Talk:Kurds/Archive 6

message: I've temporarily protected this page due to the recent edit war over sources being added. I'll take it off in a day or two, but please use this time to come to consensus over the sources here, and cool down in general. --InShaneee 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for protection. Diyako Talk + 23:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: So what if Kurds are linguistically and (based on some sources) ethnically close to Iranians? We have talked about all this before (those who are not familiar with this article should read the materials in the archive). The article already says Kurds speak an Iranian language and it says that according to some sources they're ethnically close to Iranians. Please read Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. AucamanTalk 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you have been doing just that regarding the "Aryan" issue. All that other editors have been doing is adding sources. SouthernComfort 02:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: There are already several Authorative sources plus some other links which sure can be added in the text, but the most neutral and correct wording for the matter is the last version by me and removing the Iranian word to the second paragraph where it discuss the ethniciy of Kurds.  It reflects all existing sources. and I support that. what is your opinion? Diyako Talk + 14:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Diyako. I believe the current version is the correct version as supported by the reference already there --Kash 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that it is not an accepted and widely-used wording in the definition of Kurdish people. Kurds are not defined as Iranians! but only their language. Kurds are defined as Kurds, sometimes close to Iranians, sometimes with uncertain ethnic origions. Diyako Talk + 17:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: I would like to re insert the archived argument of users:shapurAriani
and Tombseye
As none of the collective (anti-mention of Iranian) logic seems to address it 
once archived they are starting the arguments from scratch when confronted with 
logic ...the response is to verify and when sources are presented we get this:
 
if you go up to a kurd and ask him?....or saying Kurds are Iranians will create 
the impression that they are Iranian refugees...??
please .. What is an ethnic group .. ? 
if the Iranian is erased  
then it will create the impression that Kurds have been wandering the 
globe through ages never having been part of a nation.. ?so instead of 
founders of the median empire in a way a precursor to all the rest of the post aryan
kingdoms they are relegated to Corduene at best or the far more accurate 
statement that their origins are uncertain ?
whose origins are certain will the real ...(so and so) please stand up
... how can you verify that 2 or 5 or 7 centuaries ago the people inhabiting the 
regions refered to as kurdistan would consider themselves distinct in this sense. 
it is injustice to the contribution of this member tribe of the Iranian 
family considering their contribution to the various Iranian empires
cultural institutions, works of art and litrature ...
I cant help but laugh anytime I review the archive and come upon the 
argument of a respected user who mentioned that kurds dance in groups 
while the rest of Iranian people like to dance individually ...and 
therefore?? 
Surely we are in territory of the comical ...by now--193.167.6.96 04:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic Classification 

message: Which Kurds speak Aramaic? Source? Chaldean 17:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kurdish Jews . Diyako Talk + 18:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Language 

message: Thanks to Heja, we have another source: The Kurds, an Iranian people of the Near East, live at the junction of more or less laicised Turkey, ÷9Ê#i Iran, Arab and SunnÊ #Ir§Î and North Syria,-and Soviet Transcaucasia." Doesn't say anything about "Iranian" being a linguistic term. SouthernComfort 00:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, You have only two but on the other hand there are thousands sources which does not accept that. According to wikipedia policy that wording is an uncommon and not widely-used wording and is not the main which says the last word. and there are others which says they are only close to them not completely part of them! In adition the same above mentioned link claims it is not based on ethnicity!! Xebat Talk + 00:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another source

message: Insisting that kurds are iranians, and   that this must be the first fact presented  about them, is not neutral. The neutrality tag is definitley in  order as long as this controversial adjective stands. --Vindheim 01:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Several sources have been provided. SouthernComfort 01:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  and contested --Vindheim 01:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:V. SouthernComfort 01:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have reviewed the sources, I don't see a POV --Kash 03:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one asked you for reviewing and mediation. Xebat Talk + 03:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop your incivil and rude comments. WP:CIVIL --Kash 04:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for this reference. This is a good one. I like it. In adition it says at that time Iranian tribes had been called Kurds. because as even you said the term Kurd became a life style term. many tribes (not only Iranians but even Arabs, assyrians, Armenians) considered themselves or by outsiders as Kurds. By the way it is not bad to have a Name section in the article discussing the word Kurd. Xebat Talk + 04:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of view 

message: I have a possible solution to the revert war that happened. Here's what the 1st paragraph looked like awhile back:
The Kurds are an ethnic group inhabiting parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (a region commonly referred to as Kurdistan i.e. Upper Mesopotamia). Smaller communities can also be found in Lebanon, Armenia, and Azarbaijan (Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh) and some Western countries.
We can add all the stuff about their origins/"who they are" further down the page, but there was a similar conflict like this a few months ago and this is how it was solved. Please let me know what you think, thanks. --Khoikhoi 08:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry there was a edit conflic when I wrote my comment by you repeated my error!!The term Iranian is a problematic word. A few people use it. it hs no definted meaning. it is an uncommon word. There is no obligation to label kurds as Iranian as some uninformed users to the mater formerly wanted. If there is an obligation to inset in adjective which is there not there are many more common ones. Xebat Talk + 13:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I have to say you're completely wrong Xebat (Iranian is not an "uncommon word"), do you agree with the solution? --Khoikhoi 16:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With not labelling them as you have explained above? It is the most correct and common way. Yes, I agree. Xebat Talk + 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay here is a compromise solution for Kak Xebat.  The term Iranic is slowly gaining acceptance in some Academic cricles for Kurds.  This means that they are an Iranian ethno-linguistic group, but not necessarily citizens of Iranian.  BTW here is a source from a major party of Iraq: http://www.knn.u-net.com/kurd4.htm   BTW the articles political content I disagree with and there are names like Rojan, Roojin, Hiwa..in Iran.  But here I just wanted to talk about what a major party thinks.  Else the article is definitely not pro-Iranian and in even considers Laki, Luri.. as Kurdish.  But I just wanted to point out that even a not necessarily pro-Iranian site, states that Kurds are Iranian (Iranic).  --Ali doostzadeh 18:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would also like to request cousin Xebat to agree to Iranic for the sake of all that we share, listen to this http://www.kurdistany.com/Musics/Shahram_N/01%20-%20Khor%20Aavaaz.WMA from Shahname Kurdi/Avaz e Asatir it may help you digest some of our love --Loosekarma 20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use every thing you like but not as definition of Kurdish people because it is hardly used in this way. I've agreed with Khoikhoi's proposal which even formerly once again was agreed on. (Thanks for your link. Kurds have a distinct literature and culture ) After all of these AFD's with your turki friends against Kurdish articles I'm glad that you still call us as Cousin or Kak! Xebat Talk + 21:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution? 

message: It says 15 million Kurds in Kurdistan parts of Turkey? This is a ridicilously false information. Kurds are everywhere in Turkey, they are not isolated in a certain region, only in Istanbul their numbers are more than 1 million. When the page is unlocked, please correct this information. These are little games from Kurdish nationalist users here, they are checking how much they can distort information without getting noticed.--Kagan the Barbarian 15:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not say Kurdish nationalists as we maybe already have several turco-Mongolic ultra-natioalists here. You knwo that in next several decades Kurds are in majority in turkey instead of turks?!!72.232.89.58 21:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes It is a very good source I read it. Also there are many reliable sources which state much higher figures as 25% or 30% of turkeys population, i.e. about: 22,5 million Kurds in turkey. The infobox says significant population, in addition we can use the word Mainly in front of the word Kurdistan. Xebat Talk + 21:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I really wonder how these so-called sources decided the percentage of the Kurdish population. Because nobody asked me or anybody I know if they are Kurds. Did they make a survey and ask 1000 people if they are Kurds? So if 20% of the group said yes, that equals to 20% of Turkey's population? Hahaha, brilliant. Ever heard of the Butterfly effect? A %5 increase (50 more Kurds) in the survey equals to % 5 increase in Kurdish pop. ratio in Turkey, which is 3,500,000. 50 to 3,500,000. These surveys are bullshit in calculating population ratio. In near future Turkey must do its own research and determine how many people there are in this country who identify themselves as Kurds and how many of them actually support Kurdistan. I am pretty sure the number won't be as exaggerated by Western sources or by Kurdish nationalists. Many Kurds live in western Turkey, integrated with us through marriage and business. Kurdish nationalists are a bunch of thousand mobs who abuse the poverty of some Kurds through populist propaganda. Have you seen the events in Diyarbakır? A couple of thousand vandals destroyed what you'd call a Kurdish city. They trashed down stores and banks, now the people of the city can't even get basic food because every store is closed. These are not rebels, these are vandals controlled by a few. 95% of the mob were kids, 5% I assume the organizers, providers and provocators. Kurd or Turk, people want stability and prosperity. Your Kurdistan dream will only bring thousands of death to the region. But what do you care, right? You are probably somehwere in Northern Europe posting these. There'll always be poor ignorant Kurds to fight your good war and die, eh?--Kagan the Barbarian 07:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do not discuss Turkish politics here, because it wont' convince anyone here.  Now back to the populaton statistics, actually if you read the detail analysis above, it is very accurate because it uses Turkish government statistics based on provincial data.  I hope Diako (Xabat) translates it or I will do it myself later. It uses growth rate factor and all the data that is available and makes reasonable estimate.  Just the very fact that it uses all the sufficient statistics makes it very important and it has more weight than the CIA factbook.  It is actually the best and most accurate census of the number of Kurds we have on Turkey and it was over 18 million by 1997.  Now i believe it is easily over 20 million.  So we should say 20 million Kurds in Turkey in the article.  --Ali doostzadeh 18:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean translate the tables and statistics in the article? dont you? Ok, Its very nice! I will try. Xebat Talk + 18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Again you are wrong.  The information is from the German government and based on all available population statistics available from the Turkish government.  None of it is based on any Kurdish nationalist data.  Wait till the information is translated (Hopefully Diako is working on it or else I will do it) and then make comments.  As far as I know there is a not more detailed analysis on the Kurd population of Turkey --Ali doostzadeh 05:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Seriously, what's the average IQ level here? or are you people deliberately trying to divert the subject? It doesn't matter if there are 50,000,000 Kurds in Turkey. They do not all live in what you call Kurdistan parts of Turkey. The infobox suggests there are 15 million Kurds in Kurdistan parts of Turkey. Read everything and understand before responding.--Kagan the Barbarian 06:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. This will be fixed. But that's not what I heard you complaining about. I think I saw you changing the numbers. AucamanTalk 07:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please show me where I changed any number: 12:35 March 29 2006 --Kagan the Barbarian 08:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It only needs one word: Mainly we use the word Mainly in front of occupied Kurdistan by turkeys. Xebat Talk + 15:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Occupied? Pfftt. When was the last time that region wasn't a Turkish domain? 10th century? Your Kurdistan and everything related to it is imaginary and created on paper.--Kagan the Barbarian 16:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer tea.--Kagan the Barbarian 17:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well it says there's a significant population in Kurdistan. It doesn't say all Kurds are living there. Don't you agree that there are some parts of Turkey with a larger Kurdish population? AucamanTalk 17:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is going on in this article? 

message: The CIA Factbook says 20% of Turkey is Kurdish and that Turkey's pop. is 70 million. A simple calculation shows that there are 14 million Kurds in Turkey. Do you have any other official sources? AucamanTalk 23:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, what's the average IQ level here? or are you people deliberately trying to divert the subject? It doesn't matter if there are 50,000,000 Kurds in Turkey. They do not all live in what you call Kurdistan parts of Turkey. The infobox suggests there are 15 million Kurds in Kurdistan parts of Turkey. Read everything and understand before responding.--Kagan the Barbarian 06:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. This will be fixed. But that's not what I heard you complaining about. I think I saw you changing the numbers. AucamanTalk 07:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please show me where I changed any number: 12:35 March 29 2006 --Kagan the Barbarian 08:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It only needs one word: Mainly we use the word Mainly in front of occupied Kurdistan by turkeys. Xebat Talk + 15:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Occupied? Pfftt. When was the last time that region wasn't a Turkish domain? 10th century? Your Kurdistan and everything related to it is imaginary and created on paper.--Kagan the Barbarian 16:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer tea.--Kagan the Barbarian 17:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well it says there's a significant population in Kurdistan. It doesn't say all Kurds are living there. Don't you agree that there are some parts of Turkey with a larger Kurdish population? AucamanTalk 17:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Again the branches of Indo-European are clear: Slavic, Iranian, Armenian, Greek, Germanic, Tocharian, Albanian, ... etc.  Kurds(Soran/Kurmanj/Behdini..) belong to the Iranian branch.  Read page three: 
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf
The most important characteristic of any group in the middle-east is its language, myths and history.  Racially there has been lots of moving around and mixing by different groups throughout history.  For example Anatolian Turks are at most 9% Turks but they are called universally as Turks.  Kurds are linguistically Iranian.  Their myths are Iranian.  Their holidays are the same as other Iranians.  Their language is understandable by various other dialect speakers of Iranian dialects.  So to be accurate even if Indo-European is there, it should be the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-Europeans.  Just like the Germans are from the Germanic branch.  Kurds are branch of Iranian people just like for example Turkomens and Uzbeks and Kazakhs and even Anatolian Turks are branches of Turkic people.  Same with Anglo-Saxons who are a Germanic people.
--Ali doostzadeh 18:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use it in the article but not as definition because there will be no Indo-Europan lablleing and nothing. The way as Khoikhoi suggested. I dont know have you agreed on that?Xebat Talk + 18:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think nobody is trying to label anything or anyone. The point is simply a technical fact, namely that the Kurds are scientifically speaking an Iranian people, or as a smaller number of people would say, an Iranic people. It is not wrong to state that fact within the definition, because it is both true and essential. If you don't like it to be within the first sentence, it should be immediately afterwards, because the introduction would not be complete without it. Look for example at the Dutch people. They are defined as Germanic people even though they have their own country, culture, language and everything. There is nothing wrong with it, and it is not an attempt of putting labels (in a negative sense). Can we agree on this? Shervink 19:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. Drop it from the first sentence or even the first paragraph but it should be mentioned immediately after. the suggestion earlier was to mention it in a different section and perhaps as an alternative or possibility, this is completely unacceptable. It is not a possibility, it is a fact and should be mentioned as one. Funny thing is that those editors who were strongly against using Iranian, with exception of Aucaman, were happy with Indo European! This just shows how uninformed they are about the matter. Kurds only connection to the linguistic group known as Indo European, is through their Iranian language! So in order to ever argue that they are Indo European, we must accept that they are Iranian first. Gol 23:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So drop it from the first line. I thing we all agreed on that. However it is not acceptable to mention this fact in a separate section or as an alternative or possibility the way Diyako suggested earlier. Gol 06:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As stated before, and supported by many sources, this fact is universally accepted among scholars, it is neither controversial nor ill defined. It is moreover essential to the Kurdish culture as the larger part of it can be traced back to Iranian origins (meaning Greater Iran, rather than the current state). It is thus inevitable to mention it in the introduction. If you feel more comfortable we can leave it to the second or third sentence/line whatever, but it must be mentioned in the introduction. Shervink 19:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making it too personal; Neither Iranian is a common and universally accepted term nor that wording which you offer for Kurds. I have even sources from the same scientist who suggests the so-called outdated Iranian grouping that clarifies by himself that this groupping is disputed and not common!! You are making it too personal because as this edit by Xebatê was correct and sourced and there are yet hundreds sources which support that but you reverted it because you thought it is not common in that way! If it is not common for Persians to be defined with Kurds it is not common for Kurds too to be defined with Iranians. In addition, the reason why I added the term Indo-European, just was because I wanted to show you that there are other alternative terms for your suggestion that are quite more common. But in fact the most common one is not to labell them. Yet if you want to go on your uncommon way I will provide sources for that; Both for Kurdish people article and for the so-called Iranian people article. Zanyar 11:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean by personal? I don't understand you. There is nothing personal about this, I'm simply stating the facts and try to find the best way to incorporate them into the article. What's wrong with that? Shervink 15:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo-European or Indo-Iranian 

message: Like I've said, just because it's a fact it doesn't mean it has to appear in the first line of the article, especially when the label is controversial and ill-defined. See WP:POINT. AucamanTalk 14:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So drop it from the first line. I thing we all agreed on that. However it is not acceptable to mention this fact in a separate section or as an alternative or possibility the way Diyako suggested earlier. Gol 06:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As stated before, and supported by many sources, this fact is universally accepted among scholars, it is neither controversial nor ill defined. It is moreover essential to the Kurdish culture as the larger part of it can be traced back to Iranian origins (meaning Greater Iran, rather than the current state). It is thus inevitable to mention it in the introduction. If you feel more comfortable we can leave it to the second or third sentence/line whatever, but it must be mentioned in the introduction. Shervink 19:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making it too personal; Neither Iranian is a common and universally accepted term nor that wording which you offer for Kurds. I have even sources from the same scientist who suggests the so-called outdated Iranian grouping that clarifies by himself that this groupping is disputed and not common!! You are making it too personal because as this edit by Xebatê was correct and sourced and there are yet hundreds sources which support that but you reverted it because you thought it is not common in that way! If it is not common for Persians to be defined with Kurds it is not common for Kurds too to be defined with Iranians. In addition, the reason why I added the term Indo-European, just was because I wanted to show you that there are other alternative terms for your suggestion that are quite more common. But in fact the most common one is not to labell them. Yet if you want to go on your uncommon way I will provide sources for that; Both for Kurdish people article and for the so-called Iranian people article. Zanyar 11:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean by personal? I don't understand you. There is nothing personal about this, I'm simply stating the facts and try to find the best way to incorporate them into the article. What's wrong with that? Shervink 15:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: response

message: I think we can improve this article by a better introduction. An example I think which would work out best is Pashtun people, so I propose:
The Kurds (trans.) are an ethno-linguistic group inhabiting parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (a region commonly referred to as Kurdistan i.e. Upper Mesopotamia). 
Agree? --Kash 22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. All racial references in the first paragraph should be removed, as Kurds are a mixed people.Heja Helweda 01:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mixed does not mean that there is not a predominanet feature or set of features.  --Ali_doostzadeh 
I agree with removing all labels from the first paragraph as I mentioned above but I disagree with Heja’s reasoning. These labels, Iranian, Indo Iranian, Indo European, are NOT about genes. they are about culture and language. But as I said it is best to mention them in the second and third paragraph.
Gol 02:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo-European people 

message: The word "Iranian" appears more than the word the word Kurdish in the second paragraph of the article. Is this an article on Kurds or Iranians? How many times do you want to emphasize that Kurds speak an Iranian language? AucamanTalk 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iranian adjective

message: This sentence at the beginning Linguistically and ethnically, Kurds are categorized as closely linked to Iranian people. is contradicting the sentence from Britannica Their ethnic origins is uncertain. The best way to remove the confusion is to say according to this source they are close to Iranians, and according to that source their ethnic origins are uncertain.Heja Helweda 02:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know there is more certainty? We have got different sources saying different things, all of them should be included. Since there is no consensus among major encyclopaedias,  your first sentence "ethnically and linguistically close ..." is not appropriate, and it is also not sourced. All we can say is According to X they are this and according to Y they are that.Heja Helweda 02:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The compromise is good. I've modified it a little to quote the sources more closely. AucamanTalk 10:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)None of those sources categorize Kurds as Iranian but say they are Close. 2) Those sources do not clarify what they mean by Iranian so its better not to use link.
Zanyar 12:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Kurds are an Iranian people if you discuss the sources they are applying closeness and proximity to other ethnic groups within the Iranian peoples. 72.57.230.179 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting statements 

message: Hello 
I have a question, which is that ? --> http://img101.imageshack.us/my.php?image=748pxkurdish861zq.jpg
:Yes, the image is a bit out of date. I'm too lazy to update it, but you're welcome to do so. Cheers, Khoikhoi 05:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality ?  

message: These are the results of last elections in Turkey:
*AKP : %34.27 
*CHP : %19.40 (Leftie Kemalist)
*GP : %7.25 (Nationalists)
*ANAP : %5.12 (Liberal rightist)
*DYP : %9:55 (Rightist , close to natinalists)
*MHP : %8.34 (Nationalists)
*DEHAP : %6.22 (Kurdish Party)
*SP : %2.48 (islamists)
So please could anybody tell me; how can be %20 - %25 of Turkey is Kurdish?.Regards... Dandanakan 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Number of The Kurds in Turkey