Talk:Origins of the Kurds

Old talk page: Talk:Origins of the Kurds/Genetic origins of the Kurds

Iranian and Kurds

It has been proven based on various genetic studies that Kurd (at least Kurds of Iran and Central Asia) are closely clustered with rest of Iranians. I am putting the link to 2 of these studies: [1]look at page 7,,,, [2] also page 7, note that Kurd(that is Kurds of Turkey) are somewhere between Turkish and Iranians. Let me know what you think. I will wait for response from people for a week, and if nobody objects I will incoporate these studies into the article. Ddd0dd (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Please

Merge proposal of Genetic origins of the Kurds

This article has been a bother since its creation as far as categorization is concerned. Article is clearly about "Kurdish people" and not about genetic studies in general even though it had been categorised as such.

Both articles focus on the origins of the Kurds so having a single article on that particular topic makes sense.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I merged the info from the other article into this one. Both articles talk about the same thing, the origin of the Kurds, therefore, the genetic testing should just be included here. Makes sense. I merged the articles,Hajji Piruz 21:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have disputed this article for various reasons. There are many claims made that are not scientifically studied. The genetic studies regading Kurds' origin are contradicting regarding Kurd's origion. For example Kurds of Iran are identical to Persians, where the ones in Turkey might be closer to turks than to Iranian. Making a "jew" connection is rather pointless, there is no such a thing as a "jew" race, Jewish people seem to be mostly from "Near Eastern" gene pool, with variety of exceptions. If J12 Is in fact a "jew" maker then half of western Euroasia are jews. I sense nationalism from many sentences. Ddd0dd (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Among and Between

In spite of the fact that the popular theory that things happen only between two entities and among more than two, having been demolished by many leading grammarians, some writers still attempt to follw this specious rule even when the resulting meaning becomes absurd. In any group, at any time, any connection is between two of those members of the group at any one point in the group. In other words, if I am in the middle of a group, there is a cocnection betwen me and you, and you, and you, and you and you. Get it? Any connection is always between members of the group. The dynamics are quite different from, e.g., sharing something among a group of people. Mike Hayes 17:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Linking

Wikipedia convention is that links should occur on the first occurrence of a word only. Mike Hayes 17:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

//

That sounds more thrutfully (Mike Hayes). // —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.41.41 (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalisim removal

I remove and undo page in last 3 edits. Just one stupid person write about prasing one group of people HaNcI (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Kurds are close to Jews

Kurds are close to jews but they are not self jews and also not iranians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.219.132 (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

History of the Kurdish people goes into a lot of detail about the origins of the Kurds, and makes some contradictory claims. The historical content of this article needs to be reconciled with that more detailed history. I think the genetic studies are an excellent complement to that history, and could have a place in the same article, so I'm suggesting a merge. The main history article is probably going to be long enough that it will need to be split up, but I think the first chunk should probably cover the entire ancient span, not just the "origins" period, which is poorly defined, anyway. Using Wikipedia:Summary style, the main history article should contain summaries of subarticles which cover specific periods. Right now, things are a bit reversed, as this subarticle has less detail than the main article. Given the lack of references and the messy overlapping of claims we have now, I think the easiest thing to do would be to come up with a single, unified story, and then chunk it out and leave behind summaries. (There is also going to be material coming in from Kurdish people, which also needs a brief history where there is too much detail.) -- Beland (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree --83.253.53.0 (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Indo-European migration

This section should be removed, it's just a theory that is supporting that the indo-europeans migrated from Central Asia. There are many other theories of an indo-european origin, many of them even claims Kurdistan to be the origin for the indo-europeans, so how could they migrate TO it? Although, the indo-europeans started to show up in these places a bit later than other groups (perhaps they learned how to write....?)

Jesus Christ! where have you those theories? I have been studying Theories on Indo-European Languages, and non of them ever mention anything near kurdistan as their Urheimat. Even the ridiculous Indian theory is more logical than what you just said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.183.119.197 (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

New article: Genetics of the Ancient World - Invitation to add content about origins of Kurds

You are invited to add relevant journal articles and short summaries of these articles as per the ancient origins of Kurds as it bears upon the Genetics of the Ancient World. Please follow the existing format. This is a reference list with short summaries that refers back to main article pages on wikipedia. Hkp-avniel (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No source for Genetics

When you click on the source page for Genetics (1) that suggests Kurds have babylonian in them, the Chicago Journal site says "the article was not found"

Im removing such claims if you cant proof them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdalo (talk • contribs) 18:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My edit of Morgen06 changes

The cited source [3] says :

Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Iranians, Jews, Lebanese and other (Eastern and Western) Mediterranean groups seem to share a common ancestry: the older “Mediterranean” substratum.

That is not equivalent to conclusion that " Kurds, are genetically distinct from Indians and Iranians." They are in one genetic group with Iranian as the source says , but it is a fact that Indo-Iranian language expansion was a cultural rather than physical migration (same as the expansion of the Turkish language itself).In the ancient world , there were no roads no automobiles and no good transportation to displace a huge population and at most , only %5 to 10 % of a population would change in a major military invasion (at the best).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In other edit , [4], again I have changed the article , because in hemoglobin types , there is genetic preference for the genes that code proteins (hemoglobin) that are more resistant to Malaria and that explains the homogeneity of the hemoglobin types in that region : that is the same about the genetic base of Thalassemia (Please see Thalassemia). The Persian speakers are regularly from central Iran , that is not a place for Thalassemia , and that means the hemoglobin type of them may be different from the Northern Iranians : that does not shows any thing in origin of the various groups of Kurds ,neither in else where like the mountainous region of Turkey , Iraq and Iran nor their connection to local Turkic speakers shows any overall genetic connection . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

English language

Please, somebody fix the grammar and spelling in the article. --Belchman (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)