Talk:Kurdish people

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 Added this text "Outdated sources, and sometimes nationalistic ones (Astarian), used to claim that the name Kurd was meant as a label for all nomadic people dwelling in the Kurdish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)

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)

Population numbers

If no one objects in the coming days I'll update the numbers as most of them seem to be off. For example it says that the population in Turkey is between 14 and 19.5 million whereas both sources says it's at least 19 million so I don't know where the 14 million comes from. Also a lot of the sources have been updated and don't reflect the number mentioned in this article. ~ Zirguezi 11:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be great. We have a problem with editors, mainly IPs, coming along and changing figures, often changing sourced figures, with no explanation. Sometimes it's just plain number vandalism, sometimes it seems to be pov. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Kurdish settlement map

The map based on Encyclopædia Britannica-Kurd. It's reliable source, so i don't understand the mean of this edit [1]. Kurdo777 deleted map, and he has written "no reliable source has been provided for this map, it seems like OR"!!!--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a copy rights violation. You can't just copy/paste maps from other sources and upload them into Wikipedia without permission as your own work. Kurdo777 (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And besides being a copyvio, the map is outdated and questionable. It somehow does not include Urmia, which is one of the largest Kurdish-inhabited cities, or any other city in West Azerbaijan for that matter, which is home to millions of Kurds. It contradicts academic sources in that sense. Kurdo777 (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not copy-past. It's my own work based on reliable source.))) About Urmia and West Azerbaijan province, reliable sources are shown the different opinion that is different with your idea. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The map is indeed reliable and sourced which means it's not a copyvio. However I think we have a lot of better maps at Atlas of Kurdistan that we can use that show the Kurdish inhabited areas a lot better ~ Zirguezi 09:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your map is not better map because it have duplication information. The britannica is reliable sourse for this aim. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Most maps here are innacurate in that they completely 'forget' about the Kurdish inhabited areas in Northwestern Syria (Afrin, Ayn-al Arab). This is an accurate map of the ethnic/religious groups in Syria (Kurds=red encircled areas): http://www.lefigaro.fr/assets/infographie/110609-syrie-religion.jpg .

In that sense, even though still not precise, this seems to be the best map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Kurden.jpg. Znertu (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many amps in Atlas of Kurdistan that make based on one source [2] that repeated in several ways [3]. Britannica's map is another map for this aim. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Znerto and Kurdo77. I think File:Kurden.jpg is the best map. It shows the Syrian, Iranian and Caucasus regions the best and it includes terrain and mayor cities.

@Ebrahimi-amir, Please keep in mind that Britannica is, just like Wikipedia, an encyclopedia with it's own sources. Saying that one file is better than an other just because one is from Britannica is ridiculous. The other maps are according to you based on one source which is from a university in Texas which makes it a reliable source. ~ Zirguezi 16:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There are two map for on subject. It is not necessary to delete one of them , and it is better that both of them to exist in article. I think the map of university in Texas duplication the Kurdish people settlement. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see the need to do so but fine I guess more sources equal better a better article ~ Zirguezi 21:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit is vandalism. You deleted the map with reliable source without any legal reason. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't actually. I gave you a perfectly good reason. I suggest you go back and look it up. Also I removed the map because a map of Iranian peoples in Iran, while related, is in my opinion not very important because this is an article about Kurdish people. I don't know if you know how Wikipedia is run but I suggest you look at WP:CON. We've reached a consensus here and you'll have to learn to respect that even if the outcome isn't what you wanted. ~ Zirguezi 21:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Please explain that why you removed the map that have reliable source?--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What I did was remove this map because I don't think its very important. I then added this map and moved this down a few sections because of the consensus we reached above. ~ Zirguezi 09:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

But i think, it is very important WP:FIVE,WP:POV,WP:RS. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)