Talk:Origin of the Kurds

[Untitled]

as usual with "ethnic origin" stuff, the topic has been extensively WP:BOMBARDed. It's useful to have all this literature as a starting point for further editorial work, but it certainly cluttered up the main Kurds article. So hopefully it can develop here without too much spillover to other topics. --dab (𒁳) 18:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing this, I think it is important to cleanly separate

• the ethnogenesis of the Kurdish group as distinct from other Northwest Iranian ones, i.e. as distinct from Balochi and Talysh, let alone Lurs. This happened around the 16th century
• speculation on possible contributions of various ancient and medieval tribes and peoples to Kurdish ancestry. This is open-ended and reaches as far as records go (Bronze Age), and beyond into genetics and early human settlement of West Asia.

Note that the question of the name is again distinct; if the Carduchi are among the ancestors of both Talysh and Kurds, but the Talysh are not Kurds, then the Kurds cannot claim the Carduchi as their exclusive forebears even if they inherit their name. Ethnogenesis would then take place around the process separating the Talysh from the Kurds, and both groups would develop out of a predecessor group around that time.

Nothing precise can be said about the time-frame, of course. Paul in Encyclopedia Iranica does give a responsible sketch when he says that West Iranian was still a coherent group in the Old Iranian period, and Northwest Iranian would have been coherent during the Middle Iranian period. Any development of groups within Northwest Iranian would take place in the New Iranian period, i.e. during the 10th century onward. Developments that concern the common ancestors of all Northwestern Iranians are more sensibly treated in an article about West or Northwest Iranians, and not in an article on a selected ethnicity within Northwestern Iranian --dab (𒁳) 15:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

censorship and falsification by pro kurdish editors

just see at semsuris history of edits that how he removed well sourced info and distortion the sentences, he and other pro kurdish editors removed sources about median language and central iranian dialects connection , removed and censored info about zaza_gorani languages and ethnic background of them; removed and censored the well sourced info about the location of the proto kurds and where the contemporary Kurdish dialects was formed.censore strong elements of SW iranian languages in kurdish dialects and shockingly how they misreport the van Bruinessens view on kurdish_median connection and CENSORE G.asatrians viewpoint. i hope someone watch these vandalism @historyofiran Frederichchopin (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

historyofiran Frederichchopin (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

HistoryofIran Frederichchopin (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@[ [ user : HistoryofIran | HistoryofIran ] ] Frederichchopin (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran Frederichchopin (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The terms Qardu and Kar-da

The source given in this article is referencing Godfrey Rolles Driver and it says, "It is not unlikely that the earliest trace of the Kurds is to be found on a Sumerian clay-tablet, of the third millennium b.c on which "the land of Kar-da"or "Qar-da" is mentioned." It is an old source and does not go in to detail or explain how he came to the conclusion that it is referring to the Kurds of today. The book Sophene, Gordyene, and Adiabene: Three Regna Minora of Northern Mesopotamia Between East and West by Michał Marciak explains on pages 220 and 221;

It is frequently stated that Gordyene was “an apparently Kurdish or protoKurdish state,” and that its population were ancestors of the modern Kurds. However, this identification, which is apparently based on the similarity of the names of the two peoples, the Καρδοῦχοι and the Kurds (as well as on a very partial overlap of the inhabited territories), is rejected by many scholars on linguistic grounds. In terms of linguistic connections, the ancient root in question is Qardū (in Καρδοῦ-χοι, Cordu-eni, Cordu-ena, Γορδυ-ηνή, Γορδυ-αία, Γορδυ-αῖοι) and it is not akin to the root Kurd-. At the same time, the root Kurd- appears to correspond to the root Kurt. Therefore, if any ancient people could be suggested as possible ancestors of the Kurds, they are the Κύρτιοι (the Greek Κύρτιοι attested in Polyb. 5.52.5 and Strabo Geog. 11.13.3, 15.3.1, and the Latin Cyrtii or Cyrtaei known from Liv., 37.40.9 and 42.58.13). The Κύρτιοι were a warlike nomadic people living in the Zagros Mountains who appear in sources as mercenary slingers—in the service of the Median governor, Molon against Antiochos III, but with Antiochos III against the Romans at Magnesia in 190 BCE, and again hired by Eumenes II, king of Pergamon at Kallinikos (171 BCE). However, it appears that the name was applied to early-medieval Kurdish tribes not as an ethnic term but a social designation of nomadic way of life.

On page 216 and 217 it says;

Although in referring to the conquests of Tigranes II the Great, both Strabo (Geog. 16.1.24) and Plutarch (Plutarch, Luc. 21–36, Pomp. 30–36;) made it clear that the Gordyaeans were distinct from the Armenians, Armenian sources picture Gordyene as part of the fourth-century-CE Great Armenian Commonwealth in political, cultural, and religious terms. In particular, rulers of Korduk‘ are presented as taking part in Pan-Armenian national events under (more de iure than de facto) supervision of the Armenian kings (e.g. BP 3.9; 4.50). Likewise, Korduk‘ is depicted as the scene of missionary activity of several well-known religious figures traditionally seen as the Armenian national saints, patriarchs Gregory the Illuminator (Aa 842), Šałita, and Epip‘an (BP 3.14). At same time, Gordyene is prominently present in the Syriac world. First, Gordyene comes to the fore in the Syriac Bible as the home to the landing site of Noah’s ark. Second, numerous acts of ecclesiastical councils composed in Greek shows that the diocese of Beth Qardū (Gordyene) together with the dioceses of Beth Arzun (Arzanene), Beth Zabdai (Zabdikene), Beth Raḥimai (Rehimene), and Beth Moksāyē (Moxoene) firmly belonged to SyriacNestorian Christianity with its main center in Nisibis. Third, Syriac sources referring to monastic life thriving in Beth ‘Arbāyē clearly shows that it took place not only in the Ṭūr ʿAbdīn region (for which it is nowadays famous), but also in the mountains of Qardū (Gordyene) and Arzun (Arzanene). All in all, it appears that the land of the Karduchoi presented by Xenophon in the fifth century BCE as a political and cultural enclave came under the influence of two main cultural influences, from Armenia in the north and from the Mesopotamian plain in the south. In terms of pure numbers, it appears that Gordyene’s connection with Mesopotamian cultures was stronger. This conclusion also appears firmer if we take account of the exaggerating tendencies of the Armenian sources to see the Transtigritanae regiones as part of the Armenian commonwealth.

Also, Karda was a social term. The etymology of Karda is warrior, or gallantry. It was not used to describe an ethnic group. It was also used to refer to animals in Assyrian folklore. Here is a paper that explains this on page 169: https://www.academia.edu/66370273/Qardo_and_the_Mountain_of_K%C4%93will%C4%81_Noah_s_Ark_and_its_Landing_Place_in_Assyrian_Syriac_Texts_And_Folklore

--TukultīApilEšarra (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

@Acaunto: Can you give explain why we should one specific bit of one of the many legends about the Kurds' background? Basically saying "I don't like it" is not a good reason, see WP:JDLI. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The legend does not explain the origins of the Kurds. If someone told you that your origins are some strange fairy, would you agree? The story is a demeaning story of the Kurds, not a legend explaining the origins of the Kurds. Acaunto (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The legend has already been mentioned in other documents. Is there a reason why it should exist in this document? Also, the content does not have a primary source. It's not even a legend of Kurdish origins, it's just a strange story that popped up out of nowhere. If it indicates a Kurdish origin, it should have been present several times in other sources. Acaunto (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no primary source for this story. It does not appear in other ancient documents. I don't think this can properly explain the origins of the Kurds. Acaunto (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Other documents"? And what rule says that it has be in other ancient documents? Kurds didn't even exist as an ethnic group in ancient times. And how does that justify removing it from an article literally made for this kind of stuff? I don't care if someone told me whatever, it has nothing to do with this. This article is full of legends, but this specific one has to be removed because it hurts your feelings? So only positive, "cool" stuff is allowed to be in here? Also, when are you reporting me? I'm waiting eagerly. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

do you want to discuss with me Or do you want to fight? Acaunto (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The Kurds are a people who have existed since ancient times. Many ancient documents contain information about the Kurds. What you're doing right now is nothing but fighting me. Acaunto (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You don't know anything about the Kurds, seeing as they say they didn't exist in ancient times. Show proof that the legend explains the Kurdish origins. Acaunto (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

In order to know whether the content is true or not, cross-validation with other literature is required. So, primary data is very important. Do you understand this? Acaunto (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You keep making claims with no WP:RS. And please don't play the victim here - right off the bat you were making (empty) threats of reporting me and calling Iskandar323 a sock. Treat others how you want to be treated. Unlike you I mean what I say; if you cant give a proper explanation based on our guidelines on why the information should be removed or at least revert yourself, then I will report you WP:ANI. Ans show proof for what? No offense, but it's basic English. If you can't understand that the legend is narrating the origin of the Kurds (it's obviously not authentic, just like the other legends in the article..), then that's a WP:CIR issue. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You also made comments that attacked me, so you should be reported as well. Acaunto (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

And I say again; report me then. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no intention of reporting it yet, and I was angry and said the wrong thing due to the editorial dispute. I have no intention of reporting you. sorry. Acaunto (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You claim that I am deleting it because I just hate it.You have no right to misunderstand and attack me.If that's the case, aren't you also causing an editorial dispute because you like content that demeans these Kurds? Acaunto (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You are literally contradicting yourself. It's not "demeaning", it's just a random legend, like the others. It's not that serious. Is Wikipedia only allowed to display legends of Kurds that you like? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for getting excited all of a sudden. But why do you just revert my edits? Am I not allowed to use Wikipedia? Your actions make me feel that way. All my contributions go back and I don't want to spend my time here fighting editorial disputes. Acaunto (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I've seen the Wikipedia policy say to be nice to newcomers. In my opinion, the content is degrading to the Kurds and is not found in other ancient documents. So I don't think it's suitable for that document. My thoughts are firm, but what are you going to do? Are you going to keep fighting me like this? Acaunto (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh please, stop playing the victim. You're not even a newcomer either, and be nice yourself to start with. Since you said that you would revert your edit, please do it. I also just noticed that you violated WP:3RR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You should also be reported. Acaunto (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have very little editing history, so I'm like a newbie. Don't attack others and fight editorial disputes with your narrow-mindedness. you look so pathetic Acaunto (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You recklessly cause editorial disputes with others just because you've been active here for a long time, and because you can't win in discussions, you easily report others and you're a really funny person. Acaunto (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I've given you enough WP:ROPE. It's clear that you are more interested in talking about me than the subject at hand. I'm reporting you for violating WP:3RR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Citing Godfrey Rolles Driver.

Godfrey Rolles Driver have been cited several times in the article including in the intro. It appears that the scholar isn’t specialized in that topic in the first place, his specialization is in Semetic languages and Assyriology, not in kurdish history or iranology in the first place. I don’t think he is a relevant source and support the removal of his content from the article. But i am not sure about that, so does anyone agree or disagree with this ? Turkishmanship (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

whilst user may be blocked I might as well add a response.

The argument that he wasn’t a “specialist” in origins of Kurds doesn’t devalue his research at all, he is an extremely credited researcher/professor and his area of study (Mesopotamia) would in due part overlap with Kurdish antiquity, you don’t have to be a kurdologist to link names together, you can also be a “kurdologist” and devalue the Kurds (see G.Asatrian, currently accredited but the future may introduce a critique of him).

The only argument you have is that since he’s not a Kurdish historian, he can’t be credible, which as explained above with plenty of other explanations available, you do not need to be one. Volkish Kurden (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The introduction has POV

“Recent scholarship” who? Asatrian? Who is known for his biased views on Kurds? I will place a POV template and see if this can either be changed or concluded as it is clear that the motive is to devalue all other research and to place the “Iranian Nomad” fringe theory as mainstream. Volkish Kurden (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Here we go again [1]. Asatrian is not only reliable, but a prominent scholar for Kurdish history, this has been discussed ad nauseam. Putting the POV template because you disagree with him is not how it works. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no need for that introduction to include an academic view which can be found in the article. If you are wanting to keep it there then I can gladly add some other information such as:

”Whilst some (Asatrian) recent scholarship links the Kurds with the “KWRT-“ (Nomad) theory, others suggest a autochthonous continuation from antiquity.” (this is an example) Volkish Kurden (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You are quickly contradicting yourself. Wasn't Asatrian "fringe" a moment ago? We don't present "fringe theories" (WP:UNDUE). And Asatrian is not the first person to present associate the Kurds with nomads, it goes back to at least 1968, so it's certainly not "recent scholarship". How about you present some WP:RS here for starters? You know, the actual conditions for adding the POV tag. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure.

"The Kurds are a native, non-Arab people who have lived in the Middle East for thousands of years. Their name derives from the ancient Guti (Guti-Gurti-Kurdi), conquerors of Babylon. They were the non-Semitic Hurrians of Mesopotamia and the Medes of Persian history…”Honigman, 2003.

//

“The Medes were the ancestors of Xenophon's Carduchi and the modern Kurds. From the 8th to the 6th centuries BC, they appear in the Bible and in Assyrian records, and later on in the Histories of Herodotus.” Before the Greeks, M.Chahin, 1912.

//

“One fact may be disposed of at the outset. The Kurds can present a better claim to "race purity," meaning ethnic unity, and to a continuity of their cultural pattern for a much longer period than can any people now living in Europe.”

W.L. Westermann in Foreign Affairs, July 1946.

//

“So the Kurds are the descendants of Aryan Invaders and have maintained their type and their language for more than 3,300 years.” Felix von Luschan, The Early Inhabitants of Western Asia, 1911.

//

“Nebenbei erwähnte Forrer in einem Bericht an Breasted über seine Reise von 1930 die Kurden, die in diesem Gebiet siedelten. Er regte an, dass man ihre Sprache sorgfältig aufzeichnen sollte, da sie offenbar einem „Vernichtungskrieg" ausgesetzt seien und man befürchten müsse, dass diese bald nicht mehr existieren. Forrer spekulierte in der für ihn typischen Weise, dass er es für wahrscheinlich halte, dass die Kurden die sogenannten „Manda-Leute" (Meder) seien und die ersten Zeugnisse ihrer Sprache, nämlich die „ur-indischen Worte", sich in den „hethitischen Pferdetexten" finden.”

TRANSLATED: “"In a report to Breasted about his journey from 1930, Forrer mentioned the Kurds who settled in this area. He suggested that their language should be carefully recorded, as they were apparently exposed to a "war of annihilation" and was feared that they would soon cease to exist. Forrer speculated in his typical way that he considered it likely that the Kurds were the so-called "Manda people" (Medes) and that the first testimonies of their language, namely the "primeval Indic words", can be found in the "Hittite horse texts"."

Pioneering Hittitologist Emil Forrer, 1930, in Emil O. Forrer und die Anfänge der Hethitologie. Eine wissenschaftshistorische Biografie, 2007.

//

"It is said that the Kurds differ so slightly from the Nordic peoples, especially the Germans, in colour of eyes, skin, and hair, that they may be easily mistaken for Germans. Yet they are a wild marauding people, and their cultural level has not changed essentially since the days of Xenophon." - Frederick Hertz, 1928, Race and Civilization

//

These are all I have for the time being since I am not home. Volkish Kurden (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The point I’m making is that you cannot just include one side of the debate in the introduction, which PLENTY of people take at face value.

When plenty of sources above link the Kurds to Herodotus’ Medes and Xenophons Carduchi.

I’m all for having it there, but if I were to add all the information above to the article, not only would it add a new section but it would also mean the amending of the introduction to include all origin theories. Volkish Kurden (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"The Kurds are a native, non-Arab people who have lived in the Middle East for thousands of years. Their name derives from the ancient Guti (Guti-Gurti-Kurdi), conquerors of Babylon. They were the non-Semitic Hurrians of Mesopotamia and the Medes of Persian history…”[Honigman, 2003].

When I'm in need of academic sources I also go into "infoisrael.net". But seriously, do I really need to explain why this is not WP:RS? And I fail to see how this contradicts Asatrian. You made "native" bold, why? Does Asatrian say Kurds are not natives?

“The Medes were the ancestors of Xenophon's Carduchi and the modern Kurds. From the 8th to the 6th centuries BC, they appear in the Bible and in Assyrian records, and later on in the Histories of Herodotus.” Before the Greeks, M.Chahin, 1912.

1) Does not contradict Asatrian. 2) This is widely disputed by actual experts, such as the Cambridge History of Kurds [2] [3]. A minor note; This is wrongly cited, it indicates that it was published in 1912, it wasn't (1996 seems to be the correct date).

“One fact may be disposed of at the outset. The Kurds can present a better claim to "race purity," meaning ethnic unity, and to a continuity of their cultural pattern for a much longer period than can any people now living in Europe.” Quite a bold and obscure claim. Again, do I need to explain why this is not WP:RS? And how does this contradict Asatrian?

“So the Kurds are the descendants of Aryan Invaders and have maintained their type and their language for more than 3,300 years.” Felix von Luschan, The Early Inhabitants of Western Asia, 1911.

Again, do I need to explain why is this not WP:RS? It's also pure nonsense, no WP:RS supports this - this alleges that the Kurds were around since circa 1389 BC. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

“Nebenbei erwähnte Forrer in einem Bericht an Breasted über seine Reise von 1930 die Kurden, die in diesem Gebiet siedelten. Er regte an, dass man ihre Sprache sorgfältig aufzeichnen sollte, da sie offenbar einem „Vernichtungskrieg" ausgesetzt seien und man befürchten müsse, dass diese bald nicht mehr existieren. Forrer spekulierte in der für ihn typischen Weise, dass er es für wahrscheinlich halte, dass die Kurden die sogenannten „Manda-Leute" (Meder) seien und die ersten Zeugnisse ihrer Sprache, nämlich die „ur-indischen Worte", sich in den „hethitischen Pferdetexten" finden.”

TRANSLATED: “"In a report to Breasted about his journey from 1930, Forrer mentioned the Kurds who settled in this area. He suggested that their language should be carefully recorded, as they were apparently exposed to a "war of annihilation" and was feared that they would soon cease to exist. Forrer speculated in his typical way that he considered it likely that the Kurds were the so-called "Manda people" (Medes) and that the first testimonies of their language, namely the "primeval Indic words", can be found in the "Hittite horse texts"."

Pioneering Hittitologist Emil Forrer, 1930, in Emil O. Forrer und die Anfänge der Hethitologie. Eine wissenschaftshistorische Biografie, 2007.

"It is said that the Kurds differ so slightly from the Nordic peoples, especially the Germans, in colour of eyes, skin, and hair, that they may be easily mistaken for Germans. Yet they are a wild marauding people, and their cultural level has not changed essentially since the days of Xenophon." - Frederick Hertz, 1928, Race and Civilization

Same as my other replies. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on this section, I think you should read WP:RS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:PST, WP:SYNTH, WP:AGE MATTERS, WP:VER, WP:CITE and WP:BLP for starters. Best to wait till you get home, hopefully you have some actual WP:RS on your hands and which actually contradict Asatrian and demonstrates that he is "fringe" and "biased", and that it's just not your words. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have seen you constantly use “Age Matters” to try and refute older research on the Kurds.

Just because someone said the Earth is round 100 years ago does not mean it is incorrect even today.

You have said many times about reliable sources, but what is reliable to you?

William Linn Westermann (September 15, 1873 – October 4, 1954) was an American historian and papyrologist who served as the president of the American Historical Association in 1944. He was regarded as an expert on the economy of the ancient world. - Directly from Wikipedia

Felix von Luschan was a medical doctor, anthropologist, explorer, archaeologist and ethnographer born in the Austrian Empire. - Again, from Wikipedia

M. Chahin lectured on the Ancient History of the Near East at the University of Bristol - Google scholar (also you are correct, i included his year of birth as the year of the source)

Emil Orgetorix Gustav Forrer (19 February 1894 – 10 January 1986) was a Swiss Assyriologist and pioneering Hittitologist. He was the first to point out the relevance of references to Wilusa in Hittite inscriptions to the accounts of the Trojan War in the epics of Homer. - Wikipedia again

Frederick Hertz was a British sociologist, economist and historian of Austrian origin. - Wikipedia.

Whilst I can agree that Honigman (A Middle East analyst)isn’t reliable compared to the rest, his writing sets the basis of which goes against Asatrians claim that Kurds are merely 6/7th century Iranian Nomads and have no links to their theorized forefathers.

Even Artur Rodziewicz called him out for his politically motivated gains.

If you don’t agree that’s okay, but just because you don’t like the sources doesn’t make them unreliable, right?

————————

Asatrians unreliableness:

Possible Dashnak, which has dreamt of expelling Kurds from “Western Armenia” - thus goes on to deny the existence of a Kurdish nation - thus dehumanizing and stripping the Kurds of their history because “they do not exist. they have no history, they are merely nomads.”

In the opening lines of his work "Prolegomena to the Study of the Kurds", he presents his academic professionalism perfectly: “Hardly any other field of Near Eastern Studies has ever been so politi-cised as the study of the history and culture of the Kurds, having produced an industry of amateurs” & “In Oleg Vil'evskij's view: "The Kurds were studied inter alia by everyone and, therefore, (seriously), by no one"”

He simply describes most of Kurdish historiography as amateurish and ironically provides the reason therefore: the politicisation of Kurdish studies by "everyone". That doesn’t seem reliable, that seems rather academically biased no? Here, he even does not notice that he is subconsciously describing himself - the Armenian linguist who tries to marginalise Kurds and dispute their territorial claims in ”Turkish” Kurdistan and other parts of the Greater Kurdistan region.

——

Continuing on: Something important to note is his number of the Kurdish population in “Northern” Kurdistan: 7-8 million. Asatrian, whose study was published in 2009, simply refers to "Servet Mutlu’s meticulous research" from 1992 !?!? that is an astonishing academic approach!

In 2000, even a report commissioned by the National Security Council of Turkey puts the number at 12,600,000 people. Asatrian's goal seems to be minimising the number of Kurds in "Western Armenia" as good as possible. Not only the KWRT theory, but also numbers.

Another interesting aspect of his demographics section is his disguise about the apparent non-existent numbers of Sunni Kurds in Armenia ("Eastern Armenia"). In the manner of a Turkish genocide denier, he simply hides the expulsion of Sunni Kurds from Armenia.

In the interview with Onnik Krikorian, he completely avoided elaborating about the expulsion of Muslim Kurds:

O.Krikorian: I met with a Yezidi family yesterday that bear out much of what you say, but there are still some confusing contradictions. For example, although you say that Yezidi are not Kurds, many Yezidi in Armenia, and despite the expulsion of most of Armenia's Moslem Kurds, consider "Riya Taza", a Kurdish newspaper with a Yezidi editor, their newspaper. Also, Kurdish academics have suggested that there is an Armenian nationalist movement that has attempted to supress the Yezidi Kurdish identity - for example, Mehrdad Izady in "Kurdish Life" has accused some Armenian nationalist newspapers of printing racist articles regarding the Kurds and the Yezidi-Kurdish identity.

G.Asatrian: Mehrdad Izady is a stupid man, a very stupid man. He is a Professor at the University of Harvard, and I wonder why Harvard has Professors such as he. For example, he could not even be a mere teacher here in Armenia, even teaching children. It's amazing, it's amazing, it's very amazing.

———

Returning to Asatrian's "Prolegomena to the Study of the Kurds", the main themes of this study are as follows: 1. The artificial division of the Kurdish nation along religious and linguistic lines. Without even mentioning the term "controversial", he goes on and declares the distinct Yezidi and Zaza ethnic identities as facts. His obvious intention: minimising the numbers of Kurds in both "Eastern and Western Armenia".

“At present, in Armenia and Georgia, there live respectively 52,000 and 26,000 Yezidis, who are, in fact, a separate ethno-religious entity, with their own identity and ethnic characteristics, though they speak a dialect of Kurdish, the so-called Kurmanji or Northern Kurdish”

Asatrian also detects the demographic problem in Northern Kurdistan: the incorrect inclusion of Zazas.

”…are traditionally considered part of the Kurdish conglomeration: the Zazas or Dimilis (see Asatrian 1995a; Kehl-Bodrogi 1999), a people numbering around 4-5 million-in Turkey;”

At this early point of his study, a cautious reader easily recognises Asatrian's biased behaviour. On the one hand, he claims that the population of Zazas is between 4 and 5 million people. Earlier, Asatrian refers to Servet Mutlu's number of Kurds in "Turkey" (7-8 million). Servet Mutlu's research, which Asatrian describes as meticulous clearly presents Zazas as Kurds and thus includes them in his statistics.

“ Given the dispute and the lack of an agreed-upon definitive study on the issue, the best view may be that there are Kurdish languages as there are Romance languages. Here, the pertinent observation is that most Zaza speakers regard themselves as Kurds and have been etically designated as such.? Hence, in this paper the term "ethnically Kurdish" in the Turkish context will mean all those who speak Zaza or Kirmanci.“ & “CONCLUSION

The ethnically Kurdish component of the population has increased from 3.132 million in 1965 to 7.046 million in 1990.”

Asatrian, however, splits Zazas from Kurds. So if we follow his numbers, only 3-4 million Kurmancî-speaking Kurds (in his view the ONLY Kurds in Western Armenia) are living in “Northern” Kurdistan. Indeed, these figures seem to be very "objective and realistic".

Another revealing aspect in his discussion: while he uses language as a partitioning tool between Zazas, Kurmancis and Kurds: he simply states that Êzîdis aren't Kurds although speaking the "so-called Northern Kurdish".

Thus what can we conclude?

If we can prevent the usage of M.Izady, we should do the same for Asatrian given the information above. Volkish Kurden (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have seen you constantly use “Age Matters” to try and refute older research on the Kurds.

That's odd, you sure seem to "know" a lot about me considering you only have 109 edits, and have edited since 2023 May, so something doesn't add up. You have been suspected of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry in the past [4], should we be concerned?

Just because someone said the Earth is round 100 years ago does not mean it is incorrect even today. You have said many times about reliable sources, but what is reliable to you?

Read the policy. It's quite telling that you are heavily relying on +100 year old citations, before the formation of modern scholarship. If you are so confident that what you present is mainstream, then surely there are WP:RS that are not around near the time of World War I?

If you don’t agree that’s okay, but just because you don’t like the sources doesn’t make them unreliable, right?

I posted multiple policies-which you didn't bother to read, and instead reached this conclusion. Every single user who I have encountered that did the same ended up being indeffed for being disruptive to this project. Also, don't throw stones when you're in a glass house, shall I start to cite your past violations of this sites policies? You were incredibly lucky that you got unblocked.

Whilst I can agree that Honigman (A Middle East analyst)isn’t reliable compared to the rest, his writing sets the basis of which goes against Asatrians claim that Kurds are merely 6/7th century Iranian Nomads and have no links to their theorized forefathers.

So you knowingly posted someone whom you knew wasn't WP:RS, yet you still cited him because you agreed with him... Moreover, being (possibly) descended from x ethnic group doesn't mean that they are same ethnic group as you, I hope you are aware of that.

As for your long comment about Asatrian (which is a copy-paste of stuff which has already been said in the past), read WP:TLDR, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and [5]. Asatrian is not only WP:RS, but also a leading scholar in Kurdish studies. This is something you just have to accept.

If we can prevent the usage of M.Izady, we should do the same for Asatrian given the information above.

It's absolutely mind boggling that you're comparing Asatrian, a leading scholar, to Izady, who "engaged in pseudo history to push nationalistic agenda" and claims multiple groups for the Kurds, including the Neanderthals [6]. Yeah no. Also, you did not address my question, how does your citations even contradict Asatrian to start with? --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Asatrian’s “contributions” to books and articles about Kurdish history is nothing short of righteousness fallacy. We assume Good Faith on wikipedia but the writing above speaks clear value that he is not reliable.

If I didn’t put it in bold I will do it now: The sources contradict Asatrian’s claim that the Kurdish nation “does not exist” and that we originated via 6/7th century Iranian nomads rather than a distinct group. Some of those archaeologists/anthropologists have contributed much more to history vs. Asatrian. Like von Luschan.

Also you claimed once again that I am a sock puppet, that is false and accusatory. I was watching your edits on Kurdish pages, quite a while ago, because I wanted to understand what your problem was with us. My nation and our history.

Better to say “it’s not likely you descend from x but i will not give my POV but provide sources saying you don’t” vs “you don’t descend from x, your sources are wrong, you are a sock puppet.”

The discussion of Asatrian led nowhere, the main reason: Righteousness fallacy. I can contribute to Cambridge books, it doesn’t mean that I’m right or unbiased.

You may disagree with my sources all you want, but they exist for a reason and contributed heavily to Kurdish historiography prior to the “anti-Kurdish” movement of the late 20th century.

I do recall you stating that the Kurd = Iranian nomad theory is “a fact” rather than a theory, could you confirm that? Volkish Kurden (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Also I will add that M. Izady is unreliable in this context, due to his pro-Kurdish POV…

Thus Asatrian’s Armenian Iranian background can be used to explain his possible POV! Volkish Kurden (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Asatrian’s “contributions” to books and articles about Kurdish history is nothing short of righteousness fallacy. We assume Good Faith on wikipedia but the writing above speaks clear value that he is not reliable.

Please keep your personal opinion to yourself per the policies I listed up above.

If I didn’t put it in bold I will do it now: The sources contradict Asatrian’s claim that the Kurdish nation “does not exist” and that we originated via 6/7th century Iranian nomads rather than a distinct group. Some of those archaeologists/anthropologists have contributed much more to history vs. Asatrian. Like von Luschan.

How does Asatrian calling Kurds Iranian nomads contradict them possibly being descended from x group..? Lets pretend WP:RS indeed acknowledged them as descendants of the Medes, that would not mean the Medes were now Kurds. Also, von Luschan is outdated, no one considers the Kurds to have been around since 14th-century BC (which would also mean they can't possibly be descended from for example the Medes, which you are also claiming, so you are contradicting yourself with those non-WP:RS sources).

Also you claimed once again that I am a sock puppet, that is false and accusatory. I was watching your edits on Kurdish pages, quite a while ago, because I wanted to understand what your problem was with us. My nation and our history. Better to say “it’s not likely you descend from x but i will not give my POV but provide sources saying you don’t” vs “you don’t descend from x, your sources are wrong, you are a sock puppet.”

Yes, it wasn't exactly a controversial claim, considering an admin suspected the same. I honestly should just report you. You were given a last chance, yet here you are playing the race card again. I couldn't care less about your nation nor your history, the world doesn't revolve around you. And you're still claiming I am relying on my POV despite giving you multiple policies. Are you going to read them or not?

You may disagree with my sources all you want, but they exist for a reason and contributed heavily to Kurdish historiography prior to the “anti-Kurdish” movement of the late 20th century.

Ah, so that's what it's about - WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. That's why you heavily rely on +100 year old citations, because you can't find any modern ones, since they "anti-Kurdish".

Example text

Not biting.

Thus Asatrian’s Armenian Iranian background can be used to explain his possible POV!

Oh my god... HistoryofIran (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, I just gotta say, the lede, no matter if it's considered mainstream or not, is in a horrid state. This article is generally a mess. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

at least we can agree there Volkish Kurden (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Source

@Sciencebasedresearch: The first citation is not reliable per [7] (this is not the first time you have been reverted for it [8]). Brill, however, indeed is. Can you please cite the quote from the Brill source which supports this; "By examining philological variations such as Cordueni, Gordyeni, Kordyoui, Karduchi, Kardueni, Qardu, Kardaye, and Qardawaye, he concluded that these similarities indicate a common origin. This etymological connection suggests a long historical presence of Kurdish people or their ancestors in the region, potentially linking them to ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia" HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Advances in Anthropology is a peer-reviewed open-access journal published by Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP). Please refrain from involving personal points of view.

"The first citation is not reliable per [7] "

I’m having trouble locating the reasons for this. If you have any reliable sources to support this claim, please share them here; I would greatly appreciate it..

Regarding the second query, please note that there are two separate references. Sciencebasedresearch (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m having trouble locating the reasons for this. If you have any reliable sources to support this claim, please share them here; I would greatly appreciate it..

And what exactly is troubling you? And why do you think that gives you the green light to accuse me of involving my personal opinion..? Don't do it again, thanks (WP:ASPERSIONS).

Regarding the second query, please note that there are two separate references.

Please just cite them, thanks. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Zaken (2007) – the Brill source – cites Driver on two occasions in footnotes. In one he writes: "More on the origin of the Kurds and their language, see Wahbi (1965, 1966); Driver 1923; Mackenzie 1961 and Chyet (1995, 2003)"; the other footnote has a citation to Driver among several sources in support of a statement that lists the Sufi orders that exercised influence on the Kurds. Nothing in the book supports the text that @Sciencebasedresearch wanted to insert with this edit[9]. If it was just lack of scrutiny (assuming good faith here), it's just bad; if it was deliberately done, it's very bad and fraudulent.

I have nothing to add about the reliability of sources published in predatory journals. WP:SCHOLARSHIP has an explicit paragraph about it. –Austronesier (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

COI Edit Request

Dear editors,

I am writing to propose a revision to the section discussing the etymology of the term "Kurd." The current text states,

"There are different theories about the origin of the name Kurd. According to one theory, it originates in Middle Persian as 𐭪𐭥𐭫𐭲 kwrt-, a term for "nomad; tent-dweller".[Note 1] After the Muslim conquest of Persia, this term is adopted into Arabic as kurd, and was used specifically of nomadic tribes.[Note 2]"

I suggest replacing "theories" with "hypotheses" to more accurately reflect the nature of the proposed explanations.This recommendation is based on the following academic rationale:

1. Terminological precision: In scientific discourse, a hypothesis is defined as "a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation" (Andersen & Hepburn, 2021). The multiple proposed origins for "Kurd" align more closely with this definition than with that of a theory, which typically represents a well-substantiated explanation supported by a large body of evidence (Godfrey-Smith, 2003).
2. Epistemological status: The explanations provided for the origin of "Kurd" do not appear to have achieved the level of empirical support and consensus typically associated with scientific theories. As noted by Popper (1959), theories should be falsifiable and well-corroborated by evidence. The current state of knowledge regarding the etymology of "Kurd" suggests that these explanations remain at the hypothesis stage.
3. Linguistic convention: In etymological studies, it is common practice to refer to proposed word origins as hypotheses rather than theories, reflecting the often speculative nature of such claims (Durkin, 2009).

Given these considerations, I propose amending the sentence to read: "There are different hypotheses about the origin of the name Kurd." This revision would more accurately represent the current state of knowledge and adhere to accepted academic terminology in the field of etymology.

Thank you for your consideration of this proposed edit.

Sincerely,

References:

Andersen, H., & Hepburn, B. (2021). Scientific Method. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 ed.). Stanford University. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. University of Chicago Press. Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge. Durkin, P. (2009). The Oxford Guide to Etymology. Oxford University Press. Sciencebasedresearch (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you use an AI generated tool to create this comment..? Please answer this time [10]. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I invite everyone to refrain from censorship and falsification as well as personal accusations. WP:ASPERSIONS

I would like to ask for a third (reliable) opinion. Reverting this academically-well-explained edition, indicates the distortion of the sentences for non-academic purposes and therefore WP:NOTHERE Sciencebasedresearch (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

So I'll take that as a yes. I'm reporting you the next you violate any policy or misuse it - feel free to explain to an admin how citing Wikipedia is allowed. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm confused why this is a COI edit request. Being biased in one direction or another is not a COI. Also, I feel like in this context "theories" and "hypotheses" are functionally synonyms, there are far more important issues on this page, and I am confused why there is an argument about it in either direction.

Anyway. I'm closing the edit request, I don't think this is reasonably handled through the COI system and looks more like an ordinary content dispute (?). If you want a third opinion try WP:30. Rusalkii (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The claim that the name Kurd is derived from middle Persian, is no more valid than all other evidences such as the many toponyms for the name Kurd by many scholars.

Things take an odd turn when it is emphasized to use the word "theory" for the middle Persian narrative and "hypothesis" for others. Is there any specific reason for this? if not then I see no reason to not see this edit request as an COI.

I believe this is an academic fact and not a matter of opinion to change the definition of words such as "theory" and "hypothesis" based on the context. Everything has its own weight and in an academic discourse, they must be taken into account and used accurately.

Therefore I'd like to ask for a third opinion WP:30. Kind regards, Sciencebasedresearch (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The process of asking for an official third opinion is described on the page linked; simply stating to me that you'd like to do so is not going get you one. Rusalkii (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Original Research and other problems

This article has significant issues due to original research, and it seems that some parts were added by people with limited knowledge of Kurdish people. I've removed some of them. If you disagree with my recent edits, please explain your reasoning here. Sikorki (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran

Let’s understand each other here regarding these changes:

The Safrastian source is from 1948! Should we rely on a source like that? especially when it’s associated with millions of people and is barely available? I couldn’t even access it.

The Asatrian source states that "the most reasonable explanation of this ethnonym must be sought in its possible connections with the Cyrtii," and on page 28, he writes (Cyrtii → Kurt (Kwrt) → Kurd, Akrad).

Meanwhile, Martin van Bruinessen, according to the note, does not even state that "after the Muslim conquest of Persia, this term was adopted into Arabic as 'Kurd.'" However, the source I added, also from Martin van Bruinessen, mentions "the first attestation of the Kurds as Cyrtii," similar to what David McDowall states.

I don’t understand why this low-quality text is considered "sourced information," as what I added conveys the same meaning, just in a different way. Also, this was added by the same person who included other original research that no one really paid attention to for years, despite it being clearly original research!

I would be happy for your explanation. Sikorki (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't get a notification for some reason. Anyways, you removed both Martin van Bruinessen and Asatrian under the claim Updated the information with more recent sources. in other words, indicating that they're outdated, which they're not. But now it seems you have new reasonings for removing them. Please explain how Safrastian is outdated, is his info not repeated by more modern scholars as well, such as leading Kurdologist Asatrian? The Cyrtii and Kurdish connection is still uncertain, despite seemingly being the most likely in scholarship. Though I still fail to see how this contradicts the other info given by Bruinessen? Your claim about van Bruinessen being misquoted is also wrong; here's what the quote says The ethnic label "Kurd" is first encountered in Arabic sources from the first centuries of the Islamic era; it seemed to refer to a specific variety of pastoral nomadism, and possibly to a set of political units, rather than to a linguistic group: once or twice, "Arabic Kurds" are mentioned. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran

Since the edit summary text is short, I assumed that if anyone disagreed, they would come to this talk page for further clarification.

Safrastian’s work is not outdated it has simply evolved. Citing his views on Wikipedia in 2024 makes the article rely on early research about the Kurds, despite the availability of more recent studies that just complete Safrastian’s work.

Regarding Bruinessen he did state: "The ethnic label 'Kurd' is first encountered in Arabic sources from the first centuries of the Islamic era." However, he did not mean that this term adopted from pahlavi "kurt" Bruinessen was suggesting that the term "Kurd" did not exist in Arabic sources prior to that time at least, that’s what I understand from his statement.

The origin of the Cyrtii people is disputed among scholars. Some, like David McDowall and Michael Eppel, claim that the Cyrtii were Indo-European, while others, such as Garnik Asatrian, argue that they were indigenous and non-Indo-European. However, Asatrian does not oppose the idea that the name "Kurd" have originated from the Cyrtii. Perhaps it would be more natural to rephrase it as, "The name 'Kurd' has clearly been recorded as Cyrtii"? Sikorki (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Since the edit summary text is short, I assumed that if anyone disagreed, they would come to this talk page for further clarification.

If there isn't space in the edit summary, you can just write it in the talk page instead and write something a la "See talk page" in your edit summary.

Safrastian’s work is not outdated it has simply evolved. Citing his views on Wikipedia in 2024 makes the article rely on early research about the Kurds, despite the availability of more recent studies that just complete Safrastian’s work.

Can you please elaborate? "Evolved" indicates something has changed from his description. What is that?

Regarding Bruinessen he did state: "The ethnic label 'Kurd' is first encountered in Arabic sources from the first centuries of the Islamic era." However, he did not mean that this term adopted from pahlavi "kurt" Bruinessen was suggesting that the term "Kurd" did not exist in Arabic sources prior to that time at least, that’s what I understand from his statement.

Yup, I've just made it more clear [11].

The origin of the Cyrtii people is disputed among scholars. Some, like David McDowall and Michael Eppel, claim that the Cyrtii were Indo-European, while others, such as Garnik Asatrian, argue that they were indigenous and non-Indo-European. However, Asatrian does not oppose the idea that the name "Kurd" have originated from the Cyrtii. Perhaps it would be more natural to rephrase it as, "The name 'Kurd' has clearly been recorded as Cyrtii"?

"Clearly" is not the correct word to use, as it's still disputed. Even notable proponents of the Cyrtii x Kurdish connection doesn't use that word or anything similar; Josef Wiesehöfer uses "probably", Muhammad Dandamayev uses "likely", Michał Marciak use "possible".

HistoryofIran (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Original Research and other problems (part 2)

@HistoryofIran Since I can't comment on the other talk page due to an issue in my Wikipedia account, I'll continue here.

Those scholars discuss ancestry, which is uncertain, not the name (the name ≠ ancestry). How is this possible if they may not be the ancestors of the Kurds? As Asatrian said: "I suppose, after the Kyrtians disappeared from the historical arena supposedly at the turn of the Christian era their ethnic name, already an appellative meaning "robber, brigand, nomad, warrior, cattle-breeder", continued to exist in the lingual landscape of the region." It would already have sounded in the Middle Iranian dialects of the time as "kurt (or kurd)" (Asatrian, 2009, 27)

if the idea that the Cyrtii are ancestors of the Kurds is uncertain according to some scholars, we can change it to: 'The name "Kurd" has clearly been recorded as Cyrtii'. Which i already suggested in my previous response, and you can remove the word 'clearly' if you prefer.

This way, nothing in the article will be incorrect. For the Bruinessen, I have already added: 'After the fall of the Sassanids, early Arab and Persian writers were generally mystified by the identity of the Kurds...' (McDowall, 2021, 23) This is more accurate because it reflects both views. If you look at medieval mentions of Kurds, you’ll see it’s highly complicated, and sometimes Kurds are clearly mentioned as an ethnicity. Sikorki (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Is the Cyrti x Kurdish connection not based on their names? This is what Asatrian says about the theory from the start; "Evidently, the most reasonable explanation of this ethnonym must be sought for in its possible connections with the Cyrtii", from page 82. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran You are dismissing other scholars who are also experts in Kurdish studies, such as Martin van Bruinessen, Micheal eppel, David McDowall, and even The Cambridge History of the Kurds. Based on Asatrian's saying: "The name Kurd is not from [...]. Evidently, the most reasonable explanation of this ethnonym must be sought in its possible connections with the Cyrtii." He then explains why the name "Kurd" originates from Cyrtii? how is this a good reason?

I already mentioned this in my first comment.

The Cyrtii-Kurdish connection, whether based on their name, lifestyle, or anything else, is not the main point here. The focus is on the name "Kurd," which is originated from "Cyrtii."

It’s not even certain that they were an ethnicity, as mentioned by David McDowall.

"The term ‘Cyrtii’ was first applied to Seleucid or Parthian mercenary slingers dwelling in the Zagros and it is uncertain that it denoted a coherent linguistic or ethnic group at this juncture." (David McDowall, 2021, 10)

It doesn't seem like this is going anywhere without a third person. Sikorki (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not. There are currently 4 citations which doesn't consider it certain. Even the Cambridge History of Kurds which you cited says "Many different interpretations have been made in explaining the origin of the word ‘Kurd’ to this day". Nothing is "clear" yet, please read WP:DUE.

He then explains why the name "Kurd" originates from Cyrtii? how is this a good reason?

Yes, and what does he say there?; "Now, then, how can the genetic continuity between the ethnic names *kurt(i) and Kurd be interpreted? I suppose, after the Kyrtians disappeared from the historical arena―supposedly at the turn of the Christian era―their ethnic name, already an appellative meaning “robber, brigand, nomad, warrior, cattle-breeder”, continued to exist in the lingual landscape of the region." Never once does he consider it as "clear" as you try to portray it. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran Would adding the word "likely" or "possibly" resolve this? Sikorki (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Obviously it is quite a nuanced topic (there's more to it than just simply saying "Kurds are likely x"), but yes, that is the trajectory we should be going for. At least we the current WP:RS that we have listed here. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran

What about this. which is Now incomplete. If I remove the quote, is the other part okay? Sikorki (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand? I just removed the bit about Asatrian because it didn't even state his claim, which made it vague. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran

The Asatrian claim is already in the section, and it was below the text that you removed.

Their arrival in historical Armenia must have taken place in the tenth to fourteenth centuries, but especially after the sixteenth.

Sikorki (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems you won’t be online for a while.

I added 'likely' and removed the Asatrian claim, which might not have been clear. I’ll rewrite it later, including the part you removed for copyright, to make it clearer when I have some free time. Sikorki (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my bad. Btw, I wouldn't put such a small quote in a blockquote template, you can just write "their [kurds] arrival in historical Armenia must have taken place in the tenth to fourteenth centuries, but especially after the sixteenth". HistoryofIran (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)