From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ancient Near East (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Iran (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Former countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon

Miscellaneous comments[edit]

This page is a academic anachronism lifted from a source almost one hundred years old. The idea of Median and Old Persian being spoken languages of the respective people is not long discredited. The monumental "old Persian" as found in Darius' inscription according to Frye and Cambridge History of Iran was not a vernacular but a ceremonial archaic language whose alphabet was newly created and its structure probably survived in the conservative courts of the Middle East. The Medes and the Persian did not make ethnic distinction between one another and simply referred to the collective as Arya or Aryanam as the quote in the article from Strabo in the article as well as Darius' inscription attests. They probably spoke a language closer to the Parthian Pahlavi and the words Parshuash and Mada are of mesopotamian origin and were never intended as an ethnic recognition.

There is also some controversy regarding whether any such thing as Median Empire ever existed. Any how I think this article needs to be removed as it is highly inaccurate and needs to be replaced by something a bit more current.

The major contributor to the article [1] has done very biased and factually incorrect edits (not always listed with the same IP address). There should be many incorrect or hideously pointed claims in the article. Roozbeh 04:03, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could you illustrate the points that concern you here on the discussion page please Roozbeh? Lets see if we can get to the bottom of this.Zestauferov 09:02, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I haven't analyzed this article in detail, but claims that Turkic speakers were in the Greater Armenia area in 600-450 B.C., or that the Scyths were Turkic speakers, are far out of the accepted scholarly mainstream, as I understand it. -- User:AnonMoos

Quite right. There are many problems:
  • The 1911 Encycloaedia Britannica gets no credit for its text used here.
  • "an Iranian people of Aryan origin" Aryan denotes a language group does it not?
  • "in the 8th century BC they were dominated by the nomadic group of the Scythians" There is no authentic record of the Medes before the 7th c. BCE.
  • "Aran" An anachronistic Ottoman villayet name.
  • Herodotus. No reference? Whose interpretation of Herodotus is being followed?
  • "König" is quoted without being identified. Mystification.
--However, rewriting this entry will involve an editor in some unpleasant personality clashes, I predict. Wetman 06:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Aryan is name of a language group (Indo-Iranian and a race. People of Iran are of the Aryan race as well as many people in Afghanistan, Tajikistan and northern India.

See also [bartleby on Aryan --Mani1 21:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clarification needed[edit]

The first part of the sentence "[Herodotus] dates their independence frQm c. itoi.e. from the time when the Assyrian supremacy was at its height." makes no sense to meFornadan 06:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is the article still disputed? john k 00:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidently, the 1911 Britannica article was scanned from a text recognition device, notoriously sloppy. This accounts for the occaisionally garbled readings that remain in the text. Additionally, ethnic views have come full circle since 1911, with vastly greater standards of scholarship and archaeological evidence available today, making the old text appear opinionated, grossly inaccurate and sometimes even humorous reading. I think this was the reason for the 'disputed' templates. I have now added 1911 and cleanup templates to flag the article to those who may be interested in helping with the cleanup effort I am now undertaking. - Codex Sinaiticus 00:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why does it say "Median Empire of Persia/Iran", under the picture of Greater Media? That's stupid... // Diyako —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Disposal of 'Dispute' Templates[edit]

Disposal of 'Dispute' Template The following points of 'dispute' have been previously raised on this page, nearly all of them arising from usage of 95 year old material full of outdated, quaint views. Many ideologies have come and gone since the heyday of colonialism and Imperialism.

Any outstanding points will be moved to the end of this list, and once they are all resolved, I propose to remove the 'Disputed' Template (unless more significant disputes are added to this list)

FIXED ITEMS: 1.Claims that Turkic speakers were in the Greater Armenia area in 600-450 B.C., or that the Scyths were Turkic speakers, are far out of the accepted scholarly mainstream, as I understand it. -- AnonMoos

  • What little of this stuff I found left in the article (attempting to link the Medes to Huns and Hungarians) has now been removed. Codex Sinaiticus 00:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wetman's objections: 2.The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica gets no credit for its text used here.

  • Fixed during cleanup with a template. Codex Sinaiticus 00:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3."an Iranian people of Aryan origin" Aryan denotes a language group does it not?

  • No. This point was already addressed by Mani1 above, and should not be a controversy.

4."in the 8th century BC they were dominated by the nomadic group of the Scythians" There is no authentic record of the Medes before the 7th c. BCE.

  • Recent additions suggest that Assyrian records do indeed attest the Medes from the 8th C.. The Scythians / Sakas were likely the 'dominant' tribe in a close association with the Medes, but not necessarily, as the above ambiguous language had suggested, 'dominated' by them oppressively, so this has been reworded and may be explained further. Codex Sinaiticus 00:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

5.Herodotus. No reference? Whose interpretation of Herodotus is being followed?

  • The disparate references to Herodotus have now been consolidated and amalgamated, with less extraneous interpretation added. Codex Sinaiticus 00:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

6. "König" is quoted without being identified. Mystification.

  • Cleaned up, along with much similar severely outdated material. Codex Sinaiticus 00:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

7. "Aran" An anachronistic Ottoman villayet name.

  • I am about to research this point, and will hopefully have accurate info added very shortly. I then should be able to dispose of the 'Disputed' label; but in the meantime, feel free to list any further reasons not to do so just yet!
  • UPDATE: I have followed the link to the Arran article, wow that is another mess! The prevailing view there seems to be that the name Aran (Arran) is an ancient name used by Iranians from ancient times for the Aras Valley. Thus the term Aran is the appropriate one, and clearly neither anachronistic, nor Turkish. Without objection, the "Disputed" Template will now be removed...!

Incidentally, one view in the article Arran states that it is properly considered as distinct from Azerbaijan (Atropene), an entity immediately south of the Aras. Given that this river valley, not far from Ararat, is alluded to in the Avestas as the 'oldest (sacred) homeland', I intend to update the article soon with a look at the Arran-Aryan connection... Codex Sinaiticus 01:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dates used in this article[edit]

Wikipedia policy is quite clear on use of Eras in articles:

Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BCAD 1 or 1 BCE1 CE.

The primary authors of an article may use either dating system. In this article, which is about a non-Christian region of the world, BCE/CE makes the most sense. Wikipedians should respect and be sensitive to people of other cultures. Sunray 15:49, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • The "primary authors" were the 1911 Britannica, until I and others revised it. Who are you claiming is a "primary author" that wants to use BCE?

It seems the majority of people do not agree that BCE "makes the most sense", and you are only stirring up a tempest in a teapot and raising blood pressures with this campaign. Do not oppose arbitrary changes while fraudulently claiming a "consensus", until that consensus really exists. Yes, this is an article about a non-Christian region, but when you are talking about BC times, obviously there were no Christian countries anywhere in the world yet, because it stands for "Before Christ"... I can think of few articles where BCE looks more inappropriate and incongruous than this one, and it seems you are only bent on making a stink here.

Come on, this is the realm of Classical history. If we say for example, "Solon was born in 638 BC" it does not imply anything to any sane person about Solon being a Christian, nor does it connote any disrespect for Solon's own non-Christian beliefs or traditions. But, if you say "Solon was born in 638 BCE" it just looks like a ridiculous invasion from someone in the field of archeology trying to talk about Classical History. We're talking about Solon and Media, not some dinosaur bones carbon-dated to "60,000 BCE" or something. Codex Sinaiticus 16:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Codex Sinaiticus, you seem to have a strong point of view on this. The Wikipedia policy stated above has been around for quite some time. There have been many debates on this (see Talk: Common Era and its archives). Still the policy stands. The policy is directed to Wikipedia authors, not sources, unless they are being quoted.
Your comment that "... the majortity of people do not agree that BCE 'makes the most sense" is inaccurate." If you read their comments, many of those who voted simply opted to keep the current policy. The policy is what we have for guidance, lets find a way to make our work support it. Sunray 16:18, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus seems to be right on this. BC/AD is the worldwide standard. It has no real connotations anymore other than as a date convention, and should be preferred over far less common and less understood conventions, jguk 16:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The rationale used by Codex Sinaiticus has nothing to do with the Wikipedia policy quoted above. It also has little to do with other Wikipedia policies such as NPOV and common standards of courtesy and civility. Sunray 18:26, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
It's everything to do with being courteous and civil to our readers by preferring terms they use normally and terms they understand rather than imposing notation used in US academia. Kind regards, jguk 07:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
It is fundamentally discourteous to stuff one's religion and values down other peoples' throats. Sunray 16:45, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that is your POV, but it smacks of paranoia. You can follow whatever religion suits you best (at least in most countries). It seems from the article [Common Era] that the usage replaced earlier "Vulgar Era" meaning the same thing, apparently originated on Jewish gravestones, by Jews who couldn't bring themselves to write AD. You are imposing a "norm" that is quite abnormal, and since the "primary" two architects of all the IRAN articles would have to be Zereshk and Fisal, I propose we let them decide if BC (Before Christ) is so offensive to them that they too want favor the usage of the Jewish State (BCE). If both Zereshk and Fisal agree one way or the other, let us abide by their decision. If they disagree, let us go to some kind of outside mediation. Codex Sinaiticus 23:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
We all have our own POV, but nope, not paranoia on my part. Just applying the Style Guide. BTW, despite your differing POV from mine, I appreciate the constructive way you are approaching this. Zereshk has strongly indicated a preference for BCE/CE see Talk: List of kings of Persia. Sunray 07:14, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

While Codex Sinaiticus seems to have a grasp of the Style Guide reference quoted above, Jguk does not. He has reverted to BC/AD again. There is apparently no reasoning with him on this. However, some of us can count and realize that authors Southern Comfort and Zereshk have both indicated a preference for BCE/CE. author Codex Sinaiticus has indicated a preference for BC/AD. Thus, until other authors weigh in on this subject, the balance is to BCE/CE, which IMHO, only makes sense given the subject matter. Sunray 15:33, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Note that I've recently gotten involved in some of the Iranian articles and that I find myself in continuous conflict with Southern Comfort and Zereshk. I'm not speaking up because I'm their good bud <g>. Nevertheless, they're right in wanting to use BCE/CE. It just makes sense in light of the subject matter and the prevailing usage in the relevant academic sources. When there's consensus among those who are on otherwise hostile terms, I think that should count for something. Zora 19:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

medes exicutions[edit]

This is my contribution to the page[edit]

Medes and Iranians are the same race, as for median language it is an Iranic langauge. here are sites that are current on medes and not ones from a old britannica.

Bistons inscription

Achimedian Army

Smerdis / Gaumâta (Old Persian Bardiya: Persian prince, second son of king Cyrus the Great).

Artaxerxes (Artâkhshatra) Ardashir-e Derâz-Dast (By: Plutarch died 359 BCE,Translated by: John Dryden)

Achaemenid Society and Culture

Territorial Challenges and Iranian Identity in the Course of History By: Dr. Davood Hermidas Bavand, 2002

History of Persian or Parsi Language By: Fariborz Rahnamoon

Zoroaster and Zoroastrians in Iran By: Massoume Price, December 2001

Mithraism: Mithrâ Khšathrapati and his brother Ahurâ By: Professor Mary Boyce

Median Iran (with a map)

These are various sources but I found Iran Chamber a unbais and academic source of the highest quality, their work is by Iranologicsts and Orientalists both of Iranian, and Non-Iranian background and source. --Aryan Khadem 12:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with you on the neutrality of iranchamber. Amir.azeri (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

How far back does Iran go?[edit]

What IS Iran is not clear. Is it Persian culture? That leaves out the half of Iranians who aren't Persian. Is it just living in the territory controlled by the current Iranian government? That's well and good, but you can't apply that to history. You end up with prehistoric hunter-gathers and Neolithic farmers being considered "Iranian" because they lived in the current territory, even if they didn't speak an Indo-European language or consider themselves to belong to anything much but their band or their village.

Did Medes consider themselves Iranians? They couldn't have done so, since Iran didn't exist then. Various editors say that language makes them Iranians -- but looking at the CAIS link, I see that "Iranian (Aryan) languages are spoken in Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Arran (republic of Azerbaijan), Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, China, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Russia and other scattered areas of the Caucasus Mountains." Does that mean that all those areas are rightfully part of Iran?

So far as I can see, claims that historic peoples or states belong to a contemporary state are just an excuse for boasting (they did wonderful things, and they are us, so that means WE did wonderful things, hooray for us) or territorial claims (the Mongols conquered China, therefore the Mongols were a Chinese dynasty, therefore every territory that they conquered rightfully belongs to China). That's why it doesn't make sense to describe the Medes as Iranians. They may have been Aryans, however. Zora 13:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No, these areas are not rightfully part of Iran no more than Scandinavia, Low Countries, North America and Australia are "rightfully part of" Germany (due to being speakers of Germanic languages). There's no need for this crazy conjuncture... IDiO (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Please don't confuse "Iranian" as used in this article which is an anthropological term with "Iranian" as the citizens of modern Iran. In anthropology, "Iranian" means all people who speak/spoke a language that belongs/belonged to the Iranian branch of Indo-European languages. To avoid this confusion, some scholars use "Iranic" for the anthropological term and use "Iranian" for citizen of Iran.
Achaemenids and Medes considered themselves as "Iranian" in the anthropological sense, not the modern political sense. Darius the Great calls himself an Aryan=Iranian son of an Aryan=Iranian.
The name Iran in New Persian is Eran in Middle Persian which itself is shortened form of Avestan airiiana = Aryan. Sassanian called their empire Eran-Shahr which means Realm of Aryans. Please see the etymology and history of the term "Iran" or the book by Gherardo Gnoli called "The Idea of Iran". BrokenMirror2 (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your tree is wrong, I think. The Vedic civilization (and its language, Sanskrit) is the ancestor of the Indo-Aryan languages. The tree should just be

                 |                           |
               Iranian                Indo-Aryan

At any rate, I don't see anything wrong with calling the Medes an Iranian people. john k 15:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

But is Iranian (citizen of the state of Iran) the same thing as a speaker of an "Iranian" language? That's the crucial point, and the problem that the state of Iran has to face in dealing with the "ethnic minorities" who in fact make up half the population. If the state feels that speaking an "Iranian" language and adopting "Persian" culture is necessary to full citizenship in the state, then minorites are being discriminated against. If the state feels that speaking an Iranian language means that the speaker belongs to Iran, then the state is set for irridentism. It's being applied to the past here, but it could just as easily be applied to the present. By advancing BOTH claims at once:

1) all the territory we currently control is OURS, regardless of the language and culture of the residents 2) anyone who speaks an Iranian language, past or present, is an Iranian

the state maximizes its claim to power and territory.

This kind of claim also sets the stage for ethnic cleansing. If the land belongs to US and they aren't US, then we should regularize things by kicking them out. Not that I'm accusing the Iranian state of ethnic cleansing. Just of holding beliefs that could be used to justify it.

It's OK to say that the Medes spoke an Iranian language, or even that they thought of themselves as Aryans, but claiming them as Iranians is projecting nationalism onto the past. Zora 19:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The word "Iranian" obviously has several meanings. On the one hand, it means "citizen of the modern state of Iran." This obviously is not what is meant by calling the Medes "Iranian." A second meaning is the Iranian languages, from which we can derive the meaning "a speaker of an Iranian language" or "a people that speaks an Iranian language." This is obviously what is meant by calling the Medes an Iranian people, and is completely accurate. Since, obviously, in ancient times there was no country called "Iran," and thus "Iranian" cannot mean a citizen of a country which does not yet exist, I don't see how there's any real confusion. Calling the Elamites Iranian would, of course, be completely wrong. But the Medes were an Iranian people, and I don't see how worries about the current day Iranian government engaging in ethnic cleansing change that. john k 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Using the word in two different senses is extremely confusing, and contributes to the sort of historical thinking that leads to squabbles over which current polity "owns" a past civilization. Frex, Pakistan and India both claim the Indus valley civilization. Anchaeologists are running into nationalist passions in many countries and are writing books about their travails, thus Historical Archaeology and Archaeology under Fire. It would be much better to specify that by Iranian is meant speakers of an Indo-Iranian language. Zora 04:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It's fine to specify more clearly what is meant, just saying that there's no need to get so worried over it, especially pre-emptively. As to words appearing in two different senses, this is hardly avoidable in the English language. And it comes up with pretty much every single nation-state. Is a Greek someone who speaks Greek, or someone who lives in the Greek state? What about an Italian? Or a Romanian? Or a German? We basically have to use these words in two different senses, especially in historical context. I don't see why the word Iranian is any different. And it's not an "Indo-Iranian language", it's an Iranian language. john k 22:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[No Title][edit]

There should not be any controversy regarding the use of the name "Iranian." Iranian denotes more than someone simply speaking an Iranian language, it also recognizes religious beliefs, traditions and customs. The Medes are labeled as an "Iranian" ethnic group because the langauge was of the Iranian family of languages, and there tradtions and customs were Iranian. This is attested by Herodotous who states the Medes and Persians could understand each other when speaking, meaning their languages were mutually intelligble, and they also had the same customs and tradtions.

As far as I know no serious scholar contests that the Medes were an Iranian people.--Eupator 16:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Median words"[edit]

It's unclear in what sense the following are "Median words":

The following Iranian words are similarly thought to be of Mede origin:

To the best of my knowledge, all these words are generally Iranian, not specifically Median; most are given in Old Persian forms, which are (insofar as they were distinguishable at all) not Medic. What's the basis for this claim? If it is without foundation, I suggest removing this passage. RandomCritic 13:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct as far as I know --K a s h Talk | email 17:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
See I.M. Diakonoff, the medes. Indeed these words with slight pronounciation are common to other Iranic languages. --Ali doostzadeh 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
How precisely does Igor Diakonoff phrase the context (in which he notes that the words are of Mede origin)? Is he actually saying the words - as they appear other Iranian languages - are derived from a Mede word? (which is what is implied in the WP article).
Who/What is he citing as the basis for this observation? Is he saying they are first attested in Medea before appearing anywhere else?
These questions (and their answers) are particularly important because Diakonoff is a principal proponent of Darmesteter's theory that the Medes were Indo-Europeans (and not Indo-Iranians).
-- Fullstop 11:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Indo-Iranians are also Indo-Europeans, just like dogs are also mammals. Indo-Iranian is a subgroup of Indo-European. In turn, Iranian is a subgroup of Indo-Iranian. In any case, I've never heard of this "theory" that the Medes were not Indo-Iranian: consensus is that they were Iranian, and spoke a Northwest Iranian dialect (or more than one dialect of that group, if the term was not that specific).
As for the quoted words, they are thought to be of Median origin purely because of their phonetic form. They do not have the form that would be expected in Persian. Certain Proto-Iranian sounds or combinations of sounds turn up as something else in Old Persian than other languages; for example, where other Iranian languages have z, Old Persian has d, and in many words where most other Iranian languages have sp, Old Persian has s. Instead of aspa-, Old Persian has asa- (both are attested, but only one can be the genuine Old Persian form), and instead of paridaiza-, Old Persian should have paridaida- (neither form is actually attested, but paridaiza- is what must be reconstructed as the Old Persian ancestor of Modern Persian palīz, the word for garden). Old Persian thus had a very distinctive sound among Iranian languages, which makes these words stand out (not all of them are necessarily Medisms, though, some of them are likely from other Iranian languages,. Analogous arguments are used to deduce that, for example, skirt came into English from Old Norse, while the word directly inherited from Old English is shirt. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, if Arsène Darmesteter is meant, don't forget that he lived in the 19th century, when historical linguistics was just developping, and only just becoming more methodically rigorous; much of 19th century scholarship is outdated and you can hardly take a more-than-100-years-old opinion which departs from the current consensus and present it as a serious alternative. The Origin of Species, for all of the merits of this work, isn't exactly state of the art in evolutionary biology, either, and you wouldn't normally use it as a source to dispute current thought in the field. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


With no disrespect but I have read the user pages of most of those who have contributed to this discussion but I cannot see any expertise in linguistic or history of Iran among those I checked so far! How do you know what you are saying is correct? (Not that I want to put you off, I am asking just as a matter of interest).

PS: If you have expertise and qualifications on any subject please add that to your user-page so that others can asses your comments. You may ask what about yourself? Well, I only ask questions! Kiumars 13:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of Median tribes[edit]



No scholar has ever claimed Medes are related to Hungarians. Or the Magians (Moghaan) are related to Magyars! So folk etymology here is at work again. Unless you have sources from reliable scholars that Magians are related to Hungarians or have any reliable etymology on the other Median tribes, it should be deleted. Indeed I have an article from a German scholars on the etymology of Median tribes, and I do not see any connection to Hungarian Magyars! Either prove from reliable sources that Magyars are related to Magians are get rid of that folk etymology section. I have studied Iranian lexicon related to Medes. Please do not make Wikipedia into a place for nationalistic ideas and the article should reflect what current scholars think about Medes. So if you do not have sources and references (and I must add relating Magians to Magyars is baseless), then please stop your support for wrong information. You can easily do an RFC and you will see I will be right on this account also. I have read several books and articles on Medes.

The current Encyclopedia Britannica says: one of an Indo-European people, related to the Persians, who entered northeastern Iran probably as early as the 17th century BC and settled in the plateau land that came to be known as Media --Ali doostzadeh 19:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Again our friend has a good point, but I am giving my reason for blanking out that part, because it is absolutely false. Relating the Medes (the three wise men) (Magians) to Hungarian Magyar is on the border of real insanity and then relating Sumerian and Dravidian is worst. And by the way the information goes against Wikipedia's policy of NOR. That actual part of the article which I deleted is just cut & pasted from a hungarian nationalist site: [2]. As you can see the article has no references and is written by a non-specialist (do a search on Fred Hamori and he will claim every ancient language to be related somehow to Hungarian). I am just making sure the scholarly opinion on Medes is reflected in the article and not nationalistic opinions. Check the Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 and there is nothing about some bogus Hungarian connection or even the weired etymologies given Mr. Hamori. --Ali doostzadeh 19:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking out entire paragraps because you disagree with one point is vandalism. The blanked out version leaves a big hole in the text, like "The following are the six tribes according to herodotus" followed by nothing. Please take greater care with this article. If you object to Hungarians being mentioned, the procedure would be to blank out only the mention of Hungarians and to paste the sentence you object to here on the talk page so that editors may discuss it. Don't just throw the entire paragraph out on this one pretext. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The whole folk etymology is taken from the above web-site I mentioned. It is bogus and has no source. So I just mentioned the six tribes without any non-scientific etymology. I can find the actual etymology through digging scholarly material, but this does not mean that invalid information should be there. Now what part of this do you dispute? Do you think it is valid to have wrong etymology based on bogus theories by some nationalist person with no Phd in the field who claims that every language is related to Hungarian?? Don't you think Wikipedia should adhere to a higher standard that reflects Academic scholarly works? If you want to get an arbitrator, I have no problem, since I have a decent knowledge of the Medes and know a good deal of academic materials with this regards. Please see: [3] for example which is based on scholarly articles. --Ali doostzadeh 21:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You may well have a point about the Hungarian conenction, but it is not for you or for a cadre of invading editors to decide unilaterally on something that has been here for two years. It MUST be pasted on this page for discussion, because blanking out the entire section from the 1911 EB using the fact that "Hungarians" is included as a pretext, is vandalism. Like I say, you may or may not have a point about Hungarians. But your methodology here of invading articles and deciding on everyone else's behalf what may or may not be presented, is just WAY to heavy handed for what we are used to here. If you have nothing to fear, bring up the blanked out section for a full discussion. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is Hungarian used in 1911 Encyclopedia?[4]. I do not see Magyar nor do I see the bogus etymology given. I brought the blanked section for discussion as you can see I am discussing it now. It is from a hungarian nationalist webpage and it constitutes NOR and it has no source! The article needs to be factual. --Ali doostzadeh 21:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean the word Hungarian is or isn't in the 1911 article. I mean you are using the pretext that Hungarian is mentioned in the wikipedia paragraph, to wholesale strike the entire paragtraph. You are deleting many other things beside the Hungarian thing. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Even though the 1911 EB is dated, it has no Hungarian as you can see. For example see the more recent material by I.M. Diakonoff [5] and even more recent articles here:[6] [7]. For now I am deleting the bogus etymology part which has no source and mentions Hungarian on the six tribe.. They all come from the mentioned Hungarian nationalist site and not an academic reference. If you want to seek arbitration on the factual evidence, I have no problem. But for now, I do not see any moral support to put material that is faulty and mislead readers. Please read the link I gave from Fred Hamori.. In it Hungarian, Sumerian, Dravidian, Median and etc.. are claimed to be Hungarian related. Do you think misleading readers is right? --Ali doostzadeh 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
For example assume you are a high school student that has to do research on the medes.. What kind of grade would you get when someone mentions Magyars are related to Maghians! ... Or that the source of the bogus etymology is from a website that claims Hungarian is the mother language of all languages. Lets be factual. --Ali doostzadeh 21:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the blanked out section formatted properly for the discussion page, don't see why that is too much to ask ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The six Mede tribes in Herodotus[edit]

Herodotus, i. 101, lists the names of six Mede tribes or castes. Some of these are similar to tribal names of the Scythians, suggesting a definitive link between these two groups.

  • The Busae group is thought to derive from the Persian term buza meaning indigenous (i.e. not Iranian). Whether this was based on an originally Iranian term, or their own name, is unknown.
  • The second group is called the Paraetaceni, or Parae-tak-(eni) in Persian, and denotes nomadic inhabitants of the mountains of Paraetacene. This name recalls the Scythian Para-la-ti, the people of Kolaxis, believed to represent the common people in general, but whom Herodotus calls the "Royal Scythians".
  • The fourth group is the Arizanti, whose name is derived from the words Arya (noble), and Zantu (tribe, clan).
  • The fifth group were the Budii, found also among the Black Sea Scythians as Budi-ni.
  • The sixth tribe were the Magi. They were a hereditary caste of priests of the Zurvanism religion that evolved out of Zoroastrianism. Hungarian tradition also traces pre-European Magyar (Hungarian) ancestry back to the Magi.[citation needed] In time, the Mesopotamian-influenced religion of the Magi was suppressed in favour of a more purely Iranian form of Zoroastrianism, itself evolved from its somewhat dualist beginnings into the monotheistic faith that it is today (also known as Parsi-ism).

I did put this already on the above discussion.. but I guess forgot the html formatting. Now as you can see none of these has any sources.. Indeed I read a scholarly article a while back where reasonable etymology was given for all the tribes. I already made my points against this section as well, as can be seen from the comments above. The whole text is ripped out of some hungarian nationalist polemic article. Thats it. --Ali doostzadeh 22:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
So you consider the entire above text to be the work of Hungarian nationalists? Not just the one sentence about the Magyars? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I now see you are mostly right about that, here is the original source, and you are right that it is Hamori My apologies. But in the two years since it was added, it has made some improvements! If you can get the correct etymologies, it would be an asset. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
And silly me, I see you already gave me that same link... I had no idea you had identified the whole text as a copyvio, I thought you were objecting to one word and striking the whole thing... Again, I apologize... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem.. that is why I was saying. The whole thing was cut & pasted from Hamori's polemic which is non-scholarly. There is a lot of wild theories on the internet. For example white nationalists claim the ancient Egyptians had nordic features and black nationalists claim that the ancient Egyptians were black.. They have their own webpages and weired reasons as well etc. For example do a google search for Fred Hamori and every single non-IE and sometimes IE and non-Semitic language is considered to be related to Hungarian. From Dravidian , to Elamite to Sumerian to Hurrian to even the Iranian Medes/Scythians. Now imagine if they were to cut & paste such materials in an article. That is why I did not hesistate to remove them, because they were false. As per the etymology of the six tribes, I will look into it. Two of them I know off hand because it is Avestaic. Thanks for your help. --Ali doostzadeh 01:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Boundaries of Media[edit]

Is the first map used in the article accurate? Does it show the original Media which was inhabited by Medes or it shows the Median satrapies of the centrues that followed? Asoyrun 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It says boundaries of Media as per: Achaemenid and Alexanders empires. It is not clear why northern and eastern borders of the first map of Media used in the article are so long. Asoyrun 16:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Iranica says some scholars define eastern borders of Medes with Alvand, not Damavand as highlighted in the map. Asoyrun 18:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Modern Kurds are NOT the only Medes[edit]

First and foremost scholars do not consider Modern Kurds to have fully Mede ancestry, but mostly Hurrians mixed with Mede. The closest populations of Medes you can find today are around the Caspian Sea (Gilaks, Mazandaranis and Azerbaijanis) and not only Kurds. Certainly, many famous Median Kings and Queens might have lived in modern Kurdistan but that doesn’t make modern Kurds more Medians than other Iranian Ethnicities. In fact, I find the statement “Scholars and historians believe that the Medes are the ancestors of modern Kurds “ totally false unless you can show some valid proofs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Lots of people nowadays seem to naively think people fall into neat little pockets that never change, so that a population living 4000 years ago exactly corresponds to the ancestors of a population living today. It just doesn't work that way in real life. Anyone who knows anything about genealogy knows that everyone has two parents, four grandparents, by the time you get that far back, everyone alive today is probably descended from everyone alive then who had surviving issue. For example, every single genealogy I have ever seen for a modern North American person, sooner or later, ties in to King Charlemagne. On this basis, it is quite possible that 90% of the entire population of North America are Charlemagne descendants, so it's nothing special to brag about. People don't just morph spontaneously into something else, rather, they get half their genes from their father, and half from their mother (it's called the birds and the bees, folks)... Sure the Kurds are descended from the Medes, and also from the Hurrians... So are the Iranians, and all the other peoples of the entire area, all the way to India. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, we showed you evidence on talk page of Kurdish people and said we will provide more when page is unprotected. Gilakis, Mazandaranis and most of northwestern Iranian people groups exept Kurds seem to have a Parthian/Scythian (both Iranian) origin. Azarbaijanis themselves are an amalgam of Talyshi+Kurds+ turks. also Kurds historically were known as Medes at least by Armenians, (if not mention their name for themselves). Asoyrun 18:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

..point of information ..when you say that they are descended from .... are you saying physically, culturally or linguistically? if its just physical, then Sinaiticus makes a good point .. (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

We should move the page to Media, and have a seperate article for the Mede people. Why are the articles about the Medes and the Median empire lumped up into one article?Azerbaijani 14:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish people[edit]

The "Kurdish peoples" article on Wikipedia, which is linked in this article, clearly shows that whether the Medians were Kurdish or not during this time is disputed. In fact it leans heavily towards suggesting that they were definitely separate peoples, at least at the time. I suggest removing this entire paragraph;

"The Medes are credited with the foundation of Kurdistan as a nation and empire, and established the first Kurdish empire, the largest of its day until Cyrus the Great established a unified Kurdish empire of the Medes and Persians, often referred to as the Achaemenid Persian Empire, by defeating his grandfather and overlord, Astyages the shah of Media. Until that point, all Kurdish peoples were referred to as Mede or Mada from the article"

Or changing it completely by removing any statements about it being a Kurdish Empire, Kurdistan or that the Kurds were referred to as Mede, seeing as how it is not consistent with the statements made in the “Kurdish peoples” article and those statements take precedence since they are, unlike the above mentioned paragraph, properly sourced. -- 12:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Kurdish peoples article has the same problem with this one. Just because a few historians in the past suggest does not mean they are making assertions. Hence trying to get away with naming the rare historians and saying belive. Dozens of scholarly texts I've ever read and perhaps hundreds assert that the medes have no direct cultural/lineage to any modern day people. It may only be surmised (since no large migrations of peoples took place) that the mede genetic make up is mixed with the peoples of the core population in the Zagroas mountains(though still only a weak amalgamation) and then diffuses out to the peoples in the surrounding area, this includes the kurds but is not limited too them. The medes are very obscure historically and they only had conquered a small area of modern day Kurdistan (the people of that area then were considered foreign to the medes no doubt) for a short period before Elam change all that. Not even Iran can claim the Medes as their own. I believe the mede-kurd supposition is an exaggerated chauvinist connection with no genuine historical, archeological, or paleoanthropological support. So please use sorced assertion not suppositions, or every article would be cluttered with unencyclopediaic, this scholar suggests this or this historian thinks that. -Kain Nihil 00:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. We need to do some major clean up on all Kurd-Medes related articles, because this has clearly gone over their heads: Ancient Kurdistan and Median Empire And Fall Of NinevehElias 19:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Kain, you come off as if you think I'm in support of the Mede-Kurd supposition, I assure you I'm not. As for the reasoning I used myself of to suggest a reversal of an erroneus statement: You're right, I was too lazy to cite sources myself and took an easy approach to get rid of the problem. Though it may have been simpler if I had simply pointed out the lack of references or "proper" sources for said statement. -- (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Puns. . .[edit]

So, I suppose it's true, then: "One man's Mede is another man's Persian." I'm sorry I couldn't resist. . . my father used to say that (much as we begged him NOT to) and I would love to know what sadistic mind came up with it; origins, anyone?CHRISDUNK (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Chrisdunk

the pic[edit]

The picture showing mede moblity is actually a pic of a PERSIAN KING CYRUS, DARIUS, OR XERXES, but i saw this somewhere else and from my expertise its similarto the medes but hate and queen dress with other things is TOTALLY WRONG, so please change it get a pic from Persepolis of a mede they have a buldging forward conical looking hat! thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariobarza (talkcontribs) 21:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Section: "Under Persian Rule"[edit]

Currently in the "Under Persian Rule" section it states:

"In 553 BC, Cyrus the Great, King of Persia, rebelled against his grandfather, the Mede King Astyages, son of Cyaxares"

Astyages is not Cyrus' grandfather nor did Cyrus "rebel" against him. See:

This article needs a clean up. (Gta40 (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

The story tells that Astyages was the father of mandana, Cyrus's mother. But I agree that the artcile needs some clean up. it was Deioces who estanblished Median kingdom/Empire, much earlier than Cyaxares. There are some people Or say a group who wants to change and rewrite the ancient history. It needs much work to counter them.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Median language[edit]

I can not see any reasan to represent that Medes are ancestors of the Kurds. We dont know anything about relation between Median and Kurdish language. Of course Kurds's ancestor might be Meds but that possibility is valid all Iranian people. Maybe Zazas maybe Gilakis. I offer to put out this sentence —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If I may make an addition to this discussion:
"The Medes are sometimes considered to be one of the ancestors of the Kurds based on linguistic and geographic evidence[3]. This conjecture is, however, challenged by other scholars who consider central Iranian dialects, mainly those of Kashan area, and Tati as the only direct offshoots of Median language[4]."
Now supposing the scholars who challenge the conjecture are correct, then what is the origin of THE MAJOR North-West Iranian language, Kurdish? I haven't seen the sources who contest the claim, but I hope some of you have as one of you must have cited it. Zazaki and Kurmanci are very similar languages, both displaying an affinity to Avestan, the language assumed to be the origin of Median. The difference between Zaza and Kurdish is that Kurdish has been, to a certain point, more influenced by other Iranian languages, such as Parthian. Anyway, I digress. I'd like an answer, from a source, to this question and only then will I rest assured with their assertions. If Median, the only major ancient North-West Iranian language that we know of is not the origin of Kurdish, the major North-Western Iranian language of today, then what similar language is? Did the Kurdish language appear out of thin air? This topic intrigues me. I should add, however, that the origin of the Kurdish language is not analogous to the origin of the Kurdish people, as I'm sure we all agree no one ancient people can be attested as being the single ancestor of a modern one with any certainty. That said, I'm also sure that even the most compelled Kurdish "chauvinist" wouldn't make such a claim. However, one cannot deny that there is some connection between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Difficult as we know next to nothing about the Median language.[8] which also says Kurdish belongs to the same Indo-Iranian branch as Persian. I found a pdf that says "Systematic comparison of significant features of Kurdish with other Iranian languages moreover showed, according to MacKenzie, that Kurdish proper differs on a number of important points from what is known about Median. Kurdish has a strong south-western Iranian element, whereas Median presumably was a northwestern Iranian language. Zaza and Gurani, two related Iranian languages spoken in the north-western and south-eastern extremes of Kurdistan, do belong to the north-west Iranian group, and many of the differences between the northern ("Kurmanci") and southern ("Sorani") dialects of Kurdish proper are due to the profound influence of Gurani on the latter.Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Even if we agree that Kurds are descendants of Medes, there still lies some problem here, as kurds are not the only descendants, but Azeris, Tats, Gilakis, people of Semnan, People of Ray and Isfahan and many other people within Iran belonged to the same language group as the Kurds (Northwestern Iranian Languages) which is NOT the same branch as persian (a Southwestern Iranian Language). However, Medes and Persians were not that much distinct from 200 BC onward, as there is no reference to any people as being referred to as "Parsi" or "Madi" in the Iranian context, but the Language was still evolving in regions regardless of the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsensical copyrighted text in Seleucid section[edit]

I removed the following incorrect passage from the Seleucid section:

The kings had a strong and warlike army, especially cavalry (Polyb. v. 55; Strabo xi. 253). Nevertheless, King Artabazanes was forced by Antiochus III in 220 BC to conclude a disadvantageous treaty (Polyb. v. 55), and in later times, the rulers became dependent in turn upon the Parthians, upon Tigranes of Armenia, and in the time of Pompey who defeated their king Darius (Appian, Mithr. 108), upon Antonius (who invaded Atropatene) and upon Augustus of Rome. In the time of Strabo (AD 17), the dynasty still existed; later, the country seems to have become a Parthian province.

This passage, along with others in the Seluecid section are either incorrect (Pompei lived centuries AFTER Darius so how could he "defeat him?), along with the rest of the text appears to have been copied directly out of other copyrighted (and questionable) literature from the web.--Mehrshad123 (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Kurdish connection[edit]

"The Medes are sometimes considered by Kurdish nationalists to be one of the ancestors of the Kurds based on linguistic and geographic claims[3]. This conjecture is, however, challenged by other scholars who consider central Iranian dialects, mainly those of Kashan area and Tati as the only direct offshoots of Median language[4]."

The claim that is challenged is that the Kurds are the single direct descendants and inheritors of Median culture and the Median language. I have never heard of a claim made by scholars which contests that the Medes are AMONG the ancestors of Kurds. There are no grounds for such a challenge. A distinction needs to be drawn in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Map of Median confederation[edit]

The current map of wp article for the Median confederation which is based on W Shephereds's map, reflects a Herodotean point of view. I replaced the map with a moderate one, (still problematic, as it has several territories, independant from Medes but highlighted as Median. The Cambridge history of Iran, which was mentioned here by user:Alefbe, is outdated; the following academic book written and edited by several specialists (published in 2003) has much more weight: Continuity of empire: Assyria, Media, Persia. Ellipi (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, a book published in 2003 doesn't necessarily have more weight that a reliable reference book published in 1980, unless you can show that most academicians consider that part of Cambridge's history of Iran outdated and non-reliable. If you claim that, you should back your claim with reliable sources that indicate such a consensus. Alefbe (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, according to the editors of the the abovementioned book:
In recent years, however, the "Median Empire" has lost most of its supposed "provinces" and "dependent kingdoms". Ellipi (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Rerence #2 dose not state medes being iranian tribe![edit]

The ref.2 dosen't sate medes to be iranian tribes. I quot the text here "we have no direct data on the social institutions and economic organization of Median society. Herodotus (1.101) mentions six Median tribes, of which only Arizantoi (q.v., < *arya-zantu “having Aryan lineage”) has an obvious Iranian etymology, but we have almost no information on these tribes." [1]. Amir.azeri (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That link you mentioned is not cited. However you seem to not have understood what the link says. Having no information on these tribes means their history is unknown.. not the general well known and academically accepted fact that Medes wre iranian. Since if you read the rest of the article it clearly states:

"Before the rise of the Achaemenids under Cyrus II, Media obviously was the focus of the development of Iranian material and intellectual culture. " "As for Median personal names, Assyrian texts from the 9th and 8th centuries BCE contain examples in which the first element is familiar from both Old Persian and Avestan: the Indo-Iranian word arta- (Av. aṧa- < Ind-Ir. *ṛtá “truth”; q.v.) or theophoric names with Maždakku and even the name of the god Ahura Mazdā (q.v.; for references, see Grantovskiĭ, 1970, pp. 253–62; Dandamaev, 1976, pp. 216-17; Boyce, Zoroastrianism II, pp. 15, 104). " " In all probability, as early as the 8th century, a kind of Mazdaism with common Indo-Iranian traditions prevailed in Media, to which specific features of Zoroastrianism were alien, whereas the religion reformed by Zarathustra started to spread in western Iran only in the first half of the 6th century BCE, under the last Median kings. "

And other sources make this more than clear:

G) I.M. Diakonoff, "Media" In Cambridge History of Iran (ed. William Bayne Fisher, Ilya Gershevitch), Volume 2. Pg 140 "Archaeological evidence for the religion of the Iranian-speaking Medes of the .."

H) Amélie Kuhrt, "The Persian Empire, Volume 1", Chp 2: Medes, Routledge, 2007. excerpt from pg 19: "The early history of the western Iranians (Medes and Persian) is a thorny problem..."

I) John Curtis, British Museum, 2000, 2nd edition. pg 34: "They were an Indo-European people who, like the related Persians, spoke an Iranian language"

J) "Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture or EIEC, edited by J. P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams, published in 1997 by Fitzroy Dearborn. pg 30: "..and the Medes (Iranians of what is now north-west Iran).."

The article you cited is just deciphering one of the etymologies of one of the Median tribes. See also Iranica article on Iranian languages [9] were the Medes are mentioned as Iranian. Outside of Iranica well known scholars like Curtis and Kuhrt have been brought. . --Pahlavannariman (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Can i ask how did the Median tribes figth and how was steppe warfare and how did Cyrus defeat them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

recent edits[edit]

I am concerned about recent 3 edits:

I am hoping an admin can help us. After these edits I am not encouraged to add to this article using high level sources by experts because once people dislike the sentences they go and find a random google book and copy-paste into the article (this is against wikipedia policies about scholarships). Xashaiar (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

even if the medes were in west iran, the west iran would be hamadan, not remote kurdish mountains in iraq or we all know hamadan todays west central iran are persian speaking.they are descendants of the medes.the kurds are iranized gutians.the kurds was iranized by persian medes and achaemenid persians.-- (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I do have problem to understand what you say. Please tell me why you violate wp:irrelevant by 1. adding irrelevant modern script? 2. adding the status of the language located in what was ca 2500 years ago called media? why do you remove context you dislike? Xashaiar (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the truth[edit]

hamadan was the royal centre of the medes and rey (tehran) was the largest city of the medes, i have shown many sources about it, if you dont believe that persian speakers of central iran are descendants of the medes and kurds are descendants of the gutians, please read some books, and please dont delete sources mr xashaiar --Behkar (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have written many sources from google books, the most reliable sources because no one can edit them and because they are not internet sites they are the same as books only internet version of the books.--Behkar (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please follow the guidlines. Everything you added is already in the text. Just picking a google book address is not how wikipedia articles are written. I repeat again: follow wp:style, wp:lead, wp:npov and wp:IRRELEVANT. Here we do not care about "descendants of the medes". You added "The city of Rey today known as Tehran was the largest city of the Medes and Ecbatana, now modern city of Hamadan was their royal centre Another city existed in Media and was called Laodicea, modern Nahavand.These cities are today inhabited by ethnic Persians." This is unacceptable: you falsified sources, you violated wp:lead, you added irrelevant information to promote your POV (violating wp:nor and wp:synth). Please stop and let us have this article in an encyclopaedic form. Xashaiar (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the most recent edits which are presumably by the same editor. 3RR's been reached and I've informed the editor on his account and IP talk pages. If they edit again, anyone can report them but as I'm involved I wouldn't take action myself. Behkar, you now need to get consensus here, ie agreement. The deletion of the coverage on the Kurdish nationalist dispute is especially troubling. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Dougweller. I was hoping to see wikipedia more mature after all these years. It is not nice to see how "find the words in google books and copy the web address into the article, and you are done" is still seen as a method in writing an Encyclopaedia. Let us hope that more encyclopedic way of writing wikipedia will be practised.Xashaiar (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Edits I reverted today[edit]

I reverted several edits today, mainly for sourcing problems.

Claim that the Median language is possibly proto-Kurdish - not appropriate in the infobox in any case as it doesn't seem backed up by linguists, the source cited is generally a reliable source but is not a linguist

Iraq: Then and Now: A Guide to the Country and Its People is a travel guide [10] whose authors have no relevant academic expertise.

E.B. Soame - a century old, not a linguist. (couldn't find the statement either at [11] but that's not really relevant if he isn't a reliable source.

Original research: " Furthermore, you should note that in the Kurdish national anthem," is clearly OR - see WP:NOR - and we never would use 'you' in an encyclopedia. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What is Kurdish Kermanshah Province ? According to google books, "Kurdish Kermanshah Province" -Llc 0 result. Takabeg (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
And we have to remove "(possibly proto-Kurdish)". If you want, you improve the article Median language with neutral reliable sources. Takabeg (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi everybody. I have told it several times that other editors should follows the style of the citations and also bring high quality sources and should not bring random books found on google. Also I warned that some sources are not from experts and should be removed. If the editors collaborate, we can find better sources. I hope the editor listens to me and Dougweller and does not start a fight similar to others who were banned as history page shows. Xashaiar (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This suggests the south of Kremanshah province is Kurdish, we can't call the province Kurdish if that's right. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess the problem with Kermanshah being kurdish is not important. The province is Kurdish/Persian/Laki/Luri inhabited and is part of Iranian Kurdistan. So calling it Kurdish is in my opinion fine. Xashaiar (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


So first step. I guess the term "proto-kurdish" is not a good term. I revert to previous version of the article. The editor should find scholarly sources:

  1. use of the term in academic publications and then create the page proto-Kurdish (which is a redirect now)
  2. find good sources that gives meaning to the term well before 14th century CE.

In no scholarly good work Median language is considered proto-kurdish. But Median and Kurdish are (per Minorsky, Gershevitch, ...) probably related. We should keep the sentences as used by reliable sources (wp:synth). There is no need for pushing POV (wp:npov). Xashaiar (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing edits[edit]

User:Bokan995's this edit and other edits of same user are too POV pushing.

According to Hakan Özoğlu, at first Minorsky suggested, and then this suggestion was accepted by many Kurdish nationalists in the twentieth century. However Bruinessen... (Hakan Özoğlu, Kurdish notables and the Ottoman state: Evolving Identities, Competing Loyalties, and Shifting Boundaries, SUNY Press, 2004, p. 25.).

Takabeg (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that the Medes are one of the ancestors of the Kurds[edit]

Even though Kurdish nationalists claim Median ancestry, this is not supported by modern scholars. But the famous Russian historian and linguist Vladimir Minorsky suggested that the Medes who widely inhabited the land where currently the Kurds are the majority in, are likely to be the forefathers of the modern Kurds. Even John Limbert, a former American diplomat in Iran, wrote a book about the Kurds, The Origins and Appearance of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran, where he quoted:

"Although some scholars have dismissed the Kurds' claim of Median descent, linguistic and geographical evidence supports these claims. All Kurdish dialects have maintained the basic characteristics of Kurdish despite the wide dispersion of the tribes. This fact suggests that there was an ancient and powerful language from which the dialects evolved, which can be proved to be Median."

It's possible that they are one (not the only) forefathers of the Kurds, since the Medes lived in what is known as the geo-cultural region, Kurdistan.

Bokan995 (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hakan Özoğlu[edit]

Is Hakan Özoğlu a Turkish nationalist ? I've never heard such rumor. Do you have any sources ? As long as I know, he is criticizing the official historiography of the Republic of Turkey and trying to change it. Takabeg (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because he wrote a book on Kurdish nationalism someone has decided he's a Turkish nationalist? [12]. We certainly cannot label him as one in the article, and his book is clearly a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Someone think he's a political Kurdish nationalist or sympathisant (I've seen in many forum in Turkish language), probably because of his works and his popularity among Kurdish media (for example: this interview). Takabeg (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I close look at the way he treats the subject will indeed reveal that he is a Turkish nationalist disguised as an "objetive academic".Delalo-s (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kurdachi Means Kurds[edit]

I'll continue to attempt to help resolve the Kurds section again between whomever the parties are here.

In response to the blanking of the Kurds section again today. Xenophon's statements are not "misleading" - Anyone that is remotely familiar with ancient history or that has studied classical history knows what Kurdachi means. To our laymen here English pronunciations are ALWAYS quite different than the ancient ones, this is also a well known fact that you should become acquainted with. I urge the relevant party(ies) to read what they are blanking, and examine the credibility of the sources before erasing entire paragraphs. Zenbb (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading it very carefully. I've also read what our article on the Kurds says, which is "The Kurds as an ethnic group appear in the medieval period.". It seems unlikely that Xenophon was referring to a medieval ethnic group, and although there are sources that say the Carduchi were the Kurds, others suggest that there is a relationship but not an identity, eg The Armenians - Page 11 Anne Elizabeth Redgate - 2000 "These and other aspects of physical geography lead the inhabitants to live in small communities in sites difficult of access but easily defended. The fierce and independent Kurds may be descended in part from the Carduchi described "
There are other issues. Am I right in saying that the quotes from Xenophon are meant to show that the Kurds and the Medes are separate people? Because our policy on original research at WP:NOR means that we should not make this argument by using Xenophon, because that is 'us', as editors, making the argument, but find reliable sources - WP:RS, WP:VERIFY - that say Xenophon says...whatever. That really is the way we work, and if you don't believe me then I'll show you where you can raise the issue -- I'll show anyone where they can raise any issues (including about me if necessary).
Thanks for bringing this here.
Forgot -- we don't describe sources as 'famous' or 'eminent', just name them, link to their articles if they have one. Otherwise the article reads as though Wikipedia thinks some sources are better than others. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The reference to Xenophon, and the direct translation of his chronicle about the Kurds should not have been removed. It was presented as a valuable and detailed eye witness account from the time of the Median satrapy. It is up to the reader to decide, but none of the other sources match Xenophon's level of reliability as the others are all based on 20th century conjecture which presents no proof other than "gut feeling": Fact: Xenophon travelled to western Media (modern day Kurdistan) in 490 BC and identifies the Kurdachi (i.e. the Kurds). You are introducing POV here by going against established consensus by all Classical historians on Xenophon's writing and its translation. In your comment you also said "student essay": please be more specific as to who the student is in the sources that were given. By the way I don't care which way this goes, I have simply been attempting to make sure established and reliable sources (like Xenophon which you removed) get fair mention in the article.Zenbb (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, the student essay thing referred to something earlier, it was a paper with the student's class number on it.
I'm still not clear what point you are using Xenophon to make, could you please clarify? Is it to say Kurds and Medes are related or that they aren't?
Two points about Xenophon. First is that he does not identify the Kurds, he identifies the Kurdachi. Sure, some people conflate the two, but as I've said, our article on the ethnic group we call the Kurds dates them well over a thousand years after Xenophon. They are not the same ethnic group although they may be related (some call them 'Proto-Kurdish'. So we mustn't mislead readers into thinking that Xenophon was writing about ethnic Kurds. That's just an assumption that various writers made. Not all translations use the word Kurds.
Secondly we should not be using Xenophon to make an argument about the relationship between Kurds and Medes, or the lack of any relationship. That is original research - as I said, read [[WP:NOR}} -- and absolutely against policy. If you don't believe me, raise the issue at WP:NORN. You need to find modern classical historians who use Xenophon to form a hypothesis about that relationship (and it can only be a hypothesis, not stated as fact). I don't think either of us cares and I'm not suggesting you are a nationalist (although they've been editing), I'm just trying to explain how Wikipedia works. Someone had to do this for me when I started because I was editing in the same way you are. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)]
I think we are going in circles. Again I am not claiming anything here. These are widely accepted facts in Classical history and I am just pointing them out. Read the Xenophone translation that I provided the source to (the english translated text was written over 100 years ago and has been examined and reexamined by thousands of classical historians). Kurdachi is the ancient greek word for Kurds - Everyone in classical history knows that. No, Kurds did not suddenly pop out of the ground 1300 years ago; they lived in Media in 490BC according to Xenophon who saw them there. Their written history is extremely scant from that time - and part of that could be because the arab muslim invasions burned thousands of books and libraries and chronicles because they were written by "pagans" as some claim. But the fact is Xenophon's (and others') work has survived and you cannot go against professional classical historians and claim they didn't exist in that region.Zenbb (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
What professional classical historians say that there were Kurds at that time? We can use them. But as I've said others certainly don't say they are the same: "They were called Carduchi by Xenophon and were described as “rough mountain dwellers resisting all intrusion, ... The ancestors of the Kurds were one of the earliest groups with an Indo-Iranian language who appeared in the area. ."[13] Iran's diverse peoples: a reference sourcebook By Massoume Price. I don't have my tools with me to capture and render as text, but the page goes on to say that today's Kurds probably have a different ancestry. Another source says "Many believe that the Kardouchoi, mentioned in his Anabasis by Xenophon as having given his 10000 a mauling as they retreated from Persia in 401 BCE ., were the ancestors of the Kurds." [14]. So it isn't as cut and dried as you are suggesting. That's one reason we don't simply use Xenophon directly. This source [15] makes it clear not everyone thinks 'Karduchi' is the same word as Kurd - it isn't a matter of minor spelling changes as you seem to suggest. Our articles are constructed on reliable secondary sources, Xenophon is a primary source (and I think you know not all translations use the word 'Kurd' - if we used a translation we'd need to use the most accurate, and that would be with one of the spellings of Carduchi.). Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^

Median Empire[edit]

See articel. This is poeple, empire is Median Empire articel Zastava S. Jugoslavije.png Szajci pošta 19:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You really should have discussed this first. Median empire is a redirect to here, for a start. And there is now nothing about the Median empire in this article as you've moved all of it out of the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The structure of this article has been ruined and it will take weeks to get it together again. Why was all this content removed?PenningtonClassical (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC).
Thanks for restoring this, I'll be changing Median Emmpire back to a redirect. Dougweller (talk) 08
02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense[edit]

"Even though Kurdish is a northwestern iranian language, David Neil MacKenzie, an authority of Kurdish language, thought that the Medes spoke a northwestern Iranian language, while the Kurdish people speak a southwestern Iranian language.[67]"

First it says Kurdish is a northwestern Iranian language but later in the same sentence it says that Kurdish is a southwestern Iranian language. This does not make any sense. Kurdish is also widely known to be a northwestern Iranian language. (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well caught, it makes no sense. If you look at Kurdish language, it says Kurdish is a northwestern Iranian language. The source for this is [16]. Oh dear, the source actually says "Kurdish has a strong south-western Iranian element, whereas Median presumably was a northwestern Iranian language. Zaza and Gurani, two related Iranian languages spoken in the north-western and south-eastern extremes of Kurdistan, do belong to the north-west Iranian group, and many of the differences between the northern ("Kurmanci") and southern ("Sorani") dialects of Kurdish proper are due to the profound influence of Gurani on the latter.[5] MacKenzie's message, which he appeared to direct at Kurdish nationalist ideologues at least as much as at Minorsky, was that the Kurds have neither common origins nor basic cultural unity." What a surprise that the article contradicts its own source. I'm looking into this right now. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the sentence correctly says Kurdish is northwestern, then it says, but MacKenzie mistakenly thought it was southwestern. So it does not seem to be contradictory if you read it carefully. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Doug: Having a strong Southwestern Iranian "element" does not mean that Kurdish is a Southwestern Iranian language itself. Similarly, the fact that English has a strong North Germanic (and Romance) element does not mean that English is a North Germanic (let alone Romance) language itself (although some have attempted to argue that English is a North Germanic or Romance language indeed, despite the textual evidence, which shows no systematic break). This seems to be the main problem. The treatment at Encyclopædia Iranica which I have added to Kurmanji dialect as ref is much more detailed.
Til: Then the sentence should be clarified and it should be made explicit that the statement "while the Kurdish people speak a southwestern Iranian language" is merely MacKenzie's view and not the unanimate expert opinion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Kurdish language[edit]

Posted this to the language's talk page: I noted that someone changed the text of this article to read northwestern although the source says southwestern. This is clearly pov and a bain of Wikipedia to change text so that it contradicts the source. The subject is very complicated. Eg, The A to Z of the Kurds By Michael M. Gunter[17] says "At the present time, some would argue there are only two main Kurdish languages, or branches of Kurdish. Kurmanji and Sorani may be considered major dialects of one language, belong to the southwestern branch of Iranian languages, and have by far the most speakers of any Kurdish dialects. (Some, however, consider these two to be separate languages.) Gurani and Dimili (Zaza) may be considered dialects of a second language, belong to the northwestern branch of the Iranian lan- guages. and have far fewer speakers. As already noted, there are many different dialects of each one of what may be called the two main Kur- dish languages. If one were to compare the Kurdish languages to the Romance languages, the relationship between the two main Kurdish languages might be somewhat analogous to that between French and Italian. To further complicate matters, some would consider the south-" (it goes on but you can read it on Google).

Turkey's Alevi Enigma: A Comprehensive Overview edited by Paul J. White, Joost Jongerden[18] says "The scholar Basilc Nikitinc states that the Kurdish language (he does not differentiate between dialects/alleged dialects) is part of north- west group of Iranian languages (Nikitinc, 1956: 9). Vladimir Minorsky, however, agrees with most linguists today, including the Kurdish language specialist D. N. MacKcn/.ic, thai Kumiancl is actually a southern Iranian language (MacKenzie, 1961: 68-86; Minorsky, 1964: 13-14)."

And so it goes. This is a particular problem as editors try to use the Kurdish language to prove descent from Medes, going so far as to distort the sources. Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Kurdish belongs to the NW branch..Of course it is amongst the many [19]. Another source recently mentions Kurdish falls between SW and NW (Asatrian). Here is another good article [20] (Kurdish languages) that might clear things up a bit and help improve other articles. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see we've independently got to Iranica.
To be fair, the statement that "most linguists today" agree that Kurmanji is a "southern" (huh?) Iranian language is just dubious. Windfuhr, a major authority, calls Kurdish "Parthian, with a Median substratum", as stated in the article. That seems exactly in line with the Kurds-as-descendants-of-Medes viewpoint: speakers of ancient Median dialects took over Parthian and over the centuries, evolved into the modern Kurds.
Of course this neglects admixture by Armenians, Syriacs, Arabs, Oghuz Turks etc. and not least further Iranian groups, not to mention possible indigenous Hurro-Urartian or Anatolian layers, but that's a bit besides the point: the same could be said about the modern Persians, Greeks, Chinese and other groups who have retained their ethnic identity (and most of all, language!) for millennia.
That ancient and modern ethnic groups are never identical (in terms of gene pool), that some degree of admixture is inevitable (except for really isolated groups) and that ancestors come from everywhere is trivial.
But ultimately, it becomes a matter of definition: when is an ethnic group an ethnic group? What is ethnic identity? (Just ask the Austrians, for example.) Who belongs rightfully to a particular ethnic group? Can you belong to more than one? (These being, after all, very concrete, practical, real-life problems for many people.) In the end it's all reification of a very much manmade and not at all objective concept. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
One might conclude that the statement "(some? all?) Kurds descend from (some? all?) Medes" is not even wrong because it's impossible to verify or falsify even in principle (say, if we had perfect historical and genealogical records of every person in the world going back thousands of years, a vast database), as the statement is either vague, hopelessly imprecise, possibly undefined or impossible to operationalise, or trivial and near-vacuous, or both: we can't give any result of an investigation that would lead the statement to be accepted as true or false (if ten Kurds descend from one historical Mede in part, would that be enough?). It's not a historically, let alone scientifically sensible proposition. It might be turned into one, but in the process become unrecognisable to its advocates.
Even more insidiously, policies such as those which allow groups of Native Americans or Australian Aborigines to rebury skeletons found on their respective tribal territories, are based on a concept of ethnic continuity that's even worse than that, comparable to the Paleolithic Continuity Theory (caricatured by me as the "Anglo-Saxon cavemen theory"). To say nothing of compensation laws and the like: if Native Americans, Australians, Tasmanians and their subgroups are just highly artificial constructs and it is invalid to equate the modern (say) Cherokees with the Cherokees only 200 years ago (all that Afro-American and European admixture!), forget about minority rights. I'm afraid we just have to live with some constructs, even if they're bogus on some level. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Doug, maybe instead of assuming that anyone who changes the classification to northwestern (as I was just about to before seeing the note) is just trying to push some nationalist-mysticist POV regarding the origins of Kurds, perhaps you might consider that maybe some of those who have changed it may well either be trying to correct what they think is an unintentional mix-up when they A) look at our main article for Kurdish or B) are operating on the considerable mass of scholarship that does classify Kurdish as northwestern? e.g. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. That "most linguists today" statement is ultimately sourced to two works dating back a half century (one incidentally written by Minorsky, called "the only adept of [the Median] theory" "in the academic scholarship"), Windfuhr argues for Parthian (northwestern) with a Median substratum (which, as Florian said, is not even a "challenge" to the Median hypothesis so much as a vindication), van Bruinessen simply states that "there is not enough evidence", and Asatrian refers to Kurdish as northwestern anyway. The section as it stands is a weird mishmash of contradictory statements. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

medes are the ancestors of the kurds & azeris[edit]

medes were not persian! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiaxary (talkcontribs) 17:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Article does not say they were Persian. It says they were an Iranian/Iranic people. Iranian/Iranic is no equal to Persian. Also Kurds are Iranian/Iranic. It's a ethno-linguistic term and isn't same with nationality term Iranian. Zheek (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The main reason to rename Persia to Iran, I believe, was exactly the intention to accommodate/pacify groups such as the Kurds. (Of course, that still left out the Azeris, for one.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
OK a lot has been written on here hope my contribution is not repetition and as its now 37 sections I didn't want to add a new one. So much on here is not about the current version of article and the use of the references. I will do my best to stick to that.
  1. Since this edit the section Kurds and Medes has been replaced with "Kurdologists and Medes" The section title is misleading. There is so little about "Kurdologists" (my browser even raises spelling error). It should be reverted back to the "Kurds and Medes" I am not going to read possible arguments against that simply because I disagree with the current section title.
  2. The article starts with introducing the Medes as "ancient Iranian people" using three references. Ref B is Diakonoff, I. M. (1985), "Media", The Cambridge History of Iran 2 (Edited by Ilya Gershevitch ed.), Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 36–148, ISBN 0-521-20091-1  p140. The citation quote is this "Archaeological evidence for the religion of the Iranian-speaking Medes of the .." how can one conclude from that "were an ancient Iranian people"? I will see if I can check this particular reference at my leisure.
  3. Now "Kurdologists and Medes"
    • Despite my previous point about the start of the article, this section is placed at the end and the title has changed since this edit for instance.
    • "Page Needed" is used against the strongest argument (subjective) not so subjective by the same reference used against it G. Asatrian, Prolegomena to the Study of the Kurds, Iran and the Caucasus, Vol.13, pp.1-58, 2009.(p.21) WHILE 61 and 62 which are google books URL's only
    • Do you know what 61 state in the article> "Contemporary linguistic evidence has challenged the previously held view that the Kurds are descendants of the Medes" Do you know what 61 is? Do you think the contributor could not put a proper ref entry in there? No he meant to just leave you with the link because the PDF document or books is titled "Turkey Foreign Policy and Government Guide" that is obviously a great POV against the Kurds given Republic of Turkey. 62 is mysterious will leave it.
    • "an authority on the Kurdish language" ref please? but that is an easy edit for me as there is also a "not in citation" edit. So I would re-write! Because clearly he or no one is an authority of a language! My reference? Common sense!
    • "Modern scholars" whilst we have just Mr Asatrian as the only reference. Coming to him next
    • G.Asatrian states in page 20 "The Central Iranian dialects, and primarily those of the Kashan area in the first place, as well as the Azari dialects (otherwise called Southern Tati) are 'probably' the only Iranian dialects, which 'can pretend' to be the direct offshoots of Median (on the Medians and their language, see D’yakonov 1956; idem 1993; Mayrhofer 1968; Schmitt 1967; also Asatrian 2009)" yet the article states "Modern scholars consider central Iranian dialects, mainly those of Kashan area, and Tati of Tehran area as 'the only' direct offshoots of the Median language" clearly misleading and not in the reference. Again I am not going to put a "not in citation" next time when I visit my comments I will just edit it like any other Wiki as I have the right to just like those who are doing everything to distort the Kurdish history.
  4. Therefore we have two options: for someone like me to re-write some important parts of the whole entry or some clip art to show that there have been deliberate attempts at using controversial government policy documents and at least two "not in citation" attempts. I shall give it some time. Hiwakan (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"Jinns of King Solomon" in Jewish sources?[edit]

I just saw in the Kurd section something about Jewish sources trace the Kurds to the "Jinns of King Solomon". This is cited to several books that aren't linked online. I am not familiar with this and was just wondering, do Jewish sources really talk about Jinns, and could we hopefully specify which sources this is found in? Thanks Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't even making any claim about the article topic (Medes) so the sources are synth for this article. You may be able to use them at Kurds or Carduene or whatever. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no proof of any king Solomon. It is a mythological (non historical) character, just like the Gandalf from the Lord of the rings.


"Old Iranian "maidiia-" both carrying the same meaning[17] and having descendants including Latin medium, Greek méso, and German mittel." Wow and Slavic "med" probably does not mean "middle" at all... They've rather used "meso" LOL

Medes simply derives from "Honey"; Medhu in Sanskrit, Med in Slavic, Medus in Lithuanian, Latvian, Maas in Persian.

German[edit] Stephanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)