurds in a very misleading way.(cantikadam 15:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)) More than 3,000 Kurdish villages in Turkey were virtually wiped from the map by the Turkey's security forces during 1980s and 1990s. As a result, more than 378,000 Kurdish villagers were forcibly displaced and left homeless see [45],[46] and [47]. The links does not present any information about this assertion at all. The Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan (PKK), also known as KADEK and Kongra-Gel, is a militant organization, dedicated to creating an independent Kurdish state in a territory (sometimes referenced as Kurdistan) that consists of parts of southeastern Turkey, northeastern Iraq, northeastern Syria and northwestern Iran. It is an ethnic secessionist organization using force and threat of force against both civilian and military targets for the purpose of achieving its political goal. [7] link gives some genuine information about PKK. Also the book Turkey and the War on Terror of Andrew Mango is for further information.(cantikadam 07:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

The info. about destruction of villages is based on a report by Human Rights Watch. Heja Helweda 01:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Human Rights Watch is not considered to be an NPOV organization. The following is from the discussion from the Human Rights Watch discussion page.

It wholeheartedly supports the invasion, and brutal occupation of Palestine, which I've never witnessed with my own eyes. Pretty brutal to provide health care, hospitals, electricity, etc... It wholeheartedly supports the Haitian death squads who overthrew the democratic government of Haiti. It supports the bloody invasion of Iraq. And then there is Somalia, Serbia, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. etc.

No title

The woman in red in the image of the culture section is not Kurdish. Shepol.

Yes, probably the woman in black in the right side either. BUT what's wrong with that? Wirya 15:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Kurds are a Iranian people

This article suffers from lack of non-academic links. The term Kurd in Mazandarani dialect means shepard of Iranian stock. In Pahlavi also this term is used to mean shepard/nomad of Iranian stock and not any specific ethnic group. For example Daylamites were considered Kurds in some sources.

The identification of Karduchi with Kurds is also problematic: [8] There is a new article on Kurdisht tribes as well:[9]

Also let me add that many villages in Central Iran speak NW dialects and the people there are identified as Persian. [10] A good example is the Zoroastrians of Yazd who speak Dari (not to be confused with Parsi-dari (modern Persian)) which is a NW language. Or such dialects as Delijani, Raazi, Golapeygaani, Natanzi, Jirofti,Kazeruni and etc. Some of these dialects also have split-ergative features like some Kurdish dialects. The above article shows that there is a very heavy Parthian influence on Kurdish which greater than the Median influence. According to the Gurani article in Encyclopedia Iranica, Gurani shares more features with central dialects than with say Kurmanji. Or Zazaki is closer to Gilaki than to some Kurdish dialect. I can tell you that Kermanshahi Kurdish is much closer to standard Tehrani Persian than standard Tehrani Persian is for example to Semnani. (Look at the geographical distance). But Semnanis (like Ahmadin Nejad) are considered Persian whereas speakers of Kermanshahi Kurdish are considered Kurds. So there is a lot of generic labels as well. I would just put a warning sign that this article suffers credibility in many aspects. Genetics tests also need to be extensive. For example 20 to 30 samples is not sufficient, and one needs to take at least 5000 samples from all corners of Kurdish speaking areas to get some conclusive results. Recently there has been a massive test in Iran and although I do not know the whole result, but Kurds and Zoroastrians of Iran have some features in common apparantely. Also like all people in the mid-east, various Kurds have absorbed other groups, but what is important is that culture and linguistic and history and myths (Sharafnama connects the important Kurdish tribes to one of the Iranian heroes of Shahnama) makes them an Iranic people. So this article has major POV issues, lacks academic sources in many aspects and it will probably be a headache to address due to various nationalistic and political tendencies. One user by the name claims native speakers of Aramaic are Kurds which is absolutely false and they are Assyrians. Another Turkish user tried to minimize the number of Kurds in Turkey and I responded to him several months ago. Another user by the name has a major anti-Iranian tendency (has been shown in many forums). For example Rawwadids were Arabs who became Kurdified[11], but she simply ignores this fact when she did editing in some other articles, but still tries to exaggerate the number of Arabs in Khorasan in another article due to her anti-Persian bent. Due to the current political situation and also anti-Iranian bent of some Kurdish political groups, I do not think this article will be accurate. Kurds are themselves a family of Iranian people, with some dialects being closer to Persian or Gilaki than other Kurdish dialects. If anyone has travelled Iran, they know that if you go slowly from Larestan all the way to Mah-abaad, you will not experience a sharp linguistic shift. Between standard Persian, there is closely related Bakhtiari and Laari dialects. Then from Laari we get to Luri in some areas. From there we get to Laki and Fa'eli Kurdish and Kalhori Kurdish which share features with both. You go up more and you get Hawrami.. and so on. One Talyshi told me that he can understand 90% of Kurdish. Also the CIA factbook has recently classified Zazaki as separate from Kurdish, no doubt per Turkish government request although Zazakis are also Iranian and can be considered Kurds because of their culture. Some misguided Kurdish nationalists are doing the same though by separating themselves from Iranians, just like many Zazas now separate themselves from Kurmanji Kurds and the Yezidis of Armenia are doing the same. So I do not expect this article to mention Shahnameh and its great role in Kurdish identity. Nor will it mention simorgh, freydoon, kaveh, rostam..etc. Nor will it mention the influences of Medes, Achaemenids, Parthians and Sassanids in Kurdish culture and history. Lets look at this sentence: s a result around 10,000 Kurds were killed . There is no evidence provided, but the article fails to mention that most of the people that fought the KDP and Komola where Shi'i Kurds from Bijar, Garous, Piranshahr, Kermanshah..etc. Also I can tell you that much more other Iranians have been killed by the regime than the hypothetical number given. Also the article is one-sided in making victims. For example Eastern Turkey was mainly an Armenian land and Kurdish tribes unfortunately played a major role in the Armenian Genocide. Are we just mentioning the victim part and forgetting the other part? I lost a some members of my family due to the IRI, but this does not make me hate other Iranians. If the article is discussing the history of Kurdish people, why does it need the anti-Iranian viewpoint and why does not it say many other Iranians have suffered as well from the various regimes? Also the government of Pahlavi was not Persian if we mean Tehrani Persian speakers. Rezashah was from the north (some say caucus even) and his wife was Azari. The wife of Mohammad Reza shah was also Azari. The current wife of Reza Pahlavi is also an Azari. So that makes Reza Pahlavi 75% Azari. Next is the IRI regime. Khomaini has Kashmiri with Indian roots and Khaemeni is not a native Persian speaker. Here is another wrong quote: Before the spread of Islam in the 7th century CE, the majority of Kurds practised their indigenous religions, Yazidism and Yarsan, which stemmed from and eventually replaced the ancient religion of the Medes. Both religions are still practised among the Kurds.. The fact is that Yarsan was started in the 13th century by a saint name Sultan Sahak. Yezidism was started by Shaykh Adi in the 11th century. Kurds were Zoroastrians before Islam, and these religions have incorporated elements of Zoroastrianism (7 angels-amshasepandaan), Mazdakism(social norms like having one wife) and Manicheism (reincarnation and the concept of pearl..). Also large numer of Persians, Lurs, Azaris follow this sect Yarsan (which is called Ali-Allahi) and the main literature of this group is in Gurani, which is considered by linguistics as non-Kurdish. Indeed the name Guran comes from Gawran (Gabran) which is another term used mainly for Zoroastrians. These two sects did not exist before Islam. But the sentence above was put there and nothing is mentioned of Zoroastrianism despite the numerous fire temples. Why? Because the followers of Zoroastrianism today are called Parsis and unfortunately some people want to be as far as possible from this group and weaken their connection to Iran. These are amongst the many reasons that this article suffers and inherently it has to do with some editors who due to political reasons want to separate themselves from Iran. Then pretty soon you will have all sort of wild theories defining who Kurds are and before you know it, you will be at the mercy of psuedo-academics, whereas Kurds have a clear and unabmigious Iranian history and the best proof of this is Kurdish mythology. BTW I am not a native speaker of Tehrani Persian either and I'll let you guys guess, although you would be suprised. JUST note that I was the one that based on very detailed census proved that the number of Kurds in Turkey is at least 20 million. But I am Iranian first. --Ali doostzadeh 07:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is unlikely that the word Goran is from the same root as Gabar. The word Gabar in Kurdish is Gawir (and also very possible Gawirk, too) ; which even (the former) has a negative meaning in Kurdish, in literature, folklore and songs, for example it is aid I'm not a gawir why you do that with me? or the lover says to the beloved one: I'm not a gawir why you don't like me?. for instance in Hesen Zireks songs (like: Boch mint nawé...). While the word Goran which is more likely from the same root as Kurd and Hour-aman, has a positive meaning, so that even love songs and as a whole songs are called Gorani in Kurdish. (maybe something like the word Türkü in Turkish). Goran means peasant while Kurmanj means warrior, and both are ethnic Kurds (as even mutually it is accepted) . Wirya 12:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Please summarise your arguments. No one will read all that. Biased linked are fine so long as they are identified as biased. Irrelevant links to topic must go to wiki-hell. --Cat out 07:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
How could biased non-academic links be fine when they are describing the history of a group? I can make a web page and claim that Mexicans are 300000 years old and spoke spanish back then, and then refer to it. As per summarizing, actually I did summarize. Some of the authors intentionally are trying to belittle and disconnect Kurdish speaking groups (note the term groups) from their Iranic background, as much as possible. --Ali doostzadeh 07:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I am an engineer, not a politician. Please save me the lecture on politics. You can create such a web page and if it gains notability as a reliable source wikipedia articles can be based on it, at least the policy allows it. However something as inplausable as that would certanly never achieve any notability. --Cat out 16:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What a weak argument. I can make thousands like that: Kurds are Iranian, Iran lies close to Pakistan, Pakistan to India, india is in southern Asia, the China has a large population, Korea is another country close to Chia which lies in East Asia, the same as Japan, then we reach Pacific ociean and later USA, then Atlantic ocean and later Europe. We reach to Mediterranean Sea and later to Syria, and Syria quite close to where Kurds live. Now that i explained you know that how Kurds are iranian? what a watery argument. :)) The article already says that Kurds are classified Iranian. Kurds dont say they are a pure ethnic group but like any other ethnic group on this world are mixed. (The only exception is iranians who claim are from the pure holy aryan race although proven that it is a myth). We say that during the Islamic era and later in the Turkic domination era many Arabic and Turkic tribes were Kurdicized. later, if in some Irani tribes tongue what Kurd mean, it does not make sense. in our language also farsi or irani means Shite lol, then should we say farsis are not an ethnic group but runaway shite arabs during first islamic centuries who adopted this pashtunized language? (by the way fasri is 50% arabic 50 pashtu :)) and here if by academic sources you mean iranian chauvinist viepoint, then we should not ignore the Turkish governments viewpoint about Kurds which is even much stronger than the Iranian one. at least by genetics!

He did not say he supports certain biased sources but academic ones. Just assume good faith. Jalal 15:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Article must be based on reliable sources which certainly does not include sites such as blogs. In the past we had people operating websites which they published their views and pasted it here which was problematic (I think he was from kurdmedia.com or something).
If site A claims kurds migrated from japan that could be presented as a claim by site A (asuming site A is a reliable source). Site just isn't required to be academic. Academic sources are certainly a reliable source, no argument there. However, academic sources are not necesarily neutral but we have to present information in a neutral manner.
Biased links can exist as a further referance and article does not necesarily have to be based on them. Having said that certainly www.pkk.org is perhaps inaprorate along with sites that promotes racism towards kurds. Wikipedia is not a link-o-rama either.
Oh by the way, please sign your posts
--Cat out 16:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Otuken

Please do not add that quote from Otuken to the culture section. Let's that section be limited to cultural issues rather than, oppressions and governments orpolitics. Such a stuff belongs to history sections or articles. Wirya 10:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Kurds aer of a iranian origins !! thats the joke of 21st century..look guys and scholars or whatever you call yourselves this shit that you are talking about maybe ten of ye would like to discuss it bragging showing off his shitty logic...look ye all...what ye say to a normal person is nonsence. Do ye think we are thinking now after such debates more than our rights. Whats needed now is asked always "Be fair ye govs!!!!!" and not more than that

Neutrality and weasle words

Kurds have always been among the more liberal Muslims.

With many statements such as that I do not see how this article neutral enough. I am requesting a review with {{POV-check}} --Cat out 16:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a good reliable reference. [12] Besides, Kurds are Shafi, and adherents of the Shafi school of Islam mostly maintain liberal views in practicing their religion. Shepol.

I checked the source, and it is verifiable. I added a sentence to the end of religion section to clarify this.Heja Helweda 18:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Weasle words cannot be verifiable. I am most unconfortable with weasle words. If they are "adherents of the Shafi school", why not just say that and link to an article explaining "Shafi schools". After all, what is considered a "liberal muslim" is contraversial matter. --Cat out 00:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The word liberal muslim is found in that web page and it seems to be a neutral source. By liberal muslim, it basically means, being less strict in terms of hijab and traditions.Heja Helweda 04:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not particularly consider wasle words to be neutral even if they are on a remote source. --Cat out 12:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Being liberal is not a biased or bad or weasel particularity. BBC (which is far from being remote) also describes the Kurdish society as usually considered liberal. [13], Jalal.
Sure the USS Enterprise beamed Kurds down to the planet after the start of the islamic religion. Kurds were not around prior to the birth of Islam. Sarcasm aside, how can Kurds always be Muslims? Let alone that be liberal muslims?--Cat out 17:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It is true that Kurds are more liberal. This is because of various Sufi orders in the 4 parts of Kurdistan. This reason should be added so that further confusion is avoided. --Ali doostzadeh 00:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you think if we replace th word 'liberal' with the word 'moderate'? I think it is a more neutral and accurate word in this concept. Jalalarbil 23:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yezidism not pre-Islamic faith

[14].

The faiths main origin is sufism, but it was influenced by Iranian religions. As I said the many fire temples found all over kurdistan is proof of Zoroastrianim and to claim Yezidism is the pre-Islamic religion of Kurds is a ludicrous. --Ali doostzadeh 22:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yazidism by itself is derived and evoled from a cult which modern scholars refer to as Yazdanism. Jalal.
Hi. That theory is not prevalent. The main theory is that Yazidism was a sufi sect started by Shaikh Adi which took influence from other religions like Zoroastrianism, Manicheism, Mazdakism, Christianity and Judaism. Please read the article above. There is no proof that Kurds were Yazidis before Islam, since such a religion did not exist. But numerous fire temples from Kurdish areas clearly point to Zoroastrianism of Kurds. --Ali doostzadeh 06:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a Yazdanism [15], I have no idea how iranica says that, Yazidi is universally considered an ancient religion. [16]. Jalal.
Hi, Iranica is a very reliable source and the article on Yezidis is very accurate. THE wikipedia article you mentioned has many mistakes, for example In Bahá'í writings they are referred to as "Sabeans. Sabeans and Yazidis are two different sects all together. But the other article you mentioned also shows what I am trying to say: Yezidis have often been wrongly labeled as devil-worshippers for centuries. The Yazidi faith contains elements of Zoroastrianism, Manicheism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Gnostic and local pre-Islamic beliefs.. So this faith which is a mix of different sects and ideas was actually born in the late 11th century A.D. and so it can not be the pre-Islamic religion of Kurds. --Ali doostzadeh 10:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Iranica is not a bad source. That wiki article yes can be wrong and should be corrected. There is a non-wiki article on Yazdanism. Yazidism and Yazdasnism are two different things. Yazidism has its root from Yazdanistic religions. I think it is more accurate to say majority of Kurds before islamization followed Yazdani religions. The first passage on the religion section should be reworded. What you think? Jalalarbil 10:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi the Yazdani religion is hypothetical. Serious scholars have not mentioned such a theory. I think the fire-temples all over Kurdistan (I know some in Kermanshah and W. Azerbaijan) are proof that Kurds were mainly Zoroastrians before Islam. I will try to find sources later. --Ali doostzadeh 11:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

ALL SERIOUS SCHOLARS say that Kurds were befor the Islamization in majority Zoroastrians! Where are the proofs that the Kurds were NOT Zoroastrians? The ancient historians even say, that the people living in today Kurdistan were Zoroastrians. The biggest Zoroastian fire temples are infact in Kurdistan. The old Zoroastrian writtings say that the Kurds were Zoroastrians.

Norooz is a Zoroastrian festival, why do Kurds Norooz, if they were not Zoroastrians?

I agree. Besides Nowruz, many Kurds celebrate or used to celebrate Mehregan and Tiregan. These two festivals are mentioned in Kurdish literature.. --Ali doostzadeh 10:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

--ShapurAriani 08:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


I thought Newroz is a new phenomen among Kurds dating back mainly to the last century, with araising nationalism, especially about 1930s. BTW I have no idea which temples you mean. Saying that the majority of Kurds before islamization of Kurdistan were Zoroastranian is not accurate. I have no doubt that there were Kurds who practised it, but they were in no way in majority; maybe a significant minority; as today the Shite Kurds are. There were also other abrahamic religions which were followed by Kurds. Kurds did not follow one single religion. Jalal.


Jalal you showed, that you mostly nothing about Kurds. Claiming that Zoroastrian is an abrahamic religion, claiming that Norooz is a new phenomen among Kurds show that you know NOTHING about Kurds and about their origin.

1) Norooz is celebrated more then 2500 years by Kurds and other Iranic people 2) Zoroastrianism is not an Abrahmic religion, it is an Iranic religion

--ShapurAriani 09:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

When I did say Zoroastrianism is abrahamic? Jalal.


You said: There were also other abrahamic religions which were followed by Kurds.

Other abrahmic religions, claiming the Zoroastrianism is a abrahamic religion! Anyways your claimings about Norooz show, that you know mostly nothing. It is not bad to have a lack of knowledge for some subjects, but you shouldn't mix up politic and your lack of knowledge for this article. I respect all people here, as long as they do not claim a bullshit, which has no scientifical basic! --ShapurAriani 09:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


I used other by refering to Shite and Islam. Zoroastrianism strems from afghanistan not Arabia. Jalal

Where Zroastrianism exactly comes from we do not know, but it is defently an Iranic religion and has its origin in Iran Zamin --ShapurAriani 10:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Faked Sources!

The Source list is faced. As sample on source point I think number 16 is based for the claiming, Kurds are a mix between Caucasians and Aryans, but in the source article I find nothing about this. Or source 41 is said for the claim, that Kurds are not Aryans, but there is NOTHING written in the source about, that Kurds are not Aryans.

What is this for a BULLSHIT? @Admins: I am willing to write a complete NEW article based on WORLD WIDE ACCEPTED scholary FACTS, you can then check the new article and replace it by the old one!

--ShapurAriani 09:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It is source No.40 for Aryan issue: [17]. Here is the exact quote:
Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Iranians, Jews, Lebanese and other (Eastern and Western) Mediterranean groups seem to share a common ancestry: the older "Mediterranean" substratum. No sign of the postulated Indo-European (Aryan) invasion (1200 B.C.) is detected by our genetic analysis. It is concluded that this invasion, if occurred, had a relatively few invaders in comparison to the already settled populations, i.e. Anatolian Hittite and Hurrian groups (older than 2000 B.C.). These may have given rise to present-day Kurdish, Armenian and Turkish populations. Please check the sources carefully before jumping into conclusions.Heja Helweda 18:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ergativity

The article says: Nevertheless, Hurrian influence on Kurdish is still evident in its ergative grammatical structure and toponym.. Not all Kurdish dialects display ergativity. There are Iranian Central Dialects and Persian dialects around Fars province that have the same feature. Avestan was an accusative language. Pahlavi (and Midlde Iranian in general) was split-ergative, like modern Kurdish. Also the following indo-iranian lanugages like modern Hindi, Pubjabi, Pashtu, Sindhi all show ergativity and this fact has do to with indo-iranian loss of the imperfect, perfect and aorist tenses. --Ali doostzadeh 11:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Kurmanji, Sorani, Zaza and Gorani all are ergative (But not sure for Leki which is considered the connecting circle of northwestern and southwestern Iranic languages). I think the more accurate term here rather than Hurrian is Mittanic (which of course were part of Hurrians). Mittanis were an Indo-European aristocratic people ruling the region. Jalal.
I am not sure if Gorani or Zaza are ergative. But as I said other Iranian dialects have this feature: Talyshi, Pashtu, Persian dialects around Fars province like Jahromi.. ALSO Indo-Iranian dialects like Sindhi,Punjabi, Hindi.. So to say this was due to Hurrian influence is not necessarily correct. Else one has to expalin Talyshi and the dialects of Pars province, Pashtu..and even Indo-Aryan languages..... --Ali doostzadeh 11:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes Zaza and Goran are ergative (See Mackenzie I think), But Hurrian was not totally non-Indo-European. Hurrian by itself had a strong aryan influence before the big aryan migration (Medes, Pars, Part). Not necessarily Kurdish has inherited this feature from caucasian group, but also more probably from Aryan languages. (see here for example [18]) Jalal.
Hi, thanks for the link. I think the general concensus is that this is an evolution in Indo-Iranian languages and as I mentioned some Persian dialects of Fars, Talyshi, Pashtu..Even Zoroastrian Persian called Dari had this feature[19] and I quote: As a result of working on Dari, which has a tense-conditioned split ergative verbal agreement system, I have an ongoing project of surveying ergativity in the Iranian language family.. Also Indo-Aryan languages have split ergativity. Here is a link about Baluchi: [20]. Here is a very comprehensive article on this matter: [21]. As per Hurrians, no doubt Hurrians, Elamites and etc. contributed to ethnic makeup of Iranian people, but just like Turkomens and Turks of Turkey are considered a Turkic people, Kurds are also considered an Iranic people. Also Sumerian, Hurrian, Urartu, Caucasian languages all have ergativity, but we should be careful that this feature could develop independently. Mitannis indeed were Aryans. --Ali doostzadeh 00:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


I think ergativity has a lot of types. and most languages of the world show type of ergativity. but thats of Kurdish which we are discussing is ergative-absolutive type, which as far as i know is not seen in any Persian dialect. Besides languages no more determine ethnic origins as earlier scholars of last century thought. Jalalarbil 00:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually there not many types. It just has to do with losing of tenses which is a normal feature. As the articles I mentioned who, there is a lot of Iranian languages that have this feature. Just like you pointed out: [22]. So this phenomenon can not be due to Hurrians necessarily and the statement is unsubstantiated. --Ali doostzadeh 02:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That image of Shivan Perwer is nice but why there is not an image of Zekerya either, or Mikail?

some academic sources

Richard Frye: By Iranian, I mean Soghdians, Bactrians, and other Iranians, ancestors of the present Kurds, Baluchi, Afghans, as well as Persians, who were joined together under the roof of Islam. The Cambridge History of Iran - Page xi, edited by R. N. Frye

Introduction to Islamic Civilization - Page 160, edited by Roger M. Savory - History - 1976, The ethnic composition of Iraqi tribes is for the most part mixed and in certain significant instances non-Arabs. The non-Arab elements include Kurds, the largest minority in Iraq who are ethnically 'Aryan', descendants of ancient Medes, speak an indo-European language and for the most part Sunni Muslims by religion.

Iran -by Andrew Burke - Travel - 2004 The Kurds can lay claim to being the oldest Iranian people in the region, descendant from the Medes.

Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization: 1996 edited by C a Mullen, J a Ryan - pg 93: Kurdistan refers to a territory of 520,000 km2, spread over different countries in the Middle East (Iran,Iraq,Turkey and Syria) with a total population of 30 million people. Descendants from the Medes, the Kurds have dwelt in their ancestral lands for over four thousand years.

Note that Armenian documents are interchangeably use Kurds and Medes. Also I might add that one explanation for the word Kurmanj is that Kur(son) and Maanj (mede). Indeed in Armenian, maaraaj is used for mede which is probably the same as maanj. Also revisiting the karnamak of Ardeshir Papakan, the Kurds are also called Maadig (Mede). Also there is extensive Iranian mythology that Kurds have and should be mentioned. Zahak, Kaveh, Fereydoon, Rustam, Jahangir..--Ali doostzadeh 00:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The language modern Kurds speak can well be connected to those of Medes, But as I pointed before, all of what those early scholars thought was based on postulated linguistic hypothesis, I believe that like any other people all modern speakers of Iranian languages are desendant of ancient inhabitants of the same region which they inhabited (several thousands years ago), whom in first-second century BC were assimilated by small peoples we call aryans. I never believe that 10.000 years ago say the region of Shiraz in Iran was empty but sure had large populations. this people never became genocided or at least not all of them (say only their young men). It is impossible that the Kurds are only descendant of Medes. but hundreds distinct people who even were much larger than medes. and even we may dont know their names. Jalalarbil 01:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course there is no pure groups in the middle east or almost anywhere in the world. But just like the Turkish speakers of Turkey are identified as Turkic people, Kurds are identified as an Iranic people. It has to do with several factors including: language, history, culture, mythology and etc. Kurdish mythology for example is exactly the same as Iranian mythology. There is a Germanic group of people and they have mixed with many different variety of people. But in the end , specially in the middle-east, it is language, literature, mythology.. which are the defining elements. --Ali doostzadeh 02:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Also in Karnamaki ardasshir papakan kurds are called as Kurds and their king called Madig. Jalalarbil 01:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Afterwards he (Ardashir), having collected many soldiers and heroes of Zavul, proceeded to battle against Mâdîg, the King of the Kurds. There was much fighting and bloodshed (in which) the army of Ardashir (finally) sustained a defeat. Ardashir became anxious on account of his own army. Jalalarbil 01:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I heard another etymology for Kurmanj: Kurd+ Manai. Jalal
By the way i do not see the right to myself to say what to include into the article or what not. i think, all the major, theories about Kurds should be included. including the medes origin theory which is supported by many Kurds. Jalalarbil 01:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure how Manj transforms to Manaii. The fact is that Manaii's were long forgotten in history until last century. Not the case for Medes. See the Armenian literature connection below. Also Maraaj and Maanj seem closer and Kur is Kur which means young, son...--Ali doostzadeh 07:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The article focuses on three things:
Early historic roots of Kurds (which albeit is good by itself)
How much Kurds are oppressed in recent century.
List of Kurdish militant organisations.
It is a shame that there is no mention of Medes in its historic section who had a large effect on shaping Kurds. Wirya 02:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Here is a nice article showing that Kurdish was known as Median in Armenian literature: [23] This is a very important source on Kurdish origins, since Armenians are neighboring people. The source above is not from the last century, but from 600 years ago, when western scholarship had not began. The fact that Armenians considered Kurdish to be Median is very important and this fact needs to be stated. --Ali doostzadeh 07:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

genetic analysis

genetic analysis of few selected Kurds in Turkey (which could have large Armenian influence due to events in 1915) does not mean that Kurds are of non-Aryan origin. Indeed genetic tests will probably show that Kurds are varied, and I do not think we can claim since Western Kurds have some caucasian genes, then all Kurds have them.

Genetic analyses are the most modern and accurate method in discovering ancient ancestors of people groups (in opposite of last methods of linguistic or mythologies.) genetic analyses are held in small numbers and are usually generalised to all that group they belong to. In genetics we do not look for a new produced race of people group but their ancestors so, the last intermarriages of people does not change the mater. Jalalarbil 01:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Genetic analysis many time shows a large variation with a group. Of course there is no pure groups in the middle east or almost anywhere in the world. But just like the Turkish speakers of Turkey are identified as Turkic people, Kurds are identified as an Iranic people. It has to do with several factors including: language, history, culture, mythology and etc. Kurdish mythology for example is exactly the same as Iranian mythology. There is a Germanic group of people and they have mixed with many different variety of people. But in the end , specially in the middle-east, it is language, literature, mythology.. which are the defining elements. There is nothing in this article about Kurdish mythology where as all the Kurdish literature is full of Shahnameh stories [24]. I agree in making the link comprehensive, but in the end, despite various groups forming the genetic makeup of Kurds and all the other groups of the middle-east, it is language, mythology and history that defines Kurds. And the Medes are considered the major group as the sources I brought, proves it. --Ali doostzadeh 02:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the article. Although it is not published in any Journal yet, which makes it difficult to use. But it may be of some use in Kurdish Folk Literature. Folk mythologies are quite mixed in western Asia, and one cannot base his/her genetic argument on similarity of folk traditions, as neighboring people usually tend to borrow these stories from each other.Heja Helweda 04:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Your welcome. I believe the article above has been published by now, but I would have to research on this, which time does not permit. Nevertheless many articles already have not been published and they are referenced in this entery. At least the article has written its sources. Minorosky and Mckenzie have two great articles on Gurani-Kurdish literature. Lots of references to various manuscripts of Kurdish-Iranian mythologies are well represented. I didn't base genetic argument on folk mythologies, but the fact is genetic is very diverse. We know for example some Turks and Arab tribes were assimilated to Iranian peoples like Kurds, Persians.. At the same time, many Iranians were assimilated the other way around. But on a whole, I believe the genetic makeup of Iranian people were not effected too much by these two groups , since Turks are predominately mongloid and already we know genetic tests show Arabs are different than Iranians. Mythology of Kurds is the same as other Iranians and even Rustam and Kaveh are considered Kurds. I do not think mythology is borrowed as readily as you might think. The reason is that mythology has to do with the origin of a group to a large extent. For example the story of Kaveh and Zahak goes back to Indo-Iranian mythology and it is not found amongst Turks or Arabs. Another perhaps interesting fact is that various Kurdish tribes like Kalhur or Guran.. consider their ancestors to be a heroe mentioned in the Shahnameh. Also don't forget that the famous Iranian story of Khusraw o Shirin occurs in Kermanshah as well. All the best. --Ali doostzadeh 07:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don not think that Turks are mongoloid. Even their language is not that close. That's a common misconception among Iranian writers which tend to associate Turks with Mongoloids which is false. Original Turks came from western part of central Asia and southern Russia (Khazars) around 1000 CE to Anatolia and Azerbaijan. Mongols came around 1200 AD and on their way they killed a lot of Turks as well. Contemporary Turks are a mix of central Asian tribes and Anatolian people, but not Mongol. Mongol influence can be seen among Hazara in Afghanistan. It is interesting that you know consider Gorans as Kurds, though in all your previous posts you have said the opposite. About Zahak, after all it is an arabic word (arabized form of Azhi Dahak, the last Mede Emperor). Also I think it is better that we look at the larger population not just concentrate on a small group of Kermanshahis. They probably just form around 2%-3% of Kurds.Heja Helweda 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Actually Turkish is altaic. On original Turks being mongloid, since this is off topic, I have put tons of evidence on my own userpage, and I think it will be convincing. Most of the Mongol soldiers themselves were of Turkic stocks although some Turks did fight mongols. Interestingly enough when the Mongols came, they saw an alliance of Qipchaqs and Iranian Alans. But then they told the Qipchaqs that you are of the same stock as us and so they teamed up and wiped off a large portion of Iranian central Asia and today there is small remnents of Ossetts in the caucus. Gurani was the major language of the area and it has lot ground to other Iranian/Kurdish dialects. Azhi Dahak, by the way, was not he last emperor of Medes, but his origin goes back to Indo-Iranian mythology: [25]. Indeed the Zahak legend like Jamshid legend goes back to Indo-European time. Now per mythology, going back to Yarsans, who major literature is Gurani, the following are mentions and I have the relavent poems: Iran, Zoroaster, Zurvan, Ahriman, Mehregaan, Tiregaan, Nowurz.. Here is a very old poem in Gurani about Zurvan, Ahuramazda and Ahriman:

زروان بیانی، زروان بیانی 

          نه دوره ی ورین  زروان  بیانی

اهری و ورمز یاران دیانی 

           کالای خاس یار او دم شیانی

Here is a very old poem about Iran and Yarsans:

او واته ياران٬ او واته ياران ايمه ديوانين او واته ياران هني مگيلين يک يک شاران تا زنده کريم آيين ايران


Also Yarsanism according to Dr. Izady was the religion of 40% of Kurds until recently. Also Gurani was the principal language of Ardalan.. I will have more to say. But I think you are acting political.. the fact is that Armenians have identified Kurds as Medes. Medes absorbed other groups, but by say 2500 years ago, there is no more mention of Hurrians, Urartu, Mannai and other groups that were absorbed by Medes. Every group in the world perhaps for some natives of Australia or some far away island has absorbed other groups. But the fact is Kurdish mythology, language, celeberations.. are all Iranian. Indeed you might want to look at this talyshi samples and see that it is very close to the Kurdish of Azarbaijan:[26]. BTW Kermanshah does not make 2-3% of the population of Kurds. The Kalhuri Kurdish is from the Kalhur tribe who identify their ancestors as Goodarz (another Shahnameh heroe). Laki,Gurani, Zazai are not linguistically Kurdish (Kurmanji/Sorani), but they are culturally in my opinion. Laki btw is between Luri and Kurdish and most Laks now identify themselves with Lurs. I do not have a major issue with this as long as it is mentioned that Kurds are an Iranic people and so far I only see political reasons for weakening the Iranic connection of Kurds and this is not correct factually. --Ali doostzadeh 21:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear friend, the problem is that you think of Kurds as only Kurds of Iran, hence consider Kermanshah as a big chunk of Kurds, which is not true. The largest group of Kurds are Kurmanji Kurds, those in Turkey/Syria and Parts of Iraq and Iran, then we have Sorans. The Kelhors rank only third. So I suggest to expand your studies to Kurmanji and Sorani-speaking Kurds as well. Moreover, Gorani speaking Kurds are a very tiny group, perhaps not more than 100,000 out of 25 million. So in order to identify the important cultural/historical traits of Kurds, we have to pay more attention to the dominant groups, i.e., Kurmanji and Sorani speaking Kurds.Heja Helweda 01:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Talyshi and other languages of the region of southern shore of Caspean sea are all more related to Gurani group than Kuramnji. Kurds of Azerbaijan province of Iran as well as Kurds of Kurdistan province speak Kurmanji, and thuse Talyshi is more related to Kurdish spoken in parts of Kermanshah i.e. Gurani. Even this Gurani group by some/many? linguists is not considered as linguistically Kurdish. The Kurdishness of Gurans is based on historical data and some cultural traits and the important fact of self-identification as Kurd in front of all. BTW, for Kalhurs of south we have a Gotarzes I of Parthia here´, I don't know how much they are related but this one is a real Parthian king not a figure of Persian mythology, Shahname. Jalalarbil 23:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, you have to pay more attention to dominant Kurmanji/Sorani Kurds. Gorans are a tiny group.Heja Helweda
Actually it is Gudarz the son of Giv:[27]. The other Gudarz is a Parthian(Iranian) King and there could be a relationship here, although very hard to prove. Gurani was the official language of Ardalan principality. It is true that it is related to Central and Caspian NW dialects more than Kurmanji, but still we do not have a sharp break off. That is we have continum of Iranian peoples and Kurmanji could represent one end of the spectrum of NW Iranian languages. --Ali doostzadeh 01:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Are Kurds Aryans or not?

I will discuss this point, because some of the people claim a bullshit about Kurds, which I can not belief.

At all the first question who are the Aryans?

Aryan can mean: 1) Indo-Iranians 2) Something like an Proto-Indo-European race 3) Blond haired and blue eyed North Europeans


Point 2 and 3 are meaningless for this article, because no of them both are connected in any way to the Iranic people and mostly to Kurds, nor they are based on any proofable facts.

The Indo-Iranians call their self for at least 4000 years!!! Aryans! Now some users are going to claim something else. The Kurds are Iranic people, thus they are Aryan people, because Iranic and Aryan are exactly the SAME words!

About discussing if Kurds are or are not Aryan is like asking if Kurds are or are not Iranic.

Are Kurds Iranic? Do they have an Iranian language, do they have Iranian culture?

YES THEY HAVE

Now some users coming up with stuff about the Ergativity of some features of the Kurdish language, or genetical stuff.

What has this to do with the points?

The Kurds are the same people as the people lived in these areas 2500 years ago. We know that the people called theirself 2500 years ago as Aryans.

Thus why shouldn't Kurds be Aryans, shouldn't be Iranic?

I think everyone who is claiming that Kurds are not Aryans, thus not Iranic, is racist and believes in the bullshit of the National Socialist of the 3rd Reich.

Thus Kurds are Aryans, because they are Iranic!

Every other claim is facist and racist and against humanism. It is a negation of the Kurdish identiy, a negation of the Kurdish origin, language and culture!

Everyone who claim Kurds are not Aryans, claim that they are not Iranic, and claims that Kurds are nothing!

Stop being a FACIST/RACIST! --ShapurAriani 21:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Calm down man, you are not fighting in front of your enemy. :)
Aryan is no longer a people or ethnic group (in the case of race) but simply certain languages especially indic group of the Indo-iranian languages. In 'ancient times' certain groups of people of Iranian plateau were refered to as Aryans, who although were very small in numbers in comparison to earlier inhabitants of the region but due to religious power they had they could have such a strong effect on the people they ruled that drastically influeced their languages so that today most linguistics classify these certain languages as one language group; and we sometimes call them Aryan languages. The same way as Arabic did various non-Arab people's languages [28] [29] by the Islamic religious power, But Islam not only changed their languages and made them so close as in the case of Aryan (Like closely related languages of Pashto, Persian, Baloochi, Kurdish) but even totally replaced their languages into one single language (Arabic or dialects of Arabic). But to say these modern peoples themselves are Aryan is in no way accurate. Thier main linguistic forefathers were Aryan and today their languages (i.e. Aryan by speach). In fact claiming otherwise (by race) as Adolf Hitler did is in many cases considered fascist/racist :). Cheers Jalalarbil 22:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we all need to keep our cool. But the original Aryans themselves could have been a formation of several group of races. Kurds are Aryan by language and mythology , which are two very important aspects of culture. Racially, we all know there is no pure race in the middle-east. So a Turkic speaker, Armenian speaker, Persian speaker, Kurdish Speaker, Luri speaker, .. all could have Hurrian, Sumerian, Hittite, Hattic, Elamite, Mede, Persian, Parthian, Arabic.. admixture. The point is that Kurds are Iranic (ethno-linguistically) just like Turkish speakers of Turkey are Turkic. --Ali doostzadeh 02:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


There is no strong ethnic ties between Kurds and Iranians. Their only widely accepted connection is by speech which one can say Kurds are Aryan by speech. Kurdish culture, traditions, mythology, music,...etc are distinct from Iranian, although related but not part of it. Wirya 08:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Your statement sounds more political.. I mean look at the first sentence: There is no strong ethnic ties between Kurds and Iranians.. By Iranians do you mean current people living in Iran? As you know 10% of them would be Kurds! If you mean Iranians as an ethnic group, then again your statement is fuzzy, since Iranians are various groups (Lurs, Persians, Bakhtiaris, Gilakis, Talishi's, Pashtuns, Baluchis..). Iranian(or if you prefer Iranic) is a general term and it does not mean Persian. Medes which have been identified historically with Kurds (see the above evidence) were an Iranian group. Or let me give you a different example. See the article I mentioned above on the Kurdish-Median connection in Armenian sources. For example a Uighyur Turkic person and a Turkomen Turkic person is much more distant to an anatolian Turk, but they are both considered Turkic. Also I disagree with your statement. Kurdish mythology is clearly Iranic. Kurdish culture is Iranic celebrations (for example Gurani literature mentions Tiregan, Mehregaan, Nowruz.. which are all Zoroastrian holidays). Kurdish music has variety as well. For example Kermanshah is different than Mahabaad's music. The same way Iranian culture is varied. For example the Persian music of Tajikistan or Khorasan is not the same as say the Persian music of Fars province or Bushehr. The reason that some Kurds are trying to differentiate themselves from other Iranic group is simply political, but it is not accurate by the definition of ethno-linguistic. As I said I don't like the Iranian government, and I know Sunni Kurds specially have not had it well in the last 500 years. But Iranic does not simply mean Persian speakers of Iran and it encompasses a wide range of diverse peoples. Read this: [30], specially pg 3 point b. --Ali doostzadeh 08:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Yes I mean Iranic. Ughur is not a good example. Kurds are even froom a different root from other Iranians. Why not take Azerbaijanis for example? Who adopted a Turkic language. and according to many Iranians i've met are only only by speech turkic? The Median origin of Kurds is archaic (belonging to midd of past century) and no more accpeted. Today the mainstream is that Kurds are descendant of ancient people who lived there for 10,000s years. Kurds have their distinct traditions. [31] Wirya 08:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The Harvard article I provided is much more specialized than Brtiannica which has many mistakes. Again, Uighyur is a good example because both Uighyurs, Azerbaijanis and Anatolian Turkic speakers are considered Turkic, despite all of them having different cultures and being much more distant than say Kurds and Lurs/Persians/Talysh... The Median origin of Kurds is attested even before Western scholarship started to study Medes.[32] It does not mean that before Medes, there was no people or the Medes got rid off all the people there!! But all these former people were absorbed and mixed with Iranian people and became Iranians. Just like many other groups that absorbed the people prior to them. That is from 3000 years ago, the Medes absorbed Hurrians, Guttis, Mannai and other groups. Further Iranian elements were injected by Sagartians, Parthians and etc. So Kurds being descendant of Medes does not contradict Kurds being descendants of Hurrians. Both elements are present. But the Mede element is the prevalent element from the point of view of both language and also mythology as attested by the Indo-Iranian mythology. Also by the Zoroastrians celebrations I mentioned and that have been attested in Kurdish literature. You must remember that from at least the time of Mittani Indo-Iranians till the advent of Islam, the caucus and central Asia were a source for massive migratations of Iranic elements in the area and so Kurds are now an Iranic people both ethnically and linguistically. Even Mehrdad Izady uses the term Iranic to describe Kurds.
I quote from here[33] which is probably taken from Izady's book.: Kurds are now predominantly of Mediterranean racial stock, resembling southern Europeans and the Levantines in skin, general coloring and physiology. There is yet a persistent recurrence of two racial substrata: a darker aboriginal Palaeo-Caucasian element, and more localized occurrence of blondism of the Alpine type in the heartland of Kurdistan. The "Aryanization" of the aboriginal Palaeo- Caucasian Kurds, linguistically, culturally and racially, seems to have begun by the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, with the continuous immigration and settlement of Indo-European-speaking tribes, such as the Hittites, Mitannis, Haigs, Medes, Persian, Scythians and Alans. The process was more or less complete by the beginning of the Christian era, by which time the Kurds had absorbed enough Iranic blood and culture, particularly Median and Alan, to form the basis physical typology and cultural identity.

--Ali doostzadeh 08:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Kurds are of Medditeranian stock. but here it does not say the Kurds are culturally Iranian but points to the fact that there was a linguistic and cultural influence by Medes in the last of the first millennium BC. It's true. But Kurds did not lose their identity, their previous cultural inheritage. Kurds did not become Mede, but took a large number of loanwords and many religious (later became cultural) traits. But remain distinct from rest of Iranic peoples. The Encyclopedia of Islam says The classification of Kurds among Iranins does not prejudice the fact there is a complexity of ethnical elements incorporated in them.Wirya 09:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The Kurds are an Iranian people it speaking Iranian language. The Kurds have Iranian culture and them are proud on its Iranian origin (I am an Iranian Kurd from Iraq: Excuse they for my bad one English). --Muhamed 18:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The same goes for me. I am an Iranian Kurd from Iran, and we are Iranic people. We are nor Arabs nor Turks, our brothers and sisters are Persians, Mazandaranis, Gilakis, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Ossetians, Baloches and other Iranic people!

The ones who say Kurdish culture is in a lot of way different from other Iranic cultures, are ignorant and do know NOTHING about all the others Iranians!

Kurds are an Iranic people, having an Iranian language, having an Iranian culture and are genetically close to the other Iranic people!

Stop spaming anti Kurdish propaganda!

WE ARE NOT TURKS NOR ARABS! --ShapurAriani 15:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Yesss, Bravo. turco-mongoloid?? We are proud Kurds and Iranians are our proud brothers. Iranian culture is very high. it is very close to Kurdish culture. it is not different. it is an ancient culture. i like it. this culture is three things, Good deed, good saying, and good think. it is different from turko-mongoloid culture which is only three things kill.. kill.. kill..

Please, this is not a political forum. You are wrong on Turks, they are not that close to Mongols as you think. Even their language is not that close. That's a common misconception among Iranian writers which tend to associate Turks with Mongoloids which is false. Original Turks came from western part of central Asia and southern Russia (Khazars) around 1000 CE to Anatolia and Azerbaijan. Mongols came around 1200 AD and on their way they killed a lot of Turks as well. Contemporary Turks are a mix of central Asian tribes and Anatolian people, but not Mongol. Mongol influence can be seen among Hazara in Afghanistan, which is part of Iranian peoples :).Heja Helweda 20:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually on Turks see my comment above as well as the comments on my userpage. Here is a statue of one of the kings of the oldest Turkic dynasty, called Blue Turks.[34].
Most of the mongol confederation troops were of Turkic stock themselves although soem Turks did fight against the mongol confederation. Hazaras are Turko-Mongols, and their Persian is about 10-15% turko-mongolian (see Iranica article). But in the last two centuries or so, they have adoped Persian. Also I think everyone should come down here.. The Khazars had a strong Alanic and Scythian population and were a multi-ethnic dynasty. I think the dispute tag should be in place until everyone agrees. Obviously me, Shapur, and Muhammad and many sources consider Kurds as Iranic people. I have brought strong evidence:Mythology, Armenians referring to Kurds as Medes way before western scholarhsip, Gurani literature mentioning "din-e-Iran" (The Iranian religion) when referring to Yarsanism.. and many other facts. --Ali doostzadeh 21:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, why there is not image of Zakaria or Mikail in the article?


i am a kurd , with a father a kurd of iran and my mother , a from iraq i am an iranian and not a turk or arab we are proud of oour heritage and eversince iam a little child , i heard from them old stories about our cukture and history and everything they told me , was related to our iranian culture and history ,like the legend of kawa asenger

Sourced material

Removal of sourced material is not appropriate, especially when it is sourced. I just added the word 'may' to the sentence. When the source say something, then we have not the write to remove whole of iy according to our arguments and conclusions. here we cannot argue and write things according to personal view and beliefs. We just write articles according to verifiable source. The verifiable source already concludes something, whether it has any relationship tp other languages or not is not our job. You have not provided any source that this pecularity is not from Hurrian. Even if youprovide something like that, it still is not a reason to remove that previous sourced material. who knows why not the peculairy on other languages´too is not a legacy from ancient peoples of the region who were absorbed by them? let's stop our personal argument and accept verifiable sources. Jalalarbil 22:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Who said?

Who said Kurds are not Iranic? Why we should clearly show realities in another way? why we should make the situation heated? Who said Kurds are not Iranic? what is Iranic? Don't you agree that it is not a race? We have already agreed the the language which modern Kurds speak is among Iranic languages and thus Kurds are Iranic by speech. Jalalarbil 23:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Kurds are Iranic by culture and language, race was never a point of the discussion, thus how you can claim Kurds are not Aryans, if Kurds are Iranic? Aryan=Iranic. --ShapurAriani 22:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article does not say they are not Aryan, it simply says they are a mix of indigenous Hurrian and migrating Aryans. After all no ethnic group is 100% pure. Please read the article and History of the Kurds carefully. In the latter(History of the Kurds), under the title of Indo-European Migration, it says: Medes, Scythians and Sagarthians are the better-known clans of the Indo-European-speaking Aryans who settled in the area (Kurdistan). Heja Helweda 23:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish culture

We frequently hear that Kurdich culture is Iranic, the reason given for conclusion is that because Kurdish language is Iranic, hence their culture is Iranic. another reason given here is that because there are many similar aspects in Kurdish and Persian cultures (as well as cultures of other Iranic-speaking peoples) hence Kurdish culture is Iranian. For which they provide source, however noone provide a source that attests and conforms that Kurdish culture is Iranic. Here such an evidence is needed not evidence for how much shahname or Avesta is regared by people of Kermanshah or Baghdad. Jalalarbil 23:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Iranic culture is not Persian culture, this is your mistake! The sum of the Kurdish, Persian, Pashtun and that of the other Iranic people, we call it Iranic culture. Thus about what do you speak??? It doesn't make sense in any way. --ShapurAriani 22:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Three Facts about Kurds

1) Kurds are an Iranic people 2) Kurds speak an Iranian language 3) Kurds have an Iranic culture

Anyone who do not accept this, is a Turkish or Arabic facist, who is spaming Wikipedia full of Turkish and Arabic propaganda!

Stop please! --ShapurAriani 22:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

These are already mentioned in the article. Why are you so upset?Heja Helweda 23:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this is already redundant and has been said several times before, I apologize in advance for that. But the following need to be addressed: The article says "Kurdish culture is close to Iranian culture". This implies that they are two separate things which have a certain affinity. Since Iranian is a rather general term, however, it includes Kurds as well (rather than "Persian" in its modern use meaning Persian-speaking, which does not necessarily include Kurds). I think a better formulation is to say that the Kurdish culture is close to that of other groups of the Iranian peoples, which would thus imply both the specific differences of these different groups, as well as the umbrella-term Iranian. Same holds for the intro, where it says that the Kurds are ethnically close to Iranian peoples' groups. That is inaccurate since they are themselves part of the Iranian peoples groups, so it should be changed to "They are ethnically close to other Iranian peoples", in order not to create a misunderstanding. Shervink 11:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)shervink
I agree. Zor Supas. --Ali doostzadeh 03:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Kurds are of pure Iranian origin.

Recent changes

"Since Kurds speak an Aryan tongue, formerly it was thought that they are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC”

Formerly it was thought? Did Britannica and Columbia changed their text recently? I don’t think so. Please bring evident if they did, otherwise we can not overrule TWO major encyclopedias because of ONE study. wont be fair. We should represent BOTH sides equally and neutrally. The current wording is POV since it basically says that Britannica and Columbia were wrong. These are very famous encyclopedias and if this issue was legitimate, they would update themselves. Unless we have evidence that they did we can not express POV as fact. Be fair and mention both sides neutrally. Thank you.Gol 05:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Because there is nothing like Iranian race, , you have wrongly added it to the genetic section. Thoseencyclopedias do not claim that Kurds are genetically descendants of the so-called ancient Iranians who were some small religious immigrants (like todays shiekhs) foreigner to the people of the region and just brought the language. Thus it is wrong. there is no Iranian race, from whom this large populations are descendant of. Besides user khorshid is filling the article by inserting Iranian shia propaganda.

Please check your writings before posting. Sign your posts. Be polite. Don't attack other users. Don't remove sourced material. Don't push your POV. Assume good faith. You are doing just about everything that shouldn't be done here. Have you noticed the banner on top of the page asking you to stay calm when writing? Shervink 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

lol, I'm calm!

what I did was restoring the exact quote from Britannica and Columbia, two very legitimate encyclopedia, I did not comment on them or change them in ANYWAY so I can not be accuse of pushing my POV since it is theirs not mine. Call Britannica and ask them about it if you don’t like their views. I presented them EXACTLY as they are written the in the source. Someone however added his own POV to it by saying that those sources are wrong and the other one is right. This is POV pushing to favor one over the other. Both sides should be represented. It is against the rules to delete one side and keep the one you like better.Gol 02:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Gol, I do dot disagree with including that, as it was once generally tought to be true, and interestingly still many Kurds themselves believe that!Wirya 09:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

The Britannica article on Kurd says: "The prehistory of the Kurds is poorly known, but their ancestors seem to have inhabited the same upland region for millennia. The records of the early empires of Mesopotamia contain frequent references to mountain tribes with names resembling “Kurd.” The Kardouchoi whom the Greek historian Xenophon speaks of in Anabasis (they attacked the “Ten Thousand” near modern Zakhu, Iraq, in 401 BC) may have been Kurds, but some scholars dispute this claim. The name Kurd can be dated with certainty to the time of the tribes' conversion to Islam in the 7th century AD. Most Kurds are Sunnite Muslims, and among them are many who practice Sufism and other mystical and heretical sects." [35]

There is nothing said of Hurrians. This idea of Hurrians seems to be only a theory and is too new to be accepted by most historians. Khorshid 06:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also there is nothing to link Hurrians to the Kurdish regions of Iran. The Wikipedia article says: "The Hurrians or Khurrites [1] were a people of the Ancient Near East, who lived in northern Mesopotamia and areas to the immediate east and west, beginning approximately 2500 BC. They probably originated in the Caucasus and entered from the north, but this is not certain. Their known homeland was centred in Subar, the Khabur River valley, and later they established themselves as rulers of small kingdoms throughout northern Mesopotamia and Syria. The largest and most influential Hurrian nation was the kingdom of Mitanni." Khorshid 07:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added cleanup tag to the history section because the Hurrian theory is only a theory and in the article it is stated as fact. We need to make sure what is fact is shown as fact and what is theory is shown as theory. And also as the genetic study shows, there are differences between say Kurds of Turkey who are connected to Hurrians and Kurds of Iran and Iraq who have not been proven to be connected to Hurrians. Khorshid 07:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Khorshid, and thank you for helping in writing this article; The problem is from your sources which are not updated, for example Britannica in one article says Kurds are descendant of Aryans, in another article says their origin is unknown, etc.. and even in this case, while it says they defended themselves against Sumerian invasion, in another article is not certain about that! Or your quote/citiation from Wikipedia is not actually a very good one since unfortunately sometimes we find users who insert their point of view or more clearly I'm saying that not all articles in wikipedia are necessarily correct or complete (especially those related to southwest Asia). The fact is that the Aryan theory has been discredited, not only based on linguistic evidence but also genetics. If you look at updated sources they all agree for a Hurrian substructure, with a (dubious) Aryan linguistic shift if even occured. For the Kurdish genetic issue, As you know Kurds until recently were mainly nomadic i.e. did not reside in one specific region, so that many Kurds from Iran their ancestors imigrated from present-day Iraq or Turkey just one or a few centuries ago, or for example in the city of Van southeast Turkey you find many Kurds who say their grandfather came from Shapur (old name of Salmas) so Kurds are actually well mixed and we can not find a genetic split among them, so that even Zazas who are not mainly regarded as linguistically Kurdish, and even based on linguistic speculations once linguists thought they came from the area of Caspean sea, are quite similar to (other) Kurds.Wirya 11:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello Wirya, please do not remove my edits since they are sourced. What I am saying is that the sources do not make claims of Hurrian presence in Kurdistan region of Iran, only Mesopotamia. The genetic study only shows Anatolian Kurds might be of Hurrian origin, but does not say this about Iranian Kurds. There are differences among Kurd groups as I am sure you know and we cannot say for 100% certain that they are all the same. Khorshid 12:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Also the Aryan theory has not been discredited. Look at the genetic study which includes Kurds of Iran compared with other Iranians. They are linked. This may not be true for Kurds of Turkey, but it is true of Kurds of Iran. If it were discredited encyclopedias would stop talking about possible Aryan origins of Iranian Kurds. But this does not take away from indigenous origins of Kurds either since the sources show that Kurds were assimilated by Aryan tribes. Khorshid 12:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I reverted you because you changed the title of "Origin of Kurds" to "Aryan origins". This source: According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, the Kurds, as well as other migrant ethnic groups of the region (such as the Bakhtiari and Qashqai), are of the "least mixed descent of the original Iranians." [36] is not talking about Aryans but indigenous Iranians. So that has nothing to do with Aryan theories. Khorshid 12:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And also we need to clean up the article better for possible featured article status. The reference tags need to expanded with description for the links. And to show theories as theory which is what the Hurrians is - not all the scholars agree and the sources show this. The way it looks now I don't think it will get anywhere near featured status. Khorshid 12:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hurrians and their subgrouos lived in an area including approximiately from Kirmanshan to Aleppo and Damascus or east of Mediterranean sea and and then to Mount Ararat and this mean wehre Kurds have traditionally lived, and Kurds are genetically closely related to one another. Helgurd
Please do not leave misleading edit tags when making edits. You removed everything I added. Please do not do that. Add but do not delete my hard work which I have provided sources for. Khorshid 12:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone does that again - removing all my edits which are sourced - I am going to add a totallydisputed tag and take this to admins. It is not fair what you are doing. Khorshid 12:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss your concerns one by one: there are already several sources provided in the article. Where in the source it says that this is only Anatolian Kurds who are desendants of Khurrites? In fact it talks about all Kurds; You probably have not read whole of the article which is more than only one parapgraph, it even talks about Iranians, Turks, etc. So I'm sorry I remove the word Anatolian BECAUSE the source does not claim that. Wirya 13:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


The claim of Kurds being inheritors of Hurrian is only spoken by Kurds themselves. There is not a significant number of historians believing this. Where is the reason? I could never understand the Kurdish side of this dispute. What connects them? Only they live in the same place the Hurrians used to be located? Chaldean 14:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


See here:http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Kurdistan.html Wirya 14:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

and in contrary to what you said, the source in the article says: Modern Kurdish historians consider themselves as coming from Medes [[[Aryan]]] and Kurds have a calendar based on the Medes destruction of the Assyrian Empire when Nineveh was occupied by Medes (612 B.C.) So, Kurds themselves claim to be Aryan but they are not. Wirya 14:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

While checking the references to the article, I noticed the CIA's World Factbook has moved, breaking the links. I've tried to find the numbers listed in the new article on Turkey, but with little success. A quick search turned up this page: Who are the Kurds?", but they show considerably fewer numbers than the infobox. Does anyone mind if I do a little research, update the info, form citations and link to sources, when available? --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has moved! The outdated sources show a fewer number while some other sources show a bigger number, but I think as a norm like many other articles we should use CIA numbers, It even suggests a number between those which suggest a fewer and those which suggest a bigger number. Wirya 20:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you direct me to the numbers at the new CIA page? All I could find there was a percent. If we can't find a number there, we should list it as a per cent, or look for sources that list the number. At least, that's the opinion of this stick-in-the-mud librarian. 8-) --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
If its OK with folk here for me to go at this, I would naturally look for sources such as the CIA, the UN, major newspapers, etc. I'd suggest that we list a range from the smallest to the largest number listed. --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
In any case, my interest on this page is on the documentation side, that the full title of the source be listed along with other publication facts, and, where online links to the data. I don't personally like references that are only links. --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course:
Turkey: 20%, =>[37] of the 70-75 mill
Iran 7% - 9% of 70 mill [38]
Iraq: 15%-20% of 26,6 mill [39]
Syria: 9% of about 20 mill [40]
Source for countries [41]
There are also other sources.

Wirya 21:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)



This is a very good source.

Of total 30 milllion Kurds: slightly more than 1/2 live in Turkey (about 15 mill), 1/4 live in Iran (7.5 mill), 1/6 live in Iraq (5 mill), 1.5 mil in Syria, over 1 million in Europe, Soviet 0.5 etc.

[42] page 2 Helgurd

Map

Image:AlterOrient.jpg Can somebody please tell me what is this map doing in this page? Chaldean 03:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's for the history section, I see that since unfortunately it focuses on Sumerians rather than Khurrites it is not quite related but since currently there is no other map we keep it for no. I personally will be looking for a better one.
PS. But another thing! no other ethnic article has a map! So I myself am not sure whether keep it or not. Helgurd.

Weird Blanking in Save

Dear Folks: I've been working on the citations and during one of the saves, everything from the middle of the religion section to the end disappeared. I tried to put it back, but would appreciate it if you all would look and put back anything missing.

Thanks!--CTSWyneken(talk) 13:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of Kurds in Turkey; Assytians and Sumarians fought

An editor keeps changing the number in the text box from 14-15 million, a range based in the cited data, to 10-12 million. Is there a source for this number? As is, it conflicts with our citation.

Also, our article cites the Encyclopedia Britannica, which states very clearly that the Kurds resisted these two groups. Does anyone have a source that contradicts it?

If the answer is no to these, I'd appreciate it if the editors would stop changing the information, since it misrepresents our sources. Wikipedia is about summarizing scholarship, not our own ideas.--CTSWyneken(talk) 10:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes Good point, but apparently this removal of sourced material originates from this minor edit war: [43]. There is two different views regarding the modern Arameans (or Chaldo-Assyrians) who recently have adopted ethnic name 'Assyrian': One academic (by Historians and encyclopedias), and one nationalistic (by Arameans themselves) probably these firends need a help in editing the article Assyrian people, which is largely writen with unsourced material and is only based on personal speculations. Wirya 20:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kurds/Archive_7&oldid=1050037435"