Talk:Kurdology

Notes from new article curation / review process
Thanks for your work on this article. Nice work! I'll be marking it has having passed this process.

One thought, might "Kurdish studies" be a better title? Just a thought, no need to answer. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Criticization
Firstly, thanks for this article. Here is a part from article.

"The Spanish Jesuit Lorenzo Hervás y Panduro also examined the Kurdish language in his Vocabolario poligloto (transl. Polyglot Vocabulary) in 1787 and argued that:the Kurdistani (il Curdistano) is more akin to Persian than Turkish; so much so that among a hundred Kurdistani words (parole Curdistane) only fifteen bear similarity to their Turkish counterpart, and thirty-five to the Persian; it seems to me that the Kurdistani words are closer than both Turkish and Persian to the primitive Tatar idiom.[2]

As you see, according to Spanish Jesuit Lorenzo says, Kurdish is closer to the primitive Tatar idiom. And then, in the Turkey heading, there is a sentence saying:

"Some early works on Kurds, such as by Fahrettin Kırzıoğlu, portrayed the Kurds as a Turkic or Turanian population group and were consistent with the state backed Turkish History Thesis. First studies that deviated from the state view were published by İsmail Beşikçi. It was only after the relaxation of Turkish-Kurdish relations that academic papers on the Kurds appeared.

the first question is: Has not "Kurdish is closer to the primiive Tatar idiom" been said before? If Kurds are Turkic/Turanian, then, why is "state backed" expression being emphasized in Turkey heading? Unlike other headings, the Turkey paragraph implies that as if Turkey want to show that deliberately and maliciously "Kurds are Turkic or Turanian".

the second question is: Let's admit for a second that "Kurds are Turanian" thesis is Turkish state backed. Then, which state backed is Jesuit Lorenzo? Turkey? Because his thesis is "consistent with the state backed Turkish History Thesis", is he Turkey backed? lol Etiseeu 07:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure what he means by Tatar if its not Turkish. To answer your question, as stated in the article, early Kurdologists lacked having a critical approach and should not be taken serious. On the other hand, it was (and still is) a common behavior in Turkish academia to claim Kurds and Kurdish-related things as having or being of Turkish origin (see Sun Language Theory). So the two things are not related to each other. Lorenzo was simply ignorant. --Semsûrî (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Tatars are from Turkic and Turanian people. Etiseeu 21:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)