Talk:Kurds/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Ismail and Karim Khan

Ismail was from mixed Greek (mother side) and Turkmen (father side) ancestry. The Kurdish ancestry is a very weak link going back to only one ancestor who lived 300 years before his time. He can not be considered Kurdish in any meaningful sense. Please check out the following sources. Ismail was of mixed Turkmen, Greek and distant Kurdish ancestry and his mother tongue was Azeri Turkish. The official language of the his court was also Turkish.

So I don't think it is reasonable to include him as a Kurdish personality. He did not speak the language, his immediate ancestors were Turkmen and Greek and his only possible Kurdish ancestor lived 300 years or roughly 10 generations before him. Yes, strictly speaking that may make him less than 0.1 percent Kurdish. So I suggest to remove him from the image gallery.

Regarding Karim Khan's ethnic origins, it is quite disputed and there is no consensus on his Kurdishness.Vekoler (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Karim Khan's origins aren't disputed. He was a Lak, not a Lur, who happened to live in Luristan. His allegiance was solely with his tribe, but Laks are ethnically Kurdish. His classification a Lur is often made because Laks were thought to be a Lurish offshoot, yet linguistic studies have confirmed Laki is more akin to Kurdish. See: Karim Khan Zand: a History of Iran, 1747-1779. Znertu (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The family of Ismail I on his father's side was of Kurdish origin (see bottom). To suggest that he somehow was less than half Kurdish would be original research. And being half Kurdish does make him "Kurdish enough" to be included here. For example, Hosny and Ghalibaf are also included here, despite being half Kurdish. As for Karim Khan Zand, see above. I'm re adding both.

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ebn-bazzaz Best, --Spivorg (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"Half being Kurdish does not make him"Kurdish enough"!!! lt is not tied to you. We do not have to add "pure Kurds", "pure Turks" to infobexes. Look at Turkish people. None of them is "pure" Turkish. Tatlitug is Boshniak, Erenler is Arab, Mehmet Oz and Pamuk are Circassians, all the sultans of Ottoman Empire are half Slavic because of their mothers, even Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is not "pure". And also you changed almost all of images, not only these two people's that are not "pure Kurdish". Qazi Mohammad, Nursi, Moshe Barazani, Zaro Agha-world's longest man- etc. With Darin and two lraqi scientists that are not famous at all. Do not change the images just because "you don't like it". There is a wikipedia policy about it, do not forget it. Lamedumal (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: l am not talking about lsmail l. His Kurdish ancestry is controversial. Lamedumal (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You are misquoting me. Please re-read what I wrote. I did not say "Half being Kurdish does not make him"Kurdish enough"!!!", I said "And being half Kurdish does make him "Kurdish enough" to be included here." That is why I included Ismail I. Now, you claim that I changed most of the images; something I didn't do. I changed around 3/10 of the images, which is far from "almost all of images". Secondly, claiming that Darin isn't famous, but that the ones I removed are (compared to Darin) is wrong. A quick google search for Darin gives me 25 million results, which is much more than Dilsa Demirbag-Sten, Zaro Agha, Said Nursi and Ahmet Kaya put together. Thirdly, the reason I replaced Dilsa Demirbag-Sten and Ahmet Kaya with Bonni and Ala'Aldeen is because of variation. They are both politicians/singers, a reoccurring theme. Fourthly, take a look at the first inclusion of pictures of famous Kurds here. Notice that Darin, Bonni and Ala'Aldeen are all there. So please don't accuse me of changing images because I don't like it. I am, as already stated, adding variation. Fifthly, Moshe Barzani was first and foremost a Jew. Most of the sources I find on google don't even mention that he was Kurdish, but that he was a Jewish immigrant from Iraq. He is far from relevant when it comes presenting Kurds. And at last, I actually thought I included Nursi. I must have removed him without any intention of doing so. So, I will revert your edit, but I will re-add Nursi. I will however wait for a reply (or at least wait a few days) before editing, so we don't end up in an edit war. Best, --Spivorg (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

We DO NOT add people to infobox by looking their "google popularity". Thus, Qazi Mohammad is more important figure than Darin. Moshe Barazani is a Kurdish Jew. "Barazani" is a Kurdish surname. And also we do not have to add "pure" ethnicity here. I gave an example for it(Turkish people). Wikipedia is not your kindergarden. Lamedumal (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: lf you really really want to add Darin, Bonni, Fatah etc you can do it without deleting other people such as Qazi Muhammed, Nursi bla bla. Just add them at the bottom. lt is not too hard. And it is a good idea to reach a consensus. Lamedumal (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You say that we shouldn't add by Google popularity, but then what criteria should we use? "Thus, Qazi Mohammad is more important figure than Darin." is not a logical conclusion. You tell me it's a good idea to reach consensus, which is exactly what I'm trying to do, unlike the ones who originally removed Darin, Bonni etc. Don't accuse me of changing the originals. And I am not even talking about pure ethnicity, please don't misquote me. I can't find a reliable source that says Moshe Barzani was Kurdish. Name is not good enough. I don't add Slavs with the name 'Goran' either. You didn't address Ismail I and Karim Zand, so I will be adding them too. Best, --Spivorg (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The image section looks completely messes up now. I propose we use a grid of 5x5 pictures, like it is in most articles of ethnicities, try to use images that actually fit, i.e., aren't wider than they are long, at least. Arrange them by DOB, and then look for a balance in gender, profession/occupation and parts of Kurdistan represented.

-Ziryab likely wasn't Kurdish, but Persian or black African instead

-al-Jazari hailed from a Kurdish region, but we cannot safely say that he wasn't an Arab

-Zaro Aga is not an important figure; Mahwi isn't really well-known either

-There are too many political leaders of the modern era; Qazi Muhammad, Ihsan Nuri, Simko Shikak, Mustafa Yamulki, Mustafa Barzani, Massoud Barzani, Jalal Talabani... Znertu (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Kurdish people → Kurds – Common and standard form. Kurds redirects here as well so I suggest we move it. Jaqeli (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support per nom Red Slash 03:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support as common name. — kwami (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2014

Musa Obaidi (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 16:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Date for oath of Leyla Zana should be changed from1994 to1991.

Saw the date and realized it was probably a typo/incorrect since the oath and arrest were unlikely to occur within 1 month of each other. According to her (Leyla Zana) wiki page she took the oath and caused outrage in 1991. This is confirmed by several internet sites including http://www.nndb.com/people/691/000134289/

SECTION REFFERING TO IS THIS

Leyla Zana, the first Kurdish female MP from Diyarbakir, caused an uproar in Turkish Parliament after adding the following sentence in Kurdish to her parliamentary oath during the swearing-in ceremony in 1994:[147]

I take this oath for the brotherhood of the Turkish and Kurdish peoples. —

In March 1994, the Turkish Parliament voted to lift the immunity of Zana and five other Kurdish DEP members: Hatip Dicle, Ahmet Turk, Sirri Sakik, Orhan Dogan and Selim Sadak. Zana, Dicle, Sadak and Dogan were sentenced to 15 years in jail by the Supreme Court in October 1995.

Hope this helps wiki...

Random U — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.55.112 (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014

Please change "....tribal revolt led by Kurdish chieftain Simko Shikak stroke north western Iran....." to "...Shikak struck north..." As a native english speaker this rubbed me the wrong way. William H Shifflette (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Sing 06:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2014

For Nizami Ganjavi as a Kurd there is no reference as he was originally Iranian Miillad (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Problem with other Iranians!

Please don't have blood feud with other Iranians. A whole section is devoted to Ardashir, and then somebody concludes that he was a Kurd himself!! (it really needs not two, but more exclamations points) The reality is that Achaemenidians and Sasanians subjugated all Iranians irrespective of what you like to call them now (Fars, Kurd, Azerbaijani, etc) You making "Kurd" old hard doesn't make it that. Before that in the article, Kurds were made related to Lullubi, Guti, Cyrtians, Carduchi, etc, etc; as if other Iranians are an exception! and they are not related to indigenous Iranian plateau as well as to Arians. Please stop this play.-Raayen (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2014

This claim should be removed from the article, History section, Ancient period:

• At least one author believes Ardashir I to have actually descended from a Kurdish tribe.[87]

Reason: Kaveh Farrokh is not an expert in ancient history. His works are not cited by other well-known experts. Mr. Farrokh's theories are just supported by himself alone. There is no "Kurdish" ethnicity in Ancient Persia. Kurd was a common name for the nomads of Persian empire territory. Farrokh's works are removed from other articles (ancient Persian and ancient Near East-related articles and dynasties). 89.165.98.252 (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Already done Sam ^Sing! 13:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2014

at:

Ahl-i Haqq (Yarsan)

change first sentence:
Ahl-i Haqq or Yarsanism is a syncretic religion founded by Sultan Sahak in the late 14th century in western Iran.
into:
Ahl-i Haqq or Yarsanism is a syncretic religion founded by Sultan Sahak in the late 14th century in western Iran.
because:
it's the first sentence to explain that religion and most people have no clue what syncretic means.
77.183.135.82 (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Earliest Mention of Kurds

So the article says: The first attestation of the Kurds was during the time of rule of the Sassanids.

But I was just reading Xenophon's Anabasis, and they travel into the mountains of the Kurds (Karduchians) on their way to the lands of the Armenians. This would have been around 300 BC. Source: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Anabasis/Book_3/Chapter_5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deinol (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Comprise vs. compose

This article uses the word "comprise(d)" incorrectly. Should be "compose" or similar. For example, Kurdistan comprises parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, not the otherway around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.15.156 (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"Simko Shakak" vs "Ismail I"

The user "ArordineriiiUkhtt" has replaced my displacement of "Simko Shakak" to "Ismail I", on the image template. I think you know that Simko Shakak was an stupid revolt confirmed by Kurds like Mehrdad Izadi; a YAGHI with no clear aim, killing people like Assyrians and Azeris. I think you Kurds don't need to stick to your stupidities in the past as other nations should not do. I think "Ismail I" better reflects your current wise position: "politics".-Raayen (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It was discussed in the talk page and editors reached a consensus to remove it. Because he was only 1/4 Kurdish and therefore not representative. See the archive of talk page to see the discussion. If you want to change Simko Shakak, find another "notable" person instead of Ismail I. Because he was very hybrid. He has Pontic Greek, Kurdish, Georgian and Turkish ancestries. You can add, for instance, Theophobos. As far as I remember he was Kurdish and notable enough. If you find sources to confirm it, feel free to add it. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I respect your opinion and the talk on this above, although it is not conclusive, and seems to me silly. If you want to go for greater Kurds on the image template, "Ismail I" was a greater Kurd than "Simko Shakak". That is what is done in other peoples' articles in Wikipedia; greater nationals first. You are doing a grave mistake to distance peoples of close connectivity. That is not good for humanity. How do you know Simko Shakak was more Kurd than Ismail I?! Your criteria seems to be nationalistic or assumed unconfirmed genetics, seemingly due to language, not what people really are; divergent depending on the conditions, taking sides irrespective of what our ideals are nowadays. I tried to add an Arab-Persian called al-Ma'mun to Iranian peoples, and was opposed as you did. That is neither right, nor according to sources and the norm of Wikipedia articles that consider people of half blood or 1/4 blood, as you said, belonging to several nations.-Raayen (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ghalibaf

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf isn't Kurdish. He is an Anti-Kurdish Shia from the Persian-speaking region of Mashhad in the Khorasan province. Maybe one of his ancestors was Kurdish but he isn't. I bet no Kurd wants to hear that he is Kurdish and also he doesn't claim that he is kurdish. Please someone remove his name and picture from the list in the article.--193.140.42.137 (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

North Mesopotamian Arabic

Among those Kurds who speak Arabic, is the North Mesopotamian variety the most common one? Furthermore, is North Mesopotamian Arabic spoken primarily by Kurds? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Map of the Median Empire

There is a map of the Median Empire, but the map doesn't seem to relate to anything in the text. I am not taking sides on the Kurds/Medes/Iranians issue, I am just a bit confused about the relevance of this map.46.12.54.46 (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Mislead!

There is no link between meds and the kurds!. image is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.42.134.250 (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish population is false,exaggerated

Kurdish population lived in each country (Turkey-Iran-Iraq-Syria) have shown over-exaggerated and not true. ethnic nationalism is not made objectively.

Cia factbook Turkey : 1985 year- Turkish population % 85 , kurdish populatin % 12 , other group % 3 , 1993 year- Turkish population % 80 -kurdish population % 20 , other group non, 2009 year : Turkish population % 70-75 - kurdish population % 18 , other group % 7-12 .(CIA Factbook accurate and not neutral)

2006 konda Turkey etnic : % Turkish people % 76-81 - kurdish-zaza people % 13.5-15.7 - other group % 5-7 (Turkey put the results of research conducted by research firm with thousands of people in the entire city.)

CİA İran population : 1989 year : Persian & 63 - Turkic % 18 - Kurdish % 3 ,2011 year persian % 51 - azeris % 24 -kurdish people % 7 , 2014 year : persian people % 61 - azeris % 16 - kurdish people % 10

Cia Iraq population : 1957 year : arabs % 70-75 - kurdish people % 15-17 - ıraqi turkmens % 9 ,2014 year % arabs 75-80 - kurdish 15-20 - Turkmens-assyrian-yezidi other % 5

Syria population : former Kurdish population 7% ,now 9% Cia factbook accurate and not reliable In countries without obejktif-real population and ethnic census, it does not achieve real — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.142.219 (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish population is very much being exaggerated, American Greater Middle East Iraq-Syria apply for kurds kullanıyor.pkk-the PYD-peshmerga weapons have anti-Arab -The Turkmen and muhliaf kurds killed in exile, Kurdish nationalism implement fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove Moshe Barazani

He is Hebrew, not Kurdish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish peshmerga forces and American-backed political order [1]

There's no Moshe Baranzi, there's a Masoud Barzani, he's a Sunni Muslim, and there's no proof he's of Jewish background. P.S Many Jews are of Kurdish background. Guy355 (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't pic of Abdullah Ocalan in the opening section on right side?

He is extremely important Kurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.52.222 (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2014

".... Dometic Concerns ...." = domestic66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks for noticing. CarnivorousBunny^{talk • contribs} 02:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem--it could have been dometic concerns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.176.59 (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Why isnt a pic of Abdullah Ocalan on the right hand side of the beginning to this article?

One of the most influential and important Kurds in the present time. Especially considering pics of both Barzani and Talabani are there, it is pretty biased actually not to show Ocalan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.52.222 (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The infobox lists Kurds that have their own article. It's not really a popularity contest. I agree with you however that Ocalans picture should probably be there. ~ Zirguezi 21:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I added him. Removed Ahmed Kaya. ~ Zirguezi 21:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"an ethnic Iranian group"

The Kurds are not an "Iranian group". They do not belong to Arab, Turks or Persians. But the Kurds are a standalone ethnic group. --Moplayer (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

And please do not tell me the reason that the Kurdish langauges belong to the Iranian ethno-linguistic group. I already know this, but then it would be better to put this to the language section of the article and not in the introduction. Best Regards --Moplayer (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2015

The Kurds are not Iranian people. They are "Kurds". They have their own culture and they are a specific nation. So please edit the part that says that Kurds are Iranian/Persian. 95.159.98.235 (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: You're misunderstanding the use of Iranian peoples. It does not refer to the nation of Iran and their people, but as it says on the linked article, a ethno-linguistic group. Cannolis (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That's right. The Kurdish langauges belong to the Iranian ethno-linguistic group. But it would be better to put this to the language section of the article and not in the introduction. The Kurds are not mainly defined by their language. But first of all the Kurd are an ethnic group or folk. --Moplayer (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The Kurds are Iranian both ethnically and linguistically

The most recent scientific studies have proven the historical and traditional scholastic views that the Kurds are an Iranian People both ethnically and linguistically among various other attributes. In this note we are going to examine some of those evidences.

Before expanding on this subject I must address this to "Bawer1"; pls note that along with your claims you must also provide reliable references and/or scientific study results to support your claims, otherwise this whole subject you are pursuing is pointless. Now, regarding some of your claims here dated on 29 December 2014.

First of all, contrary to your claim, “Novrooz” is an Iranian celebration; historically it has been celebrated since at least the Median and Achaemenid empires and mythologically speaking since the “Jamshid-e-Pishdadi” era according to the Avesta and the Shahnameh of Pardisi. The “Kurds” are an Iranian people that is why Novrooz is an inseparable part of the Kurdish traditions as part of the larger Iranian cultural spectrum. Novrooz in a wider view is part of the history and culture of the various peoples and ethnicities both in the region and beyond.

Also you claim: “Kurds have been mentioned many times throughout many different scholarly sources and most of them do not regard Kurds as "Iranian."”

Answer: Can you show us at least some of those ‘many different scholarly sources’?

And: “There is genetic, historical, and cultural evidence that shows that Kurds are one of the most distinct people in the middle east. As a matter of fact, Kurds are so distinct that the only reason that they is still discussion today on what origin the Kurds are.”

Answer: Again can you show us some of those ‘genetic, historical, and cultural evidence’?

Now on the main point of the discussion;

Regarding Ethnic Origins and Genetic Studies; It needs to be considered that from the genetic point of view all Iranian peoples are heterogeneous including the Kurds, but that does not even minutely change the Iranian origin of such people due to the fact the anthropological and ethnic studies do not work that way. Throughout history, the Iranian Plateau has been like a bridge between four continents [incl. India] and subject to several migrations and invasions for millennia, that particular distinctive makes the genetic composition of the Iranian peoples incl. the Kurds a heterogeneous one. Meanwhile, the geneticists have certain scientific methods and protocols to classify various ethnic groups, for example, studying the composition of the mitochondrial DNA results in accurate conclusions in determining the origin of a heterogeneous ethnic group, as for the fact the mitochondrial DNA remains intact even after several millennia of migrations, invasions and intermarriages that may have occurred in a certain region such as the Iranian Plateau. For more info regarding such methodology in genetic studies of Iranian ethnic groups view this link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21912140

• The Iranian Origin of the Kurds is Verified by Genetic Studies;

The genetic studies have concluded the Kurds are of Iranian origin. With the advent of recent scientific studies in genome projects the original opinion is confirmed that there are more similarities between the genetic composition of various Kurdish tribes throughout the region and other Iranian people;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18001303

"HLA class II similarities in Iranian Kurds and Azeris."

"The genetic relationship between Kurds and Azeris of Iran was investigated based on human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class II profiles. HLA typing was performed using polymerase chain reaction/restriction fragment-length polymorphism (PCR/RFLP) and PCR/sequence-specific primer (PCR/SSP) methods in 100 Kurds and 100 Azeris. DRB1*1103/04, DQA1*0501 and DQB1*0301 were the most common alleles and DRB1*1103/04-DQA1*0501-DQB1*0301 was the most frequent haplotype in both populations. No significant difference was observed in HLA class II allele distribution between these populations except for DQB1*0503 which showed a higher frequency in Kurds. Neighbor-joining tree based on Nei's genetic distances and correspondence analysis according to DRB1, DQA1 and DQB1 allele frequencies showed a strong genetic tie between Kurds and Azeris of Iran. The results of amova revealed no significant difference between these populations and other major ethnic groups of Iran. No close genetic relationship was observed between Azeris of Iran and the people of Turkey or Central Asians. According to the current results, present-day Kurds and Azeris of Iran seem to belong to a common genetic pool."

Also by referring to one of the most recent genetic studies conducted by a combined team of scientists, geneticists, anthropologists, and archaeologists from the universities and Cambridge and Portsmouth, on the chronology and the origins of the Iranian people in general, we can also conclusively place the Kurds among the various ethnicities of the Iranian Peoples, even the lead scientists of this study can be contacted directly, including the geneticist Dr. Maziar Ashrafian Bonab from Portsmouth university, who has also concluded the presence of the Aryan (Iranian) people in the “Greater Iran” region since before the last Ice Age i.e. 18000-12000 BP, therefore adding another reason to rebuff the previous “Aryan Invasion Theory” from the north to the Iranian Plateau;
http://www.port.ac.uk/school-of-biological-sciences/staff/dr-maziar-ashrafian-bonab.html

As an extra note, what needs to be observed here is that so far no scientific source or a reliable reference has been found to have questioned the Iranian origin of the Kurds, if there is anyone who is claiming otherwise must mention those sources here to back up his/her claim.

It is not at all correct to say that “people whom have decided that Kurds are Iranian have only looked at linguistics”, in fact, those scientists have looked at many other components besides linguistics and even genetics. The importance of language and genetics in studying ethnography is undeniable, however there are other factors that must be and are considered as important in finding the origin of an ethnic group, such as; geography, culture, thoughts, traditions, religion, writing, architecture, costumes, cuisines, folklores, stories, games, and so on. It is based on these key concepts among others that all reliable scholars identify the Kurds an Iranian people; these available sources are some examples among many for you to refer to for further information about this subject;

«Historical Dictionary of the Kurds, by Michael M. Gunter»
http://books.google.com.au/books/about/?id=zDRGO6EgapMC

«In Depth History of the Kurds and Kurdistan, by Sardar Pishdare»
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=-46ZAgAAQBAJ

«Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224-642, by Dr. Kaveh Farrokh»
https://books.google.com.au/books/about/?id=566PXereaPsC

«Kurdish Politics in the Middle East, Nader Entessar»
http://books.google.com.au/books/about/?id=1ig7vi3Oc9QC

«Kurds, Arabs and Britons: The Memoir of Col. W.A. Lyon in Kurdistan, edited by David K. Fieldhouse»
https://books.google.com.au/books/about/?id=-qqHttTyIDQC

«Nationalism in Iran: Updated Through 1978, by Richard W. Cottam»
https://books.google.com.au/books/about/?id=wHFXD9VV9t4C
…

• Such separatists-arguments are fueled by political agenda;

You must bear in mind that such an argument of an unclear origin of the Kurds is prompted by separatist misapprehensions, similar to what we see in Azerbaijan, Khuzestan, Sistan and Baluchestan, and so on, and these separatist delusions off and about are instigated and fueled by foreigners who should not have any business or interest in the region whatsoever, but we do see that they have political and economic plots more than anything else. That being said, realistically speaking, in a certain province or region none of the involved fractions believe in being ruled by another, as an example, hypothetically speaking this delusion of separating Kurdistan as a united region is a totally impossible one due to the inevitable occurrence of conflicts between the various fractions for power and territory. For more enlightenment regarding this subject refer to this link;

«Non State Actors in the Middle East: Factors for Peace and Democracy, edited by Galia Golan, Walid Salem»
https://books.google.com.au/books/?id=zE83AgAAQBAJ

And last but not least, a succinct note about the linguistics just to have clarified some points but certainly not a conclusive one, as this subject is one that requires much more in-depth studies respectively. Prof. Gernot Windfuhr (Professor of Iranian Studies, https://archive.org/details/TheIranianLanguages2009) identified Kurdish dialects as Parthian albeit with a Median substratum, and David Neil Mackenzie, thought that the Medes spoke a northwestern Iranian language, while the Kurds speak a southwestern Iranian language. Therefore, based on these views linguistically the Kurds are closer to Parthian (Pahlavi) branch of Iranian peoples though with a sublayer of Median language. That corresponds with the fact we see so much similarity between the language of the Gilaks and Mazanis in the north of Iran, both among the subgroups of Pahlavi language, and the Kurds in the west, so much so these people can understand each other to a great extent as they speak their own languages. You can also see the striking similarities in appearance and many other attributes between the Kurds, the Gilaks, and the Mazanis, all of whom being among the large spectrum of Iranian Peoples. Armaiti (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Regarding Kurds/Iran

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is in regards to the Kurds article. According to the template at the top of this talk page, there is an repeated argument as to whether Kurds are Iranian. I have heard very good arguments to the contrary, but as it stands, the consensus seems to be that Kurds ARE Iranian. I have repeatedly urged a certain editor, Bawer1, that if a new consensus is to be reached, a discussion on this talk page is necessary. Please see my comments here: [2] [3] [4] I don't like being caught in a long term edit-war, but a discussion seems to be necessary here. I welcome other users' comments on the discussion below. —Josh3580_talk/hist 06:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This RFC may be premature (although it can do no harm) as the user has now opened a thread below - to which I have posted a reply and a proposed amendment to the text. DeCausa (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Thank you. I may eventually withdraw this RFC, depending on how the discussion progresses. I have reworded the request above, and will leave it open for now, in hopes that it will attract more editors to the discussion below. As you said, it can do no harm. I am encouraged that a good discussion has begun, and I thank you for your contribution and diplomacy. —Josh3580_talk/hist 19:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Kurds

Kurds are not Iranian. The Term Iranian in itself is a very vague term. Nonetheless, it is still important to know that Kurds are not Iranian. First of all, its important to know that many different people have inhabitated Kurdistan such as the Gutians, Hurrians, Mittani, ect. While there is some evidence that the Kurds have a possibility of being descendants of the Medes because of lingustic ties, that does not necessarily make it true.

Kurds have been mentioned many times throughout many different scholarly sources and most of them do not regard Kurds as "Iranian." Finding out the origin of Kurds is very difficult.

I remember one point in time, when many did think Kurds were descendant of Hurrians. It all boils down to how much evidence there is and there is not a lot between Medes and Kurds.

Kurdistan is a very sensitive area in the middle east and has been conquered by a vast amount of different empires and people. The area known as Kurdistan, is literally, in the center of the middle east.

Therefore, to say that an ethnic group belongs to one group of people just because there may be some linguistic ties, does not many any sense. There is genetic, historical, and cultural evidence that shows that Kurds are one of the most distinct people in the middle east. As a matter of fact, Kurds are so distinct that the only reason that they is still discussion today on what origin the Kurds are.

Those people whom have decided that Kurds are Iranian have only looked at linguistics, which is still incorrect by the way. They have not looked to all of the other factors I have mentioned above. Even the celebration of Newroz has been regarded for all the so called "Iranian" people, but it is actually a Kurdish holiday which others also celebrate. Their is evidence because Kawa the Blacksmith was actually present in what is known as "Iranian Kurdistan." Zahak the evil King also had much more influence in the Western part of the Middle East where Kurds are mostly inhabited and not as much as in the Eastern parts such as Tehran.

Kurds, linguistically, have been influenced by Turks, Arabs, and Persian. One many believe that the Kurdish language is a Northwestern Iranian language because of the words used in informal Kurdish. If one takes the time to look at Kurdish when it is spoken formally,however, such as news networks and poetry, then they will see that there is a huge difference. Kurdish, informally, uses many loan words, but if one takes the time to observe the Kurdish language in its original distinct form then they will see that the Kurdish language is a very unique and distinct language.

Overall, the point that is being drawn here is that there are many many factors to look at before coming to a conclusion about an ethnic group, especially that of 38 million people. One has to look at many different factors to realize the identity, which will still be very difficult considering the amount of influence that Kurds have had from others.

I am sure that many people will agree with me if they actually take the time to observe.

Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bawer1: Thank you for opening this thread. (By the way, don't forget to sign your posts by typing: ~~~~) The text of the article should not be changed until consensus is reached here. I see you asked User:Josh3580 where the current consensus was made. If you check the archives to this article talk page you will see multiple discussions on this over the last decade where there have been numerous attempts to make the change you want but with consensus rejecting them. In any event, WP:EDITCONSENSUS states "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached."

If you wish to raise this again it's important you understand that you need to support your argument with "reliable sources" - to see how Wikipedia determines which sources are "reliable" please read WP:RS. If you put forward arguments which don't cite reliable sources to support them, as you have done in your above post, they are considered "original research" in Wikipedia and is not allowed.(See WP:OR for more detail.) The other isssue which is relevant here is the situation when sources conflict with each other. In these circumstances we follow a policy called "neutral point of view" (see WP:NPOV for more details). This states that the article must cover "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It also means that "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects" (see WP:UNDUE). Furthermore, "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." (See WP:FRINGE.)

You have asserted in your above post that: most of them [scholarly sources] do not regard Kurds as "Iranian.". You'll need to provide evidence of that. You seem to be approaching the issue from quite a narrow definition of "ethnicity" i.e. from a genetic point of view. But scholars treat the concept in a number of ways, and these include linguistic and cultural issues and self-identification as well as genetic origins. It would be "original research" for us to make up our own definition of "ethnicity" and apply what we know about the Kurds to define the Kurds ethnicity. So all we can do is look at how the reliable sources define Kurdish ethnicity. Despite what you say I believe that scholarship typically defines the Kurds as either one of the Iranian peoples or closely related to them through looking at a range of issues (lingusitic, cultural, historical etc). Here are some examples:

• Beth K. Dougherty; Edmund A. Ghareeb (7 November 2013). Historical Dictionary of Iraq. Scarecrow Press. p. 385. ISBN 978-0-8108-7942-3.: Iranian origins are “the most widely accepted” theory

• Henri J. Barkey (1 January 2000). Turkey's Kurdish Question. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-585-17773-1.: “a distinct branch among diverse Iranian peoples”

• Michael M. Gunter (4 November 2010). Historical Dictionary of the Kurds. Scarecrow Press. p. 249. ISBN 978-0-8108-7507-4.: “ethnically related to the Persians”

• E. J. Van Donzel (1 January 1994). Islamic Desk Reference. BRILL. p. 222. ISBN 90-04-09738-4.: “an Iranian people”

• Mehrdad R. Izady (1992). The Kurds: A Concise Handbook. Taylor & Francis. p. 198. ISBN 978-0-8448-1727-9.: “Kurdish language and culture are indeed Iranic”

• Richard Foltz (1 November 2013). Religions of Iran: From Prehistory to the Present. Oneworld Publications. p. 218. ISBN 978-1-78074-309-7.: “an Iranian people”

• Birgul Acikyildiz (20 August 2014). The Yezidis: The History of a Community, Culture and Religion. I.B.Tauris. p. 193. ISBN 978-1-78453-216-1.: “an Iranian people”

• "Kurds." The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.. 2014. Retrieved December 29, 2014 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Kurds.html : “ethnically close to the Iranians”

Having said that, this source is closest to your point of view:

• John A. Shoup III (17 October 2011). Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 159. ISBN 978-1-59884-363-7.: “an Iranian people by language, the Kurdish people are ethnically diverse”

But I find it to be the minority viewpoint. By the way, you seem to be saying that the Kurdish languages are not Iranian. That is very much a finge point of view - I haven't bothered to cite sources on that because the mainstream scholarly viewpoint is quite settled on it. (see the sources in the language article for more on that.) What reliable sources can you suggest for your main point? DeCausa (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Similar to the book by John A. Shoup III I cited above the following refers to the mixed ethnic origins of the Kurds but nevertheless repeats that the Kurdish languages are clearly Iranic:

• David McDowall (14 May 2004). A Modern History of the Kurds: Third Edition. I.B.Tauris. pp. 8–10. ISBN 978-1-85043-416-0.

This seems to me to be quite a thorough source. Having looked over the other sources again I think the bare statement "an Iranian people" is only used by sources giving the most simplistic of labels. The article Origin of the Kurds quotes the Encyclopedia of Islam and, in an excerpt from the Encyclopedia's text cited in the notes, explains that the classification of the Kurds as an "Iranian people" is because of the linguistic and historic cultural linkages but that the ethnic origins are heterogenous. Looking at this in totality therefore, I suggest replacing the second sentence in the first paragraph of the lead with the following:

"The Kurds have ethnically diverse origins. They are culturally and linguistically closely related to the Iranian peoples and, as a result, are often themselves classified as an Iranian people. The Kurdish languages form a subgroup of the Northwestern Iranian languages."

I think this may be more reflective of the sources. DeCausa (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Support. @DeCausa: I like that language. It still represents the position of the current consensus, yet takes the other POV into account with its wording. I appreciate the time and research you have invested here, as well as your outreach. Let's see what other editors have to say, but I like this proposal. —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Support.. I agree with User:Josh3580, and the entire idea of NPOV is to represent different views, not in equal, but in relevant proportions. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no "pure" race in the world. Persians also heterogenous, Turks, Jews, etc. So what now? We have to change whole the articles? ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course there's no "pure race". I'm not sure of the point you are making - it's solely a question of reflecting the WP:RS. If, as is the case here, the most thorough sources are making a point of saying that the Kurds ethnogenisis arose out of an amlagam of Iranic, Turkic and Semitic groups, we must reflect that. If they didn't then we shouldn't. It's quite simple really. And, by the way, heterogenous origins are often stated in "People" articles already, if they're notable and sourced. See for example second paragraph of the lead to English people. There's nothing unusual about it. DeCausa (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, Kurds mixed with Semitic, Turkic and lranians but it has nothing to do with "ethnogenesis". The name " Kurd" was actively using before the Turks came to the Middle East. Kurds are just neighbours of these people-Semitic, Turkish, Persians- but it does not mean that Kurds arose out of mixture of them. lt is so superficial and there are many sources that contradicts with it. For instance, according to Minorsky and many other scholars they are descendants of Medes. And many Kurds claim that they are descendants of Medes, even Kurdish national anthem embodies that. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

We all have opinions, but this is about sources which is what I've provided. (Btw, no serious modern sources think that the Medes claim is supportable. It's become a politicized claim only.) DeCausa (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@ArordineriiiUkhtt: I appreciate your position and passion, but DeCausa has a point here. Reliable sources are the only thing that article content can be based on. Please familiarize yourself with the WP:NOR guideline. If you feel that the proposal is simply incorrect, then please cite your source. Simply saying "you are wrong" is insufficient. Bring sources to support your position. —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Decausa has presented the facts and the facts speak loud and clear. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Highlighting the sentence "The Kurds have ethnically diverse origins" is some kind of Undo weight .Simply , there is no group of people that is not ethnically diverse .I can understand some nationalistic point of views among Kurds does not like the term Iranic , but that term is a known scientific word with clear usage. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Alborz Fallah: I don't quite follow, although I agree that Kurds may not like the term Iranian. Which scientific term do you mean? Diverse? Ethnically? Iranian? —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Josh3580:Pardon for my delay . I mean the word Iranian or Iranic . The proposed text first gives weight to ethnic diversity among the Kurds , that sentence plus the other one - I mean They are culturally and linguistically closely related to the Iranian peoples and, as a result, are often themselves classified as an Iranian people - are used to explain the reason of calling Kurds Iranian for nationalist Kurds . In Wikipedia we don't need to do this . Anyone who dislikes the scientific terms can change it in scientific texts and not Wikipedia .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Alborz Fallah, that's quite an unfair interpretation. The Encyclopedia of Islam a highly authoritative and neutral source presents the topic this way. DeCausa (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa :I think you mean the sentence "The classification of the Kurds among the Iranian nations is based mainly on linguistic and historical data and does not prejudice the fact there is a complexity of ethnical elements incorporated in them". No problem with that fact , but combination of the facts and presenting them as the most important part (lead section ) is the problem . The sentence can easily be added to the body of the text , but using it in the beginning of the article may give the impression that classification of the Kurds as Iranian (Iranic ) is not established and academic ( at least if it is , is still a matter of debate )--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

We should reflect the most reliable sources, not pick and choose what suits us. The fact is that Wikipedia articles usually note in the lead mixed origins where the amalgamation of distinct peoples is prominent in the sources and is relatively recent (in recorded history eg in the last 1000 years or so). See for example English people, French people and many others. If one goes far enough back of course all peoples are an amalgamation, but we should follow the sources on how they treat the subject. For example, you probably have to go back well over a 1000 years and well into the neolithic to trace the amalgam that created Norwegian people who have (until recent decades) been relatively homogenous for several millenia. The important thing is to be guided by the sources and not make our own choices - that's how this issue is dealt with in peoples articles in Wikipedia - except highly politicised ones where it is a struggle to maintain NPOV, such as this one. DeCausa (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That's OK .Is the amalgamation of Kurds recent ? As I know in Persian sources the direct usage of the word Kurd goes back to the Ardeshīr-i Pāpagān , that is ,I think, not so recent . Also the diversity of Kurds is mentioned on the sources , but almost all of them say the Kurd diversity is internal in the Iranic (Iranian) peoples and not outside it ; as it has been said that outside the [west] Iranian border , every Iranic population is called Kurd (as an example Zaza people with Daylami origin ) . More than that , the proposal's problem is also in not directly saying that the Kurds are of Iranian(Iranic) people , but mentioning that with justification . In the lead section , why do we have to explain the reasons that classify the Kurds as Iranic , just in the first sentence of the article ? Why don't we simply mention it and use the reason in other parts?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not true that reliable sources say that the Kurds' mixture is of Iranic peoples only. See for example David McDowall (14 May 2004). A Modern History of the Kurds: Third Edition. I.B.Tauris. pp. 8–10. ISBN 978-1-85043-416-0., described by The Washington Post as the best history of the Kurds, which states they are a mixture of Iranian, Semitic, Turkic and other peoples. This happened in the last thousand years plus. The origin of the word Kurd is a separate issue. We should mention in the lead because it is significant aspect of the ethnogenisis of the Kurds: a mixed population that was Iranicised/Kurdicised relatively recently. DeCausa (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What's the main stream and dominant view ? Is the point of view that says the Kurds have an ethnogenesis including Turks and Semitic Peoples dominant ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Fallah's statements are adequate, clear and mainstream. We Kurds are iranic. Some Kurds deny it because of some political reasons-independence movements- and misleading meanings of the word "iranian". Many of them take it as " from iran" instead of being "iranic". Being mixed with other people such as Semitics, Turks and Armenians are different issue-plus there are no nation that are " unmixed" -The discussion is needless i think. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Support I think the proposed language is neutral and is an accurate synthesis of the sources -- which are not unanimous in their word choices and reflect a diversity of descriptions and level of detail. --GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Question are all the Kurds fighting ISIL in Iraq and Syria just there on holiday. GregKaye 20:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of your question and how does it relate to this? I can't even guess. DeCausa (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@GregKaye: I'm glad you have a great sense of humor, but I also don't see how that comment contributes to the discussion. —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Support this proposed wording. Kurds are Kurds. There is no reason to call them Iranian, unless a specific Kurd happens to hold an Iranian passport. The term Iranian now commonly means "of or relating to Iran or its people." or a native or inhabitant of Iran, or a person of Iranian descent." so the word Iranian is very closely tied to the country of Iran. If Kurds are called Iranian it delegitimizes their presence in Turkey, Iraq and Syria. Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

If the problem is the word "Iranian", then we can use the word "Iranic", instead of "Iranian". Because I agree with user Alborz Fallah's statements about the proposal. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Originally called here by a bot for the RFC. But looking at the well sourced proposal here it is very good. AlbinoFerret 14:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Look all I am saying is that the term "Iranian" is a very loose term and people can get easily confused when they see this. Iranic would be a better term to use. Nontheless, there is no doubt that the Kurdish language is a bit similar to other languages such as Persian but there is also a difference as well. I am speaking as a Kurd myself. There is evidence that the Kurds have the highest chance out of all the other ethnic groups of being descendants of the Medes, all one has to do is look at lingustics. Although, it is also important to know that the Kurds have been in the middle east for a very very long time, and there have been many other empires/people as well. There have also been, for example, claims that Kurds are also descendants of the Gutians. It all boils down to what you believe, but to say that the Kurds are an Iranian people, is sort of going overboard.

Kurds have been mentioned for a very longtime by many different people, including the Sumerians!

Nonetheless, I think there should be a change. I sort of agree with the Proposal above but I believe it can be better. Heres what I think should be written

Kurds are an ethnic group in the Middle East that inhabit adjacent parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syira known as Kurdistan. The Kurds speak a language known as Kurdish, which form a subgroup of the NorthWestern Iranian languages. The Kurds are known to be an Iranic people because of close linguistic and cultural ties with other Iranians. The Kurds are also known to be descendants of the Medes, according to many scholars.

Somewhere along those lines. Saying that Kurds are an "Iranian ethnic group" is is vague, confusing, and somewhat mis-leading. What I wrote is a bit more clear and I wrote why they are considered an Iranic people with the sentences supporting it. Notice how I also said a language known as Kurdish. I do not know on what insane consensus that people decided it should be "Kurdish language(s)." Kurdish is one language which is mainly based of two dialects, that are spoken by almost all Kurds. Those two dialects are Kurmanji and Sorani, both of which are highly similar. All Kurds regard their language as one. I am a Kurdish Sorani speaker and I can understand a Kurmanji speaker perfectly. Kurds in Turkey, Syria, and Half of Iraq speak Kurmanji. Then the other Half of Iraqi Kurdistan speak Sorani, with Kurds in Iran speaking Kurdish Sorani as well. There are also a few other dialects such as Hawrami which is spoken by about 10% of Kurds. Nonetheless, the Kurdish language is one language with 2 main dialects, both of which are highly similar to each other.

Bawer1 18:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Bawer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs)

"It all boils down to what you believe". No it doesn't - Wikipedia doesn't work like that. We just summarise the reliable sources and it doesn't matter what we personally believe. I don't think you've understood what I wrote about how Wikipedia works in my first post above. DeCausa (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa you are such an idiot. I was talking about the origin of the Kurds. Since Kurds are heterogeneous people, I used that statement. You need to read what I wrote thoroughly. Wikipedia is such full of crap, I gave many links to my statement on Joshs page. I know what I am writing is facts. I did what you asked by writing in this talk page. Wikipedia even refers to the Kurdish language as language(s)which does not even make any sense. I am a Kurd myself, I know what I am talking about. Please give me at least 2 reliable sources that refers to the Kurdish language as language(s). The facts I wrote about the Kurdish language can even by seen on Wikipedia. I have information. I have studied. You act as if I am just using information I got out of nowhere. When in fact, it is those people that you allow to change information, which create these problems. You did not even allow anybody to look at my proposal before you jumped in, I posted this proposal only a few hours ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Here are links to the Kurdish language. http://www.omniglot.com/writing/kurdish.htm http://www.institutkurde.org/en/language/ http://www.kurdishacademy.org/?q=node/41 http://www.krg.org/p/p.aspx?l=12&p=215

Please tell me where do any of you see that it is says language(s). Kurdish is one language!! Just like how Kurds can not be regarded as an "Iranian" people. That is the wrong term to use. Please look at what I wrote above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but here are four sources that reference multiple Kurdish languages: [5], [6], [7] and [8]. You'll note that the last one says scholars call them "languages" but Kurdish nationalists refuse to do so. The websites you refer to are not good enough sources for Wikipedia. I don't think you understand how Wikipedia operates. What you know or think you know is irrelevant. I've tried to explain but you don't get it. Maybe someone else will try. I'm done. DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What nationalism? Almost every source regards the Kurdish language as one. Out of all the sources you managed to find 4 that said otherwise. One of which, actually did somewhat agree with me. Look at link number 9, second paragraph. It amazes me at how bias you are. Just because I am speaking the truth makes me a nationalist? God, how much did they offer you to be so biased?

I am constantly showing facts. You did not even allow anyone to take a good look at my Proposal before you jumped in. Do you actually think your doing a good job? Wow, wikipedia amazes me more and more each day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bawer1: Please refrain from ad hominem arguments. None of our editors are paid, this is a volunteer project. You aren't getting paid, are you? I only wish I were paid for my contributions here, but that's just not how it works. You have to accept the fact that some will disagree with you. If your proposal is the best way forward, then you will gain a consensus. If it isn't, then you won't. Make your case, as you have started to do here, but don't attack other editors because they disagree. —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Josh3580 Either you are blind to the truth, or you are biased as well. Out all the sources, this guy managed to four that disagreed with my statement. When in fact almost all the other sources say otherwise. Why did he only pick those four, it is actually 3 by the way since on of them is irrelevant. This guy DeCausa ignored all the majority of the sources that are present and only picked out the very few that disagree with me. Is that bias or what? I am telling you that "Iranain" is the wrong term to describe Kurds and the Kurdish language is one language. I am stating obvious facts that almost any historian or person would agree with me. You say that I need to submit a Proposal, well here it is? I gave links to support my statement, and I carefully explained why my statement was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You haven't produced any reliable sources. We don't go by your personal opinions I'm afraid. DeCausa (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bawer1: I'm sorry that you think I am biased. But once again, arguing against the person (ad hominem), is not how we get things done here. Just produce your arguments and sources, and the community will decide. I thought that DeCausa did a great job at including your point of view, as well as the current consensus, which opposes your point of view. Compromise is the best way to go here. Wikipedia is not around to only include one side of an argument. It should include information that is proportionally representative of multiple views. —Josh3580_talk/hist 04:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The first proposition includes both viewpoints in a proportional manner, and this proposal seems to be a bit vague, and moves a bit too far in the other direction. While the WP:NPOV policy does not require including all points of view, it does require proportional representation of multiple points of view, as evidenced by the sources. The current consensus is biased, as is this proposal. We should, within reason, be inclusive and representative of the sources. —Josh3580_talk/hist 04:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Josh3580 of course you are going to oppose it because you are biased. Despite the fact that I have also provided you with evidence. Not to mention the fact that more people on this talk page agree more with removing the incorrect term of "Iranian." So i don't know why I see no changes? Oh way that is right because you are a biased person who is being told what to do by someone else. That is the only reasonable explanation I can find for your decisions because I cant think of anyone who would deny factual evidenece over and over again if he is not being paid by someone else to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bawer1: - Do you honestly think, that of my 18,378 edits, that I have been randomly paid to contribute to this single article? Is there some sort of pattern to my contributions that makes you think that I am some sort of paid shill, or is it simply the fact that I and @DeCausa: somewhat disagree with you in this discussion? If I were paid to contribute, would I be trying to argue that, as you quoted me, "The current consensus is biased, as is this proposal. We should, within reason, be inclusive and representative of the sources."? I really am sorry that we disagree on this subject, but accusing me of being a PAID meatpuppet is uncivil and completely out of line, especially being fresh off of a block. I am only trying to engage in discussion, and I have not accused you of anything, I have tried to only discuss the content of this article.

@Bawer1: here are the facts:

1. 12 users posted views on this thread (headed "Kurds") and the next thread (headed "Kurds are not Iranian" which appears to be an extension of this thread). These 11 registered users and 1 IP expressed their views as follows:

• 7 support my proposal, which is a compromise between complete removal of "Iranian" and the current wording. These are: me, Josh3580, Dan Koehl, Kansas Bear, Godblessyou2, Legacypac and Albino Ferret.
• 2 oppose my proposal: ArordineriiiUkhtt and Alborz Fallah (plus I suppose you too which makes it 3) But the reason they oppose it is they don't want to water down the "Iranian" aspect and want to keep the existing wording - not remove "Iranian".
• 2 support your proposal i.e. yourself and an IP who posted on 10 January. This was while you were on your 2 week block. Was it you posting while you were not logged in?
• 3 have expressed support for replacing "Iranian" with "Iranic". These are ArordineriiiUkhtt, Alborz Fallah and Wiqi55.

So, your repeated comment that most people agree with you just isn't true, is it?

2. I have provided 11 books as sources. All comply with Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria. You have provided 4 websites. One is a political website and two are effectively just self-published with no quality control or scholarly credentials. These do not comply with Wikipedia's criteria and cannot be used. The fourth does comply with Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria, but doesn't have anything to say about whether the Kurds are an Iranian people but describes the language as "Irano-aryan". None of your sources actually deny that Kurds are an Iranian people. So, you've provided no evidence for your position and all you do is just keep saying loudly that you are in the right.

I suggest you go to Google Books (don't bother with websites - anyone can set up a website and say whatever they want) and do some work searching for evidence supporting your position. If you're not prepared to put that sort of effort in, no one is interested in hearing your opinions. DeCausa (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: The request made for a 3O in reference to the foregoing dispute has been declined because it was primarily a dispute about user conduct, not about article content per se. 3O only handles matters concerning content, not conduct. For conduct disputes, speak to a administrator or file at AN or ANI or, in this particular case, seek input at conflict of interest noticeboard or, perhaps, the neutral point of view noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer)

• It seems to me that this question could be solved by using more explicit language. To say that the Kurds are an Iranian people primarily means that 1. their language belong to a group of languages that linguists call "The Iranian language", 2. their descend from an ethnic group that split into the ancestral groups of all the Iranian peoples, including the Persians, the Balochi, the Pashto, the Tajik, the Avestans etc.. It does not mean that they have any relation historical or otherwise to the country Iran. Hence it seems that to be more explicit about the linguistic and historical aspect of "being an Iranian people" would be good. I would propose something along these lines:

The Kurds ([کورد Kurd] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)) are a Middle Eastern ethnic group, inhabiting a contiguous area spanning adjacent parts of modern-day Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, a geo-cultural region often referred to as "Kurdistan". The Kurds speak the Kurdish languages, which form a subgroup of the Northwestern Iranian branch of Iranian languages. They are closely related to the other Iranian speaking peoples such as the Baloch people, and probably descended from the ancient Medes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you clarify how in substance it differs from my proposal which essentially says the same thing. There is a point of detail which is different: reliable sources don't give much importance to the theory of the relationship with the Medes. Also, my proposal has inline citations. DeCausa (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not different in substance, but it is different in the wording which I think at the core is what the argument is about - because it is the word "iranian" that is potentially confusing and therefore requires explicit clarification. Also my proposal avoids the problem of stating "is an iranian people", which is inevitably going to be a controversy magnet, and which is in any case simply a nother way of saynig that they speak an Iranian language. The relationship with the medes is not important and can be removed if so desired, the point is to demonstrate that noone is claiming that they are most closely related to the people of modern Iran. We dont usually use inline citations in the lead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the objections to my proposal come from people who don't like its weakening of the Iranian connection. There's really only one user who's objecting to it because the Iranian connection is too strong in it. So I'm not sure whether you'll get more support - I'll leave it to others to comment. DeCausa (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a question of weakening the Iranian connection it is a quesiton of clarifying what it means. Stating "is an Iranian people" does not do that sufficiently in my opinion, because most readers will likely take that to mean "having a relation to Iran" or maybe even "heing from Iran". But that is not what it means, it simply means belonging to the same cultural-linguistic grouping as the people of Iran (and a bunch of other peoples outside of Iran), and sharing a deep historical ancestry with them. I think the best Lead would be one that describes this explicitly, and I think it should have the capacity to satisfy both sides of the argument here, which is why I offered an alternative proposal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"The problem is that most of the objections to my proposal come from people who don't like its weakening of the Iranian connection." Well said ! I think if other users have an alternative proposal, they can write it here. Maybe adding the definition of Iranian/Iranic people to the end of the beginning paragraph may be of help .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Josh3580 You know, Josh I seriously think that you take me as someone who was born yesterday. Go look at your so called "facts." I said that most people agree with removing the term Iranian, and you proved that I was correct. Do you think you can really fool me? By putting the people that agree more with me into separate categories? You were the person or DeCausa who literally told me that you based your decision on a consensus, and not on facts. Now you are telling me that the consensus is biased, as is the proposal? What kind of bullshit is that? Then you want me to believe that you are not biased? You have stop and use your intellect before you make a statement. Do you not see that there is also even another person who agrees with me, the person right above me (Maunus). Whom has given an agreeable propsal as well. I doubt, however, that you will make any changes. At first I gave you sources, then you said that I need to instead give a proposal and see if I can get more people to agree with me, which has already happened. Now you are saying that the consensus is biased. Yeah, Im pretty sure that you and DeaCausa are the only ones that are biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Just change "Iranian" to "Iranic" to satisfy Kurdish nationalists/ethnocentrists who hate their origin (Iranian/Aryan) and do not understand a simple and common ethno-linguistic term, category and classification. For God's sake, please read Iranian peoples, Iranian languages, and Indo-Iranians. It seems that WP will become a big blog/forum in the near future, because unlike the past, current editors just want to write their personal opinions in the articles. If you remove "Iranian" from the lead section, It has no effect on academic and scholary sources, but it just makes WP a bunch of laughable and unreliable texts. Are you here to build an encyclopedia or a website full of useless content? --188.158.71.179 (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Population - Jews

Why are the so-called "Jews of Kurdistan" included in the population numbers? Shmayo (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I was refering to the template and the population in Israel. I just saw that there is a section about this too, which fits on Kurdistan, as someone suggested here a couple of years ago. I saw that this has been brought up more than once, but no one has really made any changes. The statement about Aramaic-speaking Kurdish Christians is weird too. Shmayo (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Since there has been no other input on this I'll be removing some things related to "Jews of Kurdistan", including the section about Judaism. Same goes for the strange sentence about some supposed Aramaic-speaking Kurdish Christians. Shmayo (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree.--هیوا (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

RecurringThemes tag

Under the "Russell"ian principle I question this tag. How can you be so full of yourself and your knowledge? What do you know about the next Einstein? Remove the tag please.--هیوا (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: please descend on earth and give us a view then! Do you know how rude that is? Anyone cares about DeCausa's actions? @Tide rolls:, @Josh3580:, @Drmies:. Can someone call for an RFC on this theme tag first? Shall I just delete my account and disappear?--هیوا (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you all explain what on earth is a consensus? One comes and leaves a message about changing a tag on talk page, gets no reply, what does that mean? CONSENSUS!--هیوا (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

More likely than not it means that the post went unnoticed because it was misplaced, as I've explained to you before. I am technically prevented from moving this thread or I would help you out. I am also unable to address your question regarding consensus at the moment; I will attempt to answer your concern soon. Tiderolls 10:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Eh, what is this about? Drmies (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Drmies, please read the RecurringTheme tag message on top of this talk page.

1. Is that how this discussion should be advancing?
2. I left the first message on this thread asking for permission to change it to a standard recurring theme message. I had no reply despite the fact that our discussion on the topic has been going on. I took that as a "consensus" and changed the message to the standard wikipedia one. Mr DeCausa rolled it back with a message saying "no consensus".
3. Which action is against consensus? My edit or his roll back? IF he is right and I broke a consensus, then I demand an RFC on that tag before we even talk about the other RFC above.
4. Whilst the article is pure assimilation of Kurds (in my view), we cannot even edit the talk page! The founder has strict advice to welcome (WP:DNB) new comers, yet I feel absolutely intimidated by his actions and will soon give up and go and spend my precious time on something else. If anyone thinks assimilation of Kurds works on Wiki they should google Saddam Hussein. Is it clear now?--هیوا (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I had know idea you had opened a thread on the tag - I take it from Tiderolls post you had put it in the wrong place. I reverted you because you removed a tag that has been here at least 5 years. It appears to be a useful tag because, looking at the archive, there was a speight of edits supporting a POV that the Kurds were dscended from the Medes and therefore not "Iranian", but apparently not realising that the Medes were an Iranian people too. So I don't really see what the problem with tag is. As far as what consensus means you should read WP:CONSENSUS which would probably clear it up for you. DeCausa (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

But you saw the edit of the tag. If the tag is there to stay why are you holding RFC's? What a load of self contradicting nonsense. I was not talking to you and do not use Tide_Rolls explanation as an excuse. you saw it and didn't even care. As I said on my talk page I dont want to talk to you. Your POV is clear. It's you against me and we want others to sort this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by هیوا (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"@DeCausa: please descend on earth and give us a view then!": if you don't want to talk to me then pinging me and asking me to give a view isn't likely to give you what you want. DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That was before Tide_rolls intervened. Last explanation was for Drmies and others, you still have NOT said which consensus did I break but no need to waste your precious time. هیوا (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Tag was there for at least 5 years unchallenged until you removed it today. Per WP:BRD I restored it. That's the normal process on wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

More facts less POV. It is just over four years. To cut this short, B R D done, what is next? The tag is not just a POV it is biting too. Let me remind everyone one more time, this is not about anyone's view. It is about WP:RS and that tag has no place within any reliable or even amateur source. --هیوا (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed the bitey comment. But the tag should remain, due to the history of ignorant edits. We'd need a RS to claim that the Kurds are Median; also, IE makes little sense outside of linguistics, and this is not a linguistic article. — kwami (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That is progress without fuss. Thank you kwami. Now let us discuss the rest of it.

• What it says currently is this: "'Denials that the Kurds are Iranian, with claims that they are instead Median or Indo-European.' You new comer, if you are one of those then you should know that 'the Medians were also Iranian, and Iranian is Indo-European'" Only the outcome is missing "which makes little sense".
• Therefore, It is still a POV not backed by the citations (even directly for WP:RS which support the claim), which are disputed, including the assertion that Medians to be "Iranian" and in my view still biting. Let us focus on this tag message and keep the rest of it for the RFC and the article itself.
• So, to move further forward, my suggestion is the wiki method of neutral, summing, guiding and new-comer-welcoming one, e.g: "This talk page contains repeated claims that Kurds are not Iranian, instead Median or Indo-European. Please be aware, the Medians are said to be also Iranian, and Iranian is said to be Indo-European. So far the discussions conclude that Kurds are Iranian based on WP:RS's contained in the article. Please read the whole talk archive before you feel you have something new to state." or something along those lines, just as you would in a dissertation. Thanks again.--هیوا (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That is what we call bullshit. It is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, like saying "the Moon is said to go around the Earth". Median is (was) Iranian, and Iranian is IE. Kurdish is also Iranian. NPOV doesn't mean giving equal time to falsehood. — kwami (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That is what I call literally biting just like the bullshit tag message. I take back my thanks and we are back in square one: the tag message is nothing but biting WP:POV. Now, I know what "crackpot"ing and "bulshit"ing editors I am dealing with--هیوا (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you find reality offensive, but there's not much you can do about it. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reality is offensive for those using inappropriate vacabulary. My time is more precious than your reality.--هیوا (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: I invite DeCausa to my talk page and he starts using "crackpot" vocabulary. I then make merely a "suggestion" to change a "talk" page and I get "bullshit" vocabulary PLUS "It's unfortunate you find reality offensive, but there's not much you can do about it" from k. Wow, pillars are literally "biting" around here.--هیوا (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you please stop pinging me. It's unnecessary and irritating. I didn't call you a cracpot I said the "Babylonian theory" was crackpot, which it is - and I don't even know if it's a theory you support. You on the other hand have been insulting everyone who doesn't agree with you - which now appears to be everyone you've come in contact. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I support removing the tag or at least qualifying it. It is not accurate to say that the "Medians were also Iranian" without making a distinction between language and ethnic origin. One source I checked suggests that only one Median tribe "traced its origin to the immigrant Arya, while the rest were regarded as being autochthonous even though from time immemorial they had lost their original language and had amalgamated with the Arya". ([9], p.57) The author concludes that some of the indigenous population went through "an early, slow, and long process of gradual Iranization". Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Wiqi, around here we spend our time talking about everything but citations and references. Unless the tag is removed or qualified as you say, I will not be contributing any further. Reality and history, is easy to misrepresent by words, that is why I love words. I feel changing the reality on McKenzie and others's ground is easier than here on Wikipedia with editors so certain about their knowledge.Thank you for the support and citation --هیوا (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The tag itself is appropriate, as the "Kurds≠Iranian" topic is definitely a recurring theme on this article. Keep in mind that talk page content isn't held to the same WP:RS standard as the article itself, as talk pages are discussions, not encyclopedic content. With that said, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all for there to be a discussion about the exact wording in the tag. While the tag itself is completely appropriate, it does read as if it was posted by a frustrated author, and the additional wording could probably use a bit of improvement. As with most things on this project (especially controversial issues), it will take such a discussion, with a new WP:CONSENSUS being needed to change the wording.

For those who are asking about the WP:RFC process, please see the WP:DISCUSSION article. It explains very clearly what steps to take if one finds themselves at odds with the behavior of other editors. The informal discussion we are all having right now is exactly what we should be doing at this stage. Let's also all keep the WP:CIVIL policy in mind, and limit ourselves to discussing content, and not contributors. —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 4

I propose that we reword the text of the template as follows, the wording was heavily based on هیوا's suggestion. Please see my comments above.

"This article has attracted repeated discussion whether Kurds are or are not Iranian, including the position that they should be instead be considered Median or Indo-European. At this time, a consensus has been reached that Kurds should be considered Iranian, based on the reliable sources contained in the article. Before requesting the removal of the Iranian description, please familiarize yourself with the cited sources, as well as the prior discussions about this issue on this talk page and its archives. Your concerns may have already been addressed." (see below for revised proposal)

Would this be an improvement? —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable to me, apart from the unnecessary italics. — kwami (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Josh3580. Acceptable to me too.--هیوا (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine in the sense that the broader consensus over the years is that this is the case. However, it is slightly inconsistent with the RFC in that the result of that did somewhat downgrade the strength of the Iranian description i.e. the wording out of that is not that they "should be" considered Iranian, but that they are "often classified" as being one of the Iranian peoples. But then the opening sentence remains that they are (unqualified) an Iranian ethnic group (which is also arguably inconsistent with the RFC result). Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic. If everyone else is happy with it then I am. DeCausa (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with kwami on the italics; I was trying to be illustrative, but on review, I agree that it was unnecessary. @DeCausa: Although the RFC wasn't about this template, I agree that it should have an effect. Taking that shift in consensus into account does seem to be the right idea. Let me change my proposal, kwami, هیوا, and DeCausa. —Josh3580_talk/hist 03:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Revised proposal

"This article has attracted repeated discussion whether Kurds are or are not Iranian, including the position that they instead be considered Median or Indo-European. At this time, a consensus has been reached that Kurds are often classified as Iranian, based on the reliable sources contained in the article. Before requesting the removal of the Iranian description, please familiarize yourself with the cited sources, as well as the prior discussions about this issue on this talk page and its archives. Your concerns may have already been addressed."

Please let me know if this is more in line with what we all think is appropriate. —Josh3580_talk/hist 03:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your precious time. No objection. --هیوا (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

To @DeCausa: @Kwami: & @هیوا: I'm going to be bold, and make the change. Please revert my edit if anyone feels it needs improvement to represent fairness and the consensus. —Josh3580_talk/hist 05:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Kurds are not Iranian.

Iran or Iranian are modern concepts to describe a state that was formed by Reza Shah, the Persian King, by use of war, accompanied with suppression of other ethnic groups in the geography which is known as Iran. You cannot find a trace of the word of Iran in any international documents. Persian suppressed the other ethnic groups in this area and established a Persian state and called it Iran. Prior to the Reza Shah, Ottoman Turks and Persia had occupied Kurdistan and had divided it between themselves in a treaty called Zahaw. After defeat of Ottoman Empire Iraq and Syria and Turkey emerged by support of the Britain and France.While Kurds were supposed to have their state based on the Treaty of Serves, their endeavors to reach their right to self determination was suppressed by Turkey and Iran and their leaders were Killed or Executed. Kurds are not Iranian and they are Kurds and their land has been occupied by Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria that is why there have been numerous movements and fights in Kurdistan and so far all of themhave been harshly suppressed by those countries. Kurds leaders like Simko, Dr, Ghasemlou, and Dr, Sharafkandi have been assassinated by Iranians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:7E80:488:E062:EA51:E53E:62AF (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Read Iranian peoples. In the English language Iranian has two meanings. Here it does not mean it concerns the modern state of Iran. DeCausa (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There is some support for using "Iranic" as a less confusing alternative (see the above discussions). Perhaps replacing "Iranian" with "Iranic" in the lede would solve this issue. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that in principle, but it needs to be supported by RS and not merely editors' preference. I only found "Iranic" used once in my sources search (see above - Izady) whilst "Iranian" is widely used. Are you aware of other RS that use it? DeCausa (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Google Books returned a few more sources other than Izady. But I agree, using the more common term should be preferable. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct no need for the whole paragraph. The word "Iran" is new and its etymology is one thing, its meaning to present country of Iran is what everyone is contesting. What nation belong to what other nation should be left to evolution or may be even geologists. Kurds are NOT "Iranian" both on common sense and scientific grounds. Citations 33, 34 and 35 are all nothing but lazy Iranian amateur attempts at "assimilating" Kurds even on Wiki. Citation 35 is clearly an "Iranian" guys work. I will watch this space if someone does not remove the above warning.--هیوا (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is not relevant. Only reliable sources count. The citations you refer to aren't even Iranian authors. DeCausa (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither is yours or anyone else's the "RecurringThemes" has to be reported as it is POV only. I will consult Mr Izady (PhD or professor or Kurd) and update this page. This is not how a scholar should talk. Please do not touch the section header. --هیوا (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Check out the Columbia citation then tell us if that's not misrepresentation? Plus, Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/325191/Kurd till I get to the library & check the other two citations. --هیوا (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you not see the thread immediately above this one? The issue was subject to an RFC and detailed discussion which has only just been closed by an admin. The lead is the result of that RFC and nothing you have said raises any new point. By the way, I don't why you've inserted a citation needed tag. The statement is completely covered by the Encyclopedia of Islam citation, amongst others. Having said that I do believe it is unnecessary and repetitive since the Kurds being an Iranian people is fully covered by the following sentences, which was the output of the RFC. DeCausa (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Please reply to my comment regarding the "Columbia" and "Britannica" first then I will reply to the "Islamic" one. 2. I have referred you to your own citation and you keep saying "nothing..." and I refer you to "Britannica" yet you refer me to Encyclopedia of Islam citation which is NOT in the first two paragraphs unless I missed it. 3. To answer your first question: No, I cannot read that much. If you are referring to a consensus, then clearly "Iranians" outnumber Kurds when it comes to not just Wiki but assimilation (my POV of course), so will scholars v amateurs(my POV again). 4. What I can read is para 1 of the opening of the article being at best a POV AND I am trying to find "evidence". 5. Did it occur to any of the contributors to just "google scholar" the sentence? Please note the number of citations. 6. Citation 32 (p9) and 33(p159) DO NOT state such a sentence or infer such meaning, my copy of "The Kurds: a people in search of their homeland. K McKiernan. 2006" has even to the contrary (image1 and imag2), based on 1-5, the citations (34,35 and 36) must be checked as the contested issue is where the "citation needed" tag is. Therefore, the "citation needed" tag is an absolute necessity subject to this whole page, at least a citation that the sentence is based on a "consensus". Thanks for the patience, as said will consult Mr Izady's. --هیوا (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, this debate ended a week ago with the admin closure of the RFC above. Whilst consensus can change, 7 days is too short a period of time. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, before I jump onto conclusions, is proposal 1 the ones to be used? IF so why hasn't it been used? Thanks --هیوا (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It's the first proposal: it's in the the white box. It isn't actually labelled "Proposal 1". It's under the sub-heading "Proposal". If you look at the top of the thread admin Drmies determined the result of the RFC. And I don't know why you say it hasn't been used, I added to the article a few days ago. DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"and, as a result, are often themselves classified as an Iranian people.[5]" That is what you mean right? Now, that citation [5] which is 36 in the article from the so called Encyclopaedia of Islam. This has no source at all, please have a look at it, it is A SINGLE view (not POV for wiki but contestable scientifically) of Encyclopaedia of Islam alone. I have offered, so far, Britannica and Columbia (which is a reference itself) as well as citations 32,33 and McKiernan's and more will be coming. Why are you insisting on this? Under this "holy" RFC even, the worst way to sort this dispute, in my opinion, is to give the "famous" Encyclopaedia of Islam" citation that you use within the RFC where my citation needed tag is. As for Kurds and an RFC, we are too busy fighting Daesh as someone said.--هیوا (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Let no one misguide you how the first text was. Please read it. Thanks. --هیوا (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You're not making much sense. I think you need to read the discussion in the RFC moe carefully. Firstly, that wasn't the only change arising out of the RFC. It was all the changes in this edit. The sources for attaching "Iranian" to the Kurds were discussed in the RFC. The Encyclopedia of Islam is extremely well known and reputable. But as you can see in the RFC many many other sources describe the Kurds as an "Iranian people". This has been settled and I'm not engaging further. DeCausa (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I am making "extremely well" sense you just need to read it again. I will take your "settled and I'm not engaging further." elsewhere if need be. There are 6 "support"s and at least 2 opposes, even if there were 100 supports (all POV right), in wiki citations count, let us count those: 5 against and 1 in favour. 1. Please show me one more source that reflects "There is no "pure" race in the world. Persians also heterogenous, Turks, Jews, etc'" yet "Kurds are an Iranian" based on 2. an RFC from end of Dec 2014 to end of Jan 2015?. There is new evidence case should be reopened Mr/Ms Lawyer jury or no jury.--هیوا (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies:, @Josh3580: The conversation on DeCausa's wall should be brought here. And do read his cherry picking method of selecting citations on my wall too. The article clearly is in trouble because citations are not dealt with properly as in the case of DeCausa's usage of the first reference in the first proposal. It clearly states "The most widely accepted theory claims that the Kurds are of Indo-European origins, primarily of Mede and Iranian stock." yet he jumps the bold section, the comma, the Mede section and only picks the Iranian word and concludes "Iranian origins are 'the most widely accepted' theory". If that is how he treats the first citation then I respect his work but disagree completely. My case is clearly outlined above in this section, and further regarding the 7 citations in the RFC on my wall. Perhaps I should put the arguments against the "rushed" RFC, the references and outline a new way forward. Thanks.--هیوا (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@هیوا: I'll be happy to summarize that discussion for inclusion here. As you pointed out, the full discussion can be found here. In summary, a user (Sharisna) repeatedly changed the article in a way that went against the agreed-upon consensus reached after two months of discussion in the RFC above. I informed DeCausa that I had reverted the change, as DeCausa was being quite careful not to violate the WP:3RR policy. We explained to Sharisna that the current version was reached by consensus after a lengthy and official discussion process. The WP:ADMINISTRATOR who closed the discussion, Drmies, informed the user that editing against the consensus reached in this RFC discussion was considered disruptive editing. DeCausa also let the editor know that if they felt that the admin (Drmies) improperly closed the RFC due to lack of consensus, they should see the WP:CLOSECHALLENGE policy for direction as to how to move forward. That policy would call for a direct discussion with Drmies as the next step for Sharisna to pursue. Hope this helps clear things up. —Josh3580_talk/hist 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Josh3580, like Sharisna, I still maintain that the opening line is not covered under the RFC nor under the citations used to make Kurds Iranian birds. I edited it and like him I was warned too, that is fine we can live with that. OK, let me take Sharisna's job on. Mr Drmies how do I challenge the RFC? Based on:1) it was only running for less than 2 months? 2) Columbia, Britannica and at least few others do not make Kurds Iranian species. That is my simple case, I can provide a longer case but will be summary of what is here and what is on my talk page. Thanks. --هیوا (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The answer is in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. DeCausa (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• هیوا, it's always fascinating how my cursor moves when selecting Arabic text--it reminds me that this is a diverse world, and I hope to see much more of it than I have. At the same time I'm glad with the script I'm using, cause man Arabic is hard to read with my old eyes. Anyway, yes, what DeCausa says, on the challenge.

  Let me add that an RfC is always closed/decided on the evidence brought forth by the participants and the strength of their arguments; whatever is also there in the world may be valid but the admin should be really wary in considering that evidence. (BTW, two months is plenty long, and I doubt you'll find anyone to say it wasn't.) What you may consider here is a different kind of dispute resolution if you can't work it out here. What you all should consider (you too, DeCausa...) is that this is a tricky topic where "objectivity" can be difficult: if emotions run a little high it's because this is really important to people and the world and politics. And, for instance, that someone has a strong POV/interest in the matter is fine, as long as they abide by policy (RS, NPOV, etc.), and the matter should be handled with respect.

  I just looked at the RfC again, and I doubt that its closure will be overturned--but perhaps Maunus doesn't mind coming by? They left some useful comments. Good luck everyone. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. I'd like to add a couple of comments. Firstly, I personally have no objection to the removal of the word "Iranian" in the opening words of the lead (although I know there are editors who do object and I don't think there is yet consensus to do it). It is an oversimplification and the Iranianess is IMO adequately covered by the RFC wording. Secondly, I don't think the Britannica's omission sufficiently changes the position. The wording is "They are culturally and linguistically closely related to the Iranian peoples and, as a result, are often themselves classified as an Iranian people". I don't think that "often classified" as such is disputable and covers off WP:UNDUE. Britannica is unusual in this regard (Columbia is consistent with the RFC wording of course so I'm not sure of the relevance of that.). What you won't find are WP:RS positively denying their Iranianess. I think the RFC wording is a reasonable compromise between the two strong POVs but at the same time is also justified by the RS. DeCausa (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ctrl/Cmd + F "Iranian" you get 59 results in the article! Drmies I use the script specifically to emphasise your point. I hope copy & paste makes it easer and I have on the user page given its equivalent so feel free to use that (Hiwa). As for the two months it was my generous guess, in reality it was less than 3 weeks I think? Please have another look as I dont know how to. If the RFC can be opened on other WP:RS not discussed here then who knows what else is out there. I will consult WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and wait for the visit by Maunus. Now for DeCausa, if this was POV it would have gone away with one WP:RS. Thanks everyone --هیوا (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

→ I would like to add a bit, too. Like DeCausa and others have suggested, I believe that it is easy to make the argument that the wording accepted in the proposal/RFC could still use improvement, which is why this "living" encyclopedia (to borrow a term sometimes used to describe the US Constitution) is so amazing, useful, and frankly impressive. The results of this RFC are not written in stone; it just establishes a baseline "accepted" version to continue to work from. It can be revised in the future; it's just one method of giving a proposed edit a bit more weight than a single editor's changes, by having multiple editors engage in an open process to establish exactly where the consensus of those editors involved falls at the time.

→ This is not a new disagreement by any means, it has been discussed at length through the years. This most recent iteration of this discussion began several months ago, with repeated edit-warring, some nasty ad-hominem attacks, and accusations of bad faith. While this specific disagreement, like many discussions in this project, may never be settled to everyone's satisfaction, I hope that it will continue approaching the proper representation of reliable sources in a fair and honest manner. As of late, this thread has taken a bit of a turn, and editors really appear to have taken the WP:AGF bit to heart. It is readily apparent to me that those in this discussion have truly started to try to work together as a group, and trying to be open to everyone, including those that they may disagree with. I cannot express my appreciation enough to all of you who are striving to take this approach. @Drmies: you put it very well. It may all seem to be "simple wording", yet the passion and conviction of all involved in this discussion, while it may spark off nastiness from time to time, just goes to demonstrate how important this topic is to people on every side. —Josh3580_talk/hist 01:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I shall endevour to contribute accordingly. Thank you for your efforts Josh3580. I have already consulted Izady citation used in the article and will report in due course. Must do other urgent "real life" things like all of us. Just wanted to say, I am here and this is thread is alive. --هیوا (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2015

Please add this text to the Religions section

Judaism

The history of Judaism in Kurdistan is ancient. According to the memoirs of Benjamin of Tudela and Pethahiah of Regensburg, there were about 100 Jewish settlements and substantial Jewish population in Kurdistan in the 12th century. There is over 200,000 Kurdish jews in Israel. It's known that one of the first female rabbis or even the first one was Kurdish Jewish woman Asenath Barazani

It's known that since the early 20th century Kurdish Jews had been active in the Zionist movement supporting Israel's establishment. One of the most famous members of Lehi (Freedom Fighters of Israel) was Moshe Barazani, whose family immigrated from Iraqi Kurdistan and settled in Jerusalem in the late 1920s.

Ferakp (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Öcalan isnt a kurd

Read his Biography. No sources exist about his kurdish heritage and the few sources that do exist about his persona, claims he is of turkish origin. -- 194.118.252.129 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2015

Please add to the "Regions with significant populations" section: Israel 200,000

Ferakp (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Not done: Please request this change at the template's talk page.

Note: Germany also has an article dated from 2012. Please provide a recent and updated article to support your change instead. Callmemirela (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

dilsa demirbag

pls remove her. what's is so special about her? One feels ashamed having her on there when there are so many 10000xxx influential. I mean is this some kind of joeks having her on their?

 Done I can't see that name so I'm guessing it's removed. ~ Zirguezi 20:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Population

Please add Kurdish population in Israel to the population count. There are 200,000 Kurdish Jews in Israel, and there are hundreds of documents, videos, etc. in which they identify themselves as such. Rudaw, a major Kurdish TV network, is currently holding a reportage on the Kurds in Israel.

The Kurdish population in Israel is much larger than most of the other diaspora populations listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.23.10 (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done I see it has been added. ~ Zirguezi 21:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed it and the section about Judaism. The Jews of Kurdistan are ethnic Jews, not Kurds. Could fit on Kurdistan, not here. I did start an section about this earlier and User:هیوا agreed. User:Ferakp then readded the section. Shmayo (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It is almost impossible to say that Jews of Kurdistan are ethnic Jews not Kurds. They are called Jews of Kurdistan because they were speaking also other languages than Kurdish. But it was usual to speak their own languages and mix them with other languages. This happened also in Europe. Also it's known that first [Kurds]] were converted to Judaism over thousand year before Islam was founded. So it's a little bit weird to not mention Judaism. But according to Israeli news, they are working with it at this moment. I believe they will publish history of Kurdish Jews next year.

They are called Jews of Kurdistan because they are Jews from Kurdistan. Of course we have this problem. But that doesn't make them Kurdish. These "Kurdish Jews" are sometimes called "Assyrian Jews" too, speaking an Aramaic dialect just like the Assyrians. Interesting - please post it here then. Shmayo (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2015

Kurd are an ethnic Iranian group in middle east 138.253.10.123 (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Kurd are an ethnic group in middle east.

The Iranian word should not be there. it is an referenced fact.

If you look the second paragraph references 39, says the origin of Kurds are unclear. How can define that kurd an Iranian origin. You are contradicting your own definition.

Therefore, I kindly request to remove Iranian word there.

• Not done. Please read the discussions regarding the consensus on this subject on this page. If there are new sources or insights to be brought to the discussion, please start a new section. Tiderolls 13:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: Thank you. @138.253.10.123: You have a point, but the cited sources disagree with you. As Tide rolls intimated, this is a long-standing debate. Please see the note at the very top of this talk page. At this time, the Iranian description has been accepted by consensus. Things on this project are never set in stone, so if you feel that this description is incorrect, please cite a reliable source for other editors to consider. —Josh3580_talk/hist 03:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Population in Armenia

The number of 37,470 is arbitrary. It made up by adding Yezidi and Kurdish population numbers together. Yezidis are recognized as a distict ethnic group (it's written եզդի in Armenian in the second line) and the number is shown as 35,305. The number of Kurds however is shown in the fifth line (քուրդ)- it is 2162. The statistic's based on self-identification, so I find that quite incorrect to add these two up.46.241.153.68 (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@46.241.153.68: That seems like a perfectly reasonable argument. I haven't checked the page history, is there someone who disagrees with you, or has reverted your edit? If you are correct, then please make the appropriate change, and cite the applicable source. Thank you for being analytical and critical. —Josh3580_talk/hist 05:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The page is protected. So I'll ask you to make the change. 46.241.159.44 (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit to the lead

@Redthoreau: regarding your recent revision of the lead, there was a recent RFC on this - it's in Archive 14 - which is one of the reasons I reverted you. some of the changes you made are unsupported by the citations. Specifically, making the Iranian connection only linguistic and referring to them only as "sometimes" being classified as abn Iranian people. As you can see from the RFC this was thoroughly debated. DeCausa (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Decausa, I have removed the "sometimes" and kept the mention of being tied to the Iranian peoples. However, the lead prior to my edits mentioned the term "Iranian" 4 times in the first paragraph which was repetitive, and extremely WP:Undue. It almost seemed like someone was writing it to prove a political point, rather than inform. A few other issues I believe merit mention are the geographical regions of Kurdistan, and Istanbul being a chief city in the diaspora etc. If you disagree with any of my edits please revert them individually so we can discuss the matter here, rather than a blanket revert. thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)-- (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it works the other way, per WP:BRD please introduce your changes here and we can introduce them piece by piece. I've reverted back to the RFC version. "It almost seemed like someone was writing it to prove a political point". You seem unaware that this is a highly controversial issue that has been argued back and forth for years by two opposing sides. There was an RFC a few weeks ago which tried to work out a compromise that was at the same time soundly based in WP:RS. Around 10 editors participated and the RFC was closed by an admin. The outcome is what you are trying to change. Neither the "pro-Iranian" editors nor their "opponents" (if I can call them that) were necessarily content with the compromise. But that's the nature of compromises. Importantly, for those of us who are neutral on the political issue, the wording, even if not by any means perfect, was backed by RS. Do you see that it is not particularly helpful re-opening such a long-term issue for which a solution has only recently been found with difficulty? To the extent that your changes don't touch upon the RFC wording, I don't see a problem in you introducing them. But, frankly, you should not change the first paragraph of the lead without first proposing the change here and trying to gain consensus support (if you still wish to re-open that particular can of worms). DeCausa (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

[CURRENT FORM] --> The Kurds (Kurdish: کورد Kurd) are an ethnic Iranian group in the Middle East, mostly inhabiting a contiguous area spanning adjacent parts of modern-day Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, a geo-cultural region often referred to as "Kurdistan". The Kurds have ethnically diverse origins.[32][33] They are culturally and linguistically closely related to the Iranian peoples[33][34][35] and, as a result, are often themselves classified as an Iranian people.[36] The Kurdish languages form a subgroup of the Northwestern Iranian languages.[37][38]

^ DeCausa, Issues with paragraph 1, which is poorly constructed in my view: (a) The lead itself states that they are “often” classified as “Iranian people”, yet the first line of the article states it unequivocally and in Wiki’s voice. When you already have a discrepancy in the first paragraph, it’s a bad sign and shows the lingering residual effects of past edit wars. (b) The air quotes used around "Kurdistan" are not only against mos, but carry a biased implication, like it’s not a real defined place. (c) The word “Iranian” is mentioned 4 times, and the word "Kurd" or "Kurdish" only twice - in an article about the Kurds. Which is absurd and WP:Undue. The first paragraph basically reads like someone who has an WP:AXE to grind, and wants the world to know that in their mind Kurds are not an independent ethnic people, but Iranian, so why even have this article etc. So the reader is repeatedly met with the word Iranian over and over. I believe it is fine to note that they are often grouped with Iranian peoples, and that Kurdish is a Northwestern Iranian language (both true), but that can be done in one sentence which would be proportional, and only require saying Iranian twice in total, not 4 times. I have tried to do that in my edits, but you have now reverted them twice. (d) I think there are too many references for a lead paragraph. It looks sloppy and is likely a result of past edit wars, which should be trimmed down. (e) I also think it should be noted that there are 4 geographical regions of Kurdistan and how they compart to make the greater Kurdistan mentioned. I'd also list the regions counter clockwise starting with Northern. Currently Iran is randomly listed first, when the region with the most Kurds in in fact Turkey -- again, it reads as if someone gratuitously pushing an Iranian agenda. Thus my proposed paragraph 1 would be as follows:

The Kurds are an ethnic group in the Middle East, mostly inhabiting a contiguous area spanning adjacent parts of southeastern Turkey (Northern Kurdistan), northern Syria (Western Kurdistan), northern Iraq (Southern Kurdistan), and western Iran (Eastern Kurdistan), a geo-cultural region referred to as Greater Kurdistan. Although the Kurds have ethnically diverse origins, they are culturally and linguistically closely related to the Iranian peoples, while the Kurdish languages themselves form a subgroup of Northwestern Iranian languages.[32][33][35]

As for paragraph 2, my edits were fairly minor, but I believe still important and valuable. I would mainly add that Istanbul is a significant city for Kurds as it has more Kurds than any city in the World. I also would utilize the name Rojava instead of Syrian Kurdistan, as that’s more accurate and the name of the Wiki article itself, and add “cultural rights” after greater autonomy, as that is a crucial factor in the ongoing demands of Kurdish guerrillas battling Turkey et al. Thus, my paragraph 2 would read as follows:

The Kurds number around 40 million with the majority living in West Asia, however there are significant Kurdish diaspora communities in the cities of western Turkey, in particular Istanbul. A recent Kurdish diaspora has also developed in Western countries, primarily in Germany. The Kurds are the majority population in the autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan and in the autonomous region of Rojava, and are a significant minority group in the neighboring countries Turkey and Iran, where Kurdish nationalist movements continue to pursue greater autonomy and cultural rights.

Of note, I believe that the lead should also be expanded to possibly 4 paragraphs, as critical information is missing, but I first wanted to address these issues.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course you're entitled to your views but consensus is that the second, third and fourth sentences of the first paragraph of the lead read: "The Kurds have ethnically diverse origins.[32][33] They are culturally and linguistically closely related to the Iranian peoples[33][34][35] and, as a result, are often themselves classified as an Iranian people.[36] The Kurdish languages form a subgroup of the Northwestern Iranian languages.[37][38]"

You are making changes to this consensus version which subtly alter its meaning. In particular, you have omitted the statement that they are often classified as an Iranian people. It is not only against consensus to omit it but it is also incorrect to do so. As discussed in the RFC there are multiple sources that define the Kurds as an "Iranian people". As far as the first sentence is concerned, I personally don't object to the removal of the word "Iranian" and it wasn't specifically covered in the RFC. But if you remove it I suspect you will soon be reverted (not by me). As regards changing the references to "Kurdistan": it's a politically loaded to use it in the way you are suggesting and I believe that would soon be reverted (not by me again). So, in summary, I wouldn't revert any of the changes you wish to make (although I think they are unwise and will just spark an edit war) except if you change the second, third and fourth sentences of the first paragraph that I quote above. The reasons are (1) they are the consensus agreed at an admin closed RFC and (2) they are an WP:NPOV reflection of the WP:RS, which your wording is not. So I would revert any change to those sentences. DeCausa (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the version of the lede by Redthoreau seems better, it seems to give a more complete information. It also less Iranian-centric and politically neutral. Khestwol (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa, I have adjusted the lead per my proposal above, and left the 3 sentences you mentioned from the RFC alone. Although I believe they are still redundant, by saying "Iranian people" twice. Certainly that sentence can be combined into one can it not (and still retain the same meaning)? I looked through the TP archives, and believe this has been a continuing issue partly because the composition has been so poor. It's odd to be so repetitive, I've never seen it in any other Wiki article.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It's because the "pro Iranian" element object to any diminution of referebces to it. There are similar issues across WP e.g. "Greek" in the leads to ancient Macedonia-related articles. DeCausa (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks better now Redthoreau, but there can be an improvement. Your current version of the lede: ... a contiguous area spanning adjacent parts of southeastern Turkey (Northern Kurdistan), northern Syria (Western Kurdistan), northern Iraq (Southern Kurdistan), and western Iran (Eastern Kurdistan). I think this sentence can be rearranged into: ... a contiguous area spanning adjacent parts of southeastern Turkey (Northern Kurdistan), western Iran (Eastern Kurdistan), northern Iraq (Southern Kurdistan), and northern Syria (Western Kurdistan). This arrangement of countries will appear more neutral, as there are more Kurds in Iran and Iraq than Syria. Khestwol (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

In addition, I would like the mention of Greater Kurdistan from the first line of the lede removed, because it appears as redundant in the lede after all the Kurdistans are mentioned already in the same sentence. Khestwol (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

^ That works for me Khestwol. :)  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to REPEAT, the article still has 57 "Iranian" in it. The RFC mentioned, is not written on stone. --هیوا (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This article still has lots of problems. It incessently mentions that Kurds are an Iranian people (though they don't identify as such) yet it can't bother to mention the Zagros Mountains. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change the numbers. A little discussion about it has taken place above.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barì Lùr (talk • contribs) 16:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Please also provide a source to support the changes to be made. Thank you -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion

A move discussion relating to this article is open at Kurdish languages' talk page. Khestwol (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2015

200 kurds in israel is false. The referenced article says: "there are 200 recent immigrants in tel-aviv". but, that's unrelated. there are approx 120,000 kurds in Israel. Jewish kurds. Oorish (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

According to Google Translate, the source say "Khaled believes that Israel live nearly 200 Kurdish refugees," which appears to support the statement. Stickee (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox problem

The population data in the infobox all needs to also appear in the article, and the citations moved there (just use <includeonly><ref name="Foo" /></includeonly> for citations in the infobox). This stuffing of detailed citations, with embedded quotations, and loads of conflicting population data into the infobox is causing WP:POVFORKing between the infobox and it's own article! We're saying in the article that the Syrian population "is" 9%, but wehave half a dozen sources in the infobox indicating that the exact figure is quite uncertain. That info, in clearly written sentence form belongs in the population section of the article. Same goes for every other area. I've dealt with this problem with regard to Turkey, and done several hours of other cleanup on both the article's and infobox's citations. Someone else's turn now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation cleanup

Let's try to cleanup the citations more. This crazy page is using over a dozen inconsistent citations styles, has incomplete citations, broken ones, and other problems, and many have URLs that have not been checked in ages. I'd suggest starting with all the Encyclopædia Iranica cites (the work we're citing most, and citing most inconsistently). Use {{cite book|title=Cited Article's Title (without subtitles or quote marks, and using Title Case not the original's ALL-CAPS) |first1=Firstname |last1=Lastname |date=the "Last Updated" date at the bottom of the cited article |work=[[Encyclopædia Iranica]] |edition=Online |editor-first=Ehsan |editor-last=Yarshater |editorlink=Ehsan Yarshater |publisher=Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University |location=New York |url= http://www.iranicaonline.org/path_to_article |accessdate=13 May 2024 |quote=Excerpt if really needed, without quote marks.}}

And let's try to adapt more of the excessive quotations in the citations into encyclopedia text. We should be quoting less than 10% of the amount of material we're filling up the References section with right now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

40 million?

 Fixed

around 40 million ? really wikipedia ? i am eagerly waiting when you fix this bullshit. aprox they are 25-30.. furthermore zaza is not kurdish. they are different people their language is unique not like kurdish dialects.

I've checked all our available sources. It's a min. of 30mil (counting known diaspora), probably at least 32mil, and a max of 37mil (but even that depends on a source the interpretation and primary sources of which are uncertain). No idea where the 40mil figure came from. I've updated the article to get rid of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Please change 5 tribes to 4 tribes

zaza people do not consider themselves to be kurdish. they have different religion, language and traditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.55.145.33 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)‎

Please cite sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Unclear sections referring to political events but without geographical or national reference

• "the coup d’état of 1980" Please could someone make that "the Turkish coup d’état of 1980" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.178.72 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 22 July 2015‎ (UTC)

WP:JUSTFIXIT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)