Talk:Kurds/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Population numbers

{{editsemiprotected}}

note-I have changed my sources to more proper ones

From recent readings and old information. Numbers show that kurds go up to 42 million. This comes from the recent articles within wikipedia saying that kurds equal up to 7 million within Iraq . In turkey the numbers reach up to 30 million as claimed by the KRG and in iran the kurdish population is disputed due to lores or Feylis in other terms. Feylis are Shia kurds who make up around 3 million + . These people are also not represented in this article. Concerning Turkey, Massoud Barzani stated in a interview that there are 30 million Kurds . In Iran the oppresive government has been very belligerent and refuses to let Kurds properly speak and does not include Lores in the population of Kurds and I also ask you, with 7 million kurds in iraq, how could there be less in iran? History has proved this fact and shows that the number could be up as high as 10 million kurds. In 1993 Kurdish people made up 16% of the population so how does half off the population leave Iran? Kurds have also 50,000 more people in Israel than this article states . Syria has 1.9 - 2 million Kurds within its borders from historical and population growth over time. I am not saying that kurds are at 42 million but showing it is a possibility so please change 36 million up to 42 million. In turkey 19 million to 30 million in israel 100,000 to 150,000 in iraq 6.5 million to 10 million (due to joint Feyli Kurd numbers) . I don't want to make guarantees but the population should extend up to that range. --Kovan95 (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kovan95 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not done: The large range in the infobox appears to be sum of the smaller ranges for each region. Those smaller ranges are sourced. If you would like to modify those smaller ranges, you need reliable sources. Wiki articles are not reliable sources, nor, generally, are youtube interviews. The adherents.com site might be reliable, as might the jcjcr.org site, but I would be cautious of both since they don't detail their review process. For now, it seems better to not change these and let you find better sources for this. Celestra (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not done: It is better to not change your posts after they are replied to; this makes it easier to see what has changed. Your reference for 30 million Kurds in Turkey does not say that. It says that the majority of the 20-30 million Kurds in the world (as of 1996) live in Turkey. I didn't look carefully at the rest of the sources since you are autoconfirmed now and can make these changes yourself. Please be careful to only insert facts which are found in reliable sources. Celestra (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

MacKenzie's "challenge"

"Among some scholars however there are some disagreements: MacKenzie challenges relation of Median language to Kurdish"

I, like many of you I'm sure, am baffled by this citation. It does not state what is being said by MacKenzie, who he is, when he wrote it, nor is his name even mentioned in the citation =/

Add to this the fact that this so-called challenge seems highly unlikely, given the fact Median is the ONLY major North-Western Iranian language, thus the only one Kurdish could possibly have descended from, Median's Avestan substratum, and Kurdish's similarity in vocabulary and phonology to Avestan, and you have yourself a very dubious claim which is not correctly cited or explained. Could someone PLEASE pay attention to this? The issue had been raised months and months ago, and still no clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.91.47 (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will correct this later but you are absolutely right. The so called challenge does not exist at all. There is only one point/story: MacKenzie made huge effort to keep his thesis look interesting and when Gershevitch (probably the most authoritative person on Iranian languages in his time) was writing something like "kurdish is more or less like Median and Persian" which contradicted MacKenzie thesis that "Kurdish was already in 20th century far from Median and closer to Persian" (or something like these). This made MacKenzie react strangely... I will find the references and correct thngs accordingly. Xashaiar (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention to the matter, however as of the 26th of November, the citation and claim remain in the article. What exactly has been done about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.9.50 (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding. Check back next week. Ok? Xashaiar (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

DONE. Xashaiar (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mackenzie is about half a century old; since then several other scholars have studied the case and it's better to stay with the most updated mainstream academic data. For instance Gernot Windfuhr, concluded that originally Kurdish was Median but has undergone a strong Parthian influnce. Halys (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is STILL there! Has everything above been said in vain? Who's in charge of this sodding article? Does anyone give a s***? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.94.6 (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. And one note for everybody: It is true that these texts are old, but they were the basis of further works and as long as we make fair and neutral use of them, it is fine. Xashaiar (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed] the sentence "This work of Mackenzie is called by some as MacKenzie challenging of relation of Median language to Kurdish". This is not really what MacKenzie said. (see previous sentences). Also I see wp:synth here, so I removed it. In the article the opinion of MacKenzie as well as the opinion of Gershevitch whom Mackenzie criticises are presented. (update) I woould like to see an excerpt from 44 which can support the sentence "Astarian is of the opinion that there is no special genetic affinity between Median and Kurdish". Thanks.Xashaiar (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Indigenous people"?!

Who wrote this article? It's unsupported by ALL academic facts. Levinson and Osmańczyka are political annalists, NOT historians. They're Iranian people, no matter according all academic facts, and unlike Afghans and Tajiks - Kurds have never been separated from political matrix (Iran), but most Kurds live outside of Iran because of Ottoman conquests of Western Iran. Iran is multiethnic country like India or China, so you can't say 75-million Telugu are "largest ethnic group in the world without their own state" (yes, their number is twice larger then Kurdish). I don't know with moron wrote this page, but leave your nationalism and pseudohistory for forums, youtube and own home. Thank you. --109.60.0.230 (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Telugu have their own state: Andhra Pradesh. Farso777 (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

NO, they have a province, the same as Iraqi or Iranian Kurds.--109.60.0.230 (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I restored the previous lead.--Aliwiki (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Andhra Pradesh is a state situated on the southeastern coast of India. Iranian Kurdistan is just a province which is governed by Tehran. Farso777 (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Learn difference between state and country. --109.60.7.127 (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody talked about country. It's about state. This is you who must learn the difference between state and country. Farso777 (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The classification of the Kurdish language under the Iranian branch has ALREADY been noted in the lead. This does NOT need to be mentioned more than once in the article's lead; hence, the removal. Wikipedia has a policy against redundancy as a part of its content guidelines. The indigenous classification is verified by SEVERAL credible sources, three of which have been cited here. Your comment that "Kurds have never been separated from the "political matrix" (Iran) is false because Kurds have been mentioned in historical references more often outside of the states of Iran or Persia and many of these references precede the era of the Ottomans. The "largest nation without a state" is also verified by many credible sources, a number that have been cited here. Statehood in this context does not include provincial divisions within a nation-state, such as those you are implying, or I presume namely, "Kordestan" province of Iran or "Kurdistan Region" or Iraq. There is still no single state by which the Kurds are recognized as the majority ruling ethnic group. Sharisna (talk) 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Kurds are Iranian people not just by language but also ethnically and culturally. ALL academic sources says that, and only frustrated quasi-nationalistic sites claim Kurds are "indigenous people". It reminds me on Turkish claims that Hattians and Hittites were "Turkic" or Pakistani claims that Indus Valley civilization was "Pakistani". Sources you mentioned claim Kurds are indigenous to geographical region called Kurdistan, and you're trying to manipulate with their words and claim that Kurds are "ethnically indigenous" which is absurd. You are a LIAR because Kurds are not mentioned in context outside of Iran/Persia. Do you think you'll prove anything with lies and false? Guess again. Despite it's clear that there are by far larger ethnic groups then Kurds in both India and China (multiethnic countries like Iran), you still prefer to use obviously WRONG sources? PATHETIC. --109.60.7.127 (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

...Oh, and it just reminds me of Azeri Turks not being Turkic despite their Turkic languyage! Farso777 (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The sources that I referenced are not nationalistic "sites" and the majority of them are actually written by non-Kurdish scholars and academics whose writings have not expressed any interest in nor favor of nationalist ideas or the like, but are based on a general consensus supported by the research of numbers of scholars. The "Iranian" aspect of the lead along with it's sources have not been removed so your entire argument, or rant rather, against the removal of the redundancy in the lead is invalid. And the sources cited therein reference a linguistic classification, which is clear if you take time to read the sources that have been cited in their entirety. As stated previously, please refer to the Wikipedia policies for more information on content guidelines. Furthermore, I suggest you stop expressing your views in such an offensive manner and with such name-calling. Wikipedia also has a policy of civility and you should read up on it before posting next time. Thank you. Sharisna (talk) 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to the arguments above

This is a response to various users (some of them which seems to have just popped up without any prior edits in Wikipedia). First I request all users who are introducing a source to discuss the academic merit of the source. A) Driver is an outdated source and Mehrdad Izady is seen as unreliable and nationalist source. See works on him here: [1](pg 22), Here is an excerpt on Izady: "He traces the existence of Kurdish culture back more than 50000 years, to include the Neaderthal findings in the Shandiar Cave"[2]. I would read page 56-61. He is out of the question as there are enough academic sources that criticize his historiography.
B) One user states: "You are invoking Wikipedia's policy simply because you do not prefer the reliable sources that have provided in the article". No, the reliable sources I have provided are from Western Iranologist like James Russel, Asatrian, Minrosky, The word indigineous for any group in the Near East is simply basis. You are taking the word out of its context. However, the sources you provided are not WP:RS since the writers themselves are not orientalists who even know the Iranian languages. C) Sharisna states: "Furthermore, the word "Kurd" was mentioned during pre-Iranian times in ancient Sumerian records. The term was used for non-Iranian tribes whose origin are believed to be from the Caucasus and that settled the exact areas that modern Kurds live thousands of years prior to the arrival of Medes, Persians and other Iranic nations. "

The word Kurd has not been mentioned in ancient Sumerian record but the word "Karda" or "Kardaka" or something similar. Furthermore, a word does not necessarily have relationship to the modern ethnicity. The term "Kurd" in the pre-Islamic times did not denote any ethnicity, but simply a class or social group who lived a particular way of life. V. Minorsky, Encyclopedia of Islam: "We thus find that about the period of the Arab conquest a single ethnic term Kurd (plur. Akrād ) was beginning to be applied to an amalgamation of Iranian or iranicised tribes., "Kurds" in Encyclopaedia of Islam". Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007. Brill Online. accessed 2007. Martin van Bruinessen, "The ethnic identity of the Kurds", in: Ethnic groups in the Republic of Turkey, compiled and edited by Peter Alford Andrews with Rüdiger Benninghaus [=Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B, Nr.60]. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwich Reichert, 1989, pp. 613-21. excerpt: "The ethnic label "Kurd" is first encountered in Arabic sources from the first centuries of the Islamic era; it seemed to refer to a specific variety of pastoral nomadism, and possibly to a set of political units, rather than to a linguistic group: once or twice, "Arabic Kurds" are mentioned. By the 10th century, the term appears to denote nomadic and/or transhumant groups speaking an Iranian language and mainly inhabiting the mountainous areas to the South of Lake Van and Lake Urmia, with some offshoots in the Caucasus...If there was a Kurdish speaking subjected peasantry at that time, the term was not yet used to include them."
So how the term Kurd was used (it has also been used to denote Daylamites, Baluchs and other such groups) does not mean that modern Kurds existed during the times of the Sumerians.

D) Sharisna states: "exact areas that modern Kurds live thousands of years prior to the arrival of Medes".. There was no Kurds before Iranian languages. Yes genetic influence is something, but modern identity to a large extent is derived from language. To say there is a concept of modern Kurdish identity without the modern Kurdish languages and their roots, is simply non-scientifc.
. I take this statement: "exact areas that modern Kurds live thousands of years prior to the arrival of Medes", the user has either the wrong concept of ethnogenesis. Because no modern group in the Neast East existed during the time of say Sumerians. That is simply non-scientific. E) Sharinsa: "the contemporary authors' "Iranian" classification must be specified for what it is in this Wikipedia article about Kurdish people, which is based on linguistic evidence and linguistic evidence only"..

You are adding your own WP:OR to this aspect. As I state, there is no Kurdish ethnicity without an Iranian languages. To claim Kurdish identity existed in the Sumerian times is ridicolous. Simply, these authors have called a spade a spade, which is Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group from an amaglation "Iranian and Irancized" ethnic groups. Any sort of commentary from users in trying to clarify what these scholars meant is simply WP:RS. That is it is not up to modern users to intrepret sources! They simply have to state WP:RS source as it is.
F) Sharisna States: "I previously included sources for this assertion including that from a British scholar G. R. Driver" .. G. R. Driver, if I recall passed away 80 years. The modern viewpoint on Kurdish people is summarized in Asatrian: [3] (2009).
G) Sharisna States: " In fact, all these sources are scholarly and you are simply taking a biased position against some sources and not against others...". The source you have provided for indigineous is taken out of the context of the meaning. [4] indigenous means native of a territory. It simply could mean born in a territory. Or came in the distant past. But it does not mean that modern Iranian speaking Kurds existed say during Sumerian times. If you are talking about DNA< then that is a separate issue and even Anatolian Turks main DNA goes back to the natives and not say the Turkmen/Oghuz/Mongol invasion. I have asked an admin to look into this issue. As I said, the most detail and modern article on ethno-genesis of Kurds is from Asatrian [[5] who is a Kurdologist who has dozens of articles in scholarly journals, and Encyclopaedias (including Iranica). Izady is a nationalist scholar: [6] (pg 56-61). (A response to the user that considers him the same level as Pourpirar is that Wikipedia works by [{WP:RS]] and not WP:OR. WP:RS is established by the ctiations from mainstream academics as well as journal articles,...etc.). The current introduction as of this time still has indigenous in order to somehow follow the nationalistic feelings that Kurds pre-date Iranian tribes in the area, where-as the concept of Kurdis ethnicity without its Iranian language simply does not exist, and is a nationalist construct (i.e. Izady).[7] (pg 56-61)

So the word indigenous must be given its context (none of the sources are academic or from Iranologist/Kurdologist) which simply means "natives born in the land", and not an existent group since Sumerians times. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

also, stop butchering the lead section. Read WP:LEAD to understand what it is supposed to be doing. Stop heaping up "references". A single good quality reference is worth more than two dozen dodgy ones. Also, I know the Kurds have been called, mostly by themselves, "the largest ethnic group without a nation state". This doesn't make it true, and it is extremely easy to cite counter-examples, such as the Tamils or the Hausa. The Kurds as an ethnic group appear in the Middle Ages. Obviously, like everyone else, they are descended from a great number "prehistoric peoples". They are ultimately descended from Homo habilis, two million years ago. This is true, but also irrelevant. The point is that they are an indigenous minority in the sense that there is no state where they are the majority, even in their native territories. This is a fate they share with a number of other, or indeed most ethnic groups. This stands to reason, as there are only 190 sovereign states but thousands of ethnic groups. It is true that they are one of the largest groups with this fate, but by no means exceptionally large, but directly comparable with the Tamils in India and the larger groups in Africa, such as the Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba, etc. --dab (𒁳) 14:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab, I did not include any sources from Driver or Mehrdad Izady. I was simply referring to the two as an example of some users' selectivity when identifying which sources they believe are credible and which sources are not. Secondly, if I were ever to cite Izady, I would only cite those passages that point directly to historical records and that are not considered original research WP:OR by Wikipedia's standards. I am well informed about these sources and the policies of WP.

Asatrian is not a neutral sources on Kurdish history or the Kurds. It is ironic that you refute the works of Izady but that you are quick to identify Asatrian as a reliable source on the Kurds when he has in several instances in the past displayed favoritism towards Armenia and present-day Armenian policies vis-a-vis Kurds in Armenia. For one, Asatrian has even asserted that some modern Kurdish-speaking communities whose members identify as Kurds and that live in the Kurdistan geographical region - as well as Armenia - are not Kurds and he bases these reasoning on absurd claims that their religious practices make them non-Kurdish.

The statement of yours ("The term "Kurd" in the pre-Islamic times did not denote any ethnicity, but simply a class or social group who lived a particular way of life") is a rather conflicting one. An ethnicity is a social group whose members share a common culture or way of life. Hence, the reason why religious communities, tribes, clans, etc. have been classified as ethnic groups in both historic and contemporary times, and you should know this if you are familiar with ethnic studies. It is rather silly to think that Kurds appeared out of the sky from space to occupy the present-day territories that they live in today, much less to believe that Kurdish ancestry does not precede the Islamic era and that the tribal nations that were referred to by terms such as 'Karda' could not possibly be Kurds because of your own interpretation of the word ethnicity.

I have no disagreements with your statement that the Kurds are an indigenous minority in the present-day countries that they live in. However, your argument against their classification as an indigenous people seems to come from a misunderstanding of the terms being used. By nearly all modern definitions of the phrase, indigenous people are defined as a people who claim a historical continuity to a specific land, and have distinctive lifestyles, way-of-life, or culture that maintain their attachment to the land, and that are largely excluded from the larger society. This is precisely what the Kurds are. Sharisna (talk) 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Me and DAB are different persons. On Asatrian, he is a WP:RS source. There exists many academic critcism of Izady's work, but Asastrian's work has been praised. For example, he is the editor of "Iran & Caucasus" (“Iran and the Caucasus uniquely explores all periods and disciplines connected to this region, and the journal numbers among its authors and editors scholars from the area and the world: in every way it is a truly cosmopolitan bridge of civilization, and an indispensable tool for Near Eastern studies, folklore, comparative religion, history and politics.”Prof. James R. Russell, Harvard University/“Since its very first issue ten years ago Iran and the Caucasus has added a refreshing new perspective to our field. It covers not only Armenia and the Caucasus but also the cultural, ethnic, and linguistic regions adjacent to and interacting with the Iranian lands, ranging from Turkey and Iraq to Afghanistan and Central Asia as well as others, from Antiquity to the present. With admirable editorial verve and vision, each issue presents a panorama of succinct articles and reviews which continue to be most stimulating.”/Prof. Gernot Windfuhr, Professor of Iranian Studies, University of Michigan/“Iran and the Caucasus is a unique periodical covering two vast Orientalistic fields and, thus, the huge Caucasian-Near Eastern region. I follow the journal since its first issue and would specially emphasize its high academic standards. Iran and the Caucasus definitely incorporates the best traditions of 19th century Orientalistic publication, focusing, at the same time, on the most topical present-day subjects./Vladimir Aronovich Livshits, Prof. Dr. Sc. Fellow of the British Academy). See also the editorial board [8]. I think you referencing the Yezidis with regards to Asatrian. His opinion in this regard follows 19th century convention where they were seen as a separate nation in the Ottoman empire due to their religion. That he has described as a separate community is not based on linguistic but religion can also be seen with groups in Balkans (who have the same language like Serbs and Muslims) but a different religion. I myself do not necessarily agree with Asatrian on this viewpoint and if this is a minority viewpoint among scholars, then it is not mentioned in the Yezidi article. However, Asatrian has written the definite work (as it stands now) on the origin of Kurds [9]. For the record though, I do disagree with his opinion on Yezidis since primary importance should be given on how a group identifies itself (although that is not very scientific either).

Now compare this to Mehrdad Izady: "Mehrdad Izady, for example, presents Kurdish origins within a framework of analysis that reached not only to the Hurrians but even further back in the mists of time to the Halaf culture of some eight millennia ago." [10] I stand by the fact that : "("The term "Kurd" in the pre-Islamic times did not denote any ethnicity, but simply a class or social group who lived a particular way of life"".

See here:

• Wladimir Iwanov:"The term Kurd in the middle ages was applied to all nomads of Iranian origin".(Wladimir Ivanon, "The Gabrdi dialect spoken by the Zoroastrians of Persia", Published by G. Bardim 1940. pg 42(

• David Mackenzie: "If we take a leap forward to the Arab conquest we find that the name Kurd has taken a new meaning becoming practically synonmous with 'nomad', if nothing more pejorative" D.N. Mackenzie, "The Origin of Kurdish", Transactions of Philological Society, 1961, pp 68-86

• Richard Frye,"The Golden age of Persia", Phoneix Press, 1975. Second Impression December 2003. pp 111: "Tribes always have been a feature of Persian history, but the sources are extremly scant in reference to them since they did not 'make' history. The general designation 'Kurd' is found in many Arabic sources, as well as in Pahlavi book on the deeds of Ardashir the first Sassanian ruler, for all nomads no matter whether they were linguistically connected to the Kurds of today or not. The population of Luristan, for example, was considered to be Kurdish, as were tribes in Kuhistan and Baluchis in Kirman"
• Martin van Bruinessen, "The ethnic identity of the Kurds", in: Ethnic groups in the Republic of Turkey, compiled and edited by Peter Alford Andrews with Rüdiger Benninghaus [=Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B, Nr.60].

Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwich Reichert, 1989, pp. 613-21. excerpt: "The ethnic label "Kurd" is first encountered in Arabic sources from the first centuries of the Islamic era; it seemed to refer to a specific variety of pastoral nomadism, and possibly to a set of political units, rather than to a linguistic group: once or twice, "Arabic Kurds" are mentioned. By the 10th century, the term appears to denote nomadic and/or transhumant groups speaking an Iranian language and mainly inhabiting the mountainous areas to the South of Lake Van and Lake Urmia, with some offshoots in the Caucasus...If there was a Kurdish speaking subjected peasantry at that time, the term was not yet used to include them."[11] and also:

• And then Asatrian: The earliest occurrence of this term in written sources is attested in the form of kurt (kwrt-) in the Middle Persian treatise (Karnamak Artax-shir Pabakan), compiled presumably in the second half of the 6th century A.D. It occurs four times in the text (Kn. I, 6; VIII, 1; IX 1, 2) in plural form, kurtan, twice in conjunction with shah “chieftain, ruler” (kurtan shah), once with shupanan “shepherds” (kurtan shupanan), and only once in a bare form, without a supplement. It is clear that kurt in all the contexts has a distinct social sense, “nomad, tent-dweller”. It could equally be an attribute for any Iranian ethnic group having similar characteristics. To look for a particular ethnic sense here would be a futile exercise.(G. Asatrian, Prolegomena to the Study of the Kurds, Iran and the Caucasus, Vol.13, pp.1-58, 2009)

These are all expert and known historians. Your statement: "By nearly all modern definitions of the phrase, indigenous people are defined as a people who claim a historical continuity to a specific land, and have distinctive lifestyles, way-of-life, or culture that maintain their attachment to the land, and that are largely excluded from the larger society. This is precisely what the Kurds are." is WP:OR. It is also influenced by 20th century historiography, for example no one in the region knew who the Hurrians, Elamites, Sumerians (which everyone now is claiming as their ancestors) were up to the 20th century. However, now Izady claims that even the name Talebani is Hurrian. And finally, the sources that consider Kurds as Iranian, state so as an ethno-linguistic group and it is WP:OR to intrepret these sources. I believe as Minorsky states:

• Bois, Th.; Minorsky, V.; Bois, Th.; Bois, Th.; MacKenzie, D.N.; Bois, Th. "Kurds, Kurdistan." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2009. Brill Online. <http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=islam_COM-0544> Excerpt 1:"The Kurds, an Iranian people of the Near East, live at the junction of more or less laicised Turkey" "We thus find that about the period of the Arab conquest a single ethnic term Kurd (plur. Akrād ) was beginning to be applied to an amalgamation of Iranian or iranicised tribes."

• Michael G. Morony, "Iraq After the Muslim Conquest", Gorgias Press LLC, 2005. pg 265: "Kurds were only small ethnic group native to Iraq. As with the Persians, their presence along the northeastern edge of Iraq was merely an extension of their presence in Western Iran. All of the non-Persian, tribal, pastoral, Iranian groups in the foothills and the mountains of the Zagros range along the eastern fringes of Iraq were called Kurd at that time"
• E. J. van Donzel, "Islamic desk reference ", BRILL, 1994. ISBN-9004097384. pg 222: "Kurds/Kurdistan: the Kurds are an Iranian people who live mainly at the junction of more or less laicised Turkey, Shi'i Iran Arab Sunni Iraq and North Syria and the former Soviet Transcaucasia. Several dynasties, such as the Marwanids of Diyarbakir, the Ayyubids, the Shaddadis and possibly the Safawids, as well as prominent personalities, were of Kurdish origin"
• RUSSELL, JR 1990 « Pre-Christian Armenian Religion*, dans Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt, II, 18.4, p. 2679-2692, Berlin-New York, 1990., pg 2691: "A study of the pre-Islamic religion of the Kurds, an Iranian people who inhabited southern parts of Armenia from ancient times to present, has yet to be written"[12]
• John Limbert, The Origins and Appearance of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran, Iranian Studies, Vol.1, No.2, Spring 1968, pp.41-51. p.41: "In these last areas, the historic road from Baghdad to Hamadan and beyond divides the Kurds from their Iranian cousins, the Lurs."

I have compromised and put this as Iranic for the sake of this article, but this does not allow for any intrepretation of these authors. Whatever one may surmise, by the Islamic times, as Minorsky notes: "We thus find that about the period of the Arab conquest a single ethnic term Kurd (plur. Akrād ) was beginning to be applied to an amalgamation of Iranian or iranicised tribes." Thus one can consider any pre-Iranic people that Izady claims to have become Iranicized after the Sassanid era and have lost any trace of their identity as say "Hurrians". Furthermore, it is only in post-Islamic times that the term Kurds takes an "ethnic meaning" rather than a way of life (which included many groups such as Daylamites who speak Parthian related dialects, Baluch who speak Parthian related dialects, Lurs who speak Middle Persian dialects). Thus these indigineous people that are claimed to be ancestors of Kurds were "Iranicized" by Islamic times when the term Kurd started to find an ethnic meaning.

Also per WP:LEAD it is not necessary to describe the 20th century aspiration. Please also show the validity WP:RS sources with regards to indigineous. Already the word "native" is there, but like all groups in the region, the Iranian speaking Kurds are formed after certain migrations. That is one cannot talk about Kurds before the arrival of Iranian groups, because no such ethnic identity can be found say in Sumerian or Elamite times. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Shahnameh (if not a modern forgery?!), clearly distinguishes among Deylamites, Balouchis, Gilakis, Kurds, etc. Farso777 (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Also per Dbachmann (dab) correct statement, the statement "largest people without state"(e.g. Tamil) is factually wrong and does not belong to lead (WP:LEAD). Also the statement "Kurdistan" is divided between the four countries is political and not historical in the sense that Iranian Kurdistan at least has always been part of Iran before the modern era (since the Safavid times). Please bring a Full Professor on Iranology that makes such a statement. On Iraq, Turkey and Syria..their borders however was defined by European powers after World War I. Also, I have been the only person from the area that has defended articles like Salah al-Din Ayyubi from vandalism and I am only concerned here about historical accuracy. I believe scholarly and academic sources from scholars who are Full Professors and widely quoted by others should be cited in Wikipedia and political statements/outdated sources to make a WP:POINT is highly irresponsible.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

On the question of Kurdish language, I found the following source [13]. In my own personal opinion, the definition of a "Kurdish" group or for that matter, a "Persian" group is historically problematic and a modern convention. That is in the Sassanid era, there was pretty much a uniform Iranian group speaking various Iranian dialects. How one can take a group of Iranian dialects and define the people who speak them to have an ethnogenesis around the time of Sumerians is problematic. Mythology in Kurdistan is heavily based on the same mythology as Shahnameh. The language is a continum in the sense that Laki is between Luri and say Kermanshah dialects, and Luri is between Laki and Persian, and Kurmanji for example has features that it shares even with Talyshi that are not found in Sorani. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What about Tamil Nadu? Tamils have their own state. Farso777 (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Khodabandeh14, imo it is meaningless to state things like "this or that territory has always been part of Iran". With just as much justification you can say that "Switzerland has always been part of Rome": there is no reason why historical empires should have any relevance to modern-day territorial divisions. The Islamic Republic of Iran for some reason seems to think that its borders shold correspond to those of the Achaemenid Empire. I don't wish to give an opinion on this, I'll just say I am glad that the Republic of Italy doesn't have the same ideas about its ancient imperial borders.

As for the reference-mongering, come on. Nothing in the lead is in any way disputed. I don't know if there are 27 or 30 million Kurds, nor does anyone else know. It is undisputed that the Kurds as an ethno-linguistic group are indigenous to Kurdistan, now divided between four countries, that they speak an Iranian language, and that they emerge as an identifiable ethnic group in the early medieval period. Nobody in their right mind claims a Kurdish ethnogenesis at the time of the Sumerians, or even at the time of the Medes. The etymology of the name "Kurd" is one thing. It is unknown. What is known is that "Kurd" around the 7th century simply meant "nomad", and it isn't before the 9th or 10th century that the name becomes identifiable as an ethnonym. If we're going to discuss the ethnogenesis of the Kurds (not the unknown etymology of the name), we have to look to the 7th to 10th centuries AD.

Since nothing of this can in any reasonable way be disputed, can you please stop heaping up the "references" just to support one phrasing over another based on childish cherry-picking of soundbites. --dab (𒁳) 10:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

let us be very clear about this: kwrt- was a Middle Persian term for "nomad". That is the only "origin" of the ethnonym. It can be intersting to consider which may be the ultimate etymology of the Middle Persian term, just as long as it is made clear that this has nothing to do with Kurdish ethnogenesis. When we say that "Saladin was of Kurdish origin", as is common to do, this simply means that Saladin's ancestors were Iranian-speaking nomads, because that is what the term Kurd meant at the time. The earliest records of the Kurdish language, and thus direct evidence of Kurds as an identifiable ethnic group, dates to ca. 200 years after Saladin. --dab (𒁳) 10:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Saladin belonged to Rawand (Orontid) clan who ruled over eastern Anatolia since fall of the Urartians. Farso777 (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

indeed. but at what time did they get to be considered "Kurds"? Apparently in Middle Persian times at the earliest. --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

But actually Kurdish is not a random collection of Iranic dialects. Kurdish has its own distinct proto-form. Bearing in mind that Gorani and Zazaki languages are a result of recent post-Turkic immigrations to Kurdistan. Gorans (in recent decades almost completely have shifted to central Kurdish,) originate from Gilan (ex. Minorsky), and Zazas (in recent decades have almost completely shifted to Turkish and to a smaller degree northern Kurdish) from Mazandaran (Iranica). These groups at an earlier period lived in modern Afghanistan, but as a result of an invasion by a group of eastern Saka/Scythians (ancestors of modern Pashtuns?) immigrated to the southern shores of the Caspian Sea. And about the so-called modern Lurs they too are recent immigrants to the areas they inhabit today. it's true that the inhabitants of those areas in medieval and ancient ages were called Kurds, but they did not necessarily spoke a non-Kurdish language. They were Kurds, but according to Islamic sources the true Kurds of those regions were all perished (in different ways) in the early centuries of the Islamic era. Indeed, the Bakhtiaris, the largest group of the so-called Lurs who are wrongly labelled as Lurs but themselves reject it, were Tajikophone/Persian tribes immigrated there by Buyids from Isfahan area. Their very name Bakhtiaris comes from the Buyid ruler Bakhtiar who gave them the area they live in today. This explains also the numerous Kurdish loans in Bakhtiari (the so-called Kurdish substrate in Bakhtiari). So Bakhtiari Lurs are not descendants of the early Kurdish Lurs of the Persis area. They are not Persian Kurds( nomads!) stated above by a certain user. Indeed according to Windfuhr the so-called modern Persian is not a direct descendant of Middle Persian. Modern Persian comes from central Asia (Tajikistan) and appeared after Turkic immigrations. Interestingly according to Mackenzie morphology of Kurdish is identical with that of the so-called Old Persian. The fact is that it is easy to understand why the history of the Kurds is so much politicized as Asatrian states. The so called Iranic empires has close connections with the ethnic Kurds, (Sasanids for example were referred to as Kurds), but some certain groups do not like these realities to be heard or seen. Farso777 (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

@Dab, what I mean is that continuing political dominance since Safavid era, which is different than 20th century modern divisions which fixed the borders of Turkey, Iraq and Syria. @Farso777, the "Kurd" in the Shahnameh is also a social group not ethon-linguistic group. Same actually with Baluch. The name "Persian" also meant Iranian speakers in general and not the Khorasani Persian (which is actually regarded by virtually all studies as a variant of Middle Persian)--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Then why all ethnic Khwarezmians, Khorasanians, etc in wikipedia are labelled as ethnic Persian? Because western sources wrongly equated Iranic with Persian (fars/shirazi)? Farso777 (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

@Farso777, Actually, they are correct as are you. First on Baluch: "The Balōč may have entered the historical record as the settled writers’ generic nomads. Because of the significance of their activities at this period they would gradually have become recognized as the nomads par excellence in this particular part of the Islamic world. It is possible, for example, that Balūč, along with Kūč, were terms applied to particular populations which were beyond the control of settled governments; that these populations came to accept the appellation and to see themselves in the cultural terms of the larger, more organized society that was established in the major agricultural territories; but they remained, then as now, a congeries of tribal communities of various origins. " [14] On the other issue you raised. Because the definition of Persian in Western/Arabic/Greek and later Sassanid period simply meant Iranic(however in the case of Khorasani you mention, they speak a Middle Persian variant which is modern Persian). For example Al-Masudi states: "The Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenia and Arran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages.". Now that is how Sassanids for example can be Kurds/Persians at the same time, because definition of these terms were different (and correct). In the case of Khwarizmians, they also identified themselves as Persian(i.e. Biruni). What is incorrect is to limit the word "Persian" to only people that speak Khorasanian-Persian or Middle Persian variants. Khorasani-Persian (Dari) is a continuation of a Middle Persian (originated in Fars) dialect which obtained some Eastern Iranian (i.e. Sogdian) features in Khorasan and has spread due to being a common language. In reality, both the modern ethnic term "Fars" or "Kurd" in my opinion are fuzzy. If you look at Qajar era manuscripts, Kurds were also called "Fors-e- Qadeem" (Old Persians). If you want more clarity, see this verse by Qatran Tabrizi: بلبل به سان مطرب بیدل فراز گل گه پارسی نوازد، گاهی زند دری Translation: The nightingale is on top of the flower like a minstrel who has lost her heart It bemoans sometimes in Parsi (Persian) and sometimes in Dari (Khurasani Persian) He calls his own language (which is Fahlaviyat as Persian) but isolate literary Persian as "Dari". I believe the definition of Masudi is correct. The concept of "Fars" (many people still speak Central Iranian dialects even around Shiraz like Sivandi), "Kurd", "Lur" and even "Baluch" .. The problem is that up to the 20th century, "Fors/Fars/Tat" generally meant Iranic speaker, I am not sure how in the 20th century it has become more narrowed. For example, the Suhrawardi you mention has always mentioned himself as a inheritor of Hukamaye-Fors which he also calls Fahlaviyun. As per Kurdish languages. I really think it is a group of Iranic dialects. I know features in Talyshi that is shared with Kurmanji but not with Sorani. Or there are features in Sorani that is found in say Luri. If we want to look at it scientifically, currently we have a continum of Iranian dialects. Persian is close to Luri, Luri is close to Laki, Laki is close Southern Kurdish like Kermanshah/Kalhori, which transitions into Sorani, then Sorani transitions to Kurmanji. On the other side, the Tati/Talyshi dialects have many features related to Kurmanji and at the same time with Gilaki/Tabari which transitions to Semnani and then to Central Iranian dialects (Golpayegani, Natanzi...). Here is an example of Anaraki for example [15]. Anyhow, if you want my opinion (which I cannot put in Wikipedia), not only does Kurdish have a strong SW element as you pointed out, but in general, when it comes to defining history, what we have is really a common history Medes, Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids... and hundreds of Iranic dialects/languages. The Sassanids were actually the major group that played a role in the formation of Iranian identity:[16] (see the article by Gnoli) and the Shahnameh myths which is recited by various Iranian dialect speakers was stabilized in that era. Now, to classify some of the speakers that speak some of these 100s of Iranian dialects as Kurd or Persian or any other name is really very arbitrary, because 1000 years ago, the designation of these terms were very different. Even 100 years ago, we have "Fors-e-qadim" being applied to Kurd or Lur...However, "Iranian/Iranic" would be precise. That is my opinion, but in Wikipedia, we have work with scholarly/academic sources. Thanks --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC) On Gorani and Zazaki, you are probably right [17][18] that their cradle might have been Caspian, but Kurmanji also according to Mackenzie and now Asatrian has a very strong SW element and probably arose around the Fars province area. Sorani could be a hybrid between Gorani and Kurmanji. Also according to Iranica, the total population of Zaza speakers is: "The total population of Dimlīs at present is unknown, but it can be estimated at 3-4 million." [19]. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I can agree that the name Kurd meant nomad as all Indo-European tribes were predominantly nomads, the same could have been true for the ancient Kurdish-speakers. I even gave an etymology for the name based on Elamite.

I can also agree on the presence of the Kurds in southwestern Iran as Kurds dwelt and ruled a large area from the Gulf to the Black Sea or rather the Kingdom of the Pontus. [20]; bearing in mind that modern Persian (actually Dari) is a post-Islamic import from central Asia by Turkish Sultans. Note that Dari is derived from Darbari = court language, that is the language of the central Asian Turkish aristocracy. Farso777 (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes everyone was at one point nomad. But the issue is when the term "Kurd" took an ethnic meaning and that is post-Islamic phenomenon. So to talk about Kurds before Islam, one must identify a particular Iranic group whose spoke say some form of Middle Kurmanji/Sorani. But currently we have no such records. By Islamic times, the term Kurd is simply used an amaglation of Iranian and Iranicized nomads. Later on it defines people who spoke several related Iranian dialects in a particular geographical region (Kurdistan), which coressponds to modern Kurds. On Dari Persian. it was already spoken in the courts of the Sassanids according to Ibn Nadim. Even if what he says might not be correct, we know the first dynasty to spread it was the Saffarids (from Sistan,) and then Samanids, all before the Ghaznavids. Even before Turkish takeover of Caucasus by the Seljuqs, the Shaddadid were patronizing Persian (Qatran Tabrizi), and modern Persian due to its similarity with Middle Persian, was fast becoming a lingua franca. Unlike the languages of Central Asia such as Bactrian language, Chorasmian and Sogdian, it is a SW Iranian language (like Middle Persian and Old Persian). For example, Ferdowsi started his Shahnameh in the Samanid era as did Bal'ami. Dari-Persian is the dialect of Middle Persian(which is the language of Fars) which arose from the greater Khorasan area (Iranian Khorasan, Central Asia..). Its connection with Middle Persian is very apparent as most words/grammer shows [21] and affirmed by prominent lingusts. The Central Asian Iranian dialects were Eastern Iranian dialects, remnants of which are the Pamiri language, some of them descendant of Soghdian. Overall, as I stated, the terms "Fors/Persian" in the 20th century by mistake of schomars has been narrowed down to a group that speaks "Dari-Persian". --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As stated above, in the pre-Islamic period or rather Middle Kurmanji period, the ancestors of the Gorani/Zazaki/Bakhtiari dielcts did not live in the greater Kurdistan area [22]

Tajiki/Dari is spoken in central Asia. Also it is known that Dari and Turkish have an almost identical syntax. Farso777 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Windfuhr states something else. He states(Comrie, Bernard (1990) The major languages of South Asia, the Middle East and Africa, Taylor & Francis,p. 82): "The evolution of Persian as the culturally dominant language of eastern Near East, from Iran to Central Asia to northwest India until recent centuries, began with the political domination of these areas by dynasties originating in southwestern province of Iran, Pars, later Arabicised to Fars: first the Achaemenids (599-331 BC) whose official language was Old Persian; then the Sassanids (c. AD 225-651) whose official language was Middle Persian. Hence, the entire country used to be called Perse by the ancient Greeks, a practice continued to this day. The more general designation 'Iran(-shahr)" derives from Old Iranian aryanam (Khshathra)'(the realm) of Aryans'. The dominance of these two dynasties resulted in Old and Middle-Persian colonies throughout the empire, most importantly for the course of the development of Persian, in the north-east i.e., what is now Khorasan, northern Afghanistan and Central Asia, as documented by the Middle Persian texts of the Manichean found in the oasis city of Turfan in Chinese Turkistan (Sinkiang). This led to certain degree of regionalisation." As per Persian and Turkish having similar syntax, I have not heard of this, but Oghuz Turkish came under heavy influence of Persian. For example, Kashgari clearly distinguishes the Oghuz language from that of the Turks when he says that Oghuz is more refined because they use words alone which Turks only use in combination, and describes Oghuz as more mixed with Persian". For example, take modern Persian Red Apple, and "Sib-e Sorkh", Turkish is "kırmızı elma" but Kurdish would be "Sur-i Sêw". As per Middle Kurmanji, we have no attestation unfortunately. But I do believe the language of Kurdish area fell in the Fahlaviyat(possibly identified with Parthian) genre as Ibn Nadim has explained. At least Zazaki is very close to Parthian..--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Windfuhr makes it very clear:

The language currently imposed on Iranians, is not a direct descendant of the recorded Middle Pahlavi.

The language currently imposed on Iranians, first appeared in eastern areas such as Afghanistan and Tajikistan.

It is not a problem if you think of Middle Iranic 'dialects or languages'. The point is direct continuation. By your argument Modern Baluchi (by far the closest Iranic vernacular to the Parthian is Modern Parthian). If so why not consider Parthians as Balouchis?! Farso777 (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please mind WP:FORUM and WP:NOTBATTLE. The new Persian language is considered an evolution of Middle Persian by Windfuhr. So it is direct continuation of Middle Persian, since Middle Persian itself is taken as encompassing all of its dialects (not just the standard literary form). Windfuhr considers new Persian as an evolution of Middle Persian. Middle Persian could have hundreds of dialect. Recorded Middle Persian is a several near identical literary dialects(Manichean, Sassanid inscriptions and Zoroastrian Middle Persian of Islamic era,..), but the non-literary dialects of Middle Persian were many and one of them spread in Khorasan. Also the first dynasty that made new Persian official was the Saffarids (from Iran). It was the language of Eastern Afghanistan (an Eastern Iranian language) which was displaced by Middle Persian dialect (New Persian). As per Baluch, Baluchi has not been studied by me, but it may very well be a continuation of some Parthian dialect. However, the relationship of Middle Persian and New Persian is readily seen by anonye reading Middle Persian in latin script. If you want to discuss that issue, go to its own article. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTBATTLE?? Good that you have understood this, because after several years of POV-pushing by a gang of sock-puppets I think it fits best you and your friends not me. BTW, as can be understood (Windfuhr) modern Farsi/Dari/Tajiki is not a daughter of recorded Middle southwestern languages (Pahlavi); maybe a nephew! Farso777 (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Not a good list of personalities presented in the infobox list. Some modern/living guys listed there are not in any ways notable. Significant Kurdish scholars such as Al-Shahrazuri, Abulfida, Suhrawardi scholars, Dinawari, Ziryab etc are not listed just because of lack of images/drawings. Farso777 (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarify lead

I changed the lead section from the first to the second sentence:

• They speak the Kurdish language, a member of the Iranian branch of Indo-European, which is a continuum of closely related Iranian dialects.
• They speak the Kurdish language, one of the closely related Iranian dialects which form a branch of the Indo-European languages.

The first construction made it appear that Indo-European was a continuum of Iranian dialects—complete nonsense. The second construction puts it to rights.

I also trimmed off an apparent copy/paste error involving the phrase "mostly inhabiting a region known as Kurdistan, which includes adjacent parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey". The phrase appeared twice in the first paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Kurdo777 came to my talk page after my edit here. This is the discussion thread which resulted:

WP:HOUNDING "Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Read it carefully. You have been warned this type of behavior in the past. Prior to today, you had never edited Kurdish people, or shown any interest whatsoever about this topic. You're clearly following me around, to topics outside of your area of expertise or interest , "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress" in me. Consider this your first and last warning to cease and desist. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What a wild claim! Take a look at how the article is improved right now, and see if what I did there is anywhere near an attempt to irritate or annoy you. What I did was to correct the English, to make it say exactly what you wanted it to say, and to correct a copy/paste error. How I got there? I saw this warning by Sharisna against your possible 3RR edit warring and so I went to the page to see if Wikipedia was being damaged by edit warring. If it was not being damaged, I would have left everything alone. After reading the article's lead paragraph, I saw an obvious need for a fix. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn't " improve" the article at all. As a matter of fact, your wording made no sense, grammatically or otherwise. ("which form a branch of the Indo-European languages"!?) The fact that you removed the word "continuum" is further proof that you had no idea what you were doing. You totally missed the context that sentence, which was meant to clarify that while Kurdish is sometimes classified as one language, and a member of the Iranian branch of Indo-European languages, it is really a collection or a continuum of several closely-related Iranian dialects. This is what happens when you wonder into topics, in which you have no expertise or interest , with the sole purpose of annoying me. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you are annoyed right now is a complete surprise to me, and an unintended consequence. Just now you "corrected" the Kurdish people article to repeat the nonsense that "Indo-European ... is also classified by linguists as a continuum of closely related Iranian dialects"! Can you not see the problem with this? Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Another observation: You did not bring your concerns to Talk:Kurdish people—not for me, and not for Sharisna. If you contribute to discussions on talk pages, you will be able to shape consensus, and your level of annoyance may go down. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"Continuum" refers to Kurdish language, not the Indo-European family. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm posting the discussion here because enough of it is about the wording of the lead paragraph of this article, in between the personal stuff. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Kurdish language classification

It does not matter than Ludwig Paul is a linguist or that his article was "updated" in 2008. His statement "'Kurdish' is not a firm and standardized linguistic entity with the status of an official or state language," is a false one. Kurdish has standardized form, which was been achieved through Kurdish literature for 200 years. Furthermore, Kurdish is one of two official or state languages of Iraq and is the primary language used in the institutions in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, an officially recognized entity or state of federal Iraq. If you dispute with the current source that has replaced Paul's, replace with a new source that is more reliable. Thanks. Sharisna (talk) 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What Ludwig Paul states is correct: " Since there is no unifying band of a Kurdish “standard language” common to the various countries where Kurds live, the past decades have seen the evolution of regional written standards in some of these countries, in part using different scripts. ". However, I have added Mackenzie as a source and kept your wording. [23]. Thanks--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

All languages in the world are a continuum of the closely related dialects so if it's is going to be stated for Kurdish it should be done for other languages too like Dari/Farsi/Tajiki/ with its hundreds of regional variations. Kurdish is currently like Norwegian, Albanian, Armenian etc. a bistandardized language. Northern Kurdish is rapidly taking prominence in Anatolia, Maybe one day in near future Kurds too will have a mono-standarized language. Farso777 (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you have that it is merging towards a bistandardized language (Armenian is a good example). There are however interesting dialects such as Kalhuri or Garussi..--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Central Kurdish or Sorani is a highly standardized variation of Kurdish. A Kurd from Mahabad, Arbil, Sanandaj, Sulaimania or Kirkuk do not write in different regional variations.

Same is true for Northern Kurdish. The dialect of Jazire-Botan has for a long time been the standardized variation of northern Kurdish. Kurds from Van Amed, Efrin, Qamishli etc write more or less in the exact same form of northern Kurdish.

However, there has been in recent years similar attempts in Southern Kurdish area: a modernist group promotes Sorani (which is spoken in parts of Kirmanshah, and is even influential on Gerros regions) pointing to the closeness of Sorani with Southern Kurdish dialects. A traditionalist group promotes a standardized southern Kurdish based mostly on the Kirmanshahi Kurdish, which itself is a good combination of Sorani, Kalhuri, Laki, Ilami, Gerrosi etc.

Mainstream Kurdish media and TV such as Kurdsat, Newroz Tv etc broadcast frequently programs in Southern Kurdish dialect. It is not yet clear whether Southern Kurdish gets eventually standardized or paves the way for Sorani. Farso777 (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)