Talk:Kurds

• Archive1
• Archive2 (?? - 22:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC))
• Archive3 (24 Dec 2005 - 30 Jan 2006)
• Archive4 (31 Jan 2006 - 22 Feb 2006) -- Important discussions on neutrality and accuracy disputes.

Yazidism and the killing of Zoroaster

The statement regarding the killing of Zoroaster by Astyages, king of the Medes, is factually incorrect for three reasons. First, most Avesta and Iranian studies scholars, based upon language and geographic descriptions in the Avesta, place the time of the prophet Zoroaster to approx 3600 years in the region of Bactria/Balkh (Afghanistan/Uzbekistan). This time and place is: approx 1000 years before the time of Astyages and outside the geographic realm of the Medes. Second, the prophet Zoroaster was not killed by anyone, he died peacefully as an old man after accomplishing his task of converting the Iranians and Turanians to Zoroastrianism. Third, the mythological villain known as Azhi Dahak, from Shahname and the Avesta, was a myth even during the time of the prophet Zoroaster. So, if Zoroaster is dated to at least 1000 years before the Median king Astyages, and Azhi Dahak was a myth at the time of Zoroaster, then Azhi Dahak and Astyages can not have been the same historical figure. Also, Azhi Dahak is considered a villain in Kurdish and Persian mythology. The hero, Fereydoon, fought against Azhi Dahak, and according to Kurdish myth, Fereydoon is the father of the Kurdish people. As a final note, the Medes were Zoroastrians. The Medes also propagated the myth, although factually incorrect, that Zoroaster was born in Media and a Mede. So, it wouldn't make sense for the Medes to kill their own prophet. I think this just goes to the point that many Kurdish nationalist, and others, are trying desperately to distance themselves from anything and everything Iranic, and in the process are creating myths that cannot stand academic scruitny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.210.29 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is protected now. You can go ahead and correct the it when it's unprotected (or I'll do it if you're not around). Aucaman^Talk 01:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you've taken the paragraph out. It wasn't such a bad idea. Aucaman^Talk 02:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It was obviously factually incorrect. --68.4.210.29 02:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and protection

The page has been protected due to edit wars and vandalism. Could those of you who oppose the article the way it stands right now (especially the first few paragraphs) explain your concerns so we can address them? As for the Iranian issue, as discussed in the first two section of this talk page (see above), some sources indicate that Kurds are close to Iranians, but Kurds are never defined as Iranians, so we've agreed that the word "Iranian" should not appear in the first paragraph when defining Kurdish people. On the other hand, Kurdish should be classified as an Iranian language, and it should be mentioned that some sources link Kurds to Iranian (just not in the first paragraph). Any deviations from this should first be discussed here (with proper sources). Aucaman^Talk 14:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the concerns have been made pretty clear before by a lot of contributors, but a number of people with a somewhat special attitude are repeatedly choosing to ignore them. The point is that first, linguistically Kurds are Iranians. This is something we all agree upon. Ethnically, there is no pure Persian, Iranian, Arab, or Kurd ethnic group which could claim to be entirely and solely descendants of a specific group of people. It is pretty clear that all people living in that region are more or less mixed in that regard. This also applies to Kurds. But this is no valid reason for failing to mention that they were (originally at least) just as Iranian as the Persians and others, and in principle, culturally and linguistically still are Iranians. They have a lot more in common culturally with the Iranian people in general (as well as the people living in today's Iran) than they do with any other people of that region, such as Turks, Arabs, or Jews. All the reasons you are bringing up for un-relating Kurds from Iranians apply equally well to all other groups in Iran, including for example Baluchs, Lors, Bakhtiaris, Mazandaranis, etc. Genetic studies are simply the wrong way to classify people, and they are also rarely used for that purpose. Kurds are an Iranian people from the cultural and linguistic point of view, and this is important enough to merit mentioning in the first lines of the text. Suggesting that they are close to Iranian people, implies that they are themselves not Iranian, which is of course wrong. So at least the word other must be included. Moreover, the word some implies a small number, just as the word most implies a large number of sources. If you want to keep that sentence you should find a better way to formulate it. The real solution, hpwever, would be to remove that genetic thing anyway and define them as a culturally Iranian people, as well as mentioning the classification of Kurdish as one of the Iranian languages. Any purely genetically-motivated things should be moved elsewhere in the article.

So to sum up, the best way to start the article would be something like The Kurds are an Iranian people inhabiting..., rather than using the words ethnic group. Then one would go on classifying the language, and in the box to the right relate them to Other Iranian people. If the rationale for using the words ethnic group was their cultural attributes, they would qualify also as Iranian ethnic group. But if ethnic group is meant in a genetic sense, then there are actually no pure ethnic Kurds anywhere in the world, nor any ethnic Persians or whatever, so using the term would be inappropriate anyhow. But you should not define them as one ethnic group and then un-relate them from Iranians for genetic matters. If ethnic meant only genetic the Kurds would not be an ethnic group at all, and in fact it would be nearly impossible to define any ethnic groups in the world. Shervink 15:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

About who are the Kurds since it is disputed enough I'm not going to discuss it here; Although there are many people who believe kurds are culturally and historically more related to their neighboring people i.e. other people of Iraq, Syria and Turkey than Iranians who kurds have been for tens centuries remote from them and their only similarity is a simple linguistic classification, but as I said I'm not going to discuss it.

Anyway the matter I'm going to discuss it is that since the term Iranian is misleading so using it is wrong as you was going to do it. It makes people for example think Kurds are Iranian refugees or at least immigrants living mainly outside Iran. Also I am NOT opposising or critisising the Pan-Iranism POV which claims large parts of Middle East where majority of people there speak IE languages belongs to them , Also I'm seriously NOT sure this POV belongs to them, it's MORE like Pan-Arabism POV which claim Kurds are Iranian immigrants occuping their holy Arabic lands).

Another time: The problem is that we have not A word which can accurately and without confussion describe Kurds' ethnicity hence there is no choice unless we say it in a sentence Either you like to say they are 1000% Iranian or 0,0001% Iranian. If the name of Iran was not a multi-use word we had no problem. Remember that Iran is already name of an existing country, also only a small minority of the Kurds of the world reside there.

PS:There is a Middle Eastern proverb that: I say: "he is male" and he says: "Ok, milk him!"

Diyako Talk + 16:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your words reminded me of that Persian proverb as well. Whether it is also used in other Iranian languages I don't know.

There is no confusion or dispute over whether Kurds are culturally Iranian. The simple fact is that they are. It is your bias which makes you deny it, and you will have to discuss that here if you want to include your dubious claims into the article.

You have not read, or did not understand, or did not respond to most of my arguments yet. Is it correct to call Kurds an ethnic group? If yes, the reasons can only be cultural. If so, they are a sub-group of Iranian people, which by the way have a page on wikipedia which clearly states the difference between Iranian people as a whole and those among them living within the current boundaries of the country named Iran.

I would also like to state that I am not a pan-Iranist. Pan-Iranism has nothing to do with this. This is not a political issue anyway, it is about the cultural and linguistic ties of people. Pan-Iranism is more of a political idea. Shervink 16:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

The reason why I did not answer most of your comments is that I leave it for you! I only suggest you guys to avoid misleading wordings. Iran is already name of a country. the word Iranian means people from Iran. You can say instead: they are an etnnic group related to Iraninas. OR they are an ethnic group never heard of Iranians, BUT beginning the intro just with an Iranian ethnic group is a misleading wording biased towards Pan-Iraniasm either you consider yourselves as pan-Iranist or not this wrong wording serves them not wikipedia.

Thanks.

Diyako Talk + 16:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Iranian people has a clear definition, as well as an extensive page on Wikipedia, and is in no way to be confused with today's Iranian nation, which is only a part of it. If you leave it to me, well then my conclusion is what I already stated. The term Iranian should be included in the definition. By appropriate linking to the related article on Iranian people there will be no confusion. Shervink 17:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

I have not opposed including the defintion of ethnicity of the Kurds in the intro, I just suggest you to avoid misleading wordings. Existing a page on wikipedia does not mean that that term is not misleading, there are many terms with many different meanings and articles. I suggest to all of you guys to use clear wordings, the same way that is proper to an encyclopedia. For examle look at other encyclopedias.

Diyako Talk + 17:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: Also remember that the definition of ethnicity of Kurds although is not as essential and important as you are emphasing has always been included in the intro.

Diyako Talk + 17:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Well you raise some valid points, but I'm afraid most of them have been addressed before.

1. Kurds have a distinct ethnic group. They have their own distinct language and culture. That means they cannot be directly linked to any other ethnic group, be it Arabs, Turks, or Persians. All you can say is that they are "related" or "close" to another ethnic group.

2. Although Kurds are Iranian people linguistically, that's not an integral part of who they are. I made an analogy that should be useful. Linguistically, the English language is a [[Germanic language]], so English people are part of Germanic peoples. But if you go to the English people article, you don't see them being defined as Germanic because being Germanic is not an integral part of the English identity. If you go to the English people article and claim that the first sentence should read, "The English are a Germanic people inhabiting parts of England...." most would disagree with you although you're perfectly correct in saying the English are Germanic people. Why? Because the English are distinct ethnic group with a distinct ethnic characteristics. It's the same here. Kurds are a distinct ethnic group. This article is about Kurds and their ethnic characteristics. Any discussion about how closely Kurds are related to other ethnic groups should not appear in the first sentence of the article (where Kurds are being defined).

3. The term Iranian (or Iranian peoples) is not an ethnic group. It's a linguistic group of people.

4. Calling Kurds Iranians is also confusing to the more naive readers of Wikipedia since Iran is already the name of a country. Some readers might go away with the impression that Kurds are Iranian nationals living outside their country. See #2 with the English example. Most English would not introduce themselves as Germans. Aucaman^Talk 23:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Apparently the definition you have for a distinct ethnic group is a cultural and linguistic one. It is good to know that so we can forget about the genetic stuff for now. Now, linguistically and culturally, they are a sub-group of Iranian people. They can not only be linked to, but are most often sub-ordinated to the Iranian people (and I should emphasize that I do not mean the current Iranian nation here) in that regard. As for the language, this is already mentioned in the article as you agreed on it.

2. That is a very bad example, although technically there would be nothing wrong with even changing that article and saying outright that the English people are part of the Germanic people, with appropriate links to both articles. You should not reduce the accuracy of an article by removing relevant information from it, just for the fear that some naive readers who are not reading with much interest anyhow, might get the wrong impression. An article should be written in the most informative form possible, and if somebody is not reading carefully it is their problem, not ours!

One reason this was not done in the case of the English people, and a reason which makes it look a bit un-natural to call them German nowadays, might be their big geographical separation from today's Germany, as well as the fact that historically they have never lived as a collective entity. This is not the case for Kurds and other Iranians. For example, you will find the term Germanic people at the very beginning of the articles on the Dutch people or the Saxon people.

3. You yourself are defining the Kurds as an ethnic group based on language and cultural issues. In that way Iranian peoples is also an ethnic group. On the other hand, even if you don't like to accept that, just say that Kurds are one of the ethnic groups comprising the Iranian people (which might be a more general term than just ethnic).

4. This was already mentioned in point 2.

Shervink 01:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

As of now, you have not provided a single source for your claims that Kurds are ethnically Iranian. Here's what I have to say about these issues until you provide your sources:

1. Kurds have their own ethnic group. They have their own language - Kurdish. Kurdish is incomprehensible to Persians or any other Iranian people. They have their own culture, some parts of which might appear foreign to most Iranians (such as the Kurdish way of dancing).

2. My example was perfectly fine. If you go to the Iranian peoples article, they do explain how the phrase Iranian peoples should be applied the same way the phrase Germanic peoples is applied.

3. Are you saying "Iranian" is an ethnic group??? This is absurd. So you're claiming that the Tajiks, Pashtuns, and Kurds speak the same language and have the same culture??? No. Persian is an ethnic group. Tajik is an ethnic group. Pashtun is an ethnic group. But Iranian is not an ethnic group. It's a generalized collection of peoples based on liguistics.

4. This had nothing to do with (2). Let me repeat what I said: "Calling Kurds Iranians is also confusing to the more naive readers of Wikipedia since Iran is already the name of a country. Some readers might go away with the impression that Kurds are Iranian nationals living outside their country."

Aucaman^Talk 04:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Kurdish dance is in fact very common allover Iran, I often practice it both with my Kurdish and with my other Iranian (for example Persian) friends, so that is again a bad example. Certainly Kurds have their own customs and traditions, as do all other Iranian people (e.g. Bakhtiari, Ghashghai, Lurs, Tajiks, Gilakis, Mazandaranis, Baluchs, ...). Kurds are in NO WAY special and more different than any of these other groups. Kurdish, although incomprehensible to most other Iranians, is an Iranian language. That is a fact, just as English or Dutch are Germanic languages. You know that, the article already says that, and the sources in the article support it. I am not saying that the Kurds are not a distinct ethnic group, I am however saying that they are an ethnic group speaking an Iranian language. As you seem to define Iranain people as People speaking an Iranian language, this ethnic group is certainly one of the Iranian people.

2. Well then apply it in the same way! I already gave you an example of ethnic groups described as Germanic people, although one even has a separate state.

3. I didn't say that. But you say Iranian is a linguistic grouping, meaning People speaking an Iranian language. Well ok then, the Kurds ARE SPEAKING AN IRANIAN LANGUAGE, SO THEY ARE PART OF THE IRANIAN PEOPLE!

4. Quote from my previous post: You should not reduce the accuracy of an article by removing relevant information from it, just for the fear that some naive readers who are not reading with much interest anyhow, might get the wrong impression. An article should be written in the most informative form possible, and if somebody is not reading carefully it is their problem, not ours!

Aucaman, either you are not reading my posts carefully, or you are deliberately refusing to give valid reasoning because you know you are wrong. You are not responding to what I say, you are having a totally separate discussion for yourself. There are already more than enough sources cited by the article to validate all what I say. Unless you take what I write here seriously, this will be my last post here. I cannot discuss with you if you are not interested in having a logical discussion here. If you do not want to discuss the necessary changes with me, I will leave you to the vandals who make their changes without giving you the reasons. Shervink 13:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

By the way, these are in NO WAY the only criticisms I have of this article. I mentioned these as a summary of what had been brought up so far. It needs a fundamental re-writing, which however seems impossible with the attitude that you have. Just an example: Norooz is NOT the Kurdish new year. It is celebrated by all Iranians, even in Tajikistan. This kind of redefining Iranian heritage in a way to fit only the Kurds is clearly politically motivated. As long as all issues have not been discussed, resolved, and changed in the article, a warning regarding the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article must be kept. Shervink 13:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

1. The fact that we call it "Kurdish dance" (Persian: "Raghs-e Kordi") proves that you view it as a foreign element. Kurdish dance usually occurs in groups and has a lot to do with leg movement. Persian way of dancing is more individual (or with couples) and is based on hand movement. Kurdish dancing is probably a lot closer to Turkish, Jewish, Caucasian, and maybe even Russian dancing than it is to Persian. But I'm glad to know you accept Kurds as a distinct ethnic group.

2. Due to complicated political reasons, many Iranians (people from the country of Iran) tend to think that "Iranian" is an ethnicity. We often introduce ourselves as "Iranian" (and not Persian or Kurd). In the English language, however, that's not the case. "Iranian" is either a nationality (used like the term "American") or it's a linguistic generalization (like the word "Germanic"). In any case it is not an ethnicity.

3. Yes, Kurds are Iranian peoples, but that's just a linguistic classification. It is not integral to the Kurdish identity (this is article about Kurdish people, not their language). We've already mentioned that Kurdish is an Iranian language and that some sources say they're close to Iranians. You're not making a case as to why (for what reason) it is so important to have it in the first sentence of the article.

4. I still say what you're proposing is very confusing for the readers. And it's in no way more informative or accurate.

And I haven't ignored any of the things you said. All you're saying is that Kurds are Iranian peoples (again, it's just a linguistic classification). I agree with that. The article already says that Kurdish is an Iranian language. If you want to claim more than that you need to provide evidence first. I don't know of any sources that define Kurds as Iranians.

I've asked this page be unprotected twice before. I'm not going to do it again unless there's a clean concensus on what to do. Everyone here seems to be full of claims without much evidence to back it up. Aucaman^Talk 16:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to explain to me what Kurdish dance is. I have danced Kurdish many times in my life, and in no way do I see it as something foreign. In that regard, it is in no way different from Lezgi or Bandari dance. The fact that something has a name does not prove it is foreign. In fact, Kurdish and Kurdistan are not foreign to Iranians.

I know of no Iranians who think Iranian is an ethnicity. What you say here is - forgive me for the wording - total nonsense.

It is not only a linguistic classification, but that's the only part you are willing to accept. Nevertheless, language is your main basis for stating that Kurds are a distinct people. If that is so important, their being an Iranian people for linguistic matters is just as important.

The only source of confusion here is your strange statements, not my suggestions. Shervink 21:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

This article is about Kurdish people, not the Kurdish language. Ethnicity is determined by both culture and language. Some might say language is part of culture, so that ethnicity is purely defined by culture. Kurds are close to Iranians and that's already in the article. Aucaman^Talk 22:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Once more, Kurds are Iranian. Not close to, not related to, they are totally and entirely Iranian in any imaginable way, to the same extent that Persians, Gilakis, Mazandaranis, Bakhtiaris, Lurs, Ghashghais, Baluchs, Tajiks etc. are. There is not a single point which makes Kurds more special than any of these other groups, none of which have any problems with proclaiming they are Iranian people. Shervink 23:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

---

The article alraedy even in its itro -although is not necessary and essential- but has the mentioned info: Kurds speak the mostly mutually-intelligible dialects of the Kurdish language, which is an Indo-European languange of the Iranian branch.According to some sources, they are ethnically close to Iranians.

I see nothing wrong with intro. Diyako Talk + 13:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The phrase Kurds are an Iranian people must be moved to the first line, and later explained in the terms stated above, e.g. language, ethnicity (if you like) and culture. It is both necessary and essential. The most important thing defining the ethnicity is the language (You always refer to the fact that they have a separate language to say that they are a distinct ethnic group). The language is an Iranian language, so the definition is incomplete without this. Shervink 13:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

You are confussing this article with article Iranian peoples. Kurds are A distinct ethnic group. Their relationship with Iranian people is so worthless that we can only mention it in the infobox. If there is an obligation to describe Kurds with larger ethnic families, I strongly suggest to write Kurds are an Indo-European ethnic group, which is quit better and even do not mislead people as the term Iranian people (!) does which can mean people from Iran! Please be logical.

Diyako Talk + 14:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This is my last post for now, I have made my point clear and leave it to your own rationality to make a decision as to what you do. Your views so far completely disregard any logic, and are totally biased, anti-Iranian, promoting separatism, even racism at times. The relation of Kurds and Iranians is not worthless, it is essential. It has to be included in the article, in the definition. Please do not let your anti-Iranian sentiments get in the way of sound judgement. Shervink 15:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Dear Shervink,

First, I do not reply your personal attack because this is your POV. But "the relation of Kurds and Iranians has been included in the article in the definition as well as in the infobox." There is nothing to be worry about.

Diyako Talk + 15:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I just would like to make clear that I did not intend a personal attack. If you got such an impression I apologize for it, this is not a personal issue anyway. But I think the relationship of Kurds and Iranians has not been sufficiently accentuated here, for the reasons already mentioned. Shervink 16:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

I believe it has been not only sufficiently but even too much accentuated and clarified, for the reasons already mentioned; Read it:

Kurds speak the mostly mutually-intelligible dialects of the Kurdish language, which is an Indo-European languange of the Iranian branch.According to some sources, they are ethnically close to Iranians.

It is quite clear.

Thanks Diyako Talk + 17:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be that the Kurdish seperatists are willing to sacrifice truth for illusive political goals and that in my opinion the members of Jewish background here are trying to promote and nurture anti-Iranian views and seperate the Kurds from their very strong Iranian identy because of the political and military goals Israel has in Kurdistan and possible Kurdish oil and military bases. I always read all the contributers profiles and see what they edit, people like Acuman are clearly biased. Kurds are an ethnic Iranian people. No matter how many times this has been proven and verified these individuals argue against it for the wrong and political reasons.

---

What's interesting about all these so called pro-Kurdish separatist editors is that their edits are entirely directed against Iran. There is absolutely no mention or effort to address the plight of the Kurdish people in Turkey, which is a far more bigger oppressor of the Kurds than Iran ever was. Look at Bitlis Province, Van Province, Hakkari Province, Siirt Province, Şırnak Province. Do you see any mention of the Kurdish people living there today? Ive been to these places. They are fully Kurdish inhabited lands.

Why dont we see any of these so called Kurdish editors write anything about how the Kurds are suppressed in the articles Demographics of Turkey, or their history in eastern Anatolia?

Why dont we see any of these editors (like User:Mesopotamia and User:Heja Helweda among others) writing ANYTHING, or even voting to merge/delete/etc Kurdish pages pertaining to Turkey? (example) (example 2)

Except for User:Khoikhoi, I see none of these so called Kurdish editors even contributing to any of Turkey's Kurdish related pages. Funny how you can get arrested in Turkey for carrying around the Kurdish flag. And you see or hear nothing from these editors. Are these editors really protagonists of the Kurdish people?

Or...

...could it be that they are here only because they fucking hate Iran and Iranians from the bottom of their hearts? Mercenaries with an agenda to spread hatred against Iran on Wikipedia.

That's truly unfortunate.--Zereshk 09:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am totally shocked by your impolite attitude, though I understand this is mainly because of your true passion for your country, though channeled in a wrong direction. About Turkey, I was the one who included the Kurdish IDP's (Internally Displaced People) and destruction of 3,000 Kurdish villages in Turkey, in the Kurds page. You can check the history of this page. About Kurdish history in eastern Anatolia, I wrote two articles Marwanids and Corduene (both around Diyarbakir). Please don't turn the editing process into a personal fight. Thanks. Heja Helweda 23:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Having authored a few Kurdish pages here and there in Turkey articles doesnt absolve the fact that you have been constantly paying grossly disproportionate attention to attacking Iranian articles. You go around editing articles about Gilaki and Abadan (totally un-Kurdish topics), injecting in any anti-Persian sentence you can muster, and yet 2/3 of Turkey's Kurdish provincial articles dont even mention the NAME "Kurds" in them as the inhabitants. You desperately edit the article Iranian Kurdistan with anti-Persian and anti-Iranian edits, and yet the article ["Turkish Kurdistan" was only started yesterday!! Do the Kurds not exist in Turkey?? Or are you here just to defame Persia and Iran? What do you expect us to think of you (and the likes of you)?

And yes, I do have passion for Iran and all her people, and I do not find your efforts in trying to separate our Kurdish blood-brothers from Iran the least charming.--Zereshk 03:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Update

Some of the personal attacks here are really not called for. You'd expect Kurdish articles to be somewhat controversial, but the things people are fighting about is really dumb. Both User:Heja Helweda and User:Mesopotamia seem perfectly good Wikipedians to me. User:Heja Helweda has done a lot of work having to do with Kurdish culture (most of them NOT political) and User:Mesopotamia seems to be working hard. I just started the Turkish Kurdistan a few days ago, and look where it's at now! (Most of it thanks to User:Mesopotamia.) I'm assuming you have some reasons for what you say, but it's not really relevant to the discussions we're having here (both of these users have not been really active here). Perhaps you should take these to your user talk pages?

As for other isssues, it looks like most people (more or less) approve of the way the first few paragraphs are written. I'm going to ask for unprotection in a few days, but I'll expect people to discuss things here before making controversial edits (especially the first few paragraphs). The failure to do so would be considered vandalism. Aucaman^Talk 02:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman I am sorry but you are also one of the problems on this site. If anyone looks at the discussions they will see that you are two-faced editor meaning you have overt biase that is recognizable. You are one of the big problems and very underhanded. 69.196.139.250 03:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ya okay Aucaman! You just lost most credibity. User:Mesopotamia writes thinks like in my opinion I am not Iranian so therefore....or 'all Kurds hate Iranians.' Ya they are great Wikipedians. Sorry, but I got to say it 'Your so full of it.'

Aucaman, I for one do not approve of the way the entire article is written, let alone for the first paragraphs. It is extremely biased and anti-Iranian, and people are calling this out loud here for quite a long time. There is no acceptance of the article as it is written now. Moreover, people (including me) have tried their best to have a useful discussion with you, but my experience is that you are not at all interested in discussing or stating the truth, so you escape the topic whenever it becomes uncomfortable and later claim there is a consensus. Well, there is not. The article cannot stay the way that it is. Separatist propaganda does not belong here. Most other Kurdish-related pages have similar problems and have to be changed.

If you are interested in treating the issue of Kurdish separatism in a scholarly and impartial manner (rather than the way you are doing now), I suggest setting up a new page for that. I am surprised that you people with clearly separatist sentiments have not done that yet. Remove this nonsense from this page, and dedicate an impartial, scholarly, unbiased page to the history and origins of the separatist ideas among Kurds, and let all people present whatever evidence they have.

First, however, this page and all related pages must be entirely re-written. Shervink 16:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Good call. We can have a separate page for Kurdish separatism all of its own. That's logical.--Zereshk 18:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I 110% agree with what was stated about removing all this nonsense from the Kurdish articles. Kurds are ethnic Iranians! 69.196.139.250 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Stop this childish nonsense forever!!

What is this nonsense you some guys write here and waste your time??!

• User Heja helweda you are very bad!
• User Diyako you are very neutral!
• User Aucaman you are one of the problems on this site!
• User Heja helweda why you do not write articles about Kurds in X-tapeh or x-land?
• User Mesopotamia we do not like you!
• You all are very bad!
• We do not trust in you!
• Your edits are very bad!
• I have a Kurdish friend who likes Iranians!
• Everything you write is wrong because you are you!!
• Only our edits are credible!
• ...etc

Is this all of your argument? Please act civil and lets go on friendly. We are all wikipedians not enemies and even if you think we are enemies forget it here in Wikipedia. IF we follow the wikipedia policy we never get troubles like this. Here one of the most important things (If not the most important one) is citiation and providing credible and neutral sources not our POV. Diyako Talk + 15:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Buddy people provide proof but you biased editors always derail it and lie about consensus. You have underhanded tactic. If people look at all the evidence provided from day 1 they will see there was way more sources saying Kurds are Iranians. The sources you guys provide just fail to mention it which does not indicate that Kurds are not Iranian peoples. The information is not even presented properly by those anti-Iranian editors.

Let's try to improve the article

I would like to ask all editors who don't like the article in its currect shape, to provide their specific objections, then we may be able to improve the article, instead of engaging in endless personal arguements. So the question is what do you consider to be incorrect about this page?. Thanks. Heja Helweda 18:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The question is not only this. One can select many correct information but in a biased way. For example, one can just search for Kurdish and terrorism and write an article about Kurds! There are tons of such articles written by Turkish people and their western supporters. Yes, all information will be provided with references!! Would you consider such an article a suitable NPOV and encyclopedic article ? I suggest every body to include all information that they can find here and there in this article. No body would be allowed to delete other people's added infos. After one week or so, we can start to moderate, delete or merge parts to avoid repetitions. Then we will be able to include all different point of views, including Kurds (Sunni, Shia, separaists and nonseparaist), arabs, Turks, Iranians (pro-regime and anti-regime) and others. There may be even better suggestion ... ?? --Zeelkey19:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea sounds good, but I would just like to remark that essentially "including all points of view" should not necessarily be the goal. An article should be factual, even if that means not appeasing certain points of view, if they are really wrong.

Heja Helweda, why don't you take a look at the points already mentioned and discussed without proper consideration by the anti-Iranian editors?

Some editors state that mentioning that Kurds are classified as Iranian is not important at the very beginning of the article, but they put the following:

Ranging probably from 25 to 30 million people, the Kurds comprise one of the largest ethnic groups in the world without a separate country. For over a century, many Kurds have campaigned and fought for the right to self-determination in an autonomous homeland known as "Kurdistan". Nevertheless, the governments of countries with sizable Kurdish populations are actively opposed to the possibility of a Kurdish state, believing such a development would require them to give up parts of their own national territories.

just at the beginning, which is in essence nothing more or less than a declaration of separatism. First, how many sources can you find (I only remember seeing one) supporting that the Kurds are one of the largest groups without a separate country? To find several bigger ones, just look at India or China. Second, Why is that important at all? Is it so integral to the Kurdish people (even more than their language, and their being an Iranian people) that it should be mentioned at the beginning? Do all ethnicities have to be nations as well? Do all ethnicities have separate countries? Who says that? Stating this kind of thing has a very bitter political taste which is highly dependent on the point of view, and above all irrelevant here. Third, there is no autonomous homeland known as Kurdistan. How can something which does not exist be known with some name? Kurdistan is the name of a region, not a country, and has never been a country, nor do all those living in it (or even a majority of them) fight for independence, however the article is suggesting that. Again, is this important enough to be here?

Further down the page, it is stated about the so-called republic of Mahabad that:

Kurds twice had their own controlled free area without government control: The Republic of Mahabad in Iran which was the second independent Kurdish state of the 20th century, after the Republic of Ararat in modern Turkey; and second time after the Iranian revolution in 1979.

Free area without government control? The area was controlled, in fact occupied, by the Soviet army! Calling that an independent republic is not serious.

Further down, Norouz is referred to as the Kurdish new year, which is worth of no comment. It seems to be a great skill of some editors to take Iranian or Persian customs and put the tag of Kurdish on them.

Furthermore, there have been numerous points raised regarding the first paragraphs, and there are still more points to make, but let's start with these for now.

Shervink 20:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Sources for: the largest ethnic group without their own state: [1], [2], [3],[4],[5], [6], [7], [8],[9],[10], [11], [12],[13],[14]

Heja Helweda 22:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If Kurds are the largest ethnic group without their own state, then Iran is a persian State. So I assume, you have no problem with calling whatever related to Iran as Persian! Like Persian politician and Persian President .... Persian footbal team ... Persian parliament ... Do you agree Heja Helweda ??! If Yes, please from now on use the word Persian instead of Iranian !! --Koulten 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to provide sources for your claims.Heja Helweda 22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You have already provided the sources. Persians have a larger population that Kurds. If Kurds are the largest with no State (according to your sources), then Persians have a state for their own. (natural logic). --Koulten22:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

But what you are saying isnot related to this article. I cannot deduce Iran is a persian state from the stateless situation of the Kurds. Iran is the name of the country and Persian refers to the official language and the major ethnic group in Iran. Can you please explain your position a bit further?Heja Helweda 23:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The deduction is straight forward. but If you are asking my personal opinion: I doubt Persians have any state for their own. --Koulten 23:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Persians have their own state: Iran. The official language of the country is Persian and the majority of people are Persian. The same cannot be said of Kurds. This is straightforward stuff. Aucaman^Talk 00:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Iran is not a Persian state. For starters, not that it matters, I am not a Persian and I am Iranian. Persian only became the offical language in Iran in the time of Reza Shah. There was no offical language. There was traditional languages. Before that for most Iranian history Azeri was the language of the military or armed forces and in certain points in time the bureacratic langauge, while Persian was mostly the bureacratic language. Also the consensu on the population is wrong. Many Iranians don't care about their ethnicty in Iran so when they are asked what they are they think that what they speak means what they are so they say Persian. There are many Iranian Kurds who are Azeri and many Persian who are really Azeri or Lori or Bakhtari or Georgian. Everyone is so mixed in Iran with a grandparent from the Caucasus and a greatparent from Kurdistan, ect. Iran is not a Perisan state it is a Iranian state for all Iranians and if you read the constitution it says that and also gives Persians and Iranians and others as equal status as Iranians. The idea of minority does not legaly exist in Iran based on ethnic lines. Minority exists on religion lines. As for languages they are al considered equal and national languages, but with Persian as the official language of the govenment and state institutions. In fact most government officials are not ethnic Persians, but Azeris

I didn't say Iran is a Persian state. I said Persians have a country in which they can speak their own language and celebrate their culture. The same cannot be said of Kurds. And we're not talking about Reza Shah's era. We're talking about now! Aucaman^Talk 06:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Aucaman changed his mind ! So you believe there is no Persian state. Then Persians are the largest ethnic group without their own state ! Aucaman said : Persian can celebrate their culture.. This is clearly wrong. Who ever understand Iran knows that in Iran you can not celebrate Persian culture and all persian celebrations are either killed or are to be killed by the regime, because they are not Islamic! Aucaman said: Persian can speak their own language. So do Kurds! and I am also talking about now! I am a persian and I agree with my azeri friend that: We mainly ignore our ethnicity in Iran (except for sunni Kurds). We prefer the concept of citizenship over ethnicity. Iran is not like Turkey or Germany ... . We can say Turkish and German footbal team evenif 1/3 of Turkish population are Kurds! But you can not say Persian footbal team. There is no Persian state as There is Turkish or German or French or British state in the world. And a last point: Iran is a multicultural society. There is no ethnic group who hold a significant majority in Iran. The leader of the country is also azeri. The head of Judiciary system is arab. and The parliament speaker is Persian. The previous parliament speaker was Lur. The heads of military are also mostly azeri. The previous oil minister and government speaker were Kurd. Khatami's defence minister was arab. You see it is not like Turkey or Germany .... --Koulten09:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, you have to provide sources for your arguments and claims. You write long long passages without a bit of evidence. Heja Helweda 18:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We have already talked about sources (back, eight paragraphs). We need to have a standard for writing articles. You can not come to Iran's pages and delete sentences that calls Iran, a Persian state, and then come here and say some thing completely against that. I have no problem with calling Iran a Persian state and parallel to it, Kurds as the largest ethnic group with no state. I also have no problem with refusing to accept Iran as a persian state and in parallel calling Persians (not Kurds) as the largest ethnic group with no state. The problem here is inconsistency. We already have enough sources at hand (interestingly many have been provided by User:Heja helweda among others for this page and also Persian pages). The problem is a wrong logic and inconsistency. --Koulten 21:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

The issue of whether the Kurds should be labeled “Iranian people” or not, since they speak an Iranian language, has been discussed to death! Some editors are really against mentioning it in the first paragraph and that is fine but the language issue should be mentioned in the second paragraph instead the article goes right into political stuff which I don’t think belongs here. Whether or not there should be an independent Kurdish state is not the first thing to mention while defining Kurdish people. We should talk about the race and language and their geographic location and then about politics.

The second paragraph should be moved farther down the page and the third and fourth paragraph should instead become second and third respectively.

It should look like this:

The Kurds are an ethnic group inhabiting northern and northeastern Mesopotamia, which includes parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (a region sometimes referred to as Kurdistan). Smaller communities can also be found in Lebanon, Armenia, and Azarbaijan (Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh).

Ranging probably from 25 to 30 million people, Kurds speak the mostly mutually-intelligible dialects of the Kurdish language, which is an Indo-European languange of the Iranian branch.

According to some sources, they are ethnically close to Iranians. Modern Kurds are commonly identified with the ancient Kingdom of Corduene inhabited by the Carduchi'

This should make everybody happy! It does not label Kurds as Iranian but it does mention that their language is of the Iranian branch in the beginning of the article.

Gol 21:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are several things which are problematic here. First, most of Iranian Kurdistan is not part of Mesopotamia, as far as I know. Second, ethnicity should better not be mentioned. The current form serves to distant them from Iranians rather than show a relation. Close to Iranians means they are themselves not Iranian, which is not proven, and most probably false. Some implies not many which again is wrong. Commonly identified? Is it really so common? Shervink 21:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Yeah, the reference to Mesopotamia should probably be taken out. But I think it's also significant that Kurdistan is not a country and it should be mentioned here. Aucaman^Talk 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ya Aucaman, its funny you agree, because when ever I removed it you reverted it.Shervink be careful with Aucaman he is one of the most biased and sneaky editors. He talks compromise, but his actions are something else. 69.196.139.250 03:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Come on, man! Aucaman's trying to work out a compromise with you, but you're being very inflexible! Please don't insult people or you could be banned. --Khoikhoi 03:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

How is the truth insulting. I was not insulting. Acuman only pretends to compromise when in reality he undermines. If you don't beleive be go read all the discussions then check all the articles he has contributed to and his edits. It took mt 2 days. I can say he has no credibilty with me. Even the Mesopotamia statement. When I edit it he reverts it. Now he agrees. That is only the tip of the sharks fin too. 69.196.139.250 03:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you perceive the truth to be, avoid from making personal attacks or some admin may block you. --Khoikhoi 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you didn't discuss it in the talk page and there was no edit summary. But unlike you, I'm flexible. I'm willing to go with the above compromise. It's really up to you. If you don't want to solve the dispute, the current protected version would stay. You like the current version better? Guess what, I'm not that excited to change it anyway. And you cannot dismiss a proposed change just because it's proposed by someone you don't like. What's wrong with my proposed version? Aucaman^Talk 06:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

I think it's important to agree on what the introductory paragraphs should look like. I'm beginning to understand some of the concerns some people have, so I'm proposing this new version:

The Kurds are an ethnic group inhabiting parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria (a region sometimes referred to as Kurdistan). Smaller communities can also be found in Lebanon, Armenia, and Azarbaijan (Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh).

Ranging probably from 25 to 30 million people, the Kurds comprise one of the largest ethnic groups in the world without a separate country. Most Kurds speak the mostly mutually-intelligible dialects of the Kurdish language, which is an Indo-European languange of the Iranian branch.

The richness and diversity of the Kurdish culture reflects Kurdish people's extensive roots as well as their acceptance of other cultures.

This is the most neutral version I can think of. I've trimmed off a lot of unnecessary political stuff. The last sentence was added to say something about the Kurdish culture, which is what this article should be about. Please take the time to compare it with the current protected version and indicate your support of opposition (with a short explanation). Accepting this as the introductory paragraph of the article would help ease the way to solving other problems in the body of the text. I'm not going to support unprotecting the article until some sort of compromise is reached. Aucaman^Talk 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No it is still not good enough. Kurdish culture is rich, but you are going to use it to mislead people into thinking all its Iranian aspects are adopted. You just let other people make the introduction. 69.196.139.250 03:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well what do you suggest then? --Khoikhoi 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest all the sources be reassesed, first. All sources. I will make my suggestion soon, enough.

Well, if you want to change that last sentence about the Kurdish culture, I'm open to other ideas. But something has to be said about the Kurdish culture. Aucaman^Talk 06:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well this is better than what we already have but I still think language and ethnicity should be mentioned before political stuff. It is important that there is no independent Kurdish state and it should be mentioned but it is not more important that their language so mention the language first and then get into political stuff.

Gol 06:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is more readable. You say where Kurds live and you mention that there's no Kurdish state there. Then you talk about the language and culture. But if you insist, let's see your version of it. Aucaman^Talk 07:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We'll lets not rush. We have to wait for everyone to have 'consensus.' 69.196.139.250 07:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, but glad to see you're signing your posts and not capitalizing everything. The reason I might appear to be "rushing" things is because I don't want the page to protected unless it has to. There are people who want to improve other parts of the article (like the section on Iranian Kurdistan). But, as you say, the article will remain protected until there's a consensus. Aucaman^Talk 10:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I still think the political statement has no place at the beginning of the article, as it is not an important part of Kurdish identity. There is no reason even to think that most Kurds want that separate state, so what is this thing about? The discussion of such topics should be done in a separate part related to politics, or on a separate page dedicated to Kurdish political issues.

My suggestion would be something like this:

The Kurds are an ethnic group inhabiting parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (a region commonly referred to as Kurdistan). Smaller communities can also be found in Lebanon, Armenia, and Azarbaijan (Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh).

Ranging an estimated 25 to 30 million people, the Kurds are an Iranian people, speaking the mostly mutually-intelligible dialects of the Kurdish language, which is an Indo-European languange of the Iranian branch.

The richness and diversity of the Kurdish culture reflects Kurdish people's extensive roots as well as their acceptance of other cultures.

P.S. 69.196.139.250 (and probably others): Please get a user account if you want to discuss things here for a longer period. Shervink 12:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

The statement that Kurds do not have their own country is not a political statement. Some people think Kurdistan is a country (just like Turkey is the country of Turks and Italy is the country of Italians, etc.). I kept it there to avoid this confusion. You're entitled to your opinions, but I'm interpreting your comments to mean that you don't want a compromised solution. That's fine with me. The article would remain protected until the disputes are worked out.

Also, you might want to start giving sources for the claim that Kurds are Iranian people. Google doesn't seem to help: 1, 2. If you're just arguing based on the Iranian peoples article...well, that article has its own disputes (some having to do with the way it's referenced). So you might want to start looking for sources (or if you have any, present them here). Since you don't like to compromise, you'd have to start making a case for your version of the article. Aucaman^Talk 13:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have already been more than patient with you, and in fact it is you who is making up fake excuses in order not to let an acceptable version stand for the article. Your arguments are so weak they are hardly worth responding to, especially because they have been addressed several times before by me and others, and you just keep repeating them. I have no intention of wasting my time to persuade an anti-Iranian like you that Kurds are Iranian or whatever. If you like the article to stand this way, fine. It doesn't make much difference anyway since the problems are so fundamental that making a few changes of wording here and there could hardly better them. Since there is, however, obviously a serious dispute here and the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article have been questioned by many editors, I suggest putting a tag declaring such at the beginning of the article, and letting it protected until things change or settle down somehow. Shervink 15:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

I don't like personal attacks. I'm not half as anti-Iranian as you are. Blindly calling Kurds Iranian when there's no reason or evidence to back it up (and then calling people who catch your POV-pushing "anti-Iranian") only angers the Kurdish (and other) readers of Wikipedia and paints a negative image of Iran. No, you're the real anti-Iranian. If you so strongly believe Kurds are Iranians (and want that reflected in the article), then why not find some sources and provide them here instead of arguing with me? Again, where are your sources that Kurds are Iranians? Aucaman^Talk 16:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a clear definition of "Iranian people." It is: people who speak an Iranian language and Kurds most certainly do!

It has nothing to do with whether or not they are citizens of Iran or racially Iranian. No one can deny that fact and the only excuse that you and some other editors have is that it is going to be “confusing” !!!!

I think it is a poor excuse, this is an encyclopedia we are here to teach people not to be worried about their possible confusion. If they don’t know then they should learn. However since some of people have phobia to the name Iran we agreed to drop it from the first paragraph.

However the Kurdish language and where it is from is more important in defining Kurdish people than the political stuff and the fact that Kurdistan is not independent; so, here is the version that you asked me to mention:

The Kurds are an ethnic group inhabiting parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria (a region sometimes referred to as Kurdistan). Smaller communities can also be found in Lebanon, Armenia, and Azarbaijan (Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh).

Ranging probably from 25 to 30 million people, Kurds speak the mostly mutually-intelligible dialects of the Kurdish language, which is an Indo-European language of the Iranian branch.''

At this point, or anytime after, it is ok to talk about politics but not before. This article should not start by talking about political stuff; culture and language is much more important in defining a group of people than whether or not they have political independence.

Gol 18:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gol, some people are even trying to remove the page on Iranian people from WP, stating that there is no such thing as Iranian people! I think the problems we are facing here are much more fundamental!!! Shervink 23:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

I'm not saying you're not correct. Read WP:NOR. You want add in that Kurds are Iranian peoples? Well where are your sources? The Iranian peoples article doesn't cut, since that article is not well-sourced. And no, saying Kurds don't have their own country is not a political statement. It is added for informative reasons. We say where Kurds live and then we say that there's no Kurdish state there. It doesn't matter now. The current version would stay until either sources are provided or there's a consensus on how to move on. Aucaman^Talk 01:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier it is important that Kurds do not have an independent country and should be mentioned but all I am saying is that their language is much more important element in defining their identity than their political situation and therefore should be mentioned before and in early parts of article. The current version looks as if someone is trying their hardest not to mention the word Iran or mention it as late as possible in the article. This is why the definition of Kurdish language is pushed down. I think we should rewrite it and I gave you an example of how it could look like. we agreed not to have the word "Iranian" on the first paragraph but other side should also agree to have the definition of Kurdish language which is clearly Iranian, on the second paragraph instead of going right into political stuff. And also some of the people who are arguing against the “Iranian people” page and talk about deleting it have shown to be extremely biased. A few of them have very clearly mentioned that they dislike the word “Iranian” and one of them said that there is no such race called “Persian”!!!!!!

I don’t think these people can be considered neutral. Do you?

Gol 06:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the opening page on Britannica you see the language is mentioned Before the political stuff!

Member of an ethnic and linguistic group native to parts of Iran, Iraq, and Turkey (see Kurdistan).

Kurds speak one of two dialects of Kurdish, a West Iranian language related to Modern Persian. Traditionally nomadic, most were forced into farming by the redrawing of state borders after World War I (1914–18). Most Kurds are Sunnite Muslims; Sufism is widely practiced. Plans for a Kurdish state, promised by the Treaty of Sèvres (1920), which dissolved the Ottoman Empire, were never realized. Kurds in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq have been variously persecuted and pressured to assimilate;''

here is the link

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9369508

Gol 07:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I asked you to go ahead write your version of the beginning paragraphs in its entirely. If you just want the order changed, then I probably agree with you. But go ahead and write it out, so people can know exactly what you're talking about. Aucaman^Talk 07:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I already posted my version but here it is again and I mixed it a little based on what Britannica says:

The Kurds are an ethnic group inhabiting parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria (a region sometimes referred to as Kurdistan). Smaller communities can also be found in Lebanon, Armenia, and Azarbaijan (Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh).

Ranging probably from 25 to 30 million people, Kurds speak the mostly mutually-intelligible dialects of the Kurdish language, which is an Indo-European language of the Iranian branch.''

Kurds comprise one of the largest ethnic groups in the world without a separate country. Plans for a Kurdish state, promised by the Treaty of Sèvres (1920), which dissolved the Ottoman Empire, were never realized (link to Britannica). Kurds in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq have been variously persecuted and pressured to assimilate;'

Gol 20:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Sorry to interrupt you! just to offer another reference: The Kurds are the original Iranians. as defined by United Nations: [15]-- Gorbeh15:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "The Kurds are the original Iranians" is supposed to mean. What does "original Iranian" mean? And I'm not sure if the source can be entirely trusted. You'd never see modern Iranians labelled "Aryan" in modern scholarly writings. See my comment here. In any case, why are introducing this source? What is it you want added to the article? That Kurds are "original Iranians"? Aucaman^Talk 16:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I just noted that your source also labels Azeris as Iranian! I think by "Iranian" here they mean people from the country of Iran, not the linguistic group. It is also talking about the people of Iran, the country. That's the only way it could make sense. As such, it isn't really relevant to what we're talking about here. Aucaman^Talk 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Azaris are Iranians. The point is that, unlike what you think Aucaman, Iranian people are not only defined based on language. I have already tried to point that out. Being Iranian has many aspects, and has a lot to do with culture in general rather than only language. Azeris are culturally, in many ways at least, Iranian people. see e.g. [16]

Also, the term Aryan is still commonly used in scholarly writing. see e.g.[17][18]

Even your own sources contradict what you're saying. "No evidence for such Indo-European ethnic name has been found." This was in your source. Read it. And I was talking about "Aryan", not "Arya". Arya is what ancient Indo-Europeans called themselves. It means "noble" and is not an ethnicity or race (they probably didn't have a concept of race). But "Aryan" was usually used as an ethnicity or race and is no longer acceptable (and is considered the racist interpretation). When you say "Iranians are Aryan peoples" that either means Iranians are noble peoples (I don't know why you'd use the word Aryan and not noble), or it means Iranians belong to the Aryan race or ethnicity. In the first case, you're violating WP:NPOV; in the second, you're using the racist interpretation which is no longer acceptable. Now, which interpretation are you using?

As for Azaris, I'm using the article on Wikipedia. The article doesn't seem to be disputed, so I have no reason to believe it's wrong. It says Azaris are Turkic people (I wonder why we call them "Turk" in Persian if we don't think they're Turkic). If you don't subscribe to that, then you should probably let them know, not me.

In any case, none of these topics are relevant to this article. I'm not going to talk about them anymore.

To aucaman: The source that I provided is about Iran as a country. So it talks about all ethnic groups in Iran including arabs. But It specifically refers to Kurds as original Iranian in its defnition. This is an official source. You are not in a position to say it is baseless. These documents and definitions that are in use in highest ranking organizations. You should source your claims. --Gorbeh09:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

---

About Iranian as an ethnicity, if I remember correctly, most people here agree that "Iranian" is not an ethnic group. This article is about Kurds as an ethnic group. If there's no Iranian ethnic group then there's no reason to call Kurds Iranian when defining their ethnicity. POV-pushing is simply not fair. If you look at most ethnic group articles, they don't bring linguistic classification into ethnic group definitions. I mentioned English people and their classification as Germanic peoples. Now I mention Turkish people. That article was a mess, but it has improved a lot due to close cooperation and agreement. As you can see, there's no mention of the fact that Turkish people are Turkic people (or even that they speak a Turkic language). Why can't we have the same thing here? (I'm still waiting for User:Gol to propose his/her version of the article.) Aucaman^Talk 20:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I can only say one thing: You must be unable to read, otherwise I cannot interpret what you said. The articles clearly say Aryan, several times!!! Whether Iranian is an ethnicity is hardly the point here. It is a cultural and linguistic concept, also with some ethnic aspects. Which everway you turn it, scholarly work classifies Kurds as Iranians. But I'm sure by now that you are not interested in this anyway. You just don't want to understand. Well, that's unfortunate for yourself, above all. Shervink 20:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

No, it seems like you're not able to formulate an argument. I don't even know what your problem with this article is (I doubt anyone knows). You're also not able to follow an argument, since every time I point something out you just ignore it and go back and say "all Kurds are Iranians" without providing any evidence. Aucaman^Talk 22:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Being anti-Iranian is a fad nowadays

If you thought it was just some bellicose anti-Iranian so called Kurdish editors trying to erase the memory of Iran on Wikipedia, think again.

These people are supported by or aligned with western intelligence agencies, and they specifically intend to bring "violent fragmentation" to Iran.--Zereshk 20:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No anti-pathy provocation and No political propaganda please.

Can you say it more clearly who you mean? I do not appreciate your strange POV. Esp that you are an active wikipedian. Please do not accuse other users; Accusation is not a difficult matter; we all can accuse eachother to strange and untrue things But it is discouraged here on wikipedia.

Diyako Talk + 21:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk is not even participating in the discussions here. I'm not sure why he bothers to say such things. I suggest those of you interested in Iranian politics go and contribute to Iran-related articles. Articles of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Khamenei, etc. are being changed every day and there's a lot of wrongful information and POV surrounding them. I've never seen any of you make changes to those articles. Instead you come to articles such as this and are looking to pick a fight for no reason. Not all Kurds are Iranian. There are Kurds living in Turkey or Germany who don't even know about Iran and don't associate with anything Iranian. There are Kurds who don't even speak Kurdish (my grandfather was born in Kermanshah and he only speaks Persian...he's still a Kurd!). This article is about Kurds in general, not just the ones living in Iran. If you want to make a political statement, go to the Iranian Kurdistan article and add in whatever political slogans you wish! Not here. Aucaman^Talk 22:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The argument is wrong. The existence of some kurds who do not consider themselves as Iranian (probably like kurdish wikipedians here) do not change any thing. I am a persian, and it does not depend on whether I like it or not or I am aware of it or not. I think continuing such discussions is nonsense. Iranian Kurdistan page is not about all Kurds in Iran. It is about Kurds in Iranian Kurdistan. This is what your fellow Kurdish wikipedian has said there and deleted information about Kurds in non Kurdish provinces of Iran. --Gorbeh09:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

New suggestion

I already posted my version above but here it is again and I mixed it a little based on what Britannica says:

The Kurds are an ethnic group inhabiting parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria (a region sometimes referred to as Kurdistan). Smaller communities can also be found in Lebanon, Armenia, and Azarbaijan (Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh).

Ranging probably from 25 to 30 million people, Kurds speak the mostly mutually-intelligible dialects of the Kurdish language, which is an Indo-European language of the Iranian branch.''

Kurds comprise one of the largest ethnic groups in the world without a separate country. Plans for a Kurdish state, promised by the Treaty of Sèvres (1920), which dissolved the Ottoman Empire, were never realized (link to Britannica). Kurds in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq have been variously persecuted and pressured to assimilate;

Gol 21:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with this. Let's see what others think. The page will remain protected until everyone agrees on how to move on. Aucaman^Talk 22:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And I'm just waiting to see whether what others think.Diyako Talk + 22:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The word assimilate is not applicable for people already so close culturally to other Iranians. It is utterly misleading as it creates the impression that they were immigrants from a totally different place and culture. The political issue of a separate state must not be discussed to this extent right at the beginning. If you insist, there can be a mention of it and a separate section dedicated entirely to the issue of separatism. The Kurds are Iranian people, not only linguistically, but also culturally, according to many sources already provided. A reference to their language being Iranian does not suffice. My suggestion is this:

The Kurds are an ethnic group inhabiting parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (a region usually referred to as Kurdistan). Smaller communities can also be found in Lebanon, Armenia, and Azarbaijan (Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh).

Ranging probably from 25 to 30 million people, Kurds are an Iranian people speaking the mostly mutually-intelligible dialects of the Kurdish language, which is an Indo-European language of the Iranian branch.''

Plans for a Kurdish state, promised by the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) which dissolved the Ottoman Empire, were never realized (link to Britannica). To this date, the issue of the possibility of a separate Kurdish state, or regional autonomy, is an important matter of discussion among Kurds in most parts of Kurdistan.

Shervink 01:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

I support the suggestion of user Gol about the openning paragraph. Britannica seems like a neutral source.Heja Helweda 01:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then I support the suggestion of user Gol about the intro. (But you dont think it neads at least a mention of Corduene?)

Diyako Talk + 10:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your reasining concerning at least two points before I can accept this. First, why is the word assimilate used here whereas the cultural ties have always been enormous? Second, the relation is not only linguistic, why is that missing here? Shervink 12:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Okay I give you the first point, but who says the introductory paragraphs of an article on Kurdish people should discuss their "other relations" to Iran peoples? What are these other relations? Aucaman^Talk 17:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

How many are there?

Since the article is currently locked, please change either the infobox count or the one in the text... they give two different figures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.181.63.245 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not really see a problem wit the two estimates. The main text says 25-30 million, while the box narrows it down to 27-28 million. These are both in the same range of figures, and neither can be established as the final word on the matter. --Vindheim 12:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Update

Since I haven't heard from anyone in 3-4 days I'm assuming no one has any serious problems with the way the article stands right now? If this continues, I'll ask the article be unprotected on the grounds that there are no serious disputes. Aucaman^Talk 11:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I still have serious concerns. I can only speak for myself, but I don't think the reason for the stop of the discussion is an agreement. An agreement, as evident from the talk, has never been reached. It is the unreasonable way of discussion on behalf of some anti-Iranian editors which makes progress impossible. You can ask for unprotection if you like, and we will see. But since no concerns were seriously addressed so far, reverts and edit wars would probably start all over again. I for one would try to avoid that, though.Shervink 13:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

I agree with Shervink and also,

I though we were trying to see how many people agreed with the opening paragraph that I proposed; Looks like a lot of editors considered it acceptable and some thought it needs some changes. However, the attention was suddenly shifted to “Persian people” and “Iranian people” in recent days so we stopped discussing Kurds.

Gol 15:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I have no problem with the opening paragraphs the way you proposed them. User:Shervink doesn't like them. Aucaman^Talk 16:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

Well I tried addressing your concerns but you simply ignored my questions. The paragraphs indicate that Kurdish is an Indo-European language of the Iranian branch. You say that the relation is not simply linguistic and that other relations would have to be discussed. Question: What are these other relations? Question: What makes you think these other relations are significant enough to be mentioned in the introductory paragraph of an article about Kurds? Please include convincing evidence in your answers (even if you've already mentioned them before). Aucaman^Talk 16:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not have the time to repeat my answers for you over and over again just because you are not willing to read them. For the 1000th time: Kurds are linguistically, culturally, historically, and ethnically Iranian. One is as important and as integral to the Kurds as the other. There is no reason to prefer one over the others. A few examples of sources: General classification[19], Religion[20], Music[21], General on Iranian people[22].Shervink 17:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Hi, Dear Shervink. You have posted 4 examples: general classification: Your source even classifies Azeri's as Iranian, which is wrong and so it is not a reliable and credible source. Religion: The Iranian religions are only some elements of Yazidism, then what should we do with: Jewish, Nestorian Christian, and Islamic elements in Yazidism?

Music: This is again your Iranian website that connects Kurdish music to Iranian otherwise neutral and non-Iranian sources do not. The last one: your other Iranian article (in Farsi language) has nothing to do with Kurds and the Kurdish article and is mostly about Afgans, Farsis and Tajiks and there is no mention of Kurds.

Diyako Talk + 18:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: Besides this article has various sections on different issues.

Diyako Talk + 19:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, please read the response of Diyako to my post. This kind of behavior is the reason we are not getting a result here. Diyako, 1. Who are you to say that articles written by expert scholars are not credible? 2. This is not an Iranian website, again this I had pointed out before. It is a research group at the University of London. 3. Diyako, you are wasting everybody's time here. If you do not want to educate yourself, don't. But insisting on those invalid points of view which only come as results of lack of education and willingness to learn, is not a Wikipedian's way. Editing articles based on those invalid views, even though confronted with opposite evidence, is even more inapropriate. In its most severe form, which is often shown by you, it is considered vandalism. Please be warned that this kind of behavior has no place in Wikipedia, and if you continue in this manner, sooner or later you will be banned from editing. Shervink 19:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Shervink, I'm not a child that you are threatening me! I know the wikipedia policy (maybe better than you). Also A website which classifies Azeris as Iranian is too biased to be regared as a credible source, especially by its chauvinist slogan "if there is no Iran I'll die!". That website first should learn that Azeris Are not Iranian then expect to be regared as a credible source. Kurdish music is different from Iranian. In that article about Afganistan I saw nothing about what Aucaman asked you. This is you who are wasting your time. I suggest to you be logical and act civil.

Diyako Talk + 19:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to you discuss any unimportant issues in its own section. What you are refering to is not an important part of intro.Diyako Talk + 20:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The words of somebody who calls Ferdowsi a chauvinist are unworthy of reply. Shervink 21:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Dear Shervink, This is not important who has said that slogan but the important is that what he is saying. Also your other sourse in Farsi language is refering to non-Persians as DOG! How can we accept that? Is not it biased?

Diyako Talk + 21:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The words of a person who simply lies are also unworthy of response. Shervinkshervink

But, Dear Shervink, between the two Versions, one suggested by Dear Gol and the current one which one do you agree with?

Diyako Talk + 18:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurds are Ethnic Iranians

Kurds are an iranic people. infact, there are even theory's that the safavids were infact kurds, not azeri's. kurds are just as iranic and tajik's, persians, talysh's, etc... --Iranian Patriot

So what? Aucaman^Talk 17:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean so what? people are in here saying that they arent, when they are. do we have any iranian kurds in here? it seems that the only ones making these assertions are non iranians, and non kurds. and iranian kurds do not want to seperate for the most part. its mostly iraqi kurds and turkish kurds that say that. they have had it worse then iranian kurds have so they want independent states, while iranian kurds have been treated better than turkish kurds and iraqi kurds. -- Iranian Patriot

Dear Iranian Patriot.

The origin of th ethnicity of the Kurdish people, has nothing to do with separatism or political issues. But the problem is that some of our friends see everything related to the Kurds political and politically look at the Kurdish related topics.

Diyako Talk + 18:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have an agenda man. i can tell by your user page. first of all, the disturbances in kurdistan province of iran was not due to persecution towards kurds. it all started with a pro democracy reporter being killed. then, like any iranian people would do, the kurds protested. the governmetn clamped down on them because it is a dictatorship. there was nothing done against kurds that the azeri controlled government wouldnt have done to persians or azeri's or balouchi's etc...

if you also remember, the protests in tehran in 1999 (18 tir) were also clamped down on hard, but do you call that persecution against persians? no you dont, so why do you call the government clamping down on pro democracy kurds persecution strictly towards them?

and in regards about arab sepratism: it does not exist in iran and is being fueled by outsiders. for example, the bombs in khouzestan are by teh terrorist group al ahwaz which is based in europe and is backed by the british government. iranian arabs had in chance to seperate from iran in 1980 when saddam invaded, but they did not seperate, instead they fought to the last man to defend iranian soil in khorramshahr, abadan, ahwaz, etc... arabs in iran know that they are iranian and they have defended iran many times in history! they have always been loyal, and have never wanted seperation.

i bet that you are probably a turkish or iraqi kurd... they have always had it rough, but iranian kurds were never treated like they were in iraq or turkey, they have been allowed to speak their language, practice their beliefs, etc... the mullahs persecute everyone in iran. they dont target a certain ethnicity at all, and like i said, they probably persecute persians more than anyone.

-- Iranian Patriot.

The previous government (the Persian controlled government) even was worse.

Diyako Talk + 20:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

what previous government were you talking about? are you talking about the pahlavi's? they werent even persian, they were gilaki! before you criticise persians, why dont you read up on irans history. persians have never oppressed any of their fellow iranic, and non iranic brothers and sisters. no matter how much you try, you will never be able to split iran apart. iran has always been a tolerant nation towards other ethnicities. iran will always remain iran. -- Iranian Patriot

Kurds are Iranian people

There is no question about this. Infact the leader of a pan-Iranist party called Mellat Iran, Mr. Forouhar was a Kurd! --Kash 13:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurds in Turkey

Hi to all.I am a Kurd who lives in Turkey.I want to say that at first,Turks and Kurds have been living friendly in these lands and we shouldn't fool the provacations of other powers.Turks were always nice for us.They have never done discrimination against us.Turkey saved more than 700,000 Kurds from Saddam's massacre and Armenian butchery.We're already too close to eachother.The only problem is that we can't call ourselves as "Kurd" and use our languages officially.They are right at one point actually.There are more than 30 nations in Turkey and Turkey wants to keep it's unity.There are maximum 40 millioın Turks in Turkey.However everybody call themselves as a Turk but state must be more tolerant against roots.I want to say something about PKK also.PKK is a terror organisation and they are killing Kurds as well.Abdullah Öcalan already can't speak Kurdish because he's Armenian origin.Yeah Turkey is killing PKK militants.Everybody would do so.I have grown up by my country's money.I used it's services and Turkey's army protected me.I just want more rights about my origin.That's all.I don't to leave my country or seperation.Thanks --194.27.151.66 14:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

nice try pan turkist person, but its evident from your post that you are not kurdist at all. first off because of your anti armenian stance, second off because you say that turkey saved hundreds of thousands of kurds, third off because you say that you agree with turkey not allowing kurds to speak their language or call themseles kurds.

typical pan turkish person.

Hey patriot, you can't accuse anyone so that he doesn't share same opinion with you.I only said why that's so.Of course i want to speak my own language in my country but that might be a problem between other nations in Turkey. --Kurmanchi 10:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

--Iranian Patriot.

Stop

Sorry, but your talks are not really relevant to the issues at hand. The current dispute in the article are very clear: we're debating over the contents of the first few paragraphs. After the dispute is resolved we can talk about other things. Aucaman^Talk 17:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Aucaman that we need to focuse on the article, but I have my reservations and am in doubt to the sincerity of Aucaman's statements. Also that guy who wrote that Article is not a Kurd he is a TURK and a propagandist.

Re

Max 40 million Turks???!!!...Hahaha.By the way what right do you want anymore? You have your own political party, you speak your language everywhere(very loudly), you're the reason of the crime in Turkey...so what do you want anymore? Our country? Keep dreaming...

Iranian:

Do you deny what have armenians done about kurds?! I didnt suprised.Iran is co-operating with armenia then you're saying "we are working for all islam world".How honest!

Don't you know that Turkey admited hundreds thousands of kurds from iraq in Turgut Özal's(Turkey's kurdish origin ex-president who was a bad president for Turkey) era.They caused a chaos.We lost 300 billion dollars(Very big money for 80's) during the gulf war.Kurds got spoiled by his rule...Inanna 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

that guy is turkish, he isnt iranian. --Iranian Patriot.

Honestly guys, why would he lie about something like that? --Khoikhoi 04:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

you would be surprised what pan turks would do. trust me, i have seen it all. as i pointed out, his anti armenian stance (which is something turks and only turks have had since WWI), and his anti kurdish identity stance. NO KURD WOULD EVER SAY THAT THEY DONT MIND NOT SPEAKING THEIR LANGUAGE OR NOT BEING ALLOWED TO CALL THEMSELVES KURD! its bovious that "kurdist turk" was actually a pan turk. --Iranian Patriot.

I don't really think it's fair to generalize against an entire ethnic group. How could you say that all Kurds "don't mind speaking their languages or not being allowed to call themselves Kurds"? I think we should assume good faith here and not automatically accuse him of lying without proof. --Khoikhoi 04:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

what if i had pretended that i was a turk and said that turkish kurds want to seperate from turkey and join iran. that wouldnt make sense would it? would you take my word for it? no you wouldnt, so we shouldnt trust a pan turk who abuses this free editing system to make fake identites to help his political pan turkish agenda. --Iranina patriot.

Alright, we don't necessarily have to believe him, but I'm just staying that assuming he's a liar isn't giving him a chance. --Khoikhoi 05:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

So so sad...

I can't believe in this discussion...I'm a Turk who lived between Kurds for years,who has been bestfriends with two Kurdish guys for 15 years now.I'm living in Belgium but was born in Istanbul,we came here 16 years ago and have been living in the same street where Turks and Kurds live together.I remember the time when PKK was terrorising the eastern side of Turkey,they killed thousands and they killed and dragged away their own people too and everybody knows that,the ones in denial not of course.I remember our mothers were crying while watching TV,my mother and my friends' mothers..who are Kurds indeed,were crying for their people(Kurds and Turks both) who suffered this stupid war,crying for their country(Turkey).I just can't understand how blind you guys are.Can't you see that this all is a power game?!That Turks and Kurds have been living together for countless years!The terror that has been going on was a big sickness because a guy wanted to feel so powerfull.Mr.Ocalan indeed,similar to what Bush is doing to the countries he's secretly terrorising and what Bin Ladin tries.The times I've been to Turkey,evey summer, sometimes I stayed with Kurds,I ate their food and never ever sensed animosity.My grandparents are living in a district called Sisli in Istanbul with Armenians and Jews,eating their food,shopping in their shops,building their friendships with them for years.This is how real people do in their lives in Turkey,they don't fight.Kurds have the right to speak their languages as well as Jews and Armenians do.We all have been living in the same country for ages.I never doubt their kindness and thoughts for the Turkish Republic,because I know they call themselves Turks as well as they call themselves as what their original origin is.'Cos they are also Turks indeed,since thay are living in the same country for years.Turkey is a big coloured mosaic of languages and races.It will always stay as one,as "Turkiye Cumhuriyeti",with it's Turkish,Armenian,Jew and Kurdish public.There is NO animosity in the villages,NO animosity in the cities.Only among politicians and people seeking for power to conquer the world or a territory both Kurds and Turks.Real people just cry for that sickness... Friendly regards to all of you, M.Citak----Set 03:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right Turks have been living with Kurds (and the other Iranian peoples) for a long time, but do not count the Ottoman days when Kurdish culture WAS NOT SUPPRESSED OR ATTACKED. The problems started when Turks started to try an eliminate Kurdish culture and wipe their identy. That is when these problems have started. You call the PKK terrorit, but so are the policies of the Turkish state and government. It is called state sponsored terrorism. Do you know how many Kurds left both Iraq and Turkey to live in Iran? Iran had the second most refugess in the whole world for many years from all over the region, Europe, the former USSR, and southern Asia. But we must all agree violance will never solve anything. 69.196.139.250 00:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If the kurds (in general,not individualy) feel this way about the turks,as the previous user stated,and if they all think that Ocalan was a terrorist,i wonder if all those people who did these things are pro-turkish [23](it's a timeline and catalogue of the kurdish anger-justifiable according to my POV-the day after Ocalan's arrest)--Hectorian 03:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Friend, Either you have no knowledge in English or you are just trying to go againts everyone here.If you just scroll up you will see that I indeed SAID that the real terrorists and sick minded people are politicians,both Turks and Kurds.All I tried to say was that the real folks don't get into fights like this. Because they have the knowledge of how to live together in the same community with different races.As you made your point of what you think PKK is,I will show you what its president and founder is...just as I said it was,a terrorist,even knowledged by Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_%C3%96calan PS:Turks haven't been living with Kurds,but Kurds have been living with Turks(Ottomans if you wanna dig in to history)... And about those protests and whatever the second one is showing to me;there are people in Turkey and around the world mostly Turks of course protesting againts Kurds,as well as Kurds protesting againts Turks.They are not living in Turkey and are easily provocated by the media.This is what one calls provocated acts.Turks that get provocated by their sick-minded politicians and parties and Kurds that get provocated by theirs. Again,This is still getting miles away off the topic here.I just tried to shake you guys up,so you would stop this stupid fight and focus on the article so that it will finaly be unlocked. Please stop this "Kurds Turks Enemies,my dad can beat your dad up" childishness and focus on the damn page,gosh...--Set 14:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This is Getting off topic

You guys need to solve this. So far, this has gotten WAY off topic, and your rantings are getting way off. Solve this dispute, for the sake of God.This all began with a sentence phrasing, and now it's about politics and Turkey. How did this go from whether or not Kurds are Iranian to this? I don't know.

And why is it that it is this page and other Kurdish things that have these problems? This page is actually clean compared to some other mess that floats around in Wikipedia and hasn't been touched. Please, solve this thing and get on with your lives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MercZ (talk • contribs) 08:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Aramic

Shouldn't Aramic be included in the section where it discusses the language of the Kurds? Most of the Jewish Kurds and Christian Kurds speak Aramic as a first language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.9.155 (talk • contribs)

Very good point. I'll add it when the article is unprotected. Aucaman^Talk 03:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

I see no constructive discussion here in recent days. Perhaps a period of editing is what is required. I'm removing the protection and will watch closely. Be aware that I don't tolerate nonsense. --Tony Sidaway 19:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for unprotecting but this article as well as many other Kurdish related articles due to political conflicts going on Middle East, are and have been subject to constant vandalism. so please semi-protect it. and here I ask evey user that do not make major edits withough discussion. Thanks.

Diyako Talk + 19:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Our semiprotection policy doesn't allow the article to be semiprotected unless there is a lot of a certain kind of vandalism. If that does happen, I or someone else will be sure to semiprotect. --Tony Sidaway 19:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have placed the article under survelance for vandalism at #wikipedia-en-vandalism if vandals show up, well be waiting for them --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Teaching Kurdish

This article refers to it as being banned in much of middle east.. can we have a reference to this? Thanks --Kash 00:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This Article has much POC and is not Neutral

It must be talked out until the problems are settled it is not neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.196.139.250 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the problems so that they can be addressed? What does "POC" mean? --Tony Sidaway 17:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Brief cool-off

Due to recent edit warring, I've protected this article for just a few hours so that everybody can cool off. Please use this talk page to discuss any changes so that we can reach agreement on what to do with the article. --Tony Sidaway 17:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. --Tony Sidaway 21:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

tell to the world little sweet lies

You are ceating a Kurdish History.Do you believe all of these?You are very comic.Just ignorant people believe these lies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.100.72.41 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Propoganda

The history section of this article should be edited. I did it once but it was changed back to the original content. The way it is written people will assume that those early cultures and civilizations were Kurdish. The history of the area where the Kurds now live is NOT kurdish history. To claim otherwise would be the same as saying that the ancient Egyptians were Arabs!Dariush4444 22:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is Very bad

It is inconsistant and badly structured. It deviates from established facts which is a shame for presenting the rich heritage of Kurds to the wider world. It should be edited. 69.196.139.250 01:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add, like it or not, Kurds are an ethnic Iranian people and long and deep cutltural and historical ties with other Iranian peoples, such as the Persians. Political motives should not hide, attack, and rape this fact. I see user:Acuman has moved on to assert a NAzi connection to the name of Iran and the meaning of the Land of Aryans (the ancestors of the Kurds and Lors amongst others). I see user:Diyako attacking the definition of Iranian and trying to make it only mean language instead of ethno-lingustic and now working on changing the Iraq article. I also see them both talking to Pan-Turkists who try to attack Kurdistn, Iran, and Caucasia. This is very wrong and hurting the community and the scholarly issues. What are their motives? These are not perosnal attacks as they claim and try to have me and many others who speak the truth blocked or even barred. This is all based on fact and true observations of their editing and discussions. They try to pin editors who have challenged their wrong and misleading content. What they are pushing is at the expense of the community and the facts about Kurds, Azeris, Persians, and Iranian peoples as well as the whole Middle East. 69.196.139.250 01:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Forsaken all the rest ..Only Corduene?

How can one lone article of a sporadic genetic research undo all the cultural and historic ties of kurds as this essential element of Iranian history Iran as concept is built by all the varied ethnic groups who at different periods in history have taken up the leadership of this entity

so just Corduene ... who were the Medes & sassanids then or even safavids ..

saying that modern kurds are commonly identified with the ancient Kingdom of Corduene inhabited by the Carduchi is false or a half truth as kurds (or if you are happy say the people inhabiting the mountains where kurdish is mostly spoken)are also identified with many past great Iranian kingdoms

How can it be verified in Wiki sense of the word that so and so kingdom was genetically more similar to the current population of that area

If Hamedan lets say at one point has had a jewish majority would you take it out of Iranian history and add it the History of Israel what if turkish kurdistan would have had a majority armenian population for most of its history...if what ties all is the language then its of the Iranian family and so you are my brother..if its the customs all I can say is ...a happy norouz or newroz to all kurdish brothers who are happy enough not to be touched by modern crusaders and propogandists ...--Loosekarma 03:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian people

Claiming that the Kurds are an Iranian people is a big claim. I cannot find any reasonably neutral source calling them that. What sources do you have – maybe we can attribute the claim to those sources. --Latinus 14:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Saying Kurds are an Iranian people is not claim, it's a fact. [24] Also, Columbia Encyclopedia and many other state that Kurds are ethnically close to Iranian people. [25] Please read the sources before you remove them. --ManiF 15:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's my point, they say "related to the Iranians", not "are an Iranian people" - that's why we should say that they are "related to the Iranians and are not "are an Iranian people". Can you explain this edit? It looks like you haven't read the sources... --Latinus 15:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the source again, it states that "The Kurds are an Iranian-related people totaling over 25 million". I doubt that you know the definition of Iranian peoples, it has nothing to do with modern Iranians. --ManiF 15:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We've had A LOT of discussions about this. Kurds are a part of Iranian peoples due to linguistic reasons. Some sources say they're ethnically close to Iranians (people of the country of Iran). The two should not be mixed. Iranian peoples as a whole don't constitute an ethnic group anyway, so if you want to say Kurds are ethnically close to Iranians the link should go to demographics of Iran. Aucaman^Talk 15:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It all comes down to one basic question: is there a reasonably neutral source that says "Kurds are an Iranian people"? If no such source exists, then we are likely to go with what the available sources say: "ethnically close to Iranians, related to Iranians etc". That is sourced, saying that they are an Iranian people is original research at best. --Latinus 15:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that's the case Aucaman. The links are not talking about modern Iranians but rather the ethnic Iranians. They explicitly state the word "ethnically" close or related to Iranians as in Iranian peoples. The link should go to Iranian peoples. --ManiF 15:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not have no link? The sources say that the Kurds are ethnically related to the Iranians (i.e. the majority ethnic group in Iran). Sadly, we have no article on that topic, so we don't use a link. --Latinus 15:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian has many meanings beyond nationality and ethnicity and the the majority ethnic group in Iran are not called Iranian, but rather Persian. Those writing these Encyclopedias are scholars who are familiar with these basic facts. So when they say "related to Iranians" , they are talking about Iranian peoples not Iranians the modern citizens of Iran. Here is what another Encyclopedia says: Two groups closely related to the Persians both ethnically and linguistically are the Kurds and the Lurs. --ManiF 15:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

So when they say "related to Iranians" , they are talking about Iranian peoples not Iranians the modern citizens of Iran.

That's what I just said - related to the Iranians. Perhaps just say: "related to and maybe part of the Iranian peoples". You can't get more ambiguous than that. --Latinus 16:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How about just "related to or part of Iranian peoples"? If that's fine with you, then please go ahead and add it along with the sources. --ManiF 16:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Latinus 16:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Kurdish People is a Irania People, The Kurdish language is a Irania language. --Muhamed 19:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another source [26], they are as Iranian as Persians are Iranian. This is an academic, published journal. We have enough sources to back this up now --Kash 22:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

I put the tag because we cannot everyday start and continue this debate, I'm waiting for a mediation. I do not know since when the most Authorative Encyclopedias of the world Britannica, encyclopedia of Columbia and Encarta are ignored and replaced with unknown random links. Diyako Talk + 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurds in Iran

The Kurds, who constitute approximately 7% of Iran's overall population, have resisted the Iranian government's efforts, both before and after the revolution of 1979, to assimilate them into the mainstream of national life and, along with their fellow Kurds in adjacent regions of Iraq and Turkey, have sought either regional autonomy or the outright establishment of an independent Kurdish state in the region.[27]

This seems very POV to me, and also the link was incorrect. Removed it for now --Kash 23:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Britannica is Neutral and I updated the link [28], thanks for reminding. Diyako Talk + 00:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurds In Iran

The Kurds are of Iranian stock...Kurds and Persians share common ancestors, which include the Medes...Kurdish and Persian are sister languages. Unlike Turkey, where Kurds are not Turks, and unlike Iraq, where Kurds are not Arabs, in Iran, Kurds are ethnic brethren of the dominant ethnic group, the Persians. In Iran, the problem is not ethnic or cultural, the problem is of a religious nature. Kurds in Iran are predominantly Sunni...so they are Sunnis living in a Shi'ite state. But let us be fair...how did the Sunni Saddam Hussein and his Sunni Ba'ath government treat Kurds? How does Sunni Turkey treat its Kurds? Shi'ite Iran has treated Kurds better than both, because Iranians see Kurds as fellow Iranians, which they are...as for those Kurdish separatists who think they can carve an independant Kurdistan out of western Iran, they can keep on dreaming...not only will Iranians not accept it, Turkey will never allow it, just as Turkey did not allow that to happen in northern Iraq.

Protection

I've temporarily protected this page due to the recent edit war over sources being added. I'll take it off in a day or two, but please use this time to come to consensus over the sources here, and cool down in general. --InShaneee 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for protection. Diyako Talk + 23:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurds are ethno-linguistically Iranian people

Evidence

1- Encarta Encylopedia

• "Two groups closely related to the Persians both ethnically and linguistically are the Kurds and the Lurs. "
• http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567300_3/Iran.html

2- Encylopedia.com

• "Ethnically close to the Iranians, the Kurds were traditionally nomadic herders but are now mostly seminomadic or sedentary"
• http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/K/Kurds.asp

3- Saag.org, Dr. S. Chandrasekharan essays

• "The Kurds are an Iranian-related people totaling over 25 million who occupy mostly the adjoining mountainous regions of Turkey (14 million), Iran (8 million) and Iraq (4 million) with nearly half a million each in Syria, Russia, the Caucasus and Central Asia."
• http://www.saag.org/papers12/paper1151.html

4- MERIA Academic journals

• "The Kurds, an Iranian ethno-linguistic group like Persians, Lurds, Baluch.."
• http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue4/oleary.pdf

I think this justifies it. --Kash 23:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Encarta does not say Kurds are Iranian people. It says they are close to Persians.
2. Encylopedia.com does not say Kurds are Iranian. It say they are CLOSE to Iranians.
3. saag.org does say they are Iranian it says they are Iranian-related.
4. You have that meria link while there are several other Encyclopedia whicg do not agree with that.
5. Britannica clearly states that their ethnic origins are uncertain. The claim that Kurds are Iranian people is not an accepted adn widely used claim. we cannot only take one political link and ignore other Authorative Academic sources. Diyako Talk + 23:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

1. First, don't call academic links "political", its an academic journal.
2. Secondly, there is no question that Kurds are linguistically Iranian people, as Kurdish language is an Iranian language without a doubt, yet Encarta and all the other sources have carefully worded the relation to be "close to" and "related", and the academic journal mentions that they are infact Iranian people both linguitically (which there is no doubt for) and ethnically.
3. Finally, so if your only problem is with the ethnic origin, however latest print version of Britannica mentions that:

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 2nd millennium BC.

So if they shared the same origins, then surely even Britannica agrees to this also. --Kash 23:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

1. That Political link does not claim that Kurds are ethnically Iranian it defines Kurds as an ethnolinguistic group and then claims that this ethnolinguistic group (Kurds) are Iranian.
2. The term Iranian by itself is an unknown term with no accpeted or real definition. If really an 'Iranian peoples' exists it is a simple linguitic term. nothing else.
3. Aryan by itself is ONLY a linguistic term neither a race nor an ethnical term!!! read the Aryan entry in Britannica [29].
4. As far as I know this is the modern academic research whch argue Kurds ethnically being part of or related to Iranians. the most modern research stretchs the history of Kurds thousands years before arrive of ancient Iranians. formerly even Armenians and their language (being Indo-European i.e. Aryan) were considered as Iranian! but nowadays no one accept that. [30] [31].
5. finally, tonight I'm busy, have a good night, till tomorrow. Diyako Talk + 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• 1- I have asked you TWICE now, not to call an academic journal "political", Please stay WP:CIVIL.
• 2- Iranian peoples exists and it is an ethno-linguistical group as you can see.
• 3- Your own link about aryan mentions "from Sanskrit ryaa, “noble”), a people who, in prehistoric times, settled in Iran and northern India. From their language, also called Aryan,"

Clearly both the people and their language is/was called Aryan.

• 4- "As far as I know this is the modern academic research whch argue Kurds ethnically being part of or related to Iranians."

Thats good right? I mean many Kurds have lived under Iran and Persian rule for much of their history, and now modern research also supports that they are related ethnolinguistically.

• 5- I am not sure about what you said regarding the language? Their language is still considered Iranian. Any source would tell you this. Even your source again says "West Iranian language spoken in Kurdistan"

• 6-Good night --Kash 00:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Numerous authoritative sources have been presented that the Kurds, like Persians, are ethno-linguistically Iranian peoples. --ManiF 00:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurds are a branch of Iranians. They read Shahnama, Bijan o Manija, .. speak variety of Iranian dialects (some of them even closer to standard Persian than other dialects of Kurdish and some like Zazai for example are classified as Kurdish and sometimes as non-Kurdish), celebrate Nowruz, love Kaveh, Rustam.., historically are known as Medes (which was an aryan group). Oldest Gurani poetry also mentions Iran, Zurvan, Ahriman, Ahuramada .. frequently. Majority of Kurds also enjoy classical Persian poetry and many important Kurds like Mastura Ardalan wrote in Persian solely. Also ancient Armenian sources mention Kurds as Medes and Kurmanj could very possibly mean Kur(son)+Manj(Mede), because the word for Mede in Armenian is Maraj (close to Manj). For example we do not have to just take a look at Iranians. Uighyurs, Qirghiz, Uzek, Kazakh, Turkomens are all related Turkic groups. So it is not the linguistic part of Kurds that is just Iranian. But the culture, myth, music and etc. are all Iranians. And btw Kurds have diversity within themselves just like Iranians have diversity, but are all Iranians. I recall in another discussion I mentioned an important quote from Abu-Rayhan Biruni: " And the people of the Khawarazm, they are the branch of Iranians (Al-Fors)". Over here one has to say the same thing, "The Kurds are branch of Iranians". The stupid policites of Iranian government is a reason why some Kurds resent Iran, but turning back on your own background is no the solution. Even if for example the Kurdish entity in Iraq hopefully gains independence, then it is considered an Iranian state, just like Egypt is considered an Arab state and Turkomanistan is considered a Turkic state. http://www.kereshmeh.com/kurdistan.html

--Ali doostzadeh 06:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

So what if Kurds are linguistically and (based on some sources) ethnically close to Iranians? We have talked about all this before (those who are not familiar with this article should read the materials in the archive). The article already says Kurds speak an Iranian language and it says that according to some sources they're ethnically close to Iranians. Please read Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Aucaman^Talk 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

But you have been doing just that regarding the "Aryan" issue. All that other editors have been doing is adding sources. SouthernComfort 02:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A Kurds view

As a Kurd who has lived in both Iranian Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan for years, I have to say I have never met any Kurd who does not identify himself as an Iranian as much as being a Kurd. We are brothers with Iranians and have lived together sharing much of our history together. It's almost shocking to see some users denying this fact. This recent political campaigns by some Turkish parties which are trying to give us a national identity are good but we should never forget our roots and brothers in Iran. I suggest a more informative and POV-free intro such as:

The Kurds are an ethnic group closely related to the Iranian peoples such as Persians, inhabiting parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (a region commonly referred to as Kurdistan). Smaller communities can also be found in Lebanon, Armenia, and Azarbaijan (Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh) and some Western countries.

Just my suggestion. --MysticRum 11:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

--MysticRum 11:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)