Jump to content

Talk:Kurds

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


PKK is a terrorist organisation. In article, it defined as militant. I don't want to say anything about the other informationsions. But an organisation that killed 30000 people can't defined as militant only. It also included international organisations terrorist listings.


كردي

Please remove this, it means Kurdish in the Arabic and Persian languages, but Kurds themselves don't use this word. At least mention the source language for it. For you information, in the Sorani-script, Kurd is written as ﺩﺭﻮﮐ and in the Kurmanji-script as Kurd. In the Turkish language, it is Kürt. Please either include all these, or remove the Arabic/Persian word. Heja Helweda 21:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

كوردﻯ isnot the same as كورد

In the Kurdish, the first one, كوردﻯ /Kurdî, refers to the Kurdish language (and used as an adejective for Kurdish things , like Kurdish dance, folklore, language, etc.) and the second one كورد/Kurd refers to the ethnic group (a Kurdish person). Heja Helweda 22:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, Kurmanji is written in arabic script to. The Kurmanjis in Iraq,Syria, And Iran use Arabic Script. And please we are not 'Europeans' so please stop putting that on realted ethnic groups.

Renowned Kurdish individuals

Hey all, you'll note I've made quite a drastic change to this section of the article. It was drastic because it needed to be drastic, feel free to chop/change the exact people that are included in this list, but please try and keep it below 15 people. If possible make them internationally renowned individuals (a google search count could help with this). Having >30 people in a list really sucks when there is already a page for List of Kurdish people. - FrancisTyers 01:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its that time of year again... External links cull time!

If anyone disagrees, make it known here :) - FrancisTyers 22:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link to kurdish media is relevant as it's probly the best news site about kurds and kurdish stuff over all the web... I don't see why a site with news about kurds isn't relevant in an article called "kurdish people"???

Hi, please read Wikipedia:External links. - FrancisTyers 23:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read the thing about external links and I don't see where it bans news sources? Soapy(reloaded) 23:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think Kurdmedia or KurdishMedia (however they call themselves) is notable, then it should have it's own page on Wikipedia. This page can then link to that page. - FrancisTyers 23:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think they call themselves both ( not really important neways ). but what I mean is, it being only an internet news site after all, it is not THAT notable to have a page, but it's just a place where u can have info about kurdish events? Soapy(reloaded) 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could find a more notable source for Kurdish news? - FrancisTyers 00:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is there is no kurdish printed newspapers : in turkey syria and iran they're banned, and the online edition of the south kurdish ( iraqi ) ones is in kurdish only. the only one I can think of is özgür politika, but it's only in turkish. :/ Soapy(reloaded) 00:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think if printed newspapers are banned there would be a good case for an online newspaper to be notable, don't you think? - FrancisTyers 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so, but the fact that it is only in english ( kurdmedia ), makes it much much less notable than say ozgur politika for example. but since we're on an english platform, we need things in english. I mean it's not that I'm fundamentally opposed to making an article on kurdish media, but then I guess we would link 2 it from this page, and link from it to the kurdmedia page... wouldn't it just be easier to put a link here? Soapy(reloaded) 01:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are more pages about the Kurds and if it is the only English language kurdish news source then it should be notable. - FrancisTyers 01:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yeah I do know that but Kurdish people seems probably like the main page about Kurds, I mean unless we had a "Kurdish mediaS" page where we could link 2... but then this would required extensive knowledge of that topic and I don't have it. frankly my problem with creating a "kurdish media" page and linking from there to the site is that I'm afraid nobody is gonna read this page :/ Soapy(reloaded) 01:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an excellent opportunity to do some research :) - FrancisTyers 01:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL ok I'll try to do that then... thanx Soapy(reloaded) 01:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renowned

I'm also gonna add celal talabani and abdullah öcalan to the list of renowned kurdish individuals. the first is current president of iraq and second is leader of the kurds in turkey. if that's not renowned, what is :/ Soapy(reloaded) 22:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. - FrancisTyers 23:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PKK insurgency

Main article: Kurdistan Workers Party The PKK is a formerly Marxist separatist group that until recently sought to create an independent Kurdish state in southeastern Turkey and parts of neighboring countries inhabited by Kurds. (It’s known as the PKK after its Kurdish name, Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan.) During a rebellion that began in the mid-1980s and claimed some 35,000 lives, the group used guerrilla warfare, including kidnappings of foreign tourists in Turkey, suicide bombings ( exclusively against military targets ), and attacks on Turkish diplomatic offices in Europe. The PKK has also repeatedly attacked civilians who refuse to assist it. The organization was founded in 1973 by Abdullah Ocalan. He ruled the party until his capture in 1999 by Turkish special forces in Kenya, after taking refuge in the Greek embassy in Kenya. Ocalan remains imprisoned on an island (Imrali) near Istanbul.(see[14] )"

this looks like an exact copy of what's written in the link provided. do we have the right to use it? Soapy(reloaded) 22:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its all wikipedia so yes. - FrancisTyers

no I meant the above paragraph is quite similar to what's written here :

http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/kurdistan_print.html

which is the link I was referring to.

for compareason :

"The PKK is a formerly Marxist separatist group that until recently sought to create an independent Kurdish state in southeastern Turkey and parts of neighboring countries inhabited by Kurds. (It’s known as the PKK after its Kurdish name, Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan.) During a rebellion that began in the mid-1980s and claimed some 35,000 lives, the group used guerrilla warfare, including kidnappings of foreign tourists in Turkey, suicide bombings ( exclusively against military targets ), and attacks on Turkish diplomatic offices in Europe. The PKK has also repeatedly attacked civilians who refuse to assist it. The organization was founded in 1973 by Abdullah Ocalan. He ruled the party until his capture in 1999 by Turkish special forces in Kenya, after taking refuge in the Greek embassy in Kenya. Ocalan remains imprisoned on an island (Imrali) near Istanbul.(see[14] )"

"A Marxist separatist group that until recently sought to create an independent Kurdish state in southeastern Turkey and parts of neighboring countries inhabited by Kurds. (It’s known as the PKK after its Kurdish name, Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan.) During a rebellion that began in the mid-1980s and claimed some 35,000 lives, the group used guerrilla warfare and terrorism, including kidnappings of foreign tourists in Turkey, suicide bombings, and attacks on Turkish diplomatic offices in Europe. The PKK has also repeatedly attacked civilians who refuse to assist it. "

the beginning and another sentence are exactly the same. Soapy(reloaded) 23:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right! Well spotted, you should remove that text immediately. This is called a copyvio. - FrancisTyers 23:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'm gonna remove it but there won't be nothing left, I don't know what 2 put in its place. maybe just change the wording? Soapy(reloaded) 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I copied in the lead from the Kurdistan Workers Party page. - FrancisTyers 00:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
good except it's not marxist anymore, Öcalan is actually more on an ecological confederationalist type of thing, and his new project is called "kkk" for "koma komalen kurdistan" - basically it's a confederation of the four kurdish parts, where would apply the law of the state, of EU, and specific kurdish law. in any case these things belong more in pkk article, but I'll replace "currently marxist" by "formerly marxist" here if u're ok with it. Soapy(reloaded) 00:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem, you might also want to check out the Kurdistan Workers Party page. - FrancisTyers 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 million kurds in Turkey!!!??? So where are them? These are only seperatist propagandas against Turkey without scientific results.There are 5,1 million original kurds in Turkey and 3,5 million people mixed kurds.Vandal numbers cant change the realities...

What is this for a crap about Kurds?

The Kurds are, an Iranian people (a classification that is more linguistic than 'ethnic' in the case of the Kurds) inhabiting a mountainous area of the Middle-East that includes parts of Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Syria as well as smaller sections of Armenia and Lebanon. Kurds speak the mostly mutually intelligible dialects of the Kurdish language, which belongs to the Iranian branch of the Indo-Iranian subfamily of languages.

Ranging anywhere from 27 to 28 million people, the Kurds comprise one of the largest ethnic groups without their own country in the world. For over a century, many Kurds have campaigned and fought for the right to 'self-determination' in an autonomous homeland known as "Kurdistan". The governments of those countries with sizable Kurdish populations are actively opposed to the possibility of a Kurdish state, believing such a development would require them to give up parts of their own national territories.

Firstly what means (a classification that is more linguistic than 'ethnic' in the case of the Kurds)

What makes Kurds to be more a linguistical classification as ethnical classification?

Therefor we look as first what Ethnic means: Ethnic

An ethnic group is a culture or subculture whose members are readily distinguishable by outsiders based on traits originating from a common racial, national, linguistic, or religious source.


Look at the Oxford dictionary: Ethnic: connected with or belongig to a nation, race or tribe that shares a cultural tradition

Thus the question is what are Kurds on their culture and race? Would we deny that Englishmen are cultural/racial Germanic? Or would we deny that Swedish or Norsk are Germanic in culture and race? The same for Germans. Thus why on Wikipedia we deny that Kurds are Iranians in culture and race?

About race: We read in Quitana-Murci et al study on maternal ancestry of Southwest Asian population's mtDNA that: Populations located west of the Indus basin, including those from Iran, Anatolia and the Caucasus, exhibit a common mtDNA lineage composition, consisting mainly of western Eurasian lineages, with a very limited contribution from South Asia and eastern Eurasia (fig. 1). Indeed, the different Iranian populations show a striking degree of homogeneity. This is revealed not only by the nonsignificant FST values and the PC plot (fig. 6) but also by the SAMOVA results, in which a significant genetic barrier separates populations west of Pakistan from those east and north of the Indus Valley (results not shown). These observations suggest either a common origin of modern Iranian populations and/or extensive levels of gene flow amongst them

This study show that modern Iranian populations(including Baloches, Persians, Kurds, Lurs, Pashtuns, Ossetians, Tajiks...) have a COMMON origin!

Thus what makes Kurds different from other Iranian people in their race?

All physical anthropologist classify Kurds as belonging to the Irano-Afghan race, as Persians, Pashtuns, Tajiks and all other Iranian speaking people belong to!

Kurds celebrate Norouz like all other Iranian people, we must classify them as an Iranian people by race, culture and language!

So how it comes that in Wikipedia there is written something else, and when I try to revert it, different users change it back?

Also I am against the classification of which belongs to the Iranian branch of the Indo-Iranian subfamily of languages.

This classification is not a classification this is politics of some users here.

Is Russian classificated by his Superclass? Russian (Russian: русский язык, russkij jazyk, ['ru.skʲi jɪ.'zɨk] listen ▶ (help·info)) is the most widely spoken language of Europe and the most widespread of the Slavic languages.

NO, no where is there written that Russian is a Balto-Slavic language.

Or German? Is there written that German is a Balto-Germano-Slavic language? Why now pointing out that it is Indo-Iranian in the Kurdish case? As first it is an Iranian language which makes 4000 years differences up with the Indo-Aryan languages. Second if the visitor don't know what Iranian language is he can click on the article about Iranian languages.

I will change the information back, as long you bring me proofs that it isn't this way! --ShapurAriani 19:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shapur I see nothing wrong with article. what you say above has been already put in the article. Look at the Persian people article. There is also the same clasification as here.=> Indo-European, Iranian people.

Mesopotamia 20:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because in an other article there is the same mistake you can not argument! Zhe Oxford dictionary says about Ethnic: Ethnic: connected with or belongig to a nation, race or tribe that shares a cultural tradition

Thus Indo-Europeans can not be a related ethnic group, because 1) Indo-European is not a nation, 2) Indo-European is not a race, 3) Indo-European is not a tribe, and 4) Indo-European doesn't shares cultural traditions Thus Indo-European can not be a related ethnic group, it is a linguistical classification. Btw. why you reverting all the article? This is untypical for working at Wikipedia. The next time befor you reverting anything, begin a discussion, not a refer on an other mistake and then change only the part which you disagree! --ShapurAriani 20:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language of the Kurds

Kurds don't speak among themselves in a foreign tongue. What matters is how they are communicating with one another, not with their neighbors or the outside world. Otherwise English/Swedish/German/French should also be mentioned since hundreds of thousands of expat. Kurds are using those languages on a daily basis, but among themselves, they only use Kurdish. Heja Helweda 05:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the language section of the ethinc group template refers to their native language, as well as the other main languages that they speak (which wouldn't be Swedish or French). I'm sure most Kurds in Turkey also speak Turkish. --Khoikhoi 05:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it is quite obvious that German is the main working second tongue among expat. Kurdish community of half a million in Germany. The same is true for English/French/Swedish.Heja Helweda 06:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of Kurdish

Kurdish is an Iranian language or a group of languages of the Iranian language family

Why you point out that the Iranian language family is of the superclass of Indo-Iranian languages and of the greater languagefamily of Indo-European languages! Is this the philosophy of Wikipedia? When there is an article there is no need to explain everyword. There is no need to explain what Iranian languages are or the Iranian language family is. There is a link, where everyone can click and read what it is. This is non-sense use of server space. This is why there is no need to explain what Iranian lagnuages are, the visitor can click on the link and read it. --ShapurAriani 20:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just like to limit definition of the Kurds and their language to be an Iranian people, but since there is no problem on behalf of the sprace in wikipedia this sentence does not make any problem. I do not agree with your last edit. I am going to re-add that sentence. please do not remove info from the pages.

Mesopotamia 20:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of any existing native Zoroastrian Kurds.

user:ShapurAriani claims that There are many Zoroastrian Kurds, there are even Kurdish translation of the Avesta, thus why you revert it? If again I will compain by the admin!). But he has no evidence for his claim. Of course translation of Avesta is not a proof, since Bible has also been translated into Kurdish, but that isnot a proof for Kurds being christian.

Heja Helweda 05:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Admin: Norooz is a zoroastrian festival, why Kurds celebrate it? Why Kurds have all the zoroastrian sagas? Why there are so many zoroastrian tempels in Kurdistan? Myself is a zoroastrian Kurd and this I can proof until 400 BC. My family is orginally from Sina/Kermanshah. Now this anti-Zoroastrian guy claims something which is not true and plays up the role of the Yezidis. I think he is Yezidi and this is why some Yezidi Kurds claim so much bullshit. They know that they are in fact a split of the original Zoroastrian faith. You can not set the christian Bible equal with the Avesta. The Avesta is specifiy and they translate it not by fun. Zoroastrianism is not a world religion, but they have translated the Avesta into the Kurdish language which is a proof. --ShapurAriani 10:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether Kurds were Zoroastrian 1000 years ago, it is about EXISTING Kurds. There is no evidence of any remaining Zoroastrians among Kurds. I am not anti-any religion. I am just saying provide proof and evidence for your claims. That's all.There are half a million Yazidi Kurds in northern Iraq, Armenia ,Russia and Germany. Where are your Zoroastrian Kurds? Take a look at the Zoroastrian page. It does not mention Kurds as part of the people following the religion. Zoroastrians in Iran have, like other religious minorities, survived centuries of persecution. Communities exist in Tehran, as well as in Yazd and Kerman, where many still speak an Iranian language distinct from Persian.Heja Helweda 17:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Action

Reverting because member of a terroristic Turksih organization is erasing facts! @Admin please check at discussion thx!

I do not care what the debate is about, but such incivility is not tollerated on wikipedia. Have a read of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA prior to making any edits on wikipedia please. If I do not see a gradual shift to civility here, I will take action. --Cool CatTalk|@ 11:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian peoples

I don't understand the antagonism that resulted in leaving out the original intro sentence "The Kurds are an Iranian people..." or "The Kurds are an ethnic group of Iranian origin," etc. Kurds are widely accepted as being an Iranian people, and they are listed in the Iranian peoples article - so they are not just a group "related" to "Iranian peoples." It is needlessly politicizing an issue that goes beyond politics since "Iranian" in this context does not refer to the actual country but to an entire grouping of related ethnic groups that have common origins. At any rate, if it is to be left this way, that's perfectly fine, but I have removed the pointless bit about "middle-eastern" (in lowercase, at that) which is not only misleading but inaccurate. SouthernComfort 23:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am self a Kurd, thus I know that we Kurds are ethnically Iranians and some of us even citizen of Iran. I think this is politic of anti-Iranians. They try to hide the true identity of us Kurds and our great past. Not more then politic. Fact is Kurds are an ethnic group of Iranian origin and thus an Iranian people. --ShapurAriani 16:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In wikipedia talk pages people easily change their ethnicity! Since we Kurds are a middle-eastern ethnic group I do not agree with your challenge to ulta-Iranize the kurds. You so called pan -iranists even try to Iranize Turkish people in your beloved country. both a political and not scientific action.

Regarding the Kurds in the relevant paragraph in the article it has been mentioned that kurds have some similarities with Iranians.

Mesopotamia 17:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. SouthernComfort 22:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as i explained for you above that wikipedia is not a soapbox. I am glad that you have learned it.Mesopotamia 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should tone down your rhetoric and learn to be civil. SouthernComfort 04:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph: Kurds are a middle-eastern ethnic group

It has been already put in the several places in the article (f.ex. infobox) that kurds are an Iranian ethnic group but it does not need in the first paragraph which will be somhow biased toward pro-iranianism. an encyclopedic paragraph beggins as:

People living in a landscape called Kurdistan, covering southeastern Turkey, northeastern Syria, northern Iraq, western Iran, Azerbaijan and Armenia.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/

Mesopotamia 19:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurds vs. Iranian people

Well, it just creates confusion. Iranian mostly refers to citizens of Iran. Therefore it does not apply to three quarters of Kurds who are citizens of Iraq, Turkey , Syria and Armenia. Officially, from the point of view of International Law, Kurds of those countries are not considered Iranian. So I suggest remove this term, because it is right in the beginning of the article and confuses everybody. However I am aware that those who are for the term Iranian, consider it as an ethnic/linguistic classification. Perhaps they should try to find a better term which does not mix with nationality.Heja Helweda 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true and you should provide a source that Iranian peoples primarily refers to the citizens of the nation-state of Iran. SouthernComfort 04:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurds from Encyclopaedia Britannica

member of an ethnic and linguistic group living in the Taurus Mountains of eastern Anatolia, the Zagros Mountains of western Iran, northern Iraq, and adjacent areas. Most of the Kurds live in contiguous areas of Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, a region generally referred to as Kurdistan (“Land of the Kurds”).[1]

There is no reference to Iranian people. So I suggest removing this term, since it is confusing and credible, neutral sources (such as above) do not mention it. Heja Helweda 03:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've reworded it - instead of saying just "Iranian" I have said "Iranian peoples" to avoid confusion. --Khoikhoi 03:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But Encyclopaedia Brittanica uses the term Iranian, only in the context of Kurdish language not Kurdish ethnicity. It is well known that the language belongs to the Iranian family, but ethnically I have not seen any neutral source. Please provide the source for the Iranian ethnicity of Kurds. Heja Helweda 03:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll look into it. I'll also ask some other people. --Khoikhoi 03:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no source given for the instance of including Iranian people as a definition of Kurds. Until a verified source can be found, please do not include it in the article. Joe I 04:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check any encyclopedia or ethnological text. The term Iranian peoples refers to an entire grouping of peoples which includes the Kurds. This is so widely accepted that it is absurd to contest it. SouthernComfort 04:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if we are going to provide sources for something as ridiculous as this, then we are going to have a very, very long list of references. If this is to be done simply to keep the peace and not initiate this senseless revert war, then so be it. I will gather as many sources as I can find. However, I suspect that certain individuals will continue this deletion even when such a great number of references are provided. SouthernComfort 04:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Kurd mentioned one time on these of pages, that for related language. Wikitionary Iranian Wikitionary Persian

Joe I 04:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian according to Webster and Dictionary.com either refers to the Inhabitants of Iran or A Language Classification. This term has no ethnic/racial meaning. So you can say Kurdish belongs to the Iranian language group, but this does not mean Kurds of Iraq/Turkey/Syria are Iranian. Heja Helweda 04:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying contradicts the Iranian peoples article, which provides an accurate definition. SouthernComfort 05:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And again, there is a major difference between Iranians as citizens of a nation-state, and ethnic groups that are of the Iranian branch, which include Persians, Kurds, Baluch, etc. This is so basic that it shouldn't have to be explained or justified. SouthernComfort 05:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, appearently its not so basic for me. So explain, I thought Persians were the main ethnic group, with Iranians, Kurds etc, under that, since Persia was a country of existence well before Iran. I found Iranian as an ethnic group in other places, but still no kurds listed under them. Joe I 05:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not well versed in this subject, which is what you have just demonstrated, I suggest you do some research before taking part in a discussion and reverting others' edits. And let me make this absolutely clear: Persians are not the main ethnic group of the Iranian branch of peoples. They are one amongst many different peoples, which also includes the Kurds. Really, I suggest you read some books on this matter, and the Iranian peoples article, and the references listed therein, is a good starting point. SouthernComfort 05:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all the validity of Wikipedia articles should be based on neutral outside scholarly sources. One can not base his argument on another article(Iranian peoples) from Wikipedia. I searched for Iranian peoples in Encyclopaedia Britannica, and all of the references are about Ancient people like Achaemenids,... It does not say anything about relationship of this term with the present ethnic composition of the country of Iran. and it does not mention Kurds. So I think the article Iranian peoples(which is an ethnic classification) should also be corrected.Heja Helweda 06:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That article is sourced, and as I suggested to the previous editor, I think you should investigate those sources and read up more on this matter. And again, Iranian peoples refers to an entire group of peoples, not just the peoples of Iran. Personally I have never even heard anyone, let alone anyone Kurdish, deny that Kurds are an Iranian people. SouthernComfort 06:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a verifiable neutral source on the subject. This is not a matter of hearing something as you put it. It is a scientific classification. The term Iranian isnot mentioned for Kurds in Brittanica, can you explain why?Heja Helweda 15:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources listed on Iranian peoples and I will gather more academic sources, which cannot be dismissed away as "not neutral" or "not credible." You should also provide neutral and credible sources (i.e. academic) that Kurds are not of Iranian stock. The Britannica is lacking in a great deal of information, and the lack of mention there does not mean that Kurds are not one of the Iranian peoples. SouthernComfort 21:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a Kurd I deny being ethnitically Iranian. I have never heard anywhere that kurds are ethnitically Iranian. Kurds are decendants of indigenious people of northern Mesopotamia and western Zagros than Iranian people; in other words Kurds are an amalgam of languistically Iranicized tribes, mainly autochthonous such as Kardu, some semitic, and, some Armenian.

Mesopotamia 12:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide neutral and credible sources. SouthernComfort 21:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One who claims Kurds are Iranian people has to provide proof. If you don't have proof, then it is safe to say Kurds are a Middle Eastern ethnic group.Heja Helweda 18:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point with the usage of Iranian. It's not meant as a racial or even entirely ethnic term. I'm the one who put in the genetic studies links and the genetic studies show that while the Kurds are closer to the Caucasus, they do not dismiss a relationship with other Iranian peoples. That's the point here. I do agree that the Kurds are mostly natives who have absorbed small groups of other people and that they were largely 'Iranicized', but this does not exclude them from an Iranic people anymore than the English are not a Germanic people or at least both Germanic and Celtic. The Kurds can be an Iranian people and something else, although in the case of the Kurds it is difficult to categorize them as Caucasian people since they do not speak any of the languages. The Azeris also genetically cluster with the Caucasus, BUT are still considered a Turkic people. Iranian people can be either a broad or narrow term and is flexible in its usage. Tombseye 00:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A relationship between two groups, does not necessarily imply inclusion of one into another. Kurds are at best a mixed people. There is no credible evidence that they are racially Iranian. If as you say it isnot racial, then it is just restricted to the language classification. Like the Blacks of north America, they are native English speakers, but no one claims that they descended from the Anglosaxons.Heja Helweda 18:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though I think you make some very valid points in terms of genetics, I think it can make things a bit unwieldly because ultimately what we are talking about are cultural, linguistic, and historical lines of descent. Persians and Kurds, for example, are not ethnically homogenous groups. Amongst Persians there are different ethnic groups that may or may not be genetically related to each other. Most Persian groups in Iran consider themselves essentially separate races - for example, Gilakis consider themselves ethnically separate from Mazandaranis, though they share a very close cultural and linguistic connection. And both consider themselves very different from other Persian groups in Iran. Likewise with other Persian groups in other provinces.
So, whatever the reality might be (or might not be) as far as genetics, I think the most important factors are cultural, linguistic, and historical, which are very close between the various groups traditionally labelled as "Iranian peoples." Because really, genetic connection does not necessarily mean anything - if Croatians and Macedonians are genetically connected to some Iranian groups, does that make them Iranian peoples considering that culturally and linguistically, there isn't a very close connection?
And Tombseye is right when comparing the term Iranian, as we are using it here, in comparison with Slavic, Nordic, Germanic, etc. To restrict the use of the term "Iranian" solely to Persians or the state of Iran is not only academically incorrect, but it is doing everyone a great disservice and only adds to so-called "Persocentric" ideas. SouthernComfort 01:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's unwieldy when bringing genetics in, but it's also a new source of information. The problem is that many of these groups claim grand histories that are largely unverifiable or just made-up. The Pashtuns aren't descendents of a lost Hebrew tribe most likely, although there were Pashtun Jews there at one point. The Persians go to great lengths to claim various things and the interesting thing about genetic studies is that they often either support or dispel what people think. The Iranian peoples share enough common genetic markers to show some sort of linguistic forebears who moved out and through conquest spread their languages. Went through this on the Sinhalese people page where the common inaccurate belief is that the Sinhalese are Aryans and the Tamils a distinct race of Dravidians. Not so according to genetic evidence and hell even morphological and historical evidence for that matter. Elite replacement is often what takes place. Regardless though, my intent was to introduce other views and insights rather than opening up a nationalist can of worms. I think the Iranian peoples page that we've done goes through great pains to explain the usage. The neutrality of the sources seems to be questioned when the findings aren't to one group or another's liking as opposed to whether or not it's viable. At any rate, the genetic connections were meant to explain the varied origins, while the categorization of Iranian peoples is meant to transcend any false notions of race. Tombseye 07:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not convinced why important sources like Britannica do not mention Kurds as Iranian people. The fact is as soon as you say Iranian people, it has some sort of racial meaning to it, which can not be verified in the case of Kurds, since they are a mixed people. Over centuries they have mixed with Assyrians, Armenians , Turks, Arabs and Persians. To be fair, one should include all those groups that have mixed with Kurds. BTW, when something is not certain, then I do not see the necessity to include it in the article. The term Iranian applies only to either citizens of Iran or a language classification. So one can not compare it with Germanic or Slavic. Heja Helweda 18:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some points. First, the fact that a term is not mentioned in one source does not make that term's usage here incorrect. Second, no one is trying to make an essentialist argument here, just helping to describe a multifaceted correlation. Hence, your point about including everything isn't relevant - this is not about excluding groups, only about qualifying significance and relevance. Finally, the term Iranian simply contains too much to limit it to a political entity or language. Intentionally doing so would be tantamount to redefining it. How can it not be compared to a term like Germanic? Finally, one cannot help that people ignorant of history, linguistics, etc. might assume Iranian only means a state or race. The simplest understanding of a label should not dictate this article's contents. --Vector4F 00:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the sources in the "Iranian peoples" article

The sources at the end of the Iranian peoples article.

http://www.parstimes.com/Iranians.html This is obviously not academic.

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90019 This one is credible but it just talks about Iranian Language Group not Iranian people.

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9368164 This one is also just about language not ethnicity.

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Languages/iranian_languages.htm This is also only language.

http://www.cais-soas.com/articles/iranian-peoples_articles.htm This is the one that is supposed to talk about Iranian peoples. It has a section for Kurd, but it refers to some other articles as follows:

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/Kurds/kurdish_tribes.htm This does not mention anything about Kurds being Iranian people. It just says Kurdish tribes are found throughout Iranian world including Iran proper, eastern Anatolia and northern Iraq. But it does not explain what does it mean by the Iranian world. I guess the region in which Iranian languages are spoken.

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/Kurds/milan.htm This one does not mention the term Iranian.

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/Kurds/hamavand.htm

This one is interesting, because it makes the problem even more clear. It says : An Iranian stock of Kurdish tribe of northeastern Mesopotamia which has been described as "the most celebrated fighting Kudish tribe" (Edmonds, pp. 39-40). The Hamâvand reportedly moved from the Kermânšâh in mainland Iran, to the Bâz-yân district, between Kerkuk and Solaymâniya, early in the 18th century.

The tribe is originally from Kermanshah inside Iran, so probably he means a tribe which was originally hailed from the Iranian territory, and that's why it calls the tribe as being Iranian.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n5/40813/40813.html This one is the most credible in the genetic study of the population of Middle East/Central Asia. But Its sample just contains Iranian Kurds not Iraqi Kurds or Kurds of Turkey. This article has never used the term Iranian peoples, just neutral terms like Iranian plateau or Iranian populations(people who live inside Iran). Also it does not prove anything like Kurds being racially Iranian people as intended in the article Iranian peoples. Please remove the reference to Kurds, or just say Iranian Kurds.

For the geographic grouping, we divided populations into four regions: the Anatolian/Caucasus region (Anatolians and Caucasus populations), the Iranian plateau (Persians, Iranian Turks, Lurs, Iranian Kurds, Mazandarans, and Gilaks), the Indus Valley (Baluchi, Brahui, Parsi, Sindhi, Pakistani-Karachi, Pathans, Makrani, Hazara, and Gujarat) and Central Asia (Uzbeks, Turkmen, Kurds from Turkmenistan, Shugnan, Hunza Burusho, and Kalash). Heja Helweda 19:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian speakers are genetically remote from Kurds

I hope the following paper will clarify the issue.

Genetic distance comparisons have revealed that the Turkic and Turkoman speaking peoples in the Caspian area cluster with the Kurds, Greeks and Iranis. The Persian speakers are genetically remote from these populations; they are, however, close to the Parsis who migrated from Iran to India at the end of the Seventh Century A.D.[2]

This basically says that Kurds/Turks are far from Persians genetically speaking. Iranian is just a language classification.

Heja Helweda 01:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


YOUR SOURCE IS WRONG AND QUESTIONABLE IN ORIGIN

Kurds and Persians have been show to be very similar in the most up to date studies.

Kurds are the Closest Relatives of Jews

There are a lot of sources regarding Kurds are not ethnitcically an Iranian people.

The Genetic Bonds Between Kurds and Jews

Diyako Talk + 12:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolute bullshit. I know a lot about genetics, and the Kurds are very different from Jews. Sure there are some boundaries between Jews and all Iranians, this is due they are all Near Easterns. But is this a suprise or any kind of prove for your stupid theory Mesopotamia? You listen more like a non-Kurd, who is trying to tell bullshit about us Kurds. I think you are a Turk who want to claim Kurds are Turks. This is my opinion! --ShapurAriani 13:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down, there is no need for this level of hostility. As a 100% neutral party on this matter (I have just entered into the discussion and breifly examined the article per an Rfc), I should point out that bickering between two parties serves no purpose. ShapurAriani, if you want my personal opinion, you are less likely be taken very seriously if you make such agressive and unfounded accusations.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 09:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any suggestions on how to resolve this matter instead of scolding Shapur? --Khoikhoi 09:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who has access can check the sources of the article. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I do know that without checking the article's source and its bibliography, there is no point in getting this defensive over it. In either case a conspiracy theory about Turks masquerading as Kurds for the purpose of claiming ancestry makes little sense at all, and it just going to further the division over this article.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It looks even kurds dont like jews.But i think they should love them.They are training PKK terrorists in north iraq after all... -Inanna-

Once again, if you care to make a statement such as that, I dont suppose you would have any evidence to support it would you? Unbased allegations lead nowhere and just hinder productivity. Please read WP:WWIN (More specifically here) and WP:POINT.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 03:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IN RESPONSE TO THE GENETICS OF KURDS AND JEWS

I would like to point something out. There are genetic similarities between certain Jewish groups and Iranian peoples that is because those 'groups' within the Jewish population are Iranian Jews, either Tats, or Persian Jews or Kurdish Jews. Jewish people are not an ethnic group they are a faith or religious group. There are Jews from many gene pools and various races. There are Negroid Jews from Africa and Dravidian Jews from southern India. One of the largest populations to have Jews is that of the Iranian peoples. In fact the state of Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel. The similarity of these people, Jews and Kurds in particular is due to shared Iranian genes among a few other minor ones. There is an article about Kurdish Jews and Persian Jews. It is called the "Children of Queen Ester." Ester was the Empress of Queen of Iran and wife of Emperor Xerxes who fought the Athenians and Spartans in what classical scholars refer to as the Persian Wars. A large portion of Israelis are Iranian Jews like Israel's head of state, Moshe Katsav [3] who is from Yazd, Iran and the current Israeli defence minister.

The genetic similarities that are greatest between Kurds and Jews are with the group of Jews that are Iranian or what is termed as 'Iranic' in origin such as Persian Jews and Kurdish Jews and Tats. One will find that Jews that are from Arabic countries are very similar to Arabs and that Jews from Europe are very similar genetically to the Europeans.

Mind you there is in most Jews a hint or trace of that unique Hebrew gene of their Semitic ancestors, but it is not the dominant genetic make up. The genes of the nations the Jews settled in are what are dominant in their genetic makeup. A Russian Jew is ethnically a Russian while an Iranian Jew is ethnically an Iranian. European Jews are in fact not Semitic, as opposed to Arab Jews who are Semitic. Semitic peoples are tanned and dark haired people, while many European Jews are fair and resemble the native European population. I hope you follow.

Genetically and hereditarily the most similar people to the Kurds are the Lur and Bakhtiaris , which are both Iranian peoples, followed by the Persians. To say that Kurds and other Iranian peoples are dissimilar is exceedingly incorrect. The Kurds are definitely and inarguably a part of the Iranian genetic group as are Lurs, Persian, and Ossetians.

The article that is basically claiming that Kurds are closer to Jewish populations than Iranians is incoherent and should be deleted because it is taken out of context and is from a non-primary and constricted source that has been widely disagreed with by the scientific community.

Kurdish history and Hittites

The history section is somewhat misleading. It describes the "Hurrian phase" of Kurdish history (which alone seems a bit odd, since the Kurds per se didn't exist then) and lists the names of Hurrian groups, including the Hittites.

It then states that Indo-European speakers moved into the region later, and lists a number of Indo-Aryan groups (the Medes, Mitanni, and Scythians). But the Hittites were themselves Indo-European speakers, which is nowhere stated. --Saforrest 08:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hittites had come from behind of caucaissia(central asia).The early Turks in this period didnt have a developed language and they had taken the language of indo-european tribes in caucaussia while they are coming.Kurds are indo-iranian people. -Inanna-

PROBLEMS ON KURDISH ARTICLES

First of all the Kurdish flag is allowed in Iran, but is not sanctioned publicly. Kurds have it in their homes and are allowed to have them. It is certainly not criminal in Iran for Kurds to have the Kurdish flag or symbol as many of my friends do. So edit your statement about it being criminal in Iran. Need I remind you all, that Kurds are ethnic Iranians and have historically enjoyed the greatest liberties in Iran as opposed to the mainstream discrimination Kurds face in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey? It is usually Israeli sources, with increasing American and British help and aid, that intentionally falsely claim that the Kurdish flag (which fly the Pan-Iranian colours as does the unofficial flag of the Azerbaijani people and the flag of Tajikistan) is prohibited in Iran. FLYING THE KURDISH FLAG IN IRAN IS NOT CRIMINAL AS IT IS MENTIONED BY ISRAELI SOURCES.

Furthermore, I go on to read that there was research done that basically proves Kurds and Jews are genetically the same. It seems to me that certain individuals who I can see are Israeli are following the Israeli states policy of editing articles in lines with current events in the Middle East. Kurds are Iranians just as how Russians, Serbs, Poles, and Bulgarians are all Slavic peoples. Israel, the USA, and Britain are trying to create conflict in Iran, Kurdistan, and the Middle East as was done in the former Yugoslavia by creating problems along ethnic lines. This is called ‘balkanisation.’ The Israelis are doing this covertly through operations in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Propaganda for dividing and conquering people starts with definitions then the manipulation of history. I am an academic in the fields of anthropology and history and an Iranian from a minority group that is neither Persian nor Kurdish. I can tell you that Kurds are definitely ethnic Iranians in all senses from tradition to language, history, culture, identity, and genetics. I am alarmed by the current purging of internet articles that have hidden agendas trying to separate the Iranian identity of Kurds.

As I was told by a Kurdish professor, Mr. Eskandari in Tehran: “Kurds are Iranian and the entity of Iran as a state and nation was founded by the [main] ancestors of the Kurds, the Mede who established Iran as an empire. One problem that has compounded the issue is that people misuse the term Persian and Iranian. Persians are Iranian, but all Iranians, like the Kurds and Ossetians, are not Persians.”

The Mede and other similar Iranian groups are the ancestors of the Kurds, but not the only group, just like how the ancient Persians are the main ancestors of the modern Persians, but not the only ancestors. Ancestors of Persians and Kurds also include Arabs, Mongols, and other Iranian peoples.

I ask all the honest people on this site who wish to enhance knowledge not to take part in this fabrication of fact. There was a time when the Turkish government tried to convince Kurds that they were “Mountain Turks” and now there are powers at play that are either trying to disassociate the Kurds from their Iranian identity and origins or make whole generations of proud young Kurds forget or be unaware of their Iranian ethnicity. This is due to geo-strategic schemes. These forces are trying to victimize a whole group of people from knowing their own proud history and culture which is genuinely Iranian. The covert foreign policy of Israel, Britain, and America comes at the expense of the Kurds and even their history and culture.

“THE ENEMIES OF SCIENCE, THE ARTS, AND KNOWLEDGE ARE THE ENEMIES OF ALL MANKIND!”

Kurdish Flag is banned in Iran

Wikipedia is an ensyclopedia not a forum. Kurdish flag is banned in Iran; Flying it causes THREE years inprisonment. Even as far as I know it is not based on your Pan-Iranistic flag! Instead of accusing other people think of citing neutral sources. Mesopotamia 00:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral it seems that you are the one that is trying to promote an idea or cause while at the same time repressing the truth. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO FLY THE KURDISH FLAG IN IRAN OR TO SPEAK KURDISH OR TO LEARN IN KURDISH. YOU HAVE SAID IT IS CRIMINAL TO FLY THE KURDISH FLAG IN IRAN. IT IS BANNED PUBLICALLY BUT IS NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.


Mesopotamia give us proof everywhere I look it says Kurds are treated well in Iran. It also says any problems any Kurds have in Iran is the same that non-Kurds face in the country. Zippy 01:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHO WROTE THAT KURDISH IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL IN IRAN? THAT IS UNTRUE? THIS IS NOT A FORUM OF PROPGANDA!!!

Kurdish is freely taught in schools in Iran and all that one has to do is go on to the Iranian governments websites on education and see. All to note services on some of these websites are offered in Kurdish by the Iranian government! So how is Kurdish not allowed to be talked or spoken in Iran???? Who is writting this propaganda about Iran and Kurdistan?

According to the section 15 of Iranian constitution (after the 1979 Iranian Revolution), Kurdish education next to teaching Persian is a right of the Iranian people. Before the Iranian Revoloution of 1979, Kurdish was allowed to be taught in Iranian universities such as in Tabriz University in Northern Iran.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kurds&oldid=37151413"