Talk:Kurds

Kurdish people are an Iranian ethnic group?

I've placed a {{dubious}} tag for "Kurdish people are an Iranian ethnic group."

The first source cited in the article is Brill's Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition. It does begin with "The Kurds, an Iranian people of the Near East, ..." But then later in the entry, it says:

The classification of the Kurds among the Iranian nations is based mainly on linguistic and historical data and does not prejudice the fact there is a complexity of ethnical elements incorporated in them. The type of the latter varies visibly from place to place. It is probable that the expansion of the Kurd element took place from east (Western Persia) to west (Central Kurdistān) but there is nothing to have prevented the existence in Central Kurdistān, before the coming of the Kurds, of a nationality of different origin but bearing a similar name (Ḳardū) which later amalgamated with the Iranian Kurds.

Also, this is the 2nd edition. They're on the 3rd edition. I can't even find an entry for "Kurds" in the 3rd edition -- was it taken out?

The second source cited in the article, currently, is Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia (2011). It says, at p. 159:

As noted above, the Kurdish people are thought to be descended from the Carduchii (perhaps the Kardoukhi) described by Xenopohon and the Kardakes described by Strabo; Strabo states that “Karda” means “warlike” or “manly”—this is perhaps paralleled by the Assyrian term qardu or “strong.” An Iranian people by language, the Kurdish people are ethnically diverse due to intermarriage with other ethnic groups with which they have come into close contact; given the vast territory that Kurdistan covers, this would suggest intermarriage with such peoples as Arabs, Armenians, Persians, and Turks.

This does not support "Iranian ethnic group." It says Iranian "by language," and "ethnically diverse."

The third cited source is a website of a Kurdish organization; I don't think it's peer-reviewed scholarship. It says Historians generally agree to consider them as belonging to the Iranian branch of the large family of Indo-European races. First of all, "races" is a red flag; Indo-European languages are not races. But in any event, they do not say "Iranian ethnic group." They seem to be saying that Kurdish comes from an Iranian branch of Indo-European languages -- this is, indeed, something I've seen other historians write (see below).

I looked for other sources.

I started with what I think is the gold standard in this field, David McDowall's 2021 A Modern History of the Kurds (4th ed.). At pp. 8-9, he writes:

It is doubtful that the Kurds form an ethnically coherent whole in the sense that they have a common ancestry. The majority of Kurds are probably descended from waves of Indo-European tribes mainly moving westwards across Iran, probably in the middle of the second millennium BCE. But we know nothing of them. Long before any mention of Kurds as such, we know that Kurdistan was a troublesome zone on the edge of ancient polities.

By the time the Kurds were first clearly recorded, as ‘Cyrtii’ from the second century BCE onwards, they were probably already an amalgam of Indo-European tribes that had made their way into the region by different routes and at different periods. Semitic tribes may also have inhabited the Zagros during this period. The term ‘Cyrtii’ was fi rst applied to Seleucid or Parthian mercenary slingers dwelling in the Zagros and it is uncertain that it denoted a coherent linguistic or ethnic group at this juncture. Certainly, by the time of the Islamic conquests a thousand years later, and probably for some time before, the term ‘Kurd’ had a socio-economic rather than ethnic meaning. It was used of nomads on the western edge of the Iranian plateau and probably also of the tribes that acknowledged Sassanian authority in Mesopotamia, many of which must have been Semitic in origin.

There can be little doubt that at a later stage, certain Arab and Turkoman tribes became Kurdish by culture...

I also looked at Sebastian Maisel's 2018 Kurds: An Encyclopedia of Life, Culture, and Society. In the introduction, page xiii, he says:

The origins of the Kurds are contested, but for many they represent an indigenous group of upper Mesopotamia often described as the mountain people in the Zagros and Taurus. Certainly, a close relation with the Iranization of the region during the reign of the Medians and Scythians starting in the ninth century BCE must be noted. The name “Kurds” as a common label appeared only after the Islamic conquest of the area denoting those nomadic tribes of non-Arab or Turkish origin. The isolated mountainous character of their homeland preserved the special features of the Kurdish ethnicity with their unique language, culture, and religions.

I looked at The Cambridge History of the Kurds (2021). There is a chapter on the origin of the Kurdish language, which addresses Iranian origin of the language, p. 611:

The deep history of Kurdish turns out to be largely unknown territory. The existing accounts are hypotheses relying on the reconstructions from linguistic and historical evidence but they are far from being certain and definitive. A picture does emerge, however, where we see that in terms of its historical classification, Kurdish (i) does not descend from any of the known Middle and Old Iranian languages, (ii) it is a North-west Iranian language with many shared features with South-west Iranian languages as Persian, which makes it actually a ‘transition’ variety (Windfuhr, 2009: 19) and (iii) its historical development is closely linked to the migrations from east to northwest and later further to the west (Kurmanji) and south (Sorani, Southern Kurdish).

I looked at Michael Gunter's Routledge Handbook on the Kurds (2019). I could not find anywhere that it says Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group.

I don't think we can say "an Iranian ethnic group" based on the above. Are there other sources we should look at? Levivich (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

No ethnic group is pure. Having disputed origins and being part of the Iranian group is not a contradiction of each other, which is basically what EI2 says. If you want to challenge the claim of Kurds being Iranian, then you need WP:RS that directly says so. I’ll post some WP:RS when Im home. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I think if Wikipedia says "Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group," we need RSes that say that directly. Also, lots of RSes, enough to show this is an uncontroversial, widespread view among scholars. So as far as I can tell, neither McDowell, Maisel, nor Gunter, make this claim. In fact, so far I see no scholars that directly make this claim. Even the Brill encyclopedia, which comes the closest, qualifies it later in the article.

Take your time about posting RSes, there is no rush, and certainly we should look at more. But WP:V and WP:NPOV are going to require a lot of scholars saying "is an Iranian ethnic group" in order for Wikipedia to say that in its own voice. Especially in the first sentence! Levivich (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course we also have to be careful about the difference between someone saying that Iranian Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group (obviously, Kurds are an ethnic group in Iran), versus saying that all Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group (i.e., that "Kurdish" == "Iranian"). Levivich (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Like EI2, EI1 also calls the Kurds an Iranian people [1] (later repeated by its shortened version, the Islamic Desk Reference: Compiled from The Encyclopaedia of Islam, p. 222). So is there is certainly no dispute in that Encyclopedia, and in fact it shows continuity.

I'll post some WP:RS, starting with Garnik Asatrian, a leading scholar in Middle Eastern-related studies (particularly Kurdish studies), being the founder of the multidisciplinary peer-reviewed academic journal Iran and the Caucasus (link to the website [2]), which is in turn published by Brill Publishers, one the world's most prominent publishers in academic journals/books. His work is routinely cited in other prominent works, such as the afromentioned Cambridge History of the Kurds. He has also worked with Encyclopædia Iranica, even authoring an important Kurdish related article for them [3].

1. "The ancient history of the Kurds, as in case of many other Iranian ethnic groups (Baluchis, etc.), can be reconstructed but in a very tentative and abstract form." - p. 65, Asatrian, Garnik (2009). "Prolegomena to the Study of the Kurds". Iran and the Caucasus.
2. "The Iranian intermezzo fact includes a number of other Iranian, mostly Kurdish, minor dynasties in the former caliphal provinces of Armenia, Albania, and Azerbaijan before the arrival of the Seljuks, such as the Kurdicized Arab Rawwādids in Azerbaijan 20 and the Kurdish Marwānid family in eastern Anatolia from the tenth to the eleventh centuries. Finally, the most famous Kurdish dynasty, the Shaddādids, came to power in Dabīl/Duin in the tenth century, ruling until the twelfth." - p. 7, Vacca, Alison (2017). Non-Muslim Provinces under Early Islam: Islamic Rule and Iranian Legitimacy in Armenia and Caucasian Albania. Cambridge University Press
3. "At present the Kurds occupy parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and the USSR. As the map shows, the area in which the Kurds predominate is a long arc extending roughly northwest to southeast in a band of varying width from central Turkey to western Iran in the Kermanshah and Shahabad regions. In these last areas, the historic road from Baghdad to Hamadan and beyond divides the Kurds from their Iranian cousins, the Lurs." - p. 41, J. Limbert. (1968). The Origins and Appearance of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran. Iranian Studies
4. An especially interesting feature of the period in Persia is that the crumbling of 'Abbasid authority gave an opportunity for the resurgence of Iranian elements which had been hitherto submerged under the facade of unity within Islamic faith and culture. Amongst these elements, Dailami, Kurdish and Lur ones from the northern and western parts of Iran, and Kufichi and Baluch ones from the south-eastern region, are especially notable. p. 73, The Medieval History of Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia, C.E. Bosworth

HistoryofIran (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Going backwards: correct me if I'm wrong, but #3 and #4 were written in 1968 and 1977 -- they're too old to tell us anything about modern scholarly views; we should stick to 21st-century sources. I don't see #2 as saying that Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group -- of course there are Iranian Kurdish dynasties, that doesn't mean that all Kurds are Iranian or have Iranian origin.

The first one, Prologemona, is 21st-century and widely cited in the scholarly literature without a doubt, but I'd note what it says at Garnik Asatrian#Views and criticism about the criticism of Asatrian's views. It's going to take some extended discussion, but I think Prologemona does not support a statement in Wikivoice that Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group because, while Asatrian may think so, he recognizes that this is not the traditional view.

Prologemona, pp. 1-2:

Hardly any other field of Near Eastern Studies has ever been so politicised as the study of the history and culture of the Kurds ... The term Kurd, as an ethnonym, is traditionally applied to an ethnic conglomeration whose various parts reside in the bordering areas of a number of Near Eastern countries.

At pp. 3-4:

The problem is that many ethnic groups living as enclaves, or in the vicinity of the Kurds, are traditionally considered part of the Kurdish conglomeration: the Zazas or Dimilis ... the Gurans, Awromans ... Lurs, Bakhtiaris, and Laks, ... Assyro-Chaldaeans, Yezidis, and even Armenians in Iraq and Syria. Here we witness a curious phenomenon: it seems almost all ethnic groups of the region--except Persians and Turkic-speaking elements--that turned out to be by God’s will the neighbours of the Kurds, are tacitly incorporated into the bulk of the Kurdish mass and, therefore, regarded as Kurds.

He goes on to argue that these groups are not Kurds, but he is also recognizing that others regard them as Kurds, and that the term "Kurd" is traditionally applied to an "ethnic conglomeration" from the borders of "a number of Near Eastern countries." At p. 8, the part you quoted, he continues to say:

The ancient history of the Kurds, as in case of many other Iranian ethnic groups (Baluchis, etc.), can be reconstructed but in a very tentative and abstract form. Nothing is clearly known from the remote period of the history of the speakers of the proto-Kurdish dialects. As for the mediaeval period, an objective history of the Kurds will also entail great predicaments--first of all because of the ambivalent semantics of the term Kurd in historical documents (see below), complicating the definition of the proper Kurds from other elements featured under the label Kurd in the multi-ethnic mosaic of the region. ... In other words, not every occurrence of the term Kurd in the historical sources--especially those of the early period--are an explicit indicator of the Kurdish ethnic element (see, e.g., Minorsky 1943: 75; also below). And even if, in certain contexts, this term reveals direct connotations of an ethnic name clearly denoting the ancestors of the contemporary Kurds, it does not mean yet that we are dealing with a well-shaped ethno-demographic factor in the given period of time and space.

So "Kurd" doesn't always mean "Kurd" according to Asatrian (and others have said this too of course). Then p. 10 he says:

With the Kurdish conglomeration, as I said above, far from being a homogeneous entity--either ethnically, culturally, or linguistically (see above, fn. 4; also fn. 13 below)--the basic component of the national doctrine of the Kurdish identity-makers has always remained the idea of the unified image of one nation, endowed respectively with one language and one culture. 12 The chimerical idea of this imagined unity has become further the fundament of Kurdish identity-making, resulting in the creation of fantastic ethnic and cultural prehistory, perversion of historical facts, falsification of linguistic data, etc. (for recent Western views on Kurdish identity, see Atabaki/Dorleijn 1990).13

In footnote 4 that he references there, he says

The heterogeneous nature of the Kurdish conglomeration is fairly manifested in its two almost equal divisions: the northern and southern, which speak different, mutually unintelligible dialects ... and have actually distinct cultural and sometimes even ethnic markers ... Although there is not yet any thorough research on the physical anthropology of the Kurds, the short study of Henry Field (1951), based on the data obtained from various Kurdish-inhabited areas, already shows that the anthropometric parameters of the Kurds (the stature, head measurements, cephalic index, and nasal profile and index) are different depending on the localities from which they hail.

So to sum up, Asatrian in Prologemona says explicitly that Kurdish ethnicity is heterogeneous, not homogeneous, that this is the traditional view, and he criticizes it for lumping together what he says are distinct ethnic groups. (At great length in the footnotes.) He also says that basically nobody knows where Kurds are from, and even in the historical record, "Kurd" doesn't mean "Kurd." It's unclear to me whether "as in case of many other Iranian ethnic groups," in context of what else he says, means that all Kurds are Iranian, or that Kurds are one of many ethnic groups in Iranian. Does "Iranian ethnic groups" mean ethnic groups in Iran, or ethnic groups from Iran? In any event, Prologemona supports the view that Kurdish ethnicity is heterogenous and unclear, not Iranian. And even if Asatrian believes that all Kurds are Iranian, that is not the view of everybody. Maisel, who I quoted above, also cites Asatrian, at p. 3:

The origins and early development of the Middle East’s Kurdish community remains a topic of considerable scholarly debate and controversy. Prior to the modern age, a variety of myths and legends pertaining to the genesis of the Kurds coexisted. Perhaps the most famous myth claimed the Kurds were the descendants of children rescued from Zahhak, the cannibalistic tyrant of Iranian folklore. Other theories can also be found in the works of medieval Islamic scholars. These included the suggestion that the Kurds possessed an Arab genealogy, being the descendants of Arab tribes that had fled Arabia in the pre-Islamic era, and a legend that the Kurds were the product of an unholy union between of King Solomon’s concubines and Jinns, supern atural creatures of Arabian and Islamic mythology. Since the mid-19th century, a growing number of scholars in the West have put forward new theories concerning to the Kurds’ origins. Such theories often seek to posit the idea that the modern Kurdish community is a continuation of one or more of the peoples inhabiting the ancient Middle East, including groups such as the Corduene of Xenophon’s Anabasis and the Cyrtii mentioned in the works of Polybius, Livy, and Strabo. Nevertheless, perhaps the most well-known and widely accepted theory is that the modern Kurds are the direct successors to the Medes, ancient Iranic people who dominated much of the territory of modern Iran between 678 and 549 BCE. Although this theory has gained popularity amongst the Kurdish intelligentsia, it is largely speculative and has been criticized by modern scholars who suggest that the study of Kurdish community should begin with the appearance of the term “Kurd” in the historical record (Özoğlu, 2004: 25). In this regard, the earliest direct mention of the Kurds can be found in the Pahlavi language sources of Sassanid era Iran (224–651) (Asatrain, 2009: 28). However, it was only following the rise of Islam in the seventh century that the term gained wider usage.

Michael Eppel, A people without a state: the Kurds from the rise of Islam to the dawn of nationalism (2016), p. 1:

The ethnic origin of the Kurds may well derive from western Iranian populations who arrived at the Zagros and Taurus Mountains from the east and mingled with the indigenous people.1 Debates on the meaning (especially philological) of the signifier Kurd and the relationship between modern Kurdish nationalism and the ancient population of the mountains of Kurdistan have continued among scholars for more than one hundred years.2

Same book, pp. 4-5:

The similarity between the signifiers Carduchians and Kurds and the geographic location of the Carduchian country have been the bases for the identification of Carduchians as ancient Kurds by scholars writing about the origin of the Kurds since the early nineteenth century. Other scholars have considered the Kurds to be descendants of the ancient Medes. According to this theory, the forebears of the Kurds were those ancient Medes who remained in the mountains of Kurdistan and did not undergo “Iranization” during the time when the Median elite was dominant in Iran under Cyrus, who was himself half-Median, the son of a Median princess. Still other scholars, such as D. N. MacKenzie, primarily on the grounds of a philological analysis, have expressed doubts as to the identification of the Carduchians as forebears of the Kurds and reject the connection between the Kurds and the Medes.8 MacKenzie, who studied the linguistic relationships between the Kurdish dialects and Iranian languages, was led by his philological analysis to emphasize the connection between the Kurds and the Cyrtii (Kurti), who are mentioned in writings by the Greek historians Polybius and Strabo.9 An Italian monk and preacher, Riccoldo da Montecroce (1243–1320), who visited Kurdistan in the thirteenth century, also used the signifier Curti for the Kurds and briefly discussed their language in his book.

I found some additional works that give the Medes origin:

Denise Natali, The Kurds and the State: Evolving National Identity in Iraq, Turkey, and Iran (2005), p. xvii:

Although some Kurds trace Kurdish civilization to the seventh millenium, the majority date their origins to the Median Empire in the sixth century B.C. Oral and written historiography shows how Kurds have attempted to preserve their culture, language, and territory despite efforts of central governments to prohibit or deny their identity. [Four historical works] emphasize the uniqueness of Kurdish identity ... Even after the demise of the Ottoman and Persian Empires and division of Kurdish territories into four main states, Kurds have tried to protect their identity by differentiating themselves from the dominant ethnic group. Kurds are Kurds because they are not Arabs, Persians, or Turks.

At page 7: The pursuit of “ancient” roots in Kurdish culture by local pundits--and now also by some representatives of Western scholarship--has always been limited to focusing on the universal elements found on the surface of many traditional Near Eastern cultures. Cengiz Gunes, The Kurds in a New Middle East: The Changing Geopolitics of a Regional Conflict (2019), p. 4:

The Kurds have a long presence in the region they populate and their origin is often traced back to the ancient Medes who inhabited the mountainous area in north-western Iran and rose to prominence in the seventh century BC.

TLDR: I don't think we should say in Wikivoice that Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group, for three reasons. First, the scholars say Kurdish origin is unclear and subject to debate. Second, while Medes origin appears to be the most common view, readers will not know that "Iranian ethnic group" means "Medes origin." They'll think it means "Persian," which the Kurds are not. So there's a misinformation risk there. Third, the scholarship says the Medes view isn't the only view held by scholars, and gives some alternate views.

So I would suggest changing "are an Iranian ethnic group" in the lead sentence to just "are an ethnic group," and then somewhere else in the lead (maybe second paragraph, which is currently short), citing the sources above, adding that "they're often traced back to the Medes but their origins are unknown and debated," or something like that. What do you think? Levivich (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Going backwards: correct me if I'm wrong, but #3 and #4 were written in 1968 and 1977 -- they're too old to tell us anything about modern scholarly views

This implies that the notion of what ethnic group the Kurds belong to have changed, which you need WP:RS for. I thus fail to see how they're too old, especially the one by C.E Bosworth, one of the most prominent scholars for the Islamic world. As for Asatrian, his qualifications cannot be ignored (and he has been discussed at WP:RSN several times [4]). Sure, he talks about the complicated origin (which he also says applies to other Iranian groups) of the Kurds, but again, that does not that contradict that they're an Iranian people, which he states. WP:RS also considers the Persians of having Elamite descent, even being first emerged after mixing with them (eg The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State and King of the World: The Life of Cyrus the Great), but that doesn't make them any less part of the Iranian ethnic group. The Median origin is also still heavily disputed btw ([5]). I don't think the possibility of the readers being confused warrants omitting mention of what group they belong to, as supported by WP:RS. They can always just click the link. It could even be changed to "Iranic". HistoryofIran (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I just listed like a dozen RS that doesn't say that. What about them? Levivich (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Your sources still do not contradict the sources that include the Kurds as an Iranian ethnic group. Again, one does not contradict each other. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to take the first example:

It is doubtful that the Kurds form an ethnically coherent whole in the sense that they have a common ancestry.

directly contradicts

Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group

They can't be an Iranian ethnic group if it's doubtful that they form an ethnically coherent whole or have a common ancestry. Levivich (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

One of the sources currently cited in the article says this:

An Iranian people by language, the Kurdish people are ethnically diverse due to intermarriage with other ethnic groups with which they have come into close contact

which directly contradicts what it's cited for (are an Iranian ethnic group). What about that? Levivich (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It is doubtful that the Kurds form an ethnically coherent whole in the sense that they have a common ancestry.

"in the sense that they have a common ancestry" This is still about their origins.

An Iranian people by language, the Kurdish people are ethnically diverse due to intermarriage with other ethnic groups with which they have come into close contact

This one still ultimately groups them as an Iranian people due to their language. Also, ethnically diverse or not, they are still just one ethnic group, and not multiple. Compare the Azerbaijanis, who are of mixed descent, yet still a Turkic ethnic group. I'm not opposed to have the complicated origins of the Kurds added. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You're saying that An Iranian people by language, the Kurdish people are ethnically diverse due to intermarriage with other ethnic groups with which they have come into close contact means an Iranian ethnic group? Levivich (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It can't mean Iranian people as in nationality, so that's the only other opinion. Ethnic groups are often categorized by their language after all. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

What about the option "not Iranian"? Or another option, "of unclear origin"? Those are two options besides Iranian ethnic group and Iranian nationality. How can "ethnically diverse" mean "an Iranian ethnic group"?? Levivich (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

What about the option "not Iranian"?

Asatrian still calls them an Iranian group in that source.

Or another option, "of unclear origin"?

Again, having disputed origins and being part of the Iranian group is not a contradiction of each other. This is also demonstrated in EI2 and Asatrian.

How can "ethnically diverse" mean "an Iranian ethnic group"??

Kurds are still one ethnic group, not several - from the lede of the latter: "An ethnicity or ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include a common nation of origin, or common sets of ancestry, traditions, language, history, society, religion, or social treatment." And as mentioned earlier, the Azeris, who are also of mixed origins (i.e. ethnically diverse) are still considered a Turkic group. Regardless, the Kurds are still ultimately called "an Iranian people by language" in that source. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

OK I'll just start an RFC. Levivich (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry what? Can you please just show WP:RS that challenges the view that the Kurds are an ethnic Iranian group, instead of citing sources about their origins? If not, then we should follow what WP:RS says; that they're an Iranian people. Please also see WP:RFCBEFORE. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I just quoted from a dozen such sources. As for RFCBEFORE, this is the RFCBEFORE. The RFC question I intend to ask is:

Should "Iranian" be removed from the lead sentence, "Kurds ... are an Iranian ethnic group"?

Do you think the RFC question should be different? Levivich (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you quoted a dozen sources about their origins. We already went through several times that origins does not equal what ethnic group you belong to. You should also start making a RFC at Persians then, since they also have non-Iranian ancestry. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I take that to mean you don't think the RFC question should be different. Levivich (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

That would probably get ignored too. Go ahead. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

From prior discussion

Resurrecting some sources from Talk:Kurds/Archive 13#We need to qualify the statement that they are an Iranian people just so that we are thorough:

• Asatrian, Garnik (2009). "Prolegomena to the Study of the Kurds". Iran and the Caucasus. Vol. 13. pp. 1–58.

  — Discussed already.

• van Donzel, E. J. (1994). "Kurds/Kurdistan". Islamic desk reference. BRILL. ISBN 9004097384.

  — This is a condensed form of the Brill encyclopaedia cited in the article currently, lacking the specific authorship information for the articles, and several tens of thousand words shorter.

• Morony, Michael G. (2015). Iraq After the Muslim Conquest. Perspectives on Society and Culture. Gorgias Press. doi:10.31826/9781593333157. ISBN 9781593333157.
• Russell, James R. (1990). "Pre-Christian Armenian Religion". In Haase, Wolfgang G. (ed.). Band 18/4. Teilband Religion (Heidentum: Die religiösen Verhältnisse in den Provinzen [Forts.]). Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II. Vol. 18. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter. pp. 2679–2692. doi:10.1515/9783110877274-012.
• Limbert, John W. (Spring 1968). "The Origins and Appearance of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran". Iranian Studies. 1 (2): 41–51.

For the quotes off specific pages, see the prior talk page discussion.

Uncle G (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Just a note: What you have as "Morony 2015" is actually "Morony 2005," but it was written/published in 1984 (as indicated on the copyright page). They call it "Second Edition," but you can read in the "Preface to the Second Edition" where the publisher says "It has now been over twenty years since Iraq after the Muslim Conquest was published and fifteen years since it went out of print. Since then requests to reprint it from friends and colleagues who had been unable to obtain copies have suggested that it might be a good idea to make the book available again. Gorgias Press has graciously agreed to reproduce the volume in its original form with the addition of the Author Index that previously had been distributed privately. Only one erratum has been corrected. Otherwise it seems best to leave the work as it stands in the hope that it can still provoke debate." The copyright page and the preface to the second edition -- and the rest of the work -- are available free at https://doi.org/10.31826/9781593333157 (click "content"). Levivich (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Iranian ethnic group

Should Iranian be removed from the lead sentence of Kurds: Kurds ... are an Iranian ethnic group?

RFC posted: 05:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support removal as proposer, because Kurds ... are an Iranian ethnic group suggests that all Kurds (including Syrian Kurds, Turkish Kurds, Iraqi Kurds, and Iranian Kurds) are Iranian or of Iranian origin, and the sources do not support making that statement in WP:WIKIVOICE:

  Of the 3 sources cited in the article Kurds for this statement, the first is from 1978, the second contradicts the statement, and the third is of questionable weight, as the author says due to space limitations, the article is "reducing and simplifying":

Analysis of 3 sources cited in the article (EI-2, Shoup, Nezan)

The first citation supporting "Iranian ethnic group" in the lead sentence is to Brill's Encyclopaedia of Islam 2nd edition (EI-2), which was published between 1954 and 2005. The entry on "Kurds, Kurdistan" was written in 1978. The sources it cites are from 1972 or older (going back to 19th century sources). It's available for free via WP:TWL, so any editor can see the full entry via this EI-2 TWL link. Although this 1978 encyclopedia entry says "an Iranian people of the Near East" in the beginning that doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group," and in any event, the entry says more in the "History" section: The classification of the Kurds among the Iranian nations is based mainly on linguistic and historical data and does not prejudice the fact there is a complexity of ethnical elements incorporated in them. The type of the latter varies visibly from place to place. It is probable that the expansion of the Kurd element took place from east (Western Persia) to west (Central Kurdistān) but there is nothing to have prevented the existence in Central Kurdistān, before the coming of the Kurds, of a nationality of different origin but bearing a similar name (Ḳardū) which later amalgamated with the Iranian Kurds. So this entry seems to be saying explicitly that "Iranian people" does not mean "Iranian ethnic group." In any event, WP:AGEMATTERS, and a 1978 encyclopedia entry is too old to be show us what the current scholarly views are. Encyclopaedia of Islam is currently on its third edition (EI-3), but this edition does not seem to have an entry for "Kurds" or "Kurdistan" at all: EI-3 TWL link. The second citation is to John Shoup's Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia (ABC-Clio, 2011). It contradicts "Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group" when it says they are Carduchii, and an "Iranian people by language" that is "ethnically diverse" at p. 159: As noted above, the Kurdish people are thought to be descended from the Carduchii (perhaps the Kardoukhi) described by Xenopohon and the Kardakes described by Strabo; Strabo states that “Karda” means “warlike” or “manly”—this is perhaps paralleled by the Assyrian term qardu or “strong.” An Iranian people by language, the Kurdish people are ethnically diverse due to intermarriage with other ethnic groups with which they have come into close contact; given the vast territory that Kurdistan covers, this would suggest intermarriage with such peoples as Arabs, Armenians, Persians, and Turks. The third citation is an article at Kurdish Institute of Paris's website, written by Kendal Nezan, its president. It says "Historians generally agree to consider them as belonging to the Iranian branch of the large family of Indo-European races." [6] The source is arguably WP:EXPERTSPS, but I'm not sure how much weight to give it for statements in wikivoice, considering the author writes at the beginning, 1 hope the specialists present here won't hold this approach of reducing and simplifying against me ....

Other 21st-century scholars do not say that Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group; they say other things, mostly that Kurdish origins are unclear and debated (listed in reverse chrono order):

5 more 21st-century academic sources (McDowall, Maisel, Eppel, Asatrian, Natali)

A Modern History of the Kurds (4th ed., I.B. Tauris, 2021) by David McDowall, pp. 8-9: It is doubtful that the Kurds form an ethnically coherent whole in the sense that they have a common ancestry. The majority of Kurds are probably descended from waves of Indo-European tribes mainly moving westwards across Iran, probably in the middle of the second millennium BCE. But we know nothing of them ... they were probably already an amalgam of Indo-European tribes that had made their way into the region by different routes and at different periods. Semitic tribes may also have inhabited the Zagros during this period ... [1,000 years later] the term ‘Kurd’ had a socio-economic rather than ethnic meaning. It was used of nomads on the western edge of the Iranian plateau and probably also of the tribes that acknowledged Sassanian authority in Mesopotamia, many of which must have been Semitic in origin. There can be little doubt that at a later stage, certain Arab and Turkoman tribes became Kurdish by culture. Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples are not Iranian, nor are Arabs or Turkoman. Sebastian Maisel's Kurds: An Encyclopedia of Life, Culture, and Society (ABC-Clio, 2018), p. xiii: The origins of the Kurds are contested, but for many they represent an indigenous group of upper Mesopotamia often described as the mountain people in the Zagros and Taurus. Certainly, a close relation with the Iranization of the region during the reign of the Medians and Scythians starting in the ninth century BCE must be noted. ... The isolated mountainous character of their homeland preserved the special features of the Kurdish ethnicity with their unique language, culture, and religions. Same book, p. 3: The origins and early development of the Middle East’s Kurdish community remains a topic of considerable scholarly debate and controversy ... Perhaps the most famous myth claimed the Kurds were the descendants of children rescued from Zahhak, the cannibalistic tyrant of Iranian folklore. Other theories ... included the suggestion that the Kurds possessed an Arab genealogy, being the descendants of Arab tribes that had fled Arabia in the pre-Islamic era ... a growing number of scholars in the West have put forward new theories concerning to the Kurds’ origins. Such theories often seek to posit the idea that the modern Kurdish community is a continuation of one or more of the peoples inhabiting the ancient Middle East, including groups such as the Corduene of Xenophon’s Anabasis and the Cyrtii mentioned in the works of Polybius, Livy, and Strabo. Nevertheless, perhaps the most well-known and widely accepted theory is that the modern Kurds are the direct successors to the Medes, ancient Iranic people who dominated much of the territory of modern Iran between 678 and 549 BCE. Although this theory has gained popularity amongst the Kurdish intelligentsia, it is largely speculative and has been criticized by modern scholars who suggest that the study of Kurdish community should begin with the appearance of the term “Kurd” in the historical record (Özoğlu, 2004: 25). In this regard, the earliest direct mention of the Kurds can be found in the Pahlavi language sources of Sassanid era Iran (224–651) (Asatrain, 2009: 28). The Medes were Iranian, but Maisel says this "widely accepted theory ... is largely speculative and has been criticized by modern scholars". That supports including the Medes theory in the article, maybe the lead, but not saying "is an Iranian ethnic group" in wikivoice. Michael Eppel, A people without a state: the Kurds from the rise of Islam to the dawn of nationalism (University of Texas Press, 2016), p. 1: The ethnic origin of the Kurds may well derive from western Iranian populations who arrived at the Zagros and Taurus Mountains from the east and mingled with the indigenous people. Debates on the meaning (especially philological) of the signifier Kurd and the relationship between modern Kurdish nationalism and the ancient population of the mountains of Kurdistan have continued among scholars for more than one hundred years. Pages 4-5 explains multiple origin theories, including Carduchian, Medes, neither, and other: The similarity between the signifiers Carduchians and Kurds and the geographic location of the Carduchian country have been the bases for the identification of Carduchians as ancient Kurds by scholars writing about the origin of the Kurds since the early nineteenth century. Other scholars have considered the Kurds to be descendants of the ancient Medes. According to this theory, the forebears of the Kurds were those ancient Medes who remained in the mountains of Kurdistan and did not undergo “Iranization” during the time when the Median elite was dominant in Iran under Cyrus, who was himself half-Median, the son of a Median princess. Still other scholars, such as D. N. MacKenzie, primarily on the grounds of a philological analysis, have expressed doubts as to the identification of the Carduchians as forebears of the Kurds and reject the connection between the Kurds and the Medes.8 MacKenzie, who studied the linguistic relationships between the Kurdish dialects and Iranian languages, was led by his philological analysis to emphasize the connection between the Kurds and the Cyrtii (Kurti), who are mentioned in writings by the Greek historians Polybius and Strabo.9 An Italian monk and preacher, Riccoldo da Montecroce (1243–1320), who visited Kurdistan in the thirteenth century, also used the signifier Curti for the Kurds and briefly discussed their language in his book. Garnik Asatrian's Prolegomena to the Study of the Kurds (Iran and the Caucasus, 2009) does say "Iranian ethnic group," but there is nuance, on p. 8: The ancient history of the Kurds, as in case of many other Iranian ethnic groups (Baluchis, etc.), can be reconstructed but in a very tentative and abstract form. Nothing is clearly known from the remote period of the history of the speakers of the proto-Kurdish dialects ... In other words, not every occurrence of the term Kurd in the historical sources--especially those of the early period--are an explicit indicator of the Kurdish ethnic element ... even if, in certain contexts, this term reveals direct connotations of an ethnic name clearly denoting the ancestors of the contemporary Kurds, it does not mean yet that we are dealing with a well-shaped ethno-demographic factor in the given period of time and space. Elsewhere, more nuance, e.g. p. 2: The term Kurd, as an ethnonym, is traditionally applied to an ethnic conglomeration whose various parts reside in the bordering areas of a number of Near Eastern countries. Page 2, footnote 4: The heterogeneous nature of the Kurdish conglomeration is fairly manifested in its two almost equal divisions: the northern and southern, which speak different, mutually unintelligible dialects ... and have actually distinct cultural and sometimes even ethnic markers ... Pages 4-5: The problem is that many ethnic groups living as enclaves, or in the vicinity of the Kurds, are traditionally considered part of the Kurdish conglomeration: the Zazas or Dimilis ... the Gurans, Awromans ... Lurs, Bakhtiaris, and Laks, ... Assyro-Chaldaeans, Yezidis, and even Armenians in Iraq and Syria. Page 10: With the Kurdish conglomeration, as I said above, far from being a homogeneous entity--either ethnically, culturally, or linguistically ... Denise Natali, The Kurds and the State: Evolving National Identity in Iraq, Turkey, and Iran (Syracuse University Press, 2005), says Medes but not Persians, which is why we should not say "Iranian" in wikivoice (most English-speaking readers will probably think "Iranian" means Persian, not Medes), p. xvii: Although some Kurds trace Kurdish civilization to the seventh millenium, the majority date their origins to the Median Empire in the sixth century B.C. Oral and written historiography shows how Kurds have attempted to preserve their culture, language, and territory despite efforts of central governments to prohibit or deny their identity. [Four historical works] emphasize the uniqueness of Kurdish identity ... Even after the demise of the Ottoman and Persian Empires and division of Kurdish territories into four main states, Kurds have tried to protect their identity by differentiating themselves from the dominant ethnic group. Kurds are Kurds because they are not Arabs, Persians, or Turks.

Starting the article with "Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group", in wikivoice, is not supported by these sources, which say that their origins are unclear/debated, most often Medes (not Persians), but possibly Carduchii, or Arabs, or Turkoman, or something else. "Iranian" should be removed from the first sentence, it doesn't accurately convey to the readers what scholars say about Kurds' ethnicity and origin. Levivich (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

10 sources that include the Kurds as part of the Iranian ethnic group

Starting with Garnik Asatrian, a leading scholar in Middle Eastern-related studies (particularly Kurdish studies), being the founder of the multidisciplinary peer-reviewed academic journal Iran and the Caucasus (link to the website [7]), which is in turn published by Brill Publishers, one the world's most prominent publishers in academic journals/books. His work is routinely cited in other prominent works, such as the afromentioned Cambridge History of the Kurds. He has also worked with Encyclopædia Iranica, even authoring an important Kurdish related article for them [8]. "The ancient history of the Kurds, as in case of many other Iranian ethnic groups (Baluchis, etc.), can be reconstructed but in a very tentative and abstract form." - p. 65, Asatrian, Garnik (2009). "Prolegomena to the Study of the Kurds". Iran and the Caucasus. "The Iranian intermezzo fact includes a number of other Iranian, mostly Kurdish, minor dynasties in the former caliphal provinces of Armenia, Albania, and Azerbaijan before the arrival of the Seljuks, such as the Kurdicized Arab Rawwādids in Azerbaijan 20 and the Kurdish Marwānid family in eastern Anatolia from the tenth to the eleventh centuries. Finally, the most famous Kurdish dynasty, the Shaddādids, came to power in Dabīl/Duin in the tenth century, ruling until the twelfth." - p. 7, Vacca, Alison (2017). Non-Muslim Provinces under Early Islam: Islamic Rule and Iranian Legitimacy in Armenia and Caucasian Albania. Cambridge University Press "At present the Kurds occupy parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and the USSR. As the map shows, the area in which the Kurds predominate is a long arc extending roughly northwest to southeast in a band of varying width from central Turkey to western Iran in the Kermanshah and Shahabad regions. In these last areas, the historic road from Baghdad to Hamadan and beyond divides the Kurds from their Iranian cousins, the Lurs." - p. 41, J. Limbert. (1968). The Origins and Appearance of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran. Iranian Studies An especially interesting feature of the period in Persia is that the crumbling of 'Abbasid authority gave an opportunity for the resurgence of Iranian elements which had been hitherto submerged under the facade of unity within Islamic faith and culture. Amongst these elements, Dailami, Kurdish and Lur ones from the northern and western parts of Iran, and Kufichi and Baluch ones from the south-eastern region, are especially notable. p. 73, The Medieval History of Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia, C.E. Bosworth "The Kurds, an Iranian people of the Near East, live at the junction of more or less laicised Turkey, S̲h̲īʿi Iran, Arab and Sunnī ʿIrāḳ and North Syria, and Soviet Transcaucasia." - Encyclopaedia of Islam, Brill Publishers, Second Edition, Vladimir Minorsky, David Neil MacKenzie, Th. Bois "A study of the pre-Islamic religion of the Kurds, an Iranian people who inhabited southern parts of Armenia from ancient times to the present day, has yet to be written." - Russell, James R. (1990). "Pre-Christian Armenian Religion". In Haase, Wolfgang G. (ed.). Band 18/4. Teilband Religion (Heidentum: Die religiösen Verhältnisse in den Provinzen [Forts.]). Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II. Vol. 18. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter. pp. 2679–2692. doi:10.1515/9783110877274-012. ""An Iranian people by language, the Kurdish people are ethnically diverse due to intermarriage with other ethnic groups with which they have come into close contact" p. 159, Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia (2011), Shoup, John A. "ethnic history of the Iranian tribal societies (Kurds, Zazas, Talishis, etc.)" - p. 4, Boghos Levon Zekiyan, Studies on Iran and The Caucasus. Brill Publishers At all events, his mother was of Iranian origin, the poet himself calling her Ra’isa and describing her as Kurdish - p. 25, Lornejad, Siavash; Doostzadeh, Ali (2012). Arakelova, Victoria; Asatrian, Garnik (eds.). On the modern politicization of the Persian poet Nezami Ganjavi. Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies. "Some elements were not Turcoman, but of Iranian origin, particularly Kurdish" - p. 44, Tapper, Richard (1997). Frontier Nomads of Iran: A Political and Social History of the Shahsevan. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-52158-336-7.

• Oppose removal None of those sources challenge the claim of the Kurds being Iranian. As Levivich was told multiple times but didn't address, origins and ethnic group are not a contradiction of each other. This is also demonstrated in Asatrian and EI2, who both call them Iranian while also mentioning their disputed origin. For example, Azeris are ethnically diverse, but still listed as a Turkic ethnic group. Moreover, by that logic, we should remove "Iranian" from Persians too, since they are also from a non-Iranian (Elamite) background (eg The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State & King of the World: The Life of Cyrus the Great). Let's see what Oxford languages say about an ethnic group: "a group of people who have a shared sense of identity because they have their own cultural background, traditions, history, language, etc.". I don't see any origins being a determining factor anywhere. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  To respond briefly to those 10 sources:

  1. Asatrian is addressed on my list of 5 sources in my vote above, I won't repeat here.
  2. Doesn't say anything about "ethnic". That there existed Kurdish Iranian dynasties does not support saying that all Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group.
  3. Doesn't say anything about "ethnic". Saying that Iranian Lurs are "cousins" of Kurds does not mean that all Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group. Also, it's from 1968, too old per WP:AGEMATTERS.
  4. Doesn't say anything about "ethnic". It says there are Kurds in Iran, which isn't the same thing as saying all Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group. Also, it's from 1977, WP:AGEMATTERS.
  5. EI-2 (1978) is addressed in my first list analyzing the sources currently cited in the article, I won't repeat here.
  6. Doesn't say anything about "ethnic". "Iranian people" does not mean the same thing as "Iranian ethnic group." He refers to Armenian Kurds as Iranian people -- Kurds from Iran -- that doesn't mean all Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group. Also, it's from 1990, 30+ years is too old, WP:AGEMATTERS.
  7. Shoup is addressed in my first list analyzing the sources currently cited in the article, I won't repeat here.
  8. The full quotation is:

     Garnik's scholarly contributions range from Middle Iranian linguistics and philology (Middle Persian, Parthian, Sogdian), Iranian etymology, toponymy, Iranian religions, dialectology, ethnography, ethno-demography, ethnic history of the Iranian tribal societies (Kurds, Zazas, Talishis, etc.), and social anthropology to contemporary socio-political issues of the Near East and the Caucasus.

     That doesn't mean that all Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group. "Iranian tribal societies" does not mean "Iranian ethnic group." There are Kurds in Iran -- that doesn't mean all Kurds are Iranian. And in any event, this author is describing Garnik Asatrian; this isn't a work about Kurds, it's a work about Asatrian.
  9. Doesn't say anything about "ethnic", it says a poet's mother was Kurdish Iranian; that doesn't mean all Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group. I don't understand why this is even on the list.
  10. Doesn't say anything about "ethnic". The full quotation is:

      These named Qizilbash 'tribes' probably had an open membership. They were not based on common descent, but were complex and heterogenous collections of people of varied origins, like the original Turco-Mongol 'tribes'. Some elements were not Turkoman, but of Iranian origin, particularly Kurdish.

      That doesn't say that all Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group, it says that some Qizilbash were Kurdish Iranians. There are Kurds in Iran; that doesn't mean all Kurds are Iranian.

  Levivich (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  1) WP:REHASH. Still doesnt change that Asatrian calls them “Iranian” and proves that you can have different origins and still be part of the group. Something which you still havent adressed, which is frankly nearing the realm of WP:STONEWALLING.

  2) It doesnt have to. It’s obviously referring to the ethnic group here. Also, the article is named “Iranian peoples" not “ethnic Iranian peoples”. Why is that? Because you're not obligated to always use the term “ethnic”.

  3) Sigh… Kurds are still one ethnic group, not multiple. And again, it doesnt have to say ethnic, it’s obvious.

  4) Again, “ethnic” is not a requirement, it’s quite obvious what they meant. And you failed to demonstrate why any of these prominent sources are outdated.

  5) EI2 again proves that you can have different origins and still be Iranian, something which you still haven’t adressed.

  6) It’s amazing how you somehow managed to dismiss 10 high quality sources by wrongly using/understanding the word “ethnic” and “WP:AGEMATTERS”. “Ethnic” is still not a neccesity to use, and you still havent demonstrated why it’s outdated.

  7) Still calls the Kurds an Iranian group.

  8) Kurds are still one ethnic group, not multiple. I’ve already listed what ethnic group means according to Oxford, kindly read it. They are describing Asatrians works yes, but still repeat and support the statement of Kurds being an Iranian group.

  9) Another case a misunderstanding of the word “ethnic”. Also, Iran was not a political entity at the time.

  10) Huh? Its literally talking about different ethnic groups here, such as the Turkomans. Its obviously referring to the Kurds as an Iranian group. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The first point is really hard to agree with. The sources refer to Kurds in general, and we are using them for that very case. If sources referred to Kurds in different countries as separate groups, that would be more on point, but that's not the case. I also don't see any sources that say Kurds are not Iranian or should be classified differently. The only point here is that the article is simplifying the sources. If that's the case, anyone can add content from the sources to the article. That has nothing to do with the lead. The very first three sources presented explicitly call Kurds an Iranian group. Moreover, it is our personal interpretation that the Iranian classification contradicts with having unclear, mixed, etc. origins. Many sources refer to Kurds as Iranian and then mention that their origins are not straightforward. We have to move along with the least possible amount of interpretation. Aintabli (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)\
• Oppose -- Per WP:RS and WP:OR. In the event that Kurds are not Iranian, then neither are Persians, Pashtuns, Ossetians, Tats, Tajiks, and so on. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

1. "The winter house of the Kurds, Iranian pastoralists in Asia, is a one-room rectangular subterranian dwelling with stone walls and timber uprights along the longitudinal axis..." -- Elena Efimovna Kuzmina. (2007). The Origin of the Indo-Iranians. Brill. p. 54
2. "The same principle is characteristic of the house of the Iranian Kurds, who migrated through the Near East...." -- ibid, p. 62
3. "Kinsmen marry each other among modern Iranian peoples, e.g., Kurds, Luri, mountain Tadzhiks and others...." -- ibid, p. 195

- LouisAragon (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Even the sources presented by Levivich label the Kurds as an Iranian ethnic group.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
• Note: this RFC has been advertised at WP:NPOVN, WT:WikiProject Kurdistan, WT:WikiProject Iran, WT:WikiProject Iraq, WT:WikiProject Syria, WT:WikiProject Turkey, WT:WikiProject Ethnic groups, WT:WikiProject Vital Articles, Talk:Kurdistan, Talk:Iranian Kurdistan, Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan, Talk:Syrian Kurdistan, and Talk:Turkish Kurdistan. Levivich (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose based on the above !oppose arguments, as well as this from Kurds: Kurds speak the Kurdish languages and the Zaza–Gorani languages, which belong to the Western Iranian branch of the Iranian languages.[41][42] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JM2023 (talk • contribs)
• Oposse per LouisAragon. If op thinks the sources are outdated or unreliable he should go reliable sources noticeboard. Shadow4dark (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I followed your suggestion: WP:RSN#1960s & 1970s sources for "Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group". Levivich (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal What I have found in the sources suggests that the Iranian origin of the Kurds, especially in the context of the ethnic group, is not decided. Ferdinand Hennerbichler says the following: "Kurds are traditionally regarded as Iranians and of Iranian origin, and therefore as Indo-Europeans, mainly, because they speak Iranian. This hypothesis is largely based on linguistic considerations and was predominantly developed by linguists."[9] If it is a thesis that is largely based on linguistic considerations and was predominantly developed by linguists then this information must be part of the article considering that in the article the Kurds are presented as Iranians in the ethnic sense without any explanation, because the language is not ethnic. There is also Michael Eppel and his claim: "The ethnic origin of the Kurds may well derive from western Iranian populations who arrived at the Zagros and Taurus Mountains from the east and mingled with the indigenous people."[10] Indigenous people are not ethnic Iranians. We also have and Charles G. MacDonald and his claim: "Believed to be descendants of the ancient Medes",[11] but Medes are not ethnic Iranians. Considering that the sources have more facts in terms of origins of the Kurds I think that removal is the best option at this time. Mikola22 (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. Now, we have three more sources mentioning that they are either classified as Iranian or descend from Iranian populations. Actually, Medes are an Iranian people. None of these claim that Kurds are not Iranian, and none presents the Iranian classification as something contradictory to mixture with other groups. Aintabli (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Iranian ethnic group" doesn't mean "classified as Iranian" or "descend from Iranian populations" or even "Iranian language." Ethnic group has a very specific meaning. Also, nobody "classifies" people as "Iranian." "Iranian" isn't a human classification.

  It's very not true that none of these contradict "Iranian." The sources quoted above who say that Kurds are Carduchii, Turkoman, or Arab, are directly disputing "Iranian ethnic group," because neither Carduchii, nor Turkoman, nor Arab, are Iranian, not by ethnicity, language, or otherwise. The sources that say Kurdish origins are unknown, are directly disputing "Iranian ethnic group," because you can't be "Iranian" and "unknown" at the same time. The sources that say that Kurds are their own ethnic group (which is most sources) also dispute "Iranian ethnic group." More to the point, I've never seen any source describe Syrian or Turkish Kurds as an "Iranian ethnic group."

  It comes down to whether "an Iranian ethnic group" means "an ethnic group in Iran" (in which case it only applies to Kurds in Iran), or "an ethnic group from Iran," it which case that is disputed by everyone who says they're from somewhere else, e.g. Carduchii, Turkoman, Arab, or indigenous to Kurdistan (a good portion of which is outside of Iran). Levivich (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Aintabli classic WP:OR, state where in these sources says that they are ethnic Iranians? The context is that the Iranian theory is based on linguistic. It is not an ethnic context. Ancient Medes are not ethnic Iranians. Indigenous people are not ethnic Iranians. Michael M. Gunter says the following: "Unlike the Arabs and the Turks, the Persians are closely related to the Kurds."[12] Therefore, Persians are not ethnic Iranians either. I looked for sources which say that the Kurds are ethnic Iranians and I did not find a single source, which may mean that this formulation is and WP:FRINGE, and if that is indeed the case, and according to all indications it is, the ethnic fact must be removed from the article, and the RFC neither needs nor can decide on that. Information which is fringe cannot be part of any article. Mikola22 (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ancient Medes were ethnic Iranians. 74.12.186.29 (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose "Iranian" does mean the country of Iran, obviously. Per our own article Origin of the Kurds, while there is some heterogeneity, the Kurds are broadly considered to be an Indo-Iranic culture group. Curbon7 (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Aside from Wikipedia not being a reliable source, what is a "culture group"? This RFC is about "ethnic group." Levivich (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sigh. I'm not citing Wikipedia as a source, I am using that as a device for a clarification since it seems you are conflating Iranian nationality with Iranian/Iranic ethno/linguistic grouping. Curbon7 (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Here is a 2022 genetic analysis of Kurds of Sulaymaniyah Governorate, Iraq; however, I do not understand much of what the article says. Curbon7 (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  The article says The Kurds as an ethnic group are believed to be a combination of earlier Indo-European tribes who migrated and inhabited a mountainous area thousands of years ago. However, as it is difficult to describe the precise history of their origin, it is necessary to investigate their population relationship with other geographical and ethnic groups. ... Traditionally, they are the descendants of different Indo-European tribes who migrated to the Zagros mountain region some 4000 years ago ... Nevertheless, other studies indicate that both the ethnic forefathers and the linguistic ancestors of the Kurds inhabited the Near East and Eurasia, geographically from outside and northwest of Iran, and they early occupied their Eurasian homeland Ethnically and linguistically from outside and northwest of Iran according to "other studies" does not support saying Iranian ethnolinguistic group, or ethnic group, in wikivoice, in the lead sentence. It seems the only thing that all modern sources agree about is that there is no clear answer to the origin of the Kurds. Levivich (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Genetic ancestry ≠ ethnicity. We cannot use genomic research to "deconstruct" ethnic labellings that are based on entirely different parameters. –Austronesier (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Genetic ancestry ≠ ethnicity, but this quote is about ethnic groups, not genetic ancestry: The Kurds as an ETHNIC GROUP are believed to be a combination of earlier Indo-European tribes who migrated and inhabited a mountainous area thousands of years ago. However, as it is difficult to describe the precise history of their origin, it is necessary to investigate their population relationship with other geographical and ETHNIC GROUPS. ... Nevertheless, other studies indicate that both the ETHNIC forefathers and the linguistic ancestors of the Kurds inhabited the Near East and Eurasia, geographically from outside and northwest of Iran... There is only one definition of ethnic group. These words I quote are talking about ethnic groups. Levivich (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  That article is literally a study of genetics. And still does not challenge what them being grouped as ethnic Iranians (there's still not a single source here that does), this is once again about their origins, and as we all know, origins isn't the determining factor of what ethnic group you are part of. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• OpposeWeak oppose. I am very much against the idea that it is enough to cite linguistic affiliation as sufficient grounds for calling Kurds an Iranian ethnic group (see also my recent post in FTN[13]). But HistoryofIran has presented IMO convincing material (excluding items 2, and 9) that echoes consistent usage in modern scholarship for the "Iranian" ethnic label in the opening sentence. –Austronesier (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Item 7 is also useless, because it only refers to language. The strongest one is item 5 (Encyclopaedia of Islam, Brill), as it uses the classifier "Iranian" in the opening sentence. But I should note that many comparable entries in reference works (try e.g. Oxford Reference) talk about Kurds without mentioning their Iranian affiliation in the first sentence (or without mentioning it at all). It is a matter of due weight, and this cannot be established with positive attestations only. –Austronesier (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose When the sources cited by HoI are referring to "Iranian" they don't mean "Iran" they mean Iranian peoples, which looks to be obvious from context. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Kurds are an Iranian people. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal (Summoned by bot) per sources offered by HistoryofIran and by Levivich in section above and his conclusion It seems the only thing that all modern sources agree about is that there is no clear answer to the origin of the Kurds. Near universal agreement among sources should be the threshold for putting this in WP:VOICE, there does not appear to be anything like that level of agreement. Pincrete (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  The question of "the origin of the Kurds" is totally unrelated to the use of the label "Iranian". A specific subset of ethnic groups (including the Kurds) in West and Central Asia is often characterized in RS as "Iranian" based on cultural commonalities. (Whether it is due or undue to use the label in opening, defining sentence of this article is a different question.) –Austronesier (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  While "ethnic group" and "origin" aren't the same thing, I disagree that they're totally unrelated. If the Kurds' origin is non-Iranian, like Carduchii, Turkoman, or Arab, or if their "ethnic forebears" come from "outside and northwest of Iran," or if they're indigenous to some place outside of Iran (all of which are things said by some of the sources posted above), then they're not an "Iranian ethnic group" (except those who are in Iran).

  Even if we say that per WP:NPOV, Medes origin is the most common or traditional view (and we assume Medes origin==Iranian ethnic group), and these other views (Carduchii, Turkoman, Arab, other) are significant minority views, we still shouldn't be saying all Kurds are an "Iranian ethnic group" in wikivoice in the first sentence.

  What we should say is that the Kurds are an ethnic group -- their own ethnic group, not Iranian or Persian, not Turkish, not Arab, not Syrian -- of unclear or mixed origins, whose languages are Western Iranian languages, but that doesn't make their ethnicity "Iranian." Levivich (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  At the risk of repeating something that has been said before: "Iranian" does not mean "in/from/related to (etc.) Iran" here. It's an etymological fallacy. A look at Iranian peoples or Iranian languages, or better (since it is a RS) the Encyclopædia Iranica might be useful. I am baffled how the term Iranian in this context is mentioned in one breath with Persian, Turkish, Arab, or Syrian. Will it help to use the less common, but potentially less ambiguous term "Iranic" in order to convey what we and loads of sources actually want to convey here (and not what might be erroneously read into the term "Iranian" due to its ambiguity)? –Austronesier (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Iranian" doesn't mean "in/from/related to Iran"? Huh? What is being conveyed by the words, "Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group" if it's not "Kurds are an ethnic group in/from/related to Iran"? If what we mean to convey is "Kurds speak Iranian languages," then why are we using the phrase "Iranian ethnic group" to convey that meaning? Levivich (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  To add: given that the lead already says Kurds speak the Kurdish languages and the Zaza–Gorani languages, which belong to the Western Iranian branch of the Iranian languages, what meaning is conveyed by the word Iranian in are an Iranian ethnic group that isn't said in speak ... Western Iranian branch of the Iranian languages? Levivich (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  Huh? Ideally you should comment on and quote my full statement "Iranian" does not mean "in/from/related to (etc.) Iran" here, instead of repeating a clipped version of it that turns it into nonsense.

  "Iranian" was coined as an adjective in linguistic and historical scholarship at a time when the West Asian country still was known in the western world as "Persia", long before use of the endonym "Iran" was favored by the Pahlavis and the current theocratic regime. Thus, it was not coined as a synonym to "Persian" (or "in/from/related to (etc.) Persia"), but deliberately with a wider scope that could denote languages, cultures, ethnic groups etc. outside of the modern country of Persia/Iran. The usage shift "Persia → Iran" created an ambiguity for the adjective "Iranian", but we should move on from the etymological fallacy that "Iranian" only means "in/from/related to (etc.) Iran". "Iranian" in the context discussed here is a linguistic/historio-cultural/etc. label like "Mayan" or "Austronesian".

  While personally I believe that "Iranian" sensu lato is primary a linguistic label, the phrasing "Iranian ethic group" for what more precisely could be phrased as "Iranian-speaking ethic group" is certainly found in reliable sources, both for historical (e.g. the Sarmantians of the Pontic steppe) and contemporary groups (e.g. the Kurds in Asatrian's Prolegmena).

  Yes, you're right, defenders of the inclusion of the label "Iranian" still owe us an explanation what makes Kurds "Iranian" beyond their linguistic affiliation (don't tell me it's the celebration of Newroz), especially when Iranian peoples does a bad job to explain what "Iranian peoples" means besides "Iranian-speaking peoples", with lots of coatracking and even misquotations. But I oppose short-cutting a discussion that might result in rewriting the first lede sentence of this article when the main rationale is solely based on a overly narrow interpretation of what "Iranian" actually means in scholarship. –Austronesier (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think we're fundamentally in agreement here: "Iranian ethnic group" is confusing because there is no ethnic group called "Iranian." If everybody agrees that (1) not all Kurds are in Iran, (2) not all Kurds are from Iran, then we should all agree not to say "Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group," as that will suggest -- to the average, modern, English-speaking layperson without a lot of higher education -- that all Kurds are either from Iran or in Iran. The easiest way to solve this to just remove "Iranian" from "Iranian ethnic group."

  (FWIW, there 15 sources quoted in this thread and only one, Astarian 2009, uses the phrase Iranian ethnic group, I think it's because that's a confusing phrase for modern English audiences.)

  The lead already describes the Kurds as Iranian-speaking, but I have no problem with discussing other changes to the lead. (Indeed, that is why I started this discussion: to get more editor input.) I think "Iranian-speaking" has the same problem as "Iranian ethnic group" which is that "Iranian" is not a language, but a language group, a distinction lost on the average modern, English-speaking layperson. So I think it's better to say "Kurdish languages are Western Iranian languages" or something like that rather than "Iranian-speaking."

  Overall, I think the link between Kurds and Iran is too complex to handle in a word or word-phrase in the first sentence of the lead. Levivich (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not in agreement at all. Iranian peoples means the Iranian Ethnicities, it does exist and your attempt at erasure is concerning. Kurds in the diaspora does not remove their ethnic origins. They are Iranian. In spite of the recent nationalism and separatism. The term Greater Iran also applies in that Iran's sphere of influence is beyond it's political borders.

  If your argument is predicated on people are too stupid to comprehend things, then that's a pointless argument. I don't see why this site should care that the layman is stupid. Wiki presents the sources as they are without interpreting as we want, and that's what you've been doing this entire time.

  Historians, scholars, and all the sources presented label them as Iranian, Iranian speaking, etc, and never once, "they are NOT Iranian". That should be what the layman understands, because that's the consensus. 74.12.186.29 (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  And why shouldn't we say Nowruz? It's an Iranian celebration, they speak an Iranian language, they have Iranian influence and vice versa, they are integral to Iranian histories, they play Iranian music with Iranian instruments, what else do you want? 74.12.186.29 (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich. ~ HAL333 19:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose They are Iranian. 74.12.186.29 (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Levivich who has made a very compelling argument that really hasn't been countered. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  What argument is that? Levivich has countless times avoided the arguments that had been presented to them. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  There was no compelling argument. Every source labels them as Iranian and Levivich is reading the sources as he pleases instead of how they're actually written. One only needs to actually know Kurdish people and be around them to understand who they are amongst the tapestry of Iranian tribes. 74.12.186.29 (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  There is literally only one source out of the dozen quoted here that uses the phrase Iranian ethnic group and it's Astarian 2009. This is about "Iranian ethnic group" not "Iranian language group," and that is the point that no one has countered yet (what does "Iranian ethnic group" mean, exactly, if it doesn't mean "ethnic group from Iran" [not accurate for all Kurds] or "ethnic group in Iran" [not accurate for all Kurds] or "ethnic group that speaks an Iranian language" [accurate but already stated more explicitly in the lead]). Levivich (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is about "Iranian ethnic group" not "Iranian language group,"

  You are literally proving the IPs point, reading it as how you please, first most sources apparently referred to the "Iranian nationality", now the "Iranian language group"..? Also, found yet another source, published by Encyclopædia Iranica and written by Alireza Shapour Shahbazi: "Nowruz has been celebrated with considerable zeal amongst the nations of Iranian background inhabiting other lands, namely, the Tajiks, Afghans, and Kurds of Iraq, Syria, and Turkey." HistoryofIran (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Most sources do not say Kurds have "Iranian nationality". That would be ridiculously untrue, as Syrian, Iraqi, and Turkish Kurds obviously do not have Iranian nationality.

  "of Iranian background" doesn't mean "Iranian ethnic group"

  There are more sources quote above that say Iranians have unknown or disputed origin, than sources that say their origin is Iranian.

  The source you're citing was written 23 years ago. There has been a lot of scholarship on Kurdology in the past 20 years, especially since the Syrian Civil War, and that's why the newer sources, quoted above -- from the last 20 years -- emphasize the unknown/disputed background of the Kurds. Even Astarian, the only source who says "Iranian ethnic group,' says their ethnicity is heterogenous and their origins unknown and disputed (quotes above). Levivich (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  And for all your replies, you never answered the question:

  What does "Iranian ethnic group" mean? Does it mean ethnic group in Iran? Does it mean ethnic group from Iran? Does it mean ethnic group that speaks Iranian languages?

  Can you do me the courtesy of just publicly conceding that according to the sources, the first two are not true. I.e., you agree that not all Kurds are in Iran? You agree that not all Kurds are from Iran?

  Then we can move on talking about what does "Iranian ethnic group" tell the reader that "speaks Iranian languages" doesn't already tell the reader. Levivich (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  More WP:REHASH and WP:OR, it's getting tiring. If you have concerns about the age of the source (apparently 23 years ago is now outdated as well), then feel free to use WP:RSN again, though it seems you have already forgotten what you were told in the previous WP:RSN, and here as well.

  "of Iranian background" doesn't mean "Iranian ethnic group"

  You proved the IPs point again.

  There are more sources quote above that say Iranians have unknown or disputed origin, than sources that say their origin is Iranian.

  WP:REHASH. Origin still does not equal ethnicity... look up above for more detailed explanations.

  What does "Iranian ethnic group" mean? Does it mean ethnic group in Iran? Does it mean ethnic group from Iran? Does it mean ethnic group that speaks Iranian languages?

  That depends on the context, from what I've seen in WP:RS, it could either mean an ethnic group in Iran or the Iranic (gonna use this term to avoid confusion, since there apparently is some) group. Feel free to read the quote I posted about what an ethnic group is, it was from Oxford.

  Can you do me the courtesy of just publicly conceding that according to the sources, the first two are not true. I.e., you agree that not all Kurds are in Iran? You agree that not all Kurds are from Iran?

Sorry what? What point are you trying to prove here? HistoryofIran (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, you're still avoiding my questions... (Do you agree not all Kurds are in Iran, and not all Kurds are from Iran? What does "Iranian ethnic group' or "Iranic ethnic group" mean if it doesn't mean "in Iran" or "from Iran"?) but OK. Levivich (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I should have finished my comment completely before adding it, I edited it just around the same time as your reply, making the conversation look a bit confusing. Sure, not all Kurds are from or in Iran, but "Iranic" does obviously not refer to the Iranian nationality, it refers to the Iranian peoples, which was the reason it was proposed by both me and Austronesier (which you never replied to), but what are you trying to prove with your question? HistoryofIran (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, let's try again. We get nowhere if we cannot agree on vocabulary and basic facts.

1. Forget "nationality." Neither you, nor I, are talking about nationality. This whole discussion has nothing to do with nationality. Everybody agrees not all Kurds have Iranian nationality. That is not in dispute. Neither Iranian ethnic group nor Iranian peoples refers to nationality. There is no reason that the word "nationality" should come up again in this discussion.
2. Iran is place, not just a nation, it's also a location on Earth
3. The sources do not say that all Kurds originate from the place called "Iran" (or "Persia")
4. The sources do not say that all Kurds are physically located in the place called "Iran"

So far, agree? Levivich (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You are making this too complicated for no reason. No one else is having trouble with understanding these terms. I'll play along, but I hope this doesn't end up in another WP:REHASH.

1. Sure
2. It's just a country.
3. Yes. Not all Iranic people originate from Iran
4. Yes. Not all Iranic people live in Iran

HistoryofIran (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

A country is a place. Agree? (There is no country that is not also a place. By definition, a country is land and its inhabitants, i.e. place + people.) Levivich (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

5. There is no ethnic group called "Iranian." Like, if you ask somebody their ethnicity, nobody says "Iranian." Iran is a nation, a country, a place... but not an ethnic group.

6. "Iranian peoples" and "Iranic peoples" means the same thing (I'm going to use "Iranian peoples"), which is "speaks Iranian languages." That's the ONLY thing "Iranian peoples" means--it doesn't mean Iranian ethnicity, it doesn't mean Iranian nationality, it doesn't mean physically in Iran, it just means "speaks Iranian languages."

7. Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group and Kurds are an Iranian people means the same exact thing, and it's ONLY that Kurds are an ethnic group that speaks Iranian languages. Neither Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group nor Kurds are an Iranian people means: Kurds are from Iran, Kurds are in Iran, or the ethnicity of Kurds is "Iranian".

Do we still agree? Levivich (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not up to us to make this interpretation, it is up to WP:RS. As Aintabli perfectly put it; "Many sources refer to Kurds as Iranian and then mention that their origins are not straightforward. We have to move along with the least possible amount of interpretation." This is what's the main issue, instead of simply following what WP:RS says, you are making your own interpretations, which has been pointed out by a few users now. I refuse to do the same. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you know 5, 6, and 7 are true, but you don't want to admit it because then you'd have to admit we shouldn't say "Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group" in the first sentence.

Only 1 RS of the 15 or so we've quoted here use the words "Iranian ethnic group." So if we do what you suggest -- the least possible amount of interpretation -- we should not use a phrase that is not used by 14 out of 15 RS. I think all 15 say Kurds are an "ethnic group." Only 1 says Kurds are "an Iranian ethnic group." The "least possible amount of interpretation" would be to do what I'm proposing: say "ethnic group" and not "Iranian ethnic group". Levivich (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Not only WP:REHASH again, but also making bad faith assumptions of me for refusing to engage in this all interpretation by simply adhering to the rules. Unlike you, I don't have to make assumptions, because you literally told everyone your thoughts [14], which would your explain why you keep ignoring the arguments made towards you; "Whomever has gone about and added "Kurds are an Iranian people" to the first sentence of all the Kurd-related articles, is ethnonational pov pushing. That wasn't there last time I was in the topic area (two years ago or so) and everything I remember reading said that the origin of Kurds is much disputed and debated by scholars. Sounds like another way of saying "there is no Kurdistan/there are no Kurds." Only you think this. There are now 12 sources (9 if we exclude the ones that Austronesier that excluded) that refer to them as "Iranian", and not a single source that opposes this. If you want to change the definition of all these large groups, I suggest making a joint RFC for Slavs, Turkic peoples, Iranian peoples, and so on. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You keep saying "Iranian" and I keep saying "Iranian ethnic group". Only 1 source says "Iranian ethnic group" but you argue that because the sources say Iranian languages we should say "Iranian ethnic group," which makes no sense to me. Levivich (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The 12 sources literally do not say or refer to "Iranian languages", this is your own personal interpretation... HistoryofIran (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

This RFC is about Iranian ethnic group, but you keep talking about "Iranian languages." I tried to clarify the difference in questions 5, 6, and 7 above but you didn't answer. Levivich (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Kindly stop putting words in my mouth, and kindly stop WP:REHASHING how you personally interpret clear-cut sources. In Wikipedia we follow WP:RS, not our personal opinions/interpretations/thoughts. I've answered everything and more, only to get the same WP:REHASH and WP:STONEWALLING conclusions. I think it's your turn now, there's plenty of arguments up above still awaiting your response. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

What arguments above are waiting my response? Levivich (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

It is a good tradition in RfC to insert an "Arbitrary break" if the section has become too long to load easily. But I also want to put some focus into this discussion. WP:BLUDGEON makes use of a violent metaphor, but sometimes it is quite apt...

To summarize, "Iranian" can refer to at least three things:

1. Everything related to the country of Iran. This undoubtedly its most common use and arguably the one that only comes to mind for many of readers not familiar with the history and ethnography of West and Central Asia.
2. A linguistic grouping that eponymously derives its name from the ancient endonym (quite-recently-turned exonym) of the country.
3. An adjective describing West/Central Asian ancient and modern ethnic groups that a) speak Iranian languages and b) share common cultural traits. The latter either have radiated from the greater cultural influence sphere of Persia/Iran (even to non-Iranian speaking peoples), or simply are shared inherited ancient cultural elements.

In theory, "Iranian ethnic group" can thus mean three different things:

1. An ethnic group of Iran
2. An ethnic group speaking an Iranian language (without necessarily implying a connection with the country of Iran)
3. An ethnic group classified in the literature as "Iranian" based on both linguistic and extra-linguistic commonalities (again without necessarily implying a connection with the country of Iran)

All three uses of the phrase are found in reliable sources:

1. is obviously not intended here, but may be easily misunderstood as meaning just that
2. is a fact, but IMO not sufficient reason for using it in the lede (just FYI, I have initiated or taken part in a number of successful AfDs of spurious pseudo-ethnic articles like Romance peoples or Cushitic peoples; however, Iranian peoples in spite of its flaws in on a completely different footing)
3. is what actually is meant here (if not, there is no reason to keep "Iranian" in front of "ethnic group"), and quite a number of sources support using the label "Iranian" for the Kurds based on more than just linguistic affiliation.

User:Levivich, please don't over-empasize meaning 1) as if the common century-old practice of meanings 2) and 3) (which even predates meaning 1, which I have explained before) are entirely invalid. Prone to misunderstanding by laypeople does not mean wrong.

User:HistoryofIran, please keep in mind that Slavs and Turkic peoples are not entirely unproblematic. Especially when referring to modern ethnic groups, these concepts have less been bolstered by scholars but more by ideologists. Again, I am still convinced that Iranian peoples is on a different footing, but try not to muddy your own strong point by problematic analogies. Also, you should address the issue of ambiguity and potential misinterpretation by uninitiated (plus initiated, but stubborn) readers. A blue link to "Iranian peoples" might not suffice. –Austronesier (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

When we say that someone is an ethnic Slav, we do not mean that he is an ethnic Russian. So I can understand the wording ethnic Slav, but I can't really understand the wording that someone is ethnically Iranian, because Iranians are predominantly Persians and they are not labeled as ethnic Iranians. For such a formulation ie. an ethnic Iranian, that is, if the Kurds are ethnic Iranians, we would need more quality sources which say that. To know the real context of such fact. Mikola22 (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

you should address the issue of ambiguity and potential misinterpretation by uninitiated (plus initiated, but stubborn) readers. A blue link to "Iranian peoples" might not suffice.

If I understand the question correctly, then I did already do that. I suggested using the alternative and less confusing term "Iranic peoples" twice, both before and during this RFC, but Levivich never addressed it. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

In the article about Iran, the Iranians, or the population of Iran, are labeled as predominantly Persian. Why they are not labeled as ethnic Iranians? On the other hand, there is a source which says that the Kurds are of Medes origin, but this information does not exist in the Kurd article, information is that they are ethnic Iranians. What's the problem here? In any case, I notice that the sources are not respected here, that is, there are none, or there are very few of them. It's not the clearest situation for me. Mikola22 (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2023

Add a link to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds_in_Russia article at the top of the diaspora subsection (where there's already a list of articles about disaporas elsewhere) 5.44.170.53 (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Levivich (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)