text:
Talk:Medes

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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)

What is the beginning date of the Median Empire?
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)
 * 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. As for Kashtariti, I find sources calling him a king, and others calling him a chieftain or in this source a city lord..
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)

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)

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 of the Median Empire
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)

Date of the start of the monarchy
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)
 * 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)

The Medians of today.
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)

Dated
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)

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

Gernot Windfuhr
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)

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

Garnik Asatrian
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)

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

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)

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)

My resources were deleted
Why was my information and resources deleted even though I shared resources? Resource sharing (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Which resources? It does not appear that you have edited the article under this username? Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * From linguistic forensic evidence, I guess they must be the edit-warring and aspersion-casting IP. –Austronesier (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I have many sources about Medes.
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)
 * 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. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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: Resource sharing (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Kurds and Medes
Let's criticize some nonsense sentences. You moderators wrote, "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." One who looks this sentence will think that this is the only unique claim, there aren't any more claims. Don't take me wrong, Are you experts in history, or history professors?

And you didn't stop, you wrote more "This view was accepted by many Kurdish nationalists in the twentieth century." Are you aware of all the Kurdish children in Kurdistan, Iraq, each day singing their national anthem Ey Reqîb before they enter their schools? Just read its translation, if you aren't aware. As per your theory, each Kurd in Kurdistan, Iraq is a nationalist. Does that make a sense?

Okay then, let me put down some those Kurdish nationalists names that some of them are also genuine history professors:

1- “Postea vero Sarraceni amiserunt dominium Egipti et Medi, qui Cordins vulgariter dicembantur; regni Egipti dominium occupaverunt.” “i.e. Afterwards Arabs lost the domination of Egypt and Medes who were called Kurds controlled Egypt.” Armenian historian Hayton of Corycus (also Hethum, Het'um, and variants) (c. 1240 – c. 1310/1320). His book “La Flor des Estoires d’Orient” Chapter 52.

“The same historian seems to imply in several passages that Media was the proper home of the Kurds.” His collected work “Becueil des Hislorieas des Croisades, Documents Arméniens” vol. ii, pp. 225, 343–4. (ibid., pp. 127, 267).

2- "There is no doubt that the term Mar (Medians) refers to the Kurds" Russian Orientalist best known for his contributions to the study of Kurdish and Persian history, geography, literature, and culture, Vladimir Fedorovich Minorsky (1877–1966). His book “L’origine des Kurdes”, Travaux du XX-ene Congres des Orientalistes, Bruxelles 1938, pp. 143-52.)

3- “Kurds and Baloch/Baluch descend from Mede People.” Baloch/Baluch historian Salih, Akhund (1659 A.D.) His book “Kurd gāl nāmak” ( Koord-gal-namak ). He also names there the Medes tribe names and their connection in detail. ( کورد گال نامك ؛ تصنيف ، اخوند صالح )

4- '''”Medes lived and expanded in the western part of Zagros mountain. This region is modern Kurdistan and Luristan.”''' Israel Smith Clare (1847-1924) His book “Ancient History”.

5- "The Medes were the ancestors of Xenophon's Carduchi and the modern Kurds.” Mack Chahin, A former lecturer on the Ancient History of the Near East at the University of Bristol. His book “Before The Greeks” Page: 109. The Butterworth Press, Cambridge.

6- “The empire of the Medes, one of the reputed ancestors of the Kurdish people, was the only great national state that may be said to have been established by the Kurds.” History professor, Wadie Elias Jwaideh (1916 - 2001). His book “The Kurdish National Movement: Its Origins and Development”. Page: XV. Syracuse University Press. First edition, 2006.

7- “Great mass of the Kurds are descended from the Medes though some are the successors of Mantieni, Kadusii, and Kassaei or Saqae.” Prussian historian and geographer, Konrad Mannert 1756-1834.

8- “Kurds along with other Aryan immigrants were able to establish their own empire – the Median Empire –which rules vast areas of the Middle East Between 612 and 519 BC. Since then the Kurds and Kurdistan remained relatively independent ...” Associate Professor at the School of Information Science and Policy of the State University of New York at Albany. Lokman I. Meho. Source “Kurdish Culture and Society: An Annotated Bibliography” (Page: 11) Lokman I. Meho and Kelly L. Maglaughlin.

9- "Language like the language of the Medes, Kurdish is of the Iranian branch of the Indo-European family of languages..." William Lester Eagleton Jr. (1926 – 2011). The United States Foreign Service Officer and diplomat. His book “The Kurdish Republic of 1946.” Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963.

10- ''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. Source: “Isoglosses: A Sketch on Persians and Parthians, Kurds and Medes”, Monumentum H.S. Nyberg II (Acta Iranica-5), Leiden: 457–471.

11- "The Kurds are physically perhaps the finest specimens of the human race in the Middle East, and they resemble Afghans in character and to some extent in physiognomy. They are the direct descendants of the Medes." Sir Arnold Talbot Wilson (1884–1940). British Deputy and acting Civil Commissioner in Baghdad from 1915-24. His book "Mesopotamia, 1917-1920: A Clash of Loyalties; a Personal and Historical Record" Page: 127.

12- "The true Medes (Mada) of the Assyrian inscription were the Kurdish tribes who lived eastward of Assyria and whose territory extended as far as the Caspian Sea. They were for the most part Indo-European in language and Aryan in descent, and lived like the Greeks, in small states, each of which obeyed a ‘city lord’ of its own.” Archibald Henry Sayce (1845 – 1933). British Assyriologist and linguist, who held a chair as Professor of Assyriology at the University of Oxford. Source: The Historians’ History Of The World. Chapter II. The Median or Scythian Empire. Page: 584. by Henry Smith Williams.

13- "Probably the wild Kurd or Lur of the present day more nearly corresponds in physique to the ancient Mede than do the softer inhabitants of the great plateau.” George Rawlinson (1812 – 1902). British scholar, historian, and Christian theologian. Source: "The Seven Great Monarchies" Chapter III. Character, Manners And Customs, Arts, Etc., Of The People. By George Rawlinson.

You didn't stop. You wrote also "Contemporary linguistic evidence has challenged the previously suggested view that the Kurds are descendants of the Medes.[66][67]"

You didn't even explain it. You didn't give an example. Don't you need to put some more explanation? And, you put two reference links that both are Turkish origin and one of them even doesn't work. Are you aware that Turkish scholars in past claimed that Kurds were one of a Turkish tribe? They said the term "Kurd" cames from the word "Kart, Kurt" which a step sound comes out on the snow. It was published by governmental institutions in the 1960s. Do you know that Turks officially denying Kurdish history and ruin it? Here a reminder: ( https://www.milliyet.com.tr/yazarlar/can-dundar/kart-kurt-alt-ust-oldu-1083712 )

Your next sentence "Gernot Windfuhr, professor of Iranian Studies, identified the Kurdish languages as Parthian, albeit with a Median substratum.[68]". Why you just made a selection of his work? You took some of his views and left some. Is it fair? Look above reference number ten.

I am sure you have a conscience and you will stick with truths. As much as you listen to "van Bruinessen" and "Garnik Asatrian" you will also listen to the above 13 Kurdish nationalists(!) too. Key Mîrza (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 * @Key Mirza: I'm an accredited Historian, and I can safely say that most of your sources here are very unreliable. A national anthem isn't a reliable source, and most of the other sources that you've posted are very old and outdated. Armanqur (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh, I rather not take part in this. However, Key Mirza you might wanna read WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:AGE MATTERS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Armanqur my sources are enough for history respecting people and to me. By the way are you a history proffesor? You better go and teach Associate Professor Lokman I. Meho that still living today. And I am really interested in your history papers. Can you tell me how I can reach them? Key Mîrza (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran personally I don't discuss "history" with Persians and Turks. Key Mîrza (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * @Key Mirza: Like I said before, your sources are unreliable and won't be used. Anyways, as for your later comments about whom you discuss history with, I don't discuss history with bigots. Armanqur (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ironic that someone who opened their user account 2 days ago and only made Vandal changes wherever the name "Kurd" appears is ironic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resource sharing (talk • contribs) 20:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I changed what I thought was appropriate to change, which was only in three places. If you think that Key Mirza is correct and that his sources are all valid then please say so. Armanqur (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry I know you're a waste of time cause you're just making Vandal changes. So I won't waste time with you, don't worry, apparently your newly opened Wikipedia user will be closed by administrators for Vandalism. Resource sharing (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armanqur, all my sources are correct and reliable plus, available on the current websites. Just make a small search on the Google. Key Mîrza (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * @Key Mirza: I'd like to see what Resource sharing has to say about your sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanqur (talk • contribs) 20:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armanqur : Give a couple of days I will give you their web links. Checks this coming printed book for example. You can take it as a reference for my number 10 reference above. 1-A) ( https://books.google.com/books?id=MYxCAAAAYAAJ&q=%22majority+of+those+who+now+speak+Kurdish+most+likely+were+formerly+speakers+of+Median+dialects%22&dq=%22majority+of+those+who+now+speak+Kurdish+most+likely+were+formerly+speakers+of+Median+dialects%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHpdPuu5TsAhWKlHIEHYcpCc4Q6AEwAHoECAQQAg ) 1-B) ( https://books.google.com/books?id=MYxCAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22majority+of+those+who+now+speak+Kurdish+most+likely+were+formerly+speakers+of+Median+dialects%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=+windfuhr )

In this way, you can confirm my references, all in Google, especially in the Google Books search section. Key Mîrza (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * @Key Mirza: Having Google links don't automatically make these sources reliable. You need academic and peer-reviewed scholarly sources; most of your sources are either outdated or have been disproven by modern scholars. The Mede/Kurd theory is nothing more than an old and disproven theory. Armanqur (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armanqur, Here the reference number 1 above ( https://archive.org/stream/HetumTheHistoriansFlowerOfHistoriesOfTheEast/Hetum_djvu.txt ) Key Mîrza (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * "In the Median kingdom there are great mountains and few plains. There are two districts [in the kingdom]. The people living in one of them are called Saracens; while those in the other district are called Kurds. The Median kingdom possesses two very great cities, one named Soraket [Shiraz] and the other Aworemon [Kermanshah]. By law and faith they are Muhammedan and use the Arabic script." How does any of this make any sense? I don't think this could be considered as a reliable source; it would definite be considered as outdated, however. Armanqur (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armanqur, We are here talking about ancient history. Shouldn't it be as much an old reference as more reliable? for example the Armenian historian Hethum's claim. So how are today's people accept some of the historians' claims and refute some? And the above references are printed books from firsthand. A review of the original book. Or you want me to buy each book send you as a reference? What will differ? So what about Gernot Windfuhr? Why you made a selection of his works? What about Lokman I. Meho's claim? He is still living. What is Wiki Admins' benchmark in this regard? Key Mîrza (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 * @Key Mirza: Something being old doesn't automatically mean that it's better or more reliable. Let me simply reference what's stated in the "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" page:

"With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt."

The benchmark is scholarly work that is academic and peer-reviewed. For instance, the national anthem of Iraqi Kurdistan isn't a reliable source for of academic evidence. Also, a book written a century ago by someone who wasn't a historian, anthropologist, or was in no way involved in academia wouldn't be considered as a reliable or peer-reviewed source for us to use. Armanqur (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armanqur if we take your thinking way as a reference. I can bring a reason for each old-new reference to refute it. It is really easy.

I don't and can't deny a history professor's claim related history. Old-new doesn't matter. A history professor is a history professor and way preferable for ancient or modern scholar/historian. Key Mîrza (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 * @Key Mirza: Most modern Professors on this subject deny the Mede/Kurd theory. Armanqur (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armanqur, I understand you. So, to you, a reliable source may be less reliable to me or to others. What we will do then? I am still, not convicted. I will stick with professors' claims. To me, they are more reliable. Key Mîrza (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 * @Key Mirza: Which professor are you referring to? Armanqur (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

See my references above the numbers 6, 8, 10, and 12. Some of them died, some of them still alive. Key Mîrza (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 * @Key Mirza: Ya, those aren't reliable sources. If you don't believe me, go ahead and try to add them to the article. I can assure you that none of the moderators will accept these sources as reliable. Like I've said before, most modern academic sources claim that the Mede/Kurd theory is old, outdated and disproven. Armanqur (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armanqur, as I wrote above "And I am really interested in your history papers regarding Medes. Can you tell me how I can reach them?" Key Mîrza (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 * @Key Mirza: When did I ever state that I'v written papers on the Medes? Armanqur (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, gotta go. Talk you tomorrow. Key Mîrza (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please talk to me with sources as I did above. What are your sources, references? If you don't have, then we have nothing to share. Let's close this. It won't help any of us. Key Mîrza (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

man, someone saw that this user was Vandal and was blocked don't worry Resource sharing (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The subject of Hethum already existed.
Hello, first of all there was an error, let me briefly state this error: This user has made quite the wrong edits before, Although this user was warned many times by me and the maid and the admins, he acted many times in vandal behavior, I ask him to be blocked. Like this:,He was warned but changed it again:, , And this is another Vandal change: Before this user made this change:   And the admins have deleted resources without realizing it and the resources added by the vandalizing user have been added. Except for one administrator, all administrators deleted previously added resource. It is as if it is wrong to portray all the sources that say Medes are Kurdish as wrong and to put other sources first. Resource sharing (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Resource sharing|talk]]): How could I have been warned many times when I just created my account for the first time two days ago and received no messages about the issue that you're talking about? The passage I deleted was very poorly written and structured, and so it should have been removed. If you'd like to put it back then at least make sure its structure is parallel with all of the other writing on the page and subsection. Thank you. Armanqur (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * All the sources you gave before were written in Turkish, it seems that you are a Turk. all the changes you have made are pages with the word Kurdish. It seemed funny to me that you said that and defended yourself, none of the resources you gave before are valid. It's funny that you don't know any sources given before and put forward your own biased Turkish sources and defend yourself. There is a suprism for you !, There is a very nice site for you to do these things more easily: [www.tr.wikipedia.org] This place is for you. Resource sharing (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Suprism? No, I'm not Turkish, but my race and ethnicity shouldn't matter at all. Most of the sources that I posted earlier were academic and peer reviewed, and written in english; as for whether the writers themselves were all Turkish or not, I don't know and I don't care. By the way, I haven't seen you criticizze Key Mirza for his sources? I hope you're not bias or anything like that? Thank you Armanqur (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, Vandal users don't stay long on Wikipedia. You talk too much. There is no problem with any change made by Key mîrza. Resource sharing (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * So you're fine with using a national anthem as academic evidence? Armanqur (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sources of the mirza are more logical than the biased and written by Turkish newspaper writers you shared. Sharing the authors who write that the Sumerians are Turkish as a source reveals your intention. reason for adding the national anthem is to indicate that the Medes are Kurdish, a view that has existed from the past.If you only worry about 1 of the 14 resources you have given, it shows your intention. Resources provided by Mirza will be added one by one, along with the book and page and ISBN numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resource sharing (talk • contribs) 20:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Most of his sources are outdated and unreliable. You can try adding them if you want, but I'm sure that others will quickly see the flaws. Again, your racist comments aren't warranted; it doesn't matter what the race of the writer is. Armanqur (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ninety percent of the sources are completely correct and there are books and sources suitable for this. You are generating information from your own head, you are not qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resource sharing (talk • contribs) 20:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I actually am pretty qualified, but you don't need be qualified to recognize that these sources are all outdated and unreliable, especially the national anthem. Most of them were written a century ago, or even over a century ago, and have since been disproven and discredited. Furthermore, none of you have posted any modern scholarly or peer-reviewed sources because they don't exist; they don't exist because no one believes in this old theory anymore other than Kurdish nationalists. Armanqur (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making it very clear that you are Kurdophobic after this reply. Spending time for people like you is a waste of time.Israeli historian and Minorsky quite et al .. quite modern and accepted sources.You show that you have nothing to do with the subject. And you have made changes everywhere the word Kurd is used. Many of them have been undone. You're not important because you're committing the vandalism crime bye. Resource sharing (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * How am I a Kurdophobe when I'm for Kurdish independence? What I'm not for, however, is pseudo-history and the politicization of history. Again, most of those sources are outdated and have been disproven. Armanqur (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the given sources have been refuted or out of date, just the thought in your mind. Looking at your Page history, I can see how Kurdophobic you are. Resource sharing (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Actually, they're all out of date and have been refuted. Why else is it that you can't provide any modern academic sources on the matter? The only sources that perpetuate this old theory are old sources; this is a simple fact that you seem to have a difficult time accepting. Armanqur (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The source you shared is an article written in 2006, and it is very ironic that you say that the 14 sources given by Mirza are backward or invalid. Another ironic in trying to get to the top with just one work. Waide Jwaideh, a professor of history at the University of California, says in a 2009 study that Medes are the ancestors of the Kurds.Where is the disproved source? Where is the old source? Where is the irrelevant source? Resource sharing (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The source you shared is an article written in 2006, and it is very ironic that you say that the 14 sources given by Mirza are backward or invalid. Another ironic in trying to get to the top with just one work. Waide Jwaideh, a professor of history at the University of California, says in a 2009 study that Medes are the ancestors of the Kurds.Where is the disproved source? Where is the old source? Where is the irrelevant source? Resource sharing (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you even know what Ironic means? Anyways, I said most of the sources are outdated, not all. Besides, I don't think anyone would consider Waide Jwaideh as a reliable and reviewed source, otherwise this person's work would have already been listed in the article. Also, all this person did was reference Minorsky, an already disproven and outdated source. Every contemporary academic source that I could find on the matter state that the Mede-Kurd theory is nothing more than pseudo-history and historical revisionism. Armanqur (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it may be refuted or out of date in your ideas, but many of them are approved.Keep thinking that way. Resource sharing (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, I do think that way as do all others who only focus on academic and peer-reviewed sources. Like most others, I'm annoyed by historical revisionism, pseudo-history and the politicization of history. Good luck to you on getting any of these outdated, disproven and unreliable sources posted on the page, especially the national anthem. Armanqur (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are not "many" results or researches on the Wikipedia page of Medes as you think that Meds are not Kurds.Oh, but if you are talking about the writers who said "Sumerians are Turkish", I don't know that Resource sharing (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Maybe you're an admirer and supporter of the Kurdish intellectual Hamma Mirwaisi? Armanqur (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will be watching your incredibly unreasonable changes you made about Kurds with curiosity. Resource sharing (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armanqur: Hamma Mirwaisi is good Kurdish intellectual. Kurds are medes. everyone in world knows this as best truth. Mirwaisi prove it. Our great anthem shows it all. sons of keykhusrewDirokakurdi (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * @Dirokakurdi: It's not a surprise that you guys think that Hamma Mirwaisi is a reliable source. Seriously, good luck to all of you on perpetuating your pseudo-history. Armanqur (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * pseudo-history?  Resource sharing (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Of course not; I'm just pointing out the same thing that all other modern academic scholars have been pointing out: that the Kurd/Mede theory is pseudo-history and historical revisionism. Take care. Armanqur (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armanqur, medes are kurds. everywhere is accepted knows it. you are lier and don't know anything about kurds. 23:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Dirokakurdi (talk)

Okay so-called God of Knowledge Thank you for this nonsense information. Resource sharing (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I never called myself such a thing, but you are most welcome. :) I hope you've finally learned the difference between academic, reliable sources and unreliable sources. If you still have trouble understanding it, let me know and I'll be more than happy to explain it to you again. Take care for now. Armanqur (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I thank you specially,For teaching me how to cover up by sharing fake, nonsense, irrelevant, disproved information. You taught me ridiculous irrelevant information from the ridiculous, irrelevant, disproved information you shared Resource sharing (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Eh.. think this mess of a thread needs to get closed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Resource sharing:Sorry, but I couldn't understand any of that. Do you think you could maybe structure your sentences better, if possible? Thank you so much Armanqur (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I couldn't agree more. Armanqur (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Claim: "there never was a powerful Median kingdom."
Currently, the introduction contains the following line:

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)

 * 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:

Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.

Stop Citing Garnik Asatrian on anything kurdish related
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)

 * 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)
 * Reverted with good reason, if you've read the discussions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Then give multiple perspectives instead of reinforcing the article with one sided theories. Krqftan (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There aren't always multiple perspectives. We follow what is acknowledged in WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * This seems like WP:JDLI to me. Kindly read WP:OR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Persepolis Apadana noerdliche Treppe Detail.jpg

Hayton
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)

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)

 * "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)
 * 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)

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

This page is politically edited
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)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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 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)

"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)
 * 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)

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)

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)

Vague sources, appeals to authority, uncited claims
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)

 * Hi IP, could you please clarify ? Which unsourced claims should be removed ? ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  05:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

How do we know the empire reached the Black Sea?
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)

title: Talk:Medes


text:
Visi On

Visi On (also known as VisiOn) is a graphical user interface (GUI)-based operating environment program for IBM compatible personal computers running MS-DOS. Visi On was developed by VisiCorp. It was one of the first GUIs on a personal computer. Visi On was never popular, as it had steep minimum system requirements for its day, but it was influential in the development of later GUIs like Microsoft Windows.

VisiCorp had programs for sale that were compatible with VisiOn, including a spreadsheet program called "VisiOn Calc". (Not to be confused with VisiCalc).

One of Visi On's features was an hourglass cursor that indicated when the system was loading data from a disk. At the time, most software would display words on the screen like "busy" or "please wait" instead.

Background
In the spring of 1981, Personal Software was cash-flush from the ever-increasing sales of VisiCalc, and the corporate directors sat down and planned out their future directions. Ed Esber introduced the concept of a "family" of products that could be sold together, but from a technical perspective none of their products were similar in anything but name. For instance, to use VisiPlot with VisiCalc data, the numbers to be plotted had to be exported in a "raw" format and then re-imported.

Dan Fylstra led a technical discussion on what sorts of actions the user would need to be able to accomplish in order for their products to be truly integrated. They decided that there were three key concepts. One was universal data exchange, which would be supported by a set of common data structures used in all of their programs. Another was a common, consistent interface so users would not have to re-learn the UI as they moved from one program to another. Finally, Fylstra was concerned that the time needed to move from one program to another was too long to be useful – a user needing to quickly look something up in VisiDex would have to save and exit VisiCalc, look up the information, and then quit that and re-launch VisiCalc again. This process had to be made quicker and simpler.

Creation
In July 1981, Xerox announced the Xerox Star, an advanced workstation computer featuring a graphical user interface (GUI), and by that point it was a well known "secret" that Apple Computer was working on a low-cost computer with a GUI that would later be released as the Apple Lisa. Personal Software's president, Terry Opdendyk, knew of a two-man team in Texas that was working on a GUI, and arranged for Scott Warren and Dennis Abbe to visit Personal Software's headquarters in Sunnyvale, California. They demonstrated a version of the Smalltalk programming language running on the TRS-80 microcomputer, a seriously underpowered machine for the task. Personal Software was extremely impressed.

A contract was soon signed, and work on project "Quasar" started almost immediately. The name was shortly thereafter changed to Visi On, a play on "vision" that retained their "Visi" naming. An experimental port to the ill-fated Apple III was completed in November, and after that, development work shifted to the DEC VAX, which had cross-compilers for a number of different machines. In early 1982 Personal Software changed their name to VisiCorp, and was betting much of the future success of the company on Visi On.

Visi On had many features of a modern GUI, and included a few that did not become common until many years later. It was fully mouse-driven, used a bit-mapped display for both text and graphics, included on-line help, and allowed the user to open a number of programs at once, each in its own window. Visi On did not, however, include a graphical file manager. Visi On also demanded a hard drive in order to implement its virtual memory system used for "fast switching", and at the time hard drives were very expensive.

Shortly after Apple introduced the Lisa, VisiCorp announced that it was developing Visi On.

In an interview before the launch of the original Macintosh, Steve Jobs claimed that neither VisiOn nor Microsoft's Windows would be the standard windowing software on IBM PCs, instead saying that IBM's own windowing software would become the standard.

COMDEX demo
Tom Powers, VisiCorp's new VP of marketing, pushed for the system to be demonstrated at the fall COMDEX show in 1982. Others in the company were worried that the product was not ready for shipping, and that showing it so early would leave potential customers and distributors upset if it wasn't ready soon after. Another concern was that VisiWord was being released at the same show, and there was some worry that it might be lost in the shuffle.

The demonstrations at COMDEX were a huge success. Many viewers had to be told it was not simply a movie they were watching, and Bill Gates speculated that the PC was in fact simply a terminal for a "real" machine like a VAX. It became one of the most talked-about products in the industry. However this huge success led to a number of very serious problems.

In separate June and July 1983 Byte articles, the company mentioned a late summer 1983 release.

Corporate civil war
While Visi On development continued, VisiCorp as an entity was in the process of self-destruction. Terry Opdendyk, the president hand-picked by the early venture capital investors, had an extremely autocratic management style that led to the departure of many key executives. From late 1981 to the eventual release of Visi On, most of the product management of the company left, notably Mitch Kapor in charge of VisiCalc development, Ed Esber, Roy Folk, Visi On's product marketing manager, among others. This was referred to as "corporate civil war".

It was Mitch Kapor's departure that would prove most devastating to the company, however. Kapor, developer of VisiPlot and VisiTrend, had been pressing for the development of a greatly improved spreadsheet to succeed VisiCalc, but Opdendyk was uninterested. This was during a time when VisiCorp and VisiCalc's developers were at an impasse, and VisiCalc was growing increasingly outdated. When Kapor decided to leave, the other executives pressed for a clause forbidding Kapor to work on an "integrated spreadsheet", but Opdendyk couldn't be bothered, exclaiming "Kapor is a spaghetti programmer", denigrating his abilities.

Kapor would go on to release Lotus 1-2-3, which became a major competitor to VisiCalc in 1983. By the end of the year, sales had been cut in half. Combined with the exodus of major portions of the senior executive staff and the ongoing battle with VisiCalc's developers, VisiCorp was soon in serious financial difficulty. All hopes for the company's future were placed on Visi On.

The October 31, 1983 InfoWorld, in an article titled, "Finally, Visi On is here," flatly stated: "the... publisher is putting the product on computer store shelves... Visi On was scheduled to be available during the last week in October". The November 14, 1983 issue said: "VisiCorp has just released Visi On." However, the July 2, 1984 issue says: "By the time Visi On was actually shipped on December 16, 1983,..." and PC Magazine reported in the February 7, 1984 issue that they still hadn't received the product in its commercially available form.

Release
The operating system, known as the Visi On Applications Manager, was released in December 1983 and sold for $495, requiring a mouse for another $250.

Reception
The main disadvantage of Visi On was its extremely high system requirements by 1982 standards. It needed 512 kilobytes of RAM and a hard disk at a time when PCs shipped with 64k-128k and IBM did not yet offer a hard disk with the PC (IBM's first model with a hard drive, the PC XT, didn't ship until March 1983). Third-party drives were however available at the time, typically 5MB units that connected to the floppy controller and were treated by the operating system as an oversized floppy disk (there was no subdirectory support). This brought the total cost of running Visi On to $7500, three-quarters the cost of the Apple Lisa.

The press continued to laud the product, going so far as to claim it represented the end of operating systems. The end-users were less impressed, however, not only due to the high cost of the required hardware, but also the general slowness of the system. In a market where computers were generally used for only one or two tasks, usually business related, the whole purpose of Visi On was seriously diluted.

In January 1984, Apple Computer released the Macintosh with much fanfare. Although the Macintosh was seriously lacking software, it was faster, cheaper, and included one feature Visi On lacked: a graphical file manager (the Finder). Although it didn't compete directly with Visi On, which was really a "PC product", it nevertheless demonstrated that a GUI could indeed be fast and relatively inexpensive, both of which Visi On failed to deliver.

Adding to the release's problems was Bill Gates, who took a page from VisiCorp's book and announced that their own product, Microsoft Windows, would be available in May 1984. This muddied the waters significantly, notably when he further claimed it would have a similar feature set, didn't require a hard disk, and cost only $250. Windows was released with an even longer delay than Visi On, shipping in November 1985, and was lacking the features that forced Visi On to demand a hard drive.

End of life
Only eight VisiCorp employees were still developing Visi On when VisiCorp sold the source code to Control Data in mid-1984 to raise cash as it sued Software Arts, while continuing to sell the software itself. Sales were apparently very slow; in February 1985, VisiCorp responded by lowering the price of the basic OS to $99, knowing that anyone purchasing it would also need to buy the applications. These were bundled, all three for $990. This improved the situation somewhat, but sales were still far below projections, and it was certainly not helping the company stave off the problems due to Lotus 1-2-3.

Following declining VisiCalc sales and low revenues from Visi On, in November 1985, the company merged with Paladin Software. The new company kept the Paladin name. VisiCorp, and its line of "VisiProducts", were history.

Technical information
Official system requirements for Visi On were:
 * 1) 512K of User Memory
 * 2) RS-232 Serial Port
 * 3) 5 Megabyte Hard Disk (FAT12 file system )
 * 4) 1 Floppy Disk Drive, DS/DD, 40 Track, 48 tpi
 * 5) VisiCorp Mouse (Mouse Systems-compatible mice)
 * 6) MS-DOS 2.0
 * 7) Graphics Adapter compatible with CGA 640x200 monochrome mode
 * 8) Computer monitor capable of displaying CGA 640x200

It will work on newer PCs, but requires a compatible mouse and hard disk partition under 15MB as only the FAT12 file system is supported. In addition, as it revectors some IRQs used by PC/ATs and later, VISIONXT.EXE requires modifications which prevent Graph and other applications from functioning properly.

Visi On required Mouse Systems-compatible mice; Microsoft-compatible PC mice, which over time became the standard, were introduced later (in May 1983). Visi On used two mouse drivers. First, loaded in text mode, made mouse registers accessible to the embedded driver, which translated coordinates to cursor position. This internal driver, built-in as a subroutine into VISIONXT.EXE, required Mouse Systems PC-Mouse pointing device. It is not compatible with the Microsoft Mouse standard.

Writing Visi On applications required a Unix development environment. Visi On was targeted toward high-end (expensive) PC workstations. Visi On applications were written in a subset of C VisiC, and a third-party could have ported the core software (VisiHost, VisiMachine virtual machine, VISIONXT.EXE in IBM PC DOS version) to Unix, but that never occurred. In 1984, VisiCorp's assets were sold off to Control Data Corporation.

Making working copies of the original floppy disks using modern methods is difficult - they are protected using pre-created bad sectors and other methods of floppy disk identification.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Visi On


text:
List of natural satellites

Of the Solar System's eight planets and its nine most likely dwarf planets, six planets and seven dwarf planets are known to be orbited by at least 300 natural satellites, or moons. At least 19 of them are large enough to be gravitationally rounded; of these, all are covered by a crust of ice except for Earth's Moon and Jupiter's Io. Several of the largest ones are in hydrostatic equilibrium and would therefore be considered dwarf planets or planets if they were in direct orbit around the Sun and not in their current states (orbiting planets or dwarf planets).

Moons are classed into two separate categories according to their orbits: regular moons, which have prograde orbits (they orbit in the direction of their planets' rotation) and lie close to the plane of their equators, and irregular moons, whose orbits can be pro- or retrograde (against the direction of their planets' rotation) and often lie at extreme angles to their planets' equators. Irregular moons are probably minor planets that have been captured from surrounding space. Most irregular moons are less than 10 km in diameter.

The earliest published discovery of a moon other than Earth's was by Galileo Galilei, who discovered the four Galilean moons orbiting Jupiter in 1610. Over the following three centuries, only a few more moons were discovered. Missions to other planets in the 1970s, most notably the Voyager 1 and 2 missions, saw a surge in the number of moons detected, and observations since the year 2000, using mostly large, ground-based optical telescopes, have discovered many more, all of which are irregular.

Moons by primary
Mercury, the smallest and innermost planet, has no moons, or at least none that can be detected to a diameter of 1.6 km. For a very short time in 1974, Mercury was thought to have a moon.

Venus also has no moons, though reports of a moon around Venus have circulated since the 17th century.

Earth has one Moon, the largest moon of any rocky planet in the Solar System. Earth also has more than 20 known co-orbitals, including the asteroids 3753 Cruithne and 469219 Kamoʻoalewa, and the occasional temporary satellite, like 2020 CD3; however, since they do not permanently orbit Earth, they are not considered moons. (See Other moons of Earth and Quasi-satellite.)

Mars has two known moons, Phobos and Deimos ("fear" and "dread", after attendants of Ares, the Greek god of war, equivalent to the Roman Mars). Searches for more satellites have been unsuccessful, putting the maximum radius of any other satellites at 90 m.

Jupiter has 95 moons with known orbits; 72 of them have received permanent designations, and 57 have been named. Its eight regular moons are grouped into the planet-sized Galilean moons and the far smaller Amalthea group. They were named after lovers of Zeus, the Greek equivalent of Jupiter. Among them is Ganymede, the largest and most massive moon in the Solar System. Its 87 known irregular moons are organized into two categories: prograde and retrograde. The prograde satellites consist of the Himalia group and three others in groups of one. The retrograde moons are grouped into the Carme, Ananke and Pasiphae groups.

Saturn has 146 moons with known orbits; 66 of them have received permanent designations, and 63 have been named. Most of them are quite small. Seven moons are large enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, including Titan, the second largest moon in the Solar System. Including these large moons, 24 of Saturn's moons are regular, and traditionally named after Titans or other figures associated with the mythological Saturn. The remaining 122 are irregular, and classified by their orbital characteristics into Inuit, Norse, and Gallic groups, and their names are chosen from the corresponding mythologies the groups are named after. The rings of Saturn are made up of icy objects ranging in size from one centimetre to hundreds of metres, each of which is on its own orbit about the planet. Thus, a precise number of Saturnian moons cannot be given, as there is no objective boundary between the countless small anonymous objects that form Saturn's ring system and the larger objects that have been named as moons. At least 150 "moonlets" embedded in the rings have been detected by the disturbance they create in the surrounding ring material, though this is thought to be only a small sample of the total population of such objects.

Uranus has 28 known moons, five of which are massive enough to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium. There are 13 moons that orbit within Uranus's ring system, and another ten outer irregular moons. Unlike most planetary moons, which are named from antiquity, all the moons of Uranus are named after characters from the works of Shakespeare and Alexander Pope's work The Rape of the Lock.

Neptune has 16 known moons; the largest, Triton, accounts for more than 99.5 percent of all the mass orbiting the planet. Triton is large enough to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium, but, uniquely for a large moon, has a retrograde orbit, suggesting it was a dwarf planet that was captured. Neptune also has seven known inner regular satellites, and eight outer irregular satellites.

Pluto, a dwarf planet, has five moons. Its largest moon Charon, named after the ferryman who took souls across the River Styx, is more than half as large as Pluto itself, and large enough to orbit a point outside Pluto's surface. In effect, each orbits the other, forming a binary system informally referred to as a double-dwarf-planet. Pluto's four other moons, Nix, Hydra, Kerberos and Styx are far smaller and orbit the Pluto–Charon system.

Among the other dwarf planets, has no known moons. It is 90 percent certain that Ceres has no moons larger than 1 km in size, assuming that they would have the same albedo as Ceres itself. has one large known moon, Dysnomia. Accurately determining its size is difficult: one indicative estimate of its radius is $350 km$.

Two objects were named as dwarf planets, under the expectation that they would prove to be so (though this remains uncertain). has two moons, Hiʻiaka and Namaka, of radii ~195 and ~100 km, respectively. has one moon, discovered in April 2016.

A number of other objects in the Kuiper belt and scattered disk may turn out to be dwarf planets. ,, , and are generally agreed to be dwarf planets among astronomers, and all but Sedna are known to have moons. A number of other smaller objects, such as, , , , and , also have moons, although their dwarf planethood is more doubtful. This list includes all objects with a best estimated diameter above 400 km that are considered likely or official dwarf planets by other sources and astronomers, including  whose satellite has not been seen since its initial discovery.

, 365 asteroid moons and 128 trans-Neptunian moons (including those of Pluto and the other dwarf planets) had been discovered.

 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"

! width=120 | Planets ! width=90 | Mercury ! width=90 | Venus ! width=90 | Earth ! width=90 | Mars ! width=90 | Jupiter ! width=90 | Saturn ! width=90 | Uranus ! width=90 | Neptune
 * +Summary – number of moons
 * Number of moons
 * 0
 * 0
 * 1
 * 2
 * 95
 * 146
 * 28
 * 16
 * }
 * }

 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"

! width=110 | Consensus dwarf planets ! width=80 | Ceres ! width=80 | ! width=80 | Pluto ! width=80 | Haumea ! width=80 | ! width=80 | Makemake ! width=80 | Gonggong ! width=80 | Eris ! width=80 |
 * Number of moons
 * 0
 * 1
 * 5
 * 2
 * 1
 * 1
 * 1
 * 1
 * 0
 * }
 * }

 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"

! width=120 | Minor planets
 * See list
 * }
 * }

Due to Earth's varying distance from these planets (as well as their distance to the Sun), the limits at which we are able to detect new moons are very inconsistent. As the below graph demonstrates, the maximum absolute magnitude (total inherent brightness, abbreviated H) of moons we have detected around planets occurs at H = 18 for Jupiter, H = 17 for Saturn, H = 14 for Uranus, and H = 12 for Neptune. Smaller moons may (and most likely do) exist around each of these planets, but are currently undetectable from Earth. Although spacecraft have visited all of these planets, Earth-based telescopes continue to outperform them in moon-detection ability due to their greater availability for wide-field surveys.

List
This is a list of the recognized moons of the planets and of the largest potential dwarf planets of the Solar System, ordered by their official Roman numeral designations. Moons that do not yet have official Roman numeral designations (because their orbits are not yet known well enough) are listed after those that do.

The 19 moons that are known to be large enough to have been rounded by their own gravity are listed in bold. The seven largest moons, which are larger than any of the known dwarf planets, are listed in bold and italic. Sidereal period differs from semi-major axis because a moon's speed depends both on the mass of its primary and its distance from it.

title: List of natural satellites