Talk:Medes

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ancient Near East Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles 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.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Iran Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles Ethnic groups Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 15 sections are present.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So why has the beginning date of the Median Empire keep changing from 728 BCE to 615 BCE every other hour? I recently got into Iranian history, and I would like to know the accurate timeline of when the Medes became an empire. Library of Babylon (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Are you the IP I just reverted? We had an editor with a very poor command on English edit-warring on this and other articles also, one of the reasons.

First, academic sources differ as to how they describe the Median state, many using Kingdom, possibly more using Empire. So that's one problem. Secondly, there's an attempt to date it from Deioces, who likely never existed, or Kashtariti (I see the source for that is 19th century). Although I wouldn't use the Iranian Chamber of Commerce as a source, it's interesting to see that they don't call him a king.[1] As for Kashtariti, I find sources calling him a king, and others calling him a chieftain or in this source a city lord.[2].

The source I added says:

"During the early stages of their history the Medes were probably little more than a loose confederation of tribes, but by the seventh century BCE they are thought to have controlled an extensive area around their main city of Ecbatana (modern Hamadan), while the subject Persians were settled in Fars. By 612 BCE the Medes, under their king Cyaxares, were strong enough to overthrow, in alliance with the Babylonians, the ailing Assyrian state. In spite of all this, modern scholarship has tended to be sceptical about the existence of a united Median “kingdom” or “state”, at least for most of the 7th century BCE. Thus, David Stronach has recently written that “there arc, quite simply, no sound grounds for postulating the existence of a vigorous, separate and united Median kingdom at any date substantially before 615 BC”.41" Other sources differ, but I didn't want to use George Rawlinson, who is too antiquated, so I removed it.

Doug Weller (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't even change anything. I just saw that the date kept changing when I was looking for information on the Median Empire on Wikipedia. It was just getting annoying I couldn't understand what the right date was. So I created this account for a moments use to see what was going on. Anyways, thanks for the explaination and information on the Median Empire. It was extemely helpful. Library of Babylon (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today a new account told me that the Cambridge History of Iran says it started in 678. I'll need a quote because it actuall says says "The rise of the Median kingdom in c. 673-672 seems to be beyond all doubt: it is already mentioned, side by side with Urartu, HubuSkia and the Land of the Mannaeans in a letter from the royal archives (No. 434) which can be dated from between the years 672 and 669, and later in an enumeration of independent and dependent kingdoms, as well as of Assyrian and Babylonian provinces dating from between the years 669 and 652. Here Media is named at the end of the list, among the independent states, i.e. after Ashkelon, Edom, Moab, Ammon and Ethiopia, and before the Land of the Mannaeans and the Chaldaean Sea-land none of which were at the time dependent on Assyria. The Assyrians, if one leaves out of account a raid which in 660-659 may have affected the outskirts of the Median kingdom, no longer invaded Media, which explains the temporary silence of cuneiform inscriptions on the history of that country. In the absence, too, of authentic Median sources we have to seek information from Greek authors. Of their writings on the history of Media those of Herodotus have been preserved in full, and those of Ctesias only in excerpts and digests which often make his unreliable account seem even fantastic. The names of the Median kings given by Ctesias are indeed Median, but they must belong to contemporaries he knew from his stay at the Persian court at the end of the 5 th century b.c., for they are certainly not the names of rulers of the Median kingdom. In general it is often a hopeless task to try to extract something rational from his narrative. His chronology, as was already proved by Volney at the beginning of the 19th century, is nothing but the inverted and doubled chronological system of Herodotus. Ctesias himself admits that his aim was to refute Herodotus. Herodotus* information, by contrast, is reliable within the limits of what this conscientious author succeeded in rescuing from oblivion, but one must bear in mind that he wrote his history of Asia only from oral tradition two or three hundred years after the events."

And on page 115 "Therefore, between 672 and the beginning of the last Assyro-Median war, that is, not later than 615, the tiny “kingdoms” and independent strongholds which previously had determined the forms of polity on Median territory, were reduced and absorbed. " So in 678 there were tiny kingdoms and independent strongholds. Doug Weller (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In some place of Azerbaijan like Khalkhal they use "MATA" word for united, And Assyrian says them mata. I think because it create of united tribes, then they name meaning is uited.5.74.144.98 (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As we know the some places of republic Azerbaijan called Arran. I think the story of Herodotus about the median names that they changed from Arian to mede, It was Arran not Arian. The Colchis was in Georgian and they said Arran to Azerbaijanian peopel.

The map that is used in the information panel on the top right looks really bad. Is there a way to create a territorial map that is commonly used on almost every country article? This is the one in question Leno405 (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The date is unsourced and doesn't make sense. The infobox says 678 with either Deioces or Kashtariti as its first king. The article on Deioces gives his reign as 727-675 based on the Encyclopedia Iranica. This article has 700–647 BC. We have Kashtariti described as a chieftain but an inscription dated 678 calling him a king. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Doug Weller The entire name of the article isn't consistent with the date. If the first date is the beginning of the Median kingdom when it began its expansion, then the title of the article should not be Median or Medes but Median kingdom (or empire). This article is written weirdly where it tries to talk about both the people (Medes) and the state. But those are two different things and so it leads to problems. For example this article doesn't talk much about the Medes after the conquest by Cyrus. This would be expected in an article about a Median kingdom but not when it comes to an article about the Medes. If this article is about the Median kingdom and its dynasty, than there is not really a solid date. Iranica mentions different possible dates as presented by various scholars. CaliphoShah (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is no doubt that the north Iraqi Kurds and Yazidis have links to the ancient Medians we can see that in blood and names as well as traditions. Mazdasnism was the first religion of the Medians, after the appear of Zoroaster and his suggested reforms he was exiled and fled to the Persians (Like the religious Yazidi man says "He was one of us but he separated"). After the Persians accepted his ideas it started to spread to Media by the support of Medians themselves until it was known as Zoroastrianism-Mazdasnism but most do not mention the Mazdasnism. Mazdasnism means: "Worshipper of the right God" from "Ahoramazdasni", "Maz" means "The right/powerful" and "dasni" means "Worshipper". After the Arabic islamic conquest they were not seen as God worshippers and they were called "Dasni" without God. The Dasnis were not acceptable about their name then it was reformed to "Ezidi" that also means "Worshipper of God" and were called "Yazidi" by the Arabs. It was until the reforms of Adi-Ibn-Musafir that added moder semitic believes to Yazidism. Today Yazidism contains elements of the ancient Mazdasni and the elements added by Zoroaster together under one God and they accept to be called Mazdasni as well. Sabyan (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the English page dedicated to the Medians feels currently (January 16, 2020) rather dated. Since the 2000's a new consensus among specialists and scholars of Achaemenid history has started to emerge that the idea of a “Median period” in the Middle East is a purely Greek interpretation of world history not corroborated by evidence. The Persian Achaemenid Empire was the successor of the older Elamite kingdoms, not of a fictitious Median kingdom, on which see notably the paper of M. Liverani, “The Rise and Fall of Media”, in Continuity of Empire(?), Assyria, Media and Persia: pp. 1-12.
For details on the current researches on the Achaemenids, one can consult the French wikipage on the Medians as a first point of orientation, or the French site Achemenet.

The following books can be recommended for further study:
- the conference proceedings, Continuity of Empire(?), Assyria, Media and Persia (edited by Giovanni B. Lanfranchi, Michael Roaf and Robert Rollinger). Padova 2003.
- Henkelman, W.F.M. 2006, The Other Gods Who Are. Studies in Elamite-Iranian Acculturation Based on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Leiden.
- the conference proceedings, Herodot und das Persische Weltreich / Herodotus and the Persian Empire (eds. Rollinger, Robert / Truschnegg, Brigitte / Bichler, Reinhold). Wiesbaden 2003. Published by Harrassowitz Verlag.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:A87:6000:1000:B273:FC39:D814 (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this article to Empire Median. NerdZizc (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guys, I wonder why you don't expose this proffessor's all views about Medes. In his very same book he also said that The majority of those who now speak Kurdish most likely were formerly speakers of Median dialects.” Gernot Windfuhr (1938- ). A retired professor from the University of Michigan, Iranian. Source: “Isoglosses: A Sketch on Persians and Parthians, Kurds and Medes”, Monumentum H.S. Nyberg II (Acta Iranica-5), Leiden: 457–471.

You better respect his whole views. Key Mîrza (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking to you, you admins. Anybody there? Key Mîrza (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually need this sentence that contrasts real life? Let me explain it.

"Garnik Asatrian stated that ... In general, the relationship between Kurdish and Median is not closer than the affinities between the latter and other North Western dialects – Baluchi, Talishi, South Caspian, Zaza, Gurani, etc."

You guys already have sections/titles under "Zaza" and "Gurani" in Wikipedia. And mentioned that they are of Kurdish origin. So, is it logical to separate Kurdish tribes from each other? Do it sense to list Kurdish tribes against Kurds?

Plus, everybody knows that he is a political guy working for the benefit of Persians and Armenians. Key Mîrza (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, there are a lot of historians like Akhund Salih, Meer Gul Khan Naseer and Longworth Dames emphasized on the Kurd origin of Baloch and according to them Kurd and Baloch are from a same origin but due to some historic battles, Baloch had to migrate from Kurdish lands. Key Mîrza (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC) )[reply]

@Key Mirza: Do you have any evidence to suggest that Asatrian's claims are politically motivated? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You better go and ask him the real reason. He was born in Iran into an Armenian family. Then later moved to Armenia. I don't know if you read any of his papers. All his claims on Kurds stand againt rest linguists/historians and stand contra real life that I pointed above. So if he is right then the rest linguists and historians must be wrong right? He like it or not, majority Zaza and Goran people describe themselves as Kurdish origin; even Baloch intellectuals claim that they have strong connection with Kurds historically, linguistically and DNA researches done on this issue point on the same result. Key Mîrza (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you know the Êzidî/Yezidi Kurds. It is a religion and they pray in Kurmanji Kurdish. Here read an article on Êzidîs and Garnik Asatrian's view on the same topic: https://groong.org/orig/ok-19980701.html Key Mîrza (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my information and resources deleted even though I shared resources? Resource sharing (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Resource sharing. Which resources? It does not appear that you have edited the article under this username? Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Larry Hockett: From linguistic forensic evidence, I guess they must be the edit-warring and aspersion-casting IP[3]. –Austronesier (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to open this up for discussion. Are there any criticisms of my sources? Are there any negative aspects of my resources? I want to learn these.Because I have resources from Cambridge university and many professors. Resource sharing (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you talking about? Are you talking about these edits? The suitability of sources is only one aspect of an edit; other relevant policies include WP:SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT. Also note that a link to an Amazon sales link is not appropriate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please back off judgmental comments. And do not make irrelevant comments, This discussion page is not a discussion page for you to say what you think about me. Please delete your comments. You should not comment right now, you should to comment after I share the source.. Also, this discussion page has been opened for those who are objective, I know how you think about it: [4] Resource sharing (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The book has all kinds of features: ISBN: 081563093X 9780815630937 OCLC Number: 1025720057 Resource sharing (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the introduction contains the following line: However, a recent reassessment of contemporary sources from the Mede period has altered scholars' perceptions of the Median state. The state remains difficult to perceive in the documentation, which leaves many doubts about it, some specialists even suggesting that there never was a powerful Median kingdom.

Two issues:

1. Is the claim here that there was never a Median Kingdom to begin with or that there was a Median Kingdom but that it was not powerfull?

2. There is no source for this claim which was added on 14 September 2020. I suggest that unless we find a credible source for this claim we remove it from the article I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on this ~ Zirguezi 21:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I translated that paragraph from the French wiki on a whim, so I don't much care what happens to it in the long run, especially since I'm unfamiliar with the subject. However, I did skim through the page in question and came across some sources that might be of use in verifying that statement. Based on a translation of the statement that the citation's attached to, the claim seems to be that the Median kingdom was never powerful enough to be an empire. Anyway, I think I'll just leave these here for more capable hands to handle:

• P. Helm, « Herodotos' Medikos Logos and Median History », dans Iran 19, 1981, p. 85–90 puis
• H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, « Was there ever a Median Empire? », dans A. Kurth et H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (dir.), Achaemenid History III: Method and theory, Leyde, 1988, p. 197-212.
• B. Kienast, « The So-Called ‘Median Empire’ », dans Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 34, 1999, p. 59-67.
• Giovanni B. Lanfranchi, Michael Roaf et Robert Rollinger (dir.), Continuity of Empire (?) Assyria, Media, Persia, Padoue, S.a.r.g.o.n. Editrice e Libreria, 2003, p. 397-406.

Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This so called "kurdologist" is openly racist towards kurds, he has openly worked to close kurdish organizations in armenia, he is against kurdish self determination in iraq, iran, syria,and turkey, because somehow he thinks it's a threat to armenian sovereignty, he repeated this again in 2009 and added "Our [Armenian] society and some political circles clearly underestimate the role of the Kurdish factor in the past and its danger in the future." he has asked the armenian government to close down kurdish organizations to prevent ezidis from partaking in them, he actively tries to seperate ezidis from kurds even though many ezidis from the then soviet armenia have played crucial roles in the foundation of modern kurdish nationalism and preserving kurdish history and literature, and he calls the kurmanji kurdish dialect which is spoken by most kurds "Ezidki" and says that it's the language of the ezidis, he says kurds can't be a nation because they're multi religous and multilingual, i ask you, does this man sound like a reliable source to speak and be cited on kurdish history and identity? Zageos21 (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Plus, the page "kurds and medes" is only filled with arguments challenging the connection. Anything positively suggesting the connection is instantly reverted by HistoryOfIran. Krqftan (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted with good reason, if you've read the discussions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then give multiple perspectives instead of reinforcing the article with one sided theories. Krqftan (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't always multiple perspectives. We follow what is acknowledged in WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until the argument is completely settled both sides should be provided or none at all. I find it unreasonable that Garnik Asatrian is being cited when we know for fact that he is not impartial. I also find it unreasonable that anything positively suggesting the connection is instantly reverted. Impartiality should be the guideline, I do not see that here and certainly not from HistoryOfIran. ANE passion (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like WP:JDLI to me. Kindly read WP:OR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have read both, thank you very much.

I stand by what I said in regards to Garnik Asatrian because he has openly said and supported Kurdophobic theories and stances. There is therefore good reasons to doubt that he is impartial. This is not a leap in logic.

And the discussion in regards to the connection between Kurds and Medes is indeed that the very same that I said: The argument is not completely settled and for the sake of impartiality multiple perspectives should be provided. I believe that the user Krqftan hade valid points.

Thank you for you input. ANE passion (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Garnik Asatrian is routinely cited by high quality academic WP:RS, such as the recent The Cambridge History of the Kurds (2021), which doesn't support this old theory either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This thread seems to be one more example of usual POV pushing, Kurds have mixed ancestry, on Wikipedia, we go by what reliable published sources say, nothing less, nothing more.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Persepolis Apadana noerdliche Treppe Detail.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zageos21: Was just about to revert, so I'll put my comment here instead as a reply to your previous edit summary; If its how you say it then surely this source would be key in the modern Kurdish theory? the information is old, and doesnt add anything to the discussion, and could have very well been an error for all we know ('Mede' hasn't only been used to refer to the Kurds). --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the information being old doesn't discredit it, it does add that the connection between medes and kurds have been talked about way before Vladimir Minorsky which is not mentioned in the article, and "could've very well been an error" is not an argument, do you have any proof that it is? if so please provide it, and i never claimed that 'Mede' has only been used to refer to Kurds idk where that came from. (ps: idk what you mean by "if its how you say its then surely this source would be key in the modern kurdish theory") Zageos21 (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "it does add that the connection between medes and kurds have been talked about way before Vladimir Minorsky which is not mentioned in the article"

Unless a modern scholar narrates about that "connection" vis. Hayton of Corycus, it remains a personal analysis of a primary source. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If the medieval account by Hayton of Corycus is cited in a modern scholarly reliable source in the context of the Medes-Kurds hypothesis, we can maybe cite it (considering due weight), but not directly and only from the original text material. See WP:HISTRS. –Austronesier (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't seem fair but sure Zageos21 (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave this here, since it was reverted on the main page, the person who reverted ironically claim that my sources are not reliable or that I've misused original sources while the original sources DO state what I wrote I just copied the texts. I'll leave this here so that everyone can see how this page is being politically edited to suit the idea that "it was some Russian guy who in 1920s suggested that Kurds are descended from the Medes and it doesn't have any grounds,"..

According to James R. Russell the identification of Kurds with the Medes is old,[64] and the only historical text under the title "Median language" is a Kurdish text.[65][66] More recently Mario Liverani incorporated the Kurdish Median legend about the fall of Assyria, which is first recorded by Al-Masudi in the 9th century, into Assyriology in order to further explain the downfall of the Assyrian empire.[67] [68] In Kar-Namag i Ardashir i Pabagan, a Middle Persian text written in the Sassanid period (226-651) which recounts Ardashir's conquests, in his war against the Kurds the names "Kurds" and "Medes" are used interchangeably and Ardashir's opponent is called the Median king of the Kurds.[69][70][71][72][73][74] According to Jean-Pierre Mahé, an authority on Armenian studies, historically "the name 'Mede' is the normal name for the Kurds among the Armenians",[75] likewise according to Avedis Krikor Sanjian, a professor of Armenian studies, in Armenian sources "the nation of the Medes" is one of the Armenian designations for the Kurds.[76] Robert H. Hewsen suggested that since the Armenians used the term "Mede" for the Kurds, "it seems likely that the Medes after their expansion into the region, merged with the natives to form the present-day Iranian speaking Kurds".[77]

Since the early 20th century several scholars have studied the linguistics relations between Kurds and Medes. Russian historian and linguist Vladimir Minorsky suggested that the Medes, who widely inhabited the land where currently the Kurds form a majority, might have been forefathers of the modern Kurds. He also states that the Medes who invaded the region in the eighth century BC, linguistically resembled the Kurds. Two decades later David Neil MacKenzie proposed a counter argument and said Kurdish was closer to Persian and questioned the "traditional" view holding that Kurdish, because of its differences from Persian, should be regarded as a Northwestern Iranian language.[78] However, MacKenzie suggested that the toponym Kurmanji language probably means "Median Kurdish". Martin van Bruinessen, a Dutch scholar, basing his argument on MacKenize's hypothesis, argues against the attempt to take the Medes as ancestors of the Kurds and states "Though some Kurdish intellectuals claim that their people are descended from the Medes, there is no evidence to permit such a connection across the considerable gap in time between the political dominance of the Medes and the first attestation of the Kurds. This is not to deny that there may have been some continuity in the population of the area as a whole."[79]

Gernot Ludwig Windfuhr, professor of Iranian Studies, identified the Kurdish languages as Parthian, albeit with a Median substratum, he states that "the majority of those who now speak Kurdish most likely were formerly speakers of Median dialects.[80] This view was also supported by linguist Tadeusz Milewski who stated that "the Kurdish dialects in Northwestern Iran are continuants o the old Median language."[81] The Kurdologist and Iranologist Garnik Asatrian argued that "The Central Iranian dialects, and primarily those of the Kashan area in the first place, as well as the Azari dialects (otherwise called Southern Tati) are probably the only Iranian dialects, which can pretend to be the direct offshoots of Median... In general, the relationship between Kurdish and Median is not closer than the affinities between the latter and other North Western dialects – Baluchi, Talishi, South Caspian, Zaza, Gurani, Kurdish(Soranî, Kurmancî, Kelhorî)[82][83] Asatrian also stated that "there is no serious ground to suggest a special genetic affinity within North-Western Iranian between this ancient language [Median] and Kurdish. The latter does not share even the generally ephemeric peculiarity of Median."[84]

John Limbert, a professor of Iranian Studies, asserts "Although some scholars have dismissed the Kurds' claim of Median descent, linguistic and geographical evidence supports these claims. All Kurdish dialects have maintained the-basic characteristics of Kurdish despite the wide -dispersion of the tribes. This fact suggests that there was an ancient and powerful language from which the dialects evolved. Kurdish could well be descended from the Median language or languages which spread into Asia Minor after the fall of the Assyrian empire in 612 B.C. Geographically, this is very interesting, since according to Herodotus the western frontier of the Median empire was the Halys River (Kizil Irmak), which is just about as far west as Kurds are found today."[85]

According to Alireza Shapour Shahbazi: "The Aryan tribes including the Medes (ancestors of many Iranians, particularly the Kurds), Persians, Hyrcanians (...)".[86]

According to The Cambridge History of the Kurds,

Although some Kurdish authors have claimed descendants for Kurdish from Avestan and Median, a direct link of Kurdish with Avestan was ruled out in Iranian philology even back in its initial stages (cf. Rödiger and Pott, 1842, cited in Lecoq, 1997: 31), while Avestan, although its classification is also unresolved, is traditionally considered to be closer to Eastern Iranian languages (cf. Korn, 2016: 403). Furthermore, the purported relationship of Kurdish to the Median language, although defended by Minorsky based mostly on conjectural historical evidence (Minorsky, 1940: 143–6), is not supported by linguistic evidence, since information about the Median language is extremely limited and indirect, being mostly restricted to the loanwords found in the Old Persian inscriptions (Lecoq, 1987: 674).4 As Lecoq (1997: 31) states in relation to the Kurdish–Median connection, everything is possible but nothing is demonstrable. But even the limited data at hand provide evidence against Kurdish–Median genetic affinity (Asatrian, 2009: 21; MacKenzie, 1999: 675–6; Rossi, 2010: 308). Refuting thus the Median origin of Kurdish, MacKenzie (1961) outlined a picture of the evolution of North-western Iranian languages where Kurdish and Persian evolved in parallel and therefore Kurdish "represented an early splitting from the linguistic subgroup of Median" (cf. Rossi, 2010: 307–8). Likewise, in his survey of major isoglosses in the historical phonology of West Iranian languages, Windfuhr (1975: 458) concluded on the basis of these facts (and with regard to the subsequent migration of the Kurds into the Median territory – explained below) that Kurdish can probably not be considered a ‘Median’ dialect neither linguistically nor geographically, stating further that the modern Iranian languages of Azerbaijan (originally ‘Aturpatakan’) and Central Iran (e.g. Sivandi) are Median dialects (Windfuhr, 2009: 15).[87]

According to Iranologist Richard Foltz "the Kurdish language may indeed be descended from the Median language, but the same is true for Old Azeri." and "Kurdish ethnicity most probably evolved as a synthesis between intrusive Iranian tribes (including the Medes) with the pre-existing local inhabitants during the early first millennium BCE."[88] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khorler (talk • contribs) 00:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've written about this various times, so I'm not gonna bother find and list the sources again (u can find those in my other messages, heck even in Wikipedia articles). Modern scholarship acknowledges that the Kurds were not an ethnicity till the late Middle Ages, and that the word 'Kurd' in the Sasanian era was used to designate Iranian nomads. Just because the Kurds are referred to as 'Medes' does not mean that they have any connection with them, same reasons as Persians are referred to as Parthians or Medes (such as in the Res Gestae of Ammianus Marcellinus). This obsession with the Medes needs to stop, they have no connection with the Kurds (not to mention they're two completely different ethnic groups), and the theory is only popular in internet forums. You were already reverted for this addition back in January 2020, so why are you attempting to reinstate it again? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show us the sources in which they say the Kurds and Medes were two distinct ethnic groups? or can you back up your bold, albeit biased claim, that Kurds have no connection with the Mede? - while I provided reliable sources... its baffling that how an ethnic group whom have been referred to be as Kurds almost 2000 years ago had no connection with the Kurds :D.. Btw I didn't reinstate my edits just added new material. I'll revert your edits because your bold claims are not based on facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khorler (talk • contribs) 00:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

or how about you kindly stop your obsession with reverting any contributions to the section of "Medes and Kurds". If the sources are not reliable you can revert them but this on this article sources have been cherry picked to suit an agenda its quite obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khorler (talk • contribs) 00:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the equivalent of saying 'can you show sources which say that the French and English are two distinct ethnic groups.' Read the sources listed in the article, especially the new ones, there's no proof that the Kurds were descended from the Medes, let alone being the 'same ethnic group'. Cherry-picking sources which mentions that the Kurds are called Medes in order to push a connection is Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Should I start doing the same for Persians, who are referred to as Medes/Parthians? "Yet in Roman literary texts there is no single term used to describe the Sasanians, who are generally defined as Persians, Medians or even Parthians (not always for purely rhetorical reasons), even by very competent historians, like Ammianus Marcellinus." - p. 47 The Parthian and Early Sasanian Empires: Adaptation and Expansion. Or perhaps we should say Parthian = Median? "Already by Mani’s time, however, Pahlavi had come to mean Median to others." - p. 31, The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran: Rural Revolt and Local Zoroastrianism. You are now threatening to be disruptive, I highly advise you to refrain from that, as you have not reached WP:CONSENSUS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"there is no proof" like you want us to resurrect them to speak with us if the were speaking the same language or not? the overwhelming majority of scholars state the modern Kurds are descended from the Medes included the Iranian scholars. If there is no proof that the Kurds were descneded from the ancient Medes there is also no proof to claim otherwise. There are more supporters to the theory as there are opponents. Also your argument that the Romans were calling the Persians "Medes" is true but not a single local Iranian source confuses the the native people. like can you show us a Sassanian source which calls the Persians "Medes" or "Parthians" I didnt even quote Syraic sources which used to call the Iranian Kurdistan "Beth Medaye" the house of the Medes, or the Arabic sources which call the local Kurdish inhabitants "Mahi" which literally means "Medes" in Arabic even until the 12th century. Why its ok that the new sources should be added if they argue against any connection while they should not be added if they argue in favor of the connection when not a single one off them is Kurdish? or when all of the are authorties on the subject for example Richard Foltz. Like whats the criteria to choose Garnik Asatryan but not Richard Foltz while the former is a well known Kurdophobe? Or whats the criteria not to rely on James R. Rusell, John Limber (interestingly you are using the latter when he states the term Kurd was probably used or Iranian nomads, whereas dosnt allow me to leave his argument here when he supports the Median-Kurdish connection, its funny isnt it? ;) ? I also highly advise you not to be disruptive, you are threatening me on a public forum Jesus Christ!. I thought I'm adding information here didn't know it makes others angry lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khorler (talk • contribs) 00:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem you understood my comment. TLDR; What you're trying to do is violating WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSTS and WP:TENDENTIOUS. I highly advise you to WP:DROPTHESTICK and read the guidelines. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That the Medes and Kurds are the same ethnic group is quite an old theory, modern scholarships is generally questioning any close relationships between these two groups.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on your definition for modern scholarship. For examle I quoted Richard Foltz, Mario Liverni, Windfuhr, James R. Rusell, Hewsen, etc who are alive and support the theory. But of course if you mean "Garnik Asatryan" and "Habib Borjian" then yes they completely reject the existence of Kurds let alone support the theory. There are more scholars who support it than there are those who oppose it. That's what matters here, not what we like it to be.!

Minorsky's view about Kurds and Medes is already mentioned in the relevant section, but his view has been rejected by the mainstream of modern reliable sources.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is littered with contentious material that is completely uncited and there are vague allusions to authority. For some reason the "controversy" section precedes the actual article, and seems supported only by a single source. This is not just unusual formatting, it's clearly some kind of ideological bias- why I cannot fathom.

Someone please delete the uncited claims, move "controversy" the the bottom of the article where it should be and delete the vague allusions to unnamed "scholars".

--1.159.79.1 (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, could you please clarify ? Which unsourced claims should be removed ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is shown on the top map but the Black Sea is not mentioned in the article Chidgk1 (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it bordered the Lydian kingdom, and Lydia and Media pretty much divided Anatolia between them (see Battle of the Eclipse), then it would have had to reach the Black Sea... AnonMoos (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]