Talk:Kurds/Archive 12

The Kurdish Origin (The Ancient Kurds)
The Kurdish Origin (The Ancient Kurds) (3100-1000 B.C.)

The Migration of the Caucasian and Indo-European Groups of Nations to the Zagros Highlands:

. The Ancient Kurds are of Caucasian and Indo-European origin. They migrated to the Zagros Highlands before 3100 B.C. and through 1000 B.C.

The nations of the Ancient Kurds in the Zagros:

There were many groups of nations of the Ancient Kurds that lived in the Zagros Highlands between 3100-1000 B.C, but the existence of at least nine nations have been documented.

. Most Historians believe that the following eight Nations are of Caucasian origin and that they migrated to the Zagros from the Caucasus region north of the Zagros highlands, and they spoke different Dialects of the Caucasian language:

They are the nations of Guti, Subari, Lullu, Kassite, Mitanni, Mani, Urartu and Nairi.

. But some Historians believe that the three nations of Guti, Kassite and Mitanni are of Indo European origin.

. The Mede: They are the last of the nine groups that migrated to the Zagros. They are of Indo European origin

.The Kurdish people belong to the Indo-European family of nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.189.103 (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a point? — kwami (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

infobox
Could someone but a  among the refs to the Kurdish pop. in Turkey, it'd help the layout a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.87.122 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

remove "iranic people"
we are not iranic people,not turk ,not arab.

we are only kurds from kurdistan area from zagros pls remove iranic people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.36.44 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

please edit this page like german or french wikiopedia
here

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurden

Kurds (Kurdish Kurd کورد) are a people in the Near East, the main settlement area as "Kurdistan" is called. Their language belongs to the Indo-European languages. The Kurds make significant indigenous ethnic minorities in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdes

The Kurds are a people of Indo-European probably descended from the Medes [5] (or more precisely Kardouques [6]), numbering between 25 [3] and 37 million people, living mainly in Turkey (from 11, 5 and 20 million), Iran (7 million), Iraq (about 6 million) and Syria (about 2 million) in what is called Kurdistan. There are also Kurdish communities in Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh (and Qarvachar Berdzor), Azerbaijan, Lebanon and Kuwait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.36.44 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

RS Kurds in Turkey
The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2006) puts the number of Kurmanji speakers in Turkey at 10–12M, plus 1M Zaza, w 80–85% of the 70M inhabitants having Turkish as their 1st lang. Thus the number of Kurds would only be above 10–12M by the number who are Turkish speaking. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There is dispute over how many Kurds there are in Turkey. The lowest estimate puts this number at ~11 million (including Zazas), as you mention, but other sources say 12 million, 14 million, 20 million or 25 million. What is said in the infobox that there are between 11.4 million (source with lowest figure) and 25 million (source with highest figure), Kurds, which means the real figure (which is unknow) can be anything in that range, including 11.4 million. This is in accordance to wikipedia's neutrality policy.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, we are not talking about the number of Kurmanci/Zazaki speakers, but the number of ethnic Kurds, which includes people which do not speak Kurdish as first or second language.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I italicized 'speakers' above. The number of speakers would be the lower limit, assuming the number of non-Kurds who speak Kurdish as their first language is insignificant. (There are probably a large number of Armenians, actually, but I doubt they've maintained an Armenian identity after 90 years.) — kwami (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I semi-protected this article until this is worked out. We should decide here on the talk page which refs are reliable, not through disrupting the article.
 * At least we no longer have sources which claim there are no Kurds in Turkey, only "Mountain Turks"! — kwami (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well there is obviously a dispute here, there are sources (mainly Turkish and pro-Turkish) which say Kurds' population is as low as 11 million and other groups, on the other hand there are sources (mainly Kurdish and pro-Kurdish) which say Kurds are as high as 25 milion, meanwhile there are some other sources which say it's 13, 14, 15 million. Now instead of picking one of these medium figures and using it, in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality policy, we have in the infoboxes that we put low estimate - high estimate, pretty neutral, so all views are represented. Ofcourse unsourced information cannot be used, but there are sourced provided and these may not be ignored. I personally do not agree with the low claims and could argue that these are figures provided by the propaganda machine of an undemocratic state which does not allow free media and therefore are unreliable, yet I don't, since this is my Point Of View, and in Wikipedia articles are not allowed to be POV. On the other hand, some users want to say, figures provided by Turks are reliable and should thus be used for the low estimate, figures provided by CIA factook, ect. are allright, but any source which sais otherwise is pro-PKK which in their POV is a terrorist organisation (although according to official Wikipedia rules the use of the word terrorist should be avoided) and thus should all be rejected. This brings a clear pro-Turkish bias to the article. Therefore it should stay like it is. Kermanshahi (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It is also worth nothing that in neither Iran, Iraq, Syria or Turkey, people are registered by ethnicity, so none of the sources provided is in any way official (and even if they were, there is significant dispute to the reliability of claims made by any of those regimes), all figures given are estimates, so infact any of these figures is as good as another.Kermanshahi (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, they aren't "pro-Turkish", they simply aren't pro-Kurdish. Not the same thing at all. It doesn't matter if Turkey is 85% Kurdish: you need WP:Reliable sources. Web sites aren't going to pass muster. If the sources do not exist, then sorry, but you're out of luck. Your option at that point is to conduct a proper census yourself and get it published in a peer-reviewed outlet.
 * Population inflation is a serious problem on WP: Everyone wants their language/ethnicity/tribe/religion to be more numerous than their rivals, or than it is, or comparable to whoever they compare themselves to. Add up all the figures, and you end up with several times the world's actual population.
 * I agree that undercounting minorities is also a serious problem. Persians/Tajiks are seriously undercounted in Uzbekistan, for example. But that's a problem with sourcing, and we simply can't do better than what our sources allow. — kwami (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your last statement, but our sources do allow better. There are sources which back Turkey's anti-Kurdish military junta and claim there are only 11 million and there are sources which say there are higher number of Kurds. There fore we should put high estimate - low estimate, don't pick and choose based on political benefits and propaganda.Kermanshahi (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

And you say they aren't "pro-Turkish," but infact every source which made a claim lower than 14 million, wasn't merely pro-Turkish, they were actually Turkish and not just Turkish but associated with the ruling regime! As if they don't have any political motives to lie about Kurdish population...Kermanshahi (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing potentially partisan Turkish sources. But the others are only minimally different. — kwami (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

These are the sources we have:
 * 2. [1] There are perhaps up to 20 million Kurds in Turkey with a population of approximately 70+ million. < you dismiss this
 * 3. Konda Poll gives a figure of about 11.4 million <Turkish propaganda from Turkish website, from Turkish poll
 * 4. CIA World Factbook gives about 14 million (18% Kurds out of 72.5 million total population) (2008 est.) <This isn't true since it sais 18% out of 77,804,122 (not 72.5) and it excludes Zazas
 * 5. Turkish National Security Council gives about 12.6 million (2008) <Direct Turkish propaganda from one of the regime's organs
 * 6. Juvenile Nonfiction, “ The Handbook of Middle East ”, Publisher: 21st Century, 2002. pg 144:”About 20 percent of Turkey ’s population is Kurdish.” <The 20% figure here is being dismissed aswell
 * 7. Kemal Kirisci, Gareth M. Winrow, “The Kurdish Question and Turkey ”, Routledge, 1997. pg 119: “According to Turgut Ozal there were 12 million Kurds in Turkey . .. Van Bruinessen has argued that a ‘reasonable and even conservative’ estimate for the size of Kurdish population in 1975 was 7.5 millions, which amounts to 19 percent of the population” < A Turkish source, which quotes the Turkish President himself on what he would like people to think of how many Kurds live in Turkey
 * 8. Sandra Mackey, “The reckoning: Iraq and the legacy of Saddam”, W.W. Norton and Company, 2002. Excerpt from pg 350: “As much as 25% of Turkey is Kurdish.” <The 25% figure is being dismissed
 * 9. a b c “Beverley Milton-Edwards, “Contemporary politics in the Middle East” Polity, 2006. pg 231: “They form a population in all four states, making 20 percent in Turkey, 15-20 percent in Iraq, 10 percent in Iran and 8 percent in Syria (Mcdowell, 2003, p 3-4).” <Again you're refusing to allow the 20% in the infobox
 * 10. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/kur/chap04.pdf (page 129 or 33), research carried out by the Turkish National Security Council (MGK) in 1996-97, according to which the Kurds will make up 40% of the population in the year 2010. <Quotes figures provided by an organ of the Turkish regime itself
 * 11. Michael M. Gunter, "The Kurds and the future of Turkey", St. Martin's Press, 1997, pg 147, ISBN 0-312-17265-6 <We seem to have no figure here
 * 13. Shireen Hunter, Huma Malik, "Modernization, democracy, and Islam", Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005, pg 131, ISBN 0-275-98511-3
 * 14. Picard (Elisabeth), « Les Kurdes et l'Autodétermination : une problématique légitime à l'épreuve de dynamiques sociales », in Revue Française de Science Politique, Vol. 49, n° 3, juin 1999, p. 421-441 (see p. 422) <No Figure
 * 15. [2] Kurdish sources claim over 25 milion Kurds in Turkey < This is being dismissed aswell

So if we take out all Turkish and Kurdish sources, we're left with only the 18% = 14,004,742, figure of the CIA factbook and a 20% and 25% figure from other sources.Kermanshahi (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * *** in fact ***   ( contact )  10:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Turkish Propaganda
(Transplanted from User_talk:Timberframe)

Why are you so insistant on forcing anti-Kurdish propaganda by Turkey's military junta into the Kurdish peoples article? It is clear that we have sources from both sides and I was trying to represent them both, but you keep deleting everything Kurdish from the article, simply dismissing it from being Kurdish and base the figures soley on the Turkish military junta's anti-Kurdish propaganda. The sources we have are: Turkish poll from Turkish site which sais: 11.4 (which we have to somehow accept as totally non-biased and completely reliable, eventhough there is no freedom of speach in Turkey), The CIA world factbook which sais 18% out of 77,804,122 - which you insist on dismissing with an unsourced 18% out of 72.5 milion (please follow the link, read what it sais), the Turkish regime's claim that there were 12.6 million Kurds in 2008 (which we have to accept as non-biased, with Kurdish sources being biased by default...), an unlinked source from Routledge, quoting the Turkish President that there are 12.6 million Kurds (and this is supposed to be unbiased?), Wilson Center which quotes a Turkish regime research from 1996! (but I guess the fact that it's Turkish means it's reliable and not-dated, by default), a Kurdish source saying 25 million, which you dismiss for being Kurdish. The rest of the sources are percentage estimates which all say either 20% or 25%, figures which you refuse to allow into the infobox and rather opt for the CIA's more pro-Turkish 18%. I don't see how any of this is in any way in accordance to Wikipedia's neutrality policy could you explain how this is not pro-Turkish, anti-Kurdish biasm, cause honestly I don't see it?Kermanshahi (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Turkish military junta? The alleged junta is put into jail yesterday. Please clarify it. Kavas (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Kermanshahi! I'm pleased to see that you are aware of at least one of wikipedia's policy, that of neutrality; let me remind you of a few more:


 * First, there's reliable sources. The sources you cited simply don't come up to the standards required by this policy.  Routledge, the CIA World Factbook and the Wilson Centre meet the standard.  I take on board your point that Routledge and WC quote Turkish sources.  If you feel that this gives a one-sided view, the best course of action is not to delete them (this is really frowned upon) but to go and find some reliable sources that support alternative views.  The sources you've cited today are neither reliable (as defined by WP:RS) nor independent, so you need to look further afield to, for example, internationally respected journals or writers who are independent of the subject.


 * Secondly, there's assume good faith. That means that when other editors revert your edits giving as their reason the fact that you need to cite reliable sources, you should not assume that the editors are inexplicably "force anti-Kurdish propaganda by Turkey's military junta", let alone accuse the editors of being so motivated, rather you should recognise that they are upholding wikipedia's sourcing standard regardless of the sources' content.


 * Finally there's the 3 reverts rule. You've already broken this rule today and I could request that you be temporarily blocked for it. (I could also ask to have you blocked for attacking editors and for edit warring.)  However, I'm thick skinned and more concerned to get these figures right, which is more likely to happen with your help, since you're more likely to know where to look.

All the best -- Timberframe (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I provided loads of sources, in the end everything I have posted has been declared "unreliable," by you, because of being Kurdish, meanwhile all Turkish sourced provided have been decalred somehow reliable, by you. If we are not to have double standards, than either include what is claimed by both Turks and Kurds in the article, or include only independent figures (and routlegde and wc did not carry out an independent research or anything, they should posted what a regime which still does not officially acknowledge the existance of Kurds, said about Kurds). So would you care the explain, why all the sources I provided somehow don't count, but anything obviously anti-Kurdish can immedietly be accepted?Kermanshahi (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

And I did assume good faith, until I realised that the intensions here were not to work on a neutral article representing all points of views of but to purely represent the view of a vehimently anti-Kurdish regime on the article about Kurdish people, which has much shocked me.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Kermanshahi, you're missing the point of both wikipedia in general and WP:RS in particular. Perverse and frustrating as it may be to you, Routlege and WC may be included because they meet the standard for reliable sources, not because of what they say or because of who they quote.  Blogs, websites and radio stations created or operated by and for ethnic communities are unlikely to ever meet the standard because of their intrinsic vested interest and their lack of scholarly rigour.  Routlege and WC give credence - rightly or wrongly - to Turkish figures; but there's nothing stopping other notable, respected and independent writers and organisations from giving credence to other population estimates as well (provided, of course that they actually are credible), all you have to do is find an example or two and quote them.  If you can't find any examples then it suggests that the scholarly world at large does not give credence to the figures.  I'll say no more for now on your assumption of good faith since it sits uncomfortable with the accusations that you continue to make. -- Timberframe (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If an independant source quotes the obviously biased, head of the dictatorship in question, it doesn't make his claim reliable or verifyable. You have simply decided to label all Kurdish sources, about Kurdish people, as unreliable and meanwhile label, all claims a regime which has killed millions of people and still refuses to officially recognise the Kurds' existance, as "reliable." As result there is nothing that I, or anyone infact, can do for this article unless you agree to allow both conflicting views to be represented in the article, rather than constantly reverting.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, what about this book: http://books.google.nl/books?id=EbXaKgjZvDYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Freedom+of+expression+and+of+association+in+Turkey&hl=nl&ei=l6RNTazfMMmfOra6xCU&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false - it sais on page 16: "The exact number of Kurds is difficult to determine because they are fragmented throughout four main countries: Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria; some of which acknowledge having a substantial Kurdish minority, while others do not admit to their existance. There are believed to be over 20 million Kurds in Turkey"


 * Perhaps I know nothing about Turkey or about Kurds - so to me it is not obvious that the turkish figure is biassed. All you need to do to restore the balance is to find a scholarly work which supports your 40 million claim. Go and do that, please and stop your claims of bias before they land you in trouble. -- Timberframe (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Turkish regime is vehimently anti-Kurdish and anti-minority in general, after they killed literally all the Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks, the Kurds remained and were labelled as "mountain Turks" and only very recently it has been legalised to use the word Kurd or to speak the Kurdish language without going to jail for 10 years ("although constitutionally the existance of Kurds is still denied). Furthermore there is a Kurdish War of Independence going on, which they are ofcourse trying to downplay. So when they say there are only 10 million Kurds (after decades of denying there is any such thing as a Kurd), naturally this is policially motivated.Kermanshahi (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As for finding works, the 20 million and 40 million figures are extremely common, a simple google search already gives us a whole bunch of books which state this obvious claim: The Kurdish population numbers over 40 million (page 117), the total population of Kurds is estimated to be around 40 million (page 42), The Kurdish people number between 25-40 million, according to different sources (154), [http://books.google.nl/books?id=y2Z4eCwzVEoC&pg=PA61&dq=40+million+Kurds&hl=nl&ei=M3ZOTbr5GoGbOpPZmfMP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=40%20million%20Kurds&f=false The Kurdish population has been estimated at between 25 and 40 million Iran (8 million), Iraq (5 million), Syria (1 1/2 million) and Turkey (18-20 million). These last estimates come from the 65-member Kurdish Parliament in Exile (page 61)] <<If estimates by Turkey's regime, quoted by other sources research are reliable, what about the exiled Kurdish parliaments estimates?, Kurds vary between 25 and 40 million (page 172) - so what do you say? We add the 40 and 20 million figures on high-estimate or not? Kermanshahi (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * May I propose a solution: All this discussion has revealed beyond any doubt that the figure is disputed. That itself is notable and by virtue of the sources cited in these discussion, it is well-documented. Could we say that "the population is disputed, with estimates given by various sources in the range X to Y"? I'd have no problem citing Kurdish authorities alongside Turkish sources and - if any can be found - impartial sources to illustrate the disputed range. -- Timberframe (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely. We should always indicate how reliable our figures are. In this case, not very. — kwami (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That the figure is disputed is whitout a doubt, but this is what I was saying at the beginning. There are no offical statistics in either of the 4 countries on the number of Kurds since none of these countries has registered their population by ethnicity and in two of these countries the very existance of Kurds is offically denied. All of the figures, by all sources, are estimates, neither the CIA, the PKK, the Turkish regime or any Turkish, Kurdish, American or Western writer knows exactly how many Kurds there are. So what I was suggesting is, low estimate - high estimate. Which in case of Turkey is 11.4 - 20 million and in case of Kurds as total is 25 - 40 million, with these sources added as confirmation.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the figures are disputed (obviously), and also that Turkey (as well, I believe, the other states) have downplayed the number of Kurds. When I was in Turkish Kurdistan, people would only speak openly when there were no Turks around, and although the govt no longer claimed that the Kurds were 'Mountain Turks', there was still a message in stone across a hillside (outside Diyarbakir? I forget) saying 'How proud to be able to say, "I am a Turk"!'. On the other hand, nationalist groups have a well-known tendency to exaggerate their numbers, and the Kurds would seem to be no different, esp. considering that they're combating Turkish propaganda. So IMO we should ignore both Turkish and Kurdish sources as potentially contaminated by propaganda.
 * When considering outside sources, it would be nice if we could find ones that address this issue. Just because we have a RS doesn't mean that it's independent; we should consider where its data come from. Specialized sources should be given priority, IMO. We could also potentially use language numbers if we also have an estimate of how many Kurds there are who do not speak Kurdish.
 * Also, what is the definition of a 'Kurd'? Does it include people who have traditionally spoken related languages, such as Zaza, or Kurdish only?
 * I'll see what I can dig up. — kwami (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * None of the countries have any official figures, but the only country from which we can see estimates is Turkey. The Syrian regime is still to anti-Kurdish to try any such debate and in Iran it is not a really important issue. From looking at the population of Kurdish provinces, there are about 12 million in North Kurdistan, 5 million in South Kurdistan, 5 million in East Kurdistan and 1 million in West Kurdistan. The problem is this does not include the large numbers of Kurds living in the rest of the country, for Iraq this is not much, but in Syria a majority actually lives outside of Kurdistan, in Turkey most sources put the number of Kurds in Istanbul alone at ~2.5 million and in Iran much of my family lives in Tehran and Esfahan and it's very evident that very large numbers of the population, atleast in Kermanshah, has moved to Tehran and Karaj after the War. For the rest an indicative figure are the Iraqi elections, in which practically 100% of the Kurds votes for Kurdish parties (most parties don't even run Kurdish governorates and the ones which do get a mere few hundred votes), Kurdish parties got some 23% of the vote both in 2005 and 2010. Also in Iraq they are planning to hold a population census.
 * As for definition of a Kurd, it's a bit difficult to say. There are different Kurdish dialects, Kurmanci, Sorani, Kermanshahi, Feyli, Gurani, Sanjabi, and many would argue Zazaki is one of them, though others say it is a language closely related to Kurdish, IMO the difference between Kurmanci and Zazaki is not much different than the difference with Sorani. Also many Kurs have been asymilated and particulary in Iran many have intermarried with other ethnicities, especially in somewhere like Tehran, which had a population of 10 thousand, 100 years ago and has been filled up with people from all over the nation and majority of them speak only Persian and don't really associate with the ethnic group of their fore fathers. The definition is practically, anybody which considers himself a Kurd, which is significantly higher than the number of people which speak Kurdish as first language. As for Zazas, there are different claims, most Kurds and some Zazas say the Zazas fully see themselfes as Kurds, many Turks and some Zazas say they see themselfes as seperate group. The CIA factbook doesn't include Zazas into their Kurdish estimate, and if you note the figures of Kurdish parliament you see they give a concrete estimate for Iran, Iraq and Syria but say 18-20 million in Turkey, this is probably to do with if you include Zazas or not. What is notable though is that both in 2007 Turkish elections and 2009 Turkish elections, the Kurdish DTP won a majority in Tunceli, Turkey's only Zaza-majority province, eventhough majority of Kurds voted for AKP in 2007. To me this indicates that clearly majority of Zazas see themselfes as Kurds. Also for both DTP (now BDP) and PKK, much of the top leadership consist of Zazas. Infact Selahattin Demirtaş (his brother Nurettin Demirtaş is also Kurdish politician) and Gülten Kışanak, the BDP's number 1 and number 2 leaders are both Zazas, so was Aysel Tuğluk which was the DTP's second leader after Ahmet Türk, before the Turks sent her to prison. Also important historical Kurdish figures like Seyid Riza were Zazas.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And Gorani was a literary language for the Kurds. It seems that most of the Zaza-Gorani languages are spoken by people who consider themselves Kurds, though it one or two cases it's only a small fraction which do. I therefore listed the languages of the Kurds as Kurdish and Zaza-Gorani. — kwami (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-Turkish, non-Kurdish sources

 * The Kurds: culture and language rights (Kerim Yildiz, Georgina Fryer, Kurdish Human Rights Project; 2004:13) "There are currently around 24–27 million Kurds living in the Middle East today. Although the four states have refused to ascertain the size of their Kurdish population, scholars estimate that there are 13 million Kurds in Turkey, 4.2 million in Iraq, 5.7 million in Iran and just over 1 million in Syria. As such Kurds constitute about 23 per cent of Turkey's population, 23 per cent of Iraq's, 10 per cent of Iran's and just over 6 per cent of Syria's.[1] There are smaller Kurdish populations in Lebanon, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the Kurdish diaspora can be found in Europe, Canada and Australia." [1] MacDowall, D. A Modern History of the Kurds, I.B. Taurus, London 2004, p. 3 [3rd edition, updated; first published 1996]

The percentages for sthat source look quite allright, but the figures are ofcourse heavily out of date. 5.7 million Kurds in Iran = 10% would mean a total population of 57 million, which is 76 million right now and 13 million in Turkey = 23% would mean a total population of 56 million which is 77 million right now, 4.2 million = 23% in Iraq would mean a population of 18 million which is 28 million right now and 1 million = 6 Percent would mean a population of 16 million in Syria, which is 20 million right now. Kermanshahi (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but because they give percentages, we can adjust for population growth, as long as we're up-front about what we're doing: 23% of Turkey &rarr; 17.0M (2010); 23% Iraq &rarr; 7.2M (2009); 10% Iran &rarr; 7.5–7.7M (2010); 6% Syria &rarr; 1.35M (2010); plus 1–2M in neighboring countries and the diaspora. That gives us 34–35M. The figure below (Freedom of Expression and Association in Turkey) is 32M for the core countries for 2005 (so 33–34M total), but their percentages and numbers don't add up. So based on these two sources I'd feel comfortable with an estimate of ~35M. — kwami (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ethnologue 16: Northern Kurdish (Kurmanji): 3,950,000 in Turkey (1980). Population total all countries: 9,320,240. Ethnic population: 6,500,000 in Turkey (Johnstone 1993) 	200,000 in Afghanistan (2004). 100,000 in Armenia (2004). 20,000 in Azerbaijan (1989 census). 40,000 in Georgia (1991). 350,000 in Iran (Stanzer 1988). 2,800,000 in Iraq (2004). 75,000 in Lebanon (Meho 2002). Ethnic population: 215,384. 938,000 in Syria (1993). 20,000 in Turkmenistan (Bakaev 1962). Central Kurdish (Sorani): 462,000 in Iraq (2004). Population total all countries: 3,712,000. 	3,250,000 in Iran. Southern Kurdish: 3,000,000 in Iran (Fattah 2000). 	? Iraq. Diaspora (language only): Germany: Northern Kurdish (541,000), Netherlands: Northern Kurdish (40,000), Switzerland: Northern Kurdish (35,100), UK: Northern Kurdish (23,800), Austria: Northern Kurdish (23,000), Russia: Northern Kurdish (22,700), Greece: Northern Kurdish (22,500), Belgium: Northern Kurdish (22,000), Australia: Northern Kurdish (11,000), US: Northern Kurdish (10,200), Sweden: Northern Kurdish (10,000), Denmark: Northern Kurdish (8,000), Canada: Northern Kurdish (7,150), Italy: Northern Kurdish (3,500), Norway: Northern Kurdish (3,000), Finland: Northern Kurdish (1,290)


 * Freedom of Expression and Association in Turkey page 16, November 2005: There are believed to be over 20 million Kurds in Turkey (20 percent of the population); 4 million in Iraq (25 per cent of the population); 7 million in Iran (15 per cent of the population); over 1 million in Syria (9 per cent of the population); 75,000 in Armenia (1.8 per ceent of the population) and 200,000 in Azerbaijan (2.8 per cent of the population) Kermanshahi (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * CIA: 18% of 77.8 Turkey = 14M (2010), 15–20% of 29.7 Iraq = 4.5–6M (2010), 7% of 76.7M Iran = 5.4M, Syria unknown. That gives us ~27–29M. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't think we should dismiss both Kurdish and Turkish sources so quickly. Besides of the books I provided in the "Turkish Propaganda" section of the talk page, none are actually Kurdish. The fact is, there are no real figures and thus all estiamtes should be given to show all the views in this dispute. Total figure is 25-40 million, for Turkey it is 12-20 million (or 25 million as used by most Kurdish websites). Remember that dismissing Turkish and Kurdish sources is also POV.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I deleted all the population refs from the infox box, as many of them were not RSs, and substituted the high and low estimates from here. That can be further refined, but we should probably present the data from each source here first so it doesn't get messy.
 * Since our figures range from the high 20s to the low 30s, I changed the rough figure in the article to 30M. — kwami (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

iranic or word iran = land of aryan nations
Iranic people(Not Iranian):

Persians Kurds(Medes) Ossetians Lurs Tajiks Talysh Scythians sarmatians Parthians Nuristanis Baluchs Mazandaranis Gilakis Iranic Serbs Iranic Croats Iranic Bulgarians

so we are not iranian,,pls edit this page, : "kurds are a pople ,part of aryan antions."

we are only kurds!


 * No, the English word is Iranian, not "Iranic". That is simply not English. — kwami (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, I see that it is an obscure English word, but it means the same thing as Iranian: of the Iranian branch of IE. — kwami (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is English and the reason it was selected for usage here was because Iranian has gained different meanings in modern context. Iranian does not solely carry an ethno-linguistic meaning, but also has a political connotation, referring to any member of the state of Iran (including non-Iranic/Iranian groups). The Iranic term is more accurate here especially because the majority of Kurds live in native regions outside of the state of Iran. We had a huge previous discussion about this designation a few months ago and Iranic was elected through compromise. Sharisna (talk) 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide links to that discussion. The only discussion I see above is arguing that the Kurds are not Iranic. Anyway, anyone who knows what "Iranic" means will understand "Iranian" in its proper context. — kwami (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sections above entitled Iranian classification... and Response to arguments above contain extensive debate in which compromise were reached. Thanks. Sharisna (talk) 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The compromise that was reached appears to be to use the word "Iranian", but without saying it eight times. No wonder I couldn't locate a compromise to use "Iranic"! — kwami (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, there has been enough dispute over the confusion produced by the term Iranian, which has multiple meanings in the modern context; they may imply both ethno-linguistic designation and national (citizen of nation-state) designation, the latter being an incorrect description of the Kurds as a whole. Since the term Iranic is used to strictly imply ethno-linguistic designation, it is more suitable here. The link to the main article will allow readers to read more about Iranic/Iranian designation if they wish. Sharisna (talk) 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there has been enough dispute, so stop making it worse by edit warring. There has been no agreement that I can see to use "Iranic"; the normal English word is "Iranian". Also, you are changing and possibly inflating the population figures. I asked above that any changes be justified above, so we don't get back to stupidly edit warring over numbers without justification. — kwami (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will place my response in a new section of this talk page, Response to argument above and unjustified RVs. Sharisna (talk) 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Insert FA
Please insert in article, it has been chosen on CroWiki. Cheers! --109.60.8.14 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to argument above and unjustified RVs
Firstly, I am not inflating numbers despite the erroneous claim from the user. LOOK AT THE SOURCES: The two sources (which I did NOT personally add - they were already there from a previous edit) are the CIA Factbook, which states the Kurdish population is "14 million in Turkey" (17% of total population) and another resource entitled "The Kurds: culture and language rights", which places the population at "23% of Turkey". Thus, I am only matching the numbers in the info-box with the sources. If you disagree with these sources, please simply remove them and add new sources that you feel are more credible. Otherwise, the article will be left with this confusing mismatch of information.

Secondly, the second Iranian/Iranic dispute is based on WP:concensus. Please follow the Wikipedia rules. The original dispute was to remove Iranian altogether because it is already arguably redundant in the lead since Iranian classification is already mentioned with regards to the Kurdish language. However, since most WP users argued in favor of including it in the first sentence of the lead, it remained, but since Iranian may imply both ethno-linguistic designation and national (citizen of nation-state) designation (the latter being an incorrect description of the Kurds as a whole), the term Iranic was selected to strictly imply ethno-linguistic designation. Secondly, Iranic is a "normal English word" and a source has already been included that indicates that its usage in modern academic texts.

Third, you are deleting sections and edits that include citations in the section entitled, In Iraq, without any justification. This could be interpreted as WP:Vandalism under the WP rules and guidelines and should be stopped. The Anfal/Halabja information has been added to match the information contained in the main articles. KRG acronym has been added in the second-to-last paragraph of the section because the acronym is used without any explanation in the last paragraph of the same section. These changes should remain.

Sharisna (talk) 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I also believe for this article, Iranic is fine since it means Iranian in the ethno-linguistic sense. It is a result of a concensus. On the number of Kurds, here are some other sources: Note Van Burinessen is a well known scholar.
 * Sandra Mackey, “The reckoning: Iraq and the legacy of Saddam”, W.W. Norton and Company, 2002. Excerpt from pg 350: “As much as 25% of Turkey is Kurdish.”
 * Beverley Milton-Edwards, “Contemporary politics in the Middle East” Polity, 2006. pg 231: “They form a population in all four states, making 23 percent in Turkey, 23 percent in Iraq, 10 percent in Iran and 8 percent in Syria (Mcdowell, 2003, p 3-4).”
 * Kemal Kirisci, Gareth M. Winrow, “The Kurdish Question and Turkey ”, Routledge, 1997. pg 119: “According to Turgut Ozal there were 12 million Kurds in Turkey . .. Van Bruinessen has argued that a ‘reasonable and even conservative’ estimate for the size of Kurdish population in 1975 was 7.5 millions, which amounts to 19 percent of the population”

I have also seen some estimates that mention one third. One was a detailed report from the German government around 2000. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We should also add estimates of Kurds in former USSR
 * Ismet Chériff Vanly, “The Kurds in the Soviet Union”, in: Philip G. Kreyenbroek & S. Sperl (eds.), The Kurds: A Contemporary Overview (London: Routledge, 1992)). pg 164: Table based on 1990 estimates: Azerbaijan (180,000), Armenia (50,000), Georgia (40,000), Kazakhistan (30,0000), Kyrghizistan (20,0000), Uzbekistan (10,000), Tajikistan (3,0000), Turkmenistan (50,000), Siberia (35,000), Krasnodar (20,0000), Other (12,0000), Total 450,000 --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has more up to date information, please let me know. Else I think we should include at least Armenia, Georgia, Turkemenistan and Kazakhistan into the table. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Kurds + Iranians
We should remove the "Iranic"/"Iranian" groups classification. Reasons for this are the following:
 * Other articles about nations/people don't state "ethnic category". Why? Simply because no one knows if they're related, or no such term exists for ethnic groups.


 * The term that exists is for the languages, it's linguistic. You could say that Kurds are linguistically Iranic, but not ethnically however.


 * The classification on Wikipedia has changed with time, while geting criticized, from "Iranian" to "Iranic" to "ethno-linguistically Iranian" etc. etc. Appearently this is just POV.


 * Also, everyone who edits to the benefit of the Iranic classification have got some connections with Persians/Iranians. It's obvious they get angry when the Kurds are considered an independent people.

--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Many sources in this article even claim that the Kurds are an indogenous people that were "aryanized". Some people tend to bring these sources up several times. These sources actually claim that the Kurds have nothing cultural/ethnical with Persians/Iranians to do. Instead the two people, Kurds and Persians, are related linguistically, like Italians and Kurds, like Frenchmen and Persians, like Indian and Kurds etc. but they have very little in common culturally (only Newroz).
 * Actually, they all do. Azerbaijani people says "Turkic", Serbs says "Slavic" etc. Iranic is no different. What you think, assume, or believe, is irrelevant here, only what the majority of the academics say that counts. There was also a long discussion and a compromise/consensus about this issue recently. Don't change the lead without a consensus. Kurdo777 (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Kurdo777, do any of the people that I mentioned have this classification? "Actually they do" actually they don't, none of the mentioned has got such a thing. Serbs and Bosniaks have these different Slavic "sub-groups" because of their very close kinship (practically, it's only religion that divides them, but politics plays a big role).

What I think, assume or belive IS totally relevant here, this is the discussion section of the article. If you can't take critisicm, don't get into the debate, simple as that. Don't like my opinions, just leave then.

The classification of Kurds as Iranic/Iranian is being repeated all over the article, you only need to state it once! Obviously this is persian-POV, since persians in general want to claim all the people living next to them, sometimes the whole world, persians (or Iranians). Have you got any reliable sources that claim the ethnic Kurds to be genealogical or cultural Iranic/Iranian? The Kurdish language however is a part of the Iranian languages in the Indo-European family tree, that statement is correct.

I want to remove the "Iranic" classification, and keep the Iranian languages statement. One statement is enough! --Diyairaniyanim (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed about a million times, Kurds are Iranic, or infact, Iranian peoples and no matter what your personal opinion is, that fact is not going to be changed.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In what whay, Kermanshahi, are they Iranians? Geonologically, they're closer to Medditerrean people and Jews, according to the test made on a group of Kurds. Though it may be hard to understand the results of DNA-testing, you don't know much about the persons position in the society, for example if you grab a Kurd who have got Armenian ancestry, called "Bav-fileh" by others (meaning Armenian/Syriac-ancestry) then it's pretty sure the result will link Kurds and Armenians together in an overall study, right?

And Kurds are not so close to Iranians culturally either, even the foremost kurdologist, Mehrad Izady, suggests that the "Iranian" culutral practises comes in second for the Kurds. What I myself mean by culturally is not only by celebrating Newroz, Newroz is a pure Kurdish tradition, as much as it is a pure Persian tradition, or a pure Pashto tradition. Culture is dance, music, food, clothes, common social values, in other words, something that you were raised with and that affects your lifestyle much. I am comparing myself, as a Kurd from the Mêrdîn (Mardin) province, with Persians, and don't see much that we have in common.

The Kurdish language however is closesly related to the different languages of Persians (Iranians) and the rest of the different people that call themselves "Aryan" (not Iranian!). Aryan should be the right term for these people, then nobody would get upset about it, because that's what they all call themself - Aryan, and they have done so for probably thousands of years. The word "Aryan" has derived from the word "Ar" (Agir) which means fire (at least in Kurdish, probably also in the other Iranian languages too), which indicates the people who worshiped fire (old "Iranian" religions, "Ar-yan" => "fireous people"/"fire people"), same with mount Arrarat (in Kurdish it is actually called Chîyayê Agirî, which literarlly means the Fire Mountain, it is a volcano, that's why), Arrarat has also to do with Aryans. Sadly, Europeans used the term to describe a special kind of blond race that originated in Scandinavia and conquered the rest of the world (using the Indo-European languages as a proof for this). Later the Germans adopted the term into their Nazist ideology. We now know that the ones who spread the Indo-European vocaboulary probably came from Central-Asia or Anatolia. So we are stuck with the term Iranian.

Except for the Zoroastrians in India, I can't see much of the old Aryan fireworshiping religions in other "Iranian" countries. The Kurdish Yezidis still practice their old beliefs though (and also the Kurdish Alevis, but much lesser).

Few things connect Kurdish culture with Iranian culture (with Iranian I mean the other people who speak Iranian languages), you cannot call a people "Iranaian" when just claiming their language to be Iranian, that is incorrect. The Kurdish language is Iranian however. The Persians (Iranians) are not our brothers, as they suggest, Kermanshahi, don't matter if you'r mother is Iranian or not, Kurds are Kurds, Iranians are Iranians, better leave it that way. --Diyairaniyanim (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My FUCKING opinions stands on academic grounds, and are based on materials published by schoolars. Grammatically, it's wrong to call an ethnic people something, when it's their language who actually is that. It's retarted. --Diyairaniyanim (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

please add this DnA info,too
here Y-DNA tests of kurds. please add this in thsi page ,too.

Y-DNA Haplogroups in North Kurdistan (turkish Kurdistan) I -25% R1a -19.5% R1b -8% G -12.5% J2 - 7% J1 -0% E -2.5% T- 6.5%

Studies show that Kurds have a stronger european genetic make-up like Greeks,Southern italians and Spanish people.

here see "middle east" : http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmedSoccer (talk • contribs) 11:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

please edit this page...
please edit this page like this : Kurds are an Iranic[9][10][11] Indo-European people indigenous to Kurdistan.

see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans

and : http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indoeurop%C3%A4er

kurdish Indo-European orign :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skbbT0kKPNs

greets — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmedSoccer (talk • contribs) 13:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Iranian classification is linguistic - we kurds are not iranian ,we are medes ! our free group since 540
pls change we are not Indigenous peoples (you damage our people!! here a source video of aryan kurds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAUjzCrY_v0 ) ,we are aryan ,we are medes median empire.and we are not turk or arab or pers.we are only kurds pls change. greets agit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.183.159 (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're both funny and pathetic! First, Medes were Iranian like Persians are. Second, Median language asimilated into Persian during Parthian and Sassanid period. Third, Kurds were part of multiethnic Iranian country since it's creation in 625 BC. There was no any "exclusively Persian" or "exclusively Kurdish" states in meanwhile, just Iranian. Kid, read more academic books and stay away from YouTube. --109.60.7.127 (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, The Kurd-Mede connection has for a long time been questioned. As the previous user stated, Medes got assimilated into neighbouring south Iranics (Persians), since both were politically and culturally integrated to each other.
 * With regards to the origin of the Kurds, a Scytho-Kimmerian superstratum over a pre-Iranic substratum appears to be a plausible answer. Existense of numerous Slavic loans in Kurdish coupled with numerous pre-Iranic toponymy across Kurdistani villages, towns, rivers, mountains etc. explains the point. Farso777 (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your reference to pre-Iranic nations that are purported to be ancestors of modern Kurdish people confirms the argument that the Kurds cannot be classified as strictly Iranian, despite your argument and the argument of a couple of others who insist that Kurds are Iranian. The pre-Iranic nations to which you refer are groups whose origin is believed to be from the Caucasus and settled the exact areas that modern Kurds live thousands of years prior to the arrival of Medes, Persians and other Iranic nations. The sources provided have classified Kurds as Iranian people only on the basis of their languages and the languages close connection to other Indo-Iranian languages. Thus, only a linguistic classification can be asserted in this Wikipedia article and it cannot be definitively claimed that Kurdish people are Iranian. (This can be confirmed even by the sources provided on Iranian classification if the sources are read in their entirety and the excerpts are not taken out of context.) Nonetheless, Iranian classification has NOT been removed and is still included in the article's lead. The unnecessary insistence on redundantly pointing out the Iranian aspect in the article's lead violates the Wikipedia content policies and was therefore removed. Thank you. Sharisna (talk) 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia works with strictly policy of no WP:OR and reliable sources WP:RS. As per indigineous, you have taken words out of context. There is no such group as "Kurds" before Iranian languages they speak as there was no pre-Iranian "Kurdish identity". None of those sources you brought are scholarly. As per Iranian, it is used by scholars. A ) RUSSELL, JR 1990 « Pre-Christian Armenian Religion*, dans Aufstieg und Nieder- gang der Romischen Welt, II, 18.4, p. 2679-2692, Berlin-New York, 1990., pg 2691: "A study of the pre-Islamic religion of the Kurds, an Iranian people who inhabited southern parts of Armenia from ancient times to present, has yet to be written. B) E. J. van Donzel, "Islamic desk reference ", BRILL, 1994. ISBN-9004097384. pg 222: "Kurds/Kurdistan: the Kurds are an Iranian people who live mainly at the junction of more or less laicised Turkey, Shi'i Iran Arab Sunni Iraq and North Syria and the former Soviet Transcaucasia. Several dynasties, such as the Marwanids of Diyarbakir, the Ayyubids, the Shaddadis and possibly the Safawids, as well as prominent personalities, were of Kurdish origin So one cannot go and make an WP:OR and must state it as how it is. C) On the origin of Kurdish I would read the work by Garnik Asatrian"Prolegomena to the Study of the Kurds, Iran and the Caucasus, Vol.13, pp. 1–58, 2009". D) Please use scholars rather than random google books sources. NOt everything published in google books qualifies as WP:RS. YOu have to show that the person you are quoting is considered a Kurdologist/Iranologist. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Kurds are not Medes, or we would scrap this article and redirect it to Medes. Please stop pushing crackpot ethnic essentialism and antiquity frenzy here. This is a serious article about an Iranian-speaking ethnic group, not a discussion forum. --dab (𒁳) 15:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You are invoking Wikipedia's policy simply because you do not prefer the reliable sources that have provided in the article. I have read the said policies and the sources given do not violate any of its terms, and in fact, the numerous sources currently available confirm that the indigenous classification is not of original work. None of the scholars that you have mentioned are considered "Kurdologists" by any reasonable definition of that word. Again, your quotes are once again taken out of context because you are intentionally failing to address the reason for the authors' uses of the term Iranian with regards to Kurds as a linguistic one that is based on supposed linguistic evidence in that the languages spoken by Kurds share more similarities with Persian than other languages in the region. However, the origins of Kurds and their ethnic background is still not quite clear, and thus, is the reason why none of the sources have been able to claim direct ancestry of Kurds to an Iranian group such as the Medes. Furthermore, the word "Kurd" was mentioned during pre-Iranian times in ancient Sumerian records. The term was used for non-Iranian tribes whose origin are believed to be from the Caucasus and that settled the exact areas that modern Kurds live thousands of years prior to the arrival of Medes, Persians and other Iranic nations. I previously included sources for this assertion including that from a British scholar G. R. Driver who documented Sumerian records in detail and was the first to discover the early uses of the word "Kurd" as well as later scholars such as Mehrdad Izady who is a PhD of Middle Eastern Languages and Civilizations from Columbia University and who compiled the various records and provided extensive research on the linkage between modern Kurds and these ancient documents. However, you (or other who are taking your same position) have removed these sources over and over again - despite such actions being a violation of Wikipedia's policies - claiming that they are not scholarly much the same way that you are now claiming that the sources I have now provided for the indigenous aspect of the Kurdish people are not scholarly. In fact, all these sources are scholarly and you are simply taking a biased position against some sources and not against others. My intention has not been to remove "Iranian" from the article and I have not done any such thing. However, the contemporary authors' "Iranian" classification must be specified for what it is in this Wikipedia article about Kurdish people, which is based on linguistic evidence and linguistic evidence only. Any other statement will mislead readers, and furthermore, takes the sources that have been provided completely out of context. Thanks. Sharisna (talk) 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in the current edit warring on the overemphasizing the Iranic classification of the Kurds and vice versa.
 * But I would like to point out that Asatrian is not a neutral source on the Kurds (as Nasser Pourpirar is not a good source on Iranian history).
 * Moreover, Asatrian forgets about the Iranic dominance, since the Scytho-Kimmerian invasion, over Urartu, which resulted in emerging the powerful Iranic Orontids, with their dozens of dynasties ruling eastern Anatolia, Caucasus and Near East etc, until the mid-19th century when Ottoman army conquered the area and imposed direct Turkish rule.
 * Not just the political dominance of the local Iranic dynasties, but Xenophon even noted that the Iranicized Urartu (already known as Armina/Armenia) spoke a language similar to Persian, which could not have been the case for old Hai, a non-Iranic language. Farso777 (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's sensible to say the Kurds are Iranian, since I don't know how meaningful "Iranian" is as an ethnic term. But their language is simply Iranian. If we can't agree on one wording or the other, why not simply say they're an Iranian ethnolinguistic group? That can hardly be controversial. — kwami (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Iranic is a better alternative. It gets thousands of hits in the google books results. Farso777 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct Kwami, it is not sensible at all. That is why it is necessary to specify that the Iranian classification is based solely on the assumption that the Kurdish language is close enough to be considered related to other Iranian languages. However, ethnolinguistic implies some sort of cultural uniformity between those people whose languages are classified as "Iranian", when this is very far from the case with regards to Kurds versus other nations classified as Iranian-speaking. Jarras (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're misreading things. Saying the Kurds are an Iranian ethnolinguistic group does not mean that Iranian as a whole is a culturally coherent group (if it were, we'd just say that the Kurds are ethnically Iranian), it only means that 'Kurd' is at least partly defined by language, and that the language is Iranian. Also, it's not an assumption that Kurdish is Iranian, any more than it's an assumption that they live in Kurdistan. Kurdish is Iranian. I don't think there's any dispute over that; if there is, we need some good sources to justify changing it. Saying their language 'has been classified as Iranian' is like saying their homeland 'has been placed in the Mideast', as if it were a proposal that had not been fully demonstrated. — kwami (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Kwami, your argument is pricesely the reason why it is more proper to simply mention the Iranian classification of the Kurdish language and not designate the Kurdish people as simply Iranian when their origins are clearly so disputed, and since historical records and evidence suggests that "Kurd" precedes the "Iranian" migrations to the region. Furthermore, some of the WP users' insistence on reiterating this classification several times in the Kurdish people article is not only a deviation from WP content guidelines but it is also unnecessary since it is only one assumed aspect of many that make up the Kurdish ethnic group (and I say assumed because the vast differences between the Kurdish language and other Iranian languages in terms of both grammar and vocabulary will make this aspect another forever debatable issue). This aspect is already included in the lead AND it is also in the language subsection and Kurdish language article. The insistence on including it several times in the lead is simply ridiculous and anyone with an objective view (and with adequate knowledge about the Kurds and/or who has actually read the sources cited in their entirety rather than simply taking them out of context) should be able to see that it is unnecessary. Sharisna (talk) 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that there's no need to say it eight times. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any reasonable reservation in classifying Kurdish as Iranian--do you have any?--and so object to wording which suggests that it may not be Iranian. The ELL simply states that it's a Central Iranian language, demonstrated e.g. with /s, z/ from proto-Iranian *ć, *j'; it also preserves Middle Iranian ō, ē, etc. Pretty straightforward. — kwami (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, no objection in classifying the Kurdish language as part of the Iranian branch of languages - that is until we see a scholarly source that objects to this assertion and that provides a convincing case otherwise. And this is precisely the reason I did not remove this statement from the Kurdish people WP article in any of my edits. As you stated, it just doesn't need to be said eight times as others were insisting. And as the writers of the sources themselves have expressed, the assertion regarding the said classification is based on the language spoken by the Kurds. Thanks. Sharisna (talk) 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The terms Iranian or Iranic don't necessarily refer citizens of today Iran or just linguistic matter. It's a term used to classify many ethnics people in Asia, and many parameters are used by scholars for using such terms such as language, DNA, and etc. You can easily compare it to terms like Turkish people, which includes lots of ethnics in central Asia and Caucasus.--Aliwiki (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sharisna, Wikipedia is no place for outdated racial theories about X being descended from Y etc. Iranian or Iranic in this context, is simply an ethno-linguistic scholarly classification similar to Turkic or Slavic. You are removing academic sources, just because you don't like what they say. You're also editing against consensus. These are serious infringements of Wikipedia policy. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC))

What's the problem? What is it that you don't get? You could say that Kurds linguistically are Iranians, in other words, Kurdish is a part of the Iranian branch of the IndoEuropean languages. But you can't say that the Kurds themselves are Iranians. That isn't a correct term. Especially for an article that claims the opposite, don't know how many times it's repeated that the Kurds were "aryanized". If we presume they were and the Medes brought their language to the Hurrians (let's just presume that even if we actually don't know how and what happened), then it's exactly the same scenario that happened when the Spaniards invaded South America! The native people, the "Indians" (Maya/Aztec) remained mainly Indian but now speak Spannish instead of their old language! They aren't ethinc Spaniards, and it would be very stupid to call them Spanish rather then Aztec/Mayan.

Therefor, this article must remove it's statement were it says "an Iranian/Iranic people". To the language section should be added "the Kurdish language belongs to the Iranian branch of the IndoEuropean languages"

--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Etymology of the name Kurd
If the name 'Kurd' is meant to mean shepherd, nomad, cattle herder, and comes from Cyrtiae (Kurtioi) and according to Asatrian has a non-Indo-European origin, then one can think that it is cognate with Cyrus (Kurash) meaning shepherd from the Elamite root kur meaning 'to bestow care'. Farso777 (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Kurd is usually connected with old Mesopotamian languages and their words for "Warrior", with Kurd being first, and later becoming a synonym for Warrior. Where did you get shepherd from... (?)

--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

we zaza are kurds ,edit it please
pls delete this fake map

we dimli/zaza are kurds..!

turkey trys to divide kurds"!

greets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.145.136.175 (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Requests like this without sources meeting our criteria at WP:VERIFY and {{WP:RS]] will be ignored and possibly deleted. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Famous Kurdish people.png
This file is unsourced and abuses the Copyright Law. We must remove it. Takabeg (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Jews from kurdistan in Israel
I don't think it makes much sense to count 150,000 Israeli jews, the community of jews from Kurdistan, as part of the Kurdish people. Jews in israel came from many places in the world, and I don't think any of them are considered part of the people of the place where they came from, but a certain part of the jewish people. I'm sure many of them even speak the kurdish language as a first or second (to hebrew), but that's just the language.--62.90.23.122 (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was about to start a similar thread. Actually mosr Kurdish Jews have Aramaic as their first language. The number of Kurds in Israel should only include Kurdish refugees there which shouldn't exceed 1,000 (just my own estimates).--  R a f y  talk 12:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

25% of the population of Turkey???
I am amazed for the [4] footnote, claiming "As much as 25% of Turkey is Kurdish.", that is just a self opinion and is clearly not for site such as Wikipedia. Simply who is this thing Sandra Mackey and what are its opinions to be used in Wikipedia? CIA in contrast publish researches not self-opinions and is the only suitable number for Wikipedia out of the 3 used for Turkey. What is actually the justification to use these opinions?? Тhey should be removed immediately.

Is anybody going to answer or I am going to remove this? --Dumb Professor (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

kurds are not iranian!
███████████ Im 100% Mede(Kurd) ███████████Im 100% ARYAN/Iranic Arian= Iranic Speaking Nations NOT a RACE I am Neither an Arab , Nor an Iranian Nor a Mountain Turk, even history will sing with me that I am a Kurd, a Kurdistani... that I am a Kurd, a Kurdistani... WE ARE only KURDS FROM FREE KURDISTAN/KURDIA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.32.138 (talk) 07:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here we don't decide according what people like; the information here is just based on academic studies. No one can claim s/he is 100% XYZ.--Aliwiki (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure they can. People claim it all the time. And when they do, they demonstrate they are not to be taken seriously. — kwami (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Kurdish is an Iranian language - howsabout you take the time to learn more about your own 'people' 2.223.219.178 (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"The Kurdish people, or Kurds (Kurdish: کورد Kurd), are an Iranic people[23" ?????????
where can i see this source? is not to see now.link is down.and if oline ,everyoen can creata a site and post that kruds are then TURKS .omg..

and wikienglish pls change this site like french wikipedia :

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdes

The Kurds are a people of Indo-European probably descended from the Medes [5]

SOURCE:↑ Philip G. Kreyenbroek et Stefan Sperl dans The Kurds, (Routledge, 1992, 250 pp., ISBN 0-415-07265-4, 9780415072656) les différencient linguistiquement des Mèdes avec qui ils ont pourtant été souvent assimilés (p.70)

Nobody here is saying you're not Kurds or trying to take anything away from you - Kurdish (the languages Sorani, Kurmanci etc) are Iranian languages - not related to Turkish or Arabic CALM DOWN DEAR! :D 2.223.219.178 (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Kurds and the term Iranic
Please stop with all this attack on the term Iranic. Kurdish language and Culture is Iranic and all because Kurds are not fond of Iran, it does not mean you can just ignore your heritage. Kurdish ancestory consists of Scythians,Medes,Parthians and they were all Iranic. Iranic does not just equal Iran.

People who ciaim Kurdish culture is Hurrian are mistaken. Georgians are the true descendeds of the Hurrians and does Kurdish clothes and culture resemble them? NO. Kurdish clothes resemble Eastern Europeans and other Iranic people.

As for the term Kurd, is still debated where it came from. I my self believe it comes from the Guti, as the term was mainly used from the region of Hakkari to souther Zagros, where the Guti dwelled. Like the Middle-Persian version "Kurt" and even Turks call Kurds by the same way "Kurt"

What happend to all the Kurds that were mentioned in the Southern Zagros? Because the powerful Shabankareh tribe that ruled the Southern Zagros, exist today in Kermanshah. It is very likely that during the Arab invasion many of the Kurds from the southern Zagros migrated to the North and even far north as Anatolia. STDS9 93.96.139.109 (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC).

I imagine I could be called a Kurdish-basher from my other comments in this discussion but in 'their defense' I would say it's ridiculous to say Georgians are the true descendants of Hurrians - where's the evidence to support that? - there's no evidence to support insanely Mass Migration throughout that region so it would be much more reasonable to presume the people living in that area who now speak Kurdish are descended from the older 'Hurrians' - The problem is you have all these small, weak peoples (only for this moment in history I don't mean to be too nasty) e.g. Georgians, Armenians, Kurds etc all trying to grab claims to these ancient people for the sake of national pride. 2.223.219.178 (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Kurds in Canada
I'd like to add in the title that there is also a large Kurdish diasporic population in Canada. Obviously its stupid to name every country that has Kurds down to the last individual, but Canada's Kurdish population is probably in the thousands, maybe in even more than 10,000. Also Kurds have a distinct culture than the rest of the Middle East and the empirical evidence backing this is the surprising yet deserved amount of stability currently held in what is now Iraqi Kurdistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirani87 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Also Kurds have a distinct culture than the rest of the Middle East"

Replace 'Kurds' with 'Lebanese' 'Georgians' 'Armenians' haha seriously too many provincial Kurdish people around here - Wikipedia's never going to produce quality articles while there are so many nation-mythers about 2.223.219.178 (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 19 October 2011
In the first line of the first paragraph it says kurdish people are the creators of a terrorist organisation which killed 30,000 people, this is highly racist please remove this.

Sertac1992 (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The Kurdish people, or Kurds (Kurdish: کورد Kurd), are an Iranic people
I believe the best thing to do to solve this issue is to rephrase this sentence to Kurds are Iranic by language as saying Kurds are an Iranic (Aryan) people gives the impression that every Kurd is genetically European which is just not true, as DNA tests show Kurds have only got 35% European DNA while the rest is native, I for one would like a re-phrase of this sentence, and also instead of using the term Iranic which is obviously a sensitive issue, why not use 'Indo-European'? it has the same meaning and it will help avoid confusing between the term Iranic and Iranian (a nationality of a country.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdwiki (talk • contribs) 21:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The word "Iranic" cannot be used for the country. That's the reason we use it. Previously we'd said the Kurds are "Iranian", which is normal English. As for European, Iranic does not mean European, so I don't understand your point. As for "IE", sure, but why not just say they're "human"? We don't censor information just because some political interest is offended. — kwami (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not being offended, but rather being politically correct! the average non Iranic people would not know the difference between Iranic and Iranian as after all they are the same thing! and hence since Iraninc = indo-european, why not use that instead? you accuse me of being politically offended, well maybe the Iranians here are politically offended? your reasons are not valid and like I said DNA tests on Kurds show that we are not related to Iranians at all, but rather have more I and J DNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdwiki (talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean Kurds are not related to Iranians? You have no idea about genetics, on 23andme and Autosomal DNA Kurds cluster closest to Iranians and actually are always in the same cluster together. You cannot look at a few studies on Y-dna as it is pointless as they only test a few dozen people and the same haplogroups were also found in Iran. What matters most is Autosomal DNA, Kurds and Iranians both show a strong genetic tie to Central Asia that is not present in other Middle-Eastern populations. This is because Iranians came from central asia.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.139.109 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kurdwiki. The term "iranian", which itself is wrong but have been used and generally accepted by academics. The problem is that Wikipedia is not for academics, it's for everyone. So it should either. Iranian is a modern term for Kurds, Afghans, Baluchs, Persians etc. and the original name is Aryan (Arî) with Ar=Agir=Fire, in other words "Fireworshippers". But nowadays people confuse Aryan with being blonde and blue eyed, or even worse, being a racist. So why did they change the name? So people won't get confused when reading articles. And now the term is even worse, "Iranian" could in a poltical way suggest that the ethnic Persians were the origins of all these people, which is totally wrong.

So names get changed not to make people confused huh? This is the mainreason for changing this name, and we could put something that indicates the Kurds as part of the "Iranian" people and in the same way tell people that it doesn't indicate ethnic Persians. Why wouldn't we? This isn't a "I'm right and you're wrong" site, but it's meant to present only facts and let people decide wether it's correct or not.

Changing this term is not a choice, we'll simply have to do it wether you like it or not. We have different options.

1) Change to "an Indo-European people" 2) Change the article and not only the first word, so it says "The Kurds are an ethnic group" and later on in the text it should "The Kurdish language is a part of the Iranian branch of the IndoEuropean family tree"

So what do you want? You'll have to answer fast...

--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Genetic difference from other groups
I think we need some genetic in this article. I dont know much about Kurdish people but often wonder would i know a Kurdish person (if i saw one) from a neighboring Arab? Is there a significant physical and genetic difference? common ancestry etc etc. In Africa you can blatently tell a Hutu from a Tutsi.(for example) and even a Amhara from a Somali.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Kurdish languages
Also I want to note that there are two Kurdish languages, Kurmanji-Sorani and Zazaki-Gorani. Gorani isn't a dialekt of Sorani or Zazaki a dialakt of Kurmancji, the Kurdish languages consists of two groups.

--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Astarian
Why do you use Astarian as a source in this article? He is clearly no reliable source and just a controversial guy looking for fame, so called "attentionwhore"

--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Kurds as an ethnic group in ancient sources
According to this text, all kinds of different ethnic groups that lived in a certain way (e.g. nomads) were kalled Kurds in middlepersian sources. Izady clearly prooved this not to be true, by giving some examples on nomadic Turkmen tribes that lived in the area, they weren't called Kurds.

I want the one who added that part to the main article to respond to this

--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If no one cares about this then I will change that part. Think what you want about Izady and his theories, but this is not a theory, it's a fact that you can read...

--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed! Added this text "Outdated sources, and sometimes nationalistic ones (Astarian), used to claim that the name Kurd was meant as a label for all nomadic people dwelling in the Kurdish mountains. However, Mehrdad Izady states that this wasn't the case. Izady himself used to belive the very same, just to discover the opposite. In other words, the Kurds from ancient times "were bone fida ethnic Kurds" "

--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Pseudohistory (again)
On two occasions, Dr. Garnik Asatrian is labeled as "nationalistic" or "outdated" source comparing to Mehrdad Izady, while situation is otherwise. Izady is (in)famous for his pseudo-historic and nationalistic claims - first one is "Yazdânism" as poor attempt to homogenize completely different beliefs of Yârisânism, Yazidism and Chinarism (which is considered as false by all academic world), second one is claim that Dailamites are "Kurds" (also not accepted; see p. 19-22), third one is that even Saddam Hussein was actually "Kurdish", etc. He even started his own pseudo-encyclopedic project Kurdistanica by motto "whole historiography was anti-Kurdish, let's rewrite it". --109.165.156.171 (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2012
The page says "According to the CIA World Factbook, Kurds comprise 20% of the population in Turkey," I just looked on the CIA World Factbook and it says 18% (see https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html) thanks

stoop (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for improving Wikipedia! mabdul 00:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Kurdish settlement map
The map based on Encyclopædia Britannica-Kurd. It's reliable source, so i don't understand the mean of this edit. Kurdo777 deleted map, and he has written "no reliable source has been provided for this map, it seems like OR"!!!--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a copy rights violation. You can't just copy/paste maps from other sources and upload them into Wikipedia without permission as your own work. Kurdo777 (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And besides being a copyvio, the map is outdated and questionable. It somehow does not include Urmia, which is one of the largest Kurdish-inhabited cities, or any other city in West Azerbaijan for that matter, which is home to millions of Kurds. It contradicts academic sources in that sense. Kurdo777 (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not copy-past. It's my own work based on reliable source.))) About Urmia and West Azerbaijan province, reliable sources are shown the different opinion that is different with your idea. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The map is indeed reliable and sourced which means it's not a copyvio. However I think we have a lot of better maps at Atlas of Kurdistan that we can use that show the Kurdish inhabited areas a lot better ~ Zirguezi 09:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your map is not better map because it have duplication information. The britannica is reliable sourse for this aim. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Most maps here are innacurate in that they completely 'forget' about the Kurdish inhabited areas in Northwestern Syria (Afrin, Ayn-al Arab). This is an accurate map of the ethnic/religious groups in Syria (Kurds=red encircled areas): http://www.lefigaro.fr/assets/infographie/110609-syrie-religion.jpg.
 * In that sense, even though still not precise, this seems to be the best map:
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Kurden.jpg. Znertu (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many amps in Atlas of Kurdistan that make based on one source that repeated in several ways . Britannica's map is another map for this aim. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Znerto and Kurdo77. I think File:Kurden.jpg is the best map. It shows the Syrian, Iranian and Caucasus regions the best and it includes terrain and mayor cities.
 * @Ebrahimi-amir, Please keep in mind that Britannica is, just like Wikipedia, an encyclopedia with it's own sources. Saying that one file is better than an other just because one is from Britannica is ridiculous. The other maps are according to you based on one source which is from a university in Texas which makes it a reliable source. ~ Zirguezi 16:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two map for on subject. It is not necessary to delete one of them, and it is better that both of them to exist in article. I think the map of university in Texas duplication the Kurdish people settlement. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the need to do so but fine I guess more sources equal better a better article ~ Zirguezi 21:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This edit is vandalism. You deleted the map with reliable source without any legal reason. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually. I gave you a perfectly good reason. I suggest you go back and look it up. Also I removed the map because a map of Iranian peoples in Iran, while related, is in my opinion not very important because this is an article about Kurdish people. I don't know if you know how Wikipedia is run but I suggest you look at WP:CON. We've reached a consensus here and you'll have to learn to respect that even if the outcome isn't what you wanted. ~ Zirguezi 21:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Please explain that why you removed the map that have reliable source?--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What I did was remove this map because I don't think its very important. I then added this map and moved this down a few sections because of the consensus we reached above. ~ Zirguezi 09:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But i think, it is very important WP:FIVE,WP:POV,WP:RS. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There many sources that shown this map (and other maps that make based on) have duplication information about West Azerbaijan province. It is better that the map is removed from the paper.


 * The maps & & and etc are similar to great Kurdistan map, and there have duplication information WP:Fringe.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Origins
We should write more about what different schoolars belive are the ancestors of the Kurds since there are so many different theories. There are many speculations, for example Minorsky claims the Medes while Izady claims both the Medes and the Hurrians. We should divide the article in many subgroups, each representing a schoolars view on the subject.

The Gutis however, haven't got so much space in this article. The Guti language was different from the Hurrian, or so it seems by looking at the names of the Kings, this means they weren't the same people, as Izady claims (?).

I think that the Hurrians were the ancestors of the modern Chechans/Georgians (since they're connected linguistically), that invaded Middle East from Caucasus (according to Britannica) and created a kingdom and ruled over the people living there, maybe even mixing somewhat with them. It's not something unsuall that a kingdom or an empire have more than one ethnicties, this is in fact very common. And Kurdistan has seen this kind of rule many times through history, being a part of many kingdoms/empires, so why not one more time?

This would explain for example the "disappearing" of the Hurrians. If they simply were defeated, and new rulers took their power, then they didn't disappear, they just lost the power of their empire to annother people.

Anyways, we Kurds can't claim Hurrians to be our ancestors just so we can be proud of this and that. We must follow the truth, and who ever our ancestors were we must accept them, even if we aren't the native people of Middle East / Kurdistan. But then again I'm not sure of this, culturally, the Kurds doesn't seem to have anything in common with the Hurrians, and we already know that there is no linguistic connection. Even if we lost our old language, then why can't we find a single word in our vocaboulary that traces back to Hurrian? Everytime a people has brought upon annother people their own language, it has adopted many of the old words. And religously the Kurds don't seem to have anything in common with the Hurrians. Doesn't make any sense then that some Kurds claim them to be our ancestors. --Diyairaniyanim (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are probably right about the Hurrians, but I've restored the text you deleted. The sources use meet our criteria at WP:RS. If someone who meets these criteria says they are outdated, we can add that as well. It does look as though you agree with that so I'm surprised you deleted anything rather than add other opinions. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Despite here presented (partly ideological) controversies on Kurds' origin, the modern impartial and abundant biochemic-genomical comparisons in last years on Kurdish populations in S.E. Turkey, West Iran and North Iraq prove quite inverse results from above 'historical' prejudices (despite so-called "mainstream" suggested). Briefly: Turkish Kurds are almost bio-physically the hoary local aborigines descending directly at least 5,000 years ago from the local prehistoric people named Kardu in Sumerian and Kardariki in Akkadian, but Iranian Kurds are only partly of regional proto-historic descendance, while the Iraquian Kurds are mostly a newer immigrant mixture with few local genomic ancestors. These newer data are real an objective (I am independent European scientist without any interests nor links to Kurds or their neighbors). Therefore evidently, this chapter on the origin of Kurds must be modernized, i.e. radically transformed (or otherwise moved). External Controller, 12:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.214.137 (talk)