Talk:Kurds/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Iranian-speaking?

This formulation, placed in the very first sentence, is liable to be misunderstood, and i have removed it from there. The attribution of Kurdish to the Iranian family of languages is still found in the first part of the article. --Vindheim (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your change is not correct! The Kurds are an ethnolinguistic group . That means the their linguistic grouping plays an important role in definition of them . "Misunderstanding" as counting them as Iranian (citizens of Iran), is not the case here because the word "Iranian-speaking", plus the Wikilink , role out any misunderstanding .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your formulation is misleading. The main characteristic of the Kurdish people is not that they are Iranian. I do not dispute the fact that Kurdish belongs to the Iranian group of Indoeuropean languages, but this does not belong in the very first sentence of the article. Not changing anything now, though.--Vindheim (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it is misleading ? Indeed the only common entity that defines the Kurds is their language group . Almost every other ethnic group in Wikipedia is presented like this in Wikipedia . Why do you think we have to do in other way here ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Which other ethnic group is presented as a subbranch of their neighbours in the first sentence of their article?--Vindheim (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Again , you are confusing the Iranic language group with Iran ! When we use the Wikilinking in Wikipedia , we do that exactly to avoid such wrong understandings . As an example , please look at : Pashtun people,Germans,Dutch (ethnic group),Slovaks,Serbs and etc.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I do understand the difference between a language group and a people, which is why I react. I am also familiar with wikilinking, but still find the formulation confusing as it now stands. --Vindheim (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Vindheim. Identity is a subjective issue, even though Americans speak English which came from the British Isles they don't identify themselves as British. The same is true with the Irish who are mostly English speakers but don't identify themselves as being part of the English people. Kurds don't identify themselves as Iranian in the ethnic sense. That's why including that term at the very beginning is misleading.Heja Helweda (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Although there is no cohort study available to show the wide spectrum of Kurdish speakers , identify with what national identity and also it is unknown if they are homogeneous in all different countries ; but here in Wikipedia we does not write about these points.We only write about the linguistic aspects of that ethnic group.Without mentioning the Iranic classification of the Kurdish speakers , there will be many problems in determining "Who are the Kurds" and "Which ethnic group can be counted as Kurd". I mean such groups as Zaza's in Turkey and Feylis in Iraq are considered as Kurds only because they use an Iranic language and without emphasizes on their language group , they should not be in one group with Badinan or Sorani groups : outside Iran proper , the term "Kurd" , functions as an umbrella to group the the Iranic speakers , and without paying proper value to this fact , drawing a line between Kurd and non-Kurd would be impossible . There is also same importance in Iran : the lurs, laks, Bakhtiari and some other groups in Iran are not considered to be Kurd - dispite their mutual understanding of language - just because the language of Iran is an Iranic language , and if we were going to apply the same criteria of Kurdishness of Turkey and Iraq and Syria, that would mean to count almost all Iranian as Kurds. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Language is not the only factor and not all Kurds speak an Iranic language. Jewish Kurds speak Aramaic yet they identify themselves as Kurds. For more information search for Yona Sabar and the latest book by his son Ariel Sabar.Heja Helweda (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes! The language is not the only factor in grouping ethnicity,but it is extremely important .The whole debate is about deleting this factor or not to delete it .
Although it is not related to our discussion, and there is no reliable study about orientation of identification in various groups of the Kurds , but I think there are some important factors in self -identification of Kurds in various regions:1-language 2-Iranic traditions(Noroz,folklore,music and etc) 3- connection to mountains (that's only my POV) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You still did not explain if language is extremely important in your view, how come Jewish Kurds in Israel who spoke Aramaic in the past and nowadays speak Hebrew, still identify themselves as Kurds?Heja Helweda (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Aramaic speakers of Israel is irrelevant to discussion.We are talking about deleting or not, the citation about Kurdish being a language of Iranic group in the lead section.Again if my personal point of view is important for you , I think that the reason of Jewish Aramaic speakers identifying themselves as Kurd is due to cultural orientation of Iranic peoples.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As Vindheim stated, what other ethnic group has the classification of their language stated in the opening paragraph? It is entirely misleading to anyone unfamiliar with Indo-Iranian languages, and it is irrelevant, as Kurds do not identify merely through language. "Ethno-linguistic group" is also a term with which I take issue, as no other ethnic group I have searched on Wikipedia is listed as such =/

Answer me, asshole! Who gave Alborz the reigns to the fucking article anyway? The cunt's Iranian.

In modern day Iraqi Kurdistan children ARE not learning Arabic but English! Many adults also have next to no knowledge of Arabic too.It is very different to Kurdistan of Iran where people are educated in Farsi or in Turkey where most speak better Turkish than kurdish.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.95.41 (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC) 

Luri and Split Ergativity

Luri is not a Kurdish language, but it does share a large number of vocabulary with surrounding languages. Also the issue of split ergativity is not due to Hurrian influence but it is widely attested fact in Indo-Iranian languages: [1]. For example Sumerian is also a split-ergative language, but this phenomenon does not make it related to Kurdish languages. There needs to be a specialist linguist source on this that contradicts the above Iranica article and mentions Hurrian rather than Old-Iranian as the reason for split-ergativity. This reasoning does not describe split-ergativity from Pashto, Yagnobi, dialects in Fars and Yazd and etc. . --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In case of Mutual intelligibility, almost all of Iranian languages of Iranian plateau are related and that's difficult to group them in different clusters.But anyway , the opinion of the professional linguists may be the determining point in this article.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British (contains proposal for deletion of the British Kurds article). Badagnani (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 31 includes book review?

Is it appropriate to include what seems to be a full book review in a footnote? (see References list: currently #31, "Jewish Subjects and their Tribal Chieftains in Kurdistan"). Erusse estelinya (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC) ISTAN means country, lands in origin but the haven't got a country, so you can't say KURDISTAN... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.172.20 (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

19-37 Mio KURDS IS IT A FAKE

There must been 35-40mio. here ist the diffe. 5.mio. and your diffe. ist 18.mio. whats that. Please make ist 35-40MIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.214.37 (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

what is this

there is no mention of the kurds being the cradle of civilization or the indigenous people of the middle east. We need to add this. Kurdish Empire (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Number of Kurds in Russia

Kazim22 (15:52 17 November 2008) added Russia to the Infobox with a Kurdish population of 31,273, citing Yazidi as the source for this number. The Infobox in Yazidi indeed shows 31,273 Yazidi in Russia and cites the 2002 population census as the source. When I open the 2002 Russian census, I find 31,273 Yazidi (Russian: Езиды) and, in a separate entry, 19,607 Kurds (Russian: Курды). Could someone knowledgeable please decide on the basis of these numbers how many Kurds there are in Russia? --Zlerman (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of the Yazidis in Russia are from Kurdish stock, and Kurdish speakers. However after the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, many muslim Kurds were forced out of that region by the Armenian forces and had to seek refuge abroad. The rising nationalist sentiments in Armenia also forced many Yazidis to downplay their Kurdish ethnicity and consider themselves apart from the Kurds, an act which was supported by the Armenian government. This may be the reason behind their different classification even in Russian census. Later on, many Yazidis also fled Armenia for Europe due to various factors such as economic deprivation and rising xenophobia. But I guess we can count almost all of them (except the assimilated ones) as Kurdish-speakers. Kurdish section of Radio Voice of Russia, which started its broadcating recently is almost completely run by Yazidis. Here are a list of useful links Eskerê_Boyîk (Yazidi Poet), [2](in Kurdish), Yazidi Center in Berlin (in Kurdish), Yazidi TV, Yezidi Website based in Russia. This last one is interesting, although written in Russian, at the bottom right corner it provides links to major Kurdish TVs such as Roj TV and also Kurdish section of Voice of Russia.Heja Helweda (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Yezidi are not Kurds, and the xenophobia is actually from Kurd nationalst extremists who wish to impose their self-perceived and mostly self-invented one-nation identity onto other ethnic groups. Meowy 20:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Firing squad in iran.PNG

The image File:Firing squad in iran.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Kurds, A Median People

I'm curious to know what is the exact source for the claim The conjecture that the Kurds are descendants of the Medes has been challenged on linguistic grounds.[27]. The cited author Kreyenbroek cites Mackenzie as the source for his claim. But can someone please clarify where Mackenzie claims that? Because it seems to me that a misrepresentation has occurred here. Thanks. Ellipi (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same question. Who cited the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.134.38 (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree too, I tagged the sentence as dubious. If they are not Median then what branch of Iranian language did Kurdish rise from? We need more information on this. --Ddd0dd (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Major Correction

{{editsemiprotected}} Please replace "Iranian-speaking" in the first sentence with "Indo-European language speaking". This is the accurate wording. The current description is part of Iranian propaganda. Thanks!

Fixed. Thanks. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The figures in the infobox

Here, I'm going to discuss the changes I made:

-1-

It says:

Syria 0.6 to 2 million

in the infobox. Now, let's take a look at the reference:

Ethnic groups: Arab 90.3%, Kurds, Armenians, and other 9.7%

Do we see any percentage about Kurds? No. It's blatant misquotation. Thus I removed and replaced it with a figure from "demographics of Syria" article which is a round number. I was going to reference it later on.

But Ellipi saw fit to revert my edit. Ellipi, if you revert it again without an argument, I'll consider it an act of vandalism.

-2-

CIA Worldfactbook estimates 7% of 68,688,433 for Iran. A simple math: 68,688,433*(7/100)=4808190,31 -> 4,8

The source doesn't seem to say anything about Kurds at all. It's strictly about religion, not ethnic groups.

But Ellipi saw fit to revert my edit. Ellipi, if you revert it again without an argument, I'll consider it an act of vandalism.

-3-

A) Zazas aren't Kurds. Like Kurds, they are a West Iranic ethnic group. That's all. They are no more Kurds than Kurds are Zazas. That certain source (which is in Turkish) explicitly says Zazas are included as Kurds in that certain estimate (9m Kurds+3m Zazas = 12m total)

B) Like I said, CIA source about demographics of Turkey is very, very simplistic. It just says "80% Turkish, 20% Kurdish". No mention of Zazas (though it's very safe to assume that they included them in Kurds) No mention whatsoever of officially recognized minorities (Greeks, Armenians, Jews.No mention whatsoever of Balkan people (Albanians, Bosniaks etc), no mention whatsoever of Middle Easterners (Arabs, Assyrians etc), no mention whatsoever of Caucasians (Circassians, Georgians etc) KONDA, on the other hand, is much more detailed and credible. Its estimations are based on a report about an extensive, scientific survey. To lump it together with ultra-simplistic numbers from across the Atlantic just because some people here think "Turkish sources are certainly 100000% biased" would be a violation of neutrality. It's not an official source, btw.

And I, for simplicity's sake, rounded up the number of Kurds in Greece and Denmark by deleting the lower figures, but Ellipi reverted that too. I suspect he's reverting just for the sake of reverting. -- Mttll (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

-1- Here is source for Kurds being 9% of Syrian population: [3] -2- For all other countries CIA do have specified estimates, like 7% in Iran and 20% in Turkey. -3- To this day strong majority of Zazas, despite heavy pan-turkist propaganda, consider themselves as Kurds. Kurd does not mean only Kurmanj, and the term Kurd have been historically used for all west Iranians with the sole exception of Persians. -4- And dont come with arguments that CIA gives high numbers for Kurds and low numbers for Turks. As everybody knows US and its CIA are allied with turkey to turkify all Kurds in Anatolia. Ellipi (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC) You are extremely biased. That's obvious. But I'll take that figure for Syrian Kurds. Thanks. -- Mttll (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mttll's bias

Regarding this edit, Mttll, simply you are not at a position to judge this highly credible source for being wrong. Why it is not wrong where it says there are 80% Turks, ignoring millions of Laz, Arabs, Greeks, Azaris, Circassians, Armenians, all counted as Turks? Ellipi (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC) What I am saying is that CIA source for Turkey is simplistic and ignores all ethnic groups in Turkey except Turks and Kurds and the chances are that they included Zazas in Kurds. KONDA estimate is by far the most detailed and reliable report on Kurdish population in Turkey, but apparently we'll not succeed in reaching a consensus. I'm forced to bring other sources to counter your bias. Whatever. -- Mttll (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Do what you will; still there are sources which puts Kurds numbers much higher. Ellipi (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Other sources have been added which is not from CIA factbook. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That one sentence source doesn't say anything about Turkey's total population. You can't take the percentage there and apply to total population of Turkey from somewhere else. -- Mttll (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

All the sources give a year and that is how it was applied. McDowall is a recent source (2003). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the sources are RS and verifiable, there is no need to discuss this further.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then let be a lowest and highest estimate. Delete the ones inbetween. It distorts the layout. -- Mttll (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We can put all the sources in one ref tag but we should not delete sources. There is always a low to high ranges in the end..--Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Mttll, there are two points that you should note. 1. CIA fact-book is a source used very often in wikipedia when requiring numbers. Now if you have good reasons not to consider CIA fact-book as a WP:RS then go to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and say it. If people agree with you they will let you remove that source wherever you want. 2. When a source says between 11.4 million to 17.5 it means everything in between is likely so no need to worry.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction Needed

On this article “Kurdish people”, under the section of “Kurdish Communities in West Asia”, and sub-section of “In Iran”, in the second paragraph of the sub-section stated as follows:

Quote: In the 17th century, a large number of Kurds were displaced by Shah Abbas I to Khorasan in Eastern Iran and resettled in the cities of Quchan and Birjand, due to Safavid Scorched earth policy, while others migrated to Afghanistan where they took refuge.Unquote.

Which is incorrect, the sentences should say as follows: In the 17th century, a large number of Kurds were displaced by Shah Abbas I to Khorasan in Eastern Iran and resettled in the cities of Quchan , Bujnord, Shirvan, DareGaz, and Esfaraeen due to Safavid Scorched earth policy, while others migrated to Afghanistan where they took refuge.

I am a Kurdish from Bujnord located in north Khorasan province. My ancestors is one of the Kurdish people that have been migrated to north of khorasan province by Shah Abbas I as stated in the article. During that large displacement of Kurdish people they were migrated to Quchan, Bujnord (Not Birjand), Shirvan, DareGaz, and Esfaraeen which all these cities are located in north khorasan province. The previous Khorasan province has been divided into three new smaller provinces now they called North Khorasan, Khorasan Markazi (Razavi), and South Khorasan. The city of Birjand is located in South khorasan and no Kurdish people were migrated to this city during that large Kurdish displacement by Shah Abbas I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.24.130 (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Medes redux

This is an interesting commentary on the issue by a Kurdish historian: [4]. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion

This web page does not qualify as a WP:RS. The author, Barbara Robson, is merely a biochemist, not a scholar of Islam or Middle East. We can't use her "opinion" as a credible source for a statement of fact. --Kurdo777 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

---

I added that many Kurds now speak Turkish as a mother language. I didn't cite this as I don't think it should be a contentious fact, given the years of oppression against the Kurdish language and the intermarriage of Turks and Kurds etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The No Fly Zones

The autonomous zone created after April 1991 in Dahuk, Erbil & Sulaymaniya was not with United Nations authority. The British & American's (and initially French) pilots and politicians invoked the UN resolutions that demanded Iraq cease attacks on unpopular minorities but the Iraqis were within their legal rights to try to bring those planes down, which it did for 12 years until the order was given to dismantle the Saddam Hussein regime. Boutros Boutros-Ghali called them "illegal" at one point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No synthesis and Peacock terms please

Per WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:PEACOCK, one cannot add the word "some sources classify them..". The fact is there is no contradication as being classified as an Iranic group while also having other elements that were linguistically Iranicizied. For example, Turks of Turkey, Azeris or even Uzbeks are some of the classified as Turkic groups which are not of purely Oghuz or Turkic origin. Actually the bulk of the first two probably had little DNA effects. So to comeup with such a synthesis that these two elements are contradictatory (classification as an Iranic group while having some partial non-Iranic elements as well) is WP:OR and WP:UNDO. This fact that Kurds are mentioned as an Iranic people is is mentioned by Limbert, Encyclopedia of Islam, Asatarian and other top sources while at the same time the fact that there are Iranicized non-Iranic elements among them are also mentioned by the same sources. So this is sufficient proof that we cannot put one statement against the other, since they are not in contradiction.

Iranicized non-Iranic elements are not of Iranian descent, so one can say Kurds are Iranic-speaking people, but not exclusively ethnic-Iranian.Vekoler (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Britannica's opinion also is undo weight as it is a teriatary source. In another article it states: "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. ".

Such contradications in Britannica are many. Encyclopedia of Islam is a secondary source as it is specialized Encyclopedia written by top scholars (Minorsky and others) and I have found much less contradications. If we are to give the contradictory and teriatary Britannica weight in the introduction, it definitely fits under WP:UNDO. Thank you..--Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopdeia of Islam that is referred to in the article is also a tertiary source just like Britannica. Its article on the Kurds refers to many other western sources who in turn refer to original medieval Arabic texts. I hope that you have read the complete Kurds/Kurdistan article. All these sources are academic, there are no top sources. If they are Iranicized or Iranophone, this is not sufficient proof to claim ethnic-Iranian descent, something that the term ethnic-Iranian people seems to propose. The term ethnic conveys a sense of descent in addition to culture and langauge, and since some Kurds are not of Iranian descent then the classification should be used with utmost care.Vekoler (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I partially agree and disagree. Disagreement: Encyclopedia of Islam is not a tertiary source like Britannica. It written by experts in the field and it is seen as an expert source in academia of highest caliber. I have read that complete article as well as the recent article by Asatarian. These are the two most complete surveys currently, with EI being somewhat more dated than the 2009 article of Asatrians.. Both Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islam are seen as specialized soures about the region (of course they should be assessed based on the authors of the article as well). Infact the article on Kurds and Kurdish languages in these two are much more detailed than virtually all books I have seen thus far. The Encyclopedia of Islam article itself is at least 100x larger than Britannica and has many top scholars and authors who are recognized by their peers. By virtue of the name of these authors, one cannot relegate it to the level of Britannica. So really, we cannot compare Britannica with Encyclopedia of Islam. If you want to compare them and say they are on the same level, then we can get a 3rd opinion from reliability noticeboard. Note the same Britannica states: "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 why choose one statement and not this one for the introduction? Britannica falls definitely within non-specialized tertiary sources. Encyclopedia of Islam can be assessed by the authors of its entry's who are usually World experts in the field.

Agreement: I would just say "Iranic group" or as Encyclopedia of Islam/Asatarian/Limbert/Russel say "Iranian people". Scholarship considers Turks of Turkey, Azeris and etc. as a Turkic group and the same applies to Persians, Kurds, Baluchis, Pashtuns and etc. who also have incorporated in them non-Iranic ethnic elements, but are considered an Iranic group. Also it depends how far you take it back, the Armenian tribes Bagtariad and Mamikonians were both non-ethnically Armenian at one time. Why use a 1908 source anyway which is outdated? Bagtariads are considered Parthians today. The first one (Bagtariads)are Parthians and the second one has been said to be Parthian or even Chinese. Even the Old Persians and Medes had incorporated and Iranicizied non-ethnic Iranic elements. So Iranic group does not mean that any of these groups (with the possible exceptions of Pamiris) are 100% Indo-Iranian origin. What do you think of "Iranic group" as a compromise and removing "ethnic"? Another option is of course "Iranian people" per Asatrian/Russel..etc. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Bagratids are not Parthian, please do not promote OR here.Vekoler (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, even saying Iranic group does not do justice to Kurds who are of Turkic/Turcoman/Arab descent. I do not understand the urge to define huge and mixed groups of people using such clear-cut and simplistic categories. The only clear classification is that Kurdish language belongs to Indo-Iranian group.Vekoler (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See also a precise definition here: "In the following discussion of “Iranian peoples,” the term “Iranian” may be understood in two ways. It is, first of all, a linguistic classification, intended to designate any society which inherited or adopted, and transmitted, an Iranian language. The set of Iranian-speaking peoples is thus considered a kind of unity, in spite of their distinct lineage identities plus all the factors which may have further differentiated any one group’s sense of self. These include: (1) divergent specializations in economic organization, environmental adaptation, and other aspects of material culture, emergent differences in oral traditions and folkways; (2) hand in hand with the preceding: different conditioning by already established populations encountered in the area of settlement or absorbed in the course of migrations; (3) further conditioning by the later introduction of non-Iranian-speaking populations. These factors, fostering some degree of diversity within a region’s society, may have worked toward distinctions in dialect, social organization, law, religion, and other aspects of culture. The management of marked regional diversity, in the absence of an established political infrastructure, would have been especially challenging to the earliest efforts at a real hegemony by the Medes and the Persians. Secondly and inevitably, “Iranian” also acquires the broader sense of “[a people] resident on the Iranianplateau,” since the ethnicity of various peoples who are only briefly mentioned in historical sources often is not definitely known. In qualification of the first point, difference in language is not viewed as necessarily a barrier to community cohesion and communications." [5] (Richard Frye). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by Armenian descent? Armenian by itself means Iranian. Even Xenophon in Anabasis tells us that they spoke a Persian-like language. The Trilingual inscription by Xerxes, has an old Iranian dialect (nowadays known as old Persian), Elamite and Babylonian but no Hay language. Also please do not give weight to G. Asatrian; he is notorious for his anti-Kurdish propaganda. Ellipi (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Armenian does not imply Iranian, please read about the subject before engaging in the discussion. Armenian does not even belong to Indo-Iranian language family. I have read Asatrian papers, and he is an expert in Kurdish linguistics and history, and he has shed light on the influence of Armenian language on Kurmanji. If he were anti-Kurdish he would not have learned Kurmanji in such great detail. Please refrain from personal attacks. Vekoler (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I mean classical Armenians. Ellipi (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Mackenzie, Kreyenbroek, Asatrian and others, place the proto-Kurdish homeland at north of Parsumash and south of Media, that is the Elamite highlands. Kurds (< pahlavi kwrt: tribe) are first mentioned as an ethnic group, after the last time existence of Elamites (Khozi, cf. Kurdish hoz: tribe ) is recorded in the early Islamic era. To these, one may add the phonology of Elamite which treates Iranian words in analogous of Kurdish phonology. (ex: initial h before vowel, the case of m<v/w etc.).Ellipi (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What I tried to do was make sure to bring sources that clearly state Kurds are an Iranian people and Encyclopedia of Islam, James Russel and others are some of these sources. This is common knowledge and there was really no need for a citation tag. The other user stated possible semitic/armenian and etc. elements in the formation of Kurds. However, this is unrelated to classification of Kurds, even if true, since it is not suprising and does not have an effect on the classification of Kurds. Like all Iranic peoples with the exception of possible Pamiri Tajiks, they have assimilated and Iranicized some non-Iranic elements. I am not sure if this needs to be emphasized in the introduction, but the Iranic group is the first line from Encyclopedia of Islam and is important knowledge. At the same time, Armenian itself is synthesis of several ethnic elements (Urartu,Parthian,Proto-Armens and etc.). On Asatrian I do not know too much about his political activities, but he wrote a recent complete survey article that will probably have some impact[6] due to the fact that there is not too much detailed study on the subject. This and the Encyclopedia of Islam are really the only two detailed articles I have seen on ethno-genesis. I just used the fact that he is also among the multitude of sources that mentions Kurds as an Iranic people, but I did not put anything that is possibly negative. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

EI's article on Kurds/Kurdistan is also a bit outdated (written around 1960s), it does not talk about the Turkic origins of many Kurdish tribes. Recent research by Van Bruinessen, the most authoritative contemporary scholar of Kurdish studies, has shown that Kurds are not a homogeneous people, and they do not have a common origin. The sources that refer to Kurds as Iranic have been included, but that's only part of the picture. Moreover, Limbert is also not a totally neutral scholar as he was/is more tilted toward promotion of Persian civilization, and his theories regarding battle of Opis have been challenged by other scholars. The same is true for Frye. Vekoler (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

J. van Donzel 1994 summary is a case in point of EI's article being still one of the best. The Encyclopedia of Islam (2009) website edition lists it and it seems to have been updated since Minorsky's time. It also talks about the fact that some Kurdish tribes are Iranicized (thus it would include the Turkic tribes that were Iranicized as well). So if there was a fumdamental contradiction between the two terms, it would mention it. Limbert, Asatrian, Russel, Minorsky are very well known scholars. If Van Bruinessen says Kurds are not an Iranic people that is one thing. But simply pointing out that some non-Iranic tribes were Irancizied is not a contradiction(Limbert, Minorsky, Asatrian and etc.). Van Bruinessen though is not on the level of Asatrian when it comes to linguistic and ancient history. He deals with lots of modern political issues and is obviously not a linguist. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC

We are not here to judge which scholar is better than the other. There is obviously disagreement among researchers. Our issue here is not linguistics, but ethno-genesis and Van Bruinessen has done a lot of research on that. EI is clearly missing important details regarding Turkish tribes who were Kurdified. This is probably due to the fact that at the time Ottoman Archives were still not fully available to scholars.Vekoler (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes there were some Turkish tribes that were Kurdified and Kurdish tribes that were Turkified. But there is no contradiction and no disagreement between what Van Bruinessen states and what Minorsky or Asatrian or Russel or Limbert state. I have listed many scholars that consider Kurds an Iranic people and Iranian people. These same sources also acknowledge the Irancizied elements as well (so that would cover any future group such as Turkic tribes that might have been Irancizied). Linguistic is a major basis for ethno-genesis. Van Bruinessen rarely delves into pre-Islamic history of the region. Do you have a scholar that mention Kurds to be a Turkic or Armenian or Semitic or another group? Van Bruinessen has an article on religion in Turo-Iranian world and mentions Kurds many times. Obviously "Turco-Iranian" world would indicate that Kurds are part of this. Now obviously they are not part of the "Turco" part. Look at any other group in the Near East, there is a ethno-linguistic classification. Kurmanji or Sorani are rooted in an Iranian dialect of the region which would be rooted in proto-Iranians. If there was other groups in the regions speaking these languages other than Kurds, then it would have been possible to entertain different theories, but for now the main basis of Kurds are groups that spoke languages rooted in proto-Iranians. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Kurdish certainly has Indo-European roots, and its connection with Iranian languages is clear. However, Kurdish has a sound law identical with that of Old Church Slavonic. There are also a good number of basic and agricultural words which these two share. But it is not clear whether Kurdish has been originally an Iranian language in close contact with OCS or an heavily iranicized dialect related to OCS. Halys (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if we do not push our theories here. Statements like obviously they are not part of the "Turco" part are not helpful, while we know that some of them clearly were. The existence of a distinct Kurdish ethnic group is attested with certainty only after the Arab conquest and anything that appears before that is mostly speculative. This is what most scholars agree on. But there is no consensus or reliable data regarding pre-Islamic times. Moreover we are not talking about linguistics here. Irish/Afro-Americans/Native Americans/Scots/ speak English as a mother tongue nowadays, that does not make them descendants of Anglo-Saxons. You are mixing language with descent.Vekoler (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your adding "some sources" and trying to make it seem like Van Bruinessen is contradicting these sources is OR. "Distinct Kurdish ethnic group" is not the subject of dispute here. Even if there were Turkish, Armenian, Arabic etc. tribes that were Kurdified/Iranicizied, it does not contradict the classification of Kurds as an Iranic group. Also Frye, Limbert and etc. are well known scholars and your judgement on them is not relevant. Using peacock terms like "some" and trying to make it seem Van Bruinessen is contradicting Minorsky, Russel, Frye, Asatrian and etc. is pure OR and synthesis. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And your example is also not relevant here. Because only Kurds in a contigous (with the exception of Khorasani Kurds who came from Kurdistan) region speak Kurdish languages. So it is not like multiple groups around the world speak Kurdish languages but have very different identities (Afro-American, Anglo-Saxon, Irish). As it says: ""Many people lived in what is now Kurdistan during the past millennia and almost all of the them have disappeared as ethnic or linguistic groups"".. where-as Irish , Native Americans, Afro-Americans have their own identities. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is nonsense: The Kurds are classified by as an Iranic people[15][16][17][18][19][20], but there is a heterogeneity of ethnic elements among them[21][15] including traces of Iranicized and Kurdified Semetic[22][23][24][15][25] and Turkic[26][27][28][29] , Armenian[30][15][31][32][33][34] and possible indigenous Kardu[15][22] origins among Kurdish people.

Do you mean there are Kurdish-speaking groups who identify themselves as ethnic Arabs, Armenians etc? Ellipi (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I agree and I have summarized it. Also I have not seen anything from Van Bruinessen that contradicts what is commonly known. Indeed his texts indicate the viewpoint of other sources. Van Bruinessen: "The surprising similarities between Yezidism, Ahl-i Haqq and Alevism (especially that of Dersim) raise many questions that cannot yet be answered satisfactorily, but recent work on these religions indicates that the Kurdish (or at least Iranian) element in Bektashism/Alevism is more important than has long been assumed"[7]. Which means that it the Kurdish element is a sub-group of Iranian. + - "Kurds, on the other hand, have emphasized the Iranian element in the religion of the Alevis and suggested that even the Turkish Alevis must originally have received their religion from the Kurds"[8]. The ethnic Arab, Armenian, Turkish, Kardu (which some sources as Indo-Aryan), Mede, Parthian, Karduchi and etc. stuff should not be in the introduction in my opinion, but we can simply say "Kurds are a Iranic people whose origins lies in a amalgamation of Iranian and Irancizied(Kurdified) tribes". --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Van Bruinessen clearly in Agha, Shaikh & State says: The Kurds are undoubtedly of heterogeneous origins. Many people lived in what is now Kurdistan during the past millennia and almost all of the them have disappeared as ethnic or linguistic groups (p.122) and

It is certainly not true that all tribes in Kurdistan have a common origin. During more than eight centuries of contact between Turkish and Kurdish (and Arab) tribes, there have been Kurdish tribes that turkicized and Turkish tribes that gradually became Kurdish. (p.117)

I think this should be clearly mentioned in the article. Over-emphasis on Iranic people gives the wrong impression that Kurds have descended from a common orgin which is certainly not true. Kurds came into existence only after 7th century and they have been mixing with Arabs in 8th and 9yh century (Rawwadids), that's a very short time and one can not argue that they were Iranic at the beginning, unless sources from pre-Islamic period are found that make a clear-cut mention of Kurds as an Iranian ( or any other) ethnic group. Unfortunately such sources have not been found so far.Vekoler (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

But, where is the contradiction through? Are Asatrian, Minorsky, Russel, Limbert and even Van Bruinessen giving the wrong impression when they are classifying Kurds as an Iranian group. The fact is the current Kurmanji/Sorani and other dialects are the main identity of Kurds (note in the case of African-Americans or Hazaras, language is not the main factor). That is what separates them from other peoples in the regions and these dialects are rooted in Iranic people. Also the Kurds are classified as Iranian people and this cannot have "however, but, some"(peacock terms, synthesis) or any sort of synthesis or OR or peacock term. It is a flat clear statement not needing any synthesis. Because in order to show contradiction, one must have scholarly sources explicitly stating that they are not classified as an Iranic group (and not by synthesis but one clearly stating "Kurds are wrongly classified as an Iranic group by these scholars (Minorsky, Russel, Asatrian, Van Bruinessen, etc."). None of these scholars as far as I know claim a purely Iranic origin for Kurds (or anyone else in the Iranian Pleateau!).

I had proposed to summarize the intro like here: [9] (without deleting any sources but to make it more readable). Anyhow whatever other non-Iranic elements, these were as Encyclopedia of Islam, Van Bruinessen and others have stated: Kurdified/Iranicizied. So if someone wants to make a laundry list, then these two Iranicized/Kurdified are a necessity for those groups per the statements of the same sources "to an amalgam of Iranian and Iranicized tribes"(WI), "Their process of Kurdification must have been completed before the 18th century, for the descendants of a section of this tribe who moved to Haymana (south of Ankara) around that time also continue to speak Kurdish"(Van Bruinessen)"There can be no doubt that at a later stage certian Arab and Turkoman tribes became Kurdish by culture""Even well before the Armenian massacres(1915), many local Armenians voluntarily assimilated, becoming Alevi Kurds"

The statement: "Kurds came into existence only after 7th century" is false..because the people that spoke such languages as Kurmanji, Sorani or etc. had their root in a Middle Iranian language (which we do not have information about). But 100% such people existed (these languages did not come out of no where) and so the speakers of these languages were able to also assimilate and Iranicize/Kurdicize non-Iranic elements. Hence the speakers of Middle Iranic languages/dialects that are ancestors of modern Kurdish languages/dialects would be the direct ancestors of Kurds as well. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for your assertions. Middle Iranian languages like Pahlavi bear very little resemblance to modern Kurmanji/Sorani, while their similarity to modern Persian is undeniable. Vekoler (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Parthian is closer to Kurdish possibly, it is definitely close to Zazaki. But the fact is that if there is a modern Kurmanji/Sorani, then there has to be a Middle Kurmanji/Sorani and an Old Kurmanji/Sorani. This is simply a linguistic phenomenon (Old Turkic, Middle Turkic, Modern Turkish languages) (Old Iranian languages, Middle Iranian languages, Modern Iranian languages)(Old English, Middle English, Modern English). Simply though we do not have any written evidence currently of most Middle Iranian languages. But the existence of a Middle and Old phase of other Iranian languages is a linguistic assertion. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ellipi your opinion on this version is appreciated [10]. I believe it captures everything in the introduction. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Per this: "Windfuhr, Gernot. "Isoglosses: A Sketch on Persians and Parthians, Kurds and Medes" in Hommages et Opera Minora, Monumentum H. S. Nyberg, Vol. 2., Acta Iranica 5. Tehran-Liège: Bibliothèque Pahlavi, 457-472. pg 468. excerpt:"One may add that the overlay of a strong superstrate by a dialect from the eastern parts of Iran does not imply the conclusion that ethnically all Kurdish speakers are from the east, just as one would hesitate to identify the majority of Azarbayjani speakers as ethnic Turks. The majority of those who now speak Kurdish most likely were formerly speakers of Median dialects" "

I suggest keeping it simple as this: [[11] --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Asatrian and other modern linguists disagree with the outdated Median theory. Vekoler (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes but Asatrian clearly states Kurds are an Iranian people. His source is the most up to date, so there is no need for synthesis. And note the author of the above says the "majority of those who now speak Kurdish most likely were formerly speakers of Median dialects". Which does not mean Kurdish itself as a language is a direct descendant of Median. Rather the bulk of population that makes Kurds were formerly Median speakers. So it is not contradicting Asatrian. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Ellipi (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thaks for editing. I just wanted to say as a side note that Kurdish seems to (based on Asatrian's latest research and examples, and etc.) gave devloped in a SW language region or influenced by it like you said. Probably this is also important to note in the article.

Most likely its position is like Luri in the sense that Luri is a SW language but a transition between the Kurdish (a NW language) and Kurdish is a transition between SW and NW language, with more heavily bent towards NW. Talyshi and etc. is NW languages, but it has many similarities with Kurmanji.

Asatrian (as well Minorsky, Mackenzie..etc.) do a good job here overall covering the term Kurd. But this is no different on how Persian was used widely [12] or even the term Baluch: "The Balōč may have entered the historical record as the settled writers’ generic nomads. Because of the significance of their activities at this period they would gradually have become recognized as the nomads par excellence in this particular part of the Islamic world. It is possible, for example, that Balūč, along with Kūč, were terms applied to particular populations which were beyond the control of settled governments; that these populations came to accept the appellation and to see themselves in the cultural terms of the larger, more organized society that was established in the major agricultural territories; but they remained, then as now, a congeries of tribal communities of various origins. There is also ethnographic evidence to suggest that Balūč, irrespective of its etymology, may be applied to nomadic groups by the settled population as a generic appellation in other parts of eastern and southern Iran.". --Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting links from Kaveh Farrokh as he has no formal training in these matters. He is just a patriotic amateur with no authority on the subject. You are just undermining your own arguments by referring to his website. Moreover, please stay on the topic, here is the Kurdish people's page not Baluch. The fact remains that around the same period that the term Kurd has been used for the first time in an ethnic sense in historical records in 7-8th centuries , large groups of Arabs/Semites became Kurdish. It is important that these early infusions be clearly discussed in the article because this is very important in understanding the Kurdish ethno-genesis. Vekoler (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That is on the side discussion which helps clarify the matter although it has not been included in the article. The comparison with other Iranic groups is on the topic actually and you do not have to read it necessarily as it was clarification for Ellipi. It actually touches upon your own comment because when you say "large groups of Arabs/Semites became Kurdish" you are mistaken. In actuality, the term "Kurd" was used for any nomadic/migratory group in the Iranian plateau at that time and that included Arabs as well as Daylamites and many other groups. How does one quantify "large" with respect to the already existing population? Also the clarifications on Baluch is exactly the clarification of Asatrian on Kurds, it does not necessarily mean Arabs/Semites became Kurdish speakers in mass. Even the peot Rudaki uses the term Kurd as Nasir Khusraw does and etc. Also please refrain from your own synthesis and peacock terms. There is no "some sources". Wikipedia does not allow users to interpret different sources in order to make them seem like they are contradicting. That is against violation of Wikipedia law and I have stated this several times. What Van Bruinessen states does not contradict what Asatrian states with regards to classification. Wikipedia users cannot go against Encyclopedia of Islam, Asatrian and many other sources and say "some". They need to find equally reliable sources which clearly state the opposite viewpoint that "classification of Kurds into Iranic groups is wrong". You are well aware of the Wikipedia Guidelines on Synthesis and Peacock terms. If there are sources that state "classification of Kurds into Iranic groups is wrong" or "some sources classify them as Iranic people", then that is one argument, but if there is no such sources, adding "some" is clear violation of guidelines.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Also what do you exactly have against the summary that Ellipi and I agreed upon? It says the same thing but in a succint manner. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the detalied explanantion, although it would be really helpful if you can explain your views in a more concise manner. Arabs at the time of Ummayyad caliphate did not call themsleves Kurds. It is only Persian Sassanids who used such a designation (Kurds of Surestan, etc.). Arabs never called themselves Kurdish, this is only the how the Sassanids perceived the neighboring groups. The article should stay neutral, and it should not be restricted only to the Sassanid viewpoint. Arab sources well after the conquest are very clear that Rawwadids who were part of the Arab armies, became Kurdish over a period of 200 years. In any case, the paragraph regarding Iranic/Semetic/Armenian/ elements really belongs to the origins section.Vekoler (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Arabs probably never called themselves Kurds. But Arab historians seems to have used such designation (taken from Sassanids). Asatrian states: "As is well-known, the term Kurd had a rather indiscriminate use in the early mediaeval Arabo-Persian historiography and literature, with an explicit social connotation, meaning “nomad, tent-dweller, shepherd”". But I am not sure if these groups called themselves Kurds as an ethnic designator (and not a social one). I am not sure where in the article is not neutral? Do we have any other usage of this term besides the Sassanids and Arabo-Persian history books of the time that have radically different usage? About Iranic classification, this is not the same as origin per se, and it is the first line in Encyclopedia of Islam, where as origin in Encyclopedia is discussed later. There is only one classification but there could be many theories for origin and some states heterogenous origins. Origin of many groups are heterogneous (virtually all groups), but their particular classification is not challenged. That is there is no opposite viewpoint in terms of Classification of Kurds (for example no one has classified them as a Semitic or Turkic group ..). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Baluch connection

I really don't understand this. What evidence is there to suggest the Kurds and Baluchs are related ethnic groups? As I had understood it, related language groups didn't necessarily (and without supporting evidence) mean related ethnicities. Kurds and Baluchs are completely different phenotypes and as far as I have been able to research, the only relation, as such, is a claim the Baluchi people themselves make of their origin. If such claims were taken as uncontested evidence, why is there any discussion on whether Kurds are descendants of Medes? The Kurds claim it, the language family adds up, and according to this logic it must be true.

Can anyone provide an explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.103.141 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The Kurds are classified by some sources as an Iranic people[15][16][17][18][19][20], however they are undoubtedly a heterogeneous people lacking a common origin[21] and there is a complexity of ethnic elements among them[15]. There are traces of Semetic[22][23][24][15][25] and Turkic[26][27][28][29] , Armenian[30][15][31][32][33][34] and possible indigenous Kardu[15][22] origins among Kurdish people.

Why is this information necessary in the opening paragraph? It seems completely out of place, and belongs to a different part of the article IF ANYWHERE AT ALL. A paragraph describing who the Kurds are does not require the addition of information which suggests their CLAIMED ethnic or genetic make up. The Kurds identify as Kurds, and no Semitic, Armenian or Turkic admixture takes place in their sense of identity. Also, Semitic is misspelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.103.141 (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree.. we do not see this enumeration in any other group. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well, that information really belongs in the origins section.Vekoler (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily nationalism

On the removal of :"Many or some{fact} Kurds often claim to be the descendents of the Medes.. "

This has nothing to do with Izady or nationalism. It simply states: "Many Kurds claim descent" from Medes. I do not see the relationship with nationalism in the sources. Even if such an opinion is due to nationalism originally, today many that hold such opinions are not necessarily "nationalists". So I believe the sentence should stay. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And please no need to use to the execuse of "nationalism" , or else the Qardu, Lulubi, Guti stuff really despite being sourced are very fringy by today's standard and if you take it to the wikipedia fringe board...

However what I stated is not a fringe. Since many everyday Kurds, even the universalist-communist type and average people, believe in the Mede theory. It is not necessarily correct, but it is a popular sentiment and still some scholars have lend it credence (Windfuhr, Limbert, Minorsky..). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to Izady though, I believe his article on Yazdânism is fringe. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

Under the "religion" section (par. 1), "Deavic" should read "Daevic", and ideally be linked to some article on pre-Zoroastrian religion. Dawud

Don't we already have enough info to connect the Kurds to both Medes and Hurrians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_origins_of_the_Kurds#Connection_with_other_Middle_Eastern_and_Mediterranean_Groups

Over on that page it says that they are of mostly Iranian stock, which basically means Medes in this case, but of course mentions how they also have some hurrian in them, so can't one conclude on that note?

Heja

You can se by once that Heja is kurd, he/she is fighting you all alone.:P

Hejas arguments does make much more sense than the others (mostly Alis). When ali speak, it looks more like you are scared to see that the people sumerians spoke of, were kurds and your argues sound more like propaganda. Don't be afraid of kurds, they are not going to eat you up. :P

We can rewrite the whole worlds history

If we don't accept that the hurrians (in the region called : khurrî), medes, karda, mittanis (a kurdish tribe that exists today, and on about the same place the mittanis ruled) etc. etc. are kurds, then we don't need to accept that the Franks were French. We don't have to accept that Vikings were Swedes, Norwegians and Danes. You can't just say something like that. The kurds has never written anything about their history (with exceptions of some famous kurds) in time. Also, think about the geographical area. It is NOT so easy to just invade the mountains like some say the Medes did. Also, if you've never ever met a kurd in you entire live, dont say stuffs about them like "kurd-mandj". Kurmanci is a DIALECT. And people that moved TO Kurdistan, like Assyrians or other christians that live their today, are accepted by kurds but you still know that they are christians by kurds naming them "ba-file", meaning something like "originally-christian".

Alidoostzadeh

Ali, you don't have to say that they were "iranified" by the persians. Kurds has never written anything in general, and when persians started to write, then the indo-european in the kurdish language was known. I am very sure that the kurds spoke their language even when the Sumerians mentioned them. -83.253.41.41, 13 Nov 2007

Stupid

Read the article before you say that kurds are not a race. They are much older than your Assyrians that invaded from Saud-Arabia.

Kurds don't look like anybody.Because they're Aryans.And Aryan has nothing to do with your that stupid language connection.Just because a European language or a language has a litte similarity with Kurdish that doesn't make them Aryan.I think others and Europeans should go and study their own words and Nazi wich is based on language in fact not even language but word/s.The Aryan-Iran =Kurd-Persian difference is totaly separate and based totaly on race and language not just language.Open your eyes and mind you will see. Even a black from jamaica looks like light colored American,even a Turk from China looks like a light coloured European.This fact is not just by look but it is mentaly too.European,American,Arabic,Turkish,Chinese are very very close to each other by mentality and basic beliefs.