Talk:Zand (tribe)

Laki Kurds

The Zand tribe is not a Luri tribe but a Laki Kurd tribe.

source:M.R. Izady, The Kurds A Consice Handbook

Yeah, an how reliable is Mr. Izady? He also claims the Bakhtiaris are descendants of Persian tribes from Tajikistan who migrated from the area in the 10th century and mixed with Kurds. The main probelm with his argument is that Persians are a sedentary and urbanized people; they do not group themselves in tribes and they most certaintly are not nomadic.

He neve said any such thing. You are just making it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.186.1 (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Let's not ignore the mainstream view on Zands which relates them to other Kurds. See google books for example; the clear majority of sources there classify Zands as Kurds. Sharishirin (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the Lurs and Kurds are not exactly different ! Both group are of Iranian people and they can understand other one's language without interpretation .About some groups like Laks are there is still unknown to count them as Lur or Kurd . The Lurs history is connected with the Kurds (and other west Iranian peoples).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't understand each others language. Lurish is a dialect of Old Persian and Kurdish is in the NW-Iranian language branch. Laki is classified as belonging to Southern Kurdish. Some sources classify Laki as Lurish dialect, whereat these sources or linguists examined the language from an assimilated Laki tribe in Lorestan. Just look up and analyse these sources who claim Laki being Lurish. --77.191.175.203 (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Three sentences and SIX sources?

Ok. I'm trying to understand the BIG deal to represent someone as this, that, or the other thing. But, seriously? SIX references? For a small part of a THREE line article? I would suggest to the concerned, worried, parties to pick THREE sources and we remove the rest. This is seriously approaching a beating a dead horse syndrome. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kansas Bear, I try to understand your concern, but in your last edit you have said Sykes is not an historian and have added David Yerushalmi (by this reference you added Karim Khan to Lurs' Infobox. If you check the given references, isn't his origin disputed?) as a reference. Is David Yerushalmi a historian? By the way, I've deleted Wadie Jwaideh because if you take a look once again, you will see, the reference is repeated. I hope you restore references once again. (P.S. must be redirected to "Lak people (Iran), only Lak is not enough there") Cheers!--Gomada (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

David Yerushalmi, professor, Center of Iranian Studies, Tel Aviv University, Israel.[1][2] I would say yes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This David Yerushalmi is not the professor in Tel Aviv, this David Yerushalmi received his Juris Doctorate from the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University in 1984.[3] If you would put as much into research as your deletion of referenced information, you would have learned this. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

My deletion? I deleted repeated references :) You deleted Percy Sykes' reference. In Wikipedia says, Percy Sykes is a historian too:) About Karim Khan's origin; It's still disputed, you can't just add him to Lurs' infobox.Btw, you still didn't change Lak to Lak people (Iran).--Gomada (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I am referring to this deletion. Per this discussion regarding Percy Sykes, who was not an academic historian, Sykes is not a reliable source. :)

As for the Lurs infobox, sounds like you should be starting a discussion about this. Rather similar to the discussion I started on the Marwanids talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Misleading edits

@Semsûrî:, you're a long time editor of this topic area. On the Lak (tribe) page, you wrote:

"Vladimir Minorsky, who wrote the entry "Lak" in the first edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam"" (...).

Here, on this page, however, you changed:

"According to the third edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam, the Zands "were a branch of the Laks, a subgroup of the northern Lurs, who spoke Luri, a Western Iranian language". According to the The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, the Zand tribe "spoke the Lakk dialect of the Lur language".

Into:

"According to Ernest, the Zands "were a branch of the Laks, a subgroup of the northern Lurs, who spoke Luri." Frye also stated that the Zand tribe "spoke the Lakk dialect of the Lur language". When Soane visited the tribe around 1918, the tribe denied any connection to Lurs."

Looking at the diffs, to me, it looks like you are belittling the third edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam (the newest version, NB!) and the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World and putting its narrative on par with an early 20th century traveller (outdated source). Although WP:GF assumed, this is not neutral editing, per WP:DUE, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Right now the lede says that the Zands are a "Laki-speaking Kurdish tribe", citing Hamzeh'ee, M. Reza (1990) as sole WP:RS. However, in the body of the article two high-quality sources clearly contradict this statement. This needs to be addressed. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It is one scholar who examines the subject and ultimately writes the entry, so I do believe the name of the scholar should be mentioned. Especially when I have encountered encyclopedias with entries that have contradicting information on basic info like ethnicity. I'm not against having the encyclopedias mentioned but I considered the above-mentioned sentences a bit too long (which was also the reason I removed '...a Western Iranian language'"). Regarding the Soane reference, the point was to make clear that there is definitely a conflict between, not only scholars but specifically between these two scholars and the Zand themselves. Soane is not only an expert on Kurds but even visited the tribe, thus very relevant.

On another note, I don't understand why references on the Zand tribe write in past tense. Is it a disregard or incompetence? There's definitely some kind of disconnect here.

The main issue here is that most Southern Kurdish tribes in this region have erroneously had their ethnic background ascertained as non-Kurdish in academia. Whether its the Şexbizin, Zangana, Kakavand, Feyli, Kalhor or Bajalani. The same could be said regarding the Laki language which linguists now consider Kurdish. And I do believe the question of whether Laks (and thus Zands) are Kurds or Lurs is the last remaining part of this greater issue. Laks have also been considered 'a[n]... ethnic group linguistically closely related to the Lurs and the Kurds'[4] which we all know is untrue. --Semsûrî (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Regarding the Soane reference, the point was to make clear that there is definitely a conflict between, not only scholars but specifically between these two scholars and the Zand themselves. Soane is not only an expert on Kurds but even visited the tribe, thus very relevant. "

I'm not necessarily against the inclusion of Soane, I'm moreso concerned about putting him on par (it reads as such to me) with the third edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, which are sources of a different level.

• "On another note, I don't understand why references on the Zand tribe write in past tense. Is it a disregard or incompetence? There's definitely some kind of disconnect here."

I noticed that as well but we can't question our WP:RS sources on Wikipedia.

- LouisAragon (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind; I guess its ok for now. We need to wait for the newest "Lak" entry of the 3rd edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam. That will surely help us in solving this. Removing the tag. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)