Talk:Khaldi (people)

removed merge template
I'm sorry - I did a websearch on Izady; he seems to be a moderately notable Kurdish historian, accused on several occasions of Kurdish nationalism. If even such an author (nationalists tend to connect the ethnicity of their choice with any ancient ethnicity they can get hold of, in order to prove hoary antiquity and autochthonousness) phrases the relationship of Urartians, Khaldi and Kurds as a "personal suspicion", the hypothesis is hardly notable, and much less a certainty that would allow us to merge this article with Urartu. dab (&#5839;) 14:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You do ignore non-Kurdish sources so I just cited a source written by a Kurdish scholar. There is no need to prove hoary antiquity and autochthonousness for Kurdish people because it is already proven that they are the most ancient surviving people of middle east. I just leave these articles and talks to other peoples who certainly will read and correct the them. http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0380Patriarchs.html
 * Also I recommand neutral users to read the discussions in the talk page of Urartu.
 * Asina 10:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * what the hell? I am just asking you to provide one source. your askwhy.co.uk is not a source, it's a joke. Name one scholar, and we'll cite him. dab (&#5839;) 12:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK My friend; Here is a highly verifiable evidence:
 * http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/non-iranian/Judaism/Persian_Judaism/book4/pt8.htm
 * Asina 14:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * why is this so difficult to understand: I am asking you for a bibliographical reference (ISBN or journal article), not an url. So stop giving me urls. And, what the hell, you simply pointed me to a verbatim copy of your first 'source' at another url. What's going on, are you trying to be funny, or have you really never been to a library and seen a book? dab (&#5839;) 14:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Circassian Reference
I removed:

"... whose Hattic language is now believed to have been related to the Circassian language group[citation needed].

In the first place, there's only cultural similarity to tie the Khaldi to the Hatti -- no writing. So it's really a speculation too far to go on connecting the Khaldi to a third group by way of the Hatti.

Secondly, connecting Hattic to modern Caucusses mountain language groups is extremely controversial in itself -- Hattic is most commonly defined as a language isolate -- but that complex discussion belongs on the Hattic page, not the Khaldi page.