Jump to content

Talk:Kurds/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

PKK terrorist organisation

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.

So what does that make the Turkish army and the Israeli and American militaries who kill civilians and call it colateral damage? The problem with terms like terrorist is that it can be used to define anyone or any party you do not like.

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
Perhaps you could find a more notable source for Kurdish news? - FrancisTyers 00:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Sounds like an excellent opportunity to do some research :) - FrancisTyers 01:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL ok I'll try to do that then... thanx Soapy(reloaded) 01:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

You are right! Well spotted, you should remove that text immediately. This is called a copyvio. - FrancisTyers 23:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
I copied in the lead from the Kurdistan Workers Party page. - FrancisTyers 00:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
Sure, no problem, you might also want to check out the Kurdistan Workers Party page. - FrancisTyers 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

My brother is genetican he claims that Kurds/Pashtuns/Tajiks/Persians are the nearest related group, even physicial anthroplogist provide this. Now this anti-Kurdish joke is spaming, because he knows that Kurds are Iranians, and he dislike this, because this doesn't fit in his world where Kurds are Turks. Thus I don't accept your suggetion, because the racial difference between Kurds/Persians/Pashtuns/Tajiks and other Iranians is so small, that we must see them as an own group beside the Arabic/Turkish/European world! --ShapurAriani 13:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please act civil, and don't turn it into a personal fight. Thanks. Heja Helweda 20:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)
Heja Helweda you are trying to deny Kurdish heritage and history. Zoroastrianism was the religion of the Ancient Kurds and there are still Kurds who practice. The reason why individuals such as Heja Helweda deny this is cause it establishes strong links with other Iranian peoples. Heja Helweda is actually forcing opinions that Kurds and Jews are the same. Jews are not even an ethnic group they are a religion, but Kurdish seperatists and the Israeli government have common interests so we are having these ideas from bad sources pushed on us.

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)

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)

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)


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)

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

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)

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


In response to what you are claiming about the disassociation of Kurds with other Iranian peoples I suggest you walk into a University and ask a Professor of History or Anthropology. Kurds are Iranians.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
Ok, I'll look into it. I'll also ask some other people. --Khoikhoi 03:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)
What you are saying contradicts the Iranian peoples article, which provides an accurate definition. SouthernComfort 05:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

Please provide neutral and credible sources. SouthernComfort 21:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

THERE IS NO PURE RACE AND THAT IS THE FIRST THING YOU LEARN IN ANTHROPOLOGY, BUT THE KURDS ARE OF IRANIAN STOCK, SURE THEY MIXED WITH OTHER RACES BUT SO DID THE PERSIANS. BESIDES SCIENTIFIC PROOF THERE IS THE KURDS OWN TALES AND HISTORICAL STORIES OF ORIGIN THAT SUPPORT THEIR IRANIAN IDENTITY. THE PROBLEM TODAY IS KURDS ARE THE VICTIMS OF COLONALISM AND IMPERIALIST POLICIES. WHEN THEY WERE DIVIDED FROM OTHER KURDS AND IRANIANS THEY WERE LEFT IN SUSPENTION OF THEIR IDENTITY. ALL THAT THEY KNEW IS THAT THEY WERE KURDS. ONE MAJOR PROBLEM IS THAT KURDS OUTSIDE OF IRAN THINK THAT THE TERM IRANIAN MEANS PERSIAN OR IS A NATIONAL TERM LIKE IRAQI AND SYRIAN. IN REALITY IRANIAN IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT HAS ALSO BEEN USED TO DENOTE A NATION, IN THIS CASE IRAN, WHERE THIS GROUP DOMINATES. IT IS THE SAME FOOTING AS YUGOSLAVIAN WHICH WAS A NATIONALITY BUT MENT 'SOUTHERN SLAV' WHICH ALSO INCLUDED BULGARIANS EVEN THOUGH BULGARIANS WERE NOT A PART OF YUGOSLAVIA. I AM AFRAID THAT PRESENTLY POLITICS IS VICTIMIZING THIS ACADEMIC SUBJECT WERE AS STATES LIKE ISRAEL AND THE USA ARE SUPPORTING THE DISASSOCATION OF KURDS FROM IRANIAN OR ANYTHING OF THE LIKE AND OMMITING CONVERSATIONS ON THE SUBJECT IN ACADEMIC CIRCLES.

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)

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)


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.

There is a lot of games being played here. Kurds and Persians are both Aryan peoples of the Indo-European family. All Kurds are taught that they are Aryans unlike the Arabs and Turks from when they are kids. As for the claim that Jews and Kurds are the same I think that has to do with Israeli plans for control of Kurdistan, Iraq, and Iran.

There is a particular member who logs in under numerous identities and supports himself in regards to Kurds being Jews instead of Iranian people.

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)

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)

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)
Do you have any suggestions on how to resolve this matter instead of scolding Shapur? --Khoikhoi 09:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
Well I think it is a case of Israelis spreading propaganda. MOSSAD is manipulating Kurds!


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)

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 or 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)


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 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)

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.

ALL YOU NEED TO DO BUDDY IS GO TO "THE UNIVERSITY OF KURDISTAN'S WEB SITE." YES, THE "UNIVERSITY OF KURDISTAN" IN "IRAN" ALSO CALLED "UOK."

THE IRANIAN STATE IS AN "IRANIAN" NATION WHICH MEANS ALL IRANIAN PEOPLES, NOT JUST PERSIANS THAT IS WHY IRAN FREELY RECOGNIZES KURDISTAN AND HAS A PROVINCE NAMED KURDISTAN AND UNIVERSITIES WITH THE TITLE KURDISTAN AND ALLOWS KURDISH TO BE TAUGHT AND HAS PUBLIC, KURDISH BROADCASTING!

http://www.uok.ac.ir/

KURDISH FLAG IS OF IRANIAN ORIGIN

The Kurdish flag was from the Mahhabad Republic in Iran and formed by Kurds living within Iran. It is an inverse of the Pan-Iranian colours. It even has the Sun that is so important to all Iranian peoples and their calender and festavals such as Noruz. Noruz is the official New Year in Iran and celebrated by all Iranian peoples. The Sun was also on the Iranian flag along with a lion and sword before 1979. The use of the Sun was of great importance to the Ancient Aryan ancestors of the Kurds who were Zoroastrians. Zoroastrain faith was the state faith of Ancient Iran.

Kurdish is Used in Iranian schools

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

The University of Kurdistan (OUK) in Sinne or Sanandaj, Iran has one of the worldest best Kurdish language and literature programs [4].

The website of that University is under construction. It does not provide any info. on Kurdish being taught in the university.Heja Helweda 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for not screaming and for not making accusations. Wikipedia is free-edit wiki and the best thing to do is simply correct these innacuracies through the editing process.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 01:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, user 69.196.139.250, me too appreciate your writing personal POVs here than push it in the article. Mesopotamia 02:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the section where it says Kurdish is banned in schools.

3RR

Mesopotamia has made more than 3 reverts and should be blocked! Admins please check!

Reverting vandalism does not mean 3RR!

Mesopotamia 11:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mesopotamia is trying to supppress the truth even at the expense of labeling Kurds and Jews as the same ethnic group. Firstly Jews are not an ethnic group they are a religious group. There are Iranian Jews, Black Jews, European Jews, and Arab Jews.

Kurds in Iran

Beside vandalising cited info from the page you are wasting your time. There is NO neutral source in this planet to support your childish claims. On the other hand there are thousands (if not milions or miliards) neutral and credible sources opposing your too childish claims. Maby you think Kurdish people are so forgotten among western midia that you can easily lie in the English wikipedia?!!! Or maybe you want us to mention all of those unjustifies against Kurdish people in Iran, do you? Ok. I myself will try mention and more more wildness of Iranians against this minority in Kurds own Homeland.

Ageh behetoon barnakhore darin waqte khodetoono talaf mikonin! Mesopotamia 11:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


You are helping pollute an atmosphere of fact and truth Mesopotamia and you are from Iraq. You have probably never been to Iran and think that Kurds are treated badly in Iran as they have been done in Turkey and Iraq. It is individuals like you that hurt Kurdistan. Tell me why all the Iraqi Kurds went to Iran as refugees when Saddam attacked them? It is you that is non-neutral and adds boggas untrue statements that are your Personal Point of Views. You wrote Kurds cannot speak Kurdish in Iran yet there are many Kurdish language newspapers and Kurdish television programs in Iran. It is true that unfair things happen in Iran, but when they happen they happen to everyone from Persians to Azeris and Kurds. There are many sources that support my claim and they are real research and not news reports from biased media sources from Kurdish seperatists or American right wing papers. ANYONE CAN SAY ANYTHING ON THE NET AND YOUR FABRICATED TALES OF KURDISH OPPRESION ARE PROOF OF THAT.



Lastly what is most important of all is what the Kurds of Iran say themselves and they will all disagree with you and your ignorant remarks. The Kurds in Iran are treated well. How many Kurds from Iran must tell you this. I see you argued with all the people who have rational statements like the fact that Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group! You have no credibility.


Firsly please sign your comments. Secondly I did not say Kurds in Iran are not allowed to speak Kurdish, but I say Kurdish language is banned from teaching in schools. Kurds are not allowed use their mother tongue in schools. Its banned. ممنوعه. The only language allowed in Iran is Farsi, NOT Azer, NOT Kurdish. Kurds and Azeris must use ONLY Farsi (persian) in schools. It does not matter that there are some newspaper or tv who even their contents are strongly controlled and censored by the Iranian goverment, but as a fact the important point is this that kurdish is not allowed. it is banned. Is it hard to understaned?!!

Mesopotamia 18:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

~Kurds are "Not oppressed" in Iran & are an Iranian People

You have no rational I provided you with a website to the University of Kurdistan and you can see for your self that Kurdish is taught as a languauge in Iran and two of my relations were teachers in the Kurdish language in Saqqez, Iran. So why are you making things up?


Kurdish is taught in many universities in many countries in Europe in russia in etc... as well as in Iran but children are not not not not alloed to use it to use it to use it hali mishid..!!!!!!!! Mesopotamia 18:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

GO ask an Kurd from Iranian your source is wrong! I come from there I know! They will tell you that they learned Kurdish. You are spreading POVs. Look just cause Kurds were treated badly in Iraq and Turkey does not mean they were in Iran.

Mr Daneshmand my sources are from Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First UN, credible News aggencies..... You claim they are wrong is your own problem!! Mesopotamia 18:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

MesopotamiaI just went through your sources and buddy you are manipulating words. EVERYONE WHO READ THIS GO TO HIS SOURCE AND READ THE WHOLE THING AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELVES. http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/defenders/hrd_iran/alert081005_toloui.htm Firstly read the article.
1. They are demanding that the Iranian Ministry of Justice punish the memebers of the security forces that caused the death. Does not sound like the government oppresses their vocal attitudes.
2. The individual who died was a memeber of a legal and registered organization in Iran
3. It was reported in mainstream Iranian media. If Iran was oppress then state owned media would not report this to the Iranian masses.
4. The people in the picture are freely protesting in 'Iran.' The sign in the ffront is in Persian, but if I am currect the sign in the back is in Kurdish.
5. There is one mistake on the article. Kurds in Iran are almost half and half in relations to Shia Islam and Sunni Islam, with the Sunni Kurds being just a little more numerous.
6. They are even allowed to protest in Iran! What would happen in Turkey or Iraq? There would be dead bodies or mass arrests.


I was in hurry and after puting that went out. Now read this: Iran's religious and ethnic minorities remained subject to discrimination and persecution. Representatives of the predominantly Sunni Muslim Kurdish minority protested the appointment of a new governor of Kurdistan province from the Shi'a majority. The authorities overlooked Sunni candidates for the post put forward by Kurdish parliamentarians. The lack of public school education in Kurdish language remained a perennial source of Kurdish frustration Mesopotamia 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That governor was a Shia Kurd. Kermanshah's is also a Kurdish province and there is no problems there due to the fact that almost all the Kurds there are Shias. I do agree with you there are problmes in relations to preferance for Shia candidates, but there are many Kurds in Parliament in Tehran and they have equal represntation. Kurdish is taught in Iranian schools but not the public boards of education it is in the alternative 'Azzad boards of Education' which have tutition.

Anyway Kurds are oppressed in iran and we cannot deby this. Mesopotamia 18:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

One can argue Persians are more oppresed in Iran than Kurds. Kurds are not systematically oppressed like you try to piant a picture towards. Yes I agree with you there is oppression in Iran from time to time, but no where near anything that the rest of the Middle East faces. The enjoy great liberties that other Kurds have not for most their histories. Did you know there were Kurdish Kings ruling Iran? Now if you bring these issues up how about the Kurdish role in the Armenian genoiced or the oppresion of Assyrians and Turkoman in Iraq? Are they true or are they stretched?

Armenian genocide is another matter, Kurdish king, kurdish X kurdish Y Kurdsish Y, Here this article is about kurdish people and this fact that what is doing on them. Here is not a forum or a paltak room. If you like paltak rooms i can introduce you some but here if you have a neutral and credible source like my sources you can provide otherwise shoma be kheyr o ma be salamat. and do not waste your and my time. if you still are interested to discuss the kurdish question in Iran you can contact me on yahoo messenger.Mesopotamia 19:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who keeps taking the word "Iranian ethnic group" off this article. That is afact but your are ignorant and blinded so you try to argue and denote 'Iranianism' in any possible way. You put propaganda on this site and edit the word Iranian from the start even though it is the truth. WHo is biased with POV????

You! Because:

A+C+D+E+F+G+H+I+J+K is NOT same as: E Mesopotamia 19:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are realistic why do you keep editing the statement that Kurds are an ethnic Iranian group in the article. That is a fact, but you are doing it for personal motives and it proves you are biased. By the way the Governor of Kurdistan is a Kurd as it is cited on Kurdish websites and the Iranian Governments website.

What does it matter. Khamenei is Azeri but Azeri people are still oppressed in Iran as well as Kurds. You cannot lie for the world. It is 2006! Mesopotamia 19:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It is now very obvious that you have no clue to what you are passing as fact on an information page. You are making untrue statements, which you have no grounds to make. May I add just because you are an Iraqi Kurd does not means you are an expert on Kurds. You are far from it and none of your discussions have been constructive to the issues. Someone should contact the ADMIN and report you.
I don't think Mesopotamia is a Kurd at all. I think he is an Israeli!
Yes, Kurds are oppressed in Iran, just like every other minority group and all Iranians in general. But the regime has never been able to ban the Kurdish language or to suppress the Kurdish language - Kurds are an extremely proud and defiant people (like the Lurs) and the regime has never, ever been able to dominate them. One only need visit Iranian Kurdistan to see how futile the regimes efforts are there. Also, Azeri is not banned in Iran either - go to Azeri-majority areas like Zanjan or Tabriz and you will hear Azeri spoken everywhere and you will even find people who cannot speak a word of Persian. It seems you greatly overestimate the reach and influence of the Islamic Republic. SouthernComfort 19:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


So you mean Kurdish language is not banned from teaching Islamic Republic of Iran!!!! Mesopotamia 19:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you mean? Are you saying that Kurdish children are not allowed to be taught Kurdish language? Or, are you saying that Iranians in general are not allowed to learn Kurdish? SouthernComfort 19:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean Kurdish children. Mesopotamia 19:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


KURDISTAN OBSERVER, A NON-POLITICAL PRO-KURDISH BODY MADE OF KURDS SAYS:

Go read Kurdistan Observer and what it says. It is fair and tries to be unbaised and talks to regular Kurds. It still is pushes towards seperation, but at least it does not totally hide scientific facts and everyday truths.

READ THIS ALL IT RIGHTEN BY AN ORGANIZATION THAT WANTS TO ADVANCE KURDS. IT GOES AGAINST WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. YOU ARE CLEARLY BIASED YOU EDIT THE TERM THAT KURDS ARE AN ETHNIC IRANIAN GROUP WHICH IS A FACT.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~konews/23-11-02-kurds-iran-cling-homeland.html

http://home.cogeco.ca/~konews/23-11-02-kurds-iran-cling-homeland.html While Iraqi Kurds map out post-Saddam Hussain scenario that they expect following U.S.-led campaign to overthrow him, their counterparts in northwestern Iran cling to their motherland. As the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), which have been ruling two-thirds of Iraq's Kurdish region for 11 years, implicitly fan the flame of separatism, Iranian Kurds accentuate their Iranian origins and assure that "we are more Iranian than Iranians." Asadollah Darvish Amiri, Deputy General Governor of the province for security affairs, said: "Kurds are the purest Iranian in this country and they are first Iranian and then Kurd. So they have never intended to separate from Iran." Abdolmomen Mardokh, a political activist and the head of political parties in the western Province of Kurdistan, said: "Many times we get accused of trying to create a Kurdish state or separate from Iran. However, we want a situation in which the Kurds can live as first-class citizens and as full partners to other Iranians in the government." Despite their division on a number of issues, Iranian Kurds seem to be united in their vision of the future. They look at incidents in Iraq as a pattern for their destiny, not a plan that can be practically implemented to change Iran's political system or lead to federalism in Iran's political structure. Tehran, despite its recent warming up of diplomatic relations with its neighbours, says "it never put all its eggs in Saddam's basket, and is spending its honeymoon with two major anti-Saddam parties KDP and PUK." Jalal Talibani, Chief of PUK, recently visited Tehran and promised to curb Iran's arch-foe Komoleh party, which is now in Talibani's territory in Soleymaniah, north of Iraq. Talibani plays a key role alongside Massoud Barzani, head of KDP, in the Iraqi Kurdistan, and their role is expected to grow bigger in the post-Saddam era. Iranian Kurds say they can breathe more easily in their relations with their Iraqi counterparts for they have informal trading relations with Iraq's Kurdistan. Moreover, Iranian contractors are dealing with reconstruction of the Iraqi Kurd cities. In the case of a U.S. attack on Iraq, Iran's Kurdistan border can also be a haven to accommodate a huge influx of refugees. "They are our Muslim brethren. Why shouldn't we help them? Some of us are married to Iraqi Kurdish women, and some women from our province are married to men over there. You can say that we are members of the same family," said Ahmad, 24, an educated unemployed young man. When President Mohammed Khatami took office in 1997, he created a liberal atmosphere for Iran's Sunni Kurds by appointing a Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, a Kurd, as General Governor. Although three dissidents have been executed recently in the Kurdish area of western Azerbaijan, Kurds are now free enough to criticise the central government on issues related Kurdistan. "This is the very first time in our contemporary political history that we are articulating our vision for what we want," said Mardokh, comparing the current situation with a decade ago. "Kurdish rights can be realised within the framework of a state under the full control of central government like that in the U.S.," he said. Iranian Kurds, however, say they are unhappy with the fact that the "government does not employ us in high-ranking positions. President Khatami tried to calm them down by appointing Kurds in senior positions in his government. However, Kurds believe that the moderate pro-reform President "didn't keep his words in employing many Kurds even in their own province."Amiri said that they have selected Kurds for top administrative positions in the province as much as they could. "Some four governors out of nine and some 320 top administrators out of 400 in the province are Kurds." Khatami's popularity has fallen among Kurds in recent years. He got less than 50 per cent of the votes in Kurdistan in presidential election last year, while he gained more than 70 per cent in the presidential election in 1997. Unemployment also adds fuel to the fire of people's unease regarding political incidents while they keep their eyes open to what is going on in Iraq. While Iraqi Kurds are waiting for an American-led attack to share more power with next Iraqi government, Iranian Kurds are trying to be a full partners of power in central the government.]]

):- It's not related to topic. it is a political POV!!

Mesopotamia 19:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a Kurdish source from outside Iran which is neurtral. FIrstly is shows you the Kurds demands in Iran and shows that they are treated well and it also shows you that they have power. So like I said don't think cause you are a Kurd that you are an authority to speak about Kurds in Iran. With your propaganda. You have been proven to be biased and have no credit. As your conversations with other memebers show.

When you keep editing the fact that Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group it shows you are bias.

Zoroastrian Kurds

Why is it that when an article is added about Zoroastrian Kurds it is deleted? Zoroastrianism was the original religion of the Kurds. It is part of the legacy of Kurdish culture along with Noruz. Why is the fact that the Kurds ancestors where Zoroastrians being covered up? What does it expose?

There is no intention of covering up anything. There is no evidence of any existing contemporary Zoroastrian Kurds.Heja Helweda 01:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Columbia encyclopedia

Ethnically close to the Iranians, the Kurds were traditionally nomadic herders but are now mostly seminomadic or sedentary. The majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslims. Kurdish dialects belong to the northwestern branch of the Iranian languages. The Kurds have traditionally resisted subjugation by other nations. Despite their lack of political unity throughout history, the Kurds, as individuals and in small groups, have had a lasting impact on developments in SW Asia. Saladin, who gained fame during the Crusades, is perhaps the most famous of all Kurds.

Columbia encyclopedia clearly states ethnically close to Iranians. SouthernComfort 00:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And other sources mention other links. I think all of these relations (to Iranian people and Jewish people) should be mentioned.Heja Helweda 00:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The Columbia encyclopedia has made a mistake it means Persians. Kurds are an Iranian people that are ethnically close to the Persians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.139.250 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 30 January 2006
Please, everyone, could we reach some consensus here? SouthernComfort 00:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
SouthernComfort go read the article and discussion on Iranian peoples. Persians are sub-branch of Iranians as are Kurds.
The Columbia article is referring to the Iranian peoples in general, so it's agreeing with what you're saying. SouthernComfort 00:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Columbia is a neutral, and very credible source, so I can't see how anyone can dispute it. I will also gather academic sources when I have time, all of which will back up Columbia on this. SouthernComfort 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe we can reach a compromise. Just include the scholarly research done so far on the genetic bonds of Kurds with other ethnic groups. Deciding on the ethnic relatives of Kurds (in the table) should be based on those citations. Also since Kurds seem to be a very mixed people, then it is not appropriate to include Iranian people right in the beginning. Although their ethnic and linguistic relationship to Iranians can be expanded in the article. Heja Helweda 00:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Culturally and linguistically they are Iranian. Come on, you cannot deny this. Kurds are not linguistically or culturally Semetic or Greek or Turkic or whatever. The language, and the culture, and the history, is all closely tied in with other Iranian groups. I don't understand why there is antagonism towards the term "Iranian peoples." SouthernComfort 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Culturally and historically, Kurds are not related to Iranians. Their religion differ from Iranians. Genetically they differ from Iranians. 1 similarity, 4 difference! Mesopotamia 17:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the genetic study you mention is far too limited to encapsulate the entire Kurdish peoples. How can you generalize your own people in this way? We are all diverse, but we share a common heritage. Academic, scholarly sources all back this up, and they don't have to rely on "genetic" studies to prove anything, because this heritage is not tied down to racial issues. SouthernComfort 01:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Heja Helweda 01:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Then we should get rid of the genetic study because it is not verifiable. Apparently Britannica was good enough for you, so why not Columbia? What about academic sources? SouthernComfort 01:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
And you wanted a neutral source from an encyclopedia, and I found one, and I can find more that would only say the same thing over and over again. Come on, this is getting absurd. SouthernComfort 01:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
There are old semitic words (not Arabic, may be Syriac or Assyrian) in Kurdish language, for instance Sinûr meaning Border in English, or Marz in Persian. They have cultural links with Persians, but they also have links with Assyrians, Jews, Armenians. The thing is classifying them solely as Iranian people is over simplistic.
Heja Helweda 01:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
So? There are Arabic words in Persian, and vice versa. What are you trying to prove? SouthernComfort 01:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Should we also classify Persian as a Semitic language due to this, or Turkish as a Indo-European language due to Persian influence there, or vice versa, or ...? This is not rational. SouthernComfort 01:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You are one 100% right and you are rational it is Heja Helweda who is ignoring fact becuase of Heja Helweda's agenda. Go read all Heja Helweda's articles. They are very biased. If she could she would delete Iranian from any Kurd article due to Heja Helweda's agenda. Heja Helweda is saying Kurds are mixed with other races that is true but so are Persians. Persians and Kurds are both mixed with Turks and Arabs and Assyrians. You do not see Persians saying that they are not Iranian. SouthernComfort no matter what you say to people like Heja Helweda they will tell you it is POV and will keep on pushing their untrue views. They even knew that it is the truth but repress fact for political reasons.
KURDS ARE AN IRANIAN ETHNIC GROUP

Threshold of inclusion in Wikipedia is verfiability

The sources provided in the article clearly point out a close ethnic bond between Kurds and Jews. Please note that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Heja Helweda 02:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically your saying if there is a website to back up whatever claims you make they are allowed to be passed as infomation. I'm sorry that is lame. Well I can add verifiability for claims like "that all Muslims are going to Hell" or that the " Jewish Holocaust" never took place through a website. That does not mean it is true. You are basically saying it is okay to pass false information.
It is Wikipedia's policy. I am not saying it, That's Wikipedia's official stance. If you don't like it, complain to the Wikipedia administrators. Heja Helweda 03:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Ya but you also know as an individual what is right and wrong so please don't give me these excuses for pushing your agenda. By the way Jews are not an ethnic group they are a faith. There are Jews from many different races. So please stop trying to portray the Kurds as non-Iranians by trying to support inconclusive and boggus claims of Kurds being Jews or Assyrians that make it apparent that you beleive will help you argue your cause that Kurds are not an Iranian people whats so ever. In fact please answer me "Do you admit that Kurds are an Iranian people and ethnic group?"

Article protected

This article has been protected to stop a reversion war. Please see the dispute resolution process; if you disagree with the protection of this article, please contact me or see Requests for page protection. Note that disagreement amongst editors is the reason the article is protected, and should not be used as an argument for unprotection. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 04:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In the light of the evidence put forward by both sides, I suggest include both terms Iranian people and Jewish people in the Related Ethnic Groups section of the Table. Heja Helweda 04:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You have not any proven and conclusive studies. What you provided is a theory of an incomplete study. We will not allow you to make such radical changes. This is a not a forum for individual agendas or politics. This is a website devoted to learning. Firstly Jews are not an ethnic group. If you are putting them you should put Muslim People and Sunni People. WHy stop there add Turks, Iraqi, Syrian, etc.

You are advocating somethiing that is outside of the widely accepted definitions. What you are doing is wrong and you have proven yourself not to be a neutral person. You have seperatist motives which are biased and have no place here.

I read the whole discussion and all the others in relations to Kurds and I notice the same people are popping up and arguing with all the individuals with logical reasoning. I even went to every link and source. Certain individuals are using this cite as a political forum and are definitely not neutral parties. The objective of this article is to educate people on the Kurds not to portray untruths that they stand on a category of their own when it comes to ethnicity. If you read these discussions you will see that these individuals even contradict themselves and say whatever it takes to shove their programmes and misplaced ideals. I even see one member saying that articles do not need to have a true bases just a website as verification. The traditional and age old definition of Kurds is that the Kurds are a member of the Iranian peoples and are of Aryan descent. That does not mean they not mixed with other races (no pure race exists), but it is the proper definition which should be respected by all parties. Additionally I would like to say that the Lebanese and Palestinians are considered Arabs and Semites, but are actually a mixture of different Semitic peoples and Europeans from the times of the Crusades, but that has not given rise to ridiculous calls for radical definition makeovers. In realty the makeovers that are being demanded by certain individuals in relations to Kurds is in tone with political motivations Wikipedia needs to get involved here because Kurds are unquestionably and irrefutably an Iranian ethnic group, no less and no more....I'm sorry to say that Heja Helweda and Mesopotamia are two of those prejudiced and problematic individuals.

Disambiguation

Please disambiguate genetic to genetics - cohesion★talk 09:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Solution

Culturally, historically, religiously and genetically Kurds differ from Iranians. 1 similarity, 4 difference!

So regarding variant sources we cannot summarize Kurds ethnicity in one word. You should not ignore all other sources just calling them Iranian. Calling them Iranian means rewriting history. But off course you can cite your sources in the related section historic roots in the article.

This is the most logic solution. If we all accept this so the problem is gone. But if not, then unfortunately the edit war continues...

Mesopotamia 18:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Kurds are Iranian peoples in All Respects

Listen Mesopotamia, culturally Kurdish is considered by anthropolists to be an Iranian culture. They have all the same festivals, calenders, and traditions. As for religon it should not contribute to an ethnic group. This also proves that you beleive that Iranian just means Persians which is wrong. But if you want to use that as a factor, then both Kurds and the majority of other Iranians are Muslim. SO you are wrong there. And if you want make more excuses and say most Kurds are Sunni and Iranians Shia, that is actually wrong. Most Persians are Shia. When it comes to other Iranian ethnic groups in in the east such as the Pashtun, and Baluch they are Sunnis. So stop making excuses cause you are not a rational individual with meaningful comments. There language is undeniably Iranian. Also historically the areas that make most of Kurdistan have been a part of many previous Iranian Empires for thousands of years. KUrds and other Iranian peoples were partners through much of history. So you wrongly claim Kurds and other Iranians share no cultural similarities?? Then how do you explain Noruz, traditional dances, and even legends. You do not have a clue to what you are saying. The religion of the ancestors of the Kurds was Zoroastrianism does that not even show any similarities to the historical similarity of most ancient Iranian peoples???? If you also study Kurdish music you will see that a lot its styles were based on centers like Isfahan and Ancient Iran. There are so much more reasons and factors that assocaite Kurds with other Iranians than disassociate them.
Kurds are an Iranian peoples. Stop using irrational and made up reasons to exclude Kurds from a widespread an conventional defenition. Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group. In Croatia there are Croatians who maintain they are not Slavic. That does not make it true.

آدمی که‌ر هنوز عرضه‌ نداره‌ اراجیفش را امضاکند

No Kurds are not an iranian people. even they are ashamed to call them Iranian. maybe you do not know that this year is 2006, 14 centuries has been passed. They see iranians as unwelcome agressive people who occupied their homeland. kurds have faced other groups who influnced them more than Iranians.

Do not forget that kurds even originally were not Iranians. Mesopotamia 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding of the word Iranian here. It does not necessarily mean Persian. Nor is the Germanic only applicable to Germans, but also to the Dutch and even the English who are only part Germanic, but speak a Germanic language. In addition, SOME genetic tests do show a relationship between Kurds and Persians and others show a more reduced relationship. Regardless, I think the Kurds did absorb some Iranian ancestry over a larger Caucasus-derived population that also mingled with their neighbors and this may account for some Kurds clustering with Jews and others with the Caucasus and others with Iranians. everyone is taking extreme positions here that don't make sense. The application of the term Iranian people to include the Kurds is one undeniable dimension of the Kurdish character, they speak a distinctly Iranian language that has no relationship to Georgian etc. Similarly, the Azeris, for example, also are mostly of Caucasian origin and have reduced ties to Central Asia, although the Turkmen connection does exist. Yet in-spite of this, the Azeris are logically categorized as Turkic people. It's one facet of their identity and not everything. This is how to approach the Kurdish issue. The Kurds are, in general, an Iranian people in terms of language, culture, and a great deal of history, BUT are also different from the Persians and other Iranian peoples in various ways also. If we stop taking extreme views, a concensus can be reached. For the purposes of categorization, the Kurds are considered an Iranian people, but we can also mention that they are a diverse group that has ties to other peoples as well. This shouldn't be this big of a deal here. Tombseye 01:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Key point that most people are missing here. Iranian is a nationality more than an ethnicity. Persian is more or less the ethnicity. Under this definition, most Kurds would be considerable as Iranians, although they may not always be referred to as such.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 02:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kurds/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

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

Last edited at 13:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 20:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kurds/Archive_3&oldid=1136885789"