Talk:Kurds/Archive 9

Mistake
''4) Hakan Ozoglu, Kurdish notables and the Ottoman State, 2004, SUNY Press, 186 pp., ISBN 0791459934 (See p.23)

The term Kurd appears in ancient times, going back as far as 2000 BC. The Kurds are mentioned in Sumerian and Assyrian records.''

This is incorrect, Ozoglu does not claim that the Kurds were mentioned in Sumerian and Assyrian texts. He claims that the first mention of the Kurds (Kurdan)was in the 4th century AD when they were named as an enemy of the Persia king. Ozoglu's arguement is that the Kurdish link between the Calduci and Medes is impossible to prove and has been constructed for nationalist reasons.

Thus, he argues we should trace the developement of the Kurdish ethnicity from this point onwards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hewleri (talk • contribs) 09:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Minorsky was not a Kurdish nationalist.. --alidoostzadeh 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, and the 7 books that I gave you were covert Kurdish nationalists? Come on! the same old story of conspiracy theory!!! I assume Xenophon was also a Kurdish nationalist when he wrote that Carduchis obliterated an army of 100,000 Persians :) Heja Helweda 01:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can give more than 7 books about mede connection. The fact is none of your books were written by a scholar specializing in history. Mackenzie, Minorsky are two major names.  As per genetics no one denies the genetic influence of previous people.  he other sources you mentioned brings up the name Kardaka but a name does not necessarily denote an ethno-linguistic group that took the name later on.  For example the juxtaposition of ottomans and Romans and Safavid calling Ottomans as Romans.. Or calling Uzbeks as Turanians.  Thus name does not necessarily mean the same group.  --alidoostzadeh 02:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Have I ever denied the mede connection? Of course not. I even did not remove your paragraph, simply moved it to the relevant section about Kurdish language. So why you are so intent on removing sourced material?. MacKenzie and Miorsky are just two sources among others. I think there is a misunderstanding going on here.Heja Helweda 02:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The relation with sumerian time is basically not scholarly. Also its gross generalization to say Kurds have been fighting this group or that group.  We know at various times for example different Kurdish groups fought for different empires against each other, or many more complex situation.  So basically the paragraph suffers from lack of academic source of calibre.  And note Minorsky, Mackenzie..are academic sources.  --alidoostzadeh 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK

 * OK, we will give more weight to Medes, as major and eminent scholars have done, and because todays Kurds are considered to be predominantly of Median stock. but in the origin section we mention that before Medes there was a people whose name is an earlier form of the name Kurd and were absorbed by Medes.
 * also I think much of Hurrian stuff should go to the article of Kurdish culture. Asoyrun 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is good time to sort the Hurrian issue out as well. There is a portion: Nevertheless, Hurrian influence on Kurdish is still evident in its ergative grammatical structure .  But many dialects of Persian and Talyshi and Pashto have ergative grammatical structure.  So do some Indo-Aryan languages of India.  Ergative grammatical structure does not necessarily constitute a genetic relationship between linguistic families.  For example Sumerian is also Ergative but is a language isolate.  Thus is there any evidence for the substrate theory from any prominent linguists?  I hardly doubt Hurrian influence on Talyshi, Pashto, Indo-Aryan languages. --alidoostzadeh 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That material is also sourced and can not be removed. What I smell here is just the 20th century nationalist tendencies (Kurds=Medes=Persian or Kurds=nomads) trying to remove anything that feels foreign in the Persian discourse.Heja Helweda 09:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Median is not equal with Persian!! though both are Iranian. Asoyrun 11:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Should we request for unprotection? (or semi-protection as it was before) Asoyrun 21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should work on the introduction here. I mean out of all the names here, only the medes have been called Kurds by classical sources.  Note I mentioned the importance that Armenians a neighboring people have called Kurds as medes in their classical literature.  I also thinking the fighting portion is a gross generalization and more like modern political ideas.  Also the Hurrian part needs a good professional linguistic reference with regards to Ergativity connection since from what I have read, it is a n independent phenomenon which helds in indo-Iranian languages.  A substrate theory needs linguistic proof.  --alidoostzadeh 14:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article needs a lot of improvment. The current version of the article treats Medes as foreigners! we will give more weight to Medes, at the same time won't disregard the Guti/Qurtie heritage of Kurds. I suggest let's request for unprotection.Asoyrun 16:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I am all for your suggestion. --alidoostzadeh 19:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, we're waiting for Heja's reply. Asoyrun 21:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with you guys is that you reject Britannica here when it does not fit your ideology but support Britannica elsewhere when it suits you. Look at here where Ali dooszadeh is using Britannica to push his theory for origin of the Medes. No cherry picking please. It is unacceptable to use Britannica when it suits you and then reject it when it shows Kurds are somehow older than the Persians, which probably goes against 20th century nationalist ideology in Iran.Heja Helweda 09:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Minorsky was not an Iranian nationalist! Asoyrun 11:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * TO Heja. I am not using Britannica to push my theory of medes.  Indeed I use primary/secondary scholarly sources first and then if Britannica a teriatary source does not contradict them, I use it in conjunction.  I can remove Britannica all together from that link and it would be valid.  So no cherry picking.  As per Kurds being older than Persian or etc.  that is not the point.  It has to do with sumerian era and also the gross misgeneralization and also the fact that it is authorless and goes against primary scholarls.    --alidoostzadeh 15:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest Britannica entry on Kurds
Okay I am using the newest edition of Britannica (which automatically) over-rides any older one. Under the entry Kurd:

[copyvio removed. don't paste entire Britannica articles, even on talkpages.]

Kurd. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved March 25, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9046466

http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9046466 ''

So this edition is newer and more correct.

--alidoostzadeh 18:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not accurate. Heja's insisting on sticking with the name 'Kurd' and pre-Aryan Kurds is not an accurate attempt for researching Kurdish history. Kurds original name was Aryan, then Mede, and gradually Qurtie/Kurd (al-Akrad). not as Heja says from the begining Kurd. also Britannica's articles are not accurate sources. Asoyrun 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And where s your source for Aryan name? Mere bluster is not proof. I provided 7 books for you guys, you still keep repeating the same old lines. Where is your evidence that the name of Kurds was Aryan in the past? Remember it is not just Britannica, there are numerous other sources that say this. Part of the Medes became Kurds later on, but part of them (those in the northwest) became Turkified from 11th century onward. Medes are thought to be just one of the ancestors of the Kurds, there were other people groups like Mannaeans, Mitanni, Carduchoi, Cordueni,...Heja Helweda 06:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Herodotus. Mannaeans were absorbed by Medes and Mannnaeans legacy remained for Medes.
 * Corduchi and Cordueni lileky have been an offshoot of Medes.Asoyrun 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with regards to a controversial issue it is best to always seek primary and secondary sources. I just wanted to bring the newer edition of article on Kurds from Britannica which supercedes the previous version.  --alidoostzadeh 19:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Primary sources are Pliny and Strabo's writings who mention Cordueni and their link with the older Carduchoi . There are two separate articles in Britannica :Kurd and Kurds. The latter is also recent as it mentions 2003 iraq war.Heja Helweda 06:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a section in the article about genetic origins. that's really crap! it trys to undermine Kurds Aryanness with a bunch of scum sources!!!!! That's BS! .


 * There is another article in Britannica titles Kurds, and the quote is taken from this one, which is also from edition 2007. Notice that it mentions 2003 war.Heja Helweda 06:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately some users are confusing two different issues:
 * A: name of Kurds and its roots.
 * B: origins of Kurds (i.e. who were Kurds forefathers.)
 * its is not completely clear what is origin of the name of Kurd. there are scholars who agree that it has a Sumerian root, used ::A: either as a topynom for Kurdish regions or as a name for Hurrians. Some scholars who probably never heard about Sumerians think that it may origin from Corduchi, some others who are too biased say it is an Arabic word, though in Arabic language there is no root for a verb as KRD, for example in Arabic KTB exists and we can derive hundreds of words from this word, yaktubu, katib, maktub etc... but it is not possible with KRD; this means that the word has a non-Arabic root and therefore it has a pre-Islamic origin.  before Arab invasion few Kurds were adientified as Kurds; but mostly either as Mede, or after name of their tribes.
 * B: as for origins of Kurds I think Minorsky is a prominent iranologist. what he says is considered as valid. Asoyrun 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Minorsky is definitely prominent.  His book on Shaddadid dynasty is the best that exists even after such a long time.  Because of the dearth of materials on Shaddadid's I do not think any new information has been found, but whatever was available to Minorsky from Arabic, Persian, Armenian..was compiled. I also think that the fact that a neighboring people have called Kurds as Medes before the era of modern history is relatively significant.   --alidoostzadeh 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: My Britannica is the Academic version. Anyways it just shows tht when there exists primary sources and secondary sources, Britannica should take a back seat given the two viewpoints.  --alidoostzadeh 01:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw an unprotection request by user Asoyrun who claimed that there is no discussion on the talk page, and said the opposing party is just one person. However I am still opposed to unprotection. The dispute about the Encyclopaedia Britannica is still NOT resolved. The Iranian editors basically reject Britannica and their argument is very weak.Heja Helweda 04:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I brought a version from Britannica which is the Academic version accessed through a good university. Also do not label editors by their ethnicity or country.  --alidoostzadeh 05:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Last I checked you are Iranian Heja, even though we know you hate that you were born there. Thats tough! If you really love being a Kurdish nationalist, you should move to Iraqi Kurdistan instead living in comfortable Canada living off of government student loans. Thats Canadian taxpayer money! But joking aside, Heja is turning Wikipedia into a nationalist battleground from day one when she arrived and if she is not careful she will be banned just like the Azeri and Armenian users. I have recommended arbitration against Heja for a long time now but no one listens. She is just as bad and hateful as User:Patchouli, and look what happened to him. Wikipedia is taking actions against these hateful people and Heja should be brought to the attention of these tribunals. Khorshid 21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

guys, this is the article on Kurds, a Western Iranian nation. Of course "their ancestors appear to have lived in the region for millennia", that's a truism that holds for any people whatsoever with very few exceptions. Not worth stating unless we can pinpoint specifics. dab (��) 07:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is worth stating with regards to the Kurds, as many would have you believe they simply migrated from some part of Iran during the middle ages and are not indigenous to the land they now claim as Kurdistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.141.220 (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Kurds & Corduene

 * Columbia has an interesting article about the Kurds and their origin . In the History section it starts by: Commonly identified with the ancient Corduene, which was inhabited by the Carduchi (mentioned in Xenophon), the Kurds were conquered by the Arabs in the 7th cent.Heja Helweda 04:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Pliny on Carduchi and Cordueni
Joining up to Adiabene are the people known as the Carduchi, now the Cordueni in front of whom flows the river Tigris. (p.29)
 * Pliny in his book The Natural History of Pliny writes:

Source: The Natural History of Pliny, By Pliny, Translated by Henry Thomas Riley, John Bostock, Published 1890 H. G. Bohn, Original from Stanford University Digitized Jun 2, 2006.

So basically this is an original primary source written at the time of Cordueni and it clearly relates Cordueni with the ancient Carduchi.Heja Helweda 04:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He's about as reliable as Herodotus. You ignore the fact that given the lack of evidence, the idea is a speculation. It is not a fact that Kurds are Carduchi - even the Columbia source says this, "commonly identified" - that doesn't mean it is a fact. It is stating a theory. Look up the word in the dictionary. Khorshid 21:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Commonly', because in past some tried to connect the Corduchis to non-Iranians. but that was not true. Corduchi spoke (and still speak) an Iranian language. Actually Xenophon communicated with them via Median/Persian (= Iranian) captives!!! 'Commonly' means consensus. As for the word Kurd, it is an old word used since thousands of years, but like name of almost all other ethnic groups in the world it originally may was not used for all Kurds. For example the word Mongol is an old word but originally it was not used for all Mongol tribes until Chengiz Khans era! or the name of Persians which originally was used by Assyrians and simply meant other nomads (or a smilar meaning) first had a lifestyle meaning, later when these tribes settles in south of Medes, it had a geographical meaning; people who came from land of Pars were Parsi. Actually not all those who even spoke a Persian dialect were ethnically refered to as Persian but simply were named after their geographical residing area. for example Khorasanis were refered to as Khorasani not as Parsi (Persian). and modern Persian speaking peoples of other provinces. it is a recent development that all those who speak Persian dialects were defined to as ethnic Persian, probably after Islamic conquest. The same is true for Kurds, first it was used for a group of famous ancient Kurdish tribes, like those who dwelled between lake Van/lake Urmia (Corduene, or land of Cordu), when Arabs conquered the area they used the term for all the neighbouring tribes who spoke same language or related dialects. Heluken 11:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the Kurds
The work of geneticists like Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and archaeologists like Peter Bellwood suggests that neolithic migrations provided the greatest genetic contribution to most current world populations. These first farmers made the first large populations, and all subsequent migrations added relatively little to them. Southeastern Anatolia was the hearth region from which the neolithic moved into Europe, so it seems very likely that the Kurdish populations overwhelmingly contain the genes of these first neolithic settlers, ten thousand years ago. Cavalli-Sforza has explicitly stated that the central asian turkic peoples made only a small genetic contribution to the current population of Turkey--they contributed language and much culture, but the genetic material is largely that of the original neolithic population, even in Turkish-speaking areas. KURDISTAN IS NOT A COUNTRY! ITS A REGION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHREN PARTO F IRAQ, SYRIA, IRAN, AND TRUKEY. THEY LIVED IN THESE REGIONS FOR A LONG TIME, BUT THATS NOT THEIR LAND. JUST BECAUSE TTHEY LIVE THEIR THEY CLAIM THAT ITS THEIR LAND.

Anyway, from the perspective of what appears now to be the prevalent view in historical genetics, the Kurds are almost certainly autochthonous--they have lived in Kurdistan for probably 10 thousand years. That said, all the assertions about how they are the Hurrians, or are the Medes, really seem irrelevant. Language, religion, culture, changed many times in these areas. The genetic material of the population still derives mostly from the original neolithic settlement. --Anthon.Eff 18:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

________________________________________________

My husband and I hosted a man whose family had some social/political prominence in Jerusalem prior to the formation of the State of Israel. He was a Palestinian Kurd. His last name was "al Masri" indicating that the original Jerusalem ancestors had come to Jerusalem from Egypt. He told me that Kurds were descendents of Job (the Biblical figure associated with the chapter of Job). I don't see this hypothesis mentioned in these pages and I think it is worth considering. It helps to organize the known facts related to the Kurds into a unifying picture.

Following is a presentation of ideas related to this hypothesis.


 * Where Job fits in chronological order of oral history documented in the Bible

Consider whether some clues about origins can be gleaned from the Bible. It records history that was prized enough to be carefully passed via oral tradition via professional rememberancers. One of these clues enables some dating based on the life-span of people in its historical record. Prior to the Flood, people routinely lived to the mid 900s.* After the Flood, age-at-death declines. Noah died at 950 years of age. Genesis 11 documents the decreasing age-at-death of successive generations. Abraham's father Terah lived 205 years. Abraham died at 175 years of age.

Job's lifespan was most likely 300 plus or minus 40 years. Consider that Job does not complain about being cut short in his youth, rather he says “For when a few years are past, I shall go the way of no return” [Job 3:13]. Besides being the father of 12 grown children, the text says “Now Elihu had waited to speak to Job because they were years older than he.” [Job 32:4] So it looks like Job is well beyond the midpoint of usual life-expectancy during his season of trauma, and yet he lives an additional 140 years [Job 42:16]. If Job was at the midpoint, his lifespan would be about 280 years. Being somewhat beyond the midpoint, puts his lifespan (conservatively) at 300 – 350 years. This puts the life of Job as preceding Abraham.

People of Job’s timeframe placed much greater emphasis on matters of spiritual significance than modern researchers. The fact that the record of Job’s experience and responses was carefully passed down, shows its importance to the local society. And being identified with this special story would be significant enough to define Job’s brood of descendants as a unique socio-political entity. To have Job as a family patriarch would be something special enough to connect families as they migrated to different areas. Job 1:3 says that Job "was the greatest of all the children of the east."
 * Job as a significant patriarch/ancestor

Consider that for millennia, being identified as a descendant of Abraham through the line of his son Isaac and Isaac’s son Jacob defines another socio-political group, the Jews, or rather the Hebrew people. The fact that Kurds identify with a monotheistic faith in a tradition similar to the Hebrew people supports an alignment with this template for a group identity based on a spiritually-significant patriarch.
 * Claim: There is a precedent for this idea. It is possible for a socio-political group to become defined in social history based on group members being related to an esteemed, spiritually-significant patriarch (this is demonstrated by the example of the Jews)

The story of Job indicates that his daughters were known for their beauty. Do the Kurdish women have a reputation for being beautiful? It’s hard to know how far the genetic contribution of Job’s beautiful daughters would have been passed down, given the dilution by spouses not related to Job over successive generations. The theory spawned by the hypothesis I am investigating here would predict that there would be a higher incidence of beautiful women among the Kurds than in other populations.
 * What is predicted by this theory?

To find out how the name “Kurd” became an identifier of the Kurdish people, I would look in the languages of the Fertile Crescent several generations prior to Abraham for words that might be identified with the story of Job, or some part of it. Or, consider how the word “Jew” is related to Abraham or his life. It is related to the Roman-dominated period, where “Jew” is a person from Judaea.
 * Clues for where the designation "Kurd" came from

According to the Wikipedia article on Jews: “There are many different views as to the origin of the English language word Jew. The most common view is that the Middle English word Jew is from the Old French giu, earlier juieu, from the Latin iudeus from the Greek Ioudaios (Ἰουδαῖος). The Latin simply means Judaean, from the land of Judaea.” “Hebrew” refers to the language of these descendants of Abraham. Similarly, Arabic people are identified by the fact that Arabic is their native language. Similarly, “Kurd” could refer to a region or a language.

The main thing to take away is this: a) it is possible for a socio-political group to become defined in social history based on group members being related to an esteemed, spiritually-significant patriarch (this is demonstrated by the example of the Jews) b) at least one Kurd (who is tied into family history and meanings) claims that Job is the patriarch who defines the socio-political group known as the Kurds

Sallyshabaka 01:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)sally@placeofunderstanding.us

Population figures
The info box claims 15-20,000 in the US, 6000 in Canada, but in the body of the article, it says 100,000 and 50,000 respectively. That's a big discrepancy. Which is more accurate? Clarityfiend 20:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurds in Denmark
editprotected The Danish-Kurdish Center of Culture (Dansk-Kurdisk Kulturcenter), which calls itself The League of Kurdish Associations in Denmark (Sammenslutningen af Kurdiske Foreninger i Danmark) estimates that there is af around 20,000-30,000 Kurds in Denmark and around 25,000 Kurdish speaking people. The latter is a reprint of an article published in the Danish newspaper Dagbladet Information. The Council of Europe however says 8,000-10,000. Maybe Denmark should be included in the list of Regions with significant populations?

Bagande 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify the editprotected request, please? Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've disabled the editprotected request. Please feel free to re-enable it if there is a specific request for change. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

editprotected
 * I would like to replace the current infobox with this (Kurds in Denmark including have been added):


 * Bagande 18:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers--Bagande 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Need edit
editprotected Please change links from Hittite to Hittites to help with Wikiproject disambiguation. --Milton 00:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Grazi. --Milton 04:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Culture part, this sentence needs to be edited by someone who understands it: "Yılmaz Güney Yilmaz guney was a hero in turkey still people watching his movies in channels it is illegal but people can find in some stores in channels illegal because yilmaz shows turkey s real life and he was really smart every movie director knows him in the world.." 85.107.254.101 15:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

About the Medes
The assertion that Kurds have mainly descended from the Medes is just a theory. While Minorsky has tried to justify it by pointing to certain Armenian manuscripts, other researchers disagree. For example G. Driver writes:

... some Armenian writers seem to have confused the Kurds and the Medes.

Driver himself argues that the origin of the Kurds should be traced back to Karduchi and Gordyaei:

The Kurds must certainly be connected with the Karduchi mentioned in Xenophon and the Gordyaei mentioned in other Greek and Latin authors, with the Kordukh or Kortschaikh of the Armenians and the land of Gardu of the Aramaic and Syriac writers.

Source: See page 493 in G.R. Driver, Studies in Kurdish History, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, 1922, pp.491-511. Heja Helweda 17:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Kardouchi is just a name preserved in some ancient ethnographers. There is simply nothing meaningful to be said about this. The Kurds can only have developed their ethno-linguistic identity after the appearance of the Medes. Of course they were still descended from some-one (everybody is), but that's prehistory or genetics and completely irrelevant to a discussion of the Kurds as an ethnic group. Yes, you are right, it is very likely that the Kurd ethnonym is related to the name Karduchi, and we can very well state this. But that's really everything there is to it. The name is probably taken from there, end of story. dab (��) 07:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally doubt to consider Medes as an ethnic group. I think they were a political confideration of Zagros peoples against Assyrian harassment. Brusk u Trishka 10:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well unfortunately, that assertion would contradict historical descriptions of the Medes by individuals such as a certain Herodotus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.141.220 (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

desperate need of cleanup
this article is in appalling shape. Is there no-one prepared to invest some effort in it? The reference section is rife with naked URLs. We need proper citations, not lazy internet links. I mucked out some of the worst bits in the "ancient history" section, but this still needs a lot of work. People keep going on about Hurrians and remote prehistory of the region. That's all interesting enough but sadly completely offtopic. Is there no Kurdish patriot with an interest to have a decent Wikipedia on the Kurds themselves rather than harping on prehistoric fantasies? To be frank, this this obsession with digging in the dust of millennia makes it look as if there was not much to be proud of today. Concentrate on the Kurdish people, please, not on some long-forgotten tribes that were mentioned in one or two lines by Greek ethnographers. dab (��) 07:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the page is protected now. I generally agree with you about the ancient history. Unfortunately many editors keep inserting Medes in the article (based on their nationalistic Middle-eastern education), where there is no concrete proof on the relation of Kurds and Medes. The lead paragraph tries to connect the two based on a document written in 1400s whereas the Medes vanished 2,500 years ago! I think that's quite misleading.Heja Helweda 21:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. Very little is known about the pre-historic, but you can tell by sure that they were kurds, all those facts linking them to todays kurds. You just don't want to get it, you don't happen to be a turk or an arab do you? The Medes didn't "vanish" just because it was no more someone writing about them! Kurds in generally has never written anything about neither history or their own culture.


 * I agree that this article is not in very good shape, and needs quite a bit of work. I am willing to work on it, but the page is protected. I don’t know why it has been protected from editing for this long, protection was put in place on March 17, 2007 and has been in place ever since. I will put a request for unprotection and see how it goes. --D.Kurdistani 09:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok protection level has been changed to Semi-protected down from full protection, so time to start working on this article. --D.Kurdistani 23:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to speak ill of the Kurdish people, but it may be good to use a different picture for Kurdish costumes (or for Kurds in general) than the one shown, which makes them look like leftover costumes from the village people. I understand that these costumes may in fact have been worn long ago, but they are likely very offensive to Islamic people such as the Kurds if they think it makes them look homosexual now.

Merged info
The content in the "List of cities with significant Kurdish population" section, adn its sub sections, was merged here from List of major cities with Kurdish population as per a recent AFD result. the GFDL fistory of that section may be found in the history of the page List of major cities with Kurdish population. DES (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The list makes the article look very lousy and unprofessional. Moreover, no sources were provided. In any case, the list is very long and deserves its own article. The current one is already too big.Heja Helweda 14:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fringe ideas
Kurds are NOT commonly identified with the ancient Corduene, please don't present fringe views as absolute facts. --Mardavich 02:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently Columbia Encyc. says they ARE. Take it easy.Heja Helweda 02:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Heja, thanks for all your hard work on Kurdish-related articles. One comment, though, which is not meant in a mean-spirited way: you rely on encyclopedias perhaps a bit too much. Jimmy Wales has made the statement that no encyclopedia should be used in citation. Official policy (WP:RELIABILITY) is that high quality encyclopedias, where the articles are signed by an acknowledged expert, can be considered as suitable sources. Are the articles indeed signed by acknowledged experts in "Columbia Encyc."? And even if the encyclopedia articles are signed, in cases where a peer-reviewed article conflicts with an encyclopedia article, my interpretation would be that the peer-reviewed article would be considered the superior source. The implication would be that if you want your edits to last a while, without eventually being reverted, you should try to use peer-reviewed articles, rather than encyclopedias as sources. --Anthon.Eff 18:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact I have referred to peer-reviewed publications in the text, among them the article by G.R. Driver which connects modern Kurds to ancient Corduene.Heja Helweda 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Population
The following paragraph in the Population section had a footnote (number 42), but the reference was to a page which required a login and password to enter. I therefore removed it. If indeed the high birth rate and attendant "demographic challenge" is a widely acknowledged fact, there should be no problem in finding a peer-reviewed source.


 * There are other sources which report a higher population for Kurds than mentioned above. Furthermore it is estimated that Kurds especially in Turkey have a birth rate almost 50% higher than that of the Turks. Due to this, they are viewed as demographic challenge to the state. (the reference given was: Own Goal For Turkey?, By David McDowall, The World Today, April 1999.)

Additionally, in the infobox an editor has given the range 15 to 25 million as the population of Kurds in Turkey. The CIA estimate is 20% of the Turkish population, which is about 15 million. I can easily find a source that will give a lower number, but the only sources giving a higher number are clearly dubious. Let's just put in the CIA number and try to avoid a long fight about this. --Anthon.Eff 13:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
It seems to me that the first paragraph in Kurds in Iran constitutes a copyright violation. Anyone willing to rephrase it? Shervink 09:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in population
Clearly there is a mistake in population section when it is calimed that: "According to the CIA World Factbook, Kurds comprise 5% of the population in Turkey,"; if you have a look at the refrence this number must be 20%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azad70 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * corrected. Ellipi (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations (Turkey)
Request for Correction pleas, (less than 5 million). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.255.106 (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Another example of how much intolerance there are against Kurds some places. The number of Kurds in Turkey is not less then 15 million.

Image on the right
How do we know the men on the picture are Kurds? Funkynusayri 07:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. Diyarbakır at the time had a lot of Assyrians, though these dudes don't seem Assyrian. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 16:04 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

POV
How could Driver in 1921 dispute Minorsky in 1953? I removed it because I did not see how he traveled into the future to dispute the statement of Minorsky! It seems synthesis or OR. --alidoostzadeh 18:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC) it doesnt matter what they are.they are happy and they live in peace.this is the importance...nothing else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.142.37 (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But with Kurdish "history" everything is possible, even time travel. Meowy  20:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurdish People in Cyprus
There are many people in Cyprus. In fact in Limassol there is a "Cultural Centre" or something. Despite this Cyprus is not mentioned as a country that Kurd live in the table at the top of the article.-- Ioannis ✉ 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the pictures of kids? Blonde and red-head ones. It looks like a trick to me about the look of Kurds. I know hundreds of Kurds, only one of my buddies is blondish... The pictures are probably chosen for making a new impression in the heads of outsiders to mean that KURDS ARE NOT THAT DARK-SKINNED AS YOU THINK. :P Really stupid. Fake!!

Kurds are darkskinned because of the sun. Many are blondish. But Dark is beatifuller.


 * Kurds are proud of having dark hair, blonde hair or no hair etc. We don't have to play games like that. Many Kurds and Iranians have blond hair, but we don't think having blonde hair is better. It's amazing that you make an issue like this about a picture of some smiling kids.

Yazdanism = Magian cult?
In some sources we read that there was a significant number of magians among Kurds towards thirteenth century. At the same time Sharafxan tells us that many Kurdish tribes were previously Ezidis in approximatelt same era. Then the question is "is Magian a non-native name for Ezidi cult?" Sharishirin (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, check Magi. Funkynusayri (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In any case both are closely related, and not enough is known about Ezidis themselves. I personally have no sources that equates these two. Thank you for your reply. Sharishirin (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Genetics coverage in motion
It might be good to put a summary of recent genetic studies at the end of the "Origins" section of this article, but there are two competing accounts, one in History of the Kurdish people, and one in Origins of the Kurds, which need to be reconciled before a summary can be easily written. Or maybe the genetic evidence is too much detail for this high-level summary, which at the moment just says that many different groups contributed to the current Kurdish gene pool. (That claim is here mostly due to the reorganization of claims from several articles - fact-checking is welcome.) But reconciling the other two articles would definitely help make this content more coherent for readers (especially since there appear to be multiple points of view which need to be covered). -- Beland (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple Update
Reference to "Medes" in the Language section should be linked to the Wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkshbck (talk • contribs) 14:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurds in Afghanistan????
someone was smoking crack when they said this. I have never heard any kurd living in afghanistan they need to change this incorrect mistake.71.139.43.204 (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Pashtun786
 * The mention of Afghanistan is backed with a citation to this reference. Now you've heard of it :) Kingturtle (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

haha :P. in fact there are many kurds in afghanistan. Of what i have heard, they populate the regions that are in war, like waziristan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.53.0 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Waziristan was in Pakistan!, i have never heard of or seen Kurds in Afghanistan, whoever wrote this is distorting facts!! as there are NO KURDS IN AFGHANISTAN. There are however, a sizeable Kurdish population in Pakistan to which this article gives no mention of!!! whats going on here????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.227.144 (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There ARE kurds in afghanistan why do you get so damn upset about it!!!!!!! I have been in Afghanistan and actually seen the tribes there. And its true they are at many dangerous areas. And waziristan is very close to Afghanistan its just on the border. --Kurdalo (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is logical that there are Kurds in Afghanistan, because majority of Afghanistan is Iranians like Pashtuns, Balochis and Tadjiks. Knowing that there are many Kurds in North Eastern Iran and Western Pakistan in the Balochi areas, there is a big chance there are also Kurds in Afghanistan.

Indo-European migration
This section should be removed from the origins articles, 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 origin for the indo-europeans, so how could they migrate TO it? Although, the indo-europeans started to show up in these places a bit later than other groups (perhaps they learned how to write....?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.53.0 (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mehrad Izady
Can you really belive that this guy is telling the truth just because he is a schoolar? Many thing he says, (i will give one example, he says that many kurdish tribes have hurrian names and he writes which theese are, but the names are in turkish!) are not true. If you can edit anything and write stuffs in wikipedia just because a schoolar said so then it's not a reliable source at all.

The schoolars should prove that they are correct to, otherwise anyone can become a schoolar and say whatever that comes to his mind. Also, if it is hard to control this, just write that the schoolar say like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.53.0 (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * everytime you write schoolar, I want to punch you in the face. scholar's opinions are given, not as fact, but as opinion. there are competing arguments, they are all mentioned... gtfo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.141.220 (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing sourced academic material?
In the last change ,Heja helweda write in the summery section "Don't remove sourced academic material" .I ask him to show which changes does he mean?The changes show that there are no adding of material after change .How can Heja correct "Removing material" with adding "No material" ? and by deleting some part of the text?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a deceptive edit summery, Heja helweda is the one removing sourced material. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Kurds And "Medes"
According to an aremnian schoolar, i may have forgotten his name but its something like "Harafstian" (book is called Kurdistan in the shadow of history). He writes that in Sumerian language, the term "mada" means "land". That is true too since i have seen this in many places. He also means that the only proof of a "people" called "medians" is Herodotus who have written about them, but he also says that its Herodotus fault that many things in history is mixed up and confusing.

He says too that many times people surrounding Kurdistan has called the "medes" "gutis/kurtis". There is also no proof of a people called "medes" this is just much kurdish nationality, however the people who lived in this "mada" seems to have been kurds too since they were referred as "gutis/kurtis".

I have seen many who writes that Sumerians confused Gutians and Iranian populations. The "iranian" populations you speak about are the ones who people normally refer to as Kurds (medes, mananeas or such thing).

Also i want to see what proof there is that the "medes" (lets say they are a people) came from Central Asia. Many say that they did but with what evidence? There is a kurdish story who in short is like this, a chicken wants revenge against an old woman who broke his legs and is recruiting people with this word: " Ezê chime Hamadan, ênim leshgerekî giran dênim ser pîra bê diran" in english : "I am going to Hamadan to bring a huge army to crush the old woman with no teeths"

The "medes" capital was Hamadan/Ekbatana!!!!!!!!! Give me proof of that they were from Central Asia!! --Kurdalo (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

kurdistan - mesopotamia
The edit war between Izmir lee and myself is getting  us nowhere. I have tried a compromise solution: substituting Mesopotamia for Kurdistan in the table  of Regions, but retaining  Kurdistan in the main text body.--Vindheim (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove "kurdistan"? Indeed Kurdistan is northern Mesopotamia, but that's just what the greeks called it. If you are going to use a term for the whole area then you would probably say "Middle East". But if you mean only the place were kurds live, then it is "Kurdistan". Shouldn't we write "Asia Minor" also? I don't see why you switch too mesopotamia from Kurdistan, but please correct me if i am wrong. --Kurdalo (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay I see now that "izmir lee" is the one who changed from "Kurdistan" too "Mesopotamia". However, he is a turkish nationalist/racist. And Mesopotamia doesnt only include Kurdistan, it is southern Iraq too. Kurdistan is a region (the first sentence of the article say so) and kurds mainly live there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdalo (talk • contribs) 15:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The changes of Kurdalo
There are 2 changes: 1- "Mesopotamia" to "Kurdistan" 2- "Iranian-speaking" to "Kurdish speaking" About the change number one, I do think the political name "Kurdistan" does not correlate well with the broad name "Mesopotamia". If the name Kurdistan shows the land that kurds mainly live there, then what about the lands like northern Khorasan, that the inhabitants are mainly Kurds ? or what about the definition of "Kurd" ? Does this name includes Laks, Lors , bakhtiyaris and zaza's? (I mean in such place like Iran , that many neighbors talk in similar Iranian languages, that's impossible to draw a line between Kurds and non-kurds ! As an example no linguist knows the ethnic group of "Lak" is Kurd or Lur .... For the change number two , Wiki-linking do gives information about the difference between Iranian languages and Persian . If we use "Kurdish" in place of that , the whole sentence would be redundant plus no new information in that . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That should be Kurdistan and nothing else. Why switch to "Mesopotamia"? While you're at it, switch to "Middle East". However Kurdistan is the correct term.
 * 1. Everyone knows about the region "Kurdistan" that includes parts of Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq.

2. I know that with "iranian-speaking" you dont mean only those who live in iran (often people think of Persian and Iranian as the same). But that's a very stupid term to use. The 100% correct and non-confusing term is "Aryan-speaking" because that's what they call themself. Now I don't know if we can change that one. But many people confuse "iranian-speaking" with "persian-speaking". That's the problem.

Lors were usually seen as kurds, and indeed their language, culture and ethnicity is close to kurdish. But now i dont know what they want to classify themself as. Many Lurs say they are Kurds while others say no.

Zazas are kurds. Their language doesn't count as kurdish, but it may have been a kurdish dialect that got more and more seperated from kurdish. However they have same culture and same ethincity as Kurds. Most important they say that they are Kurds. --Kurdalo (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC) About the "stupidity" of the term "Iranian speaking language" group v.s "Aryan-speaking",you can have your POV, but that's a well-known academic term and we can't change it by opinion.The Aryan language is rather not well defined and the relationship between Iranian languages like Balochi and Kurdish is more than Kurdish and ancient languages of India ( Please see the ) And again, about the Lors , Laks and Zazas , we are not talking about the politics , but the culture.The right to self determination is a political entity irrelevant to history or culture .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, "Everyone" in "Everyone knows about the region..."that you are mentioning is a Weasel word.According to WP:AWW, we should use a clear word . When there is confusion about "who is a Kurd " , then HOW should we use a word such as "Kurdistan" as a geographical name . Please don't get me wrong : I consider both the negative and positive facets of this word : In Iran , using the word may separate the Kurdish speakers from the friendly neighbors and the Kurdish people of northern Khorasan . Anyway , in Turkey(and Syria) , there is denial about a Kurdish inhibited area with the name "Kurdistan" , and using this word may cause conflicts with the Turkish editors of Wikipedia.
 * About the "Middle East" or "Mesopotamia", I think middle East is better , although that term itself is not clear ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You can read about Kurdistan in every encyklopedia and it will say "a region consisting parts of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria were Kurds live". Turks can, instead of editing Kurdistan pages, they can go to their Mongolia pages and edit that.

About "iranian" and "aryan". I myself know that "iranian" refers to kurds/persians/baluchs/afghans and not to Persian or "ethnic Iranian". But many who read this article seem to not understand that. And I can't blaim them, the correct term should be "aryan". Don't get me wrong, i don't mean with "aryan" that Kurds should belong to the group were Indians are. I mean that kurds/persians/baluchs/afghans have called themself aryan too for thousands of years among with their other name. And their language group should been named as "Aryan" and not "Iranian". Iranian is confusing too since there is a state called Iran and the people who live in it are Iranians whom often are identified with Persians.

And finally zazas and lors: Yes, The right to self determination is a political entity irrelevant to history or culture. Lors doesnt seem to be counted as Kurds anymore even though they did before. However Zazas claim themself to be Kurds. --Kurdalo (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And about the "Aryan", I can understand what you say , but anyway , what we want or prefer is not important .Besides , term Aryan , after the usage by Nazi's , still have a negative feedback and has a limited function at all. The readers of the Wikipedia can get the information about the Iranian language from it's page. At the end, I find both your comment(about the Turkish editors) and the one that is written in Turkish below ,a little bit hursh :) . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for time and care . As an Iranian, I have no problem with any Kurds, and as you know , Iran is the only country that names a location inside Iran as Kurdistan. Anyway , that Kurdistan in the Encyclopedias is not a clear region : I mean if we use that as a geographical name , there would be confusion about the exact boundaries of that region . From nationalistic Kurdish view there would be also some problems : do we count the coastal regions of Dezfoul (In Persian gulf ) or not ? do we count Shahr-e-Kurd (meaning City of the Kurds in persian) as a place in Kurdistan or not ? Note that almost all of the population of that city are Bakhtiaris : count them as Kurds or not ? I say it again that in Iran that's difficult to distinguish between Kurd and non-Kurd , basically because the language and culture is so alike that differentiation is some times impossible!

Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyene

Seven Ülkemizde Dursun Birlikte Kardeş Gibi yaşayalım Sevmeyen varsa Siktir olup gitsin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.241.192.243 (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

PKK removed from terror list
Is there a source for this? ~ Zirguezi  20:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

read here; http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL18920425 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.235.48 (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Its a shame
Its a shame, Kurdistan was chopped up during the 1920"s Turkish War. The words Persia and Iran are Britannia names arrived from there control of Mesopotamia. Whats even worse though, after the years of stopping the Mongolian Empire, Arab invasions, Ottoman empire and Safavid dynasty, to have it's own language called an Indo-European language of the Iranian branch. 8 Thousand years of History slaughtered by ....... 09:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't get it . What does all that you said have to do with the article ? And to mention neither Persia nor Iran, are British invented terms they are ancient words ( please see Etymology of Iran).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"indigenous"
I have a problem with the following sentence:

"The Kurds are an Iranian-speaking ethnolinguistic group indigenous to a region often referred to as Kurdistan, an area that includes adjacent parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey."

This is not precise in historical terms:

1. "Kurd" is an identity, not a race. The only thing that can be claimed common to all people calling themselves Kurds is that they speak a Western-Iranian language. The identity "Kurd" is not documented in Sasanian times (until 7. AD) nor in the early Islamic times of the Middle East. Hence, whatever the ethnic composition of the Kurds may be, they - as "Kurds" - are not the indigenous people of their inhabited areas, but SOME of their ancestors were.

2. We know from the historical works of Tabari that a number of Kurdish tribes moved westwards from areas of then eastern Persia, a number of them migratin to Balochistan. Another issue concerning that "indigenous" claim.

3. The majority of Iranian "Kurds" used to speak non-Kurdish Gorani. It was only after the expansion of the Kurdish rulers from Suleymania (Sorani speakers) that they took over that language and thus became "Kurds". Let us not forget that neither Gorani nor Zazaki are Kurdish languages, as documented by numerous leading scholars (all mainstream scholars know this). The general problem is that many people in what is considered "Kurdistan" today speak a northwestern Iranian language not related to Kurdish, but are classified as Kurds.

4. What historically is WEST-ARMENIA is today part of Kurdistan. Isn't that funny? In fact, before the Armenian Genocide in 1915, the city of Van and the whole area around Lake Van were merely inhabited by Armenians, but today they are inhabited by Kurds? The reason is that numerous Turkish Kurds carried out the genocide alongside with the Turks and settled in Armenian lands. "Indigenous"?

I am not proposing to replace the term "indigenous", but to leave it out. Dravidian people or Turkic people in Siberia are indigenous to their lands, but the term indigenous is rather strange for identity-based peoples such as the Kurds. Moreover, considering Kurds in West-Armenia (NE-Turkey today) "indigenous" is truly stupid. Same goes for parts of northern Iraq (Assyrian land) and Iran.

Just my two cents :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.1.167 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Assyria" is in southern Mesopotamia and has nothing to do with Kurdistan.

The kurds are a race,. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdalo (talk • contribs) 12:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Kurds do not have the thing which is the main criterion for being a distinct race: Unique physical features. Mention one physical feature which Kurds do not have in common with their surrounding populations. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kurds are a race. This doesnt mean that all kurds look in a special way. You get your racial features from the climate. There are lighter kurds in the mountains were its very cold, but mostly kurds have dark hair.

If you have lived with kurds, or lived with arabs, or turks or persians or anyone in that area for a year or two, you will be able to tell the diffrence between the groups.

Especially kurdish Yezidis are very disctinct, mostly because they never marry with anyother group. Assyrians/Suryoyos have a special look too. (they are christians and muslims are not allowed to marry them).

You can get your racial look from there too, from your herritage. When a certain group only marry with people inside the group they will probably look like eachother.

But these peoples are somewhat mixed anyway. For example the Kurdish Kassites invaded land south of Mesopotamia (and probably mixed ?? ) and the same did the Guti Kurds. During Saladin Eyubis time many kurdish warriors were moved to different countries were they eventually settled. When the Ottomans invaded Croatia/Serbia/Jugoslavia many kurds who served as soldiers settled there. There are many things like this that affects it.--Kurdalo (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, do they have unique facial features not shared with anyone? Kurds look exactly like their neighbours. There is major overlap. Of course Kurds don't look like Arabs from for example Oman, but they look exactly like Iraqi Arabs and Anatolian Turks, and show the same internal variation. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen, have i said "unique facial feauters not shared with anyone " ? I said that they look close to their neighbours, but you can still be able to tell the difference. And sometimes you cant tell the difference.

Note: Anatolian Turks, there are many assimilated Kurds in East Anatolia. Iraq, many kurds live in iraq too, example Bagdad.

--Kurdalo (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you mention such a difference? FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes i could, but i dont know how i would describe it. Its easier if you have lived among them for a time. try search youtube on "kurdish wedding" or "iraqi wedding"

--Kurdalo (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have known all sorts of Middle Eastereners. Kurds don't look any different from Iranians, Turks, Iraqi Arabs and Iraqi Syriacs. In the typological sense, Kurds are physically Armenoid, Iranid, and Mediterranid. FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to belive that you have lived among this peoples, because if you had you would certanily tell the diffrence. Im guessing that you live in Denmark and have met many immigrants from the Middle East.--Kurdalo (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Even that Assyrian guy that wrote upstairs "kurds are not a race" claims for example Assyrians to be a race, or arabs to be a race. Probably he sees the difference too.

But with that he meant that the kurds are not a people/ethnic group. Clearly they are ...--Kurdalo (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are physical differences, they can be pointed out. I can't find any physical difference. If you can, point them out. Assyrians don't have any unique physical features either. Arabs as a whole don't either, apart from some South Arabians. Many Saudis would have a hard time being mistaken for anything else than a person from the southern part of the Arabian peninsula, whereas a Kurd could be mistaken for anyone belonging to an ethnicity living next to Kurdish populations. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * None of the points raised by the OP regarding the questionable use of the word "indigenous" have been countered. I have thus removed that word from the article's text. Meowy 20:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)