Talk:History of the Kurds

Zoroaster and the Kurds

This section is utterly and completely baseless. It appears to be based on local Yezidi myth than any factual intepretation of history. For one, there is no evidence suggesting Zoroaster born, lived, or preached anywhere around the area of Lake Urmia. Zoroaster lived in a time frame, based upon linguisict and geographic descriptions in the Avesta, before Iranic tribes migrated to the region. It is the overwhelming case that Zoroaster lived and preached in the area of Northern Afghanistan/Southern Uzbekistan amongst a group of closely nit pastoral groups.

While the Medes did adopt Zoroastrianism before the time of Cyrus the Great, the Kurds have, for the most part, not retained any of this identity. I will erase this section.

The section is sourced by an academic journal, i.e. International Journal of Kurdish Studies. Moreover, it is written in a neutral voice, and presented as the opinion of a group of Kurds (Yazidis). If you have a different opinion or data please include the new sources to make the article more complete, but do not remove whole sections. Thanks.Heja Helweda 00:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope this is incorrect, the article also states that "Today most Kurds believe that before accepting Islam, Kurds were Zoroastrians.", we can not be selective on this subject. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 15:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove the whole paragraph, instead your add info. to it.Heja Helweda 01:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This is pure revisionist history. Zoroaster was born in Northeast Iran, not Urmia. Also, none of the mainstream academic sources refer to Zoroaster as a "Yazidi" or "Kurd". --ManiF 08:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Some sources say he was born around Chichast (Lake Urmia) [1] and He lived in the early sixth century B.C. around the same time as the Medes [2]. Also see here [3] Urmia, formerly Rezaiyeh, near Lake Urmia, is the traditional birthplace of Zoroaster. Moreover the paragraph in question did not say He is Yazidi or Kurd, it was just a quote saying Yazidis believe that he was X and Y.Heja Helweda 16:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but your sources do not show that Yazdi's believe this or that. The truth is that beside Eranvej there is no other place mentioned in Avesta about birth of Zoroastar. So if you think that Yazdis believe such thing, you should provide a link to a Yazdi page where it says that Yazdis believe this -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 00:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You forget to read the source of the paragraph, which was an article written by a Yezidi in the International Journal of Kurdish Studies. Moreover we are not talking about what Zoroasterians believe about their prophet, but the Yazidis opinion about Zoroaster. Hence there is no need for such an opinion to be based on Avesta. Please read the article. Here [4](pages 4 & 7).Heja Helweda 01:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If this is what the Yezidis believe then it should be clearly labeled as such. The reading of this section leads one to believe that what the Yezidis believe is historical fact. However, all other academic sources point otherwise. I will rename this section "Yezidi belief about Zoroastrianism."

Elam?

I've talked about this before on another article, and I need clarification... According to the research I've done (not much, which is why I need your opinions) the Zagros mountains are inhabited by Kurds and have been so for many millennia, so why is Elam not part of Kurdish history? Did the Kurds migrate to the Zagros later, or did they live there during the Elamite period? If they did, then they may rightfully mention Elam and the Elamites as part of their history and ancestry? I need this info for a project, so please help??

Studying the elamite world still is young and have had no significant results. their language is only partly or more exactly less than 20% is known, which still has not been classified under any group. The two more strong suggestions have been either Indo-european or Dravidian (from southern india). I myself believe that they did not come from thousands mile away from southern India or Africa (No strong reason for such a migration). It is interesting that their name meant 'Highland'. the only neighbouring highland is Zagros. After they were attacked and overthrown most probably they refuged in the northern mountains they originally and tradiotanlly lived. By the way Kurdish mythology exactly is idental with these regarding how Kurds came two being : We fled to mountains from a tyranid king who killed all our nation! In addition you can have at this very recent study by a scholar. It is very new and probably requires some years to be quite accepted. He says that that 20% which scholars have learnt from Elamite must be reconsidered because Elamite is even understood by modern Kurdish. http://www.elamirkan.net/indexeng.htm

Jalalarbil 09:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Source

The passage about Kurds and Armenians in the 1870s needs to include Assyrians. It was the Asssyrian tribes who were most closely situated to the Kurdish tribes.

• Joseph, John. The Nestorians and their Muslim neighbors : a study of western influence on their relations (1961)

- Unsigned

"This was the time of the Kurti, Guti, Khadi, Hattians, Mards, Mushku, Mannai, Mitanni, Urartu, and the Kassites.
It should be mentioned that the Kurds are an Indo-European people, while none of the above were. However Kurds
consider themselves as much Indo-European as they do any of these." 

I'm not comfortable with this passage, It sound like a POV. And it contradicts several other sources, even wikipedia, see Mitanni per example, who are described as a indo-european people, with vedic influences. I would remove the two last sentences, at least. -DBP

Yezidi beliefs about Zoroastrianism

The references are still not good. [5] and [6] do not suggest that specifically Yazdis believe in this. I would also like to see the reference regarding to "Tawfiq Wahbi"'s comment.

Also Why is this part even in this article? I don't understand it's purpose in the article "History of Kurds", I think it is all made up. There is not a single reference in that section that supports that Yazdis believe this, as the title of it is called, and even so as I said before, it does not belong to this article.

This legend is unworthy of being mentioned - it is contradictory to Zoroastrian's beliefs, such "legend" should not be treated like important information, especially not with the sources such as those currently used -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The section is well cited and it definitely has to do with history of the Kurds. It is not about Zoroastrian beliefs, it is about Yazidi beliefs. Different sects and religions may have different and contradictory points of view. Heja Helweda 22:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You have not explained how it is relevant to history of Kurds? Also it is not "well cited" read above & see the cites for more info -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The section clearly discusses about the religious history of the Kurds and their relationship with Zoroasterianism. Instead of removing the whole section, add your sources. The citation is an academic paper in International Journal of Kurdish Studies.Heja Helweda 22:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This section clearly does NOT discuss this. It is about a legend, and your links do not show how notable this legend is. You have to verify that this legend is indeed such important part of the history of Kurds, which it clearly is not. Can you quote where in this paper this legend is discussed and what it says about it? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is about the religious history of the Kurds from a Yazidi point of view. Yazidi is the oldest indigenous Kurdish religion and their beliefs is important for understanding Kurdish history. Please read the article, here[7] pages 4 and 7. We had a discussion before on this page a while back, please read those comments as well. Heja Helweda 23:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Very good.: Sadly that just discredits the whole thing:

• 1- "Moreover, the last emperor of the Medes, Rishti Vega-Azhi Dahak, killed Zoroaster, ruled his followers and overthrew Vishtaspa"

On page 4. Is this for real? It is not even talking about legends here, it is talking like it is a fact! This discredits the whole paper. Plus, the whole essay is not academic its full of "I think's".

The only where it discusses this legend it says:

• 2- "There is an interesting belief about Prophet Zoroaster. Sheikh Dewresh Kelesh would say that Zoroaster was a Yezidi who left us."

Who is this Sheikh Dawresh Kalesh? And why is it important that he "would" say this? This is just a joke. I recommend you forget about including such rubbish from Wikipedia

-- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research.[8]. Since the section is cited it cannot be removed, however we may add for clarification in the beginning that According to the International Journal of Kurdish Studies,.... Moreover please refrain from judging sources. A scholarly journal[9] is definitely not rubbish. Heja Helweda 01:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your source does not say what you are claiming that it says. Read above -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 08:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

An idea

I'm not sure if I'm correct on this, but is the main concern about the paragraph being factual? I think in order to make some sort of compromise, we should clairify in the paragraph that is is more of a legend than a historical fact, perhaps? (Correct me if I'm wrong) Or maybe we could also add the Persian point of view. —Khoikhoi 07:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The source heja has provided does not describe what he has put. He has put it is a legend, source says "...whoever..would say..". Until he can provide a verifable source for what he says, there is no reason to include it. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 08:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As Khoikhoi pointed out, we can include the Persian point of view on Zoroaster as well, but I don't see any reason to remove the cited data. and Kashk please, the source is provided and it is a link and verifiable, you have read the content of the paper as well. If you don't like what is written in that journal then come up with some other sources to back your point of view. ----> The paragraph contains two separate sections: 1) The yazidi claim that Zoroaster hailed among them and later moved to the east. This may be or may not be a legend. 2) The evidence that majority of Kurds were not Zoroasterian. This is not legend, as the article cites some other references and books for it. In order to resolve the issue, one has to separate these two sections and deal with each one in a different way.Heja Helweda 03:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of being flamed by Kash again, I would like to weigh in on the side of Heja and Khoikhoi. As I have said before on the Yazidi page, I don't see why we can't say something like "Yazidi legend holds that....." and then follow up with something like "The Persian (Zoroasterian) view denies this claim." As long as it is clearly presented as Yazidi legend (not accepted fact), and the Persian rebuttal is also presented, I think it is worthy of inclusion.--WilliamThweatt 04:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not even going to answer this. Until there is a verifable source for such material, it is not worthy of inclusion. If you would like to know more about Zoroastar see his article -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not able to understand Kash's stance on this. The material is verifiable as it is published in a Journal. But it may not be accurate from a Zoroastrian perspective. We can include this in the paragraph.Heja Helweda 03:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Heja, if you actually read the sentence where it is mentioned, it does not conclude that it is a legend. It says.. that guy (his name above) "would say" .. that.. (whatever legend) without even mentioning the word "legend" or that it is believed by anyone. So I believe it is not notable and not what you think it is. Infact I spoke to a Zoroastrian Kurd from Iraq yesturday in my Sedreh pooshi ceremony and he said he had not heard of this. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Just an idea here, Kash, but maybe you should talk to a Yazidi Kurd???--WilliamThweatt 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kashk, there are no indigenous Zoroastrian Kurds neither in Iraqi Kurdistan nor in any other part of the world. I think we discussed this a while back. I suggest to read the page on Kurds once more, and look at the sources provided from major Encyclopaedias like Britannica. Moreover one can not base his/her argument based on a comment from a friend in a ceremony. That considerably weakens your argument. Your friend may have converted to Zoroasterianism so he obviously would not like that paragraph.Heja Helweda 03:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Heja, please provide sources for such claims as there are "no indigenous zoroastrian kurds" and how this matters to this discussion -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Related (Hurrian) or unrelated?

It says: "The 3rd millennium was the time of the Guti and Hattians. The second and first was the time of the Kassites, Mitanni, Mannai (Mannaeans), Urartu, and Mushku. All of these peoples shared a common identity and spoke one language or closely related languages/dialects." Further down it continues: "The major peoples in the mountain region during this era (some of whom spoke languages known to be unrelated to Hurrian) included the Gutis, Kurti, Khaldi, Mards, Mushku, Manna (Mannaeans), Hatti, Mittanni, Urartu, and the Kassites, to name just a few" Which is it: Related (Hurrian) or unrelated? 193.149.191.1 09:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ezidi kurds beleive that they are the disendants of a Hurri (angel), Hurrian also means "who comes from a hurri" Hurrians are the ancestors of kurmanci kurds. Resent reserches also revealed that urardian are kurmanci kurds. Urardians language is much closer to kurdish kurmanci dialects. and Dna of the bones found in urardian burials are different from armenians and and the same as the members of kurmanci tribes living in that area today.

Urardians have nothing in common with armanians. armanian migration to the east part of turkey stars in roman period, much later then urardian period.Urardians are the contemprary of prigians in the east, they spoke a completely different lanunage from frigians. with the invation of sea people from balkans to anatolia which caused the collopse of Hitit empire, frigians came to anatolia with greek tribes (ioanians and mysians) around 12 BC and settled in central anatolia converged with some anatolians. this is the reason why Today the closest languages to armenian are spoken in west balkans.(Albanian, latin, greek) Frigians are the ansestors of Armenians. Friginans language is the closest ancient language to armenian language. and during romans and partians wars armenians always sided romans. therefore the Romans get armenian population migrated furter to the east of anatolia from central anatolia and cukurova to control the lands which under the rule of partians between 1 BC to 3 AD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.66.61 (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Zoroaster and Yazidis

In order to reach a compromise lets read the passage in question once more carefully:

1. The first section:[10] (page 4 of the article) According to Wahbi, during the 4th and 5th centuries AD the majority of Kurds east of the Zagros, Cizir, Botan, Kirkuk, and those in the mountains of southeast Kurdistan were not Zoroastrians. (12) We see that the people of the Medes' Empire, whom we regard as the ancestors of the Kurds, were not Zoroastrians. Moreover, the last emperor of the Medes, Rishti Vega-Azhi Dahak, killed Zoroaster, ruled his followers and overthrew Vishtaspa. His army reached the southwest of Afghanistan. During that attack, the army of the Medes inflicted cruelties on Zoroastrians. No doubt this explains in large measure why the Zoroastrians equated the name Azhi Dahak with oppression and cruelty. This is a quote from a well known Kurdish scholar and historian Tawfiq Wahbi. There is a reference to his article published in Kurdish: 12) Wahbi, Tawfiq, Dini carani kurd (Kurdish old religion), Kovara Gelawej (Journal of Gelawej), 1941, jim. 11-12, p. 67. So I hope there is no dispute over this part.
2. The second part is about the Yazidi view about Zoroaster:([11] p.7 of the article) There is an interesting belief about Prophet Zoroaster. Sheikh Dewresh Kelesh would say that Zoroaster was a Yezidi who left us. When he returned we did not accept his religion. It is evident from Iranian history that Zoroaster came from the people who lived around Lake Ourmiya. He remained on Mt. Ararat for two years and then returned to his people as a prophet preaching a new religion. He spent ten years recruiting converts among the people around Ourmiya, but his efforts drew only one person to his beliefs. Finally, he went to the Persians, among whom he found fertile ground for his teachings. This lends credibility to the claim that the sayings of Sheikh Dewresh are not baseless.

The only sentence quoted from the Yazidi Religious leader (Sheikh Dewresh Kelesh) is the one highlighted. The rest is the author's opinion, when he says: It is evident from Iranian history ... and at the end because of the evidence provided on Zoroaster, he (the author) concludes This lends credibility to the claim that the sayings of Sheikh Dewresh are not baseless.

I hope this discussion helps to resolve the dispute. I think at least the first section should not be disputed.Heja Helweda 04:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That whole article is un-academic. It conclusions are also all very personal to the author clearly! The source claims one thing, you are claiming another. Even if this Sheikh Dawresh Kalesh (google search result= 0) is who you say he is, what he claims doesn't make it a legend. Basically, in a dispute you need to provide solid, verifable source. Please see J. Wales comment here. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems there is no problem on the first paragraph. You are just disputing the Yazidi legend of Zoroaster being a Yazidi. Moreover I do not think we are in a position to criticize a scholarly Journal. Heja Helweda 21:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding this to articles all over the place, how many times do we have to go through this? First you said legend now you are adding it as a fact?!!-- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 15:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

== 2006 (UTC)

Kurds and Zoroastrianism

"According to some sources, Zoroaster came from the people who lived around Lake Urmia ([12],[13])and he lived in the ealy 6th century BC [14]." He remained on Mt. Ararat for two years and then returned to his people as a prophet preaching a new religion. He spent ten years recruiting converts among the people around Urmia, but his efforts drew only one person to his beliefs. Finally, he went to the Persians, among whom he found fertile ground for his teachings [15]. According to the Kurdish scholar Tawfiq Wahbi, during the 4th and 5th centuries AD the majority of Kurds east of the Zagros, Cizir, Botan (both in south-eastern Turkey), Kirkuk, and those in the mountains of southeast Kurdistan were not Zoroastrians. Indigenous Kurdish religions such as Yazidism, Yarsan and Alevi emanate from the ancient religion of the Medes. The last emperor of the Medes, Rishti Vega-Azhi Dahak (Astyages), killed Zoroaster, ruled his followers and overthrew Vishtaspa (Hystaspes). His army reached the southwest of Afghanistan. During that attack, the army of the Medes inflicted cruelties on Zoroastrians [16]."

This is not related to history of Kurds, please, for the 10th time, stop adding it to this article. You cant find different things from different palces not intended to be related on this topic to form your own conclusion from them. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 15:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK Lets go through the facts:

1- "According to some sources, Zoroaster came from the people who lived around Lake Urmia"

• Source 1: [17] - Not an article, what is this exactly?
• Source 2: [18]) - A dictionary as source? See WP:V

Comment: This has nothing to do history of Kurds. Urmia is in Iran, and there are no historical evidence to where Zoroastar was born. For information on where he may have been born, see Zoroastar.

2- "and he lived in the ealy 6th century BC"

• Source: [19].

Comment: You are using another source for an estimated time?! There are tens of different estimates, why is this relevant to history of Kurds? That source is "history of Persians".

3- "He remained on Mt. Ararat for two years and then returned to his people as a prophet preaching a new religion. He spent ten years recruiting converts among the people around Urmia, but his efforts drew only one person to his beliefs. Finally, he went to the Persians, among whom he found fertile ground for his teachings "

• Source: [20]

Comment: First you added this as a legend, which we established that it is not, it is merely just someone's opinion. Now you are adding it as a fact?

4- According to the Kurdish scholar Tawfiq Wahbi, during the 4th and 5th centuries AD the majority of Kurds east of the Zagros, Cizir, Botan (both in south-eastern Turkey), Kirkuk, and those in the mountains of southeast Kurdistan were not Zoroastrians. Indigenous Kurdish religions such as Yazidism, Yarsan and Alevi emanate from the ancient religion of the Medes. The last emperor of the Medes, Rishti Vega-Azhi Dahak (Astyages), killed Zoroaster, ruled his followers and overthrew Vishtaspa (Hystaspes). His army reached the southwest of Afghanistan. During that attack, the army of the Medes inflicted cruelties on Zoroastrians"

• Source: [21].

Comment: Why is this one individual's opinion posted on "findarticles.com" so important, it is not even "according" to him, it is just something he has concluded in an article which is hardly academic and has no evidence what so ever to back it up. Rest of it is also from the same article, which is not at all academic, poorly written and apparently a "translated" version. It is not reliable and should not be used to support disputed material -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 16:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is published in an academic Journal --> International Journal of Kurdish Studies. You think it is hardly academic that's just your personal opinion. Moreover, It is not an individual's claim posted on findarticles.com. That's just a website providing access to some scholarly papers published in different journals. It is not a personal site or a weblog. Heja Helweda 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't just think, I know, because I can read. It is supposedly a translation of an original article which is probably not verifiable in the first place - it is at the end of the day, supposedly an "opinion" without any evidence, written in a non-academic style, and the only link to it is a translated version. It is not a reliable nor verifiable source. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 01:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. But you are not in a position to question the scientific value of a Journal published on the history of the Kurds. Are you specialized in this field (Kurdish history)?.Heja Helweda 01:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The first source listed in the section is The Urantia Book, a religious text containing "revelations." SouthernComfort 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The other source http://history-world.org/persians.htm does meet the criteria of WP:V. This one, http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/u/u0150300.html is just a dictionary entry and only states the idea that Zoroaster came from Urmia as a claim, not fact. The article overall has POV issues which need to be addressed. SouthernComfort 01:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Zoroaster

1) Ivanow has already mentioned that Sahak is the Armenian (and I am guessing perhaps Assyrian as well or Armenian influence through Assyrian) form of the semitic name Eshaq (Isaac). This makes sense since Sultan Sahak is also called Sultan Eshaq. 2) Zoroaster spoke an east Iranian language and scholars not put his birth-place around Balkh,Khawarazm, Badakhshan..usually somewhere in eastern Iranian speaking terrotories of the time. Also Boyce's source is from 1990. I also removed the Sahak and Zahak as there is no etymological relationship and Minorsky's chart in EI (Encyclopedia of Islam) has the list of the cycles. There is proof for Kurds being Zoroastrians also in Fotuh al-Buldan which I will bring up another time. --alidoostzadeh 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright. But Boyce says the Zoroasterianism in the west of Iran was contaminated with Mesopotamian myths. See page 94.Heja Helweda 05:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As Boyce had mentioned, Zoroastrianism has always absorbed ideas from other religions and meant different things to different people at different times. There is no reason to include such pointless idea in to this article --Rayis 10:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Heja, Skye's source is out-dated relative to Boyce. We now know Zoroastrianism originated somewhere in Chorasmia probably even before the arrival of Medes. Linguists propose a date of around 1000 B.C. for the Old Avesta. It certainly is more archaic than Old Persian (2500 B.C.). --alidoostzadeh 01:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge Turkish Kurdistan here

I feel the articles content is better suited to be covered here - some is already a duplicate. According to the article itself the term "Turkish Kurdistan has no administrative basis and is very open to controversy" so talking about a "regional history" seems problematic. Syrian Kurdistan article was deleted for being a POV fork while it's content was salvaged. -- Cat ^chi? 00:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There are more than 20 million Kurds in Turkey with distinctions in their history compare to Kurds in other countries. Regional history is important and necessity for this people since the nature of the diaspora and article is a good way to present the information instead of squashing it all to a page. Özgūr ^{Talk Hist} 18:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The presented History related material is from before Turkey was formed or the very early years of the country. All issues concerns Kurdish people as a whole rather than Turkey specifically. I do not understand what diaspora has to do with any of this. -- Cat ^chi? 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Kurds in Turkey (since 1920's) have a different historical path compare to other Kurds thus I insist that this is the most basic and important point of not merging the article. What is the disadvantage of keeping it as a seperate article? It makes things easier this way, both technically and pratically. Özgūr ^{Talk Hist} 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Kurds in Turkey already exists as an article for that. That still doesn't explain the very point of the Turkish Kurdistan article. -- Cat ^chi? 19:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Once you have Kurds in Turkey and History of the Kurdish people, is Turkish Kurdistan really useful? Moreschi ^Talk 17:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe your target of critism is not right, maybe it's Kurds in Turkey that needs to be deleted or merged with Turkish Kurdistan, if obviously the content is similar, but Turkish Kurdistan is an important article because it lessens confusions by defining the particular Kurdistan region from other Kurdistans such as Iraqi Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan and the province of Iran, Kurdsitan. In addition, History of Kurds and Turkish Kurdistan's history are totally two different things. Özgūr ^{Talk Hist} 00:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A very bad idea. Turkish Kurdistan is a geographical region, while this is history page and about people not locations. As I have said many times in the past, I think the best way for the opposing party to carry on with their plans, is to try to delete article Kurdistan. That article clearly says that part of Kurdistan is inside Turkey, hence the name Turkish Kurdistan. Therefore as long as there is an article named Kurdistan, it is quite reasonable to expect to have a smaller article talking about the northern part of that region which falls within borders of Republic of Turkey.Heja Helweda 18:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Article exclusively covers history. There isn't any material on "Geography". I find your logic disturbing. Please do not put the deletion of Kurdistan as a rationale for a merge discussion here. -- Cat ^chi? 19:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not any more. I've completely rewritten Turkish Kurdistan to discuss the geographical region, with a short precis of the historical context pointing to this article and Kurds in Turkey. -- ChrisO 00:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Rozhiki Revolt

The article cited for the Rozhiki Revolt (Under the Ottoman Period section) has to do with the Batak Massacre in Bulgaria. The article also is too general in some parts, e.g. it talks about 'atrocities' but fails to mention what they are. We can't look at the cited article for guidance either, because it talks about Bulgaria. I, being fairly new to Wikipedia, know not of what should be done. Scapegoat123456 17:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The article in question compares the massacre in Bulgaria to the Rozhiki revolt and in doing so gives a detailed account of the Kurdish revolt.Heja Helweda 00:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish History During WWI (1914-1918)

I was just wondering why this page does not mention the kurdish history during WWI. IT for some reason skips the very important stage. It was during WWI that kurds with the help of turks managed to kill 2/3 of the Assyrian Christian population, as well as 1.5 million Armenians. I don't know why it is not mentioned, but it happened in Kurdish history so i feel that it belongs there Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.57.10 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right it should indeed mention the Kurdish history during WWI. But on the other side I am strongly advising you to read more history before making such a statement, "It was during WWI that Kurds with the help of turks managed to kill 2/3 of the Assyrian Christian population, as well as 1.5 million Armenians" It was actually the other way around, Turkey has made it's promises and in favor asked the help to relocate Armenians and Assyrians, and in the process of doing so it has came out to be totally different. I, as well, think that this part of the history has it's significance and it should be included in the article, one of the best reasons would be, for people to know this part of the history and not blame the Armenian Genocide and the Assyrian massacres on the Kurds. --Flavallee (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Problematic encyclopedia sourcing

I removed the following text from Kurdish people instead of integrating it into this history article:

There are many different and diverging views on the origin of the Kurds. While Encyclopaedia Britannica considers the Kurds' ethnic origins as uncertain and Encarta relates them to other Iranian peoples, according to Encyclopedia Columbia, Kurds are commonly identified with the ancient Corduene which was in turn inhabited by the Carduchi.

These encyclopedias are tertiary sources which are considered less reliable than academic histories and consensus-based journal articles (see Wikipedia:Reliable source examples). This history article already goes into some details which appear to underlie the contradictory claims. I think the more detailed coverage provides a better framework for exploring this question and finding better references. -- Beland (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

More encyclopedic sourcing

More text I moved here from Kurdish people instead of putting it in the text of the history article:

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "The Persians, Kurds, and speakers of other Indo-European languages in Iran are descendants of the Aryan tribes that began migrating from Central Asia into what is now Iran in the second millennium BC[E]." According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, the Kurds, as well as other migrant ethnic groups of the region, are of the "least mixed descent of the original Iranians." According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, the classification of Kurds as Aryan is mainly based on linguistic and historical data and does not prejudice the fact there is a complexity of ethnical elements incorporated in them.

These have the same problems of tertiary sourcing when better sources are available. This passage also does a lot of "telling", but the remaining coverage does a better job of "showing" by simply going through the details of what is known or claimed. As such, all these quotes from encyclopedias are somewhat redundant, in addition to being inappropriate for an encyclopedia article like this one. These tertiary sources may be helpful in locating better sources and identifying salient points of view. -- Beland (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also edited out significant areas where people have placed irrelevant information, or simply incoherent statements. As it stands now there is a good framework for the article, but we need to get some good sources out and work out some kinks. We are also getting a number of odd edits from unregistered users or those who do not know English very well, which is presenting a problem. --MercZ (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Indo-European migration to kurdistan"

( I'm going to remove this "indo-european migration" section from here. After all, it's just a theory that is supporting that the indo-europeans migrated from Central Asia. There are many other theories of an indo-european origin, many of them even claims Kurdistan to be the origins of them so how could they migrate TO it? Although, by this time there is evidence of indo-european societies)

---

That's nice, but you do not have any sources or backing to do that. The current "theory" seems to have the most acceptance among historians. The tribes that migrated from those areas ARRIVED in western Iran, some areas of which Kurdistan would later form, not originated there.

--MercZ (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry of being dramatic (removing the section) but i needed some attention. Well some of the historians say that if this migration occured, it should be around 2000 b.c. But the gutians lived in Kurdistan 2000 b.c. (and they were indo-european, right?) so how could this be? I dont have any time to write now but there are many things that doesn't fit with the migration. And whats the other guys theory, the one that tells the migration started from anatolia?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.53.0 (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

these sources show that the indo-europeans did not origin from central asia (of course they are all theories like the rest, but let's have a look at them) : http://csc.ac.ru/news/1998_2/2-11-1.pdf and this for example : http://indoeuro.bizland.com/archive/article14.html . There are more, and they look to fit in. Wasn't the hittite language the oldest indo-european language? Then how could their origins be in central asia.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.53.0 (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

this too shows they migrated FROM kurdistan, http://www.geocities.com/indo_european_geography/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.53.0 (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)