![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I've temporarily protected this page due to the recent edit war over sources being added. I'll take it off in a day or two, but please use this time to come to consensus over the sources here, and cool down in general. -- InShaneee 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright, things seem to have cooled down a good deal here, and I see there's been a lot of talking going on here. Here's hoping it stays that way. That said, I've gone ahead and unprotected the page. Happy editing! -- InShaneee 05:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Evidence
1- Encarta Encylopedia
2- Encylopedia.com
3- Saag.org, Dr. S. Chandrasekharan essays
4- MERIA Academic journals
I think this justifies it. -- Kash 23:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC.
So if they shared the same origins, then surely even Britannica agrees to this also. -- Kash 23:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Clearly both the people and their language is/was called Aryan.
Thats good right? I mean many Kurds have lived under Iran and Persian rule for much of their history, and now modern research also supports that they are related ethnolinguistically.
--
Ali doostzadeh
06:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/talyshi/talyshlanguage.pdf In fact one Talysh wrote to me that he understands 90% of Kurdish.
-- Ali doostzadeh 12:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Diyako, Kurds surely have their own culture, I believe what our friend Ali is saying here is that it is all part of the Iranian people's culture, as the
Iranian culture is not just the Persian's culture, but also the other ethno-linguistically Iranian people's culture, such as Lurs, Kurds and Baluches. --
Kash
23:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
So what if Kurds are linguistically and (based on some sources) ethnically close to Iranians? We have talked about all this before (those who are not familiar with this article should read the materials in the archive). The article already says Kurds speak an Iranian language and it says that according to some sources they're ethnically close to Iranians. Please read Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Aucaman Talk 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
As a Kurd who has lived in both Iranian Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan for years, I have to say I have never met any Kurd who does not identify himself as an Iranian as much as being a Kurd. We are brothers with Iranians and have lived together sharing much of our history together. It's almost shocking to see some users denying this fact. This recent political campaigns by some Turkish parties which are trying to give us a national identity are good but we should never forget our roots and brothers in Iran. I suggest a more informative and POV-free intro such as:
The Kurds are an ethnic group closely related to the Iranian peoples such as Persians, inhabiting parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (a region commonly referred to as Kurdistan). Smaller communities can also be found in Lebanon, Armenia, and Azarbaijan (Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh) and some Western countries.
Just my suggestion. -- MysticRum 11:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-- MysticRum 11:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear friend, Since when you became a Kurd? this is your other usename, I know and can prove which is your main username! also since everybody can easily change his ethnicity and username in wikipedia, users ethnic background is not important here, I contribute in wikipedia as a neutral wikipedian not as a Kurdish wikipedian. D iyako Talk + 14:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
as you have noticed the arguments on this page oscillate between the anthropological and the political or what one may label claims on the essence of kurdishness ...now barzani's quote is important in that it shows that kurds do not distance themselves from ancient Iranian history and disown their rightful claim on it kurds are kurds like lurs are lurs ...but how is it that barzani cannot be quoted as saying whrere ever there is a kurd that place is turkey...(with all due respect to that country) I will refrain from posting further one's by Ebdulrehman Qasimlo because someone in Denmark is concerned that Kurds are Kurds. They don't need to be part of any other group is this statement verifiable ,,,??-- Loosekarma 17:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you are having a fundamental misunderstanding. Iranianness and Kurdishness complement each other. For example your name is Diyako. Diyako was the king of Medes. The medes are known as an Iranian people and in fact Armenian and Greek sources explicitly call them "Aryans"(Iranians). Furthermore perhaps the oldest Kurdish kurmanji inscription was found in Armenian church and it contains the lords prayer in several language.
http://www.azargoshnasp.net/history/Medes/languageofmedians.pdf
One of them is identified as the language of medes and it is just Kurdish. BTW Kurdish is not separate at all from other Iranian languages, and if you read that Talyshi document I pointed to, you would understand. BTW a lot of Talysh are also Shafi'i Muslims and the region of Azarbaijan and Kurdistan was predominately Shafi'i before the Safavids.
http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/talyshi/talyshlanguage.pdf
Another point I want to make here is that it was not Sorani/Kurmanji but Gurani that was the main dialect of Mah-abad, Sannandaj, Kermanshah till recently. And the literature of Gurani clearly refers to Iran and Iranianness and Zoroastrian and Shahnameh concepts throughout.
Also as per mythology, Kurds consider Kaveh ahangar and Rustam Dastan to be Kurds.
http://www.azargoshnasp.net/famous/ferdowsi/shahkurdarmen.pdf
As per language, I think it is best to let the experts speak. Here is a quote from the famous Prof. David Mackenzie who amongst all modern scholars, has done the most in understanding Kurdish (Sorani, Kurmanji) and also Zazai and Gurani dialects/languages. Here is an excerpt: My first task then should be to define Kurdish (Kd.) by establishing features which distinguish it from other Ir(anian) dialects. Unfortunately I have to admit at the outset that my findings are largely negative, for almost every feature of Kd. has its counterpart in at least one other Iranian dialect.
BTW lets not forget that 50%+ of Kurds in Iran also live in Garousi, Bijar, Elam, and Kermanshah regions and political activity and separatist sentiments here has been virtually near zero. So no one here can claim to speak for Kurds in Iran and I think what is important is to just look at scientific facts: language, culture, mythology and etc and to see if Kurdistani people are also a branch of Iranian people (like for example Bakhtiaris) are not. BTW even if we talking about race, many famous antrophologist define Kurds as part of the Irano-Afghan race. http://www.snpa.nordish.net/troeplate18.htm
Luri/Laki/Lari/Persian/Talyshi.. have also similarities. There is actually a continum. Note the term "Indian", "Chinese", "Iranian".. are terms that are vast. For example the Parsis of India, Tajiks of Tajikistan and Kurds/Zazas outside of Iran are an Iranian people. Just like Turkomens or Uzbeks are Turkic people but are distinct.
--
Ali doostzadeh
18:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Aa I said, 100 years ago people thought so, but today the claim that Kurds are descendat of Medes is not accepted, Medes were only one layer of 9 main layers tyhat Kurds are desendant of. Which one of these layers are stronger or weaker in Kurds is disputed and there is no consencus on that.
In most cases it is said that their language is Iranian, but the number of references that claim they are an Iranian people is very few. There is no need for claim they are an Iranian people jast in the beging of the article. I had explaind the issue in the second paragrah where their language and close ethnic groups are explaind. The word Iranian should go down there. It is the only accepted way. We cannot reflect one side and ignore the other one. Xebat 12:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
There are already several Authorative sources plus some other links which sure can be added in the text, but the most neutral and correct wording for the matter is the last version by me and removing the Iranian word to the second paragraph where it discuss the ethniciy of Kurds. It reflects all existing sources. and I support that. what is your opinion? D iyako Talk + 14:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to re insert the archived argument of users:shapurAriani and Tombseye As none of the collective (anti-mention of Iranian) logic seems to address it
once archived they are starting the arguments from scratch when confronted with logic ...the response is to verify and when sources are presented we get this:
if you go up to a kurd and ask him?....or saying Kurds are Iranians will create the impression that they are Iranian refugees...??
please .. What is an ethnic group .. ? if the Iranian is erased then it will create the impression that Kurds have been wandering the globe through ages never having been part of a nation.. ?so instead of founders of the median empire in a way a precursor to all the rest of the post aryan kingdoms they are relegated to Corduene at best or the far more accurate statement that their origins are uncertain ? whose origins are certain will the real ...(so and so) please stand up
... how can you verify that 2 or 5 or 7 centuaries ago the people inhabiting the regions refered to as kurdistan would consider themselves distinct in this sense.
it is injustice to the contribution of this member tribe of the Iranian family considering their contribution to the various Iranian empires cultural institutions, works of art and litrature ...
I cant help but laugh anytime I review the archive and come upon the argument of a respected user who mentioned that kurds dance in groups while the rest of Iranian people like to dance individually ...and therefore?? Surely we are in territory of the comical ...by now-- 193.167.6.96 04:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
15 million Kurds in Kurdistan part of Turkey? This is the stupidest thing I've seen lately, let me tell you about Kurds in Turkey, there are more Kurds in Istanbul, Izmir and Ankara combined than in whole SE Turkey. Kurds in Turkey are not isolated, they have the freedom to move/settle anywhere they please and they do; you are misinforming people.-- Kagan the Barbarian 10:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually the population of Kurds in Turkey is at least 18 million. The German government did a detail province by province analysis. If anyone likes this information, I can email it to them.
--
Ali doostzadeh
18:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Which Kurds speak Aramaic? Source? Chaldean 17:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Kurdish Christians do as well.
Thanks to Heja, we have another source: The Kurds, an Iranian people of the Near East, live at the junction of more or less laicised Turkey, ÷9Ê#i Iran, Arab and SunnÊ #Ir§Î and North Syria,-and Soviet Transcaucasia." Doesn't say anything about "Iranian" being a linguistic term. SouthernComfort 00:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Insisting that kurds are iranians, and that this must be the first fact presented about them, is not neutral. The neutrality tag is definitley in order as long as this controversial adjective stands. -- Vindheim 01:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
And The Columbia Encyclopedia does not claim they are an Iranian people! it says they are close to them. http://www.bartleby.com/65/ku/Kurds.html X ebat Talk + 01:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I had an interesting discussion a while back on Rumi in the wikipedia entery. Another Kurdish friend from Turkey also said the obvious: "Kurds BTW are an Iranian people". Lets us get back to the points we agree upon. The various languages and dialects commonely called "Kurdish" are Iranian and have close affinity with Persian, Luri, Talyshi and other Iranian languages and dialects. I can list a lot of these dialects and languages: Behdini, Kurmanji, Surani, Gurani, Zazais and various sub-branches like Mah-abaadi, Sannandaji, Hakkari, Garousi, Kermanshahi which are sometimes mutually intelligble. In fact some of these could be closer to standard Persian or other dialects (like Gilaki/Mazandarani) than other Kurdish dialect, for example Zazai is closer linguistically to Northern Iranian dialects. So linguistically we agree people that are Kurds are also Iranian. Now I draw your attention that modern anatolian Turkish speakers are called Turkic while Yaquts (completely mongloid) are called Turkic. Kurds and other Iranians are much closer to each other and that is why many Kurds and some scholar prefer the term Iranic. So perhaps we can use the term an Iranic people. Now another question beside language is myths. If you read Sharafnama, many of the tribes claim descendant from figures of the Shahanama. Even look at Newruz celebrated by Kurds, everything is based on Iranian mythology and Kawa and Zahak. In fact Rustam and Kawa are seen as Kurds by Kurds as well. Next comes the term Kurd, this term is very fluid and for example in Pahlavi and Tabari it means shepard. Also tribes like Guran and Lurs for example have been considered Kurds (see Sharafnama) because of their style of living. Even taking it further, some historians have referred to Daylamites, Arabs of Suristan and etc. as Kurds. I am not here to add to the confusion, but the fact is the term Kurd historically did not necessarily mean the Suran/Kurmanj speakers solely and this is a more modern phenomenon. Vladimir Minorosky who is foremost scholar on Kurdish studies has said: The term Kurd as an ethnic label was begining to be applied to an amalgamation of Iranian or Iranicised tribes.
This is mentioned by this source as well: http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0812215729&id=gOq52_guRUoC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=kurd+iranian&sig=JqItu41QezqPEk0ZmlyIKPbTby0 By the seventh century A.D., the term "Kurd" had been applied to an amalgam of Iranian tribes.
I think at least we can accept Kurdish mythology is on whole part of Iranian mythology. There is a lot of politcs unfortunately inject into this discussion, but in the end Kurds are a branch of Iranians. But if we consider for example Sharafnama, even the heroe Rustam the son of Zal is claimed as a Kurd. Now Rostam is the biggest mythological figure in Iranian history and this important fact can not be overlooked!
They are neither Semites or Turkic. For example both Arabs and Jews are considered a semetic people. Both Anatolian turks (majority of them are really turkified Greeks/Kurds/Armenians) and Yaquts/Uzbeks are consider Turkic. Kurds and Tajiks then are also Iranic people. Note that the encyclopedia Iranica considers Kurds as clearly as part of the Iranian people: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Celebrations/kurdish_celebrations.htm Also let me add that if there is a Kurdistan, I will be very happy since we will have another Iranian state in the world. In fact I totally understand why some Kurds are bitter against the regimes of Iran in the past 500 years. But linguistic and myths and history are the main parts that make a group. Kurds historically (even in old armenian sources) are called Medes. Their language is Iranian. Their myths are Iranian. Most of all they share the important part of the Sassanid, Parthian, Achaemenid, Medes heritages.
Let us not forget the ancestors of Kurds were Zoroastrians. Best proof of this is the numerous fire temples all over Kurdistan (in fact even the oldest Kurdish poem could about a fire temple) and the Gurani literature.
-- Ali doostzadeh 03:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I wonder about the motivation of those people who insist that the first fact to be presented about kurds is the contentious statement that they are an Iranian people. I have placed this statement in a separate pargraph, right after the first paragraph.
Still this does not seem to be enough for certain people.
tell me: Why ?
-- Vindheim 12:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
They have fought the Sumerians, Assyrians, Persians, Mongols, European crusaders, and Turks.
This is creating the impression that history of this ethnic group has known no peace. And there have been no periods where the people inhabiting this mountainous region have been united as part of the greater kingdoms of the region
How related are the people who fought Sumerians (??) with the people who are fighting Turks?? have kurds fought the European crusaders as Carduchi or as proto Kurdish nation if there was ever such a thing?? or as part of another army
Please?? Can the Scandinavian champions of this lost history explain and please don’t give me the link (compton’s) again as proof of the verifiability address these matters with equal weighing of all parallel truths or fallacies.
’’’Isn’t the above provocative and particularistic I am asking for permission to erase this sentence?’’’ It reads like a bloody prescription
this is typecasting an entire ethnic group with as mentioned varied (predominantly Iranian) genetic and cultural roots??-- Loosekarma 14:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
’’’Is not it provocative that you just in begining discuss the unnecessary stuff of linguistical relationtip of Kurds with Iranians?’’’ Jasim
Linguistical relationship of Kurds with Iranians:
Hello again
Dear Sir.
I do not think the huge stuff on linguistical relatioship of Kurds with Iranians just in the first part of the article is necessary. It is too childish (between 6 till 16 years old). Mentioning the fact that Kurds speak a language which is classified among Iranian languages is all. I offer either to remove it or move it to a new section in the article.
Sincerely.
God bless you.
My brother, They are our cousins we can discuss it with them. I corrected the first sentence which is most common in the case of the Kurds because of their uncertain origins. Zanyar 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, whe are hier in Wikipedia and not in Propoganda-Page for Kurds. Ps: Kurds are Only 12 Million in Turkey her the Fakts from a TheKurdistan Page and the News are fresh >>Around 12 million of Turkeys 72 million inhabitants are estimated to belong to the Kurdish community.<< [7]
Hello Hectorian >>there are also sites that claim the kurdish population to be 25%<< who ??
so,as i said,the most reliable source is used here... -- Hectorian 13:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello
And even more... this one says >>30%<<
http://www.worldcivilsociety.org/report/EN/06/16-jul-02/summ_16.23.html
There are many other sources which offer a much larger number for Kurds in turkey. I think it needs at least a mentioning.
I also do not like adit of that Turco-Mongolic user. The infobox says Significatnt population in turkey and then in Kurdistan. It was correct.
I've replaced the dispute tag to better reflect the dispute here. If there is more than just one single source, A good compromise would be to include a range of numbers as oppose to revert warring to include a single source. But the sources would still have to be reliable. I'll check the sources when I get the chance and propose a reliable range. Until then it would be very nice if people stop reverting things. The totallydisputed tag is there and people would probably read the talk page before believing the numbers. Auca m an Talk 17:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
A personal website. http://www.hostkingdom.net states: "Greetings, and welcome to my Homepage; I am Obsidian (aka Nigel, if you are considering the SCA. When I'm not editing a web document, or re-enacting the Middle Ages, I'm just ordinary ol' Bruce...). Originally a character in an RPG game, more recently an administrator on several MU**s, and the author of a number of Web documents, my journey toward the Real progresses... "
This is a human rights report, not an academic source.
Again, not an academic source
Another personal home page, to "TEACH Malayalam!"
Its a magazine, not an academic source.
What? you can not use personal home pages and other non-academic sources. And I have explained a hundred times not to remove the dispute tag. -- Kash 14:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I add the dispute tag. X ebat Talk + 14:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
If you have concerns add the tag do not remove info from the page. X ebat Talk + 14:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
No, you are the one who is changing the info on the page. The intro is fine with the sources that I have provided -- Kash 14:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I find it curious that "Indo-European" is not opposed by this new editor Zanyar, and yet opposes the more precise term "Iranian" which is sourced. After all, they do speak an Iranian language. SouthernComfort 15:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
If we could also examine this source I just came across [12] it would be very good as it examines genetic comparisons between Iranian-speaking populations (including Persians and Kurds). SouthernComfort 15:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Xebat,
I agree with Shervink; as he mentioned what the article says is very clear about the Kurds. (From what I remember you were very passionately arguing that it is about the Kurds not Iranian people! So lets stick to what you said yourself! )Now if the term Iranian ethno-linguistic group is not defined properly then we should talk about that in the Iranian people’s page and try to fix it over there not here. Problem with that article does not change the facts about this article. That said, I still don’t have a problem from dropping Iranian from the intro and mentioning it in the second paragraph. I recall this being suggested by some Kurdish editors a while back. They did not disagree with the term but did not want it in the intro. That is fine by me but lets see what others think.
Gol 04:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Kurdish language is not related to Iranian languages. It is an Iranian language. Yes the term Iranian people is usually used, even in Iran, to refer to citizens of Iran but it does not mean that there is no other definition for it. The same goes for Germanic people; majority of British or Dutch people do not even know that they are Germanic people but that does not change the fact that the category exists and they are part of it. This article
[14], very clearly mentions Kurds as part of the iranian group.
And it is not an invention even if we agree that there is no cultural ties between these people( as some editors have claimed) what name do you give to people who speak Iranian languages? No one argued that there is an Iranian linguistic group and that Kurds are part of it. Please remember that this fact was never disputed by anyone and just as speakers of Germanic languages are called Germanic people, they same goes here. Germany is also name of a country and therefore can be confusing but it is still used. The dispute is whether this group is purely linguistic or not and that can be discussed in Iranian people’s page.
Gol
18:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
However if it is OK to call them Indo European, which is also a linguistic group, then I see no problem with being more specific and calling them Iranian (the linguistic group they belong to) but as I said we can drop it from the first paragraph. However it is a fact and it should be mentioned as one and not just as a possibility or an alternative the way you suggested it.
Gol 02:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Please explain the need to brand Kurdish people as "Iranian" in the first sentence of the article. It is already mentioned that Kurds speak an Iranian language and it is said that some sources say Kurds are ethnically close to Iranians. Pretty much all sources don't call Kurds Iranians in the first sentence of their articles when Kurds are being defined. There's been only one exception, but that's not enough to justify using the term in the first sentence of the article. As I've said many times, Kurds are simply Kurds, a distinct ethnic group. It's also fair to point out that the Iranian peoples article has still yet to produce a consistent definition of who Iranian peoples are and what the category is supposed to represent. Auca m an Talk 19:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay let's hear what others have to say. Auca m an Talk 19:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned before while they are by all means Iranian people, speaker of an Iranian language, since a few editors were very worried about possible confusion of naïve readers, I personally will not have a problem with mentioning the term in the second or even third paragraph instead of the first but not in a different section and not as a possibility. It is a fact not a possibility. We might have a dispute going on about what is exactly Iranian people (only linguistic or cultural and genetic as well) however that will be discussed in the Iranian people’s page and not here.
Gol 02:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand Kash and I agree with him, but I am willing to compromise and drop the term from the first sentence. However, I am not willing to accept Diyako’s version. He wants to mention it in a different section as an alternative or just a possibility. It is not only a possibility, it is a fact about Kurds and a very important one.
Gol 07:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the best compromise is to remove any label from the first paragraph (just call them an ethnic group for example) However the groups that they belong to should be mentioned in the following paragraphs.
Gol 08:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not insist on using the term Indo-European Altghough it is more precise than the word Iranian in the case of the Kurds.
Why? Either you agree with labeling people based on language or you don’t. If you do, then the proper label is Iranian since Kurdish is an Iranian langue and it is more specific to say Iranian or Indo Iranian than indo European which is a very big group and includes so many languages. In fact Iranian is definitely more precise since it is more specific. Indo European is such as big group and does not give us much specific information about who Kurds are.
Gol 08:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
What? You question whether the ethnicity of Kurds is Iranian, although their language is, but you call their ethnicity Indo European? If you dispute the fact that the members of Iranian linguistic group, which is a much smaller group, are ethnically related to each other, how can you possibly argue that Indo Europeans are? If you question the use of Iranian as an ethnicity, then it must be plain obvious the Indo European is even more questionable.
Please remember what the argument was originally.
Whether Iranian people is only a linguistic group or can it be used as an ethnic label as well. And if it is only linguistic, then should Kurds be labeled by their language group or not. If Iranian is wrong, indo European is even worse.
Also please remember that the reason Kurds are Indo European is because their language belongs to the Iranian branch which is a part of Indo European language family. This is their only connection to Indo European. So I am afraid if you want to argue they are Indo European, you must first accept that they are Iranian.
Again as I mentioned before:
Either you agree with labeling people based on language or you don’t. if yo do, then they are iranian. If you dont then they are not indo european either.
Gol 09:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Read page three of this article as well: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf The following groups : Medes, Ancient Persians, Parthians.. were all Iranians.
--Ali doostzadeh 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I have a possible solution to the revert war that happened. Here's what the 1st paragraph looked like awhile back:
The Kurds are an ethnic group inhabiting parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (a region commonly referred to as Kurdistan i.e. Upper Mesopotamia). Smaller communities can also be found in Lebanon, Armenia, and Azarbaijan ( Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh) and some Western countries.
We can add all the stuff about their origins/"who they are" further down the page, but there was a similar conflict like this a few months ago and this is how it was solved. Please let me know what you think, thanks. -- Khoikhoi 08:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I agree with no labelling. but first should all agree with that we previously had a consensus offered by Dear Gol but only part of people respected that.
X
ebat
Talk
+
10:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If tommorow an individual starts this debate for
Sindhi people or
Punjabi people Classified as
Indo-Aryans or
Dutch people, classified as Germanic Then would the it be erased just to appease the respective Diyakos or Aucamans of those domains ...
the reason that the same people who object the term Iranian would not mind Indo european shows their bias towards the country Iran and their lack of understanding of the linguistic and larger ethnic division ...I think ill copy/paste all the previous arguments from the archives beacuase they seem buried and remain unanswered--
130.233.130.42
12:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It says 15 million Kurds in Kurdistan parts of Turkey? This is a ridicilously false information. Kurds are everywhere in Turkey, they are not isolated in a certain region, only in Istanbul their numbers are more than 1 million. When the page is unlocked, please correct this information. These are little games from Kurdish nationalist users here, they are checking how much they can distort information without getting noticed.-- Kagan the Barbarian 15:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually the number of Kurds in Turkey is at least 18 million (in 1997) and there are about 1-3 million Zazas. The German government did a detail provincial by provincial analysis. You may view the detail census here (in the Persian translation): [
[17]]
This is the most detailed census on the Kurdish population of Turkey that I know of. The actual number of Kurds in my opinion is 4-5 million in iraq 1-2 million in Syria, 18-20 million in Turke, 6-7 million in Iran (based on 10% which is reported in an actual census done on number of newborns). So the upperbound right now would 5+2+20+7=34 million and the lower bound is 29 million. This data should be reflected on the page. and I would appreciate it if someone wants to translate the detail information above into English. (Perhaps Kak Diako?). Also since 1997 to 2005, Kurds who have a good population growth rate relative to the national average of Turkey. So I think we can easily state above 20 million Kurds in Turkey.
--
Ali doostzadeh
17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The CIA Factbook says 20% of Turkey is Kurdish and that Turkey's pop. is 70 million. A simple calculation shows that there are 14 million Kurds in Turkey. Do you have any other official sources? Auca m an Talk 23:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
barbarian! turk! turks occupied it and today are drinking the blood of Kurdish people. X ebat Talk + 17:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Good, so you are not from them. Sorry. X ebat Talk + 17:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Whoooohooo!Troll baiting is not frowned upon when a Kurd does it?Xebat you look like a blazing adolescent to me.-- Turkish Legacy 22:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Again the branches of Indo-European are clear: Slavic, Iranian, Armenian, Greek, Germanic, Tocharian, Albanian, ... etc. Kurds(Soran/Kurmanj/Behdini..) belong to the Iranian branch. Read page three: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf
The most important characteristic of any group in the middle-east is its language, myths and history. Racially there has been lots of moving around and mixing by different groups throughout history. For example Anatolian Turks are at most 9% Turks but they are called universally as Turks. Kurds are linguistically Iranian. Their myths are Iranian. Their holidays are the same as other Iranians. Their language is understandable by various other dialect speakers of Iranian dialects. So to be accurate even if Indo-European is there, it should be the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-Europeans. Just like the Germans are from the Germanic branch. Kurds are branch of Iranian people just like for example Turkomens and Uzbeks and Kazakhs and even Anatolian Turks are branches of Turkic people. Same with Anglo-Saxons who are a Germanic people. -- Ali doostzadeh 18:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Like I've said, just because it's a fact it doesn't mean it has to appear in the first line of the article, especially when the label is controversial and ill-defined. See WP:POINT. Auca m an Talk 14:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TurkBirDev/message/2663
We are Kurd. We are not Irani which support terrorism.
I feel myself more close to Iraqis, people of Syria, Jordan...etc than to Iranians.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.232.89.58 ( talk • contribs)
I think we can improve this article by a better introduction. An example I think which would work out best is Pashtun people, so I propose:
The Kurds (trans.) are an ethno-linguistic group inhabiting parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (a region commonly referred to as Kurdistan i.e. Upper Mesopotamia).
Agree? -- Kash 22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with removing all labels from the first paragraph as I mentioned above but I disagree with Heja’s reasoning. These labels, Iranian, Indo Iranian, Indo European, are NOT about genes. they are about culture and language. But as I said it is best to mention them in the second and third paragraph.
It seems interesting to me. Are there still any Kurds practising Zoroastrianism? Can one of our friends provide a reliable source for that? Zanyar 21:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The word "Iranian" appears more than the word the word Kurdish in the second paragraph of the article. Is this an article on Kurds or Iranians? How many times do you want to emphasize that Kurds speak an Iranian language? Aucaman Talk 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This sentence at the beginning Linguistically and ethnically, Kurds are categorized as closely linked to Iranian people. is contradicting the sentence from Britannica Their ethnic origins is uncertain. The best way to remove the confusion is to say according to this source they are close to Iranians, and according to that source their ethnic origins are uncertain. Heja Helweda 02:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you cannot give such vastly different accounts of an ethnic group, in an encylopedia, when there is more certainty than that about their ethnicity. Britannica says their origin is uncertain, yet, they and Columbia and most other sources say they are closely linked to Iranians (linked is the key word); that is as a good a description as can be. Zmmz 02:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I mean more certainty than you indicate. Again, both encylopedias say they are closely linked, not are of, the word link is excessively descriptive here. As a compromise, one can write; although their origin may be uncertain, yet, they are closely linked to..... By the way, that sentence is sourced by both Columbia Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Britannica [18]. Zmmz 02:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I drafted and submitted a more concise sentence to serve as a compromise. This was an effort made in the hope of purging any future edit wars in this article, so I hope you all agree and get along. Zmmz 03:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Zanyar 12:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello I have a question, which is that ? --> http://img101.imageshack.us/my.php?image=748pxkurdish861zq.jpg
In fact there is a common consensus on their 2 thousands years ago history but before that era remains dark. Almost ALL of historians agree on the fact that Kurds are desendant of Corduchis but there is no compromise whether who are their (Corduchis) main ancestors. There have been several thesis on behalf of that.
Let us make something very clear...Kurds in Turkey are not Turks, Kurds in Iraq are not Arabs...Kurds in Iran however, should feel right at home, since Kurds and Persians share common ancestors, among them the Medes, which many Persians can also trace their roots to...Kurds are an Aryan/Iranian people. Kurdish and Persian are sister languages...of the various Kurdish dialects, in fact, one of them, Zaza, comes so close to Farsi, one would immediately think it is a Persian dialect. Kurds are of Iranian stock...Kurds in Iran, are Iranians...even their biggest holiday, Nowruz, is the same as that of Persians. The problem in Iran is not that Kurds are not Iranians, because they are, the problem is only religious. In Iran, Kurds are Sunnis (except Kermanshah Kurds and Kurds of the Chardoli tribe in Azarbaijan Province who are Shi'ite) living in a Shi'ite state. Kurds complain that Shi'ite Iran mistreats them for being Sunnis...this is ridiculous! How does Sunni Turkey treat them? How did Sunni-ruled Ba'athist Iraq under Sunni Saddam Hussein treat them? Iran has had the best record on Kurds compared to the other two, and it is because Iranians do not see Kurds as being a nation separate from them, and see them as fellow Iranians. If certain Iranian Kurds wish to betray Iran and think they will succeed, they need to remember what happened to Mr. Semitqoo under Reza Shah, and Qasemloo decades letter. Iran will NOT give an inch of her territory to anyone. Besides, Iran can count on Turkey...Turkey will NEVER recognize and independent Kurdistan next door in Iran, nor will Iraq. I don't know how to say keep on dreaming in Kurdish unfortunately, even though my own great grandfather was a Kurd from Qoochan in Khorasan (a Shi'ite Kurd).
this sentence cited O'Leary [ [19]] as a source. The sourced article uses the number 300 000 victims of the anfal campaign. If you wish to dispute this number, you must use another source. -- Vindheim 18:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Roots of Words in Kurdish Language:
3,080 Turkish
2,230 Persian + 370 Pehlevi Persian
2,000 Arabic
220 Armenian
108 Chaldean
60 Circassian
20 Georgian
300 unverified
Source: Prof. Dr. A. Haluk Çay, Her Yönüyle Kürt Dosyası, pg.119
Arabic words joined the Kurdish Language by Ottoman.That's to say Kurds are Turks who mixed with Iranian people.532 words in Kurdish are Göktürk Turkish which was spoken 1,300 years ago(source:German prof. De Groot).Fathers of Kurds were Scythians(Sakas) who were Turkic People.Kurdish sentence structure is Subject+Complement+Verb just as Turkish Language.Some morphologic makings of Kurdish is like in Turkish.Lots of phonological makings of Kurdish is same with Turkish.
The guru of Kurdology -V. Minorsky- has proved that Gurans and Zazas were definitely not Kurdish.Kurmanch was a name of a Turkish tribe(L. Rasonyi).Hungarian sciencemen and historicians have proved that "Kurd" means "snowdrift" in old Turkish.Even still today, that has same meaning in Cheramis people who are of Finnic origin.
Eyyubi Family was Turkish as well.Names of Selahaddin Eyyubi's brothers were Turan, Tuğtekin and Böri.Selahaddin Eyyubi has written that after he conquered Aleppo: "Arabic nation has rised by Turkish empire.Ehl-i Salip(Cross) crusaders were leaved undoned by the son of Eyyub".
Father of Kurds was Becen.Becen name comes from Pecheneks who were one of the 24 tribes of Oghuzs.Epigraphs in Yenisey Elegesh approach about Kurds.Byzantine Archives of the year of 840 say that the "Kurd" tribe, who lived in Western Sibiria, were "Turk".Colours of green, yellow and red are still used in Nevruz festivals in Central Asia.Nevruz is a Turkish(Kurdish) festival also.The fire which is burnt in Nevruz, symbolizes the fire in Ergenekon(creation legend of Turks) epic.The Turkish-Kurdish museum is still remain in Bishek(the capital of Krygzistan) which was tried to destroy by Britons, Germans, Frenchs, Russians and Americans in many times.
That's to say, Kurds are of Turkic origin who mixed with Iranian people.The only diffrence between Kurds and Azeris is that Kurds are a litte bit more mixed with Iranians.Turkish and Kurdish nations must live in peace at Anatolia as they have done for centruies.They must NOT fool by the tricks of Western Countries.Regards... Dandanakan 23:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
These are the results of last elections in Turkey:
So please could anybody tell me; how can be %20 - %25 of Turkey is Kurdish?.Regards... Dandanakan 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I've temporarily protected this page due to the recent edit war over sources being added. I'll take it off in a day or two, but please use this time to come to consensus over the sources here, and cool down in general. -- InShaneee 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright, things seem to have cooled down a good deal here, and I see there's been a lot of talking going on here. Here's hoping it stays that way. That said, I've gone ahead and unprotected the page. Happy editing! -- InShaneee 05:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Evidence
1- Encarta Encylopedia
2- Encylopedia.com
3- Saag.org, Dr. S. Chandrasekharan essays
4- MERIA Academic journals
I think this justifies it. -- Kash 23:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the 2nd millennium BC.
So if they shared the same origins, then surely even Britannica agrees to this also. -- Kash 23:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Clearly both the people and their language is/was called Aryan.
Thats good right? I mean many Kurds have lived under Iran and Persian rule for much of their history, and now modern research also supports that they are related ethnolinguistically.
--
Ali doostzadeh
06:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/talyshi/talyshlanguage.pdf In fact one Talysh wrote to me that he understands 90% of Kurdish.
-- Ali doostzadeh 12:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Diyako, Kurds surely have their own culture, I believe what our friend Ali is saying here is that it is all part of the Iranian people's culture, as the
Iranian culture is not just the Persian's culture, but also the other ethno-linguistically Iranian people's culture, such as Lurs, Kurds and Baluches. --
Kash
23:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
So what if Kurds are linguistically and (based on some sources) ethnically close to Iranians? We have talked about all this before (those who are not familiar with this article should read the materials in the archive). The article already says Kurds speak an Iranian language and it says that according to some sources they're ethnically close to Iranians. Please read Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Aucaman Talk 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
As a Kurd who has lived in both Iranian Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan for years, I have to say I have never met any Kurd who does not identify himself as an Iranian as much as being a Kurd. We are brothers with Iranians and have lived together sharing much of our history together. It's almost shocking to see some users denying this fact. This recent political campaigns by some Turkish parties which are trying to give us a national identity are good but we should never forget our roots and brothers in Iran. I suggest a more informative and POV-free intro such as:
The Kurds are an ethnic group closely related to the Iranian peoples such as Persians, inhabiting parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (a region commonly referred to as Kurdistan). Smaller communities can also be found in Lebanon, Armenia, and Azarbaijan (Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh) and some Western countries.
Just my suggestion. -- MysticRum 11:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-- MysticRum 11:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear friend, Since when you became a Kurd? this is your other usename, I know and can prove which is your main username! also since everybody can easily change his ethnicity and username in wikipedia, users ethnic background is not important here, I contribute in wikipedia as a neutral wikipedian not as a Kurdish wikipedian. D iyako Talk + 14:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
as you have noticed the arguments on this page oscillate between the anthropological and the political or what one may label claims on the essence of kurdishness ...now barzani's quote is important in that it shows that kurds do not distance themselves from ancient Iranian history and disown their rightful claim on it kurds are kurds like lurs are lurs ...but how is it that barzani cannot be quoted as saying whrere ever there is a kurd that place is turkey...(with all due respect to that country) I will refrain from posting further one's by Ebdulrehman Qasimlo because someone in Denmark is concerned that Kurds are Kurds. They don't need to be part of any other group is this statement verifiable ,,,??-- Loosekarma 17:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you are having a fundamental misunderstanding. Iranianness and Kurdishness complement each other. For example your name is Diyako. Diyako was the king of Medes. The medes are known as an Iranian people and in fact Armenian and Greek sources explicitly call them "Aryans"(Iranians). Furthermore perhaps the oldest Kurdish kurmanji inscription was found in Armenian church and it contains the lords prayer in several language.
http://www.azargoshnasp.net/history/Medes/languageofmedians.pdf
One of them is identified as the language of medes and it is just Kurdish. BTW Kurdish is not separate at all from other Iranian languages, and if you read that Talyshi document I pointed to, you would understand. BTW a lot of Talysh are also Shafi'i Muslims and the region of Azarbaijan and Kurdistan was predominately Shafi'i before the Safavids.
http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/talyshi/talyshlanguage.pdf
Another point I want to make here is that it was not Sorani/Kurmanji but Gurani that was the main dialect of Mah-abad, Sannandaj, Kermanshah till recently. And the literature of Gurani clearly refers to Iran and Iranianness and Zoroastrian and Shahnameh concepts throughout.
Also as per mythology, Kurds consider Kaveh ahangar and Rustam Dastan to be Kurds.
http://www.azargoshnasp.net/famous/ferdowsi/shahkurdarmen.pdf
As per language, I think it is best to let the experts speak. Here is a quote from the famous Prof. David Mackenzie who amongst all modern scholars, has done the most in understanding Kurdish (Sorani, Kurmanji) and also Zazai and Gurani dialects/languages. Here is an excerpt: My first task then should be to define Kurdish (Kd.) by establishing features which distinguish it from other Ir(anian) dialects. Unfortunately I have to admit at the outset that my findings are largely negative, for almost every feature of Kd. has its counterpart in at least one other Iranian dialect.
BTW lets not forget that 50%+ of Kurds in Iran also live in Garousi, Bijar, Elam, and Kermanshah regions and political activity and separatist sentiments here has been virtually near zero. So no one here can claim to speak for Kurds in Iran and I think what is important is to just look at scientific facts: language, culture, mythology and etc and to see if Kurdistani people are also a branch of Iranian people (like for example Bakhtiaris) are not. BTW even if we talking about race, many famous antrophologist define Kurds as part of the Irano-Afghan race. http://www.snpa.nordish.net/troeplate18.htm
Luri/Laki/Lari/Persian/Talyshi.. have also similarities. There is actually a continum. Note the term "Indian", "Chinese", "Iranian".. are terms that are vast. For example the Parsis of India, Tajiks of Tajikistan and Kurds/Zazas outside of Iran are an Iranian people. Just like Turkomens or Uzbeks are Turkic people but are distinct.
--
Ali doostzadeh
18:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Aa I said, 100 years ago people thought so, but today the claim that Kurds are descendat of Medes is not accepted, Medes were only one layer of 9 main layers tyhat Kurds are desendant of. Which one of these layers are stronger or weaker in Kurds is disputed and there is no consencus on that.
In most cases it is said that their language is Iranian, but the number of references that claim they are an Iranian people is very few. There is no need for claim they are an Iranian people jast in the beging of the article. I had explaind the issue in the second paragrah where their language and close ethnic groups are explaind. The word Iranian should go down there. It is the only accepted way. We cannot reflect one side and ignore the other one. Xebat 12:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
There are already several Authorative sources plus some other links which sure can be added in the text, but the most neutral and correct wording for the matter is the last version by me and removing the Iranian word to the second paragraph where it discuss the ethniciy of Kurds. It reflects all existing sources. and I support that. what is your opinion? D iyako Talk + 14:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to re insert the archived argument of users:shapurAriani and Tombseye As none of the collective (anti-mention of Iranian) logic seems to address it
once archived they are starting the arguments from scratch when confronted with logic ...the response is to verify and when sources are presented we get this:
if you go up to a kurd and ask him?....or saying Kurds are Iranians will create the impression that they are Iranian refugees...??
please .. What is an ethnic group .. ? if the Iranian is erased then it will create the impression that Kurds have been wandering the globe through ages never having been part of a nation.. ?so instead of founders of the median empire in a way a precursor to all the rest of the post aryan kingdoms they are relegated to Corduene at best or the far more accurate statement that their origins are uncertain ? whose origins are certain will the real ...(so and so) please stand up
... how can you verify that 2 or 5 or 7 centuaries ago the people inhabiting the regions refered to as kurdistan would consider themselves distinct in this sense.
it is injustice to the contribution of this member tribe of the Iranian family considering their contribution to the various Iranian empires cultural institutions, works of art and litrature ...
I cant help but laugh anytime I review the archive and come upon the argument of a respected user who mentioned that kurds dance in groups while the rest of Iranian people like to dance individually ...and therefore?? Surely we are in territory of the comical ...by now-- 193.167.6.96 04:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
15 million Kurds in Kurdistan part of Turkey? This is the stupidest thing I've seen lately, let me tell you about Kurds in Turkey, there are more Kurds in Istanbul, Izmir and Ankara combined than in whole SE Turkey. Kurds in Turkey are not isolated, they have the freedom to move/settle anywhere they please and they do; you are misinforming people.-- Kagan the Barbarian 10:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually the population of Kurds in Turkey is at least 18 million. The German government did a detail province by province analysis. If anyone likes this information, I can email it to them.
--
Ali doostzadeh
18:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Which Kurds speak Aramaic? Source? Chaldean 17:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Kurdish Christians do as well.
Thanks to Heja, we have another source: The Kurds, an Iranian people of the Near East, live at the junction of more or less laicised Turkey, ÷9Ê#i Iran, Arab and SunnÊ #Ir§Î and North Syria,-and Soviet Transcaucasia." Doesn't say anything about "Iranian" being a linguistic term. SouthernComfort 00:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Insisting that kurds are iranians, and that this must be the first fact presented about them, is not neutral. The neutrality tag is definitley in order as long as this controversial adjective stands. -- Vindheim 01:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
And The Columbia Encyclopedia does not claim they are an Iranian people! it says they are close to them. http://www.bartleby.com/65/ku/Kurds.html X ebat Talk + 01:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I had an interesting discussion a while back on Rumi in the wikipedia entery. Another Kurdish friend from Turkey also said the obvious: "Kurds BTW are an Iranian people". Lets us get back to the points we agree upon. The various languages and dialects commonely called "Kurdish" are Iranian and have close affinity with Persian, Luri, Talyshi and other Iranian languages and dialects. I can list a lot of these dialects and languages: Behdini, Kurmanji, Surani, Gurani, Zazais and various sub-branches like Mah-abaadi, Sannandaji, Hakkari, Garousi, Kermanshahi which are sometimes mutually intelligble. In fact some of these could be closer to standard Persian or other dialects (like Gilaki/Mazandarani) than other Kurdish dialect, for example Zazai is closer linguistically to Northern Iranian dialects. So linguistically we agree people that are Kurds are also Iranian. Now I draw your attention that modern anatolian Turkish speakers are called Turkic while Yaquts (completely mongloid) are called Turkic. Kurds and other Iranians are much closer to each other and that is why many Kurds and some scholar prefer the term Iranic. So perhaps we can use the term an Iranic people. Now another question beside language is myths. If you read Sharafnama, many of the tribes claim descendant from figures of the Shahanama. Even look at Newruz celebrated by Kurds, everything is based on Iranian mythology and Kawa and Zahak. In fact Rustam and Kawa are seen as Kurds by Kurds as well. Next comes the term Kurd, this term is very fluid and for example in Pahlavi and Tabari it means shepard. Also tribes like Guran and Lurs for example have been considered Kurds (see Sharafnama) because of their style of living. Even taking it further, some historians have referred to Daylamites, Arabs of Suristan and etc. as Kurds. I am not here to add to the confusion, but the fact is the term Kurd historically did not necessarily mean the Suran/Kurmanj speakers solely and this is a more modern phenomenon. Vladimir Minorosky who is foremost scholar on Kurdish studies has said: The term Kurd as an ethnic label was begining to be applied to an amalgamation of Iranian or Iranicised tribes.
This is mentioned by this source as well: http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0812215729&id=gOq52_guRUoC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=kurd+iranian&sig=JqItu41QezqPEk0ZmlyIKPbTby0 By the seventh century A.D., the term "Kurd" had been applied to an amalgam of Iranian tribes.
I think at least we can accept Kurdish mythology is on whole part of Iranian mythology. There is a lot of politcs unfortunately inject into this discussion, but in the end Kurds are a branch of Iranians. But if we consider for example Sharafnama, even the heroe Rustam the son of Zal is claimed as a Kurd. Now Rostam is the biggest mythological figure in Iranian history and this important fact can not be overlooked!
They are neither Semites or Turkic. For example both Arabs and Jews are considered a semetic people. Both Anatolian turks (majority of them are really turkified Greeks/Kurds/Armenians) and Yaquts/Uzbeks are consider Turkic. Kurds and Tajiks then are also Iranic people. Note that the encyclopedia Iranica considers Kurds as clearly as part of the Iranian people: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Celebrations/kurdish_celebrations.htm Also let me add that if there is a Kurdistan, I will be very happy since we will have another Iranian state in the world. In fact I totally understand why some Kurds are bitter against the regimes of Iran in the past 500 years. But linguistic and myths and history are the main parts that make a group. Kurds historically (even in old armenian sources) are called Medes. Their language is Iranian. Their myths are Iranian. Most of all they share the important part of the Sassanid, Parthian, Achaemenid, Medes heritages.
Let us not forget the ancestors of Kurds were Zoroastrians. Best proof of this is the numerous fire temples all over Kurdistan (in fact even the oldest Kurdish poem could about a fire temple) and the Gurani literature.
-- Ali doostzadeh 03:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I wonder about the motivation of those people who insist that the first fact to be presented about kurds is the contentious statement that they are an Iranian people. I have placed this statement in a separate pargraph, right after the first paragraph.
Still this does not seem to be enough for certain people.
tell me: Why ?
-- Vindheim 12:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
They have fought the Sumerians, Assyrians, Persians, Mongols, European crusaders, and Turks.
This is creating the impression that history of this ethnic group has known no peace. And there have been no periods where the people inhabiting this mountainous region have been united as part of the greater kingdoms of the region
How related are the people who fought Sumerians (??) with the people who are fighting Turks?? have kurds fought the European crusaders as Carduchi or as proto Kurdish nation if there was ever such a thing?? or as part of another army
Please?? Can the Scandinavian champions of this lost history explain and please don’t give me the link (compton’s) again as proof of the verifiability address these matters with equal weighing of all parallel truths or fallacies.
’’’Isn’t the above provocative and particularistic I am asking for permission to erase this sentence?’’’ It reads like a bloody prescription
this is typecasting an entire ethnic group with as mentioned varied (predominantly Iranian) genetic and cultural roots??-- Loosekarma 14:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
’’’Is not it provocative that you just in begining discuss the unnecessary stuff of linguistical relationtip of Kurds with Iranians?’’’ Jasim
Linguistical relationship of Kurds with Iranians:
Hello again
Dear Sir.
I do not think the huge stuff on linguistical relatioship of Kurds with Iranians just in the first part of the article is necessary. It is too childish (between 6 till 16 years old). Mentioning the fact that Kurds speak a language which is classified among Iranian languages is all. I offer either to remove it or move it to a new section in the article.
Sincerely.
God bless you.
My brother, They are our cousins we can discuss it with them. I corrected the first sentence which is most common in the case of the Kurds because of their uncertain origins. Zanyar 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, whe are hier in Wikipedia and not in Propoganda-Page for Kurds. Ps: Kurds are Only 12 Million in Turkey her the Fakts from a TheKurdistan Page and the News are fresh >>Around 12 million of Turkeys 72 million inhabitants are estimated to belong to the Kurdish community.<< [7]
Hello Hectorian >>there are also sites that claim the kurdish population to be 25%<< who ??
so,as i said,the most reliable source is used here... -- Hectorian 13:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello
And even more... this one says >>30%<<
http://www.worldcivilsociety.org/report/EN/06/16-jul-02/summ_16.23.html
There are many other sources which offer a much larger number for Kurds in turkey. I think it needs at least a mentioning.
I also do not like adit of that Turco-Mongolic user. The infobox says Significatnt population in turkey and then in Kurdistan. It was correct.
I've replaced the dispute tag to better reflect the dispute here. If there is more than just one single source, A good compromise would be to include a range of numbers as oppose to revert warring to include a single source. But the sources would still have to be reliable. I'll check the sources when I get the chance and propose a reliable range. Until then it would be very nice if people stop reverting things. The totallydisputed tag is there and people would probably read the talk page before believing the numbers. Auca m an Talk 17:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
A personal website. http://www.hostkingdom.net states: "Greetings, and welcome to my Homepage; I am Obsidian (aka Nigel, if you are considering the SCA. When I'm not editing a web document, or re-enacting the Middle Ages, I'm just ordinary ol' Bruce...). Originally a character in an RPG game, more recently an administrator on several MU**s, and the author of a number of Web documents, my journey toward the Real progresses... "
This is a human rights report, not an academic source.
Again, not an academic source
Another personal home page, to "TEACH Malayalam!"
Its a magazine, not an academic source.
What? you can not use personal home pages and other non-academic sources. And I have explained a hundred times not to remove the dispute tag. -- Kash 14:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I add the dispute tag. X ebat Talk + 14:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
If you have concerns add the tag do not remove info from the page. X ebat Talk + 14:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
No, you are the one who is changing the info on the page. The intro is fine with the sources that I have provided -- Kash 14:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I find it curious that "Indo-European" is not opposed by this new editor Zanyar, and yet opposes the more precise term "Iranian" which is sourced. After all, they do speak an Iranian language. SouthernComfort 15:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
If we could also examine this source I just came across [12] it would be very good as it examines genetic comparisons between Iranian-speaking populations (including Persians and Kurds). SouthernComfort 15:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Xebat,
I agree with Shervink; as he mentioned what the article says is very clear about the Kurds. (From what I remember you were very passionately arguing that it is about the Kurds not Iranian people! So lets stick to what you said yourself! )Now if the term Iranian ethno-linguistic group is not defined properly then we should talk about that in the Iranian people’s page and try to fix it over there not here. Problem with that article does not change the facts about this article. That said, I still don’t have a problem from dropping Iranian from the intro and mentioning it in the second paragraph. I recall this being suggested by some Kurdish editors a while back. They did not disagree with the term but did not want it in the intro. That is fine by me but lets see what others think.
Gol 04:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Kurdish language is not related to Iranian languages. It is an Iranian language. Yes the term Iranian people is usually used, even in Iran, to refer to citizens of Iran but it does not mean that there is no other definition for it. The same goes for Germanic people; majority of British or Dutch people do not even know that they are Germanic people but that does not change the fact that the category exists and they are part of it. This article
[14], very clearly mentions Kurds as part of the iranian group.
And it is not an invention even if we agree that there is no cultural ties between these people( as some editors have claimed) what name do you give to people who speak Iranian languages? No one argued that there is an Iranian linguistic group and that Kurds are part of it. Please remember that this fact was never disputed by anyone and just as speakers of Germanic languages are called Germanic people, they same goes here. Germany is also name of a country and therefore can be confusing but it is still used. The dispute is whether this group is purely linguistic or not and that can be discussed in Iranian people’s page.
Gol
18:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
However if it is OK to call them Indo European, which is also a linguistic group, then I see no problem with being more specific and calling them Iranian (the linguistic group they belong to) but as I said we can drop it from the first paragraph. However it is a fact and it should be mentioned as one and not just as a possibility or an alternative the way you suggested it.
Gol 02:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Please explain the need to brand Kurdish people as "Iranian" in the first sentence of the article. It is already mentioned that Kurds speak an Iranian language and it is said that some sources say Kurds are ethnically close to Iranians. Pretty much all sources don't call Kurds Iranians in the first sentence of their articles when Kurds are being defined. There's been only one exception, but that's not enough to justify using the term in the first sentence of the article. As I've said many times, Kurds are simply Kurds, a distinct ethnic group. It's also fair to point out that the Iranian peoples article has still yet to produce a consistent definition of who Iranian peoples are and what the category is supposed to represent. Auca m an Talk 19:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay let's hear what others have to say. Auca m an Talk 19:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned before while they are by all means Iranian people, speaker of an Iranian language, since a few editors were very worried about possible confusion of naïve readers, I personally will not have a problem with mentioning the term in the second or even third paragraph instead of the first but not in a different section and not as a possibility. It is a fact not a possibility. We might have a dispute going on about what is exactly Iranian people (only linguistic or cultural and genetic as well) however that will be discussed in the Iranian people’s page and not here.
Gol 02:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand Kash and I agree with him, but I am willing to compromise and drop the term from the first sentence. However, I am not willing to accept Diyako’s version. He wants to mention it in a different section as an alternative or just a possibility. It is not only a possibility, it is a fact about Kurds and a very important one.
Gol 07:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the best compromise is to remove any label from the first paragraph (just call them an ethnic group for example) However the groups that they belong to should be mentioned in the following paragraphs.
Gol 08:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not insist on using the term Indo-European Altghough it is more precise than the word Iranian in the case of the Kurds.
Why? Either you agree with labeling people based on language or you don’t. If you do, then the proper label is Iranian since Kurdish is an Iranian langue and it is more specific to say Iranian or Indo Iranian than indo European which is a very big group and includes so many languages. In fact Iranian is definitely more precise since it is more specific. Indo European is such as big group and does not give us much specific information about who Kurds are.
Gol 08:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
What? You question whether the ethnicity of Kurds is Iranian, although their language is, but you call their ethnicity Indo European? If you dispute the fact that the members of Iranian linguistic group, which is a much smaller group, are ethnically related to each other, how can you possibly argue that Indo Europeans are? If you question the use of Iranian as an ethnicity, then it must be plain obvious the Indo European is even more questionable.
Please remember what the argument was originally.
Whether Iranian people is only a linguistic group or can it be used as an ethnic label as well. And if it is only linguistic, then should Kurds be labeled by their language group or not. If Iranian is wrong, indo European is even worse.
Also please remember that the reason Kurds are Indo European is because their language belongs to the Iranian branch which is a part of Indo European language family. This is their only connection to Indo European. So I am afraid if you want to argue they are Indo European, you must first accept that they are Iranian.
Again as I mentioned before:
Either you agree with labeling people based on language or you don’t. if yo do, then they are iranian. If you dont then they are not indo european either.
Gol 09:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Read page three of this article as well: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf The following groups : Medes, Ancient Persians, Parthians.. were all Iranians.
--Ali doostzadeh 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I have a possible solution to the revert war that happened. Here's what the 1st paragraph looked like awhile back:
The Kurds are an ethnic group inhabiting parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (a region commonly referred to as Kurdistan i.e. Upper Mesopotamia). Smaller communities can also be found in Lebanon, Armenia, and Azarbaijan ( Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh) and some Western countries.
We can add all the stuff about their origins/"who they are" further down the page, but there was a similar conflict like this a few months ago and this is how it was solved. Please let me know what you think, thanks. -- Khoikhoi 08:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I agree with no labelling. but first should all agree with that we previously had a consensus offered by Dear Gol but only part of people respected that.
X
ebat
Talk
+
10:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If tommorow an individual starts this debate for
Sindhi people or
Punjabi people Classified as
Indo-Aryans or
Dutch people, classified as Germanic Then would the it be erased just to appease the respective Diyakos or Aucamans of those domains ...
the reason that the same people who object the term Iranian would not mind Indo european shows their bias towards the country Iran and their lack of understanding of the linguistic and larger ethnic division ...I think ill copy/paste all the previous arguments from the archives beacuase they seem buried and remain unanswered--
130.233.130.42
12:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It says 15 million Kurds in Kurdistan parts of Turkey? This is a ridicilously false information. Kurds are everywhere in Turkey, they are not isolated in a certain region, only in Istanbul their numbers are more than 1 million. When the page is unlocked, please correct this information. These are little games from Kurdish nationalist users here, they are checking how much they can distort information without getting noticed.-- Kagan the Barbarian 15:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually the number of Kurds in Turkey is at least 18 million (in 1997) and there are about 1-3 million Zazas. The German government did a detail provincial by provincial analysis. You may view the detail census here (in the Persian translation): [
[17]]
This is the most detailed census on the Kurdish population of Turkey that I know of. The actual number of Kurds in my opinion is 4-5 million in iraq 1-2 million in Syria, 18-20 million in Turke, 6-7 million in Iran (based on 10% which is reported in an actual census done on number of newborns). So the upperbound right now would 5+2+20+7=34 million and the lower bound is 29 million. This data should be reflected on the page. and I would appreciate it if someone wants to translate the detail information above into English. (Perhaps Kak Diako?). Also since 1997 to 2005, Kurds who have a good population growth rate relative to the national average of Turkey. So I think we can easily state above 20 million Kurds in Turkey.
--
Ali doostzadeh
17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The CIA Factbook says 20% of Turkey is Kurdish and that Turkey's pop. is 70 million. A simple calculation shows that there are 14 million Kurds in Turkey. Do you have any other official sources? Auca m an Talk 23:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
barbarian! turk! turks occupied it and today are drinking the blood of Kurdish people. X ebat Talk + 17:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Good, so you are not from them. Sorry. X ebat Talk + 17:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Whoooohooo!Troll baiting is not frowned upon when a Kurd does it?Xebat you look like a blazing adolescent to me.-- Turkish Legacy 22:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Again the branches of Indo-European are clear: Slavic, Iranian, Armenian, Greek, Germanic, Tocharian, Albanian, ... etc. Kurds(Soran/Kurmanj/Behdini..) belong to the Iranian branch. Read page three: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf
The most important characteristic of any group in the middle-east is its language, myths and history. Racially there has been lots of moving around and mixing by different groups throughout history. For example Anatolian Turks are at most 9% Turks but they are called universally as Turks. Kurds are linguistically Iranian. Their myths are Iranian. Their holidays are the same as other Iranians. Their language is understandable by various other dialect speakers of Iranian dialects. So to be accurate even if Indo-European is there, it should be the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-Europeans. Just like the Germans are from the Germanic branch. Kurds are branch of Iranian people just like for example Turkomens and Uzbeks and Kazakhs and even Anatolian Turks are branches of Turkic people. Same with Anglo-Saxons who are a Germanic people. -- Ali doostzadeh 18:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Like I've said, just because it's a fact it doesn't mean it has to appear in the first line of the article, especially when the label is controversial and ill-defined. See WP:POINT. Auca m an Talk 14:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TurkBirDev/message/2663
We are Kurd. We are not Irani which support terrorism.
I feel myself more close to Iraqis, people of Syria, Jordan...etc than to Iranians.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.232.89.58 ( talk • contribs)
I think we can improve this article by a better introduction. An example I think which would work out best is Pashtun people, so I propose:
The Kurds (trans.) are an ethno-linguistic group inhabiting parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (a region commonly referred to as Kurdistan i.e. Upper Mesopotamia).
Agree? -- Kash 22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with removing all labels from the first paragraph as I mentioned above but I disagree with Heja’s reasoning. These labels, Iranian, Indo Iranian, Indo European, are NOT about genes. they are about culture and language. But as I said it is best to mention them in the second and third paragraph.
It seems interesting to me. Are there still any Kurds practising Zoroastrianism? Can one of our friends provide a reliable source for that? Zanyar 21:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The word "Iranian" appears more than the word the word Kurdish in the second paragraph of the article. Is this an article on Kurds or Iranians? How many times do you want to emphasize that Kurds speak an Iranian language? Aucaman Talk 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This sentence at the beginning Linguistically and ethnically, Kurds are categorized as closely linked to Iranian people. is contradicting the sentence from Britannica Their ethnic origins is uncertain. The best way to remove the confusion is to say according to this source they are close to Iranians, and according to that source their ethnic origins are uncertain. Heja Helweda 02:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you cannot give such vastly different accounts of an ethnic group, in an encylopedia, when there is more certainty than that about their ethnicity. Britannica says their origin is uncertain, yet, they and Columbia and most other sources say they are closely linked to Iranians (linked is the key word); that is as a good a description as can be. Zmmz 02:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I mean more certainty than you indicate. Again, both encylopedias say they are closely linked, not are of, the word link is excessively descriptive here. As a compromise, one can write; although their origin may be uncertain, yet, they are closely linked to..... By the way, that sentence is sourced by both Columbia Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Britannica [18]. Zmmz 02:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I drafted and submitted a more concise sentence to serve as a compromise. This was an effort made in the hope of purging any future edit wars in this article, so I hope you all agree and get along. Zmmz 03:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Zanyar 12:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello I have a question, which is that ? --> http://img101.imageshack.us/my.php?image=748pxkurdish861zq.jpg
In fact there is a common consensus on their 2 thousands years ago history but before that era remains dark. Almost ALL of historians agree on the fact that Kurds are desendant of Corduchis but there is no compromise whether who are their (Corduchis) main ancestors. There have been several thesis on behalf of that.
Let us make something very clear...Kurds in Turkey are not Turks, Kurds in Iraq are not Arabs...Kurds in Iran however, should feel right at home, since Kurds and Persians share common ancestors, among them the Medes, which many Persians can also trace their roots to...Kurds are an Aryan/Iranian people. Kurdish and Persian are sister languages...of the various Kurdish dialects, in fact, one of them, Zaza, comes so close to Farsi, one would immediately think it is a Persian dialect. Kurds are of Iranian stock...Kurds in Iran, are Iranians...even their biggest holiday, Nowruz, is the same as that of Persians. The problem in Iran is not that Kurds are not Iranians, because they are, the problem is only religious. In Iran, Kurds are Sunnis (except Kermanshah Kurds and Kurds of the Chardoli tribe in Azarbaijan Province who are Shi'ite) living in a Shi'ite state. Kurds complain that Shi'ite Iran mistreats them for being Sunnis...this is ridiculous! How does Sunni Turkey treat them? How did Sunni-ruled Ba'athist Iraq under Sunni Saddam Hussein treat them? Iran has had the best record on Kurds compared to the other two, and it is because Iranians do not see Kurds as being a nation separate from them, and see them as fellow Iranians. If certain Iranian Kurds wish to betray Iran and think they will succeed, they need to remember what happened to Mr. Semitqoo under Reza Shah, and Qasemloo decades letter. Iran will NOT give an inch of her territory to anyone. Besides, Iran can count on Turkey...Turkey will NEVER recognize and independent Kurdistan next door in Iran, nor will Iraq. I don't know how to say keep on dreaming in Kurdish unfortunately, even though my own great grandfather was a Kurd from Qoochan in Khorasan (a Shi'ite Kurd).
this sentence cited O'Leary [ [19]] as a source. The sourced article uses the number 300 000 victims of the anfal campaign. If you wish to dispute this number, you must use another source. -- Vindheim 18:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Roots of Words in Kurdish Language:
3,080 Turkish
2,230 Persian + 370 Pehlevi Persian
2,000 Arabic
220 Armenian
108 Chaldean
60 Circassian
20 Georgian
300 unverified
Source: Prof. Dr. A. Haluk Çay, Her Yönüyle Kürt Dosyası, pg.119
Arabic words joined the Kurdish Language by Ottoman.That's to say Kurds are Turks who mixed with Iranian people.532 words in Kurdish are Göktürk Turkish which was spoken 1,300 years ago(source:German prof. De Groot).Fathers of Kurds were Scythians(Sakas) who were Turkic People.Kurdish sentence structure is Subject+Complement+Verb just as Turkish Language.Some morphologic makings of Kurdish is like in Turkish.Lots of phonological makings of Kurdish is same with Turkish.
The guru of Kurdology -V. Minorsky- has proved that Gurans and Zazas were definitely not Kurdish.Kurmanch was a name of a Turkish tribe(L. Rasonyi).Hungarian sciencemen and historicians have proved that "Kurd" means "snowdrift" in old Turkish.Even still today, that has same meaning in Cheramis people who are of Finnic origin.
Eyyubi Family was Turkish as well.Names of Selahaddin Eyyubi's brothers were Turan, Tuğtekin and Böri.Selahaddin Eyyubi has written that after he conquered Aleppo: "Arabic nation has rised by Turkish empire.Ehl-i Salip(Cross) crusaders were leaved undoned by the son of Eyyub".
Father of Kurds was Becen.Becen name comes from Pecheneks who were one of the 24 tribes of Oghuzs.Epigraphs in Yenisey Elegesh approach about Kurds.Byzantine Archives of the year of 840 say that the "Kurd" tribe, who lived in Western Sibiria, were "Turk".Colours of green, yellow and red are still used in Nevruz festivals in Central Asia.Nevruz is a Turkish(Kurdish) festival also.The fire which is burnt in Nevruz, symbolizes the fire in Ergenekon(creation legend of Turks) epic.The Turkish-Kurdish museum is still remain in Bishek(the capital of Krygzistan) which was tried to destroy by Britons, Germans, Frenchs, Russians and Americans in many times.
That's to say, Kurds are of Turkic origin who mixed with Iranian people.The only diffrence between Kurds and Azeris is that Kurds are a litte bit more mixed with Iranians.Turkish and Kurdish nations must live in peace at Anatolia as they have done for centruies.They must NOT fool by the tricks of Western Countries.Regards... Dandanakan 23:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
These are the results of last elections in Turkey:
So please could anybody tell me; how can be %20 - %25 of Turkey is Kurdish?.Regards... Dandanakan 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)