Talk:Kurds

Origins of Kurds are contested, not Iranic ethnic group WP:NPOV=

Thank you @Austronesier: for directing me to that former discussion. I read the discussion and agree with @S Marshall: the discussion was inconclusive. The solution is not to make up a term and add it to the article lead. The academic consensus is that the origin of Kurds is contested. See this Limbert, J. (1968). The origins and appearance of the Kurds in pre‐Islamic Iran. Iranian Studies, 1(2), 41-51.. See the sources from many different centuries along with more recent works I have cited below. First, adding the word Iranic ethnic group violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view because it favors one perspective. Second, an argument based on WP:WEIGHT doesn't apply because the number of sources not mentioning Iranian origin or saying something against it are in majority as you can see below. Third, none of the three references listed in the article mentioned the term Iranic ethnic group. There is a confusion between the notion of Kurdish belonging to Iranian languages with the origins of its people. Scholars who made this classification clearly warned about its caveats for example the peer reviewed article by Liumbert that quotes Vladimir Minorsky saying The classification of the Kurds among the Iranian nations is based mainly on linguistic and historical data and does not prejudice the fact there is a complexity of ethnical elements incorporated in them. Historically several theories have been around. Greeks and Europeans associated Kurds with Kardu, and we see such claims in works of scholars and missionaries visiting the region. Here you see McDowall speculates: Perhaps the Kardu... were really Medes, as Kurds themselves like to think, a distinct mountain tribal people of Indo-Aryan origin. He is not alone in this and many other scholars have the same view. I can numerous resources spanning centuries for this view. None of the sources mention Iranian or Iranic origins. Second, many associated the origin of Kurds to Arabs. This was the dominant view before the 20th century. You can see this view in this works of many Arab, Kurdish and Persian scholars and more from the region. Perhaps the oldest grepresentative of this view is Al-Masudi that in his The Meadows of Gold wrote that the origin of Kurds is contested. They were Aarbs and became mixed with Ajams (non-Arabs, e.g., Persians) and hence their different language. The original text is in Arabic and I can share it with you (can't post the URL here. Not allowed). This account has been shared by many other scholars including Waqyenegar, who is Kurdish and wrote Baday-ul-Lughat a Kurdish Persian dictionary. There are many other sources I can list if needed. Third, some Persian sources inspired by Persian mythology of Shahnameh and a story it tells about the origin of Kurds (people who survived the tyranny of the mythological king Zahhak the snake shoulder). Finally, Kurds themselves are very heterogeneous and some only speak Kurdish and have other origins such as Armenian etc. Please read KURDISH SOCIETY: HETEROGENEITY, STRATIFICATION, MINORITIES part of the article, which says "They were kurdophone and called themselves Kurds without attempting to hide their Armenian origins." There are many other sources like these: Hennerbichler, F. (2012). The origin of Kurds. Advances in Anthropology, 2(02), 64. The Kurds: An Encyclopedia of Life, Culture, and Society. Edited by Sebastian Maisel. Santa Barbara These are the some of the major perspectives, but there are more. So I don't see why such big claim should be made in the beginning of the article favoring one perspective, while it is not supported by most academic sources. Pirehelo (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: in case it didn't work first time. 18:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Less than 24 hrs ago you wrote in the edit summary: Kurdish is an Iranian language but there is no such thing as Iranic ethnic group (emphasis added). Now you say it is a matter that favors one perspective, only to deny again in the following sentence that "Iranic" can be an appropriate qualifier for an ethnic group. This is confusing.

You see, "Iranic ethnic group" was a compromise; the earlier version read "Iranian ethnic group". A compromise to appease persistent whining about Kurds not being "from Iran", since for many, this is apparently the only reading of "Iranian ethnic group", even when one click on the blue text elucidates (to those who actually care) what "Iranian ethnic group" actually means (= one of the "Iranian peoples"). The terms "Iranian peoples" and "Iranic peoples" are firmly established in the literature, and a search in academic repositories and lesser sites like Google Scholar will inform you that the phrases "Iranic ethnic group" and "Iranian ethnic group" are not unheard of. I reverted the removal of the text not only because of the existing non-consensus to delete "Iranic/Iranian" as descriptor from "ethnic grouip", but also because of the counterfactual statement "there is no such thing as Iranic ethnic group".

Don't get me wrong, I myself have opined multiple times that "Iranic/Iranian ethnic group" is not a good characterization for the Kurds in the opening sentence. But many editors disagree (and some certainly for reasons that are just as valid as mine). And I don't support changes that may result in a version that might align better with what I would like to see, but at the same time are argued on erroneous premises. –Austronesier (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier:I reiterated that there is no such thing as Iranic ethnic group. Could you please provide a few reliable references by researchers in Kurdish studies for it (Not 2024 articles copying English Wikipedia!)? Iranian languages do exist and Kurdish belong to them. Those who think Kurds are an Iranian ethnicity support their claim based on linguistics reasoning, and I just quoted Vladimir Minorsky, who belongs to this group, that literally warns about the limitations of such statement. Also again none of the three provided references support such thing. If something is so disputed why should it be in the lead? At least add a line saying this is contested with some being of such opinion not reverting my edits fully. Pirehelo (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

First an attempt at claiming Nowruz and its influences across the world as "Kurdish" and now this. The citations you asked for are already in the thread you were advised to read, including responses to the arguments you are making. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:I am asking for where in the sources the term Iranic ethnic group is mentioned. It's a madeup word? If you think otherwise, please add them as footnotes. 21:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"Iranic" is a synonym for "Iranian", one simple Google eboks search would show you that it is indeed used in literature. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Or better, try "Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group" in Google Scholar. –Austronesier (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: My bold change (NB without consensus) from "Iranian" to "Iranic" is apparently contested now. Should we return to "Iranian ethnic group"? In some WP:BATTLEGROUND areas, appeasement is useless... –Austronesier (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind either spelling. But I guess "Iranic" is still good for now? Imo articles (including its talk page) like these should have a harsher protection template, eg at least 1000-2000 edits to be able to edit it. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Iranic ethnic is mimicking the word Turkic that is for example used in Turkic languages (to avoid confusion with being Turkish). Iranian refers to the national state of Iran. Most Kurds live out of Iran. And as I said the term Iranic ethnic group is a fake word. So, it should be removed from the lead. Or if a statement is to be made, it should mention the diverse set of perspectives in this regard not just one. Pirehelo (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Iranian refers to the national state of Iran. ← This is wrong and clearly shows that you don't care to read the preceding discussions (WP:IDHT). At least read the closing hatnote that I added to an earlier time sink. –Austronesier (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

What you shared doesn't address the issue raised by scholars I mentioned above. Using this madeup word - Iranic- is clearly taking side and ignoring the majority of scholarly literature. If you include this side of the story why not the other side? Pirehelo (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Not iranic nor iranic language! We’re far older than that! 2001:8F8:1F18:2722:4DAB:FCED:17A9:A88D (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand why we have not done with this issues so far. I get the reasons behind it, but the term "Iranic" is not an accepted term; please stop trying to make it one. Kurds are Iranian people; we should not force using a somewhat new word because one can't differentiate Iranian people and people from the modern country of Iran, which itself was only called that in English relatively recently. Please revert back to Iranian people, this just seems like a fake forced compromise. Mobin Karami (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I am Kurdish, and the previous version of this Wikipedia page has often been used against Kurds by others in the Middle East. It has been cited to suggest that Kurds should "go back to Iran," and this usage has promoted hate and racism. The term "Iranian" is closely associated with the country of Iran, which, given this history, makes it inappropriate, as it can perpetuate harmful misunderstandings. Sikorki (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Not an iranian ethnic group! Kurds are a mesopotamian ethnic group.

Not an iranian ethnic group! Kurds are a mesopotamian ethnic group. The Kurds have an older history than Iranians and therefore are considered the indegenious people of the Mesopotamian area alongside with the Armenians, Assyrians & Chaldeans. This information must be corrected on the page “Kurds”. Don’t spread false information. Jafftribe (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

AGREED! NOT IRANIC!!! 2001:8F8:1F18:2722:4DAB:FCED:17A9:A88D (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Kurds are originally from Central Asia they were Aryan then they came to iran with Persians and then went to zagros now Kurds live in the cities of iraq/turkey/syria 185.244.153.137 (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Kurds are indigenous.

User @pirehelo has already stated on the talk page why, Kurds are not considered Iranic or Iranian. Since he did not receive a response, I will continue the discussion here. Please also refer to his talk page above for further context.

According Ferdinand Hennerbichler Kurds are traditionally regarded as Iranians and of Iranian origin due to their Iranian language. This hypothesis is largely based on linguistic considerations and was predominantly developed by linguists. recent DNA research suggests that the earliest Kurds descended from indigenous Neolithic populations in the Northern Fertile Crescent, primarily outside modern Iran. Later, these ancestors were linguistically Iranianized by R1a1 immigrants from Central Asia. This research reveals that the indigenous Kurds and the R1a1 immigrants represent distinct populations with different genetic, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds. These new insights indicate first inter-disciplinary findings in co-op- eration with two international leading experts in their disciplines, Iranologist Gernot L. Windfuhr, Ann Arbor, and DNA Genealogist Anatole A. Klyosov, Boston, USA. (Source: doi: 10.4236/aa.2012.22008.)

Introduction should be changed to: “Kurds are Iranianized indigenous people of the Northern Fertile Crescent.

As WP:WEIGHT doesn’t apply because the number of sources not mentioning the Iranian origin or stating something against it are in the majority, as noted by Pilehelo in the above discussion. 185.187.78.158 (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course WP:WEIGHT applies. And we certainly won't discard it for the sake of including "conclusions" from a poorly-written paper published in a predatory journal. –Austronesier (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Let’s say this is poorly written by him. What about the majority of sources? Why is the label 'Iranian' or 'Iranic' forced on the Kurds if they are not?

If you need more sources, I can send as many as you want.

During the Arab conquest, the term "Kurd" (plural: Akrād) began to refer to a mix of Iranian or Iranicized tribes. Some of these were indigenous, like the Ḳardū and Tmorik̲h̲/Ṭamurāyē, while others included Semitic groups (as seen in the genealogies of Kurdish tribes) and some probably Armenian (it is said that the Mamakān tribe is of Mamikonian origin).

Source: Kurds, Kurdistān, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Bois, Th., Minorsky, V., and MacKenzie, D.N. 185.187.78.158 (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

This is cherrypicking. What does the first line of that source say? "The Kurds, an Iranian people of the Near East, live at the junction of more or less laicised Turkey, S̲h̲īʿi Iran, Arab and Sunnī ʿIrāḳ and North Syria, and Soviet Transcaucasia." We're not going to alter the lede because you want to prove that the Kurds are "indigenous" (whatever that means). HistoryofIran (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Cherrypicked? What are you even saying? Even if the book initially claims that Kurds are Iranian, it's always based on language, not origin. You know more than I do Kurds are various nomadic peoples who were all labeled as Kurds after Islam, and many are not Iranian but have been Iranicized.

Acourding David McDowall the Kurds were first clearly recorded, as 'Cyrtii' from the second century BCE onwards, they were almost certainly already an amalgam of Indo-European tribes that had made their way into the region by different routes and at different periods. Semitic tribes may also have inhabited the Zagros during this period. The term 'Cyrtii' was first applied to Seleucid or Parthian mercenary slingers dwelling in the Zagros and it is uncertain that it denoted a coherent linguistic or ethnic group at this juncture. Certainly by the time of the Islamic conquests a thousand years later, and probably for some time before, the term 'Kurd' had a socio-economic rather than ethnic meaning. It was used of nomads on the western edge of the Iranian plateau and probably also of the tribes that acknowledged the Sassanians in Mesopotamia, many of which must have been Semitic in origin.

Source: McDowall, David. A Modern History of the Kurds. Pp. 9

Adding only the word “Iranic” is clearly against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view because it favors one perspective. If Kurds mixed with Turkish people, it doesn’t make sense to say they are “Iranicized.” but when it comes to the origin of the Kurdish nation, all aspects of their origin should be included in the introduction. Therefore, it should state that Kurds are Iranian or groups of Iranicized people. 185.187.78.158 (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Also, all ethnic groups are mixed, no ethnic group is pure. Also, you seem to apparently know me, what's your user account? HistoryofIran (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s not just about mixing, it’s about origin. The sources I’ve referenced are interconnected, and even if they don’t perfectly match Wikipedia’s guidelines, they shouldn’t be ignored. There are many reliable sources that support the idea that Kurds are either Iranicized or both Iranian and Iranicized. If more sources are needed, I can send them when I have time. Otherwise, this will be my last message on this topic, as I don’t want to spend alot of time on something that’s not important to me. 185.187.78.158 (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Avoids my question about their user account, geolocates to northern Iraq, claims to know me, edits from mobile, wants to portray Kurds are "indigenous" (again, whatever that means), disregards our policies. Exact same scenario as a recently blocked user, who was obsessed with me, stalking me for at least a year. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Review WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS. Please don't make personal comments about me. I do not know you, and you are the one commenting on my article. 185.187.78.158 (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

So now policies matter? And you sure do know the names of many of them despite being a IP.

I do not know you

This claim of yours say otherwise "You know more than I do Kurds are various nomadic peoples who were all labeled as Kurds after Islam"

I'll file an SPI later. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

They always matter, and editing as an IP user is allowed on Wikipedia. I no longer use an account, I’ve noticed you’re familiar with Kurdish history, and anyone who knows the topic understands the Kurds’ origins are complex. It feels like some people are controlling Iran-related articles, limiting alternative views. Wikipedia should present different perspectives, and most scholars don’t see the Kurds as purely Iranian. I’m not a sockpuppet, I’ve just self-blocked my account and barely use Wikipedia anymore. 185.187.78.158 (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This talk page has become too long, and I doubt any admin or editor will take the time to read it, so it should probably be archived if possible. I’m not sure how to do that since I’ve only been active on Wikipedia for about two months, plus one month four years ago. While this topic isn’t my main focus, I’m curious because I’ve read many sources on Kurdish origins, and none of them mentioned an Iranian origin. I may need to research the topic deeper, as some comments here made me feel like I’m being attacked. 185.187.78.213 (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

"Iranian origin"? Where do you get that from? Not from our article. I see little reason to fix things that aren't even there. –Austronesier (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Since the same IP has added Lokman Meho as a source on Gutian people, how is Lokman Meho, PhD in library science, a reliable source for ancient middle eastern history, or even pre-Islamic Kurds? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you check it again? I added more sources. 185.187.78.213 (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you answer my question? Thomas Bois was a priest sent to the Middle East, and he doesn't cite where his information originates. I wouldn't use Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Encyclopaedia Americana, or Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East for anything. Where are the secondary sources? --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Look at it again I've added a secondary source. 185.187.78.222 (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

For the third time, can you answer my question? Also, since you continue to add references, you need to provide quotes to confirm verifiability.--Kansas Bear (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)