Tight Cunts
Tight Cunts
v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Kurdistan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Origins
The first sentence under the 'origins' heading doesn't make any sense. Somebody revise it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.2.56 (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Kurdish History, opening paragraph
hurrians , mittanies, urardians are western kurds. medes, partians eastern kurds, babylonians and summerians mesopotamian kurds. acadians assirian empire are semitic assirian. persians empire, sasainids are persians.frigians are armenians. ionians mysians, trojans are greeks. kimerrians, kaska are laz and georgians.
"Certainly by the time of the Islamic conquests a thousand years later, and probably for some time before, the term 'Kurd' had a socio-economic rather than ethnic meaning. It was used of nomads on the western edge of the Iranian plateau and probably also of the tribes that acknowledged the Sassanians in Mesopotamia, manyfrigian must have been Semitic in origin."
Is this an appropriate opening paragraph? The section on Kurdish history begins with one account of the use of the word "Kurd" after the Islamic conquest. I'm almost certain this was placed here by someone with an anti-Kurdish agenda, because:
a) This is certainly not where Kurdish history BEGINS b) This certainly does not represent the achievements of the Kurdish people and their history. It is like beginning the account of European history at the Dark Ages, never mind Greece and Rome. Ridiculous! Someone change it.
It's a derogatory agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.42.150 (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed the word " sometimes "
No doubt the Kurds are Aryans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.94.103 (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
From the sentence which claims Kurds live in an area " sometimes known as Kurdistan". Sometimes? Really ...? Surely that was an attempt at subtly putting into question Kurdish claims on what is essentially always known as Kurdistan, but it stuck out like a sore thumb. Stop being so petty, for the love of God stop! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.141.220 (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Kurds a mixed nation?
Before islam, the kurds did all belong to their original yezidi-religon. And the yezidis never marry a non-yezidi, even if he is a kurd. They never accept anyone who wants to join them because both parents must be yezidis in order to be a yezidi. If someone leaves them he or she is never more welcome to come back. They are very strict on these points and many times kill for them too.
The muslim kurds are not so hard as yezidis , but say you must primary marry someone from your tribe, secondary it may be okey if its a kurd too. But they are not so hard as yezidis, there several muslim kurds who doesnt care about those "rules"
However lets move back to yezidis, all kurds were yezidis before islam (before 600. a.d) then how come many schoolars say that kurds are mixes of Hurrian/Native and Medes? This doesnt fit in at all. Also read down at the bottom what i have written about medes.
One more thing. If kurds got "aryanized" how come they didnt get "turkified" or "arabized" ????? They are not known for giving up their language or culture just like that. They are known fighters who people cant easily break down. --Kurdalo (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a big chance both Kurds and Iranians got some "arabification" under islams expansion in the region. Kurds and Persians may be fighters who can resist but they were managed to give up they older beliefs and became muslims. And I have also read that Azeris are Kurds that have bean "turkified" and that the Kurds in North Eastern Iran are Azeris who still speak Kurdish, but I leave that to the historians to investigate.
I understand you when you say they got some "arabification" but thats not what i meant. (i didnt mean with religon) According to wikipedia and moste schoolars, the kurds spoke annother language, and then the medes came (from where? read what i have written at the bottom on this page) and "aryanized" the kurds, and according to this the kurds simple forgot their language of some reason and adopted modern Kurdish. Then i ask, why didnt they took turkish too? Why not arabic too? Why not Greek languag too? Why not latin too? The mounatins up there are very closed/tight together. Its not easy to pass through them. And kurds fight almost all the time. Then how?
How much i try i see no logical reason.
The azeris, i have heard too that they were first persians who became turkified. But lets say they were kurds, even if they were kurds, then there are still evidence of 30 million kurds who did NOT became turks. Then it was just some of the kurds who got turkified. You can see the same in religon too, most kurds became muslims, but there are still many ezidi kurds left, as a proof of their original belief.
If the kurds spoke "hurrian", then were are the speakers of this language? Why arent kurds speaking hurrian and WHY would they simply give up their language.
It doesnt make sense.
The kurds must have been speaking kurdish by that time too. And the proof of this is that the oldest written indo-european, is found at the hurrians. And its the same branch of indo-european that kurdish belongs to, indo-arian. Why would we asume that modern kurdish was introduced to them by some other guys? --Kurdalo (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Kurds fighting Sumerians?
I don't think this article is very convincing to people that don't belong to the Kurdish community. The Kurds are a people that belong to an ethnic group, I can agreer:Rokus01|Rokus01]] 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
PS. Okay, I missed the reference to the Britannica online. However, to make this point intelligible I miss the inclusion of this extra statement mentioned there: " Although their language is related to Iranian, the Kurds' ethnic origins are uncertain ."
Rokus01 20:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Kurds fighting sumerians is nonsense as Kurds who are an indo-european people were not attested during the Sumerian era. In this regard secondary and primary sources are needed by the principle of OR. If secondary/primary sources do not contradict this, then it is fine. Else for now I have removed it to the talk page.
Hiia Britannica Online, s.v. Kurds. </ref>
--alidoostzadeh 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I will quote it here:
- Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. The White House's summary of a president's speech is a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.
Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; newspaper accounts which contain first-hand material, not merely analysis or commentary of other material; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
- Secondary sources draw on primary sources in order to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims. A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports is a secondary source. A New York Times analysis and commentary on a president's speech is a secondary source. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, constitute secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians.
- Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.
Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information col
