Talk:History of the Kurds/Archive 1

wtf?
why the hell is every year mentioned in the article linked to a generic page about that year in history? i removed one only to realize that they're everywhere. somebody needs to fix this but i dont care enough about this article to do it myself. have fun

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * Studying the elamite world still is young and have had no significant results. their language is only partly or more exactly less than 20% is known, which still has not been classified under any group. The two more strong suggestions have been either Indo-european or Dravidian (from southern india). I myself believe that they did not come from thousands mile away from southern India or Africa (No strong reason for such a migration). It is interesting that their name meant 'Highland'. the only neighbouring highland is Zagros. After they were attacked and overthrown most probably they refuged in the northern mountains they originally and tradiotanlly lived. By the way Kurdish mythology exactly is idental with these regarding how Kurds came two being : We fled to mountains from a tyranid king who killed all our nation! In addition you can have at this very recent study by a scholar. It is very new and probably requires some years to be quite accepted. He says that that 20% which scholars have learnt from Elamite must be reconsidered because Elamite is even understood by modern Kurdish. http://www.elamirkan.net/indexeng.htm
 * Jalalarbil 09:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Source
The passage about Kurds and Armenians in the 1870s needs to include Assyrians. It was the Asssyrian tribes who were most closely situated to the Kurdish tribes. - Unsigned
 * Joseph, John. The Nestorians and their Muslim neighbors : a study of western influence on their relations (1961)

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

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

Yezidi beliefs about Zoroastrianism
The references are still not good. and do not suggest that specifically Yazdis believe in this. I would also like to see the reference regarding to "Tawfiq Wahbi"'s comment.

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * The only where it discusses this legend it says:


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


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

-- - K a s h  Talk 23:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Related (Hurrian) or unrelated?
The Kurds of ancient time Northewestern kurds: Hurrians, Mittanies, Urardians North eastern kurds: Medes, Partians South western kurds: Gutties, Kassitties —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.175.33.18 (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Ezidi kurds beleive that they are the disendants of a Hurri (angel), Hurrian also means "who comes from a hurri" Hurrians are the ancestors of kurmanci kurds. Resent reserches also revealed that urardian are kurmanci kurds. Urardians language is much closer to kurdish kurmanci dialects. and Dna of the bones found in urardian burials are different from armenians and and the same as the members of kurmanci tribes living in that area today. The ezidis dont claim to be descendants of a people called hurri, hurri simply is the "islamic" word for the beautiful angels who live in paradise --83.253.53.0 (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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

== 2006 (UTC)

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

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

OK Lets go through the facts:

1- "According to some sources, Zoroaster came from the people who lived around Lake Urmia"
 * Source 1: - Not an article, what is this exactly?
 * Source 2: ) - A dictionary as source? See WP:V

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

2- "and he lived in the ealy 6th century BC"
 * Source:.

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

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


 * Source:

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

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


 * Source:.

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


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


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


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

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

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

Zoroaster
1) Ivanow has already mentioned that Sahak is the Armenian (and I am guessing perhaps Assyrian as well or Armenian influence through Assyrian) form of the semitic name Eshaq (Isaac). This makes sense since Sultan Sahak is also called Sultan Eshaq. 2) Zoroaster spoke an east Iranian language and scholars not put his birth-place around Balkh,Khawarazm, Badakhshan..usually somewhere in eastern Iranian speaking terrotories of the time. Also Boyce's source is from 1990. I also removed the Sahak and Zahak as there is no etymological relationship and Minorsky's chart in EI (Encyclopedia of Islam) has the list of the cycles. There is proof for Kurds being Zoroastrians also in Fotuh al-Buldan which I will bring up another time. --alidoostzadeh 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. But Boyce says the Zoroasterianism in the west of Iran was contaminated with Mesopotamian myths. See page 94.Heja Helweda 05:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As Boyce had mentioned, Zoroastrianism has always absorbed ideas from other religions and meant different things to different people at different times. There is no reason to include such pointless idea in to this article --Rayis 10:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


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

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


 * There are more than 20 million Kurds in Turkey with distinctions in their history compare to Kurds in other countries. Regional history is important and necessity for this people since the nature of the diaspora and article is a good way to present the information instead of squashing it all to a page. Özgūr Talk Hist 18:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The presented History related material is from before Turkey was formed or the very early years of the country. All issues concerns Kurdish people as a whole rather than Turkey specifically. I do not understand what diaspora has to do with any of this. -- Cat chi? 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kurds in Turkey (since 1920's) have a different historical path compare to other Kurds thus I insist that this is the most basic and important point of not merging the article. What is the disadvantage of keeping it as a seperate article? It makes things easier this way, both technically and pratically. Özgūr Talk Hist 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kurds in Turkey already exists as an article for that. That still doesn't explain the very point of the Turkish Kurdistan article. -- Cat chi? 19:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Once you have Kurds in Turkey and History of the Kurdish people, is Turkish Kurdistan really useful? Moreschi Talk 17:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe your target of critism is not right, maybe it's Kurds in Turkey that needs to be deleted or merged with Turkish Kurdistan, if obviously the content is similar, but Turkish Kurdistan is an important article because it lessens confusions by defining the particular Kurdistan region from other Kurdistans such as Iraqi Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan and the province of Iran, Kurdsitan. In addition, History of Kurds and Turkish Kurdistan's history are totally two different things. Özgūr Talk Hist 00:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A very bad idea. Turkish Kurdistan is a geographical region, while this is history page and about people not locations. As I have said many times in the past, I think the best way for the opposing party to carry on with their plans, is to try to delete article Kurdistan. That article clearly says that part of Kurdistan is inside Turkey, hence the name Turkish Kurdistan. Therefore as long as there is an article named Kurdistan, it is quite reasonable to expect to have a smaller article talking about the northern part of that region which falls within borders of Republic of Turkey.Heja Helweda 18:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Article exclusively covers history. There isn't any material on "Geography". I find your logic disturbing. Please do not put the deletion of Kurdistan as a rationale for a merge discussion here. -- Cat chi? 19:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not any more. I've completely rewritten Turkish Kurdistan to discuss the geographical region, with a short precis of the historical context pointing to this article and Kurds in Turkey. -- ChrisO 00:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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


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

Kurdish History During WWI (1914-1918)
I was just wondering why this page does not mention the kurdish history during WWI. IT for some reason skips the very important stage. It was during WWI that kurds with the help of turks managed to kill 2/3 of the Assyrian Christian population, as well as 1.5 million Armenians. I don't know why it is not mentioned, but it happened in Kurdish history so i feel that it belongs there Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.57.10 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


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


 * Its good that the time period of WWI has been placed in this article, but it does not do justice still. What i want to see is the history of many of the Kurds living in Hakkari, Tur Abdin, Urmia, and Nineveh Plain at the time. Many of which were involved in the genocide of the ethnic Assyrian population. You can put that the Turkish authorities made a deal with the kurds that if they ethnically cleanse Assyrians from those regions Kurds would get their own land because that is what happened, but i want to see a mention of the kurdish involvement in the Assyrians and Armenian Genocides during WWI, because that is part of the Kurdish history! -- Malik Danno (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Problematic encyclopedia sourcing
I removed the following text from Kurdish people instead of integrating it into this history article:
 * There are many different and diverging views on the origin of the Kurds. While Encyclopaedia Britannica considers the Kurds' ethnic origins as uncertain and Encarta relates them to other Iranian peoples, according to Encyclopedia Columbia, Kurds are commonly identified with the ancient Corduene which was in turn inhabited by the Carduchi.

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

Can someone give me any real credible proof of the massacares. I am talking about official armenian and turkish archive records and bodies unearthed. I dont see any evidence to even support the so called genocide. Therefore how can we put something there which is not confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 16:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indo-European period ...
With the new sources, i am going to change the headline to "Indo-European PERIOD", since its uncertain if they arrived or originated there.

Prehistoric identifications
All sorts of peoples and tribes of the general region are uncritically lumped together as "Kurds" here. This won't do. We can have a "Prehistory" section, and we can list a few hypotheses as to the origin of the name, but the Corduene are not "the Kurds". Kurdish history proper begins with the first attestations of Kurds in the 7th century. --dab (𒁳) 08:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How about pre-islamic sassanid sources? HeviyaJiyan (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * would seem to belong in the Carduchoi article, although I am not opposed to keeping a summary section here under WP:SS. But we need reliable sources for this stuff in any case. References at present are in an abominable state, in the worst case random urls . The bulk of this article should cover actual Kurdish history, from the 10th to 20th centuries, but of course we can have brief summaries of on prehistory and antiquity. Association with Kurkhii, Gutii and what not is completely spurious, hence the cleanup tag in the "prehistory" section. --dab (𒁳) 09:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is what the Britannica has to say on the topic:
 * The prehistory of the Kurds is poorly known, but their ancestors seem to have inhabited the same upland region for millennia. The records of the early empires of Mesopotamia contain frequent references to mountain tribes with names resembling “Kurd.” The Kardouchoi whom the Greek historian Xenophon speaks of in Anabasis (they attacked the “Ten Thousand” near modern Zākhū, Iraq, in 401 bce) may have been Kurds, but some scholars dispute this claim. The name Kurd can be dated with certainty to the time of the tribes’ conversion to Islam in the 7th century ce.

this is it. As far as I can see, the Carduchoi are commonly associated with the Kurds, although this is by no means certain. Kurdish history proper (as opposed to prehistory or speculative proto-history) begins in the 7th century. The association with the Medes is pure nationalism. We need a Kurdish nationalism article, at least for that, there would be no dearth of quotable sources, e.g. David Romano, The Kurdish Nationalist Movement (2006), ISBN 9780521684262. This is all part of the wider topic of Rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire and as such a matter of 19th to 20th century history. We've been through the same movements for pretty much every people formerly under Ottoman rule. --dab (𒁳) 10:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Britannica is not the absolute truth as it simply mentions only Arabic sources and misses the Persian ones. Kurds did not pop up like mushrooms at 01/01/600 AD. They were present there in much earlier times. And here is a reference which you asked. http://books.google.com/books?id=p7kltwf9yrwC&pg=PA178&dq=the+house+of+sassan&sig=ACfU3U0DMiGEMF_j7hTnCkjP9JJ2MqoFjA HeviyaJiyan (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

non existing history of kurds!!
[['''the kurdish have no history and no territory!! that map is a total make-up.. there is not even one city that belongs to the kurds in Turkey.....

B and D!! (turks of belgium) (*'''


 * I think what this user meant to say was "there is no city in eastern Turkey that does not belong to Kurdish people". --Ddd0dd (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

haha!! go to eastern turkey att tell the people that they aren't kurds and i will visit you in the hospital. Are you stupid or what?? Why do you think DTP won in 8 cities in Turkey?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.179.189 (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

PKK on EU terror list
Does anyone have an updated link for the EU's terror list? Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Middle Persian Source
I removed Rwalinson (out of date), Encyclopedia Kurdistanica (not established academically) and Karnamak of Ardeshir Babakan/Shahnameh (Mythology and history mixed in and which requires secondary source per WP:RS). Also the term Kurds was used in Pahlavi for nomadic groups and did not have relationship necessarily with groups that are termed Kurdish (Sorani/Kurmanji) today. If there was in fact such a battle, then it would be between Sassanids and possibly Lurs, both branching out from SW Iranian languages. Note old historians maintain that the people of Pars or Old Persians were both tribal and sedentary and this is what is pointed to in this mythical story and illustrates the lack of centralization during the Parthian era. It could have also been used to cover the Sassanids probable nomadic origin and rather make them descendants of the Achaemenids. In the Islamic times (and the Karnamak is actually written in the 9th century and so is the Shahnameh), the term Kurd was used to cover all Iranian and Iranicized nomads, much like the term Persian was used to cover many different Iranic speakers (and not just modern Persian). The differentiation between the groups was style of living rather than linguistic classification. So unless there is a proof that there is any truth to this myth of Karnamak, and secondly the Kurds mentioned in the Karnamak are Sorani/Kurmanji speakers, then it violates WP:OR to interpret it at that. Actually, the term Kurd sometimes went further and covered others as mentioned by Hamza Esfahani and the Sharafnama mentions Lurs and others as Kurds, again illustrating that the term does not refer to necessarily how it is used today. I have collected about 4 modern sources with this regard (including Encyclopedia of Islam, Mccdowal and etc.)(this should be highlighted actually in the article) and can add them when I feel inclined. The Corduene seems like likely violation of WP:OR but I'll check this issue when I feel inclined to do so. The article should be written with respect to actual scholarship and the Encyclopedia of Islam has the most detailed and researched history of Kurds. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Karnamak Ardashir Papakan, two scholarly sources have been added which consider it as the first use of term Kurd in ancient sources. I agree that we cannot interpret sources, but in this case we have got two scholars who relate the name that appears in that particular source to the modern ethnic group.Heja Helweda (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are not scholarly sources. One is an old translation of Shahnameh and the other is a general book from 60 years ago.  But you are attempting WP:synthesis.  You have said: "According to some scholars, this is the first appearance of the term Kurd in the ancient historical documents".  Okay but this is the term "Kurd", which does not mean Kurdish people today.  I have about 5-6 scholars(Van Bruissen, Minorsky and etc) who mention that the term "Kurd" simply meant Iranian speaking mountaineer/nomads of various languages. This was during early Islamic times. For example Lurs in the Sharafnama are mentioned as "Kurds", or Daylamites are mentioned as Kurds by Hamzeh Isfahani and this gives a flavor that the term had a wide net.  Just like the term "Persian" was not precise and simply meant to a large extent inhabitants of Persia(except in the Achaemenid period) and included Chorasmians, Soghdians, Parthians, Bactrians and virtually any Iranian, Zoroastrian and etc.  Even in the Safavid era, their turkmen troops are referred to as Persians by Europeans.  So context here is important, I am not saying even the term Turkmens for Persians is incorrect, but its context (here is geographical and not Iranian languages).  The term "Turk" was not precise historically and included Iranian speaking Alans (Ibn Nadeem and Tabari), and in Baghdad, included Forghanians (Soghdians and etc.)  In Fars province, most likely there would be SW Iranian languages.  The book of Ardashir-i Babakan is of legendary/mythical nature, where Ardashir slays a giant worm and etc.  Is not a book about history and has hardly any historical value.  Neither referencing Shahnameh to write history without secondary sources is in the guidelines of Wikipedia.  Note the period of Parthian rule is shortened to two hundred years in this book (both shahnameh and Ardashir Papakan).  If you reinsert the section, then we should mention what exactly did the term Kurd mean during early Islamic times.  Because you are simply connecting the term "Kurd" which really means Iranian nomad/mountaineer to an article about Kurmanji/Sorani, etc. speakers of today.  There is a lot about the term Kurd being used in Pars province in the early Islamic era, but virtually all of these would be SW Iranian languages obviously.  So the Ardashir Papakan book is a mythical book and the term Kurd in it has a widely different meaning than this article which is about modern people who use the term Kurd.  Karnamak of Ardashir Papakan is a legendary book, which need primary sources from modern scholars (not translators) to intrepret.  For a good article on the history of Kurds, I recommend reading Encyclopedia of Islam article on Kurds.  In fact I hope this article is brought up to the same level.   --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way Heja, you really did not read Limbert article, but thanks for introducing it. I got a copy and it does not say what you claimed.  Rather it has stuff which totally contradicts this article in every way.
 * The article is clear: "Although it is possible that the Kurds of Fars are related

to the tribes of Kurdestan, it is more likely that the groups are distinct and that the tribes of Fars are not true Kurds, but Iranian tribes speaking southwest Iranian dialects, perhaps related to modern Luri." It also speaks about Kurdish roots of Sassanids as well.  I am not sure why you censor such information (well I know why, but what is the point?).  I really think using this article and Encyclopedia of Islam is better than being selective.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this issue. I think it is important to know when the term Kurd was used for the first time in ancient texts. I agree that the Pahlavi document may include mythical stuff, but I think what we should emphasize here is that it was the earliest known source in the Persian empire that talked about Kurds. I guess when people want to read about the history of the Kurds, would like to know where that name is coming from. I have changed the wording to clarify this point so that the readers know that the paragraph is meant to show the first use of the word Kurd in an ancient text.Heja Helweda (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes but there is difference between the term "Kurd" and Kurdish people today who are called Kurds, because historically the term Kurd had a wider meaning and this article is not about its wider meaning. So in a way, you are introducing WP:OR by bringing primary source which modern scholars consider mythical and making it seems like it is part of history of Kurdish people, when such a book in the first place cannot be used to rewrite history. The Karnamak of Ardeshir Papakan is written in the post-Islamic era although it parts of it have pre-Islamic era basis. But it is a legend nevertheless. I do not think the author claims it is the first time the term "Kurd" is used but it is one of the earliest. However in the same article there are several points that is not mentioned in this article:

A) I agree with your point that: "but I think what we should emphasize here is that it was the earliest known source in the Persian empire that talked about Kurds". I am not share where you got the earliest source, since the Karnamak is a post-Islamic era work (most likely from 9th/10th century).  However if you look in the same article, it states: Most conclusive of all is the fact that Kurd in the older Persian or Arab sense meant simply nomad with no particular ethnic connotations. In this case, Ardavan V's letter becomes more insulting, since.. This is in agreement with Minorsky, Van Bruissen, Mcdowall  and etc.  So this is the opinion of primary historians.  Minorsky goes further and states any Iranian nomadic group is called Kurd in the Islamic era.  But once in a while even non-Iranian groups (particually Arabs of Surestan as mentioned by Hamzah Isfahani).

So the "Kurds" in the mythical story of Ardashir Papakan have no place in an article on Kurdish people unless it is about the mention of the term Kurd and in this case, this should not be in history section, but rather in a section on the word Kurd. So I moved it to a section on the term Kurd. This section can use further improvement of course since Cyrtii, Karda and etc. have their own statements from scholars. Encyclopedia of Islam on the term Kurd is lear: We thus find that about the period of the Arab conquest a single ethnic term Kurd (plur. Akrād ) was beginning to be applied to an amalgamation of Iranian or iranicised tribes.

David Mackenzie: "If we take a leap forward to the Arab conquest we find that the name Kurd has taken a new meaning becoming practically synonmous with 'nomad', if nothing more pejorative" D.N. Mackenzie, "The Origin of Kurdish", Transactions of Philological Society, 1961, pp 68-86.

Wladimir Iwanov:"The term Kurd in the middle ages was applied to all nomads of Iranian origin".(Wladimir Ivanon, "The Gabrdi dialect spoken by the Zoroastrians of Persia", Published by G. Bardim 1940. pg 42)

The scholarly article you introduced states: "The Kurds were formed by an amalgamation of Northwest Iranians, migrating from the east, who absorbed various elements from the indigenous population of the Zagros mountains and imposed a linguistic unity upon them. Linguistically and geographically there is no basis for making a distinction between Kurds and Medes." While this is now challenged, we need to mention both groups of this debate.

B)

As far as Ardeshir Papakan and early Islamic sources are concerned, the same article: ''The Kurds that the Islamic historians mention as living in South and Southwest Persia were probably not true Kurds, but were nomadic tribes speaking Southwest Iranian dialect related to-modern Luri and Persian.''

So the Ardeshir Papakan story needs its own article, but at the same time, it is not related to an article to Kurdish people, or for any matter, a work of historical reality. You won't see scholars of Sassanids using it to write the history of Sassanids. The only relationship to this article would be that it uses the term "Kurd". So in this sense a section on the term Kurd is needed to make sure there is a distinction on how this term was applied. But the actual story has nothing to do with Kurdish people and intrepreting it as history is WP:OR.

C) The book Ardashir Papakan is primary source (meaning it needs secondary scholarly sources like the one you introducted), it is mythical and has no place in describing an article on about modern Kurds Kurmanji/Sorani..etc., unless it is about the term Kurd (so moved to a section on the term Kurd). So connecting the "Kurds" in the mythical book of Ardeshir Papakan to modern Kurds is as much as OR as stating explicit sources mentioning the Sassanids being "Kurds".  Now it is interesting the article  does not mention the theory Sassanids being Kurds, but it tries to portray the story of Ardeshir Papakan as historical facts!  In both sense, it was meant to say that the Sassanids were of peasent/pastrolist origin.  The Karnamak Ardeshir is a mythical book to reject this claim.  Because: 1) It mentions Ardeshir as the 5th/4th (geneologically impossible) descendant of the last Darius of the Achaemenids! 2) It mentions Ardeshir fought nomads to show that he was not a nomad

It is fabrication in order to legitimize descent for the Sassanids. Such a concept is common in the near east. Example: 1) Ghaznavids, Seljuqids etc. claiming Sassanid descent. 2) Safavids claiming to be descendants of the Prophet of Islam..

In the Tabari (Mazandarani) language, which is pretty archaic and has lots of Sassanid era term, the word Kurd is still equivalent to shepherd. In a sense, we need to be careful about the pre-Islamic era.

In a way this article in its current form is not neutral. It has been written from several biased perspectives: 1) Minimize any Median claim. Where-as opinions on this position differs considerably.  2) Try to wrongly intrepret the term "Kurd" appearing in the early Islamic era and Pahlavid documents. And tries to make the Pahlavi mythical story as historical fact to conncet it ultimately to Kurdish people (Sorani,Kurmanji and etc.) today. That is OR. 3) There is no mention that the term Kurd was generally applied to any Iranian pastrolist/nomadic group.

So in a way the articles needs re-writing:

A) A section on the term Kurd explaining what it means. Quti, Kardaka and etc. are interesting but are not held anymore.  But it does not hurt mentioning they are not held anymore by modern scholars.  How this term was used and it did not even mean NW Iranians languages solely.  This is also shown by the Sharafanama.  So a section on the term Kurd and its usage is necessary and I have added it.

B) Pre-Islamic era: Then people that are considered to be ancestors of modern Kurdish people . In reality, browsing to academic non-nationalistic sources, four real theories exist: 1) Medes (put both viewpoints opposing and supporting). I am supporter of the Mede theory, but I have no problem with putting opposing viewpoints, since Encyclopedia needs to be neutral. 2) Carduchi (put both view points) 3) Cyrtii (put both view points)

Post-Islamic era: Amaglation of various Iranian and Iraniacized nomads (which includes all the above).

And also get rid off any 19th century sources which are outdated (Rwalinson comes to mind for example). Mittani, Gutti, Mannaeans and etc. might have left some genetic imprints, but they are not Kurds in my opinion. The strong candidate for ancestors of Kurmanji/Sorani speakers are the Medes, Carduchi  and possibly the Cyrtii.

C) Then go into the Islamic era and dynasties that are mentioned as Kurdish Shaddadids, Ayyubids..

And finally the term Kurdistan which started in the 11th century or so. I think the article can be improved vastly if the right organization is followed.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Since there is a section on the origin of the name Kurd, then the Pahlavi source deserves a paragraph of its own along with the secondary scholarly sources that interpret it and relate it to the modern term. Please do not remove it. Heja Helweda (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Median!!!!!!
Where is the Median connection? why there is no mention of Median empire?????? The Querti certainly DID NOT speak and Indo-European language. I sense A LOT of nationalism from Kurdish articles. Ddd0dd (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ddd0dd (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)== Median!!!!!! ==

Where is the Median connection? why there is no mention of Median empire?????? The Querti certainly DID NOT speak and Indo-European language. I sense A LOT of nationalism from Kurdish articles. Ddd0dd (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Guys I added a line or two about Medians.
 * Also I have to refer you to Safavid empire. Safavid kings were of Kurd Origin. I didn't wanna change the article before discussing it. But I think it is appropriate to add this connection to the article as Safavid were some of the most powerful dynasties in Middle-east. Please let me know what you think.

link to be deleted
in this article, History of the Kurdish People, in § Iran a link : History of the Kurds, gets us to : History of the Kurdish People ! isn't that the perfect circle ? Hope&amp;Act3! (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

hello ! I don't know if anybody is listening : two ref. are invalid, 43 and 49 Hope&amp;Act3! (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

About ancestry of Shah İsmail
I know from many sources that Shah Ismail is Turkish, you can check it from his individual article on wikipedia too. He speaks Turkish, he writes Turkish poets, his belief is Alevism, which has Turkish figures. But in this article, it says Shah Ismail is Kurdish, i'm putting it under question and requesting the phrase to be corrected. b.u. (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Turkic language of Shah Ismail is obvious, but his ancestry may have been Kurdish . The Alevism tends tobe more near to Iranian believes than Turkish religious style . Please introduce your references and sources if you want to challenge the current point of view . Thank you--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can check from that this article that the ancestry is disputed and there are different wievs, but this dispute is ignored in the Kurdish history article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavids#Background.2C_origin_and_ancestry) So it must be changed in the name of objective scienceb.u. (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Again
Please read wiki WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. In Pahlavi, the term Kurd means nomad as mentioned by scholars, so quoting anything outside of this context is WP:OR. The legendary book is written in post Islamic era. You can't quote primary sources for history writing specially legends unless it is an article about the 9th century text. The Karnamak is actually like most Pahalvi documents from the 9th/10th century A.D.. The only reliably pre-Islamic Pahlavi documents are those of Manicheans and the Sassanid inscriptions. Anything besides the term Kurd itself relating to this legendary Pahlavi document has no place in the article. So you can't synteshize history. Making seem such battle took place between ardashir and nomads in 3rd century is WP:OR and relating those nomads to an article about Kurdish people is WP:synthesis. But with the exception of the word Kurd in the post-Islamic Pahlavid era, there is nothing related to Kurdish people. Reason: 1) "Instead of the apparantyl rather realistic career of Ardashir in Darabgerd, both the Karnamak and Tha'alibi give clearly a fictious story of his youth as a page at the court of the Parthian Great King"(Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, Sarah Stewart, University of London. School of Oriental and African Studies, London Middle East Institute, British Museum, pg 55). 2)  The story is fictional, but Kurd in Pahlavi, early Islamic document and etc. simply meant nomad. 3) Karnamak is a primary source and needs secondary sources to firstly verify its historicity (which they have not and call it fictional) and then relate it to modern Kurd.  Where-as in both accounts secondary sources call it fictional and they mention the term Kurd was applied to all Iranian nomads and one secondary source in particular says the Kurds of Fars spoke SW Iranian languages like Luri/Persian.  All materials from Rwalinson is also obsolete and removed.  And actually most of the article has OR in it's preislamic era. The only thing that makes sense is to have possible ancestors of modern Kurds(kurmanj/soran/etc.).  Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The word Kurd is mentioned in this book too: Matigan-i Hazar Datistan. Ellipi (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Iranian tendencies
I do not understand why the Kurds feel the need to separate themselves completely from other Iranians. Why not write "ottomans invaded Iran and conquered parts of kurdistan" and instead elaborate on how Iranians displaced Kurds(Who were in fact running away from ottomans, trying to stay in Iran). The safavids were themselves kurds for gods sake. And what is your reason to show that Babak and Narseh started a "Kurdish" rebellion? Did they want a free kurdistan or a free Iran? You are just trying to create a new identity for yourself and you are going to lose a lot in the process.23:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Kurds under the Young Turks Regime
complete bullshit,even in my whole life,i never heard of that in turkey,even one time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girayhan (talk • contribs) 19:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Split request declined
Split tag removed - no rationale given - and target article already exists (which is already quite long). If it is felt that the information here is too much, then perhaps some trimming would be appropriate and helpful.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cyrtians
Not being an expert on the matter (not by a long shot) and unwilling to barge in and mess up what might be a tenuous consensus, shouldn't there be any mention of the Kyrtioi in an article like this? Trigaranus (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"Tent-dwellers"
While the ethnic names for Persians and Arabs were widely used and meant during medieval times in fact many kinds of ethnic groups collected under an umbrella term, the ethnic designator "Kurd" was not. The name "Kurd" was meant for the very same people that are today called Kurdish.

Now there are different opinions about this, and as a neutral encyclopedia, all the major ones of the theories based on reliable sources should be presented. I notice how only one single perspective on this subject is shown in this article.

The respected Middle Eastern-expert and Kurdologist prof. Mehrdad Izady attacks the false assumptions, based on lack of research, that the name "Kurd" was in fact a term meaning "Nomad". With his own original research, presented in the work "The Kurds: A Concise Handbook" he completely wipes this false image of some scholars, as he clearly states that that's not the case by naming a list of facts that point away from that direction.

Whatever the editors believe to be true, this is science and must be listed among the other theory in the article, if not replace it for good. Believing is something you do in Churches or Mosques - science is knowing. --Sekterlan (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd challenge the idea that history is science - I don't think you'd find many if any historians agreeing with you. Nor can we suggest that Izady is right and everyone else is wrong, or that no one actually did the proper research until Izady. Izady's views should be represented, but your edit needs work. It also needs a page number. I also can't find the quote nor can I understand why you've used it. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Lack of historical ancestors in the table
Why aren't any of the Kurdish ancestors such as the Hurrians, the Medes or the Mannaeans listed in the puny table to the right?

It is pointless to argue that these were not Kurds, how much they weren't what the modern Kurds are today, the modern Kurds consists mainly of a mixture of the Medes and the Hurrians. Or do the editors here believe that the Medes and the Hurrians were kidnapped from the face of the earth by UFO:s? History shows that these ancient cultures live today in the Kurdish culture.

This article must be corrected! --Sekterlan (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding meaning of Iran and Aryan
İf you go beyond meaning "Iran" and "Aryan" in the history you will reach the same result for both that is "Aryan". The thing is today if you say "Iran" it will come through your mind "The Islamic Republic of Iran" and Persian people only. Kurds may be Aryans but no Irani (Farsi) origin. Please careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.123.184 (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My edits...
Why my edits are not appearing on the "view history"? I have fixed some false informations but I cannot see them on the article even on the "view history". Help please... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.135.250 (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Introduction is missing sources
The whole introduction is missing sources. This is plain ridicilous for a controversial subject like this. For example: "Their lineage dates back to as early as 2400 BC, where they occupied the same lands as they do today." This looks like plain PKK propaganda. Since then many empires have controlled this area, including the Greek and Roman empire. Please state facts with reliable sources or somebody please replace this introduction with something more reliable and in line with science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.32.124 (talk) 06:22, 2014 April 9 (UTC)

"They form a branch of the Northwestern Iranian languages, which in turn are a branch of the Indo-European language family."
This article is not about the the Kurdish languages or which branch they belong to. The main subject is the history of Kurds. Therefore there is no need to mention this in the introduction: "They form a branch of the Northwestern Iranian languages, which in turn are a branch of the Indo-European language family.". --Moplayer (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Can someone please answer? --Moplayer (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Disrespect and misguiding
The entire article needs WP:NPOV revision, I am sure some are more than happy with it, so lets start by these two opening lines: Thanks. --هیوا (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Opening "The Kurds are an ethnic Iranian group". I am involved in the Kurds talk page so at least this needs a citation needed tag or borrow one from the so called RFC on the talk page. Instead of people undoing my editions let us agree.
 * 2) In section Name: "The ethnonym Kurd may ultimately derive from an ancient toponym in the upper Tigris basin" give us a citation at least but at best this makes no sense at all. What does "ultimately" mean? Where is Tigris basin? Give us some Lat/Long numbers.

*Moved post to proper placement.  Tide  rolls  15:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverting edits
I have just added a good reference to the early history of the Kurdistan region which suggests early cultural homogenisation in the region. The source I used was from Mehrdad Izady's book The Kurds: A Concise Handbook, which is well recognised as a reliable source in literature on Kurdish history. An anonymous IP address reverted this edit, deleting the entirety of what I wrote, with the explanation that it is 'not a reliable source'. The other claim is that the history of cultural development in the Kurdish region in the archeological record is not related to the development of Kurdish culture. Izady says that the artistic development of the Kurdish region in the pre-written history period is not relevant to Kurdish history. I disagree with this and think it adds a valuable perspective to the early history of Kurdish culture. I would appreciate if others who are following this page could look at the page history and decide whether this edit should be reinstated.Jwslubbock (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably a sock of an existing editor or a blocked editor. I've reinstated it. Doug Weller  talk 16:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the history of modern-day Kurdistan region, rather than Kurdish people. Izady's claims, on the other hand, seems undue and extreme. Such huge claims must not be solely depend on Izady who defines himself as a"pan-Kurdist". And I am not a sock. I was at the school and do not wanted to use my shool's ip when editing. 46.221.191.20 (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not the 'History of the modern day Kurdistan region', it's the 'History of the Kurds'. Izady is absolutely a reliable source, no matter what you think of how he defines himself, and he is referenced elsewhere on this page, as well as on the Kurdish culture page and other pages related to Kurdish subjects. I'm afraid you're wrong on this and you should not continue to revert good edits as this will eventually constitute edit warring.Jwslubbock (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:UNDUE policy. It seems that you have other problems regarding competence 1. Anyway, the content was mainly about earliest sites in present-day Kurdistan region not specificially about Kurds. And associating 7.000 years old sites and Halaf culture with Kurds is pretty WP:UNDUE. Some works of Izady were published in some articles but he is also criticized by many Kurdologists too. So, such sharp claims should not be solely depended on Izady. You can take your concerns on dispute resolution pages, if you want. 46.221.181.124 (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, if Izady associated Kurds and the Halaf culture I'd say that his opinions are pretty much WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller  talk 19:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, trust me. Don't read Izadys books, I've read some of them some time ago, and my gosh, the bias is real. It's like some crazy nationalist wrote the books. I'd suggest we should start a purge against everything related to Izady in Wikipedia :p. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you agree that Halaf culture is related to modern culture, Izady is a very well known author on Kurdish history and I simply represented his point of view in an unbiased way. If you think that part should not go into the page, I think we should compromise, but to entirely delete the whole thing has is not warranted with the rationale that Izady is not a good source. I do wish people would work together to improve these resources rather than simply deleting stuff they don't agree with. Jwslubbock (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact is that when looking at Kurdish cultural origins, there aren't many sources which discuss this in the depth that Izady does. I would direct your attention to this passage where he describes cultural development in the Kurdish region. He doesn't say that the Halaf are direct ancestors of the Kurds, but simply that the Halaf period was the first example of a unified artistic style in the region after settled populations developed. He says here that: "In fact taking Halaf pottery as a prime example, many archaeologists now point out by that shared pottery style is a simple but crucial tool in helping to classify prehistoric cultures in the Middle East. Yet, while shared pottery can imply shared culture, it can no more imply shared ethnicity for the people who produced them than shared rug designs can now." All I think he is establishing is the emergence of a shared culture in the region, elements of which were probably incorporated into the mixed cultures which developed when new peoples like the Hurrians and Mittani settled the region. Because Izady is such a prolific source, whether or not you 'agree' with what he's saying, his scholarship and ideas deserve to be represented here, and I think we should find a way to do that which people find acceptable, rather than simply delete it all as irrelevant, which it clearly is not. Jwslubbock (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * A lot of the weird (biased) stuff he says isn't universally agreed by academic scholars either, just saying. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But I didn't put in any of the 'weird, biased stuff' he says and am not sure what you're refering to. There are other studies that have been done showing that while the Kurds speak an Indo-European language, there is evidence of genetic continuity between them and people who have lived in the region for a long time. Here's [ one such paper] by Ferdinand Hennerbichler from the SciRes journal. So I do think that this section should make reference to the fact that human settlement in the Kurdistan region developed a homogenous artistic culture by 5000 BC, and that genetic evidence shows that modern Kurds are quite possibly related to and share cultural similarities with the people who have lived in the area for thousands of years. This is one perspective, and should be reported as such, but there is more than enough evidence from people other than Izady saying the same thing, and as an established view on early Kurdish history, it deserves to be reported. What I will do is to rephrase the text that was deleted to include more references to other sources, and then we will see if some anonymous IP addresses come back to delete it again. Jwslubbock (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, Kurds do share cultural and lingual similarities with the rest of the Iranian peoples, case solved? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * the source (Hennerbichler) was deleted per WP:RS by Doug Weller before. Do not add it again. And stop pov-pushing. You were warned by multiple users. Catharsis of Mind (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * None of these are my point of view. They are all others' point of view. I'd advise you to not accuse me of bad faith, as that is also quite fundamental rule breaking. Thanks. Jwslubbock (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You should not try to "prove" Izady's claims by using Hennerbichler. It's WP:SYNTH and neither Izady nor Hennerbichler is a reliable source. Hennebichler was removed by Doug Weller before per WP:RS. Catharsis of Mind (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of the Kurds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011033443/http://www.iranica.com/articles/v7/v7f4/v7f446.html to http://www.iranica.com/articles/v7/v7f4/v7f446.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061124114527/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FWorkingDocs%2FDoc06%2FEDOC11006.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FWorkingDocs%2FDoc06%2FEDOC11006.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018235156/http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=TRA to http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=TRA
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tagblatt.ch/index.php?artikelxml=jsp&artikel_id=1245738&ressort=tagblattheute%2Fschlagzeilen
 * Added tag to http://voanews.com/english/archive/2005-09/2005-09-02-voa15.cfm?CFID=46444555&CFTOKEN=26238763
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930051627/http://themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=12568 to http://themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=12568
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011033443/http://www.iranica.com/articles/v7/v7f4/v7f446.html to http://www.iranica.com/articles/v7/v7f4/v7f446.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of the Kurds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080501161817/http://www.kurdistanica.com/english/history/deportation.html to http://www.kurdistanica.com/english/history/deportation.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011225529/http://www.turkishweekly.net/articles.php?id=15 to http://www.turkishweekly.net/articles.php?id=15
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160102090856/https://www.un.org/sc/suborg/sites/www.un.org.sc.suborg/files/1267.htm to https://www.un.org/sc/suborg/sites/www.un.org.sc.suborg/files/1267.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213033423/http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=421832003 to http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=421832003
 * Added tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SBL/is_1-2_19/ai_n15954362

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Kurds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040121030111/http://www.ozgurpolitika.org/2003/02/19/hab44.html to http://www.ozgurpolitika.org/2003/02/19/hab44.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407075937/http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/031222on_onlineonly04 to http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/031222on_onlineonly04

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Kurds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605234545/http://store.yahoo.com/hrwpubs/tur.html to http://store.yahoo.com/hrwpubs/tur.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013142249/http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=80256DD400782B8480256F63006435DB to http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=80256DD400782B8480256F63006435DB

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Kurds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310144019/http://www.iranica.com/articles/v7/v7f3/v7f342.html to http://www.iranica.com/articles/v7/v7f3/v7f342.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of Kurdish history
Just created Timeline of Kurdish history. Modeled on articles like Timeline of Catalan history and Timeline of United States history. Ethanbas (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Khurd - Indian word for "Village"
just take Google maps and enter the word khurd on northern India. starts with Assyria. so the maps need to go till up there. Wikistallion (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Kurdish Language
This section states that there is a Kurdish language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurds#Early_history, but Kurds speak 6 different languages as mentioned in the Wikipedia article entitled "Kurdish languages" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_languages  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshaparvathi (talk • contribs) 23:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Roj emblem.svg

Source requests for section stating that: a ban on the language is still exists in most official settings (including schools)
I'm new to editing / trying to better any article (first time editor here)

I have two requests, one is for the addition of a source and another to remove content that doesn't accurately reflect the truth.

This content in question is the following text

it is also true that the ban on the use of the language in Turkey was only lifted in 1991 and still exists in most official settings (including schools).


 * 1) A reference needs to be added for the date the ban was lifted.
 * 2) If the ban was lifted in 1991 (which I'm not contesting), how can the ban then still be effect in an official capacity at the same time, there's a conflict here.
 * 3) If it does still exist in official capacities, what are they and sources for verification.

AydinAdn (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Izady
Now again someone was against Izady, the former discussion did not really end in a consensus, so I start a new discussion again. And "trust me" isn't a valid argument like it was used in the former discussion. I agree with removing some phrases that are sourced with him, but he seems to be important in the Kurdish academic literature, not anyone goes to teach to Harvard and many other universities for years. If you do not agree with him, bring arguments.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , would this be a better fit on WP:RSN? Ed6767 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Avoid using Mehrdad Izady
Mehrdad Izady is an unreliable source that should be avoided. "He traces the existence of Kurdish culture back more than 50000 years, to include the Neaderthal findings in the Shandiar Cave". This should speak for itself. He is out of the question as there are enough academic sources that criticize his historiography.Ashurpedia (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there, the non-controversial info should stay. The Kurdistan Uzeyd, the Kurdish principalities etc... which have an article on their own don't have to be removed, but can just be tagged with a citation needed template. And still, show me where and in which context Izady wrote so, and why all the other info he taught at Harvard then is harmful as well. "Trust me" doesn't count.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't see anything directly against WP:RS, and I've noted your edits (i.e. spamming everywhere) wasn't really constructive, so I'm reverting them and am instead tagging the article with additional sources needed. You should read up on WP:CITENEED and WP:RS for future reference. Ed6767 (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For discussion regarding whether or not a source is reliable, use WP:RSN. Ed6767 (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2021
37.17.134.126 (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No specifics given. --Semsûrî (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2021
185.66.195.86 (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC) iranian people were kurds, kurds are not iranians!
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)