Talk:Kurdish people

The Kurdish people, or Kurds (Kurdish: کورد Kurd), are an Iranic people

I believe the best thing to do to solve this issue is to rephrase this sentence to Kurds are Iranic by language as saying Kurds are an Iranic (Aryan) people gives the impression that every Kurd is genetically European which is just not true, as DNA tests show Kurds have only got 35% European DNA while the rest is native, I for one would like a re-phrase of this sentence, and also instead of using the term Iranic which is obviously a sensitive issue, why not use 'Indo-European'? it has the same meaning and it will help avoid confusing between the term Iranic and Iranian (a nationality of a country.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdwiki (talk • contribs) 21:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The word "Iranic" cannot be used for the country. That's the reason we use it. Previously we'd said the Kurds are "Iranian", which is normal English. As for European, Iranic does not mean European, so I don't understand your point. As for "IE", sure, but why not just say they're "human"? We don't censor information just because some political interest is offended. — kwami (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not being offended, but rather being politically correct! the average non Iranic people would not know the difference between Iranic and Iranian as after all they are the same thing! and hence since Iraninc = indo-european, why not use that instead? you accuse me of being politically offended, well maybe the Iranians here are politically offended? your reasons are not valid and like I said DNA tests on Kurds show that we are not related to Iranians at all, but rather have more I and J DNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdwiki (talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean Kurds are not related to Iranians? You have no idea about genetics, on 23andme and Autosomal DNA Kurds cluster closest to Iranians and actually are always in the same cluster together. You cannot look at a few studies on Y-dna as it is pointless as they only test a few dozen people and the same haplogroups were also found in Iran. What matters most is Autosomal DNA, Kurds and Iranians both show a strong genetic tie to Central Asia that is not present in other Middle-Eastern populations. This is because Iranians came from central asia.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.139.109 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kurdwiki. The term "iranian", which itself is wrong but have been used and generally accepted by academics. The problem is that Wikipedia is not for academics, it's for everyone. So it should either. Iranian is a modern term for Kurds, Afghans, Baluchs, Persians etc. and the original name is Aryan (Arî) with Ar=Agir=Fire, in other words "Fireworshippers". But nowadays people confuse Aryan with being blonde and blue eyed, or even worse, being a racist. So why did they change the name? So people won't get confused when reading articles. And now the term is even worse, "Iranian" could in a poltical way suggest that the ethnic Persians were the origins of all these people, which is totally wrong.

So names get changed not to make people confused huh? This is the mainreason for changing this name, and we could put something that indicates the Kurds as part of the "Iranian" people and in the same way tell people that it doesn't indicate ethnic Persians. Why wouldn't we? This isn't a "I'm right and you're wrong" site, but it's meant to present only facts and let people decide wether it's correct or not.

Changing this term is not a choice, we'll simply have to do it wether you like it or not. We have different options.

1) Change to "an Indo-European people" 2) Change the article and not only the first word, so it says "The Kurds are an ethnic group" and later on in the text it should "The Kurdish language is a part of the Iranian branch of the IndoEuropean family tree"

So what do you want? You'll have to answer fast...

--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Genetic difference from other groups

I think we need some genetic in this article. I dont know much about Kurdish people but often wonder would i know a Kurdish person (if i saw one) from a neighboring Arab? Is there a significant physical and genetic difference? common ancestry etc etc. In Africa you can blatently tell a Hutu from a Tutsi.(for example) and even a Amhara from a Somali.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

File:16 Kurdish people.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:16 Kurdish people.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Kurds as an ethnic group in ancient sources

According to this text, all kinds of different ethnic groups that lived in a certain way (e.g. nomads) were kalled Kurds in middlepersian sources. Izady clearly prooved this not to be true, by giving some examples on nomadic Turkmen tribes that lived in the area, they weren't called Kurds.

I want the one who added that part to the main article to respond to this

--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If no one cares about this then I will change that part. Think what you want about Izady and his theories, but this is not a theory, it's a fact that you can read...

--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed! Added this text "Outdated sources, and sometimes nationalistic ones (Astarian), used to claim that the name Kurd was meant as a label for all nomadic people dwelling in the Kurdish mountains. However, Mehrdad Izady states that this wasn't the case. Izady himself used to belive the very same, just to discover the opposite. In other words, the Kurds from ancient times "were bone fida ethnic Kurds""

--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Kurdish languages

Also I want to note that there are two Kurdish languages, Kurmanji-Sorani and Zazaki-Gorani. Gorani isn't a dialekt of Sorani or Zazaki a dialakt of Kurmancji, the Kurdish languages consists of two groups.

--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Astarian

Why do you use Astarian as a source in this article? He is clearly no reliable source and just a controversial guy looking for fame, so called "attentionwhore"

--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Origins

We should write more about what different schoolars belive are the ancestors of the Kurds since there are so many different theories. There are many speculations, for example Minorsky claims the Medes while Izady claims both the Medes and the Hurrians. We should divide the article in many subgroups, each representing a schoolars view on the subject.

The Gutis however, haven't got so much space in this article. The Guti language was different from the Hurrian, or so it seems by looking at the names of the Kings, this means they weren't the same people, as Izady claims (?).

I think that the Hurrians were the ancestors of the modern Chechans/Georgians (since they're connected linguistically), that invaded Middle East from Caucasus (according to Britannica) and created a kingdom and ruled over the people living there, maybe even mixing somewhat with them. It's not something unsuall that a kingdom or an empire have more than one ethnicties, this is in fact very common. And Kurdistan has seen this kind of rule many times through history, being a part of many kingdoms/empires, so why not one more time?

This would explain for example the "disappearing" of the Hurrians. If they simply were defeated, and new rulers took their power, then they didn't disappear, they just lost the power of their empire to annother people.

Anyways, we Kurds can't claim Hurrians to be our ancestors just so we can be proud of this and that. We must follow the truth, and who ever our ancestors were we must accept them, even if we aren't the native people of Middle East / Kurdistan. But then again I'm not sure of this, culturally, the Kurds doesn't seem to have anything in common with the Hurrians, and we already know that there is no linguistic connection. Even if we lost our old language, then why can't we find a single word in our vocaboulary that traces back to Hurrian? Everytime a people has brought upon annother people their own language, it has adopted many of the old words. And religously the Kurds don't seem to have anything in common with the Hurrians. Doesn't make any sense then that some Kurds claim them to be our ancestors. --Diyairaniyanim (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right about the Hurrians, but I've restored the text you deleted. The sources use meet our criteria at WP:RS. If someone who meets these criteria says they are outdated, we can add that as well. It does look as though you agree with that so I'm surprised you deleted anything rather than add other opinions. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Pseudohistory (again)

On two occasions, Dr. Garnik Asatrian is labeled as "nationalistic" or "outdated" source comparing to Mehrdad Izady, while situation is otherwise. Izady is (in)famous for his pseudo-historic and nationalistic claims - first one is "Yazdânism" as poor attempt to homogenize completely different beliefs of Yârisânism, Yazidism and Chinarism (which is considered as false by all academic world), second one is claim that Dailamites are "Kurds" (also not accepted; see p. 19-22), third one is that even Saddam Hussein was actually "Kurdish", etc. He even started his own pseudo-encyclopedic project Kurdistanica by motto "whole historiography was anti-Kurdish, let's rewrite it". --109.165.156.171 (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2012

The page says "According to the CIA World Factbook, Kurds comprise 20% of the population in Turkey," I just looked on the CIA World Factbook and it says 18% (see https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html) thanks stoop (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for improving Wikipedia! mabdul 00:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)