Talk:Kurds

• Archive1
• Archive2 (?? - 22:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC))
• Archive3 (24 Dec 2005 - 30 Jan 2006)
• Archive4 (31 Jan 2006 - 22 Feb 2006) -- Important discussions on neutrality and accuracy disputes.

Yazidism and the killing of Zoroaster

The statement regarding the killing of Zoroaster by Astyages, king of the Medes, is factually incorrect for three reasons. First, most Avesta and Iranian studies scholars, based upon language and geographic descriptions in the Avesta, place the time of the prophet Zoroaster to approx 3600 years in the region of Bactria/Balkh (Afghanistan/Uzbekistan). This time and place is: approx 1000 years before the time of Astyages and outside the geographic realm of the Medes. Second, the prophet Zoroaster was not killed by anyone, he died peacefully as an old man after accomplishing his task of converting the Iranians and Turanians to Zoroastrianism. Third, the mythological villain known as Azhi Dahak, from Shahname and the Avesta, was a myth even during the time of the prophet Zoroaster. So, if Zoroaster is dated to at least 1000 years before the Median king Astyages, and Azhi Dahak was a myth at the time of Zoroaster, then Azhi Dahak and Astyages can not have been the same historical figure. Also, Azhi Dahak is considered a villain in Kurdish and Persian mythology. The hero, Fereydoon, fought against Azhi Dahak, and according to Kurdish myth, Fereydoon is the father of the Kurdish people. As a final note, the Medes were Zoroastrians. The Medes also propagated the myth, although factually incorrect, that Zoroaster was born in Media and a Mede. So, it wouldn't make sense for the Medes to kill their own prophet. I think this just goes to the point that many Kurdish nationalist, and others, are trying desperately to distance themselves from anything and everything Iranic, and in the process are creating myths that cannot stand academic scruitny.

Vandalism and protection

The page has been protected due to edit wars and vandalism. Could those of you who oppose the article the way it stands right now (especially the first few paragraphs) explain your concerns so we can address them? As for the Iranian issue, as discussed in the first two section of this talk page (see above), some sources indicate that Kurds are close to Iranians, but Kurds are never defined as Iranians, so we've agreed that the word "Iranian" should not appear in the first paragraph when defining Kurdish people. On the other hand, Kurdish should be classified as an Iranian language, and it should be mentioned that some sources link Kurds to Iranian (just not in the first paragraph). Any deviations from this should first be discussed here (with proper sources). Aucaman^Talk 14:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the concerns have been made pretty clear before by a lot of contributors, but a number of people with a somewhat special attitude are repeatedly choosing to ignore them. The point is that first, linguistically Kurds are Iranians. This is something we all agree upon. Ethnically, there is no pure Persian, Iranian, Arab, or Kurd ethnic group which could claim to be entirely and solely descendants of a specific group of people. It is pretty clear that all people living in that region are more or less mixed in that regard. This also applies to Kurds. But this is no valid reason for failing to mention that they were (originally at least) just as Iranian as the Persians and others, and in principle, culturally and linguistically still are Iranians. They have a lot more in common culturally with the Iranian people in general (as well as the people living in today's Iran) than they do with any other people of that region, such as Turks, Arabs, or Jews. All the reasons you are bringing up for un-relating Kurds from Iranians apply equally well to all other groups in Iran, including for example Baluchs, Lors, Bakhtiaris, Mazandaranis, etc. Genetic studies are simply the wrong way to classify people, and they are also rarely used for that purpose. Kurds are an Iranian people from the cultural and linguistic point of view, and this is important enough to merit mentioning in the first lines of the text. Suggesting that they are close to Iranian people, implies that they are themselves not Iranian, which is of course wrong. So at least the word other must be included. Moreover, the word some implies a small number, just as the word most implies a large number of sources. If you want to keep that sentence you should find a better way to formulate it. The real solution, hpwever, would be to remove that genetic thing anyway and define them as a culturally Iranian people, as well as mentioning the classification of Kurdish as one of the Iranian languages. Any purely genetically-motivated things should be moved elsewhere in the article.

So to sum up, the best way to start the article would be something like The Kurds are an Iranian people inhabiting..., rather than using the words ethnic group. Then one would go on classifying the language, and in the box to the right relate them to Other Iranian people. If the rationale for using the words ethnic group was their cultural attributes, they would qualify also as Iranian ethnic group. But if ethnic group is meant in a genetic sense, then there are actually no pure ethnic Kurds anywhere in the world, nor any ethnic Persians or whatever, so using the term would be inappropriate anyhow. But you should not define them as one ethnic group and then un-relate them from Iranians for genetic matters. If ethnic meant only genetic the Kurds would not be an ethnic group at all, and in fact it would be nearly impossible to define any ethnic groups in the world. Shervink 15:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

About who are the Kurds since it is disputed enough I'm not going to discuss it here; Although there are many people who believe kurds are culturally and historically more related to their neighboring people i.e. other people of Iraq, Syria and Turkey than Iranians who kurds have been for tens centuries remote from them and their only similarity is a simple linguistic classification, but as I said I'm not going to discuss it.

Anyway the matter I'm going to discuss it is that since the term Iranian is misleading so using it is wrong as you was going to do it. It makes people for example think Kurds are Iranian refugees or at least immigrants living mainly outside Iran. Also I am NOT opposising or critisising the Pan-Iranism POV which claims large parts of Middle East where majority of people there speak IE languages belongs to them , Also I'm seriously NOT sure this POV belongs to them, it's MORE like Pan-Arabism POV which claim Kurds are Iranian immigrants occuping their holy Arabic lands).

Another time: The problem is that we have not A word which can accurately and without confussion describe Kurds' ethnicity hence there is no choice unless we say it in a sentence Either you like to say they are 1000% Iranian or 0,0001% Iranian. If the name of Iran was not a multi-use word we had no problem. Remember that Iran is already name of an existing country, also only a small minority of the Kurds of the world reside there.

PS:There is a Middle Eastern proverb that: I say: "he is male" and he says: "Ok, milk him!"

Diyako Talk + 16:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your words reminded me of that Persian proverb as well. Whether it is also used in other Iranian languages I don't know.

There is no confusion or dispute over whether Kurds are culturally Iranian. The simple fact is that they are. It is your bias which makes you deny it, and you will have to discuss that here if you want to include your dubious claims into the article.

You have not read, or did not understand, or did not respond to most of my arguments yet. Is it correct to call Kurds an ethnic group? If yes, the reasons can only be cultural. If so, they are a sub-group of Iranian people, which by the way have a page on wikipedia which clearly states the difference between Iranian people as a whole and those among them living within the current boundaries of the country named Iran.

I would also like to state that I am not a pan-Iranist. Pan-Iranism has nothing to do with this. This is not a political issue anyway, it is about the cultural and linguistic ties of people. Pan-Iranism is more of a political idea. Shervink 16:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

The reason why I did not answer most of your comments is that I leave it for you! I only suggest you guys to avoid misleading wordings. Iran is already name of a country. the word Iranian means people from Iran. You can say instead: they are an etnnic group related to Iraninas. OR they are an ethnic group never heard of Iranians, BUT beginning the intro just with an Iranian ethnic group is a misleading wording biased towards Pan-Iraniasm either you consider yourselves as pan-Iranist or not this wrong wording serves them not wikipedia.

Thanks.

Diyako Talk + 16:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Iranian people has a clear definition, as well as an extensive page on Wikipedia, and is in no way to be confused with today's Iranian nation, which is only a part of it. If you leave it to me, well then my conclusion is what I already stated. The term Iranian should be included in the definition. By appropriate linking to the related article on Iranian people there will be no confusion. Shervink 17:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

I have not opposed including the defintion of ethnicity of the Kurds in the intro, I just suggest you to avoid misleading wordings. Existing a page on wikipedia does not mean that that term is not misleading, there are many terms with many different meanings and articles. I suggest to all of you guys to use clear wordings, the same way that is proper to an encyclopedia. For examle look at other encyclopedias.

Diyako Talk + 17:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: Also remember that the definition of ethnicity of Kurds although is not as essential and important as you are emphasing has always been included in the intro.

Diyako Talk + 17:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Well you raise some valid points, but I'm afraid most of them have been addressed before.

1. Kurds have a distinct ethnic group. They have their own distinct language and culture. That means they cannot be directly linked to any other ethnic group, be it Arabs, Turks, or Persians. All you can say is that they are "related" or "close" to another ethnic group.

2. Although Kurds are Iranian people linguistically, that's not an integral part of who they are. I made an analogy that should be useful. Linguistically, the English language is a [[Germanic language]], so English people are part of Germanic peoples. But if you go to the English people article, you don't see them being defined as Germanic because being Germanic is not an integral part of the English identity. If you go to the English people article and claim that the first sentence should read, "The English are a Germanic people inhabiting parts of England...." most would disagree with you although you're perfectly correct in saying the English are Germanic people. Why? Because the English are distinct ethnic group with a distinct ethnic characteristics. It's the same here. Kurds are a distinct ethnic group. This article is about Kurds and their ethnic characteristics. Any discussion about how closely Kurds are related to other ethnic groups should not appear in the first sentence of the article (where Kurds are being defined).

3. The term Iranian (or Iranian peoples) is not an ethnic group. It's a linguistic group of people.

4. Calling Kurds Iranians is also confusing to the more naive readers of Wikipedia since Iran is already the name of a country. Some readers might go away with the impression that Kurds are Iranian nationals living outside their country. See #2 with the English example. Most English would not introduce themselves as Germans. Aucaman^Talk 23:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Apparently the definition you have for a distinct ethnic group is a cultural and linguistic one. It is good to know that so we can forget about the genetic stuff for now. Now, linguistically and culturally, they are a sub-group of Iranian people. They can not only be linked to, but are most often sub-ordinated to the Iranian people (and I should emphasize that I do not mean the current Iranian nation here) in that regard. As for the language, this is already mentioned in the article as you agreed on it.

2. That is a very bad example, although technically there would be nothing wrong with even changing that article and saying outright that the English people are part of the Germanic people, with appropriate links to both articles. You should not reduce the accuracy of an article by removing relevant information from it, just for the fear that some naive readers who are not reading with much interest anyhow, might get the wrong impression. An article should be written in the most informative form possible, and if somebody is not reading carefully it is their problem, not ours!

One reason this was not done in the case of the English people, and a reason which makes it look a bit un-natural to call them German nowadays, might be their big geographical separation from today's Germany, as well as the fact that historically they have never lived as a collective entity. This is not the case for Kurds and other Iranians. For example, you will find the term Germanic people at the very beginning of the articles on the Dutch people or the Saxon people.

3. You yourself are defining the Kurds as an ethnic group based on language and cultural issues. In that way Iranian peoples is also an ethnic group. On the other hand, even if you don't like to accept that, just say that Kurds are one of the ethnic groups comprising the Iranian people (which might be a more general term than just ethnic).

4. This was already mentioned in point 2.

Shervink 01:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

As of now, you have not provided a single source for your claims that Kurds are ethnically Iranian. Here's what I have to say about these issues until you provide your sources:

1. Kurds have their own ethnic group. They have their own language - Kurdish. Kurdish is incomprehensible to Persians or any other Iranian people. They have their own culture, some parts of which might appear foreign to most Iranians (such as the Kurdish way of dancing).

2. My example was perfectly fine. If you go to the Iranian peoples article, they do explain how the phrase Iranian peoples should be applied the same way the phrase Germanic peoples is applied.

3. Are you saying "Iranian" is an ethnic group??? This is absurd. So you're claiming that the Tajiks, Pashtuns, and Kurds speak the same language and have the same culture??? No. Persian is an ethnic group. Tajik is an ethnic group. Pashtun is an ethnic group. But Iranian is not an ethnic group. It's a generalized collection of peoples based on liguistics.

4. This had nothing to do with (2). Let me repeat what I said: "Calling Kurds Iranians is also confusing to the more naive readers of Wikipedia since Iran is already the name of a country. Some readers might go away with the impression that Kurds are Iranian nationals living outside their country."

Aucaman^Talk 04:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Kurdish dance is in fact very common allover Iran, I often practice it both with my Kurdish and with my other Iranian (for example Persian) friends, so that is again a bad example. Certainly Kurds have their own customs and traditions, as do all other Iranian people (e.g. Bakhtiari, Ghashghai, Lurs, Tajiks, Gilakis, Mazandaranis, Baluchs, ...). Kurds are in NO WAY special and more different than any of these other groups. Kurdish, although incomprehensible to most other Iranians, is an Iranian language. That is a fact, just as English or Dutch are Germanic languages. You know that, the article already says that, and the sources in the article support it. I am not saying that the Kurds are not a distinct ethnic group, I am however saying that they are an ethnic group speaking an Iranian language. As you seem to define Iranain people as People speaking an Iranian language, this ethnic group is certainly one of the Iranian people.

2. Well then apply it in the same way! I already gave you an example of ethnic groups described as Germanic people, although one even has a separate state.

3. I didn't say that. But you say Iranian is a linguistic grouping, meaning People speaking an Iranian language. Well ok then, the Kurds ARE SPEAKING AN IRANIAN LANGUAGE, SO THEY ARE PART OF THE IRANIAN PEOPLE!

4. Quote from my previous post: You should not reduce the accuracy of an article by removing relevant information from it, just for the fear that some naive readers who are not reading with much interest anyhow, might get the wrong impression. An article should be written in the most informative form possible, and if somebody is not reading carefully it is their problem, not ours!

Aucaman, either you are not reading my posts carefully, or you are deliberately refusing to give valid reasoning because you know you are wrong. You are not responding to what I say, you are having a totally separate discussion for yourself. There are already more than enough sources cited by the article to validate all what I say. Unless you take what I write here seriously, this will be my last post here. I cannot discuss with you if you are not interested in having a logical discussion here. If you do not want to discuss the necessary changes with me, I will leave you to the vandals who make their changes without giving you the reasons. Shervink 13:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

By the way, these are in NO WAY the only criticisms I have of this article. I mentioned these as a summary of what had been brought up so far. It needs a fundamental re-writing, which however seems impossible with the attitude that you have. Just an example: Norooz is NOT the Kurdish new year. It is celebrated by all Iranians, even in Tajikistan. This kind of redefining Iranian heritage in a way to fit only the Kurds is clearly politically motivated. As long as all issues have not been discussed, resolved, and changed in the article, a warning regarding the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article must be kept. Shervink 13:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

1. The fact that we call it "Kurdish dance" (Persian: "Raghs-e Kordi") proves that you view it as a foreign element. Kurdish dance usually occurs in groups and has a lot to do with leg movement. Persian way of dancing is more individual (or with couples) and is based on hand movement. Kurdish dancing is probably a lot closer to Turkish, Jewish, Caucasian, and maybe even Russian dancing than it is to Persian. But I'm glad to know you accept Kurds as a distinct ethnic group.

2. Due to complicated political reasons, many Iranians (people from the country of Iran) tend to think that "Iranian" is an ethnicity. We often introduce ourselves as "Iranian" (and not Persian or Kurd). In the English language, however, that's not the case. "Iranian" is either a nationality (used like the term "American") or it's a linguistic generalization (like the word "Germanic"). In any case it is not an ethnicity.

3. Yes, Kurds are Iranian peoples, but that's just a linguistic classification. It is not integral to the Kurdish identity (this is article about Kurdish people, not their language). We've already mentioned that Kurdish is an Iranian language and that some sources say they're close to Iranians. You're not making a case as to why (for what reason) it is so important to have it in the first sentence of the article.

4. I still say what you're proposing is very confusing for the readers. And it's in no way more informative or accurate.

And I haven't ignored any of the things you said. All you're saying is that Kurds are Iranian peoples (again, it's just a linguistic classification). I agree with that. The article already says that Kurdish is an Iranian language. If you want to claim more than that you need to provide evidence first. I don't know of any sources that define Kurds as Iranians.

I've asked this page be unprotected twice before. I'm not going to do it again unless there's a clean concensus on what to do. Everyone here seems to be full of claims without much evidence to back it up. Aucaman^Talk 16:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to explain to me what Kurdish dance is. I have danced Kurdish many times in my life, and in no way do I see it as something foreign. In that regard, it is in no way different from Lezgi or Bandari dance. The fact that something has a name does not prove it is foreign. In fact, Kurdish and Kurdistan are not foreign to Iranians.

I know of no Iranians who think Iranian is an ethnicity. What you say here is - forgive me for the wording - total nonsense.

It is not only a linguistic classification, but that's the only part you are willing to accept. Nevertheless, language is your main basis for stating that Kurds are a distinct people. If that is so important, their being an Iranian people for linguistic matters is just as important.

The only source of confusion here is your strange statements, not my suggestions. Shervink 21:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

This article is about Kurdish people, not the Kurdish language. Ethnicity is determined by both culture and language. Some might say language is part of culture, so that ethnicity is purely defined by culture. Kurds are close to Iranians and that's already in the article. Aucaman^Talk 22:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Once more, Kurds are Iranian. Not close to, not related to, they are totally and entirely Iranian in any imaginable way, to the same extent that Persians, Gilakis, Mazandaranis, Bakhtiaris, Lurs, Ghashghais, Baluchs, Tajiks etc. are. There is not a single point which makes Kurds more special than any of these other groups, none of which have any problems with proclaiming they are Iranian people. Shervink 23:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

---

The article alraedy even in its itro -although is not necessary and essential- but has the mentioned info: Kurds speak the mostly mutually-intelligible dialects of the Kurdish language, which is an Indo-European languange of the Iranian branch.According to some sources, they are ethnically close to Iranians.

I see nothing wrong with intro. Diyako Talk + 13:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The phrase Kurds are an Iranian people must be moved to the first line, and later explained in the terms stated above, e.g. language, ethnicity (if you like) and culture. It is both necessary and essential. The most important thing defining the ethnicity is the language (You always refer to the fact that they have a separate language to say that they are a distinct ethnic group). The language is an Iranian language, so the definition is incomplete without this. Shervink 13:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

You are confussing this article with article Iranian peoples. Kurds are A distinct ethnic group. Their relationship with Iranian people is so worthless that we can only mention it in the infobox. If there is an obligation to describe Kurds with larger ethnic families, I strongly suggest to write Kurds are an Indo-European ethnic group, which is quit better and even do not mislead people as the term Iranian people (!) does which can mean people from Iran! Please be logical.

Diyako Talk + 14:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This is my last post for now, I have made my point clear and leave it to your own rationality to make a decision as to what you do. Your views so far completely disregard any logic, and are totally biased, anti-Iranian, promoting separatism, even racism at times. The relation of Kurds and Iranians is not worthless, it is essential. It has to be included in the article, in the definition. Please do not let your anti-Iranian sentiments get in the way of sound judgement. Shervink 15:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Dear Shervink,

First, I do not reply your personal attack because this is your POV. But "the relation of Kurds and Iranians has been included in the article in the definition as well as in the infobox." There is nothing to be worry about.

Diyako Talk + 15:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I just would like to make clear that I did not intend a personal attack. If you got such an impression I apologize for it, this is not a personal issue anyway. But I think the relationship of Kurds and Iranians has not been sufficiently accentuated here, for the reasons already mentioned. Shervink 16:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

I believe it has been not only sufficiently but even too much accentuated and clarified, for the reasons already mentioned; Read it:

Kurds speak the mostly mutually-intelligible dialects of the Kurdish language, which is an Indo-European languange of the Iranian branch.According to some sources, they are ethnically close to Iranians.

It is quite clear.

Thanks Diyako Talk + 17:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be that the Kurdish seperatists are willing to sacrifice truth for illusive political goals and that in my opinion the members of Jewish background here are trying to promote and nurture anti-Iranian views and seperate the Kurds from their very strong Iranian identy because of the political and military goals Israel has in Kurdistan and possible Kurdish oil and military bases. I always read all the contributers profiles and see what they edit, people like Acuman are clearly biased. Kurds are an ethnic Iranian people. No matter how many times this has been proven and verified these individuals argue against it for the wrong and political reasons.

---

What's interesting about all these so called pro-Kurdish separatist editors is that their edits are entirely directed against Iran. There is absolutely no mention or effort to address the plight of the Kurdish people in Turkey, which is a far more bigger oppressor of the Kurds than Iran ever was. Look at Bitlis Province, Van Province, Hakkari Province, Siirt Province, Şırnak Province. Do you see any mention of the Kurdish people living there today? Ive been to these places. They are fully Kurdish inhabited lands.

Why dont we see any of these so called Kurdish editors write anything about how the Kurds are suppressed in the articles Demographics of Turkey, or their history in eastern Anatolia?

Why dont we see any of these editors (like User:Mesopotamia and User:Heja Helweda among others) writing ANYTHING, or even voting to merge/delete/etc Kurdish pages pertaining to Turkey? (example) (example 2)

Except for User:Khoikhoi, I see none of these so called Kurdish editors even contributing to any of Turkey's Kurdish related pages. Funny how you can get arrested in Turkey for carrying around the Kurdish flag. And you see or hear nothing from these editors. Are these editors really protagonists of the Kurdish people?

Or...

...could it be that they are here only because they fucking hate Iran and Iranians from the bottom of their hearts? Mercenaries with an agenda to spread hatred against Iran on Wikipedia.

That's truly unfortunate.--Zereshk 09:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am totally shocked by your impolite attitude, though I understand this is mainly because of your true passion for your country, though channeled in a wrong direction. About Turkey, I was the one who included the Kurdish IDP's (Internally Displaced People) and destruction of 3,000 Kurdish villages in Turkey, in the Kurds page. You can check the history of this page. About Kurdish history in eastern Anatolia, I wrote two articles Marwanids and Corduene (both around Diyarbakir). Please don't turn the editing process into a personal fight. Thanks. Heja Helweda 23:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Having authored a few Kurdish pages here and there in Turkey articles doesnt absolve the fact that you have been constantly paying grossly disproportionate attention to attacking Iranian articles. You go around editing articles about Gilaki and Abadan (totally un-Kurdish topics), injecting in any anti-Persian sentence you can muster, and yet 2/3 of Turkey's Kurdish provincial articles dont even mention the NAME "Kurds" in them as the inhabitants. You desperately edit the article Iranian Kurdistan with anti-Persian and anti-Iranian edits, and yet the article ["Turkish Kurdistan" was only started yesterday!! Do the Kurds not exist in Turkey?? Or are you here just to defame Persia and Iran? What do you expect us to think of you (and the likes of you)?

And yes, I do have passion for Iran and all her people, and I do not find your efforts in trying to separate our Kurdish blood-brothers from Iran the least charming.--Zereshk 03:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Update

Some of the personal attacks here are really not called for. You'd expect Kurdish articles to be somewhat controversial, but the things people are fighting about is really dumb. Both User:Heja Helweda and User:Mesopotamia seem perfectly good Wikipedians to me. User:Heja Helweda has done a lot of work having to do with Kurdish culture (most of them NOT political) and User:Mesopotamia seems to be working hard. I just started the Turkish Kurdistan a few days ago, and look where it's at now! (Most of it thanks to User:Mesopotamia.) I'm assuming you have some reasons for what you say, but it's not really relevant to the discussions we're having here (both of these users have not been really active here). Perhaps you should take these to your user talk pages?

As for other isssues, it looks like most people (more or less) approve of the way the first few paragraphs are written. I'm going to ask for unprotection in a few days, but I'll expect people to discuss things here before making controversial edits (especially the first few paragraphs). The failure to do so would be considered vandalism. Aucaman^Talk 02:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman I am sorry but you are also one of the problems on this site. If anyone looks at the discussions they will see that you are two-faced editor meaning you have overt biase that is recognizable. You are one of the big problems and very underhanded. 69.196.139.250 03:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ya okay Aucaman! You just lost most credibity. User:Mesopotamia writes thinks like in my opinion I am not Iranian so therefore....or 'all Kurds hate Iranians.' Ya they are great Wikipedians. Sorry, but I got to say it 'Your so full of it.'

Aucaman, I for one do not approve of the way the entire article is written, let alone for the first paragraphs. It is extremely biased and anti-Iranian, and people are calling this out loud here for quite a long time. There is no acceptance of the article as it is written now. Moreover, people (including me) have tried their best to have a useful discussion with you, but my experience is that you are not at all interested in discussing or stating the truth, so you escape the topic whenever it becomes uncomfortable and later claim there is a consensus. Well, there is not. The article cannot stay the way that it is. Separatist propaganda does not belong here. Most other Kurdish-related pages have similar problems and have to be changed.

If you are interested in treating the issue of Kurdish separatism in a scholarly and impartial manner (rather than the way you are doing now), I suggest setting up a new page for that. I am surprised that you people with clearly separatist sentiments have not done that yet. Remove this nonsense from this page, and dedicate an impartial, scholarly, unbiased page to the history and origins of the separatist ideas among Kurds, and let all people present whatever evidence they have.

First, however, this page and all related pages must be entirely re-written. Shervink 16:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Good call. We can have a separate page for Kurdish separatism all of its own. That's logical.--Zereshk 18:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I 110% agree with what was stated about removing all this nonsense from the Kurdish articles. Kurds are ethnic Iranians! 69.196.139.250 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Stop this childish nonsense forever!!

What is this nonsense you some guys write here and waste your time??!

• User Heja helweda you are very bad!
• User Diyako you are very neutral!
• User Aucaman you are one of the problems on this site!
• User Heja helweda why you do not write articles about Kurds in X-tapeh or x-land?
• User Mesopotamia we do not like you!
• You all are very bad!
• We do not trust in you!
• Your edits are very bad!
• I have a Kurdish friend who likes Iranians!
• Everything you write is wrong because you are you!!
• Only our edits are credible!
• ...etc

Is this all of your argument? Please act civil and lets go on friendly. We are all wikipedians not enemies and even if you think we are enemies forget it here in Wikipedia. IF we follow the wikipedia policy we never get troubles like this. Here one of the most important things (If not the most important one) is citiation and providing credible and neutral sources not our POV. Diyako Talk + 15:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Buddy people provide proof but you biased editors always derail it and lie about consensus. You have underhanded tactic. If people look at all the evidence provided from day 1 they will see there was way more sources saying Kurds are Iranians. The sources you guys provide just fail to mention it which does not indicate that Kurds are not Iranian peoples. The information is not even presented properly by those anti-Iranian editors.

Let's try to improve the article

I would like to ask all editors who don't like the article in its currect shape, to provide their specific objections, then we may be able to improve the article, instead of engaging in endless personal arguements. So the question is what do you consider to be incorrect about this page?. Thanks. Heja Helweda 18:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The question is not only this. One can select many correct information but in a biased way. For example, one can just search for Kurdish and terrorism and write an article about Kurds! There are tons of such articles written by Turkish people and their western supporters. Yes, all information will be provided with references!! Would you consider such an article a suitable NPOV and encyclopedic article ? I suggest every body to include all information that they can find here and there in this article. No body would be allowed to delete other people's added infos. After one week or so, we can start to moderate, delete or merge parts to avoid repetitions. Then we will be able to include all different point of views, including Kurds (Sunni, Shia, separaists and nonseparaist), arabs, Turks, Iranians (pro-regime and anti-regime) and others. There may be even better suggestion ... ?? --Zeelkey19:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea sounds good, but I would just like to remark that essentially "including all points of view" should not necessarily be the goal. An article should be factual, even if that means not appeasing certain points of view, if they are really wrong.

Heja Helweda, why don't you take a look at the points already mentioned and discussed without proper consideration by the anti-Iranian editors?

Some editors state that mentioning that Kurds are classified as Iranian is not important at the very beginning of the article, but they put the following:

Ranging probably from 25 to 30 million people, the Kurds comprise one of the largest ethnic groups in the world without a separate country. For over a century, many Kurds have campaigned and fought for the right to self-determination in an autonomous homeland known as "Kurdistan". Nevertheless, the governments of countries with sizable Kurdish populations are actively opposed to the possibility of a Kurdish state, believing such a development would require them to give up parts of their own national territories.

just at the beginning, which is in essence nothing more or less than a declaration of separatism. First, how many sources can you find (I only remember seeing one) supporting that the Kurds are one of the largest groups without a separate country? To find several bigger ones, just look at India or China. Second, Why is that important at all? Is it so integral to the Kurdish people (even more than their language, and their being an Iranian people) that it should be mentioned at the beginning? Do all ethnicities have to be nations as well? Do all ethnicities have separate countries? Who says that? Stating this kind of thing has a very bitter political taste which is highly dependent on the point of view, and above all irrelevant here. Third, there is no autonomous homeland known as Kurdistan. How can something which does not exist be known with some name? Kurdistan is the name of a region, not a country, and has never been a country, nor do all those living in it (or even a majority of them) fight for independence, however the article is suggesting that. Again, is this important enough to be here?

Further down the page, it is stated about the so-called republic of Mahabad that:

Kurds twice had their own controlled free area without government control: The Republic of Mahabad in Iran which was the second independent Kurdish state of the 20th century, after the Republic of Ararat in modern Turkey; and second time after the Iranian revolution in 1979.

Free area without government control? The area was controlled, in fact occupied, by the Soviet army! Calling that an independent republic is not serious.

Further down, Norouz is referred to as the Kurdish new year, which is worth of no comment. It seems to be a great skill of some editors to take Iranian or Persian customs and put the tag of Kurdish on them.

Furthermore, there have been numerous points raised regarding the first paragraphs, and there are still more points to make, but let's start with these for now.

Shervink 20:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Sources for: the largest ethnic group without their own state: [1], [2], [3],[4],[5], [6], [7], [8],[9],[10], [11], [12],[13],[14]

Heja Helweda 22:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If Kurds are the largest ethnic group without their own state, then Iran is a persian State. So I assume, you have no problem with calling whatever related to Iran as Persian! Like Persian politician and Persian President .... Persian footbal team ... Persian parliament ... Do you agree Heja Helweda ??! If Yes, please from now on use the word Persian instead of Iranian !! --Koulten 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to provide sources for your claims.Heja Helweda 22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You have already provided the sources. Persians have a larger population that Kurds. If Kurds are the largest with no State (according to your sources), then Persians have a state for their own. (natural logic). --Koulten22:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

But what you are saying isnot related to this article. I cannot deduce Iran is a persian state from the stateless situation of the Kurds. Iran is the name of the country and Persian refers to the official language and the major ethnic group in Iran. Can you please explain your position a bit further?Heja Helweda 23:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The deduction is straight forward. but If you are asking my personal opinion: I doubt Persians have any state for their own. --Koulten 23:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Persians have their own state: Iran. The official language of the country is Persian and the majority of people are Persian. The same cannot be said of Kurds. This is straightforward stuff. Aucaman^Talk 00:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Iran is not a Persian state. For starters, not that it matters, I am not a Persian and I am Iranian. Persian only became the offical language in Iran in the time of Reza Shah. There was no offical language. There was traditional languages. Before that for most Iranian history Azeri was the language of the military or armed forces and in certain points in time the bureacratic langauge, while Persian was mostly the bureacratic language. Also the consensu on the population is wrong. Many Iranians don't care about their ethnicty in Iran so when they are asked what they are they think that what they speak means what they are so they say Persian. There are many Iranian Kurds who are Azeri and many Persian who are really Azeri or Lori or Bakhtari or Georgian. Everyone is so mixed in Iran with a grandparent from the Caucasus and a greatparent from Kurdistan, ect. Iran is not a Perisan state it is a Iranian state for all Iranians and if you read the constitution it says that and also gives Persians and Iranians and others as equal status as Iranians. The idea of minority does not legaly exist in Iran based on ethnic lines. Minority exists on religion lines. As for languages they are al considered equal and national languages, but with Persian as the official language of the govenment and state institutions. In fact most government officials are not ethnic Persians, but Azeris

I didn't say Iran is a Persian state. I said Persians have a country in which they can speak their own language and celebrate their culture. The same cannot be said of Kurds. And we're not talking about Reza Shah's era. We're talking about now! Aucaman^Talk 06:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Aucaman changed his mind ! So you believe there is no Persian state. Then Persians are the largest ethnic group without their own state ! Aucaman said : Persian can celebrate their culture.. This is clearly wrong. Who ever understand Iran knows that in Iran you can not celebrate Persian culture and all persian celebrations are either killed or are to be killed by the regime! Aucaman said: Persian can speak their own language. So do Kurds! and I am also talking about now! I am a persian and I agree with my azeri friend that: We mainly ignore our ethnicity in Iran (except for sunni Kurds). We prefer the concept of citizenship over ethnicity. Iran is not like Turkey or Germany ... . We can say Turkish and German footbal team evenif 1/3 of Turkish population are Kurds! But you can not say Persian footbal team. There is no Persian state as There is Turkish or German or French or British state in the world. --Koulten09:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

The issue of whether the Kurds should be labeled “Iranian people” or not, since they speak an Iranian language, has been discussed to death! Some editors are really against mentioning it in the first paragraph and that is fine but the language issue should be mentioned in the second paragraph instead the article goes right into political stuff which I don’t think belongs here. Whether or not there should be an independent Kurdish state is not the first thing to mention while defining Kurdish people. We should talk about the race and language and their geographic location and then about politics.

The second paragraph should be moved farther down the page and the third and fourth paragraph should instead become second and third respectively.

It should look like this:

The Kurds are an ethnic group inhabiting northern and northeastern Mesopotamia, which includes parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (a region sometimes referred to as Kurdistan). Smaller communities can also be found in Lebanon, Armenia, and Azarbaijan (Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh).

Ranging probably from 25 to 30 million people, Kurds speak the mostly mutually-intelligible dialects of the Kurdish language, which is an Indo-European languange of the Iranian branch.

According to some sources, they are ethnically close to Iranians. Modern Kurds are commonly identified with the ancient Kingdom of Corduene inhabited by the Carduchi'

This should make everybody happy! It does not label Kurds as Iranian but it does mention that their language is of the Iranian branch in the beginning of the article.

Gol 21:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are several things which are problematic here. First, most of Iranian Kurdistan is not part of Mesopotamia, as far as I know. Second, ethnicity should better not be mentioned. The current form serves to distant them from Iranians rather than show a relation. Close to Iranians means they are themselves not Iranian, which is not proven, and most probably false. Some implies not many which again is wrong. Commonly identified? Is it really so common? Shervink 21:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Yeah, the reference to Mesopotamia should probably be taken out. But I think it's also significant that Kurdistan is not a country and it should be mentioned here. Aucaman^Talk 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ya Aucaman, its funny you agree, because when ever I removed it you reverted it.Shervink be careful with Aucaman he is one of the most biased and sneaky editors. He talks compromise, but his actions are something else. 69.196.139.250 03:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Come on, man! Aucaman's trying to work out a compromise with you, but you're being very inflexible! Please don't insult people or you could be banned. --Khoikhoi 03:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

How is the truth insulting. I was not insulting. Acuman only pretends to compromise when in reality he undermines. If you don't beleive be go read all the discussions then check all the articles he has contributed to and his edits. It took mt 2 days. I can say he has no credibilty with me. Even the Mesopotamia statement. When I edit it he reverts it. Now he agrees. That is only the tip of the sharks fin too. 69.196.139.250 03:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you perceive the truth to be, avoid from making personal attacks or some admin may block you. --Khoikhoi 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you didn't discuss it in the talk page and there was no edit summary. But unlike you, I'm flexible. I'm willing to go with the above compromise. It's really up to you. If you don't want to solve the dispute, the current protected version would stay. You like the current version better? Guess what, I'm not that excited to change it anyway. And you cannot dismiss a proposed change just because it's proposed by someone you don't like. What's wrong with my proposed version? Aucaman^Talk 06:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

I think it's important to agree on what the introductory paragraphs should look like. I'm beginning to understand some of the concerns some people have, so I'm proposing this new version:

The Kurds are an ethnic group inhabiting parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria (a region sometimes referred to as Kurdistan). Smaller communities can also be found in Lebanon, Armenia, and Azarbaijan (Kalbajar and Lachin, to the west of Nagorno Karabakh).

Ranging probably from 25 to 30 million people, the Kurds comprise one of the largest ethnic groups in the world without a separate country. Most Kurds speak the mostly mutually-intelligible dialects of the Kurdish language, which is an Indo-European languange of the Iranian branch.

The richness and diversity of the Kurdish culture reflects Kurdish people's extensive roots as well as their acceptance of other cultures.

This is the most neutral version I can think of. I've trimmed off a lot of unnecessary political stuff. The last sentence was added to say something about the Kurdish culture, which is what this article should be about. Please take the time to compare it with the current protected version and indicate your support of opposition (with a short explanation). Accepting this as the introductory paragraph of the article would help ease the way to solving other problems in the body of the text. I'm not going to support unprotecting the article until some sort of compromise is reached. Aucaman^Talk 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No it is still not good enough. Kurdish culture is rich, but you are going to use it to mislead people into thinking all its Iranian aspects are adopted. You just let other people make the introduction. 69.196.139.250 03:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well what do you suggest then? --Khoikhoi 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest all the sources be reassesed, first. All sources. I will make my suggestion soon, enough.

Well, if you want to change that last sentence about the Kurdish culture, I'm open to other ideas. But something has to be said about the Kurdish culture. Aucaman^Talk 06:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well this is better than what we already have but I still think language and ethnicity should be mentioned before political stuff. It is important that there is no independent Kurdish state and it should be mentioned but it is not more important that their language so mention the language first and then get into political stuff.

Gol 06:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is more readable. You say where Kurds live and you mention that there's no Kurdish state there. Then you talk about the language and culture. But if you insist, let's see your version of it. Aucaman^Talk 07:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We'll lets not rush. We have to wait for everyone to have 'consensus.' 69.196.139.250 07:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)