Talk:Kurds

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Kurds fighting Sumerians?

I don't think this article is very convincing to people that don't belong to the Kurdish community. The Kurds are a people that belong to an ethnic group, I can agree with this. But any ethnic group should have something in common, like language or culture, or at least a name. According to my information the most important unifying characteristic of Kurds is their Kurdish language. This Kurdish language is Iranian, and not any Iranian was spoken yet during the time of the Sumerians. It has been generally accepted that all Iranian languages, including the ancestral Kurdish language, came to the region from the first millenium BC on, together with the Medes and Perses, or later. Also it has been generally accepted this was many centuries after the Sumerians had already disappeared from history. If the Kurds already fought with Sumerians, such ancestral Kurds must have been Iranified, or else a reference is needed to sustain those people fighting Sumerians really belonged to the same ethnical group as Kurds. My correction to this contradiction has been reverted for reasons beyond my comprehension, thus I will put a instead to request some valid input from the Kurdish side. Thanks for your understanding, greetings, Rokus01 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. Okay, I missed the reference to the Britannica online. However, to make this point intelligible I miss the inclusion of this extra statement mentioned there: "Although their language is related to Iranian, the Kurds' ethnic origins are uncertain."

Rokus01 20:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Kurds fighting sumerians is nonsense as Kurds who are an indo-european people were not attested during the Sumerian era. In this regard secondary and primary sources are needed by the principle of OR. If secondary/primary sources do not contradict this, then it is fine. Else for now I have removed it to the talk page.

Historically, the Kurds have continuously sought self-determination, and have fought the Sumerians, Assyrians, Persians, Mongols, European crusaders, and Turks. Estimated at about 35 million people, the Kurds make up the largest ethnic group in the world who do not have a nation-state of their own. In the 20th century, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria have suppressed many Kurdish uprisings.

--alidoostzadeh 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You have to come up with a better argument than just I dismiss it as nonsense, the quote is from britannica and cannot be removed.Heja Helweda 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it can. See the wikipedia [[1]] policy.

Britannica is teriatary source and not a primary or secondary source. A strong claim requires strong source and not something authorless. What is the proof that there were Indo-European speaking Kurds during the time of Sumerians? At least one legitimate scholar needs to mention it. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources. Also note this: [[2]]. --alidoostzadeh 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is refreshing to see there is one person here who does not like Britannica. I guess we have to fill a petition to complain to Britannica as well. :)Heja Helweda 23:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote above from wikipedia OR policy. [[3]] [[4]].

I will quote it here:

• Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. The White House's summary of a president's speech is a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; newspaper accounts which contain first-hand material, not merely analysis or commentary of other material; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

• Secondary sources draw on primary sources in order to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims. A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports is a secondary source. A New York Times analysis and commentary on a president's speech is a secondary source. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, constitute secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians.

• Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. --alidoostzadeh 23:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous

Why are you writing that Kurds are related with the Baloch? The Kurds changed the Balochis language but that doesn't have any thing to do with their people.

---

Balochi and Kurdish both belong to the north-western branch of Iranian languages. Moreover Blaoch's themselves have legends accroding to which they de3scended from the Kurds. There is evidence that Sassanid Kings like Khosrow I (Anooshiravan) deported Kurds to the south-east of Iran, i.e. Balochistan in the early 6th century A.D.Heja Helweda 21:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Zazaki speaking people (Zazas) are not Kurds.

Problematic edits

Please watch this edits: [5]

I dont think this edits are constructive. Asoyrun 12:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sumerians et al.

Here is some other sources about the contacts between ancestors of Kurds and Sumerians:

• The first mention of the Kurds in historical records is in cunieform writings from the Sumerian from around 3,000 BC, who talked of the land of Karda.

Source:

1) Wixman, R. (1984) The peoples of the USSR. An ethnographic handbook. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

2) Ivan Nasidze, Dominique Quinque, Murat Ozturk, Nina Bendukidze, Mark Stoneking(2005) MtDNA and Y-chromosome Variation in Kurdish Groups Annals of Human Genetics 69 (4), 401–412. (see page 401)

• Sumerians referred to them (Kurds) as ‘‘Subaru‘‘; Akkadians, Assyrians and Babylonians called mountain people from the area (Kurdistan) as ‘‘Guti‘

Source:

3) A. Arnaiz-Villena, E. Gomez-Casado, J. Martinez-Laso (2002) Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective Tissue Antigens 60 (2), 111–121. (see pp.117-118)

• British scholar G. R. Driver, suggests that the earliest account of the Kurds comes from a clay tablet in 3rd millenium BC, on which the name of a land called Karda or Qarda is inscribed. This land south of Lake Van, was inhabited by the people of Su who were connected with the Qurtie, a group of mountain dwellers. It is with this name Qurtie that Driver makes his first etymological connection.

Source:

4) Hakan Ozoglu, Kurdish notables and the Ottoman State, 2004, SUNY Press, 186 pp., ISBN 0791459934 (See p.23)

• The term Kurd appears in ancient times, going back as far as 2000 BC. The Kurds are mentioned in Sumerian and Assyrian records.

Source:

5) Yona Sabar, The Folk Literature of the Kurdistani Jews: An Anthology, 1982, Yale University Press, 254 pp., ISBN 0300026986

• The Kurds are mentioned in Sumerian and Assyrian records as well as in classical Greek and Latin works,particularly Xenophon's Anabasis.

Source:

6) Ora Scwartz-Be'eri, The Jews of Kurdistan: daily life, customs, arts and crafts, Published 2003 UPNE, 272 pp., ISBN 9652782386. (see page 25)

• Recognition of the existence of a Kurdish land goes back even as far as the Sumerian Cunieform tablets, dating from about 3000 BC, which speak of The Land of the Karda.

Source:

7) Identity Politics: Filing the Gap Between Federalism and Independence, By M. J. (Martin J.) Dent, Published 2004 Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 232 pages, ISBN 0754637727. (See page 99) Heja Helweda 01:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That is the name Karda mentioned in Sumerian. The term Kurd appears but it does not necessarily mean indo-european language Kurdish of today. It looks like Karda might have been a place name and thus anyone from that place was called a Kurd. Similar when Ottomans were called Romans in Iran. There are many sources that says modern Kurds are medes. Source 1 does not have a page number. Kurds could be partial descendants of Guti mentioned by Sumerian tablets. Your first source is unverifiable (no page number). Three of the sources deal with genetics and no one denies that genetic influence of pre-Iranic,pre-Turkic,pre-Armenian people on all the people of the region. Source 4 and 5 do not strike one as academic history sources. Sources 6 and 7 are not academic but they talk about Kurdish land and land of Kurds. Yes the term Kurd or something similar was used in Sumerian times. But Kurds are considered an indo-european people. So these things need to be clarified. There are tons of references with Kurds being medes [6]. Linguistically speaking ,this has the major support from major academics and is the strongest POV.. it should come first. So this is the stronger theory that needs to be mentioned. --alidoostzadeh 06:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

For the third Millennium BC, linguistic evidence is obscure; likely those Kurti tribes mentioned above spoke an isolated language, belonging to no known language family (some say spoke Aryan); but thereafter this term has been evidently used by Semitics of lower Mesopotamia to refer to the Iranian populations of northwestern Iran (Media), namely Aryan Medes mentioned by Ali.

In any case I think it is also important to not forget the traditional name of Kurds for themselves: KurdManj. the second syllable with no doub means Median. The first Syllable (Kurd/Kurt) likely an adjective (?) borrowed from lowlanders of Mesopotamia. Asoyrun 12:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That is what I am saying. Given the fact that 2500 B.C. was probably the time of proto-Indo-Iranian probably, it is hard to say what those Kurti tribes were speaking. And also furthermore no Kurd knew of Hurrian, Sumerian, Kardaka, Guti and etc. 100 years ago. But Armenian sources have used the term Kurd and Mede interchangeably and Kurdish classical mythology and literature (it is amazing sometimes they say Gurani is Kurdish but when I bring mythology from Gurani they say Gurani is obscure or small or etc.) is Iranian. Also Minorsky is much more of scholar then any of these. --alidoostzadeh 17:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Kurds are of Median (Aryan) extraction. Medians themselves were known as Kurti by Assyrians and other Semitics (not always but many times; there is good evidence for this); and Kurds were known as Median by Armenians. It is even impossible to imagine that Kurds have ever forgotten their own language and adopted a new one. The Kurdish mentality is not known to be so feeble. But if Heja likes I think he can somewhere in the article add that the word 'Kurd' is an old name, (though the article already mentions this). Asoyrun 18:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal veiws without any sources are irrelevant and should not be included. Things like I think or That is what I am saying cannot be used to justify anything. You have to provide sources that goes against the Britannica's view. Even is that case, the opposing views can be included only along side that of Britannica. The material from Brittanica is sourced and cannot be removed, as it is verifiable.Heja Helweda 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What is more irrelevant is when your sources are not backed by primary and secondary scholarly sources. We have provided many sources that goes against Wikipedia. Check the links about the medes I brought. I can find at least many from very scholarly sources like Mackenzie, Minorsky,..etc. Britannica does not have priority over primary and secondary sources. --alidoostzadeh 04:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Britannica Paragraphs

I have provided the actual quotes from Britannica for all administrators who would like to resolve this dispute. Unfortunately some users are going too far and try to even reject an important Encyclopaedia like Britannica.

Historically, the Kurds have continuously sought self-determination, and have fought the Sumerians, Assyrians, Persians, Mongols, European crusaders, and Turks[7]. Estimated at about 35 million people, the Kurds make up the largest ethnic group in the world who do not have a nation-state of their own. In the 20th century, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria have suppressed many Kurdish uprisings[8].Heja Helweda 01:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote is baseless. Kurds as a linguistic-cultural group like any other Iranian speaking group were not neighbors with Sumerians at that time. Also various Kurdish groups have also sided with Persian (Achaemenid, Sassanid..), Ottomans, Safavids and fought amongst themselves and etc. So what you are claiming is a gross generalization. The source is not acceptable by the simple fact that it contradicts primary and secondary scholarly sources (such as Minorsky, Mackenzie ..etc.). Other sources you have brought also had either no relevance or where not scholarly sources. By the way a recent edit of yours was about Medes not being Zoroastrian whereas Diakonoff says they were probably but you used a 1934 source which is out-dated! For example Mary Boyce is a much more recent and scholarly source on Zoroastrian: [9]. --alidoostzadeh 06:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think that in this case Britannica's claim is rather superficial. Considering the sweeping generalization of this statement, it is necessary to investigate whether any other sources make such a claim. Shervink 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

How many times I have to repeat, we can not say Britannica is baseless just because its content is against our POV. I have already provided 7 books (for God sake!) that clearly and explicitly relate Kurds to Karda in the Sumerians clay tablets. In fact you have to provide a source that denies such a link. Even in that case, Britannica's quote can not be removed, since it is sourced material from a reputable organization. Now if you want to learn more, I will explain the relationship between Karda to Corduene and Kurds. In fact Strabo explicitly says that Carduchis were the ancestors of Corduene. Now the suffix -chi or -choi is just an Armenian plural suffix, so the real name is Card. On the other hand, -ene is the Latin suffix, hence the name Cord. Therefore, Strabo has connected Kard/Card to Kurd/Cord, hence making a link between Karda in Sumerian tablets and later Cordueni in Roman/Greek sources.Heja Helweda 07:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

4) Hakan Ozoglu, Kurdish notables and the Ottoman State, 2004, SUNY Press, 186 pp., ISBN 0791459934 (See p.23)

The term Kurd appears in ancient times, going back as far as 2000 BC. The Kurds are mentioned in Sumerian and Assyrian records.

This is incorrect, Ozoglu does not claim that the Kurds were mentioned in Sumerian and Assyrian texts. He claims that the first mention of the Kurds (Kurdan)was in the 4th century AD when they were named as an enemy of the Persia king. Ozoglu's arguement is that the Kurdish link between the Calduci and Medes is impossible to prove and has been constructed for nationalist reasons.

Thus, he argues we should trace the developement of the Kurdish ethnicity from this point onwards.