Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:44, 6 March 2015

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one: Denials that the Kurds are Iranian, with claims that they are instead Median or Indo-European. However, the Medians were also Iranian and Iranian is Indo-European, so these denials make little sense.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kurds article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kurds article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kurdistan Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Armenia Low‑importance Kurds is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iran Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iraq High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

RecurringThemes tag

Under the "Russell"ian principle I question this tag. How can you be so full of yourself and your knowledge? What do you know about the next Einstein? Remove the tag please.--هیوا (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ismail and Karim Khan

Ismail was from mixed Greek (mother side) and Turkmen (father side) ancestry. The Kurdish ancestry is a very weak link going back to only one ancestor who lived 300 years before his time. He can not be considered Kurdish in any meaningful sense. Please check out the following sources. Ismail was of mixed Turkmen, Greek and distant Kurdish ancestry and his mother tongue was Azeri Turkish. The official language of the his court was also Turkish.

1. Kissling, H.J.; Spuler, B.; Barbour, N.; Trimingham, J.S.; Braun, H.; Hartel, H. (1997). The Last Great Muslim Empires. BRILL. p. 188. ISBN 9004021043. Ismail must have had much more Turkish and Greek than Iranian blood in his veins, and his mother tongue was an Azeri Turkish dialect; poems, mostly in Turkish, from his pen have been preserved.
2. Chamber's Encyclopaedia. Vol. 10. New York: International Learnings Systems. 1968. p. 603. ISBN 0-684-10114-9. one-quarter of Ismail's blood was Greek. The home language of the early Safavids was Turkoman Turkish in which Ismail wrote poetry.. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
3. Towfighi, Parviz S. (2009). From Persian Empire to Islamic Iran: a history of nationalism in the Middle East. Edwin Mellen Press. p. 59. ISBN 0773447792.

So I don't think it is reasonable to include him as a Kurdish personality. He did not speak the language, his immediate ancestors were Turkmen and Greek and his only possible Kurdish ancestor lived 300 years or roughly 10 generations before him. Yes, strictly speaking that may make him less than 0.1 percent Kurdish. So I suggest to remove him from the image gallery.

Regarding Karim Khan's ethnic origins, it is quite disputed and there is no consensus on his Kurdishness.Vekoler (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Karim Khan's origins aren't disputed. He was a Lak, not a Lur, who happened to live in Luristan. His allegiance was solely with his tribe, but Laks are ethnically Kurdish. His classification a Lur is often made because Laks were thought to be a Lurish offshoot, yet linguistic studies have confirmed Laki is more akin to Kurdish. See: Karim Khan Zand: a History of Iran, 1747-1779. Znertu (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The family of Ismail I on his father's side was of Kurdish origin (see bottom). To suggest that he somehow was less than half Kurdish would be original research. And being half Kurdish does make him "Kurdish enough" to be included here. For example, Hosny and Ghalibaf are also included here, despite being half Kurdish. As for Karim Khan Zand, see above. I'm re adding both.

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ebn-bazzaz Best, --Spivorg (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"Half being Kurdish does not make him"Kurdish enough"!!! lt is not tied to you. We do not have to add "pure Kurds", "pure Turks" to infobexes. Look at Turkish people. None of them is "pure" Turkish. Tatlitug is Boshniak, Erenler is Arab, Mehmet Oz and Pamuk are Circassians, all the sultans of Ottoman Empire are half Slavic because of their mothers, even Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is not "pure". And also you changed almost all of images, not only these two people's that are not "pure Kurdish". Qazi Mohammad, Nursi, Moshe Barazani, Zaro Agha-world's longest man- etc. With Darin and two lraqi scientists that are not famous at all. Do not change the images just because "you don't like it". There is a wikipedia policy about it, do not forget it. Lamedumal (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: l am not talking about lsmail l. His Kurdish ancestry is controversial. Lamedumal (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You are misquoting me. Please re-read what I wrote. I did not say "Half being Kurdish does not make him"Kurdish enough"!!!", I said "And being half Kurdish does make him "Kurdish enough" to be included here." That is why I included Ismail I. Now, you claim that I changed most of the images; something I didn't do. I changed around 3/10 of the images, which is far from "almost all of images". Secondly, claiming that Darin isn't famous, but that the ones I removed are (compared to Darin) is wrong. A quick google search for Darin gives me 25 million results, which is much more than Dilsa Demirbag-Sten, Zaro Agha, Said Nursi and Ahmet Kaya put together. Thirdly, the reason I replaced Dilsa Demirbag-Sten and Ahmet Kaya with Bonni and Ala'Aldeen is because of variation. They are both politicians/singers, a reoccurring theme. Fourthly, take a look at the first inclusion of pictures of famous Kurds here. Notice that Darin, Bonni and Ala'Aldeen are all there. So please don't accuse me of changing images because I don't like it. I am, as already stated, adding variation. Fifthly, Moshe Barzani was first and foremost a Jew. Most of the sources I find on google don't even mention that he was Kurdish, but that he was a Jewish immigrant from Iraq. He is far from relevant when it comes presenting Kurds. And at last, I actually thought I included Nursi. I must have removed him without any intention of doing so. So, I will revert your edit, but I will re-add Nursi. I will however wait for a reply (or at least wait a few days) before editing, so we don't end up in an edit war. Best, --Spivorg (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

We DO NOT add people to infobox by looking their "google popularity". Thus, Qazi Mohammad is more important figure than Darin. Moshe Barazani is a Kurdish Jew. "Barazani" is a Kurdish surname. And also we do not have to add "pure" ethnicity here. I gave an example for it(Turkish people). Misplaced Pages is not your kindergarden. Lamedumal (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: lf you really really want to add Darin, Bonni, Fatah etc you can do it without deleting other people such as Qazi Muhammed, Nursi bla bla. Just add them at the bottom. lt is not too hard. And it is a good idea to reach a consensus. Lamedumal (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You say that we shouldn't add by Google popularity, but then what criteria should we use? "Thus, Qazi Mohammad is more important figure than Darin." is not a logical conclusion. You tell me it's a good idea to reach consensus, which is exactly what I'm trying to do, unlike the ones who originally removed Darin, Bonni etc. Don't accuse me of changing the originals. And I am not even talking about pure ethnicity, please don't misquote me. I can't find a reliable source that says Moshe Barzani was Kurdish. Name is not good enough. I don't add Slavs with the name 'Goran' either. You didn't address Ismail I and Karim Zand, so I will be adding them too. Best, --Spivorg (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The image section looks completely messes up now. I propose we use a grid of 5x5 pictures, like it is in most articles of ethnicities, try to use images that actually fit, i.e., aren't wider than they are long, at least. Arrange them by DOB, and then look for a balance in gender, profession/occupation and parts of Kurdistan represented.

-Ziryab likely wasn't Kurdish, but Persian or black African instead

-al-Jazari hailed from a Kurdish region, but we cannot safely say that he wasn't an Arab

-Zaro Aga is not an important figure; Mahwi isn't really well-known either

-There are too many political leaders of the modern era; Qazi Muhammad, Ihsan Nuri, Simko Shikak, Mustafa Yamulki, Mustafa Barzani, Massoud Barzani, Jalal Talabani... Znertu (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust 07:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish people → Kurds – Common and standard form. Kurds redirects here as well so I suggest we move it. Jaqeli (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's policy on article titles.

• Support per nom Red Slash 03:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support as common name. — kwami (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Remove Moshe Barazani

He is Hebrew, not Kurdish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish peshmerga forces and American-backed political order

There's no Moshe Baranzi, there's a Masoud Barzani, he's a Sunni Muslim, and there's no proof he's of Jewish background. P.S Many Jews are of Kurdish background. Guy355 (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Musa Obaidi (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 16:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Date for oath of Leyla Zana should be changed from1994 to1991.

Saw the date and realized it was probably a typo/incorrect since the oath and arrest were unlikely to occur within 1 month of each other. According to her (Leyla Zana) wiki page she took the oath and caused outrage in 1991. This is confirmed by several internet sites including http://www.nndb.com/people/691/000134289/

SECTION REFFERING TO IS THIS

Leyla Zana, the first Kurdish female MP from Diyarbakir, caused an uproar in Turkish Parliament after adding the following sentence in Kurdish to her parliamentary oath during the swearing-in ceremony in 1994:

I take this oath for the brotherhood of the Turkish and Kurdish peoples. —

In March 1994, the Turkish Parliament voted to lift the immunity of Zana and five other Kurdish DEP members: Hatip Dicle, Ahmet Turk, Sirri Sakik, Orhan Dogan and Selim Sadak. Zana, Dicle, Sadak and Dogan were sentenced to 15 years in jail by the Supreme Court in October 1995.

Hope this helps wiki...

Random U — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.55.112 (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "....tribal revolt led by Kurdish chieftain Simko Shikak stroke north western Iran....." to "...Shikak struck north..." As a native english speaker this rubbed me the wrong way. William H Shifflette (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor 06:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

For Nizami Ganjavi as a Kurd there is no reference as he was originally Iranian Miillad (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} 22:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Problem with other Iranians!

Please don't have blood feud with other Iranians. A whole section is devoted to Ardashir, and then somebody concludes that he was a Kurd himself!! (it really needs not two, but more exclamations points) The reality is that Achaemenidians and Sasanians subjugated all Iranians irrespective of what you like to call them now (Fars, Kurd, Azerbaijani, etc) You making "Kurd" old hard doesn't make it that. Before that in the article, Kurds were made related to Lullubi, Guti, Cyrtians, Carduchi, etc, etc; as if other Iranians are an exception! and they are not related to indigenous Iranian plateau as well as to Arians. Please stop this play.-Raayen (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This claim should be removed from the article, History section, Ancient period:

• At least one author believes Ardashir I to have actually descended from a Kurdish tribe.

Reason: Kaveh Farrokh is not an expert in ancient history. His works are not cited by other well-known experts. Mr. Farrokh's theories are just supported by himself alone. There is no "Kurdish" ethnicity in Ancient Persia. Kurd was a common name for the nomads of Persian empire territory. Farrokh's works are removed from other articles (ancient Persian and ancient Near East-related articles and dynasties). 89.165.98.252 (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Already done Sam 13:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

at:

Ahl-i Haqq (Yarsan)

change first sentence:
Ahl-i Haqq or Yarsanism is a syncretic religion founded by Sultan Sahak in the late 14th century in western Iran.
into:
Ahl-i Haqq or Yarsanism is a syncretic religion founded by Sultan Sahak in the late 14th century in western Iran.
because:
it's the first sentence to explain that religion and most people have no clue what syncretic means.
77.183.135.82 (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Earliest Mention of Kurds

So the article says: The first attestation of the Kurds was during the time of rule of the Sassanids.

But I was just reading Xenophon's Anabasis, and they travel into the mountains of the Kurds (Karduchians) on their way to the lands of the Armenians. This would have been around 300 BC. Source: http://en.wikisource.org/Anabasis/Book_3/Chapter_5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deinol (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Comprise vs. compose

This article uses the word "comprise(d)" incorrectly. Should be "compose" or similar. For example, Kurdistan comprises parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, not the otherway around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.15.156 (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"Simko Shakak" vs "Ismail I"

The user "ArordineriiiUkhtt" has replaced my displacement of "Simko Shakak" to "Ismail I", on the image template. I think you know that Simko Shakak was an stupid revolt confirmed by Kurds like Mehrdad Izadi; a YAGHI with no clear aim, killing people like Assyrians and Azeris. I think you Kurds don't need to stick to your stupidities in the past as other nations should not do. I think "Ismail I" better reflects your current wise position: "politics".-Raayen (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It was discussed in the talk page and editors reached a consensus to remove it. Because he was only 1/4 Kurdish and therefore not representative. See the archive of talk page to see the discussion. If you want to change Simko Shakak, find another "notable" person instead of Ismail I. Because he was very hybrid. He has Pontic Greek, Kurdish, Georgian and Turkish ancestries. You can add, for instance, Theophobos. As far as I remember he was Kurdish and notable enough. If you find sources to confirm it, feel free to add it. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I respect your opinion and the talk on this above, although it is not conclusive, and seems to me silly. If you want to go for greater Kurds on the image template, "Ismail I" was a greater Kurd than "Simko Shakak". That is what is done in other peoples' articles in Misplaced Pages; greater nationals first. You are doing a grave mistake to distance peoples of close connectivity. That is not good for humanity. How do you know Simko Shakak was more Kurd than Ismail I?! Your criteria seems to be nationalistic or assumed unconfirmed genetics, seemingly due to language, not what people really are; divergent depending on the conditions, taking sides irrespective of what our ideals are nowadays. I tried to add an Arab-Persian called al-Ma'mun to Iranian peoples, and was opposed as you did. That is neither right, nor according to sources and the norm of Misplaced Pages articles that consider people of half blood or 1/4 blood, as you said, belonging to several nations.-Raayen (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ghalibaf

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf isn't Kurdish. He is an Anti-Kurdish Shia from the Persian-speaking region of Mashhad in the Khorasan province. Maybe one of his ancestors was Kurdish but he isn't. I bet no Kurd wants to hear that he is Kurdish and also he doesn't claim that he is kurdish. Please someone remove his name and picture from the list in the article.--193.140.42.137 (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

North Mesopotamian Arabic

Among those Kurds who speak Arabic, is the North Mesopotamian variety the most common one? Furthermore, is North Mesopotamian Arabic spoken primarily by Kurds? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Map of the Median Empire

There is a map of the Median Empire, but the map doesn't seem to relate to anything in the text. I am not taking sides on the Kurds/Medes/Iranians issue, I am just a bit confused about the relevance of this map.46.12.54.46 (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

dilsa demirbag

pls remove her. what's is so special about her? One feels ashamed having her on there when there are so many 10000xxx influential. I mean is this some kind of joeks having her on their?

Kurdish migration to Turkey

Kurds who fled Iran-Iraq war from 1988 Halabja : 60.000-120.000

Kurds fleeing the 1.Gulf War 1991 : 460.000

Kurds who fled civil war in Syria : 400.000 Syria civil war

ISIS terror Yezidis fled : 100.000

Kurdish population in Turkey: Kurdish population in Turkey before 1980 was around 9-11%. Iran-Iraq war of Halabja,First Gulf War,Gulf War 2,Syria civil war Began to increase, Today, the Kurdish population in this migration has reached 14-16%

Bullshit :)

Mislead!

There is no link between meds and the kurds!. image is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.42.134.250 (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish population is false,exaggerated

Kurdish population lived in each country (Turkey-Iran-Iraq-Syria) have shown over-exaggerated and not true. ethnic nationalism is not made objectively.

Cia factbook Turkey : 1985 year- Turkish population % 85 , kurdish populatin % 12 , other group % 3 , 1993 year- Turkish population % 80 -kurdish population % 20 , other group non, 2009 year : Turkish population % 70-75 - kurdish population % 18 , other group % 7-12 .(CIA Factbook accurate and not neutral)

2006 konda Turkey etnic : % Turkish people % 76-81 - kurdish-zaza people % 13.5-15.7 - other group % 5-7 (Turkey put the results of research conducted by research firm with thousands of people in the entire city.)

CİA İran population : 1989 year : Persian & 63 - Turkic % 18 - Kurdish % 3 ,2011 year persian % 51 - azeris % 24 -kurdish people % 7 , 2014 year : persian people % 61 - azeris % 16 - kurdish people % 10

Cia Iraq population : 1957 year : arabs % 70-75 - kurdish people % 15-17 - ıraqi turkmens % 9 ,2014 year % arabs 75-80 - kurdish 15-20 - Turkmens-assyrian-yezidi other % 5

Syria population : former Kurdish population 7% ,now 9% Cia factbook accurate and not reliable In countries without obejktif-real population and ethnic census, it does not achieve real — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.142.219 (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish population is very much being exaggerated, American Greater Middle East Iraq-Syria apply for kurds kullanıyor.pkk-the PYD-peshmerga weapons have anti-Arab -The Turkmen and muhliaf kurds killed in exile, Kurdish nationalism implement fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't pic of Abdullah Ocalan in the opening section on right side?

He is extremely important Kurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.52.222 (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

".... Dometic Concerns ...." = domestic66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks for noticing. CarnivorousBunny 02:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem--it could have been dometic concerns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.176.59 (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Regarding Kurds/Iran

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is in regards to the Kurds article. According to the template at the top of this talk page, there is an repeated argument as to whether Kurds are Iranian. I have heard very good arguments to the contrary, but as it stands, the consensus seems to be that Kurds ARE Iranian. I have repeatedly urged a certain editor, Bawer1, that if a new consensus is to be reached, a discussion on this talk page is necessary. Please see my comments here: I don't like being caught in a long term edit-war, but a discussion seems to be necessary here. I welcome other users' comments on the discussion below. —Josh3580_talk/hist 06:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This RFC may be premature (although it can do no harm) as the user has now opened a thread below - to which I have posted a reply and a proposed amendment to the text. DeCausa (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Thank you. I may eventually withdraw this RFC, depending on how the discussion progresses. I have reworded the request above, and will leave it open for now, in hopes that it will attract more editors to the discussion below. As you said, it can do no harm. I am encouraged that a good discussion has begun, and I thank you for your contribution and diplomacy. —Josh3580_talk/hist 19:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Kurds

Kurds are not Iranian. The Term Iranian in itself is a very vague term. Nonetheless, it is still important to know that Kurds are not Iranian. First of all, its important to know that many different people have inhabitated Kurdistan such as the Gutians, Hurrians, Mittani, ect. While there is some evidence that the Kurds have a possibility of being descendants of the Medes because of lingustic ties, that does not necessarily make it true.

Kurds have been mentioned many times throughout many different scholarly sources and most of them do not regard Kurds as "Iranian." Finding out the origin of Kurds is very difficult.

I remember one point in time, when many did think Kurds were descendant of Hurrians. It all boils down to how much evidence there is and there is not a lot between Medes and Kurds.

Kurdistan is a very sensitive area in the middle east and has been conquered by a vast amount of different empires and people. The area known as Kurdistan, is literally, in the center of the middle east.

Therefore, to say that an ethnic group belongs to one group of people just because there may be some linguistic ties, does not many any sense. There is genetic, historical, and cultural evidence that shows that Kurds are one of the most distinct people in the middle east. As a matter of fact, Kurds are so distinct that the only reason that they is still discussion today on what origin the Kurds are.

Those people whom have decided that Kurds are Iranian have only looked at linguistics, which is still incorrect by the way. They have not looked to all of the other factors I have mentioned above. Even the celebration of Newroz has been regarded for all the so called "Iranian" people, but it is actually a Kurdish holiday which others also celebrate. Their is evidence because Kawa the Blacksmith was actually present in what is known as "Iranian Kurdistan." Zahak the evil King also had much more influence in the Western part of the Middle East where Kurds are mostly inhabited and not as much as in the Eastern parts such as Tehran.

Kurds, linguistically, have been influenced by Turks, Arabs, and Persian. One many believe that the Kurdish language is a Northwestern Iranian language because of the words used in informal Kurdish. If one takes the time to look at Kurdish when it is spoken formally,however, such as news networks and poetry, then they will see that there is a huge difference. Kurdish, informally, uses many loan words, but if one takes the time to observe the Kurdish language in its original distinct form then they will see that the Kurdish language is a very unique and distinct language.

Overall, the point that is being drawn here is that there are many many factors to look at before coming to a conclusion about an ethnic group, especially that of 38 million people. One has to look at many different factors to realize the identity, which will still be very difficult considering the amount of influence that Kurds have had from others.

I am sure that many people will agree with me if they actually take the time to observe.

Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bawer1: Thank you for opening this thread. (By the way, don't forget to sign your posts by typing: ~~~~) The text of the article should not be changed until consensus is reached here. I see you asked User:Josh3580 where the current consensus was made. If you check the archives to this article talk page you will see multiple discussions on this over the last decade where there have been numerous attempts to make the change you want but with consensus rejecting them. In any event, WP:EDITCONSENSUS states "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached."

If you wish to raise this again it's important you understand that you need to support your argument with "reliable sources" - to see how Misplaced Pages determines which sources are "reliable" please read WP:RS. If you put forward arguments which don't cite reliable sources to support them, as you have done in your above post, they are considered "original research" in Misplaced Pages and is not allowed.(See WP:OR for more detail.) The other isssue which is relevant here is the situation when sources conflict with each other. In these circumstances we follow a policy called "neutral point of view" (see WP:NPOV for more details). This states that the article must cover "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It also means that "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects" (see WP:UNDUE). Furthermore, "a Misplaced Pages article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." (See WP:FRINGE.)

You have asserted in your above post that: most of them do not regard Kurds as "Iranian.". You'll need to provide evidence of that. You seem to be approaching the issue from quite a narrow definition of "ethnicity" i.e. from a genetic point of view. But scholars treat the concept in a number of ways, and these include linguistic and cultural issues and self-identification as well as genetic origins. It would be "original research" for us to make up our own definition of "ethnicity" and apply what we know about the Kurds to define the Kurds ethnicity. So all we can do is look at how the reliable sources define Kurdish ethnicity. Despite what you say I believe that scholarship typically defines the Kurds as either one of the Iranian peoples or closely related to them through looking at a range of issues (lingusitic, cultural, historical etc). Here are some examples:

• Beth K. Dougherty; Edmund A. Ghareeb (7 November 2013). Historical Dictionary of Iraq. Scarecrow Press. p. 385. ISBN 978-0-8108-7942-3.: Iranian origins are “the most widely accepted” theory

• Henri J. Barkey (1 January 2000). Turkey's Kurdish Question. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-585-17773-1.: “a distinct branch among diverse Iranian peoples”

• Michael M. Gunter (4 November 2010). Historical Dictionary of the Kurds. Scarecrow Press. p. 249. ISBN 978-0-8108-7507-4.: “ethnically related to the Persians”

• E. J. Van Donzel (1 January 1994). Islamic Desk Reference. BRILL. p. 222. ISBN 90-04-09738-4.: “an Iranian people”

• Mehrdad R. Izady (1992). The Kurds: A Concise Handbook. Taylor & Francis. p. 198. ISBN 978-0-8448-1727-9.: “Kurdish language and culture are indeed Iranic”

• Richard Foltz (1 November 2013). Religions of Iran: From Prehistory to the Present. Oneworld Publications. p. 218. ISBN 978-1-78074-309-7.: “an Iranian people”

• Birgul Acikyildiz (20 August 2014). The Yezidis: The History of a Community, Culture and Religion. I.B.Tauris. p. 193. ISBN 978-1-78453-216-1.: “an Iranian people”

• "Kurds." The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.. 2014. Retrieved December 29, 2014 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Kurds.html : “ethnically close to the Iranians”

Having said that, this source is closest to your point of view:

• John A. Shoup III (17 October 2011). Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 159. ISBN 978-1-59884-363-7.: “an Iranian people by language, the Kurdish people are ethnically diverse”

But I find it to be the minority viewpoint. By the way, you seem to be saying that the Kurdish languages are not Iranian. That is very much a finge point of view - I haven't bothered to cite sources on that because the mainstream scholarly viewpoint is quite settled on it. (see the sources in the language article for more on that.) What reliable sources can you suggest for your main point? DeCausa (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Similar to the book by John A. Shoup III I cited above the following refers to the mixed ethnic origins of the Kurds but nevertheless repeats that the Kurdish languages are clearly Iranic:

• David McDowall (14 May 2004). A Modern History of the Kurds: Third Edition. I.B.Tauris. pp. 8–10. ISBN 978-1-85043-416-0.

This seems to me to be quite a thorough source. Having looked over the other sources again I think the bare statement "an Iranian people" is only used by sources giving the most simplistic of labels. The article Origin of the Kurds quotes the Encyclopedia of Islam and, in an excerpt from the Encyclopedia's text cited in the notes, explains that the classification of the Kurds as an "Iranian people" is because of the linguistic and historic cultural linkages but that the ethnic origins are heterogenous. Looking at this in totality therefore, I suggest replacing the second sentence in the first paragraph of the lead with the following:

"The Kurds have ethnically diverse origins. They are culturally and linguistically closely related to the Iranian peoples and, as a result, are often themselves classified as an Iranian people. The Kurdish languages form a subgroup of the Northwestern Iranian languages."

1. David McDowall (14 May 2004). A Modern History of the Kurds: Third Edition. I.B.Tauris. pp. 8–9. ISBN 978-1-85043-416-0.
2. ^ John A. Shoup III (17 October 2011). Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 159. ISBN 978-1-59884-363-7.
3. "Kurds". The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Encyclopedia.com. 2014. Retrieved 29 December 2014.
4. Mehrdad R. Izady (1992). The Kurds: A Concise Handbook. Taylor & Francis. p. 198. ISBN 978-0-8448-1727-9.
5. Bois, Th.; Minorsky, V.; Bois, Th.; Bois, Th.; MacKenzie, D. N.; Bois, Th. "Kurds, Kurdistan." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C. E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W. P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2009. Brill Online Excerpt 1: "The Kurds, an Iranian people of the Near East, live at the junction of more or less laicised Turkey".Excerpt 2: "The classification of the Kurds among the Iranian nations is based mainly on linguistic and historical data and does not prejudice the fact there is a complexity of ethnical elements incorporated in them"
6. Ludwig Paul (2008). "Kurdish Language". Encyclopedia Iranica. Retrieved 29 December 2014.
7. D. N. MacKenzie (1961). "The Origins of Kurdish". Transactions of the Philological Society: 68–86.

I think this may be more reflective of the sources. DeCausa (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Support. @DeCausa: I like that language. It still represents the position of the current consensus, yet takes the other POV into account with its wording. I appreciate the time and research you have invested here, as well as your outreach. Let's see what other editors have to say, but I like this proposal. —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Support.. I agree with User:Josh3580, and the entire idea of NPOV is to represent different views, not in equal, but in relevant proportions. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no "pure" race in the world. Persians also heterogenous, Turks, Jews, etc. So what now? We have to change whole the articles? ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course there's no "pure race". I'm not sure of the point you are making - it's solely a question of reflecting the WP:RS. If, as is the case here, the most thorough sources are making a point of saying that the Kurds ethnogenisis arose out of an amlagam of Iranic, Turkic and Semitic groups, we must reflect that. If they didn't then we shouldn't. It's quite simple really. And, by the way, heterogenous origins are often stated in "People" articles already, if they're notable and sourced. See for example second paragraph of the lead to English people. There's nothing unusual about it. DeCausa (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, Kurds mixed with Semitic, Turkic and lranians but it has nothing to do with "ethnogenesis". The name " Kurd" was actively using before the Turks came to the Middle East. Kurds are just neighbours of these people-Semitic, Turkish, Persians- but it does not mean that Kurds arose out of mixture of them. lt is so superficial and there are many sources that contradicts with it. For instance, according to Minorsky and many other scholars they are descendants of Medes. And many Kurds claim that they are descendants of Medes, even Kurdish national anthem embodies that. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

We all have opinions, but this is about sources which is what I've provided. (Btw, no serious modern sources think that the Medes claim is supportable. It's become a politicized claim only.) DeCausa (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@ArordineriiiUkhtt: I appreciate your position and passion, but DeCausa has a point here. Reliable sources are the only thing that article content can be based on. Please familiarize yourself with the WP:NOR guideline. If you feel that the proposal is simply incorrect, then please cite your source. Simply saying "you are wrong" is insufficient. Bring sources to support your position. —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Decausa has presented the facts and the facts speak loud and clear. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Highlighting the sentence "The Kurds have ethnically diverse origins" is some kind of Undo weight .Simply , there is no group of people that is not ethnically diverse .I can understand some nationalistic point of views among Kurds does not like the term Iranic , but that term is a known scientific word with clear usage. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Alborz Fallah: I don't quite follow, although I agree that Kurds may not like the term Iranian. Which scientific term do you mean? Diverse? Ethnically? Iranian? —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Josh3580:Pardon for my delay . I mean the word Iranian or Iranic . The proposed text first gives weight to ethnic diversity among the Kurds , that sentence plus the other one - I mean They are culturally and linguistically closely related to the Iranian peoples and, as a result, are often themselves classified as an Iranian people - are used to explain the reason of calling Kurds Iranian for nationalist Kurds . In Misplaced Pages we don't need to do this . Anyone who dislikes the scientific terms can change it in scientific texts and not Misplaced Pages .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Alborz Fallah, that's quite an unfair interpretation. The Encyclopedia of Islam a highly authoritative and neutral source presents the topic this way. DeCausa (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa :I think you mean the sentence "The classification of the Kurds among the Iranian nations is based mainly on linguistic and historical data and does not prejudice the fact there is a complexity of ethnical elements incorporated in them". No problem with that fact , but combination of the facts and presenting them as the most important part (lead section ) is the problem . The sentence can easily be added to the body of the text , but using it in the beginning of the article may give the impression that classification of the Kurds as Iranian (Iranic ) is not established and academic ( at least if it is , is still a matter of debate )--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

We should reflect the most reliable sources, not pick and choose what suits us. The fact is that Misplaced Pages articles usually note in the lead mixed origins where the amalgamation of distinct peoples is prominent in the sources and is relatively recent (in recorded history eg in the last 1000 years or so). See for example English people, French people and many others. If one goes far enough back of course all peoples are an amalgamation, but we should follow the sources on how they treat the subject. For example, you probably have to go back well over a 1000 years and well into the neolithic to trace the amalgam that created Norwegian people who have (until recent decades) been relatively homogenous for several millenia. The important thing is to be guided by the sources and not make our own choices - that's how this issue is dealt with in peoples articles in Misplaced Pages - except highly politicised ones where it is a struggle to maintain NPOV, such as this one. DeCausa (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not true that reliable sources say that the Kurds' mixture is of Iranic peoples only. See for example David McDowall (14 May 2004). A Modern History of the Kurds: Third Edition. I.B.Tauris. pp. 8–10. ISBN 978-1-85043-416-0., described by The Washington Post as the best history of the Kurds, which states they are a mixture of Iranian, Semitic, Turkic and other peoples. This happened in the last thousand years plus. The origin of the word Kurd is a separate issue. We should mention in the lead because it is significant aspect of the ethnogenisis of the Kurds: a mixed population that was Iranicised/Kurdicised relatively recently. DeCausa (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What's the main stream and dominant view ? Is the point of view that says the Kurds have an ethnogenesis including Turks and Semitic Peoples dominant ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Fallah's statements are adequate, clear and mainstream. We Kurds are iranic. Some Kurds deny it because of some political reasons-independence movements- and misleading meanings of the word "iranian". Many of them take it as " from iran" instead of being "iranic". Being mixed with other people such as Semitics, Turks and Armenians are different issue-plus there are no nation that are " unmixed" -The discussion is needless i think. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Support I think the proposed language is neutral and is an accurate synthesis of the sources -- which are not unanimous in their word choices and reflect a diversity of descriptions and level of detail. --GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Question are all the Kurds fighting ISIL in Iraq and Syria just there on holiday. GregKaye 20:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of your question and how does it relate to this? I can't even guess. DeCausa (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@GregKaye: I'm glad you have a great sense of humor, but I also don't see how that comment contributes to the discussion. —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Support this proposed wording. Kurds are Kurds. There is no reason to call them Iranian, unless a specific Kurd happens to hold an Iranian passport. The term Iranian now commonly means "of or relating to Iran or its people." or a native or inhabitant of Iran, or a person of Iranian descent." so the word Iranian is very closely tied to the country of Iran. If Kurds are called Iranian it delegitimizes their presence in Turkey, Iraq and Syria. Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

If the problem is the word "Iranian", then we can use the word "Iranic", instead of "Iranian". Because I agree with user Alborz Fallah's statements about the proposal. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Originally called here by a bot for the RFC. But looking at the well sourced proposal here it is very good. AlbinoFerret 14:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Look all I am saying is that the term "Iranian" is a very loose term and people can get easily confused when they see this. Iranic would be a better term to use. Nontheless, there is no doubt that the Kurdish language is a bit similar to other languages such as Persian but there is also a difference as well. I am speaking as a Kurd myself. There is evidence that the Kurds have the highest chance out of all the other ethnic groups of being descendants of the Medes, all one has to do is look at lingustics. Although, it is also important to know that the Kurds have been in the middle east for a very very long time, and there have been many other empires/people as well. There have also been, for example, claims that Kurds are also descendants of the Gutians. It all boils down to what you believe, but to say that the Kurds are an Iranian people, is sort of going overboard.

Kurds have been mentioned for a very longtime by many different people, including the Sumerians!

Nonetheless, I think there should be a change. I sort of agree with the Proposal above but I believe it can be better. Heres what I think should be written

Kurds are an ethnic group in the Middle East that inhabit adjacent parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syira known as Kurdistan. The Kurds speak a language known as Kurdish, which form a subgroup of the NorthWestern Iranian languages. The Kurds are known to be an Iranic people because of close linguistic and cultural ties with other Iranians. The Kurds are also known to be descendants of the Medes, according to many scholars.

Somewhere along those lines. Saying that Kurds are an "Iranian ethnic group" is is vague, confusing, and somewhat mis-leading. What I wrote is a bit more clear and I wrote why they are considered an Iranic people with the sentences supporting it. Notice how I also said a language known as Kurdish. I do not know on what insane consensus that people decided it should be "Kurdish language(s)." Kurdish is one language which is mainly based of two dialects, that are spoken by almost all Kurds. Those two dialects are Kurmanji and Sorani, both of which are highly similar. All Kurds regard their language as one. I am a Kurdish Sorani speaker and I can understand a Kurmanji speaker perfectly. Kurds in Turkey, Syria, and Half of Iraq speak Kurmanji. Then the other Half of Iraqi Kurdistan speak Sorani, with Kurds in Iran speaking Kurdish Sorani as well. There are also a few other dialects such as Hawrami which is spoken by about 10% of Kurds. Nonetheless, the Kurdish language is one language with 2 main dialects, both of which are highly similar to each other.

Bawer1 18:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Bawer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs)

"It all boils down to what you believe". No it doesn't - Misplaced Pages doesn't work like that. We just summarise the reliable sources and it doesn't matter what we personally believe. I don't think you've understood what I wrote about how Misplaced Pages works in my first post above. DeCausa (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa you are such an idiot. I was talking about the origin of the Kurds. Since Kurds are heterogeneous people, I used that statement. You need to read what I wrote thoroughly. Misplaced Pages is such full of crap, I gave many links to my statement on Joshs page. I know what I am writing is facts. I did what you asked by writing in this talk page. Misplaced Pages even refers to the Kurdish language as language(s)which does not even make any sense. I am a Kurd myself, I know what I am talking about. Please give me at least 2 reliable sources that refers to the Kurdish language as language(s). The facts I wrote about the Kurdish language can even by seen on Misplaced Pages. I have information. I have studied. You act as if I am just using information I got out of nowhere. When in fact, it is those people that you allow to change information, which create these problems. You did not even allow anybody to look at my proposal before you jumped in, I posted this proposal only a few hours ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Here are links to the Kurdish language. http://www.omniglot.com/writing/kurdish.htm http://www.institutkurde.org/en/language/ http://www.kurdishacademy.org/?q=node/41 http://www.krg.org/p/p.aspx?l=12&p=215

Please tell me where do any of you see that it is says language(s). Kurdish is one language!! Just like how Kurds can not be regarded as an "Iranian" people. That is the wrong term to use. Please look at what I wrote above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but here are four sources that reference multiple Kurdish languages: , , and . You'll note that the last one says scholars call them "languages" but Kurdish nationalists refuse to do so. The websites you refer to are not good enough sources for Misplaced Pages. I don't think you understand how Misplaced Pages operates. What you know or think you know is irrelevant. I've tried to explain but you don't get it. Maybe someone else will try. I'm done. DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What nationalism? Almost every source regards the Kurdish language as one. Out of all the sources you managed to find 4 that said otherwise. One of which, actually did somewhat agree with me. Look at link number 9, second paragraph. It amazes me at how bias you are. Just because I am speaking the truth makes me a nationalist? God, how much did they offer you to be so biased?

I am constantly showing facts. You did not even allow anyone to take a good look at my Proposal before you jumped in. Do you actually think your doing a good job? Wow, wikipedia amazes me more and more each day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bawer1: Please refrain from ad hominem arguments. None of our editors are paid, this is a volunteer project. You aren't getting paid, are you? I only wish I were paid for my contributions here, but that's just not how it works. You have to accept the fact that some will disagree with you. If your proposal is the best way forward, then you will gain a consensus. If it isn't, then you won't. Make your case, as you have started to do here, but don't attack other editors because they disagree. —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Josh3580 Either you are blind to the truth, or you are biased as well. Out all the sources, this guy managed to four that disagreed with my statement. When in fact almost all the other sources say otherwise. Why did he only pick those four, it is actually 3 by the way since on of them is irrelevant. This guy DeCausa ignored all the majority of the sources that are present and only picked out the very few that disagree with me. Is that bias or what? I am telling you that "Iranain" is the wrong term to describe Kurds and the Kurdish language is one language. I am stating obvious facts that almost any historian or person would agree with me. You say that I need to submit a Proposal, well here it is? I gave links to support my statement, and I carefully explained why my statement was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You haven't produced any reliable sources. We don't go by your personal opinions I'm afraid. DeCausa (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bawer1: I'm sorry that you think I am biased. But once again, arguing against the person (ad hominem), is not how we get things done here. Just produce your arguments and sources, and the community will decide. I thought that DeCausa did a great job at including your point of view, as well as the current consensus, which opposes your point of view. Compromise is the best way to go here. Misplaced Pages is not around to only include one side of an argument. It should include information that is proportionally representative of multiple views. —Josh3580_talk/hist 04:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The first proposition includes both viewpoints in a proportional manner, and this proposal seems to be a bit vague, and moves a bit too far in the other direction. While the WP:NPOV policy does not require including all points of view, it does require proportional representation of multiple points of view, as evidenced by the sources. The current consensus is biased, as is this proposal. We should, within reason, be inclusive and representative of the sources. —Josh3580_talk/hist 04:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Josh3580 of course you are going to oppose it because you are biased. Despite the fact that I have also provided you with evidence. Not to mention the fact that more people on this talk page agree more with removing the incorrect term of "Iranian." So i don't know why I see no changes? Oh way that is right because you are a biased person who is being told what to do by someone else. That is the only reasonable explanation I can find for your decisions because I cant think of anyone who would deny factual evidenece over and over again if he is not being paid by someone else to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bawer1: - Do you honestly think, that of my 18,378 edits, that I have been randomly paid to contribute to this single article? Is there some sort of pattern to my contributions that makes you think that I am some sort of paid shill, or is it simply the fact that I and @DeCausa: somewhat disagree with you in this discussion? If I were paid to contribute, would I be trying to argue that, as you quoted me, "The current consensus is biased, as is this proposal. We should, within reason, be inclusive and representative of the sources."? I really am sorry that we disagree on this subject, but accusing me of being a PAID meatpuppet is uncivil and completely out of line, especially being fresh off of a block. I am only trying to engage in discussion, and I have not accused you of anything, I have tried to only discuss the content of this article.

@Bawer1: here are the facts:

1. 12 users posted views on this thread (headed "Kurds") and the next thread (headed "Kurds are not Iranian" which appears to be an extension of this thread). These 11 registered users and 1 IP expressed their views as follows:

• 7 support my proposal, which is a compromise between complete removal of "Iranian" and the current wording. These are: me, Josh3580, Dan Koehl, Kansas Bear, Godblessyou2, Legacypac and Albino Ferret.
• 2 oppose my proposal: ArordineriiiUkhtt and Alborz Fallah (plus I suppose you too which makes it 3) But the reason they oppose it is they don't want to water down the "Iranian" aspect and want to keep the existing wording - not remove "Iranian".
• 2 support your proposal i.e. yourself and an IP who posted on 10 January. This was while you were on your 2 week block. Was it you posting while you were not logged in?
• 3 have expressed support for replacing "Iranian" with "Iranic". These are ArordineriiiUkhtt, Alborz Fallah and Wiqi55.

So, your repeated comment that most people agree with you just isn't true, is it?

2. I have provided 11 books as sources. All comply with Misplaced Pages's reliable sources criteria. You have provided 4 websites. One is a political website and two are effectively just self-published with no quality control or scholarly credentials. These do not comply with Misplaced Pages's criteria and cannot be used. The fourth does comply with Misplaced Pages's reliable sources criteria, but doesn't have anything to say about whether the Kurds are an Iranian people but describes the language as "Irano-aryan". None of your sources actually deny that Kurds are an Iranian people. So, you've provided no evidence for your position and all you do is just keep saying loudly that you are in the right.

I suggest you go to Google Books (don't bother with websites - anyone can set up a website and say whatever they want) and do some work searching for evidence supporting your position. If you're not prepared to put that sort of effort in, no one is interested in hearing your opinions. DeCausa (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: The request made for a 3O in reference to the foregoing dispute has been declined because it was primarily a dispute about user conduct, not about article content per se. 3O only handles matters concerning content, not conduct. For conduct disputes, speak to a administrator or file at AN or ANI or, in this particular case, seek input at conflict of interest noticeboard or, perhaps, the neutral point of view noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer)

• It seems to me that this question could be solved by using more explicit language. To say that the Kurds are an Iranian people primarily means that 1. their language belong to a group of languages that linguists call "The Iranian language", 2. their descend from an ethnic group that split into the ancestral groups of all the Iranian peoples, including the Persians, the Balochi, the Pashto, the Tajik, the Avestans etc.. It does not mean that they have any relation historical or otherwise to the country Iran. Hence it seems that to be more explicit about the linguistic and historical aspect of "being an Iranian people" would be good. I would propose something along these lines:

The Kurds (Template:Lang-ku) are a Middle Eastern ethnic group, inhabiting a contiguous area spanning adjacent parts of modern-day Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, a geo-cultural region often referred to as "Kurdistan". The Kurds speak the Kurdish languages, which form a subgroup of the Northwestern Iranian branch of Iranian languages. They are closely related to the other Iranian speaking peoples such as the Baloch people, and probably descended from the ancient Medes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you clarify how in substance it differs from my proposal which essentially says the same thing. There is a point of detail which is different: reliable sources don't give much importance to the theory of the relationship with the Medes. Also, my proposal has inline citations. DeCausa (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not different in substance, but it is different in the wording which I think at the core is what the argument is about - because it is the word "iranian" that is potentially confusing and therefore requires explicit clarification. Also my proposal avoids the problem of stating "is an iranian people", which is inevitably going to be a controversy magnet, and which is in any case simply a nother way of saynig that they speak an Iranian language. The relationship with the medes is not important and can be removed if so desired, the point is to demonstrate that noone is claiming that they are most closely related to the people of modern Iran. We dont usually use inline citations in the lead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the objections to my proposal come from people who don't like its weakening of the Iranian connection. There's really only one user who's objecting to it because the Iranian connection is too strong in it. So I'm not sure whether you'll get more support - I'll leave it to others to comment. DeCausa (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a question of weakening the Iranian connection it is a quesiton of clarifying what it means. Stating "is an Iranian people" does not do that sufficiently in my opinion, because most readers will likely take that to mean "having a relation to Iran" or maybe even "heing from Iran". But that is not what it means, it simply means belonging to the same cultural-linguistic grouping as the people of Iran (and a bunch of other peoples outside of Iran), and sharing a deep historical ancestry with them. I think the best Lead would be one that describes this explicitly, and I think it should have the capacity to satisfy both sides of the argument here, which is why I offered an alternative proposal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"The problem is that most of the objections to my proposal come from people who don't like its weakening of the Iranian connection." Well said ! I think if other users have an alternative proposal, they can write it here. Maybe adding the definition of Iranian/Iranic people to the end of the beginning paragraph may be of help .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Josh3580 You know, Josh I seriously think that you take me as someone who was born yesterday. Go look at your so called "facts." I said that most people agree with removing the term Iranian, and you proved that I was correct. Do you think you can really fool me? By putting the people that agree more with me into separate categories? You were the person or DeCausa who literally told me that you based your decision on a consensus, and not on facts. Now you are telling me that the consensus is biased, as is the proposal? What kind of bullshit is that? Then you want me to believe that you are not biased? You have stop and use your intellect before you make a statement. Do you not see that there is also even another person who agrees with me, the person right above me (Maunus). Whom has given an agreeable propsal as well. I doubt, however, that you will make any changes. At first I gave you sources, then you said that I need to instead give a proposal and see if I can get more people to agree with me, which has already happened. Now you are saying that the consensus is biased. Yeah, Im pretty sure that you and DeaCausa are the only ones that are biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Just change "Iranian" to "Iranic" to satisfy Kurdish nationalists/ethnocentrists who hate their origin (Iranian/Aryan) and do not understand a simple and common ethno-linguistic term, category and classification. For God's sake, please read Iranian peoples, Iranian languages, and Indo-Iranians. It seems that WP will become a big blog/forum in the near future, because unlike the past, current editors just want to write their personal opinions in the articles. If you remove "Iranian" from the lead section, It has no effect on academic and scholary sources, but it just makes WP a bunch of laughable and unreliable texts. Are you here to build an encyclopedia or a website full of useless content? --188.158.71.179 (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Kurds are not Iranian.

Iran or Iranian are modern concepts to describe a state that was formed by Reza Shah, the Persian King, by use of war, accompanied with suppression of other ethnic groups in the geography which is known as Iran. You cannot find a trace of the word of Iran in any international documents. Persian suppressed the other ethnic groups in this area and established a Persian state and called it Iran. Prior to the Reza Shah, Ottoman Turks and Persia had occupied Kurdistan and had divided it between themselves in a treaty called Zahaw. After defeat of Ottoman Empire Iraq and Syria and Turkey emerged by support of the Britain and France.While Kurds were supposed to have their state based on the Treaty of Serves, their endeavors to reach their right to self determination was suppressed by Turkey and Iran and their leaders were Killed or Executed. Kurds are not Iranian and they are Kurds and their land has been occupied by Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria that is why there have been numerous movements and fights in Kurdistan and so far all of themhave been harshly suppressed by those countries. Kurds leaders like Simko, Dr, Ghasemlou, and Dr, Sharafkandi have been assassinated by Iranians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:7E80:488:E062:EA51:E53E:62AF (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Read Iranian peoples. In the English language Iranian has two meanings. Here it does not mean it concerns the modern state of Iran. DeCausa (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There is some support for using "Iranic" as a less confusing alternative (see the above discussions). Perhaps replacing "Iranian" with "Iranic" in the lede would solve this issue. Wiqi 13:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that in principle, but it needs to be supported by RS and not merely editors' preference. I only found "Iranic" used once in my sources search (see above - Izady) whilst "Iranian" is widely used. Are you aware of other RS that use it? DeCausa (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Google Books returned a few more sources other than Izady. But I agree, using the more common term should be preferable. Wiqi 19:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct no need for the whole paragraph. The word "Iran" is new and its etymology is one thing, its meaning to present country of Iran is what everyone is contesting. What nation belong to what other nation should be left to evolution or may be even geologists. Kurds are NOT "Iranian" both on common sense and scientific grounds. Citations 33, 34 and 35 are all nothing but lazy Iranian amateur attempts at "assimilating" Kurds even on Wiki. Citation 35 is clearly an "Iranian" guys work. I will watch this space if someone does not remove the above warning.--هیوا (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is not relevant. Only reliable sources count. The citations you refer to aren't even Iranian authors. DeCausa (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither is yours or anyone else's the "RecurringThemes" has to be reported as it is POV only. I will consult Mr Izady (PhD or professor or Kurd) and update this page. This is not how a scholar should talk. Please do not touch the section header. --هیوا (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Check out the Columbia citation then tell us if that's not misrepresentation? Plus, Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/325191/Kurd till I get to the library & check the other two citations. --هیوا (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you not see the thread immediately above this one? The issue was subject to an RFC and detailed discussion which has only just been closed by an admin. The lead is the result of that RFC and nothing you have said raises any new point. By the way, I don't why you've inserted a citation needed tag. The statement is completely covered by the Encyclopedia of Islam citation, amongst others. Having said that I do believe it is unnecessary and repetitive since the Kurds being an Iranian people is fully covered by the following sentences, which was the output of the RFC. DeCausa (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Please reply to my comment regarding the "Columbia" and "Britannica" first then I will reply to the "Islamic" one. 2. I have referred you to your own citation and you keep saying "nothing..." and I refer you to "Britannica" yet you refer me to Encyclopedia of Islam citation which is NOT in the first two paragraphs unless I missed it. 3. To answer your first question: No, I cannot read that much. If you are referring to a consensus, then clearly "Iranians" outnumber Kurds when it comes to not just Wiki but assimilation (my POV of course), so will scholars v amateurs(my POV again). 4. What I can read is para 1 of the opening of the article being at best a POV AND I am trying to find "evidence". 5. Did it occur to any of the contributors to just "google scholar" the sentence? Please note the number of citations. 6. Citation 32 (p9) and 33(p159) DO NOT state such a sentence or infer such meaning, my copy of "The Kurds: a people in search of their homeland. K McKiernan. 2006" has even to the contrary (image1 and imag2), based on 1-5, the citations (34,35 and 36) must be checked as the contested issue is where the "citation needed" tag is. Therefore, the "citation needed" tag is an absolute necessity subject to this whole page, at least a citation that the sentence is based on a "consensus". Thanks for the patience, as said will consult Mr Izady's. --هیوا (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, this debate ended a week ago with the admin closure of the RFC above. Whilst consensus can change, 7 days is too short a period of time. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, before I jump onto conclusions, is proposal 1 the ones to be used? IF so why hasn't it been used? Thanks --هیوا (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It's the first proposal: it's in the the white box. It isn't actually labelled "Proposal 1". It's under the sub-heading "Proposal". If you look at the top of the thread admin Drmies determined the result of the RFC. And I don't know why you say it hasn't been used, I added to the article a few days ago. DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"and, as a result, are often themselves classified as an Iranian people." That is what you mean right? Now, that citation which is 36 in the article from the so called Encyclopaedia of Islam. This has no source at all, please have a look at it, it is A SINGLE view (not POV for wiki but contestable scientifically) of Encyclopaedia of Islam alone. I have offered, so far, Britannica and Columbia (which is a reference itself) as well as citations 32,33 and McKiernan's and more will be coming. Why are you insisting on this? Under this "holy" RFC even, the worst way to sort this dispute, in my opinion, is to give the "famous" Encyclopaedia of Islam" citation that you use within the RFC where my citation needed tag is. As for Kurds and an RFC, we are too busy fighting Daesh as someone said.--هیوا (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Let no one misguide you how the first text was. Please read it. Thanks. --هیوا (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You're not making much sense. I think you need to read the discussion in the RFC moe carefully. Firstly, that wasn't the only change arising out of the RFC. It was all the changes in this edit. The sources for attaching "Iranian" to the Kurds were discussed in the RFC. The Encyclopedia of Islam is extremely well known and reputable. But as you can see in the RFC many many other sources describe the Kurds as an "Iranian people". This has been settled and I'm not engaging further. DeCausa (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I am making "extremely well" sense you just need to read it again. I will take your "settled and I'm not engaging further." elsewhere if need be. There are 6 "support"s and at least 2 opposes, even if there were 100 supports (all POV right), in wiki citations count, let us count those: 5 against and 1 in favour. 1. Please show me one more source that reflects "There is no "pure" race in the world. Persians also heterogenous, Turks, Jews, etc'" yet "Kurds are an Iranian" based on 2. an RFC from end of Dec 2014 to end of Jan 2015?. There is new evidence case should be reopened Mr/Ms Lawyer jury or no jury.--هیوا (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Why isnt a pic of Abdullah Ocalan on the right hand side of the beginning to this article?

One of the most influential and important Kurds in the present time. Especially considering pics of both Barzani and Talabani are there, it is pretty biased actually not to show Ocalan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.52.222 (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The infobox lists Kurds that have their own article. It's not really a popularity contest. I agree with you however that Ocalans picture should probably be there. ~ Zirguezi 21:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I added him. Removed Ahmed Kaya. ~ Zirguezi 21:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Kurds are not Iranian people. They are "Kurds". They have their own culture and they are a specific nation. So please edit the part that says that Kurds are Iranian/Persian. 95.159.98.235 (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: You're misunderstanding the use of Iranian peoples. It does not refer to the nation of Iran and their people, but as it says on the linked article, a ethno-linguistic group. Cannolis (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That's right. The Kurdish langauges belong to the Iranian ethno-linguistic group. But it would be better to put this to the language section of the article and not in the introduction. The Kurds are not mainly defined by their language. But first of all the Kurd are an ethnic group or folk. --Moplayer (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"an ethnic Iranian group"

The Kurds are not an "Iranian group". They do not belong to Arab, Turks or Persians. But the Kurds are a standalone ethnic group. --Moplayer (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

And please do not tell me the reason that the Kurdish langauges belong to the Iranian ethno-linguistic group. I already know this, but then it would be better to put this to the language section of the article and not in the introduction. Best Regards --Moplayer (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The Kurds are Iranian both ethnically and linguistically

The most recent scientific studies have proven the historical and traditional scholastic views that the Kurds are an Iranian People both ethnically and linguistically among various other attributes. In this note we are going to examine some of those evidences.

Before expanding on this subject I must address this to "Bawer1"; pls note that along with your claims you must also provide reliable references and/or scientific study results to support your claims, otherwise this whole subject you are pursuing is pointless. Now, regarding some of your claims here dated on 29 December 2014.

First of all, contrary to your claim, “Novrooz” is an Iranian celebration; historically it has been celebrated since at least the Median and Achaemenid empires and mythologically speaking since the “Jamshid-e-Pishdadi” era according to the Avesta and the Shahnameh of Pardisi. The “Kurds” are an Iranian people that is why Novrooz is an inseparable part of the Kurdish traditions as part of the larger Iranian cultural spectrum. Novrooz in a wider view is part of the history and culture of the various peoples and ethnicities both in the region and beyond.

Also you claim: “Kurds have been mentioned many times throughout many different scholarly sources and most of them do not regard Kurds as "Iranian."”

Answer: Can you show us at least some of those ‘many different scholarly sources’?

And: “There is genetic, historical, and cultural evidence that shows that Kurds are one of the most distinct people in the middle east. As a matter of fact, Kurds are so distinct that the only reason that they is still discussion today on what origin the Kurds are.”

Answer: Again can you show us some of those ‘genetic, historical, and cultural evidence’?

Now on the main point of the discussion;

Regarding Ethnic Origins and Genetic Studies; It needs to be considered that from the genetic point of view all Iranian peoples are heterogeneous including the Kurds, but that does not even minutely change the Iranian origin of such people due to the fact the anthropological and ethnic studies do not work that way. Throughout history, the Iranian Plateau has been like a bridge between four continents and subject to several migrations and invasions for millennia, that particular distinctive makes the genetic composition of the Iranian peoples incl. the Kurds a heterogeneous one. Meanwhile, the geneticists have certain scientific methods and protocols to classify various ethnic groups, for example, studying the composition of the mitochondrial DNA results in accurate conclusions in determining the origin of a heterogeneous ethnic group, as for the fact the mitochondrial DNA remains intact even after several millennia of migrations, invasions and intermarriages that may have occurred in a certain region such as the Iranian Plateau. For more info regarding such methodology in genetic studies of Iranian ethnic groups view this link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21912140

• The Iranian Origin of the Kurds is Verified by Genetic Studies;

The genetic studies have concluded the Kurds are of Iranian origin. With the advent of recent scientific studies in genome projects the original opinion is confirmed that there are more similarities between the genetic composition of various Kurdish tribes throughout the region and other Iranian people;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18001303

"HLA class II similarities in Iranian Kurds and Azeris."

"The genetic relationship between Kurds and Azeris of Iran was investigated based on human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class II profiles. HLA typing was performed using polymerase chain reaction/restriction fragment-length polymorphism (PCR/RFLP) and PCR/sequence-specific primer (PCR/SSP) methods in 100 Kurds and 100 Azeris. DRB1*1103/04, DQA1*0501 and DQB1*0301 were the most common alleles and DRB1*1103/04-DQA1*0501-DQB1*0301 was the most frequent haplotype in both populations. No significant difference was observed in HLA class II allele distribution between these populations except for DQB1*0503 which showed a higher frequency in Kurds. Neighbor-joining tree based on Nei's genetic distances and correspondence analysis according to DRB1, DQA1 and DQB1 allele frequencies showed a strong genetic tie between Kurds and Azeris of Iran. The results of amova revealed no significant difference between these populations and other major ethnic groups of Iran. No close genetic relationship was observed between Azeris of Iran and the people of Turkey or Central Asians. According to the current results, present-day Kurds and Azeris of Iran seem to belong to a common genetic pool."

Also by referring to one of the most recent genetic studies conducted by a combined team of scientists, geneticists, anthropologists, and archaeologists from the universities and Cambridge and Portsmouth, on the chronology and the origins of the Iranian people in general, we can also conclusively place the Kurds among the various ethnicities of the Iranian Peoples, even the lead scientists of this study can be contacted directly, including the geneticist Dr. Maziar Ashrafian Bonab from Portsmouth university, who has also concluded the presence of the Aryan (Iranian) people in the “Greater Iran” region since before the last Ice Age i.e. 18000-12000 BP, therefore adding another reason to rebuff the previous “Aryan Invasion Theory” from the north to the Iranian Plateau;
http://www.port.ac.uk/school-of-biological-sciences/staff/dr-maziar-ashrafian-bonab.html

As an extra note, what needs to be observed here is that so far no scientific source or a reliable reference has been found to have questioned the Iranian origin of the Kurds, if there is anyone who is claiming otherwise must mention those sources here to back up his/her claim.

It is not at all correct to say that “people whom have decided that Kurds are Iranian have only looked at linguistics”, in fact, those scientists have looked at many other components besides linguistics and even genetics. The importance of language and genetics in studying ethnography is undeniable, however there are other factors that must be and are considered as important in finding the origin of an ethnic group, such as; geography, culture, thoughts, traditions, religion, writing, architecture, costumes, cuisines, folklores, stories, games, and so on. It is based on these key concepts among others that all reliable scholars identify the Kurds an Iranian people; these available sources are some examples among many for you to refer to for further information about this subject;

«Historical Dictionary of the Kurds, by Michael M. Gunter»
http://books.google.com.au/books/about/?id=zDRGO6EgapMC

«In Depth History of the Kurds and Kurdistan, by Sardar Pishdare»
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=-46ZAgAAQBAJ

«Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224-642, by Dr. Kaveh Farrokh»
https://books.google.com.au/books/about/?id=566PXereaPsC

«Kurdish Politics in the Middle East, Nader Entessar»
http://books.google.com.au/books/about/?id=1ig7vi3Oc9QC

«Kurds, Arabs and Britons: The Memoir of Col. W.A. Lyon in Kurdistan, edited by David K. Fieldhouse»
https://books.google.com.au/books/about/?id=-qqHttTyIDQC

«Nationalism in Iran: Updated Through 1978, by Richard W. Cottam»
https://books.google.com.au/books/about/?id=wHFXD9VV9t4C
…

• Such separatists-arguments are fueled by political agenda;

You must bear in mind that such an argument of an unclear origin of the Kurds is prompted by separatist misapprehensions, similar to what we see in Azerbaijan, Khuzestan, Sistan and Baluchestan, and so on, and these separatist delusions off and about are instigated and fueled by foreigners who should not have any business or interest in the region whatsoever, but we do see that they have political and economic plots more than anything else. That being said, realistically speaking, in a certain province or region none of the involved fractions believe in being ruled by another, as an example, hypothetically speaking this delusion of separating Kurdistan as a united region is a totally impossible one due to the inevitable occurrence of conflicts between the various fractions for power and territory. For more enlightenment regarding this subject refer to this link;

«Non State Actors in the Middle East: Factors for Peace and Democracy, edited by Galia Golan, Walid Salem»
https://books.google.com.au/books/?id=zE83AgAAQBAJ

And last but not least, a succinct note about the linguistics just to have clarified some points but certainly not a conclusive one, as this subject is one that requires much more in-depth studies respectively. Prof. Gernot Windfuhr (Professor of Iranian Studies, https://archive.org/details/TheIranianLanguages2009) identified Kurdish dialects as Parthian albeit with a Median substratum, and David Neil Mackenzie, thought that the Medes spoke a northwestern Iranian language, while the Kurds speak a southwestern Iranian language. Therefore, based on these views linguistically the Kurds are closer to Parthian (Pahlavi) branch of Iranian peoples though with a sublayer of Median language. That corresponds with the fact we see so much similarity between the language of the Gilaks and Mazanis in the north of Iran, both among the subgroups of Pahlavi language, and the Kurds in the west, so much so these people can understand each other to a great extent as they speak their own languages. You can also see the striking similarities in appearance and many other attributes between the Kurds, the Gilaks, and the Mazanis, all of whom being among the large spectrum of Iranian Peoples. Armaiti (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Population - Jews

Why are the so-called "Jews of Kurdistan" included in the population numbers? Shmayo (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I was refering to the template and the population in Israel. I just saw that there is a section about this too, which fits on Kurdistan, as someone suggested here a couple of years ago. I saw that this has been brought up more than once, but no one has really made any changes. The statement about Aramaic-speaking Kurdish Christians is weird too. Shmayo (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Since there has been no other input on this I'll be removing some things related to "Jews of Kurdistan", including the section about Judaism. Same goes for the strange sentence about some supposed Aramaic-speak Kurdish Christians. Shmayo (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree.--هیوا (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Kurdistan articles
• Top-importance Kurdistan articles
• WikiProject Kurdistan articles
• C-Class Armenian articles
• Low-importance Armenian articles
• WikiProject Armenia articles
• C-Class Iran articles
• Mid-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles
• C-Class Iraq articles
• High-importance Iraq articles
• WikiProject Iraq articles
• C-Class Syria articles
• Mid-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• C-Class Turkey articles
• High-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• C-Class Ethnic groups articles
• Unknown-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles