Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:41, 10 February 2006

• Archive1
• Archive2 (?? - 22:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC))
• Archive3 (24 Dec 2005 - 30 Jan 2006)

PLEASE READ: This talk page was simply unreadable. I've archived everything in Archive3 above. If you think there're important discussions missing, copy them from the archive back to this page. Thanks. Aucaman 03:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Iranian ethnic group

"The Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group inhabiting a mountainous area of "

Sources need to be provided for the claim above. Aucaman 03:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the source: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.

Ethnically close to the Iranians, the Kurds were traditionally nomadic herders but are now mostly seminomadic or sedentary. The majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslims. Kurdish dialects belong to the northwestern branch of the Iranian languages. The Kurds have traditionally resisted subjugation by other nations. Despite their lack of political unity throughout history, the Kurds, as individuals and in small groups, have had a lasting impact on developments in SW Asia. Saladin, who gained fame during the Crusades, is perhaps the most famous of all Kurds.

As said by SouthernComfort, "Columbia encyclopedia clearly states ethnically close to Iranians." --Khoikhoi 03:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well there's a difference between saying Kurds are ethnically close to Iranians and saying Kurds are ethnically Iranian. You should also note that Columbia encyclopedia does not put these information in the first paragraph of the article. Perhaps the information should be kept under "Genetic relations of the Kurds to other ethnic groups"? Aucaman 04:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're getting the terms Persian and Iranian mixed up. Please see the two articles that I just mentioned. Also, here's a quote from Tombseye from the archive:

I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding of the word Iranian here. It does not necessarily mean Persian. Nor is the Germanic only applicable to Germans, but also to the Dutch and even the English who are only part Germanic, but speak a Germanic language. In addition, SOME genetic tests do show a relationship between Kurds and Persians and others show a more reduced relationship. Regardless, I think the Kurds did absorb some Iranian ancestry over a larger Caucasus-derived population that also mingled with their neighbors and this may account for some Kurds clustering with Jews and others with the Caucasus and others with Iranians. everyone is taking extreme positions here that don't make sense. The application of the term Iranian people to include the Kurds is one undeniable dimension of the Kurdish character, they speak a distinctly Iranian language that has no relationship to Georgian etc. Similarly, the Azeris, for example, also are mostly of Caucasian origin and have reduced ties to Central Asia, although the Turkmen connection does exist. Yet in-spite of this, the Azeris are logically categorized as Turkic people. It's one facet of their identity and not everything. This is how to approach the Kurdish issue. The Kurds are, in general, an Iranian people in terms of language, culture, and a great deal of history, BUT are also different from the Persians and other Iranian peoples in various ways also. If we stop taking extreme views, a concensus can be reached. For the purposes of categorization, the Kurds are considered an Iranian people, but we can also mention that they are a diverse group that has ties to other peoples as well. This shouldn't be this big of a deal here. Tombseye 01:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

--Khoikhoi 04:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm aware of the difference. But the term "Iranian ethnic group" is not widely in use when you look at non-Persians. For example, there's not doubt that Afghans are Iranian people, but you don't see that mentioned in their article. The same is true here. If Kurds speak an Iranian language, fine, but it should not be in the first sentence of the article (but moved to some other part). Aucaman 07:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Although the language of Kurds is classified as Iranian however their ethnic background is still not quite clear and majority of the sources don't mention the term Iranian people as the ethnic classification of the Kurds. it is very important to make a distinction between their language (which belongs to the west Iranian branch of Indo-European family), and their ethnic background. The term Iranian people, has an ethnic meaning to it. In many academic sources about Kurds, they are not mentioned as Iranian people.

1. This source classifies Kurds as a non-Arab Middle Eastern minority population.
2. The Kurds are a large and distinct ethnic minority in the Middle East, numbering some 25-30 million people. (Federation of American Scientists)
3. The Kurds in History .(no mention of Iranian people).
4. Kurds from Minnesota State University. (no mention of Iranian people).
5. The Kurds: People without a country , from Encyclopaedia Britannica. (no mention of Iranian people).
6. Kurds , From dKosopedia, the free political encyclopedia. (no mention of Iranian people).
7. Kurds , A linguistically and culturally distinct people who inhabit parts of Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and the former Soviet Union. (no mention of Iranian people).
8. Kurds , (no mention of Iranian people).
9. Kurds , Yahoo Education Directory,(no mention of Iranian people).
10. Kurds , (no mention of Iranian people).
11. Kurds , (no mention of Iranian people).
12. Kurds in Armenia , (no mention of Iranian people).
13. The Kurdish People (no mention of Iranian people).
14. Kurd (no mention of Iranian people).
15. Kurd Webster (no mention of Iranian people).

So It seems that the term Iranian people is not widely used in the case of the Kurds. If there was such a strong ethnic connection to Persians, Tajiks or Afghans, then it should have been mentioned in almost all dictionaries and references. Heja Helweda 07:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because these sources don't mention the term "Iranian peoples", it doesn't mean that they said that they aren't an Iranian people. Your whole idea contradicts the Iranian peoples article - we have to remain consistent in Misplaced Pages.

Please give me a source that says "the Kurds are not an Iranian people". --Khoikhoi 07:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but "Iranian people" is a standard term in academia to refer to an entire ethno-linguistic grouping of peoples (as clearly defined in Iranian peoples). It would help if editors new to this discussion take the time to read up on these definitions before they involve themselves since the discussion has already become so very contentious and we don't need to make it worse than it already is. SouthernComfort 15:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Britannica doesn't say anything about "Iranian people" but it does say "The Kurdish language is a West Iranian language related to Persian and Pashto." . Same article also goes on to say that "The prehistory of the Kurds is poorly known, but their ancestors seem to have inhabited the same upland region for millennia. The records of the early empires of Mesopotamia contain frequent references to mountain tribes with names resembling “Kurd.” The Kardouchoi whom the Greek historian Xenophon speaks of in Anabasis (they attacked the “Ten Thousand” near modern Zakhu, Iraq, in 401 BC) may have been Kurds, but some scholars dispute this claim. The name Kurd can be dated with certainty to the time of the tribes' conversion to Islam in the 7th century AD." This contradicts information in the article concerning Kurdish history. SouthernComfort 16:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

From Columbia, The migrant ethnic groups of the mountains and highlands, including the Kurds, Lurs, Qashqai, and Bakhtiari, are of the least mixed descent of the original Iranians. . That's in reference to Kurds in Iran, of course. You can argue that Iranian Kurds are of very different extraction or whatever, but all Kurds, of whatever nationality, speak an Iranian language called Kurdish. SouthernComfort 16:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello! This is Tirigan.

About the origion of the Kurds.

This is only one side of the issue that you have mentioned above. Kurds' ancestors have lived in the rigion several thousand years before immigration of Iranians. Iranians in comparison to Kurds are like Mongolians and Turks to Iranians. Although among ancestors of Kurds may have been indo-Eoropean ones but it does not mean they have been from Iranian origion, the same that Greeks are from Indo-european origion but are not Iranians. After immigration of Iranians to the region which today is parts of modern Iran it is possible that they had contacts to Kurds as well as other nations in the region; Kurds and Iranians both influenced eachother; their languages influnces eachother. but never Kurds become Iranians, a reason is they origionally were different and saw Iranians as aggressor people. Origionally Kurds are related to Armenians and northern Semitics such as Assyrians as well as sephardic Jews. 64.191.78.165 17:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, neither encyclopedia (nor any book about the Kurds that I have read) mentions anything about relations to Armenians and Semitic peoples, so please provide a source for those claims. SouthernComfort 17:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is to remove any word in the first paragraph indicating a certain ethnic background in the case of the Kurds. The reason is that there is no clear consensus on the issue in academic circles. We have got some sources saying Iranian people while a lot of other sources remain silent on the issue (as I have shown above). I agree with Aucaman that those references should be kept in the Genetic Relations section. When we include something in the first line, there should be clear cut consensus on that. In the absence of such consensus, it is important to keep the article neutral. Heja Helweda 18:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, because Kurds speak what is obviously an Iranian language. Azeris are classified as Turkic , even though there is no consensus as to their ethnic background, because they speak what is obviously a Turkic language. What about references to Kurds in Iran being of Iranian stock - are we going to separate the Kurds of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Armenia into separate ethnic categories? SouthernComfort 18:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, from Columbia, The migrant ethnic groups of the mountains and highlands, including the Kurds, Lurs, Qashqai, and Bakhtiari, are of the least mixed descent of the original Iranians. . SouthernComfort 18:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here, we are talking about ethnic background not language. The fact that Kurdish belongs to the north-western branch of Iranian languages is agreed upon and is not a point of the discussion here. But language is very different from the ethnic background. As I said , Columbia is just one source, which we can include it in the Background/Genetics section. We already have other sources that say Kurds are ethnically close to the Jews. Why should we pick one source and drop the other? Heja Helweda 18:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are using one (or two, the other one not so reliable) source (both very limited in their scope) to "prove" that Kurds are related to Semitic and Turkic and Greek peoples. I can also gather other Western scholarly sources which define the Kurds as an "Iranian people." If I do that, what then? And yes, language is very different from ethnic background, and that is why Azeris are Turkic even though there is no consensus as to their ethnicity or "race." The issue of Kurdish ethnic identity is far less convoluted than the Azeris. You would have a stronger case if you can find sources which explicitly state that Kurds are not an "Iranian people." You won't find a single one because they speak an Iranian language. SouthernComfort 18:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

All I am saying is to include all the evidence. In order to avoid pushing a certain POV. That is the neutral way. I am not trying to deny the relation of Kurds with Iranian people. I am just saying mentioning Kurds as Iranian people, right at the beginning of the article is very biased and is pushing a certain POV.Heja Helweda 21:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

How is it POV when it is very clear what is meant by "Iranian people"? Would you prefer to say, instead, that Kurds are an "indigenous Iranian-speaking ethnic group"? SouthernComfort 21:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, ethnicity (and descent) and genetic relations are very different issues. SouthernComfort 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Kurds do not consider themselves as Iranians even they see Iranian people as agressor people (and even hate Iranian people). we should not summarize their origion in one word ... Iranian... The majority of sources say their ethnic origin is uncertain or are silent about Kurds origin. http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/sum/kurds.html

64.191.78.165 18:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not a source. That's a GeoCities site. SouthernComfort 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, that site doesn't say anything about Kurds "hating" Persians or other Iranian peoples. That's pure nonsense. SouthernComfort 18:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that some genetic studies do link the Kurds to the Iranian peoples such as this study: Where West Meets East: The Complex mtDNA Landscape of the Southwest and Central Asian Corridor, while pointing out that Kurds living in Turkmenistan vary from other Kurds in some ways for example. The core group here is referred to as West Eurasian. Now within this group we also have variations that show up and the Kurds GENERALLY have links to the Caucasus as well and are perhaps not unlike the Azeris in this regard. The study that links Kurds to Semites is one study and also did not sample as wide a range of the Kurds as the Chicago study: The large majority of the subjects originated from northern Iraq. The Chicago study took samples from Iranian Kurds who did cluster with Iranian peoples as did the Kurds in Turkmenistan, but to a lesser extent. Here's what some may conclude, the Kurds are diverse themselves and can't be succintly denoted as related solely to this group or that other group. The Kurds do possess genetic ties to the Caucasus, but also have ties to the Iranian peoples that's genetic and linguistic. Again, let's NOT take extreme positions here. There is room for compromise and the studies taken as a whole support an eclectic background for the Kurds, but nothing that is etched in stone until a wider sampling is conducted and all of the Kurdish groups are compared with each other and with their neighbors. My feeling is that we may find that Kurds vary as much from each other as with some of their neighbors in some cases, but it's possible that an aboriginal population of Caucasian background was conquered by early Aryan invaders whose language was transferred to said group, but to what extent each population numbered remains speculative. Also, the usage of Iranian is not solely applicable to the Iranians of Iran or to Persians. They may have decided to call themselves ethnic Iranians, as Germans are German while Germanic refers to other peoples, I would suggest using Iranic peoples, a term that also gets a lot of academic usage in journals, to not confuse people who still seem to connect Iranian to Iran and Persians only and do not understand that in fact this usage is applicable to a larger group that may predate the Persians and the country of Iran. Tombseye 20:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

From Encarta, "Two groups closely related to the Persians both ethnically and linguistically are the Kurds and the Lurs." SouthernComfort 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Kurds are a distinct ethnic people. Historically and culturally Kurds have never considered themselves as Iranian. Anyone who make a relationship between Kurds and so-called Iranian peoples do not know anything about Kurds. Even among Kurds there is a saying that "Ecem glawn" meaning Ianians are bad people. culturally, historically, religiously morally etc... Kurds are much closer to other people of Middle-East than to so-called Iranian people. If you say Iranians are close to Kurds say it, but do not think about inclusion of Kurds among so-called Iranian people. 64.191.78.165 21:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's another genetic study that incorporates ALL of the previous studies AND focuses on the Kurds and finds that they are, in order of importance, related to West Asian, then Caucasian, European, and Central Asian peoples which states the following:

Kurdish languages belong to the Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family. What is the genetic relationship between Indo-European speaking Kurdish groups and other West Asian Indo-European and non-Indo-European speaking groups? For both mtDNA and the Y-chromosome, all Kurdish groups are more similar to West Asians than to Central Asian, Caucasian, or European groups, and these differences are significant in most cases. However, for mtDNA, Kurdish groups are all most similar to European groups (after West Asians), whereas for the Y-chromosome Kurds are more similar to Caucasians and Central Asians (after West Asians) than to Europeans. Richards et al. (2000) suggested that some Near Eastern mtDNA haplotypes, among them Kurdish ones from east Turkey, presumably originated in Europe and were associated with back-migrations from Europe to the Near East, which may explain the close relationship of Kurdish and European groups with respect to mtDNA. Subsequent migrations involving the Caucasus and Central Asia, that were largely male-mediated, could explain the closer relationship of Kurdish Y-chromosomes to Caucasian/Central Asian Ychromosomes than to European Y-chromosomes.

Obviously, I don't expect people to universally like these results, nor do I think that people will realize that West Asian can include Semites and other groups. I think it's safe to say that referring to the Kurds as an Iranic people is a good way to go and is not at all inaccurate, while we can still mention their ties to the other groups as well including Caucasians, Semites, Europeans, Central Asians etc. Note that I said Iranic and not Iranian please. Tombseye 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Then the problem comes up that What is Iranic?, and then some people say it is just language, then of course it can not have ethnic meaning hence one can not say Kurds are Iranic, and the discussion starts all over again. My suggestion is to drop all direct ethnic references, just say Kurds are a middle eastern ethnic group,..., their language belongs to the north-western branch of Iranian languages. Neutral and simple.Heja Helweda 22:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Iranic simply corresponds to the linguistic group. Middle Eastern is far too vague. Besides, the Iranian people page goes to great lengths to explain what the term means. Come on, work with me here. I'm trying to give everyone a way out and everybody keeps taking extreme positions. Calling the Kurds an Iranian people or Iranic people is applicable given all the corresponding data. The more expansive genetic study links the Kurds in various ways to other West Asians, including Persians, AND linguistically it's a given, and culturally and historically there are enough links as well. Now in addition, we know the Kurds also have some unique traits that set them apart as well. However, given the controversy I have no problem with the opening paragraph simply stating that the Kurds are an ethnic group residing in... and just leave the caption box to explain that the related peoples include the Iranian people. How about that then? Tombseye 22:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I prefer saying Kurds are a middle eastern ethnic group and having Iranian people only in the related ethnic group section. But saying that Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group right in the beginning is misleading. Moreover the article Iranian peoples itself is misleading, where in the first line it says The Iranian peoples are the ethno-linguistic descendants of the ancient Iranians, themselves an early branch of the Indo-European Aryans. So it is not like you say just linguistic, the writers of that article intended an ethnic meaning as well. How can you prove that Kurds are descendants of ancient Iranians? What you mean by ancient Iranians? The term Kurd appears in the name of the ancient Kingdom of Corduene. Roman writers have talked about Carduchi people in that state which was a vassal state of the Roman Empire between 60 BCE and 360 CE (400 years). They were friendly with the Romans and were allied with them against Persians. Nowadays many researchers trace the roots of Kurds to the ancient Corduene., I have great difficulty understanding why such a close ethnic brethren of Persians were allied with the Romans. Heja Helweda 22:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ethnolinguistic is well understood in American idiomatic English to mean either or. It's meant to be understood as a wide-ranging definition as it can be either ethnic ties as some Iranian peoples have them or linguistic or both. In addition, the genetic tests do seem to cluster the Kurds with the Iranian peoples in some capacity as well as other West Asian groups along with their connections to other peoples. By ancient Iranians I mean the Indo-European Aryan invaders from the steppes of Russia and the Ukraine. Also, this has nothing to do with the Persians anyway. Nor am I disagreeing that the Kurds may be more autochthonous than people realize. I am merely saying that the term Iranian or Iranic does not equal Persian or the modern country of Iran. It's usage is similar to Germanic in the Germanic people article. To the average reader in the west, I think the article goes to great pains to explain that the term is not necessarily an ethnic one. Tombseye 23:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Germanic people article sounds fair to me since at least it acknowledges the mixed background of many people categorized under that term. For instance, Ireland is also a country of mixed Germanic and Celtic culture. While Kurds are obviously a mixed people, and had interactions with both Jews and Persians, they are still considered to be only iranian.Heja Helweda 23:43, 31 January 2006

(UTC)

Kurds are an Iranian people and many of them See themselves as the pure Iranians. I already provided a webpage but it was edited off. I would like everyone to look at the citation provided in the Kurdistan article about how it is criminal in Iran to have the Kurdish flag. Please look at the citation it is a fake one that has nothing to do with the Kurdish flag which is not banned in Iran. This is the sort of evidence provided. Heja Helweda has also said that it does not matter if something is true or not it is varification that is important. The main problem is that ethnic terms get very mixed up in the Middle East people still call Georgians by the term Russian.

As for the groups for Heja Helweda's reasoning that there were other ancestors that is very true for both Kurds and Persians who are both a mixture of Aryan peoples and the origian inhabbitants of Anatolia and the Iranian Plateau. Both are equally mixed with the natives of the area which were Semetic, Caucasian, and Dravidan peoples.

As for the peoples of Caucasian stock their genetics is so close to peoples of genetic stock that at times it has been argued to be or has been consider as one group or cluster.

Furthermore Heja Helweda used this citation to justify saying Kurds not an Iranian peoples, which has (thank God) been taken off becuase it is very problamatic:

Other genetic distance comparisons have revealed that some Turkic and Turkoman speaking peoples in the Caspian area cluster with the Kurds, Greeks and regional Iranians. The Persian speakers are genetically remote from these populations. They are, however, close to the Parsis who migrated from Iran to India at the end of the Seventh Century.

This citation was changed so many times, I recall the term being placed as Irani which meant Iranian. SO it said Kurds are in the same cluster as a group of regional Iranians. That is a direct link. As for Persian speakers being remote from these populations. It does not say not related. it says remote, meaning the odd one out. It is also to generic a statement, but I am sure I know what it wants to say. It means that many Persian speaking groups in the east (that means eastern Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia) are the furthest link. Of course Greeks are related to Kurds and other Iranian peoples they are all from a common ancestor. A Proto-Indo-European peoples. Persian and Kurds have strong affiliations with European peoples through their genetics.

The peoples of the Caucasus also show a great deal of similarity with the Iranian peoples as well, but to a degree that is somewhat reduced in comparison to their relationship with fellow Caucasian peoples. Here is the citations as your final proof and they are not home made or politically inspired websites. This is science which you can not argue with:

the peoples of the Caucasus also show a great deal of similarity with the Iranian peoples as well, but to a degree that is somewhat reduced in comparison to their relationship with fellow Caucasian peoples, but greater than their relationship with Europeans north of the Caucasus.

A simple pattern underlies the mtDNA variation in this region: a west-to-east divide with a sharp boundary. Populations located west of the Indus basin, including those from Iran, Anatolia and the Caucasus, exhibit a common mtDNA lineage composition, consisting mainly of western Eurasian lineages, with a very limited contribution from South Asia and eastern Eurasia (fig. 1). Indeed, the different Iranian populations show a striking degree of homogeneity. This is revealed not only by the nonsignificant FST values and the PC plot (fig. 6) but also by the SAMOVA results, in which a significant genetic barrier separates populations west of Pakistan from those east and north of the Indus Valley (results not shown). These observations suggest either a common origin of modern Iranian populations and/or extensive levels of gene flow amongst them. There is a virtual absence of both common South Asian lineages (M*, U2a, U2b, and U2c) and the more autochthonous U9, R*, R2, R5, R6, N1d, and HV2 lineages in the Anatolian/Caucasus region and Iranian plateau

Someone please add Figure one to the Iranian peoples chart and the meaning for all of the symbols. West Eurasian means=Iranian and Caucuasian stock, East Eurasian=Mongolains, Turks, and Asiatic peoples, and South Asian is the Dravidan Peoples.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n5/40813/40813.html

This is evidence and if it is tampered with then it well be considered vandalism!

The findings of the study show that the Kurds do cluster with the Iranian peoples OVERALL, but with variations from region to region and also shows that they have ties to other regions as well. Hopefully, this will end some of the controversy, but I kind of doubt it. Tombseye 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Kurds are part of the Iranian gene pool and cluster in the ethnic group.

and findings of another study showed that Kurds do cluster with Greeks and Turks, and also Kurds are genetically remote from Persians. Another study showed that Kurds are close to the Jews. My suggestion is to drop all controversial labelling of people. Do not call Kurds as Iranian or close to Persians or anything else. However provide the results of genetic studies in its section. Why is this so difficult to compromise on? In response to the evidence on relationship to the Jews, people say It is a limited study. But why is it considered a good evidence when the result points to a relationship with Persians? I see a strong nationalist Persian POV here, and that's why I suggest to drop all ethnic labellings.(Iranian people,...)Heja Helweda 03:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

where is your proof you are fabricating information again. When will you quiet your manipulation and play with words. It has been established that Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group but you and your associates keep trying to pull fast ones. SHoe us the studt. Giver verification which we will all read for ourselves cause you are not a neutral person.

WP:Request for comments/Politics and Iranian peoples

Hi there! I came in through a request for comment.

The discussion on Iranian peoples has been happening on a lot of articles already, so you're not alone on this ;-) But, perhaps soothing the discussion somewhat, the whole disagreement is based on a misunderstanding of what exactly is meant by "Iranian". It comes from the ethno-linguistic group of Aryans, and is not linked to current day Iran. Secondly, the family to which certain peoples belong is determined ethno-linguistically. In Cultural Anthropology, the language people use is considered to be the most telling sign of their heritage. The Kurdish language is undoubtedly an Iranian language, and therefore, the Kurds are considered an Iranian people. Genetics can be another source for this, but such studies are still very young, often very POV in themselves, and only few are really trustworthy.

Here is a very good definition taken from the article on Iranian peoples:

Iranian peoples are those ethnic groups who speak an Iranian language, in which case Iranian is an over-arching term for various peoples and their languages, many of whom share a common descent from a particular branch of the ancient Aryans (Iranians), as discerned from the relationship between their languages, as well as between some of their other inherited core cultural traits. The term is derived from the etymological term Iran which is synonymous with Aryan, and does not have an exclusive meaning that is only applicable to either the state of Iran or the Persian people. The term Iranian or Iranian people is similar, in its usage, to the term Germanic, for example, which includes various peoples who happen to share related Germanic languages such as German, English, and Dutch.

I especially love the example at the bottom, because I know quite a few Dutch people who would resent being called Germanic! Still, aside from the likeness of the name, it has nothing to do with Germany itself, and calling the Dutch Germanic is hardly POV - if so, who's POV could it possibly be? Not a German POV thats for sure.

Hope this helps! Greets, The Minister of War 13:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'd have to ask you to reconsider your stance on this issue. Most of us are not saying that Kurds are not an Iranian people as the term is defined. The problem is that the use of the phrase "Iranian ethnic group" is not as widespread (or popular) as some here have suggested. For example, both Afghans and Tajiks are Iranian people (more Iranian than both Persians and Kurds), but if you go to their respective articles you'd not see them defined that way. In fact, you don't see them being defined as Iranian anywhere in their articles. Also, if you go up to an Iraqi Kurd and ask him to define what a Kurd means to him, I doubt he would start off by saying Kurds are an "Iranian ethnic group". Most Kurds don't readily see themselves as part of an "Iranian ethnic group" (unless maybe they're from the country of Iran). But most Iranians (those from the country of Iran) do see Kurds belonging to the same ethnic group as them. So, yes, this article has some POV issues, because it's written from an Iranian perspective, not a Kurdish one.

I also don't agree with the Dutch analogy. Here's a better analogy. English is a Germanic language, so some might consider the English people part of Germanic peoples. But if you go to the English people article you don't see them defined as "Germanic people" or anything like that. We have the same situation here. Aucaman 14:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Tajiks are Persian. Go read the article. Secondly, where is your evidence that "most Iranians (those from the country of Iran) do see Kurds belonging to the same ethnic group as them"? Who believes this and is saying that? And which Iranians (from the country of Iran) - Persians, Azeris, Lurs, Bakhtiari, Arab - which of these see Kurds as being the same as them? You seem to entirely miss the point that "Iranian ethnic group" has nothing to do with the state of Iran. That's the whole gist of this discussion that has been going on for days before you became involved yesterday. Saying that they are an "Iranian ethnic group" is not saying that they are of the same ethnicity as Persians - both are ethnically related, however. Not even the Kurdish editors are denying that. SouthernComfort 15:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And for the last time, as if it needs to said (and it has been said again and again ad nauseum by so many others before), Iranian does not automatically equal Iran, in the same sense that Germanic does not automatically equal Germany. SouthernComfort 15:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I've heard the stuff you're saying a few times today (read above). I'm aware of the difference between Iranians (people from the country of Iran) and Iranian peoples. As I said, that's not the issue. You're just repeating the same thing over and over (which is starting to make me wonder if you actually think when you read people's arguments), without addressing any of the NPOV concerns. The issue here is: the use of the phrase "Iranian peoples" is not at all popular outside Persian circles. As I pointed out (this is the evidence), if you go to the Persian people article you see them being defined as Iranian peoples, but if you go to any other Iranian peoples' article (I pointed out Afghans and Tajiks) you don't see them being defined as Iranian peoples. So is it really necessary for Kurds to be defined as an "Iranian ethnic group" in the first sentence of this article? If you think it is necessary, then perhaps you should just stop arguing with me and go define Tajiks and Afghans also as Iranian ethnic groups in their articles. If you don't think it's necessary, then I guess we agree. Aucaman 15:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If that were the only issue (the first sentence), then it would not be much of a problem. However, as you can see, there are people who deny that Kurds are an Iranian people - which they very much are. SouthernComfort 16:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Afghans are not an ethnic group - it's a nationality and an ethnically diverse state, just like Iran. SouthernComfort 15:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How's that relevant? All Afghans are part of Iranian peoples, no matter what their ethnicity is. Right? Aucaman 15:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are claiming that they are more "Iranian" than Persians and Kurds - a very controversial statement and you present no evidence for that claim. Also, it is very relevant because they are not all Iranian peoples - Uzbeks and Turkmen are not an Iranian people - they are Turkic. SouthernComfort 16:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Hazara are not exactly an Iranian people either, at least not in the ethnic sense. Kurds not only speak an Iranian language, but they are historically and ethnically related to Iranian peoples. SouthernComfort 16:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Our relationship to Iranians is only linguistically. Netheir culturally nor historically nor anything else. If we have a bogus newroz (which also held by some Arab Iraqis in a specific way) and is held only once per year, we share many other important cultural points with other non-Iranian people of Middle-East such our dance etc... if during history we have had some contacts with Iranians, it is nothing in comparison to Our contacts to other people of Middle-East such as Turks, Arabs etc. It's quite POV (Iranian chauvenism POV) to deny everything and just try to iranicize Kurds. Mesopotamia 15:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Iranicize"? They already speak an Iranian language. Azeris speak a Turkic language and they are classed as Turkic peoples. I have no problem with emphasizing that Kurds are "indigenous," but they are certainly indigenous to the Iranian plateau which is why ethnologists have classified them as an Iranian ethnic group, in addition to the fact that they speak an Iranian language. Also, you cannot say that all Kurds are the same - Kurds in Iran most likely have very different "genetic connections" than Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Syria. The Iranian peoples article already clearly defines what is meant by "Iranian peoples" - should it be clarified further? Or do you just not like the word "Iranian"? SouthernComfort 15:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Off course I do not like the word "Iranian" neither its history. but this is not important. The important fact is that the relation of Kurds with Iranians is nothing. at least Azeris people historically and even culturally are close to Iranians. but what about Kurds. I see your POV just as iranicazation.

Mesopotamia 15:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Listen Mesopotamia you are an ignorant individual who adds nothing to this commints but just POVs. You yell and scream the same false statements over and over again. Explain to me how Kurds are different than other Iranians historically and especially culturally. Verify. You have been asked to give examples and proof over and over again. You keep spinning this discussion in circles and mention things like Kurds hate Iranians. You have no credibility.

Compromise?

As a form of compromise, at least for now, I suggest we remove the word "Iranian" from the first sentence of the article, but keep it the way it is for the rest of the article. Is there anyone strictly opposed to this? Aucaman 16:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman stop dressing covert intentions. All the proof, the hard proof states that Kurds are ethnic Iranians. Now you want to make individuals happy, who do not agree with logic and respect facts, by changing the facts. This is not about any of us being happy it is about facts. No, Misplaced Pages will never let you write that the sky is red when it is blue. Facts can not be compromised to make irrational individuals who fabricate information or play with words happy. This is not a political forum this is a place for learning real terms and meanings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.139.250 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, firstly, no one would take anything you say seriously until you sign your posts. Secondly, as I said before, the term "Iranian" (whichever definition you want to take) is rarely used to refer to Kurds as an ethnic group. Kurds are a distinct ethnic group. They're only included in Iranian peoples because of linguisitc reasons. Ethnicity is not always defined by language (otherwise English people would be Germanic). This is a dispute. You need to understand the other side's concerns and try to address them, but you seem to be repeating the same thing without providing any sources. Aucaman 19:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone is talking in circles here. As Heja Helweda suggested, we can simply not refer to the Kurds as only an Iranian people in the beginning paragraph and just start it with the Kurds are an ethnic group found mainly in the Middle East and Caucasus etc. and then leave their Iranian connection to the info-box which explains that they are related to the Iranian peoples, which many are. Since, in addition, we've also gone to great lengths to explain the diversity of the Kurds on the Iranian peoples page, moreso than any other group, this should end this argument. Both sides have what they want. The Kurds don't want an overemphasis with the opening paragraph, while the main related peoples in the infobox are listed as Iranian peoples. Fair enough? Tombseye 19:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I can agree to that so long as it's listed as "Other Iranian peoples." The attitudes of certain editors should not be construed as being a general Kurdish attitude. We've gone to great lengths to explain everything and I think that should be enough. SouthernComfort 19:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, good. Let's just assume good faith and move on by trying to improve this article with other things such as better writing and adding some pictures of more typical Kurds and culture etc. Tombseye 19:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, but see if you can get User:69.196.139.250 on board! I don't think he'd ever be happy. Aucaman 19:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I had already provided several references from encyclopedias above linking the Kurds ethnically and linguistically to other Iranian peoples, so it's not just a linguistic link. Those are solid references and when I have time, I'll pay a visit to the university library and find more. But you're wrong to say that Kurds are only linked to other Iranian groups due to linguistics - please provide a source for that. All Iranian ethnic groups are distinct - but they are all related. This is established in academia - people can dispute it as much as they want out of politics or spite or whatever. That doesn't make them right. SouthernComfort 19:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the problem here is that you're defining one ethnic group in terms of other ethnic groups. Kurds are a distinct ethnic group. To somehow brand them as "Iranians" without any explanation not only confuses the reader, but is not fair. I gave an example earlier. English people are part of Germanic peoples, but you don't see them being defined as Germanic in their article. I think the same should hold here. There's no point arguing about this anyway, since we both agree that the word "Iranian" should not appear in the first sentence of the article, but be kept the same at all other places. Aucaman 19:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that this is a pointless argument, but you have yet to provide any sources for those claims - as I've said, all Iranian ethnic groups are distinct. Persians are no more or less "Iranian" than the Kurds or any other member of the grouping, which is a standard ethno-linguistic grouping and the Iranian peoples article goes to great lengths to explain that (and Tombseye even went further to clarify the definition there). I have no idea why you're disputing that. SouthernComfort 19:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As I've said before, those who introduce new ideas or try to add new information are responsible for providing evidence. I'm simply questioning the popularity of the phrase "Iranian ethnic group" when it comes to defining Kurds (i.e., the first sentence of the article). You're the one who has to provide evidence, not me. Aucaman 20:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

These aren't "new ideas." They might seem new to you, but they are very well established. In effect what you're saying is that you dispute the Iranian peoples article. That's an entirely different discussion. SouthernComfort 20:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And BTW, I am not defining anything - these definitions already exist and are standard in academia. Perhaps you are not familiar with them, but they are not my "invention" or my own "definition." SouthernComfort 19:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Those of us who have been to academia know that there are no set standards (other than standard rules of conduct) and that everything depends on one's perspective. You have clearly chosen an Iranian perspective and there's nothing neutral about it. I'm sure if you open a Turkish or Iraqi text on Kurds, you'd not see them defined as an "Iranian ethnic group", however you define the term. Aucaman 20:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There are such things as standard definitions in ethnological studies. As I said, providing sources are not a problem, it will take time. But when I do, we will see what happens then - whether or not even those will be attacked as POV or "not neutral." I've already presented references from encyclopedias (online sources are nowhere near as extensive as an old-fashioned library) for the time being, and apparently they're not good enough. Even then you and others question whether Kurds are ethnically and linguistically connected to other Iranian ethnic groups. This whole discussion is so absurd, and others have commented as such as well - not just me - that it defies reason. You yourself continue to confuse the term "Iranian" with the country and call it an "Iranian POV" which is also absurd since this has nothing to do with nationalism or political entities or nation-states or governments. At any rate, as I've said, when I gather sources supporting the standard academic definition of "Iranian peoples", we'll see how others respond then. SouthernComfort 20:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I am not the only one supporting the standard academic definition of "Iranian peoples" so it would be appreciated if you refrained from making accusations against me that I am introducing "new ideas" or an "Iranian POV" which is nonsense and is getting very old. SouthernComfort 20:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My POV concerns are constantly being whitewashed by repeated irrelevant discussions, so I'm going to state them again:

Is the fact that Kurdish people are a member of Iranian peoples group an integral part of the Kurdish identity to the effect that it has to be included whenever Kurdish people are being defined (i.e., the first sentence of the article)?

If the answer is yes, please provide evidence to support your claim. If the answer is no, then you should not complain if the term "Iranian" is removed from the first sentence of the article. Aucaman 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should have been clear from the very beginning instead of throwing around accusations of POV. As for the gist of your question, we've already agreed to remove it from the first sentence. SouthernComfort 21:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman asked an interesting question. I'll try to discuss it from a historical point of view, and let's see the evidence in the Kurdish culture and history. The point is if there has been strong ties between these people(Kurds and Persians), we should find something positive about their historical relationship. But there are in fact evidence that suggest that there has always been friction between Persian civilization on one side and Kurdish people on the other.

(1) Yazidism and Zoroaster The only indigenous Kurdish religion is Yazidism. While many people tend to believe they are left-overs of the Zarathustrianism, Yazidis, themselves, have a completely different idea.

Yazidis believe that Zoroaster was a Yezidi who left them. When he returned, they did not accept his new religion. He spent ten years recruiting converts among the people around Lake Urmia, but his efforts drew only one person to his beliefs. Finally, he went to the Persians, among whom he found fertile ground for his teachings. According to the Kurdish scholar Tawfiq Wahbi, during the 4th and 5th centuries AD the majority of Kurds east of the Zagros, Cizir, Botan (both in south-eastern Turkey), Kirkuk, and those in the mountains of southeast Kurdistan were not Zoroastrians. The last emperor of the Medes, Rishti Vega-Azhi Dahak (Astyages), killed Zoroaster, ruled his followers and overthrew Vishtaspa (Hystaspes). His army reached the southwest of Afghanistan. During that attack, the army of the Medes inflicted cruelties on Zoroastrians. No doubt this explains in large measure why the Zoroastrians equated the name Azhi Dahak with oppression and cruelty.(see )

So, Zoroastriansim, a strong cultural trait of the early Persian history, is being depicted in not so pleasant terms in the Kurdish history.

(2) A Pahlavi Text Second evidence from a historical Pahlavi text book, called "Book of the Deeds of Ardashir son of Babak",(Karnamak Ardashir Papakan in Middle Persian). A very early record of confrontation between Kurds and Sassanid Empire appears in this historical text. The book explains the life of "Ardashir Papagan" or Ardashir I of Persia who is the founder of the Sassanid Dynasty. It is written in Pahlavi language. In this book, the author explains the battle between King of the Kurds, Madig and Ardashir I of Persia . (Chapter 5)

(3) Kingdom of Corduene Third evidence is about the Kurdish Kingdom of Corduene, a vassal state of the Roman Empire, which was allied with the Romans against Persians. Kurds from this Kingdom fought against Shapur II of Persia in 360 A.D.

(4)Battle of Dimdim Fourth evidence ( a modern one) is the Battle of Dimdim, from 1609 to 1610 between a Kurdish ruler of a region in north-western Iran, close to modern Urmia, (region of Baradost). In 1609, the ruined structure of an important castle was rebuilt by "Emîr Xan Lepzêrîn" (Golden Hand Khan), ruler of Beradost, who sought to maintain the independence of his expanding principality in the face of both Ottoman and Safavid penetration into the region. Rebuilding Dimdim was considered a move toward independence that could threaten Safavid power in the northwest. Many Kurds, including the rulers of Mukriyan (Mahabad), rallied around Amir Khan. After a long and bloody siege led by the Safavid grand vizier Hatem Beg, which lasted from November 1609 to the summer of 1610, Dimdim was captured. All the defenders were massacred. Shah Abbas ordered a general massacre in Beradost and Mukriyan (reported by Eskandar Beg Turkoman, Safavid Historian in the Book "Alam Aray-e Abbasi") and resettled the Turkish Afshar tribe in the region while deporting many Kurdish tribes to Khorasan. Although Persian historians (like Eskandar Beg ) depicted the first battle of Dimdim as a result of Kurdish mutiny or treason, in Kurdish oral traditions (Beytî dimdim), literary works (Dzhalilov, pp. 67-72), and histories, it was treated as a struggle of the Kurdish people against foreign domination. In fact, Beytî dimdim is considered a national epic second only to Mem û Zîn by Ehmedê Xanî (Ahmad Khani). The first literary account of this battle is written by Faqi Tayran (1590-1660) ).(see and ). Also see " O. Dzh. Dzhalilov, Kurdski geroicheski epos "Zlatoruki Khan" (The Kurdish heroic epic "Gold-hand Khan"), Moscow, 1967, pp. 5-26, 37-39, 206

Due to these historical background, it is very hard to imagine any strong links between Kurds and Persians. If being iranian or being close to Persians had been an integral part of Kurdish identity, then there would not have been so much evidence to the contrary. At least that is the impression that one gets after reading the Kurdish history.Heja Helweda 22:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The information you provide is not really relevant to what we're talking about. We weren't talking about the relations between Kurds and Persians (or other Iranian peoples). People could have identical ethnicities and still have very harsh relations. So, again, the information was not necessary. Aucaman 03:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I really want to have input from Users Khoikhoi and 69.196.139.250. Aucaman 03:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see how this "compromise" is simply taking the Kurds' side. The Kurds are an Iranian people. This is a well-known fact. It has been backed up with a neutral source. Still, people like Heja Helweda claim that his people are not. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying Kurds are not an Iranian people. I'm saying that being "Iranian" is not an integral part of the Kurdish identity so it does not have to appear in the first sentence of the article. You don't agree with this? Aucaman 04:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that being Iranian is not an integral part of the Kurdish identity, but it still should be in the 1st sentence because they are an Iranian people. --Khoikhoi 04:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't make any sense. If being Iranian is not an integral part of their identity why should it appear in the first sentence of the article? So you think the word "Germanic" should be in the first sentence of the English people article because their Germanic people? Just because something is true it doesn't mean it "should" to be put in the first sentence of the article. You need to provide evidence to prove that being Iranian is an integral part of the Kurdish identity if you want the word "Iranian" to stay there. Aucaman 05:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I see what you're saying. I now agree that it doesn't have to be in the 1st sentence, but it should be mentioned. The Kurdish editors were taking out any mention of them being an Iranian people throughout the entire article. --Khoikhoi 05:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No I was just talking about the first sentence. The rest of the article would stand pretty much the way it is right now. Aucaman 06:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Reading Heja's post above it would seem there is an attempt to link the term "Iranian peoples" to Persians only. Lurs, Laks, Bakhtiaris (all with much stronger links to Kurds than Persians), and so many others are classed as Iranian peoples, and yet there is this obsession with Persians. That is very sad. SouthernComfort 06:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well hopefully changing some stuff would keep everyone happy. Aucaman 06:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No I was just talking about the first sentence. The rest of the article would stand pretty much the way it is right now. Aucaman 06:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?

Seems like there's a rough consensus to delete the word "Iranian" from the first sentence of the article but keep the article pretty much the same otherwise. I'll try to make some changes to the article and submit it here for people to comment on. Aucaman 06:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you what Iraqi's refer to Kurds and Persians as the call them Ajam. If you ever talk to Arabs they will tell you there have even been hostilites with Kurds in Iraq cause they regarded them at certain periods as Iranian foreigners. Kurds are Iranians and I can not people who push aside scientific facts seriously. We provide everything that is asked for and yet we start at square one! Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group.

Okay Heja Helweda you are trying to provide the same evidence I gve, but manipulate the words to your benefit.

THIS IS THE FINDINGS:

Other genetic distance comparisons have revealed that some Turkic and Turkoman speaking peoples in the Caspian area cluster with the Kurds, Greeks and regional Iranians. The Persian speakers are genetically remote from these populations. They are, however, close to the Parsis who migrated from Iran to India at the end of the Seventh Century. That study found that the Turkooman and Turkic peoples (who are Azeries) within Iran clustered with Greeks and REGIONAL IRANIANS. You can not valid date a remoteness with Persians as meaning Iranians. Remember, Persians are a distinct Iranian ethnic group. The study even say regional ethnic Iranians. It also goes on to say that those Turkic peoples (that are Turkic speaking Iranians and Turkoman) are ethnically relate. The "Mede" were the ancestors of the Azeris (a Turkic-speaking people), besides the Kurds. The study you are trying to provide as your evidence is opposing what you are saying. In conclusion Kurds are an ethnic Iranian peoples.

This citation was changed so many times, I recall the term being placed as Irani which meant Iranian. SO it said Kurds are in the same cluster as a group of regional Iranians. That is a direct link. As for Persian speakers being remote from these populations. It does not say not related. it says remote, meaning the odd one out. It is also to generic a statement, but I am sure I know what it wants to say. It means that many Persian speaking groups in the east (that means eastern Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia) are the furthest link. Of course Greeks are related to Kurds and other Iranian peoples they are all from a common ancestor. A Proto-Indo-European peoples. Persian and Kurds have strong affiliations with European peoples through their genetics.

Also,

The peoples of the Caucasus also show a great deal of similarity with the Iranian peoples as well, but to a degree that is somewhat reduced in comparison to their relationship with fellow Caucasian peoples. Here is the citations as your final proof and they are not home made or politically inspired websites. This is science which you can not argue with:

the peoples of the Caucasus also show a great deal of similarity with the Iranian peoples as well, but to a degree that is somewhat reduced in comparison to their relationship with fellow Caucasian peoples, but greater than their relationship with Europeans north of the Caucasus.

A simple pattern underlies the mtDNA variation in this region: a west-to-east divide with a sharp boundary. Populations located west of the Indus basin, including those from Iran, Anatolia and the Caucasus, exhibit a common mtDNA lineage composition, consisting mainly of western Eurasian lineages, with a very limited contribution from South Asia and eastern Eurasia (fig. 1). Indeed, the different Iranian populations show a striking degree of homogeneity. This is revealed not only by the nonsignificant FST values and the PC plot (fig. 6) but also by the SAMOVA results, in which a significant genetic barrier separates populations west of Pakistan from those east and north of the Indus Valley (results not shown). These observations suggest either a common origin of modern Iranian populations and/or extensive levels of gene flow amongst them. There is a virtual absence of both common South Asian lineages (M*, U2a, U2b, and U2c) and the more autochthonous U9, R*, R2, R5, R6, N1d, and HV2 lineages in the Anatolian/Caucasus region and Iranian plateau

Someone please add Figure one to the Iranian peoples chart and the meaning for all of the symbols. West Eurasian means=Iranian and Caucuasian stock, East Eurasian=Mongolains, Turks, and Asiatic peoples, and South Asian is the Dravidan Peoples.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n5/40813/40813.html

This is evidence and if it is tampered with then it well be considered vandalism!

THIS IS WHAT Heja Helweda says,

and findings of another study showed that Kurds do cluster with Greeks and Turks, and also Kurds are genetically remote from Persians.......My suggestion is to drop all controversial labelling of people. Do not call Kurds as Iranian or close to Persians or anything else. Heja Helweda WRONG

The study you are talking about says Kurds are Iranians so now you have no foundation for your arguements.

Solution

The Kurds are of Persian heritage. The Kurds are an ethnic group related to Iranians.

I think "The Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group" is misleading. Seeing as I know nothing of this relationship, when I read the article, i am left with the impression that they were recent emigres of Iran, and are originally based in Iran and were recently exiled.

"Quebeqois are a French ethnic group"

based on the reasons of those SUPPORTING keeping the current statement, I used their logic and I don't think it works in this example. Just keep in mind, sometimes the most objective opinion with these articles is one which has no experience in the subject matter. I am sure many people will be left with a misleading impression about Kurds. By the way, they seem to be a pretty old people in their own right, I found references to them in the Bible.

The History of the Kurds article tends to dispute the "Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group" statement. Finally, if Kurds are also of other ethnicities, why focus on them being Iranian vs being of the others? Esp since the vast majority of them do not live in Iran?

Being an "Iranian ethnic group" refers to the Iranian peoples. --Khoikhoi 05:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection

It looks like most people here are pretty logical about this, so I don't see any reason for full-protection. Most are also willing to talk and discuss differences, with the exception of 69.196.139.250, who continues to copy-paste his opinions without much regard for others' perspectives. (He never signs his posts, although I've warned him before. He also vandalized my talk page here. Not sure what he's thinking.) So I'm going to request for semi-protection. Aucaman 17:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman you were biased from the biggining and ignored scientific fact. Why is the genetic proof put aside. I vandalized your talk page????? You are a liar you vandalized mine. It is in the history. You edited words or titles. I talked but there are many people who pretend to want compromise but their actions are different. You are one of them.

You vandalized what I said and that is why I even wrote warnings about vandalizing proof....

I'm a "liar" for saying you vandalized my page? I even provided the link. here it is again. The thing you deleted was on my personal page and didn't have anything to do with this article. It's clear vandalism. Aucaman 10:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Protection, Heavy POV and Vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.139.250 (talk • contribs)

You didn't sign your post AGAIN. Do you ever read the stuff people write? You need to start being clear on exactly what you're demanding or no one would address your concerns. You can't just ask for protection. Which part of the article is POV? Aucaman 10:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of Aryan

Aryan is not academically speaking an ambiguous group. It pertains to the Iranian-speaking tribes who obviously invaded Kurdish areas to impart their language there. Without any mention of them, from where did the Kurdish language originate? Their inclusion in some capacity is important. The others uses of Aryan have been debunked as it is no longer synymous with Indo-European or Germans etc. It is a specific category and tribe and well established in academia and pertains to the Kurds. Tombseye 00:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I suggest you educate yourself on this issue. The term "Aryan", in the non-racist usage, is another way of saying "Indo-Iranian", although "Indo-Iranian" is considered more proper. It's a broad linguistic term which includes various groups including the Iranians, Indo-Aryans (the Vedic Aryans of India for example), and Nuristanis, most of whom are not related except for linguistic reasons. Who exactly do you have in mind? Aucaman 00:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I already know all of that. Aryans as a group filtered through and may not have split off for centuries since the Mitanni ended up in Syria and many believe they were speakers of an Indo-Aryan variant language. So actually you might want to go back and think over your position. The Aryans or Indo-Iranians, yes that's correct, split off at some point, but it's unknown when they did so for all we know as Indo-Iranians they invaded the Kurdish areas or as Iranian tribes they came to the Kurdish areas. As for being related or not, the Nuristani actually cluster with the general West Asian type so they are related as do the Dardic peoples, the only Indo-Aryan groups that also cluster with the West Asians, to most of the peoples found on the Iranian plateau as well as the West Eurasian peoples also predominant in the Caucasus. Tombseye 05:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, what's with the POV tag? After all we went through there are still problems with the article?! Geezus. It's as neutral as it's going to get and I don't understand what the problem is still. Tombseye 00:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the POV tag is not related to what we've said. It's just a general warning to the reader that there's a dispute going on. Aucaman 00:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Aryan is not mentioned in old Greek/Roman histories like Xenophon. What we see in Greek histories is ethnic groups like Persian, Kardukhi, not Aryan. Moreover, Aryan is not the name of a single tribe. The only relationship one can really talk about is the language one, not ethnic. The existence of a single Aryan nation is disputed, since it has not been cited in ancient sources. Heja Helweda 00:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure which tribe he's referring to. Aucaman 00:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought we'd resolved the disputes at this point? As for the usage of Aryan, the Greeks and Romans had formed centuries after the Aryans were Aryans. The earliest usage comes from the Persians and Indians, that is recorded anyway. As for this ethnic designation, I don't understand what you're getting at. I never claimed there was a single Aryan 'nation', but simply saying Aryans is very accurate since it includes either an Indo-Iranian group before they split up, which is possible, OR an Iranian group derived from them. Thus, its usage is also the most general and applicable. I think the usage is quite clear in this regard. I'm trying to work with you guys, but it seems like anything that has anything to do with 'Iranian' seems to offend you all. So which group do we credit with bringing the Kurdish language then if not the Aryans? Do you prefer Indo-Iranians or Iranians then? I've got a feeling that won't fly either. Tombseye 05:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for reverting your edit (I know how frustrating it could be), but there's no evidence that the original Indo-Europeans were at some point in Kurdistan. There's not even a consesus as to whether or not they were originally part of the same nation. So, again, which Indo-European people are you referring to? Most of them are already listed there. Aucaman 06:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question here. Instead you posted a general rant about how you're not getting what you want. I'm moving it to a better place (section titled "Current edits" right below this section). Aucaman 13:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I did answer your question. The Aryans weren't always a bunch of separate tribes firstly. Second, one can see that the Aryans were still very much closely related even 3000 years ago since the Avestan and Sanskrit bear so much similarity. The reason the term Aryan works here is that we don't know which group it was and thus a wide ranging term is useful. I did not rant about anything, you're just not listening because you're looking for specifity when there isn't necessarily specificity here. Kurdish is an Iranian language brought to the region by Aryan invaders or the Iranian variant. Now we can call them proto-Iranians or Indo-Iranians or Aryans, but one of these said groups brought Kurdish to the region. Unless you prescribe to the theory that the Medes spoke some proto-Kurdish language which is not all substantiated. Tombseye 21:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Current status

The introductory paragraphs of the article are a result of some intense debate and compromise here. Please have this in mind. Any major or unexplained edit would likely be reverted. Sincerely, Aucaman 08:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Shervinks edits were totally explained. Mesopotamia could have reverted but didn't thanks to discussion here, that you yourself mediated in. I wouldn't be surprised if it were reverted now. But the sources are there, and there is another one further down in the article. SouthernComfort 08:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you're talking. What would be reverted? Sources for what? Aucaman 10:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Don't you you think the first section of the article. is too long? It's three paragraphs one of them (the second one) dublicated of the first one. I belive we should remove it and instead keep its reference. I'm now going to do it but if you don't think so you can revert it. Thanks. Mesopotamia 12:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm not sure why anyone would disagree. It's just repetition. Aucaman 12:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Any references to the relation with Iranians have been deleted from the introduction. This is both academically weak, and extremely biased. Most importantly, I think it is in objection to the consensus reached before. There must be a clear, explicit introduction regarding the Kurdish language being Iranian, and that the Kurds are an Iranian people, thus ethnically related to the other Iranians. Anything less than this is separatist POV. Please bear in mind that Kurds are not a nation, and thus these relations they have with the nation they have been part of for most of their history and have the closest cultural affinity to, must be included clearly. Shervink 20:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

We were talking about something else. I agree that the fact that Kurdish is an Iranian language should be kept in the second paragraph. Aucaman 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You have already added it but why put the tag?! Mesopotamia 23:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shervink, Explaing of Kurds should be on relevant section History, We should provied our sources there.

I see no relationship bewtween being neutral and separatism POV. Instead of such a accusations let's improve the article. Mesopotamia 20:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

And for the word Some or Most: I think (You all) discuss it here is beter than edit war. Thanks all. Mesopotamia 20:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with making discussions here rather than making continuous reverts which costs us all a lot of time and nerves. The point is that the Kurds, one way or another, are an Iranian ethnic group, and an ethnic group within the nation of Iran. This is very different from their relations to the nations of Turkey of Iraq (for which I have the outmost respect), which have a much shorter history and have no relevance to the Kurds other than political borders. Kurds, however, are culturally one of the pillars of the Iranian customs and traditions, and not mentioning so is wrong I think. It is unfair to the Kurds, to the other Iranians, and to the interested reader which would miss a lot of basics despite reading the introduction. Moreover, as these (language, ethnic relation) are things on which anybody seems to agree in essence, the inclusion of 2-3 sentences in the introduction is worth the increaze in its size. It adds considerable information at the proper place. As for the word "most", I don't think we would like to have a statistical comparison here, but since the ethnic "relation" is essentially unquestioned, it should be there. I realize that this relation might not be acknowleded in all sources, but its counterpart (linking them "mainly" to an other ethnicity other than Iranian, e.g. Semitic, Arab, Jewish, ... ) has not been done in any credible source. The fact that there are no pure ethnicities in the Middle East anyway is another thing, and it equally applies to Persians, Azaris, Lurs, Baluchs, etc. It does not make them less Iranian. Shervink 21:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Thank you for your respond. I do not want discuss Kurdish people's ethnicity. Beacuse it's a disputed issue and I (at least temporarily) leave it for you. But Shevink, about the mentioning of it: it's alreay discussed in its relevant places such as InfoBox and history section. So I do not believe a sentece be mentioned THREE times. One can easily look at infobox and see many useful info. (and infobox is just right of the intro.) Thanks. Mesopotamia 22:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest edits

I really tried hard to appreciate what our (apparently Kurdish) friends here have to say. But to be honest, I just feel disgusted. That people are intentionally trying to bend and wipe out and re-write historical facts, undisputed facts that is, in this way, is something I can only feel pitty for. Since the vast majority of those editing this page most obviously have anti-Iranian, anti-Aryan (although both terms actually include the Kurds) bias, the only way to deal with the matter seems to be to keep the content warning on top of the page forever! Speaking of the Iranians "invading" Kurdish area is the joke of the century. Those Kurds concerned about their future should concentrate on working with the other Iranians, rather than denying their history (of which they should actually be proud). This method of artificially creating a dispute supported by a few most questionable, so-called "sources", and denying the vast majority of evidence by serious scholars, and then claiming that there is a lack of consensus on the matter, is truly shameful. Fact is Kurds are Iranians. Nothing more and nothing less than that, and no games that you'd like to play here can change that. The only reason you are somewhat succeeding in falsifying this article is because any serious, honest, knowledgeable person is so pissed off by your anti-Iranian, mostly separatist bias that they just give up. Iran, all Iran, including Kurdistan, has been called land of the Aryans at least since the times of Cyrus and Darius. That is well established historical fact. Kurds are Aryan, Iranian, and Indo-european, to the same extent that most other ethinicities of Iran are. They are in no way more special, nor less special than the other Iranians. Since your behavior shows not even the least respect for the consensus previously achieved, I think there is no point in keeping the term Iranian out of the first line. It is appropriate and must be included. Its omission was only accepted against proper, visible acknowledgement at many other places, which you are systematically trying to remove. Shervink 12:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Most of your concerns have already been addressed. This page was protected and we've already had a long discussion about these issues. Some of us here do agree that Kurds are Iranian peoples - as it is defined in that article. But here's the question:

Is the fact that Kurdish people are a member of Iranian peoples group an integral part of the Kurdish identity to the effect that it has to be included whenever Kurdish people are being defined (i.e., the first sentence of the article)?

If your answer is "no", then we agree. Then there's no need for the word "Iranian" in the first sentence of the article. But if your answer is "yes", then you need to provide evidence that being Iranian is an integral part of the Kurdish identity (in other words, that you cannot define a Kurd without using the term "Iranian" - just like you cannot define a French without using the word "France"). Aucaman 13:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Shervinak. Please do not accuse other people. accusatioon is very easy. I can simply accuse you to anything. But let's act civil.

Mesopotamia 13:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am already acting more than civil. The nonsense you write here is hardly worth any civilized person's time to respond to. As for your question, the answer is clearly yes. The Kurds cannot be defined without the term Iranian. And it is not the 'so-called' Iranian nation. It is the Iranian nation, which is one of the, or probably 'the' oldest nation on earth, and to which the Kurds belong. No, Iranians are not only their fathers, mothers, or friends. They are the Kurds' brothers. And by the way, what have they done to the Kurds? What injustice have they in particular suffered which was not generally suffered by others due to political problems of the time? Your hatred towards Iran is unbelievable! Shervink 14:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

You really don't agree? Okay, then you need to provide evidence that being Iranian is a necessary factor for being Kurdish identity. I don't think that's the case. Most encyclopedias and academic works don't include the term "Iranian" when defining Kurds. Aucaman 14:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, being "Iranian" is one thing, but why the resistance to mentioning Aryan invaders or Indo-Iranians or Iranians then? What's really going on here? I'm a big supporter of Kurdish rights and the right to a country myself, so I'm pretty sure I'm not pushing a pro-Iranian view here. I'm just wondering why this usage is so offensive when it's factual. Kurdish is an Iranian language brought to them by an Iranian group of some sort which is why Aryan works since we don't know which Aryan tribe it was except that it was probably a proto-Iranian. Are any of these terms okay with you or is this really just becoming a page for Kurdish nationalism? Tombseye 21:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said and say again: There is no place for any -ism. Why Kurds should be part of your sio-called Iranian nation at all? are Iranians our farhetrs or mothers? or friends? Remember Iranians have done worst against Kurds. The history is not only 20th century. Look at our history and you see how pretty Kurds have been part of Iranian nation! Mesopotamia 13:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

But Aucaman, both by population and geographically Kurds in Turkey are in majority. Mesopotamia 13:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. You can go ahead and reorder the list in terms of population size :) I'm too lazy and I don't really care about the order. Aucaman 13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am already acting more than civil. The nonsense you write here is hardly worth any civilized person's time to respond to. As for your question, the answer is clearly yes. The Kurds cannot be defined without the term Iranian. And it is not the 'so-called' Iranian nation. It is the Iranian nation, which is one of the, or probably 'the' oldest nation on earth, and to which the Kurds belong. No, Iranians are not only their fathers, mothers, or friends. They are the Kurds' brothers. And by the way, what have they done to the Kurds? What injustice have they in particular suffered which was not generally suffered by others due to political problems of the time? Your hatred towards Iran is unbelievable! By the way, it is you who should provide evidence supporting otherwise. Namely, serious sources saying explicitly that Kurds are not Iranian.

Shervink 14:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

About sources I am sure their will be more neutral and ACCURATE sources. Mesopotamia 14:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Good. The fact I wrote is written in history. I offer you to read Kurds history. Then unfortunately you will see their worst enemie during the history to present have been Iranians. Because iranians think they are more culturized people on the earth. most of them do not know that what arabs and Turks did is nothing in comparison to what Iranians did against them . Iranians from the day inhabited parts of modern Iran and invaded their neighbours have been always an enemy towards the Kurds. This is only about our and your history. But about article. I did a minor edit. and will e glad to know your oppinion. Mesopotamia 14:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright guys, this is getting out of control. Please indent your replies. I'm tired of having to fix your edits. If your respond is directed at someone's statement, list it under that statement, with one indentation (using colons: ":"). Aucaman 14:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

POV issues

People here need to stop name calling and irrelevant discussions. If you have a problem with certain edits or the way the article appears, you should assume good faith and spell out those concerns (or pretend to assume good faith even if you don't think the other side has good intentions). Otherwise your concerns would not be accounted for. If this artilce is protected again, I'm not going to ask for unprotection, and no one would get what they want. So start rethinking the way you deal with other people and this article. Aucaman 15:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense

Mesopotamia, what history do you talk about?! First of all, Kurds are part of the Iranians. Therefore, it is wrong to talk about what Iranians did to Kurds, etc. The animosity you refer to does not exist. Your statements are intended to spread hatred on Misplaced Pages, which is something you can be banned for. I do not consider Kurds as my enemies, and I always spoke with the most of respect about them, I even called them one of the pillars of Iranian culture, called them brothers, etc. Do not confuse my intentions. Your intentions, however, seem pretty clear from the previous posts. Shervink 15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

I say it again. Read History of The Kurds. Be neutral. we are not prophet to give people flowers or make relationships bewtween them. History is history. Mesopotamia 15:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. History proves you wrong. I am familiar with it. Shervink 15:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

Yes, History is history but not Iranians' history which is bogus. and false. because Iranians rewrite history. and I am familar with iranians! Mesopotamia 15:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep insulting Iranians??? Shervink 15:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

I am not insulting. from left, righ, above, below we are victims of assimilation everyday and hour. our culture, our history, our language, our everything. And here you are rewriting history claiming iranians have been kind towards the Kurds. I know this is part of Iranian educated history, in Iran but actually is quite wrong. Mesopotamia 15:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am truly sorry for all problems your people have or had in the past. I'm not claiming that the government of Iran has done favors to the Kurds or has been kind of whatever, all I'm saying is that we're all sitting in the same boat. Don't say "Iranians" have done this and that to the Kurds, whereas what you mean is the government of Iran. This government has done a lot of horrible things to other Iranians as well. That's all I'm saying. Do you get my point? Shervink 15:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

How you active wikipedians have focused on this word? Is it so important? Mesopotamia again started. Diyako Talk + 15:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Say it clear Diyako. WHAT has poor Mesopotamia started??!

Mesopotamia 15:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly too much. I'm going for a break, and I suggest you to do the same. Let's cool down a bit!!! Shervink 15:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

The individuals that are not to be trusted and have a anti-Iranian agenda are Mesopotamia , Aucaman , and Heja Helweda . Do not trust them and read through the history and see the changes they made and when they provide evidence you must all double check. Also look at the discussions and you can see the methodology of their agandas. Mesopotamia fabricated information and pushes it. Aucaman pretends that he wants compromise, but is in favour of the vandals and false information. It is so transparent. Heja Helweda gives half truths, which are lies. Like the genetic information. Everyone read it carefully. Irani means Iranian. it sys Kurds are in the same ethnic cluster as Iranis. If you look at that whole article on its direct source you will see that the individuals who placed it there are liers who changed the information that actual study says Kurds are Iranians. ALso please look at all of Heja Helweda contributions as well as the others and you will see what is on their minds. MY SUGGESTION IS TO GO EDIT THEIR ARTICLES BECAUSE I SEE A LOT OF MISTAKES. Heja Helweda is abusing this site.

Kurdish people

First I wanted to say that I have read all the discussion here.

Second: regardless of what ethnic identity editors come up with for Kurdish people, one thing is for sure: "Middle Eastern people" is completely wrong since no such thing exists. Middle eastern is not a race. There are people from radically different racial groups living in Middles East. Not only they are not the same race they are not even in the same group.

Third: It looks like the people who are against defining Kurds as Iranian people, are politically motivated since they keep bringing up the conflict between Iranian government and Kurdish people. Some of them are misinformed; they are confusing Persians with Iranians and think that since Kurds are not Persian then they can not be Iranian people. Another group is mistaking the nationality Iranian with the race “Indo Iranian” and thinks that since some of the Kurds are not Iranian citizens and are not living in Iran then they can not be Iranian people. Some of them are expressing concern that other people might be confused since majority of people only think of Persian as Iranian people and therefore might make a mistake.

These days it is really hard to distinguish people based on ethnicity since nobody is pure therefore langue seems to be the standard way of distinguishing one group from another. I personally disagree with this system and I mentioned it before; However this seems to be the standard way which is why Azeri people are defined as Turkish people and Egyptians as Arab. As the result there should not be any argument about Kurdish people since they most definitely speak an Iranian language and there is absolutely no debate about it. However if editors want to define the ethnicity separate from language (and I would welcome this) still the term "Middle Eastern people" should be removed since it is extremely vague and inaccurate. Maybe we can write: An ethnic group living in Middle East...

Gol 21:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your comment.

First: You in second part of your comment said that ""...Middle Eastern people" is completely wrong since no such thing exists. Middle eastern is not a race. There are people from radically different racial groups living in Middles East. Not only they are not the same race they are not even in the same group...""

???

and in last paragraph said: ""...These days it is really hard to distinguish people based on ethnicity since nobody is pure...""

???

Second: People of Egypt speak (even the most standard) Arabic and Azeris speak Turkish which both are A language or a dialect of A language not a languistic classification regarding a language family as Iranian languages is.

Third: Even the source provided by those friens does NOT claim Kurds are an Iranian people but says close to.

Four: Even the source provied by those friends uses the term Middle Eastern ethnic group. because there IS a region which is called Middle East (where Kurds live in accurate and simple words). not confusing, not misleading, also includes all the four countries which Kurds there are a significant population.

...

Thank you. Mesopotamia 22:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Kurds ARE AN ETHIC IRANIAN PEOPLE

We have been through everything and are going in circles. The Kurdish language is Iranian, the Kurdish culture is Iranian, Kurds are genetically the same as other Iranians, Kurdish history in entrenched with other Iranians...what more do you want????

It seems there are a lot seperatists who want to delete history and fact. I provided gentic evidence, historical evidence. They want words like Aryan and Mede deleted due to the direction is points in.

All right here is more: National Geographic says Kurds are Iranian

The World Book says Kurds are Iranian

Life Books says Kurds are Iranian

There is a group of individuals which includes Acuman who are attacking this site.

All you real Kurds and other Iranian peoples do not be fooled by certain individuals who have hijacked this information database trying to influence the unknowing publics mind. You give them an inch and they want a mile. You can not negotiate with them. They have an AGENDA and will lie and fabricate information. The information used on this site has been twisted. The genetic source used says in conclusion that KURDS ARE AN ETHNIC IRANIAN PEOPLES. Stop listening to them and stand your ground. the first thing to do is emphasis that Kurds are an ethnic Iranian peoples at the start of the article. Kurds are not related to Jews (and jews are not a race they are a religion, saying Jews are an ethnic group is like saying Christians and Muslims are a race!). That is rubbish.

The individuals that are not to be trusted and have a anti-Iranian agenda are Mesopotamia , Aucaman , and Heja Helweda . Do not trust them and read through the history and see the changes they made and when they provide evidence you must all double check. Also look at the discussions and you can see the methodology of their agandas. Mesopotamia fabricated information and pushes it. Aucaman pretends that he wants compromise, but is in favour of the vandals and false information. It is so transparent. Heja Helweda gives half truths, which are lies. Like the genetic information. Everyone read it carefully. Irani means Iranian. it sys Kurds are in the same ethnic cluster as Iranis. If you look at that whole article on its direct source you will see that the individuals who placed it there are liers who changed the information that actual study says Kurds are Iranians. ALso please look at all of Heja Helweda contributions as well as the others and you will see what is on their minds. MY SUGGESTION IS TO GO EDIT THEIR ARTICLES BECAUSE I SEE A LOT OF MISTAKES. Heja Helweda is abusing this site.