Talk:Zazas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Request for Comments

I witnessed edits by users who are under influence of the Kurdish nationalists theories in this article, Zazaki language, Kurdish people etc. Their (Kurdish nationalists') prominent characteristics and inclinations are not to allow different notable theories. In fact, some scholars support Kurdish theories, but other scholars suggests different theories and not support Kurdish ethnocentric point of views.

As you know, there are various propaganda behind this problem. See: Etically some confusion has arisen from, on the one hand, efforts by Kurdish nationalists to swell their numbers by claiming the Zaza as their own, and on the other, semi-official propaganda which treats the Zazas and the Kurds as part... (Peter A. Andrews, Rüdiger Benninghaus, Ethnic groups in the Republic of Turkey, Reichert, 1989, p. 122)

Which version is better ?

• A (Wikisupporting's Kurdish ethnocentric version.)

or

• B (normal and more neutral version)

Note: User:Wikisupporting is one single-purpose account. Its purpose is very clear. To swell their numbers by claiming the Zaza as their own. But I don't want accuse this user. Because this user is also a victim of ethnic propaganda. Thank you.

-- Takabeg (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

B version by User:Takabeg must be used, because it does meet the criterias of Wikipedia of objectivity, impartiality, political neutrality and the use of academically referenced sources. User:Wikisupporting is clearly having a political agenda and is fanatically pursuing so. The comments of the user is full of hatred and anger and is totally intolerant and uncompromising towards any other constructive editions. This is unfortunately the downside of Wikipedia which was founded on the idealistic principles of constructive editing by anyone, and the major criticism and problem of it is, when it is used for reference and homeworks for schools, it is hijacked by such users for their own political agendas.

Wikipedia and all of its articles must be objective, impartial and politically neutral. Academic sources meeting these criterias must only be used. There is no place for biased, ethnocentic and politically motivated propaganda material in any Wikipedia article, as has been the case in the Zaza people article. Another serious matter is that politically and fanatically minded users, not only ignore but most importantly prevent other users editions, by erasing objective, impartial and politically neutral and academic theories and engaging in edit wars. -- Van de Kemp (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

To delete my comment is against the rules and will not make you friends. Takabeg aka the new User van de Kemp. In your version where you only mention that according Van Bruinessen some of the Zaza who considered themselves as Kurds started to distinguish themselves from them, but you don´t mention that according to him still almost all Zazaki Speakers consider themselves as Kurds. And that he considers this as a "inner Kurdish" conflict. Wikisupporting (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop sending me messages you are not worth a discussion a Person who deletes comments of other on the discussions site of a article is not someone who should teach me the rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZaza_people&action=historysubmit&diff=446229914&oldid=446226723 Wikisupporting (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sick of these idiotic nationalistic edit wars by people who are too insecure to let the facts speak for themselves, and who can't even hold a rational discussion. They seem to be all over the place any more. I've reverted prior to the edit war and permanently protected the article. If you have properly sourced edits you wish to make, take them to one of the wikiprojects, or to an admin who knows something of the topic. They may even unblock the article for you. Either that or I can just block the lot of you so we don't have to deal with you any more. — kwami (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This article should be able to be edited and monitored by users who are knowledgeable on this topic and non-political and neutral. The article should not be fully protected indefinitely, but semi-protected for certain periods, because fully protecting this article does not solve the dispute and the controversial aspect is that only one theory but not other contradicting theories about the Zaza peoples’ ethnic classification is present. I myself did not add and will not add anything to this article, but completely blocking the whole article for future and constructive editions is unfair. There should be no fait accompli. My suggestion is that both users’ editions about the conflicting theories of the Zaza people should be included in the article. The main reason is that the Zaza people are either classified as a separate ethnic group or as a part of the Kurdish ethnic group. Both theories and views are supported with academic sources. And academic sources, neutral and objective will of course diverge. -- Menikure (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Question - Can someone supply the two versions of text, here in the Talk page, that are being considered? I looked at the two links above, but the links point to the diff page, which is incomprehensible. --Noleander (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so the two versions are:

A) The Zazas, Kird, Kirmanc or Dimilis[1] are an ethnic Iranian people[2] whose native language is Zazaki spoken in eastern Anatolia. They primarily live in the eastern Anatolian provinces, such as Adıyaman, Aksaray, Batman, Bingöl, Diyarbakır, Elazığ, Erzurum, Erzincan (Erzıngan), Gumushane, Kars, Malatya, Mus, Sanliurfa, Sivas, and Tunceli provinces. Almost all speakers of the Zaza language actually consider themselves Kurds.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

B) The Zazas or Dimilis are an ethnic group which is one of the Iranian peoples and an ethnic minority in Turkey. They primarily live in the eastern Anatolian provinces, such as Adıyaman, Aksaray, Batman, Bingöl, Diyarbakır, Elazığ, Erzurum, Erzincan, Gümüşhane, Kars, Malatya, Muş, Şanlıurfa, Sivas, and Tunceli provinces. Since Zazas are one of the Iranic ethnic groups, their culture and language show some similarities to those of the Gilakis, Kurds, Mazandaranis, Persians, and other Iranic ethnic groups.[1][2][3]

I see several differences between the versions. Is the key issue the assertion "Almost all speakers of the Zaza language actually consider themselves Kurds" vs "... their culture and language show some similarities to those of the Gilakis, Kurds,..."? In other words, are the Zaza Kurds, or merely similar to Kurds? Based on the comment above from user Menikure: "my suggestion is that both users’ editions about the conflicting theories of the Zaza people should be included in the article. The main reason is that the Zaza people are either classified as a separate ethnic group or as a part of the Kurdish ethnic group. " it looks like that is the main issue here. --Noleander (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not looked at the citations in detail but - if they are valid - then the best solution is, as Menikure suggests, to include both viewpoints in the Lead paragraph. Something like "Some authorities consider the Zaza to be ethnically Kurdish, but other authorities consider them to be a distinct ethnicity". With citations for both portions of the sentence, of course. Thus, neither proposal A nor proposal B is ideal. Can some editors propose lead sentences that incorporate both viewpoints? --Noleander (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We have to create "Disputed claims" or "Theses" section. Takabeg (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not a disputed claim that Zaza mainly consider themselves as Kurds. And that the idea our both versions should be added doesen´t suits you, shows again your political motivation. Wikisupporting (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There are political motivations of Turkish government (& nationalist), Kurdish nationalists, and Zaza nationalists. Besides their political approaches, scholars also write about theories. Takabeg (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

@Takabeg: Why do you say a new section is needed? I think this RfC is focusing on the wording of the Lead. If multiple sources give a couple of viewpoints on how the Zaza ethnicity relates to Kurdish ethnicity, it is okay for the lead to represent both viewpoints. If there are a lot of sources, and it looks like an important issue, then, sure, a section on "Ethnicity" or "Releationship to Kurds" would be okay. But one thing at a time: let's get the Lead figured out first. --Noleander (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

@Noleander: No. You misunderstood. I didn't say a new section is needed. That is a existed section. But a user who cannot allow alternative theses removed that. Takabeg (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Van Bruinessen is one of the least Sources who is not politically motivated. When we see Van Bruinessens work, we see this facts. 1. The idea of being a separate group, is only present among a small Group of "Exilromantics". 2. The Zaza were traditionally and are still usually considered as Kurds. 3. Virtually all Zaza consider themselves as Kurds and reject strictly the Idea of being a separate ethnic group. 4. The Zaza language might not be classified by some specialized sources not as Kurdish(used as synonym for Kurmanji which is only one of the Kurdish languages) anymore, but still a very close language to it. The definition of what is Kurdish and not is only based on the own ethnic definition of the Group. And we read that according to Van Bruinessen they do consider their language as a Kurdish dialect. 5. Also very important. In Van Bruinessens schooled eyes. It seems more like a "inner Kurdish" conflict than a Zaza-Kurdish separate one. He mentions and what is the reality. There are as much "other Kurds" who consider themselves as Turks or define their ethnic identity by religious denomination. Means when there are Zaza who consider themselves as non Kurds, those mainly don´t do this because they believe that Zaza are a non ethnic Kurdish group but because they define themselves by religious Groups to which they belong. In other words, a Zaza Alevi feels much closer to an Kurmanj Alevi as he would feel to a Sunni Zaza. So according to Van Bruinessen The Kurds (in which he includes the Zaza) could be separated into 3 Groups not based on linguistics but religious believes. Like "Alevi, Sunni, Yezidi".

You can read it here. http://www.hum.uu.nl/medewerkers/m.vanbruinessen/publications/Bruinessen_Ethnic_identity_Kurds.pdf And now please compare this to the Version of takabeg and you will see the sparsely selected parts of this work. The only thing he really took out. "According to Van Bruinessen some Zaza have started to consider themselves as a distinct ethnic Group". He took out the part which got the least importance by Van Bruinessen and mentioned it as if this was the most important part.

Almost all other Sources are somehow politically motivated. Be it Pro or Contra Kurdish. And this cant be that much compared to other disputed articles. The Zaza Article on Wikipedia is used by Turkish Media, like TV and Newspapers as a source to brainwash the People and to tell them as what they should consider themselves. Thats why my request don´t let non admin Users edit this Article. I am willing to stay out of this. This is my effort because it is almost impossible to come to a conclusion with Takabeg, a user who made so many edit wars on different articles. He as a Turk mainly on Kurdish, Armenian, Greek related ones. What makes me suspicious. My only request is that it should be closed and worked out by admins or removed fully.

It is a fact that the User is so well known for his political motivated point of view and was so many times involved in edit wars and close on being banned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Takabeg#Medes

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Takabeg&oldid=440972336#Disruptive_editing

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Takabeg&oldid=440972336#Adding_unreferenced_banner

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Takabeg&oldid=440972336#Armenian_placenames_in_Turkey

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Takabeg&oldid=440972336#Tughra_edit_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Takabeg&oldid=440972336#Vankli

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Takabeg&oldid=440972336#Anti-Kurdish_vandalism

And the person shouldn´t try to sound like someone who is only worried about the "well" of other People because your obviously not and all of your edits since now are related to tensions between Turks and other people like Kurds, Armenians and Greeks. The Sources shown clearly point out that the Zaza consider themselves mainly as Kurds but you still insist about some "political motivation" of others. I am sorry but the only political motivation I see here is not Kurdish nor Zaza but just Turkish.Wikisupporting (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that sources are politically motivated or biased is not a reason to omit the sources. Virtually all sources are biased one way or another. Better is for the material from the sources to be included, but the potential bias of the source can be mentioned in the text. --Noleander (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I did. I was so sick about the editing that I tried to accept Takabegs version but did add some facts like that one source was based on a nationalistic and political motivated Person. And that the Zaza consider themselves as Kurds. There was no talk about that they are some this is an other issue which should be discussed separately but still even this was to much for him. He didn´t wanted this to be mentioned.

see here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaza_people&action=historysubmit&diff=446331552&oldid=446323999

I added that for example Garnik Asatrian is a nationalist because he is a member of a Nationalistic party and is well known for his anti Kurdish hypothesis. I even have the sources for that! But Takabeg and his "partner" Van der Kemp couldn´t even let this stay.Wikisupporting (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Question - Does anyone object to a new section that discusses the relationship of the Zaza people, ethnically, to the Kurds? It looks like there are several sources on this, and the viewpoints are not uniform, so it may be useful to readers to have such a section. --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am willing to do so. We could even make two Articles about it. One showing the Zaza as a ethnic Group and one about them as part of the Kurds.Wikisupporting (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead and start a new section in this article. I don't think it is permissible to have two sections on the topic, or two articles on the topic. That would violate the point-of-view fork rule. Remember to include all sources, even if biased, and it is okay to mention the possible bias of sources, so readers know the material may be biased. The title of the section should be very neutral, such as "Ethnicicy" or "Releationship to Kurds" or something like that: the section title should not "pick a side". --Noleander (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok I will do so but not now because I really don´t have time to do it now but will do so in the coming days. I will ask you to take a look at it than so you can tell if it is biased or based on reliable sources. Thank you for the help and time. Greets Wikisupporting (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Just post a note on my Talk page when you want me to review the material. --Noleander (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

... also: as for the RfC: perhaps the best thing would be to work on this new "Ethnicity" section for a couple of weeks, and when a consensus is obtained, use that material to create the sentence in the lead (which is what started this RfC in the first place). --Noleander (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

New section (and lead) must present all viewpoints

@WikiSupporting: I'm a bit concerned about your post on my Talk page here. In the discussion on the Talk page immediately above, I thought you agreed to prepare a new section addressing ethnicity, which included all viewpoints. But your post on my Talk page suggests that there is only one viewpoint: That the Zaza are Kurds, period. There are several sources that state otherwise. The new section needs to show all viewpoints. There was a section in an older version of this article here which covered various viewpoints. The new section should look a lot like that. Notice how each sentence starts by identifying who the source is: that helps the readers see possible bias. You seem to ignore, over and over, sources that say Zaza are not Kurds. Here are three such sources:

1. Ethnic Differentiation among the Kurds: Kurmancî, Kizilbash and Zaza Paul White: "Since the mid-1980s, however, a further dimension has been added - or rather restored - to the already complex picture of Kurdish nationalism, and Kurdish national identity. For it is from this time that two closely-related minorities in Anatolia began once again seriously to question even the 'Kurdish' identity which had been thrust upon them by Kurdish nationalists.....This article examines the effect of movements favouring ethnic differentiation from mainstream Kurdish (Kurmancî) nationalism by these two minorities - known as the so called 'Alevi Kurds', 'Dersimlis' or 'Kizilbash' ['K»z»lba§'] and the so called 'Zaza Kurds'. After examining the historical and cultural roots of what are shown to be ethnically distinct minorities, ....The Kizilba§ are not to be confused with ethnically Turkic Alevi sects, like the Bektashi [Bekta§i] and Taktaji [Tahtaci]). Likewise, the Zazas are not Kurds, but ethnically distinct, related to the Kizilba§. Kurdish nationalists generally regard the Kizilba§ and Zazas as part of the Kurdish nation. However, as has already been indicated above, they both may well have had a common ancestor, in the Dailamites.
2. Martin van Bruinessen, "Kurdish Nationalism and Competing Ethnic Loyalties", Original English version of: "Nationalisme kurde et ethnicités intra-kurdes", Peuples Méditerranéens no. 68-69 (1994), pp. 11-37: " In Turkey, some of the speakers of the Zaza language, who had always been considered, and had considered themselves, as Kurds, have started speaking of themselves as a separate people whose distinct identity has been denied not only by the Turkish state but by the Kurdish movement as well."
3. Krisztina Bodrogi, "Turks, Kurds, or a people in their own right? Competing Collective Identities among the Zazas", The Muslim World Vol. LXXXIX, No. 3-4 (July-October 1999), pp. 439-454. Vol. LXXXIX, No. 3-4 (July-October 1999), pp. 439-454.

If you cannot create a new section that represents all viewpoints, we should probably just restore that older section and go from there. Also, the lead paragraph needs to acknowledge the various viewpoints. --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agreed to ad a new section. This is true. But I don´t know what is wrong on showing and saying that the Sources Used by Takabeg are misinterpreted by him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noleander#Hello_Noleander

neither one of the Sources did support his claim. Infact even one of his Sources supported my. Accepting the Idea of a new Sections doesent mean to accept misinterpretations of Sources.His first three sources clearly did not point out that Zaza are not Kurds. Wikisupporting (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at sources #1 and #2 immediately above, do you agree that those quotes from those sources can go in the new section? --Noleander (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Source 1. seems to me more like a collection of different scientific and non scientific sources. Such sentence always make me suspicious which had been thrust upon them by Kurdish nationalists The Kurdish identity was present among Zaza and "Kizilbash" ( a religious designagtion) even before any Nationalistic Movement. See Dersim rebellion http://www.hum.uu.nl/medewerkers/m.vanbruinessen/publications/Dersim_rebellion.pdf However it is still interesting that the Topic Text of the Article talks about Ethnic differentiations among the Kurds

I agree with source 2. That some Zaza have started to consider themselves not as Kurds is true. But again it is important how Van Bruinessen explains this. When we read his work, we see that only a small number of those Zaza who consider themselves as non Kurds believe in the idea of a separate Zaza Identity (thats why he calls them Exilromantics) while the Rest of them usually consider themselves by their religious believe. Means as Alevi, Sunni, Yezidi. According to Van Bruinessen there is a differentiation among the Kurds. Not specifically Zaza. This is my Point. I don´t claim that All Zaza consider themselves as Kurds but that also according Van Bruinessen this seems more like a inner Kurdish conflict. Van Bruinessen and other Sources make clear that a Zaza unity is far from reality before discussing about if Zaza are Kurds we should discuss do the Zaza themselves build a unity? Van Bruinessen makes clear that Sunni Zaza feel closer to Sunni Kurmanj as they feel to Zaza Alevis(Kizilbash). And such things were not mentioned in the Version of the User.Wikisupporting (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

We have to include what the source say... the fact that you find a source "suspicious" is not relevant. For source #2, can you provide a quote from that source that supports your claim that " only a small number of those Zaza who consider themselves as non Kurds believe in the idea of a separate Zaza Identity"? --Noleander (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can, and will but have to go to work now. I will quote the parts when I am back. Wikisupporting (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC) When I come back from work what will be in 5 hours I will quote the parts in Van Bruinessen as well Paul Ludwigs works which clearly show us that the number of Zaza which consider themselves as a different ethnic Group is not worth to be mentioned and that there is rather a ethnic differentiations inside the Kurds based on religious believes. Like Alevi zaza feel closer to Alevi Kurmanj and Sunni Zaza to Sunni Kurmanj. I am sorry that I can´t answer now but the time is too short.Wikisupporting (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I made myself some effort and was thinking about how we should form the article. This will of course take some weeks. First of all to make something clear. You asked me if "Zazas are Kurds" is the only option for me. Well indeed this is my believe because I know this people and their history. And I never did hide my believes nor claimed something else in compare to other people. But I also know that it is impossible to convince the other people whom don´t have so much knowledge about this issue, while there are sources be it political or not which do claim the opposite of my knowledge. So thats why, in contrary to the other Users who were involved in this, I agreed and am willing to take my effort and time for this article.

To get the chance for solving this Problem first I should explain on what of the opposite article I couldn´t agree. On the first look at this article here, it seems it covers various viewpoints but in fact it is downplaying the role of the Kurdish identity with this here. About their ethnicity, language and origin, there are certain disputed claims.[1][4][5][6] and one of them is the claim that they are of Kurdish origin. First of all, in all of the Sources used as reference for this is only the talk about the Kurdish identity and not any other disputed claim. So why the sentence "and one of them is the claim that they are of Kurdish origin. Again the sources are totally misinterpreted. It is mentioned in this version that there is a discussion about whether they are Kurds or not, but the results of this question are not or only sparsely shared.

Alone the claim that the Kurdish origin is one of the disputed claims is wrong. This is as much a disputed claim as the idea that the Zaza exist as a separate and non ethnic Kurdish group. We find as much sources which claim them to be part of the Kurds as we find sources that claim they are not Kurds. The notion of Zaza in this article as being a ethnic group of their own and there being some "disputed claims" they might be Kurds is the first wrong step because like we have seen above and I will also quote some parts the Idea of being a separate ethnic Group is only shared by a unimportant small number of Zaza. I hope I could make this point somehow clear with my bad English. To be neutral it shouldn´t even be mentioned that they are a ethnic Group and related to "Kurds" and those because this gives a reader at the same time, the feeling Zaza are not Kurds as a matter or fact and there are some claims they might be Kurds.

So my suggestion which is similar to your idead. We should divide the article into two major sections. The first part should only include things which are given as information by both sides. The second part should be for claims which are made by one side and denied by other.

For example first section: distribution and demographics, number of Zaza People.

Than we should compare the informations given from one side and see if this information is denied by other side. If there is a claim on one side and a denial on the other, we should take this into section two were only informations are listed, which are seen in different views by different authors. For example if Zazas are Kurds or not. If Zaza are an Iranian People or not. If Zazaki is a Kurdish dialect/language or not.

And of course as you did suggest the headline of the second section should include something like a Information that some of the sources (whether pro or contra Zaza are Kurds) might have political motivation.

I am going to get some rest now but I will collect informations and we will decide whether a information is shared by both sides or only one sided.

Wikisupporting (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiSupport: No, articles cannot be divided by "side". That is a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. See WP:POV fork for more details. The article, like all articles, is divided into sections based on topics, like Lanuguage, Music, Art, Demographics, etc. In those sections where the sources have 2 or more viewpoints, all viewpoints are given, provided that they are supported by WP:Reliable sources. The opinions and interpretations of editors, like you or me, are not important. We can only put material into the article if the material comes from a reliable source. --Noleander (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok this is also a good idea. Before starting to collect sources first we should look at known sources and clear misinterpretations. I quoted parts which are more relevant for this questions. The discuss about how it could happen that some Zaza started consider themselves as non Kurds.

Van Bruinessen - The Ethnic Identity of the Kurds in Turkey For pragmatic reasons I use a rather loose and wide definition, including all native speakers of dialects belonging to the Iranic languages Kurmanji or Zaza, as well as those Turkish speaking persons who claim descent from Kurmanji or Zaza speakers and who still (or again) consider themselves as Kurds

The Topic of his work and the definition of Kurd by Van Bruinessen indicates that he considers Zaza generally as Kurds and their language Zazaki as a Kurdish language.

most Kurds would mention language and religion first. Kurmanji and Zaza are both Iranian languages, grammatically quite different from Turkish, although their vocabularies contain many loan-words from Arabic and Turkish. Few, if any, Kurmanji speakers understand Zaza, but most Zaza speakers know at least some Kurmanji. Virtually all Zaza speakers consider themselves, and are considered by the Kurmanji speakers, as Kurds..... Van Bruinessen - Kurdish Nationalism and Competing Ethnic Loyalties

Some of the speakers of the Zaza language, who had always been considered, and had considered themselves, as Kurds, have started speaking of themselves as a separate people.... Nevertheless, there is considerable agreement among oriental authors, at least from the early sixteenth century on, as to whom to call Kurds. The Ottoman historians of the incorporation of most of Kurdistan into the Ottoman Empire in the early 16th century; Sharaf Khan, the ruler of Bitlis who wrote a detailed history of all Kurdistan's ruling families towards the end of that century; Evliya Çelebi, the Turkish traveller who spent years in various parts of Kurdistan in the 17th century — all of them used the name Kurd in practically the same way and applied it to the same population. So did Ottoman and Persian administrators, down to the early 1930's, when mentioning Kurds became unacceptable in Turkey. Their Kurds consisted of those tribesmen of eastern Asia Minor and the Zagros, settled as well as nomadic, who were not Turkish, Arabic or Persian-speaking.[3] They included speakers of Kurdish proper as well as Zaza (in the Northwest) or Gurani (in the Southeast, with more isolated pockets throughout present Iraqi Kurdistan)

What I do understand is. Today, there seems to be a confusion on what or who is a Kurd and who not and this is the case by all Kurdish Groups. Historically the Zaza identity was always considered as Kurdish and the Zaza as Kurds and still they do generally (virtually) consider themselves as such and their language as a Kurdish dialect. However some of the Zaza who had always considered themselves as Kurds have started to consider themselves as separate People. (For whatever reason is explained in the work).

I will later go on with another source. Wikisupporting (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikisupport: Could you please try to make your comments smaller? It is very hard to read such large comments. See WP:TLDR. As for the soruces, what we have so far are several sources that say Zaza are Kurds, and two sources that say some Zazas (especially after 1980) consider themselves to be distinct from Kurds. We are waiting to get some quotes from another source (see Talk page section below). After we have that source, we should be able to create draft text for a new section that covers the ethnicity topic. --Noleander (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

OK I can try to hold them shorter.Wikisupporting (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Quotes needed

Does anyone have the full text of the source: Krisztina Bodrogi, "Turks, Kurds, or a people in their own right? Competing Collective Identities among the Zazas", The Muslim World Vol. LXXXIX, No. 3-4 (July-October 1999), pp. 439-454. Vol. LXXXIX, No. 3-4 (July-October 1999), pp. 439-454. If so, can they see if it includes any quotes that relate to this RfC? --Noleander (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have the Bodrogi article. She gives a lot of subtleties about the Zaza ethnic identity or lack thereof. Under the US copyright doctrine of Fair Use, I think it is OK for me to mail the article to anyone here who plans to work on the Wikipedia article or give an opinion in the RfC. If interested, you should write to me by Wikipedia email and tell me your actual email address. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed: Maybe it would be best if you selected 5 or 10 quotes from the article that summarize the author's opinion on how the Zaza are related to the Kurdish ethnicity/nationality. Just post those quotes right here in the Talk page so everyone can see it. Copyright law permits a handful of selected quotes to be reproduced. Does that sound okay? --Noleander (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to act as an admin regarding this article. If I get involve in summarizing Bodrogi, I'll be joining the ranks of the content editors. The Bodrogi article explains a lot of complexities of the Zaza identity. For instance, the Alevi Zazas tend to feel estranged from the other Zazaa. The views of the Alevis, who consider themselves Moslems, are looked down on by the mainstream Sunni Moslems in Turkey and also by the non-Alevi Zazas. (The Alevis are more tolerant of alcohol, for instance). There are Zazas in Europe who are trying to help develop a national identity for the Zazas, but how to do so is not obvious. Also some of the Zaza intellectuals used to be very left-wing during the late 20th century. After the collapse of Communism they were not sure what to do. I'll send the paper to anyone working on this article who will send me a Wikipedia email. Here is the last paragraph of Bodrogi's summary:

The new Zaza politics of identity feeds into those theories which regard ethnicity as a social identity, constructed under certain historical and political conditions by the actors themselves. The difficulty, however, faced by Zaza nationalists in their efforts to mobilize the majority of the Zazaki-speakers has mainly been the historical lack of a subjective feeling of common belongingness. Nevertheless, Zaza ethnic politics are relatively new. It may very well be too early to make predictions about its future.

Another interesting quote is from an Alevi Zaza who she interviewed:

My uneasiness began when they started to put pressure on us to learn Kurmanci. I said to myself: The majority of the Kurds belong to Sunni Islam and speaks Kurmanci. As Alevis and Zazaki speakers, our situation would probably be not better in a Kurdish and Sunni dominated state than now in Turkey.

This is understandable when you see the fears of the Alevis regarding the Sunni Zazas who seem to be more connected to the Kurds.

By comparison, Zazas of Alevi origin are willing to reject Kurdish ethnic identity for a Zaza ethnic identity. This seems to be a function of their century-old experience as an outlawed religious minority, which makes them extremely sensitive to (real or presumed) discrimination. The growing importance given to Kurmanci in the nationalist discourse has nourished the Zazas' fear of double discrimination.

Bodrogi mentions that there was a conference with the title "The Zazas: A lost people," held at the Volkshochschule in Bochum, Germany, Feburary 29, 1996. It is also interesting to locate Bodrogi's paper on Google Scholar and then look at the list of 9 other papers which cite it. At least one of them is freely available. Bodrogi has published in Turkish and she cites Kurdish sources, so she seems well-qualified in the languages of the region. Some of the complexities of the Zazas are also alluded to in our Alevi article.

EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This conference sounds very familiar in my ears. I know that this sort of conferences are hold by a group of Exil Zaza-Nationalist "intellectuals". They hold such conferences without the support of the Zaza People themselves. I haven´t red the paper but I will now tell you some names and I am sure they were involved or the conference was hold by this people. I bet they were involved in this conference. Zülfü Selcan, Yasar Kaya, Ferhat Pamukcu, Mesut Keskin, Koyo Berz, Hüseyin Cagliyan, Pamukcu to call some of them. Usually such conferences are about the Zazaki which is a endangered language. The group is usually making its own propaganda and speak in the name of Zaza without even having the support of the People. They try to create a nation on their self. I will quote Van Bruinessen and Ludwig Paul who himself is usually involved in those conferences and knows most of the members of this group.Ludwig paul/Van Bruinessen clearly talk about them and how this small group has no support from the people and is very weak. And like you have seen when you locate the paper on Google Scholar you see that this thematic always has a connection to kurdish identity. This is why I said the version of the other User was downplaying the role of Kurdish identity of Zaza by calling it a "disputed claim like many other". Wikisupporting (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Van Bruinessen about this Zaza nationalist group in the diaspora and the support they get. "The newly imagined homeland of Zazaistan, too, is unlikely to exert a strong attraction except among romantic intellectuals in exile" Ludwig Paul who is even a good friend of some of them says this. "Diese Zaza-Nationalisten(Zazaisten), deren Protagonist der 1993 in Schweden verstorbene Zaza Ebubekir Pamukcu war, spielen vor allem durch ihre Publikationstätigkeit in der westeuropäischen Diaspora (z.B. die von Pamukcu herausgegebenen Zeitschriften AYRE und PIYA) eine gewisse Rolle. Da ich jedoch ihren Einfluss in Ostanatolien für gering halte, habe ich diese Gruppierung hier vernachlässigt" translated "Those Zaza-Nationalists (Zazaists), whom protagonist was the 1993 deceased Ebubekir Pamukcu, play mainly through there publication activities in the westeuropean Diaspora(for example the magazines AYRE and PIYA published by Pamukcu) a certain role. However since their influence in East Anatolia (the homeland of Zaza) is small, I have neglected them." "Wenn ich von "Kurden und Zaza" spreche, so ist dies eine vorläufige analystische Trennung, die noch nicht implizieren soll, das beide getrennte Etnizitäten bzw. "Völker" darstellen." translate "When I talk about "Kurds and Zaza", so is this a provisional analysts distinction, which should not imply, that both are separate ethnicities or Folks." "Die Mehrzahl der Sprecher des Zazaki bezeichnet sich heute als Kurden und hält ihre Sprache für einen kurdischen Dialekt." translate "The large majority of the Zazaki Speakers call themselves Kurds and consider their language as a kurdish Dialect." Insgesamt lautet die Frage nicht, "sind die Alevi Zaza Kurden - ja oder nein?", sondern eher: "in welchem je nach Region und teilweise Situation verstehen sie sich als Kurden." translate "The Question should not be, " are the Alevi Zaza Kurds - yes or no?", but how much do they understand themselves as Kurds depending on Region and sometimes situation " summarized succinctly, The Zaza historically always were considered Kurds. Generally they still do consider themselves as such and their language as a Kurdish dialect. For some Zaza Alevis their religious affiliation plays a bigger role as their Kurdish identity however though they consider themselves Kurds. The Question shouldn´t be if they are Kurds but how much value do they give to their Kurdish identity. Another indication that all of this is a inner kurdish conflict. Some Zaza-Nationalists in the Diaspora have activities like magazines and conferences (Most of the Articles on the wolrd wide web claiming the Zaza as a separate ethnicity are in fact written by members of this Group) in the name of the Zaza People even though they don´t have the support of the people. Wikisupporting (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

More quotes from Bodrogi

Here are some more quotes from Bodrogi. She appears to cover the issue of Zaza ethnicity vis-a-vis the Kurds rather comprehensively. I'm pushing the limits of WP:COPYVIO here ... if anyone thinks I've overstepped, let me know and I'll convert some to paraphrases. --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

p 441: Contrary to the popular view that Zazaki is a Kurdish dialect, however, linguists unanimously testify that it is a language in its own right.

p 441: Since it is unlikely that the Zaza-Dimli moved from the Caspian to their present territory, to the west of the Kurdish areas, by passing unscathed through lands already occupied by Kurds, another hypothesis is necessary. This could be that the Zaza, already occupying what is now the heart of Kurdistan, i.e. the land south and west of the Lake Van, were themselves forced out and driven westward by the advancing Kurds. [Bogrozi is quoting MacKenzi, p 542]

p 441: The Problem of the Ethnic Identity of the Zazas: If it ever took notice of them, the world outside generally regarded (and mostly still regards) the Zazas as Kurds. This notion becomes less certain, however, when one examines the indigenous categories of collective identity in the region based on religious affiliation rather than on language or historical origin, the operative social boundary running between orthodoxy (Sunni Islam) and heterodoxy (Alevism).

pp 441-2: They [zaza] generally regard themselves as Kurdish as well, though with a certain ambivalence as to their ‘true’ Kurdishness. l2 On the other hand, Kurmanci- and Zazakispeaking Shafi‘is rarely acknowledge members of the neighboring heterodox groups as Kurds, such as the Alevis and the Yezidis, even when they speak ‘Kurdish proper’, Kurmanci.

p 443: Contrary to Shafi‘i Zazas, who unanimously consider themselves Kurds, Kurdish ethnicity has been unthinkable for Zazas of Alevi confession until quite recently. Very few of the Alevi population even today consider themselves Kurds, even though Alevi Zazas were part of the Kurdish nationalist movement from its very beginning in the 1920s.

p 443:The lack of a common ethnicity among the Zazaki-speaking population is evident even in the lack of a common ethnonym.

p 444: Throughout this century, the Zazas have been the subject of two competing political ideologies. Both Kurdish and Turkish nationalists still lay claim to the Zaza as a constituent part of the Kurdish and, respectively, Turkish nation.

p 444: Once nationalism became a basic doctrine of the Turkish republic, its representatives endeavored to accommodate the country’s multi-ethnic reality to the ideal of a mono-ethnic (Turkish) nation. Theories, many of them quite dubious, have thus developed proving the Turkish ethnic origin of the Kurds and the Zazas, and showing Kurmanci and Zazaki as Turkish dialects.

p 445: Kurdish nationalism, on the other hand, regards the Zazas as having the same ethnic origin and speaking the same language as the Kurds. To support this thesis, Zazaki once again had to be declared a dialect, this time a Kurdish dialect. 22 Until recently, Kurdish nationalists vehemently refused to accept linguistic studies which declare Zazaki a language in its own right and accuse every effort in this direction of separatism.

p 446: As for the young Zazaki- (as well as Kurmanci-) speaking Alevi generation, political association with the Kurdish issue led them to embrace Kurdish ethnic identity....The older Zazaki- and even Kurmanci- speaking Alevis have continued to consider religion as the main source of their collective identity and to reject Kurdish ethnicity.

p 447: a number of Zazas, of both Sunni and Alevi confession, have begun to question their previous ethnic and political loyaties and to search for new models of collective identity. As a result, a particular Zaza politics of identity has emerged, seeking the creation of a distinct Zaza efhme /nation and offering the Zazas the option of defining themselves primarily by means of Alevism or of Kurdishness. Until now, however, Zaza nationalism has largely been limited to the diaspora. With time, it has begun to reach Zazas living in Turkey, as well....It is significant that the idea of a distinct Zaza nation arose not only in Europe, but primarily among members of Kurdish exile organiztions. Nearly all those who presently support the theory of a distinct Zaza nation were formerly adherents of left-wing and pro-Kurdish political organizations, some even of the PKK.

p 448: The idea of a separate Zaza ethme /nation was publicly put forth for the first time at the end of the 1980s by Abubekir Pamukcu, a Sunni Zaza living in Sweden. A few years later, he was praised as “the first intellectual who awakened our people from a deadly sleep and paved its way for becoming a nation.”

p 450: Because of the close relationship among Kurds and Zazas and the traditional confession to Kurdish ethnicity by many of the latter, distinguishing themselves from the Kurds turns out to be the most urgent concern in Zaza national discourse. Because both Zaza and Kurdish nationalists reject the concept of a multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic nation, a decision for or against the “dialect thesis” also decides whether the Zazas are a part of the Kurdish nation or a separate people. Thus, while trying to convince the public and the Zazas themselves of Zaza ethnic separateness, Zaza nationalists focus their presentation on scholarly assertions that Zazaki is a language in its own right.

p 451: Zaza nationalists see the revolts as a symbol of a common Zaza history, as “fight (s) of = people for freedom.” Thus, they call upon the Zazas “to fetch back our stolen history” from the Kurds. 37 [B quotes 37 ScrbcstiYe 199711]

p 452: By comparison, Zazas of Alevi origin are willing to reject Kurdish ethnic identity for a Zaza ethnic identity. This seems to be a function of their century-old experience as an outlawed religious minority,

P 454 The ongoing work of the Zazas in Europe is the creation of an autonomous people out of a language group. It is the result of conscious efforts on the part of a number of intellectuals who gained theoretical and political experience in diverse leftist and/or Kurdish nationalist organizations prior to 1980. Disappointed by the discrediting of their political utopias, they have begun to search for new ideals and fields of political activity. Apart from their experiences as both a religious and linguistic minority among the Kurds and the Turks, the recent popularity of multiculturalism in Europe has encouraged the Zazas to ‘discover’ themselves as a distinct people.

... end of quotes. --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• summing up the sources

summing up the sources. A picture similar to what I claimed in my first comments comes out. Generally Zaza consider themselves as Kurds. Historically and still usually the Zaza identity only exists as part of the Kurdish ethnic group. Those small groups of Zazaki Speakers as well Kurmanji(Kurdish Proper) Speakers who do not consider themselves as Kurds usually also don´t identify themselves as Zaza but as religious affiliation or Turk as Turkish citizen and have nothing to do anymore with the Zaza identity. Most of them Alevi Kurds and most of them not because they consider themselves as a Zaza ethnic Group but because they give more value to their religious affiliation due the ignorance of Sunni people. This is not only a Zaza but a general Alevi problem. Be it a Turkish speaking or Kurdish (Kurmanj, Zaza) speaking Alevi. This deserves an own Article or own section in Kurdish and as well Turkish articles. Only a very small of those Zaza which do not consider themselves as Kurds anymore have started to claim on a separate Zaza ethnicity which is neither supported by Zaza generally as well the Zazaki descend Alevis which give more value to their religion. This actually shows that the Idea of Zaza being a separate ethnic group is a controversial claim and not the other way around. This is my observation from the articles and correlates much with what I knew. Wikisupporting (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Another thing I forgot to mention. Like the sources confirm. In more historical times, all the rebellions started by Kurdish Alevis were in fact in the name of Kurds. Some of the next generations after this rebellions, massacres and assimilation politics on them, started to identify themselves by regional patriotism and their religious affiliation because they were massacred by the Sunni part of the country. The massacres on them were mainly made by the state and the ultra-nationalistic turkish party members. However it didn´t matter for some Alevis whether the Sunnis who made this massacres were Turkish because even though not massacred them Sunni Kurds looked down on them. So among most of the Dersim Alevi Kurds a regional patriotism came up but at the same time most of them were part of left winged groups and mainly PKK because of the left winged Kurdish character of this Group. Even today the older generation somehow still has a fear of being repressed ny Sunni Groups and as a reaction have formed a local patriotism but do mainly consider themselves as Kurdish and usually support the Kurdish case. The younger generation of Alevi Kurds have much higher Kurdish awareness. Which is the result of many factors one of them that the younger generation of Sunni Kurds is more open-minded, enlightened and patriotic and expect the Alevis much more as part of them. Thats why Ludwig Pauls statement," the question shouldn´t be if Zaza Alevis or Kurdish Alevis in general are Kurdish but how much Kurdish they are and how much value do they give for their Kurdish identity. Wikisupporting (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Some points. Sources like Paul White are clearly reliable sources from Wikipedia's perspective and should be used - it doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with them. We can and perhaps should distinguish between what scholars say about their ethnic identity and this business about how Zaza people identify, and that identification has to use rock solid sources. I don't understand how the two paragraphs above relate to the sources as they don't actually seem to sum them up. It seems pretty clear that as we often do we have to show different points of view. That must be in this article, not in another article. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Dougwellers Idea is good and is a possibility how to solve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC) From what I understand, Paul Whites also says that a ethnic differentiation has started inside the Kurds which has also been mentioned in other articles. However Paul White doesen´t give exact numbers while the other sources clearly indicate that the ethnic differentiation is a minority thing. And again the Title of his work indicates just like all the other as what he does see this, namely as a inner Kurdish conflict. Ethnic Differentiation among the Kurds. The Kizilbash has by far nothing to do with the Zaza identity. This Name is used only for Kurdish Alevis many of them not Zazaki but Kurmanji(Kurdish Proper) speakiing. This issue and Problem with the Kizilbash(Alevi) belongs into Kurdish article in my opinion because it has not much to do with the awareness of a independent Zaza Identity which is only supported by a small Group of Nationalists in Diaspora. My point is to show that the Idea and ethnic awarness of being Zazaki usually only exists as part of Kurdish Identity. those Alevi Kurds (Kizilbash) which some of them don´t consider themselves as Kurds, also don´t consider themselves as a Zaza ethnic group what totally dismisses the Idea of a separate ethnic Zaza identity and makes a article like Zaza People a ethnic group not much reasonable. This is only supported by a smaller Group which neither has the support of the general Zaza who considers himself as Kurd nor the support of some Kizilbash(Alevi) who do consider themselves by their religion. Simply: Group 1. the Zaza as part of the Kurds. Historically and generally the Zaza and the Zaza identity is and has been considered as Kurdish. Group 2. Kizilbash, Alevi Kurds of which some of them have started to distinct themselves from Sunni Kurds by their believes. This thematic is not Zaza bounded but general Kurdish because as well Kurmanj(Kurdish Proper) and Zaza Speakers are involved and the involved Zaza reject the idea of Zaza identity and feel themselves closer to Kurmanji speaking Alevis as to Sunni Zaza. Group 3. And at the same time smallest. A small Group of Nationalists, romantic intellectuals in the Exil ( with Van Bruinessens words) which have tried to form a new ethnic Identity and are responsible for all this conferences and discussions but have not gained support from the two Groups above. This thematic is very confusing for people who are not familiar with it. Wikisupporting (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Documentation about the Dersim Massacre

Unfortunately it is in Turkish but many ethnologists, sociologists and linguists are included. Everything is explained. I don´t know if Videos can be used as sources but it explains how the Kizilbash(ALevis) explain there ethnic Identity and how they were seen from outside. In part two of the series on 1:05 it explains the ethnic awareness of the Kizilbash, Zazaki and Kurmanji(Kurdish Proper) speakers of Alevi religious background, and how they had to suffer from the state because of this. Dersimli olmak, Alevi olmak ve Kürt olmak translated Being a Dersimli (regional patriotism), being an Alevi (religious identification) and being a Kurd. part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBMe1VVxW24&NR=1

part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BH7Jo2LywY&feature=related Wikisupporting (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• more Quotes

Rosan Lezgin, linguist and ethnologist Among Kurdish Social groups, Zazas identify themselves with different names changing from region to region. Kirmanchs, Kirds, Dimili/Dumbili and Zazas. And the dialect carry the names of their different regions -Kirmanchki, Kirdki, Dimilki and Zazaki. Compared to other Kurdish dialects, their dialect alone retains characteristics from ancient languages which have been preserved through time.

Almost all the notables (ilerigelen) of this group identify themselves as Kird or “Kirmanch” and have participated in Kurdish national movements from the beginning to the present. They have participated in the important Kurdish rebellions and resistant movements. The majority of Zaza Kurdish groups participated in the Mela Selîm Efendî uprising (1914) in Bitlis, in the Koçgiri (Qoçgirî) movement (1920), and the Azadî organization, founded by Xalit Beg of Cibran and later, the movement, under the leadership of Sheik Sait, turned into a larger Kurdish revolt in (1925), and the Dêrsim Resistance movement (1937-1938) lead by Seyith Riza.

Neither the intellectuals of the Turkish, Arab and Persian neighboring nations nor their governments, have ever, in any period of history, distinguished Zazas from Kurds. Even as they recognized the differences between the Kurmanch, Zaza, Soran, Goran and Lur dialects, they still considered the speakers to be Kurds and their dialects to be Kurdish, and the areas in which they lived have always been called Kurdistan.

Only in the last 15-20 years have a few people promoted their ideology of “we are not Kurds” and are identifying themselves as Zazas. (*)

source: AMONG SOCIAL KURDISH GROUPS – GENERAL GLANCE AT ZAZAS Wikisupporting (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Typo

The caption under the photo says "Zaza women". There is only one woman on the photo. MarkkuP (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 November 2011

Please change the caption "Zaza women" from plural to singular, i.e. "Zaza woman". There is only one person in the picture.

Tonyfaull (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Done seems uncontroversial. Anomie⚔ 04:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Here

• Kaya, Mehmet. The Zaza Kurds of Turkey: A Middle Eastern Minority in a Globalised Society. ISBN 1845118758
• O'Shea, Maria. Trapped between the map and reality: geography and perceptions of Kurdistan. ISBN 0415947669.
• Library Information and Research Service. The Middle East, abstracts and index
• Meiselas, Susan. Kurdistan: in the shadow of history. Random House, 1997.

more references as proof that zaza people identify themselves as Kurds.--Gomada (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop calling us Zaza's Kurds

We are not Kurds, Zaza are a different people, with different language and most are not Sunni muslims like Kurds, most are Alevi muslims and have more in common with Alevi Turkmens then Turkish or Kurdish Sunni neighbours. The reality is Kurds look down on us because of the religious difference, Kurds and Turks have families together but hardly any mixed Zaza-Kurdish families. Kurdish nationalists trying to exagerate their population are trying to stick anybody they can find into their group but these are just nationalist scandals.

--86.167.218.208 (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

what are you talking about the zazas are by half Sunni and the other half is Alevi. Iam a sunni Zaza and i don´t care what you call yourself but the majority feels kurdish.

The Zazaki language used to be classified as a dialect of Kurmanji, however it is now considered to be separate and not a Kurdish language (Paul, 1998), but rather belonging to the Zaza-Gorani group of northwest Iranian languages (ethnologue, 2000). Since the Zazaki-speakers analyzed here self-identify as Kurds (Donald Stilo, personal communication), we included them in the analyses of the groups speaking Kurdish languages."

read the black part exactly [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.176.216 (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Alevi constitute the second-largest religious community in Turkey (following the Sunnis), and number some 25% (15 million) of the total population (Alevis claim 30%–40%). Most (?) Alevis are ethnic and linguistic Turks, mainly of Turkmen descent from Central and Eastern Anatolia. Some 20% of Alevis are Kurds (though most Kurds are Sunnis), and some 25% of Kurds in Turkey are Alevi (Kurmanji and Zaza speakers)." —David Zeidan.[5]

so wiki admins please edit thsi zaza page ,we zazaki speaker are kurds like kurmanci speakers.. turkish and iranian startet to create language maps why than read here: to divide kurds! to amek kurds at kurdistan topic as "not strong" . seyit riza ,sehx said, nuri dersim, all these people said KURDISTAN until death and they were zazaki kurds ! i can say zazaki ist 1.kurdish dialect.

greets.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.190.135 (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC) 

HELLO???? READ THE HISTORY OF KURDISTAN!!!!!!! Being a KURD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION!!! The Kurdish people in Kurdistan has exited for more than 5,000 years, so there are muslim Kurds (shia lika zaza and fayli Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan/Iranian Kurdistan an sunnis as the rest of muslim Kurds)., like other (original) Kurds ar yezidi (êzidî), shabak and kakayi. All them are KURDS! The zaza dialect of Kurdish language is really close to Hewramî dialect that is spoken in Hewraman, a region between Iraqi Kurdistan and Iranian Kurdistan, also the Shabak Kurds speak zaza dialect of kurdish language! KURDISTAN have been occupated for nearly 150 years, do it is not strange that people like you above don't even know your history!!!! See the language tree, the origin of the people of Kurdistan, one of the poeple at earth that started the civilisation!!!!! READ THE HISTORY OF KURDS AND KURDISTAN FROMMANY SOURCES AND DON'T LET THE ENEMIES OF KURDISTAN IN ANKARA, TEHERAN, BAGHDAD AND DAMASCUS TELL YOU WHO YOU ARE!!!! ASK SALAHETTIN DEMIRTAS, GULTEN KISANAK, NILUFER AKBAL AND SHEIKH SAIDI PIRAN WHO THEY ARE/WERE!!! KURDS!!!!!!!!!46.195.247.213 (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

ZAZA ARE KURDS, KURDS ARE ZAZA! KURDISTAN IS ONE! READ YOUR HISTORY!!!!!

Hello everybody! The people of Kurdistan have a rich diversity, because of its long history of more than 5,000 years. Zaza Kurdish is one of the important Kurdish dialects, but unfortunately due to the enemies of Kurdistan, they have always wanted to divide the Kurdish people that have different dialects as Zazaki (dimilkî), Hewramî, Kurmancî, Soranî and Kelhorî. We, the people of Kurdistan are more stronger than the conspirational ideas that want to divide the Kurdish people. Because we the Kurds have not studied our history and don't even know who we are and how rich history and language we have, we might think that Zaza Kurds are a different people, but that is as wrong as saying that the earth is not round!!! For God's sake, Zaza dialect of Kurdish language are really close to Hewramî Kurdish dialect that is spoken in the region between Iraqi Kurdistan and Iranian Kurdistan. Zaza dialect is also spoken by Shabak Kurds around the city of Mosul is Iraqi Kurdistan/Iraq. Zaza Kurds are KURDS, GOd created them as Kurds, ask Salahettin Demirtas, Gülten Kisanak and Nilufer Akbal, they are KURDS and nothing else (Kurds are zaza, kurmanci, sorani, hewrami, kelhuri and so on). So PLEASE: READ THE RICH HISTORY OF MORE THAN 5,000 YEARS OF THE KURDISH PEOPLE AND KURDISTAN BEFORE LETTING THE ENEMIES OF KURDISTAN IN TURKEY, IRAN, IRAQ AND SYRIA DECIDE WHO YOU ARE AND WHO YOU AREN'T! KURDISTAN IS KURDISTAN AND CANNOT BE DIVIDED, BECAUSE KURDISTAN HAS A RICH HISTORY AND HAs NATURALLY EXISTED AND HAVE NOT IMMIGRATED FROM MANGOLIA AND BY FORCE OCCUPATED THE REGION! You have to know yourself first before talking to others!!!! READ YOUR HISTORY FROM MANEY SOURCES!!!!!! --46.195.247.213 (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC) 46.195.247.213 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.195.247.213 (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Zazas aren't Kurds

The sentence "Almost all speakers of the Zaza language consider themselves as Kurd" is not true. Most of the Zaza People don't consider themselves as Kurds, only those who are active in Kurdish politics. Please do a correction. Source: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/dimli and: P. A. Andrews: Ethnic Groups in the Republic of Turkey. 1989, Wiesbaden. --Asmeno (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Who are those writers/linguists below?

• Şukrî Atîk (Gimgim)
• Saît Aydogmuş (Pîran)
• Osman Aytar (Sêwregi)
• Serdar Bedirxan (Pîran)
• Yildiray Beyazgul (Gimgim)
• Aydin Bîngol (Gimgim)
• Munzur Çem (Dêrsim)
• Hûmanê Çîyan (Depe)
• Memo Darêz (Bongilan)
• Haydar Diljen (Sêwregi)
• Ehmedê Dirihî (Çewlîg)
• Nîhat Elî (Sêwregi)
• J. Îhsan Espar (Pîran)
• Nevzat Gedîk (Gimgim)
• Huseyîn Girmit (Erzingan)
• Cemîl Gundogan (Dêrsim)
• Lerzan Jandîl (Gimgim)
• Wisif Kaymak (Pîran)
• Elîf Kiliç (Dêrsim)
• Çeko Kocadag (Gimgim)
• Huseyîn Kulu (Dêrsim)
• Seyîdxan Kurij (Çewlîg)
• Roşan Lezgîn (Licê)
• M. Malmîsanij (Pîran)
• Selîm Mûrat (Pali)
• Mehmud Nêşite (Licê)
• Hamdî Ozyurt (Gimgim)
• Cemal Pîranij (Pîran)
• Robîn Rewşen (Licê)
• Kamer Soylemez (Dêrsim)
• Mehmet Taş (Dêrsim)
• Kazim Temurlenk (Dêrsim)
• Îshak Tepe (Modan/Motkan)
• Harun Turgut (Pali)
• Şukrî Urgun (Hêni)
• Muzafer Xeylanij (Pali)
• Suleyman Yilmaz (Pîran)
• Orhan Zoxpayij (Çewlîg)

All of them are Zaza Kurds and they are not politicians. They are just writers/linguist who try to protect their lanaguage and all of them consider themselves as KURD! They have a group for protect Zaza culture. Here you can look at their website. You can check their several work for zazaki. Some extra link in english. --Gomada 19:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

since zazas are proven to be people different than kurds with different language. i changed the introduction. most zaza may consider themselve as kurds but they are assimilated. this is the proper description of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.192.204.251 (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

To verify this, we'll need you to provide sources. I think it's safe to say so based on this talk page, and the irrelevance of many of the sources that are that the previous "almost all" is certainly wrong, and "most" is questionable. --Quintucket (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Who proved that Zazas arent Kurd? If zazas are different nation, why there is no a seperated zaza culture before 100 years ago? The first book in zaza language was named as Mewlida Kirdî , so, it means Kurdish Mawlid. i think, this is enough proof that, zaza are real kurds.--Gomada (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotection needed?

This article has been the target of a number of new editors (or IPs) who revert without getting consensus for their changes. Does anyone think that it's time to semiprotect the article? EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

After attempting a revision of the article to something less awful than it was the last time I've looked over it, I decided to go over individual contributions. I don't think that semi-protecting the article will help. The problem is that, for some reason, this article is a magnet for ethnic bickering, and unlike in the Balkans articles, where there are plenty of uninvested editors with an interest, this article seems to draw mainly passing editors on RC patrol and invested editors with a POV.

Of course none of the POV-pushers are actually providing any serious research about what the Zazas consider themselves, and none of them provide information on what most readers are likely to be actually interested in, such as Zaza history, food, and culture. Instead we have people noting that Zaza is a Kurdish language (So what? The English and Irish speak the same language; the important point is self-designation), that Turkish intelligence supports anything that might undermine Kurdish nationalism (big surprise), appeals to authority, unsourced statements, and people just throwing up their hands and saying "well, who can really know?"

It might be worth trying semi-protection; many articles have been protected for less. Unfortunately I don't think semi-protection will help much; there have been too many autoconfirmed users who are part of the problem. Frustrating as it is, we simply need to try to improve the article and deal with the POV-pushers as they come. —Quintucket (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As i see, this fight will not end. This is not just a simple article. Because, each person who tries to impose thier idea on other, come here and change the article. This political fight arise from politics of turkish government and some supporters from Iran. The main purpose is to divide and control Kurds. I think, we cant force people to choose their identity. We have to leave it to zaza people and mostly to Zazas who creates culture of Zaza people. There is a group of Zaza authors, linguists named Vate. All members of this organization are Zaza. This organization creates almost all literature of Zaza language. They have researches about Zaza history etc. They have magazine and newspaper (in zazaki language) too. I think, its better to listen to these people. Because, they are Zaza and they create their own culture. Therefore, they are authorized people about identity of Zazas. Here Zaza people, the main idea of this authorized zaza organization. (Btw, that website belongs them) --Gomada (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

ZAZA are Kurds!

Since when did the zaza Kurdish dialect become a seperate ethnicity? I cant believe the word Kurd isnt mentioned in this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.232.216 (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Zaza nationalists are running overtime on Wikipedia. This article is 100% POV, no mention of Kurds proves it.--Bijikurdistan (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the very notion of that the zazas are separate from the kurds is very recent (one has only to look at historic sources, for example from the national movements started by "zazas" during the 20th century, they clearly consider themselves to be kurds) and more importantly led by a minority of zazas, while the broad majority consider them selves to be kurds. Wikipedia has become —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.150.58 (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

scientifically it is not important how they consider themsel. from a social point of view you may be right, but that is another issue. zazas are ethnically a separate group. for that matter there are also kurds that consider themselves as turks and we don't call kurds turk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.192.222.38 (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Please before repeating empty phrases again and again show us sources which do confirm what you say. I had a long discussion about this issue with one of your kind and when it came to collect sources all of you guys were silent and the Admins and I made us the effort. And now you come here and want to discuss about the credibility of the work to which 3 Admins contributed?

It indeed fascinates me everytime when I read that still some people claim that in scientific view are not Kurds. While almost all important ethnologists, linguists and historians agree on one point. That Zaza (in real name Dimli or Kird) are one Group which belong to the Kurdish ethnicity. And its more than impudence that you come here and think you could decide what people are. You say its unimportant what the majority of Zaza think about themselves? Have you ever heard about human rights? Wikisupporting (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that at the moment I'm concerned about your use of "almost all." "Many" I can absolutely believe based on what I've seen, but "most" takes a high standard of proof, and "almost all" an even higher one. Are you up to that?

Now, back to the main point: it's not Wikipedia's business to take sides on an issue of self-identification. Providing that there are multiple verifiable sources to support it, we need to accept that some people claim to be members of an ethnic group. And providing that reliable sources claim the ethnicity is manufactured, we can cover that too. At the same time, we need to avoid giving undue weight to fringe beliefs, or to one side of a reasonably balanced debate.

I've asked for this article to be unprotected, because I feel that it treats all non-admin users like children, and I know that as adults, we can resolve this issue as long as we try to remain verifiable, neutral, and fair, and as long as we try to assume good faith all around.

Now honestly, at this point, I honestly don't have a clue whether or not the Zaza are Kurds. Since I'm ignorant, I need some help, and this means that I need you to explain your viewpoint to me. It would help if rather than long walls of text, you would try to concisely point me to some sources you believe you support your point, so we can discuss them.

I look forward to working with you, Quintucket (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Quintucket, you can read it up in many of the sources I have added. Most sources, be it Ludwig Paul, Van Bruinessen, Ferdinan Hennerbichler or Malmisanij agree on the point that Zaza nationalism is mostly a diaspora phenomena and "most" of its few supporters are living in the diaspora. However such a "Kurdish-Zaza" separation does not exist in Turkey. They consider themselves naturally as Kurdish or part of the Kurdish movement. Even the Turkish state considers Zazaki as a Kurdish dialect though some circles in Turkish intelligence services are trying to create divisions. The only Kurdish Channel in Turkey TRT 6 is broadcasting in three Kurdish Dialects Kurmanji/Zazaki/Sorani. Wikisupporting (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

And also dont get me wrong for not answering you for such a long time but we had a very long discussion about this. There was another user who opposed my views which I generally underlined with sources. Than fortunately a few admins joined our dispute and asked for sources. Well while the admins and I made ourselves the work to search up for sources, this user who opposed me and permanently accused me and the sources as trollish, disappeared out of sudden when it came to collecting the sources. And I think everything was already explained very well you can read it up. Zazaki might be classified by some linguists as a non Kurdish(Kurmanji) dialect, yet language and ethnicity do not go hand in hand. And also there are some new sources which I might add the coming weeks. Its a co-work between Pr. Gernot Windfuhr, one of the best (in my opinion the best) linguists of our time and Dr Ferdinand Hennerbichler. I think its called "the ethnic origin of the Kurds". Gernot Winfuhr as many other linguists has started to dismiss the "Parthian origin" of Zazaki and "Other" Kurdish dialects. When I own this great work I will post some of it. Wikisupporting (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

for user: HistoryofIran and others

Before you directly come to delete sources. Disscuss it here. Thanks--Gomada (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Full protection until the end of the month

Or sooner if the differences can be worked out. A couple of notes on sources. Usenet groups or forums are absolutely not acceptable as sources. Citations need to give full details - for books, the name of the book, author, publisher, year published, and the relevant page numbers. Scribd.com should not be used as it contains copyvio. I noted that the source martin.vanbruinessen/personal/publications/Bruinessen_Ethnic_identity_Kurds.pdf had it moved so that it backed a statement by Ludwig Paul, although Van Bruinessen doesn't mention Paul. Either bad editing or vandalism, I can't tell which.

Anyway, sort it out.

If you have a minor non-contentious edit you wish made, read Wikipedia:Edit requests and make an edit request. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

And please, folks, you need to have read your sources. If all you can see is a snippet, don't use it. Dougweller (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

One other note - there is in fact a disagreement over whether the Zaza are Kurds - a disagreement that should be reflected in the article in line with our policy at WP:NPOV. The article should not take sides where there is a disagreement, it should just reflect what reliable sources (see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY say about the subject. Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Zazas, Goranis, Lurs, Yazidis, etc. are not Kurds!

We Kurds are divided into three groups; Kurmanj, Soran, Lak. Others are not Kurds. Zazaki and Gorani are separate languages as all of us know. Needless to say that Lurs are much more close to Persian than Kurds( They speak a Southwestern Iranian language while Kurdish language is categorized as northwestern) On the other hand, the Yazidis are "Kurdish-speaking" people who have their own ethnic identity. Language and ethnicity are different concepts. For instance; South Americans (e.g. Mexicans) speak Spanish and are called wrongly "Hispanics", "Latins", etc that refer to Latin people of South Europe such as Spanishs, Italians, Catalans and so on. But in fact, they are indigenous people of South America that have nothing to do with Indo-European Latins. It is the same for Yazidis. Regards... Shaushka (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

We dont create articles (in Wikipedia) according to our own point of view.--Gomada (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not my point of view. This is/they are "modern" scholar's poin of view/views. Ask first, write next! Shaushka (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Then show us your sources of "modern" scholars!? There are already dozens of sources in articles. Dont you accept them?--Gomada (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

They are old, inelaborate sources. I'll show you the new, comprehensive sources if you wait. But now, I have no time to do it. Regars...Shaushka (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You dont really read the sources. One of sources is Mehemed Malmîsanij. You can read and then say old or modern. All of sources are from modern scholars.--Gomada (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Mehemed Malmisanij is not objective and reliable source for these issues. Shaushka (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? :) He is the Zaza, he is linguist but you decide that he is not reliable source? :) Ok, sorry but i cant waste my time anymore.--Gomada (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

He is the Zaza, yes. He is a Kurdish-nationalist Zaza. And that's the reason why he is not reliable. Go read Ebubekir Pamukçu (he is also the Zaza) Shaushka (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Once Again: Zazas are not Kurds !!

Like I said once: The sentence "Almost all speakers of the Zaza language consider themselves as Kurd" is not true. Most of the Zaza People don't consider themselves as Kurds, only those who are active in Kurdish politics. Please do a correction. Source: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/dimli and: P. A. Andrews: Ethnic Groups in the Republic of Turkey. 1989, Wiesbaden

Gomada, what will you say to the 80.000 Kurdish village protectors who are fighting against the PKK and who see themselves as a part of the Turkish nation? Is this really a objective criteria? I can also make you al list of manz Zaza authors who don't see themselves as Kurds. --Asmen (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

ZAZAs are NOT Kurds

I myself as a Zaza would never call myself a kurd. There might be people who refer to themself as Kurd but that is not the case for all. We don't even understand our languages. In fact there are also Zazas who consider themself as Turks, the most famous one was Ziya Goekalp, a turkish-zaza nationalist. This article is far away from being scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.240.173.179 (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This Topic Needs Protection Again

Since the protection has been removed people start to rewrite this article as they wish to. Now Zaza people are represented as Kurdish people and their language as a dialect. This is absolutely nonsense! ZonêMa (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis and Zaza awareness.

many Zazas are aware that they are not kurds, i would suggest that the text about the ethnogenesis shoulg be changed. Zazas don't call themself as kurds, they call themself Zaza. they clearly make this dinstinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.240.58.159 (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The ridiculous amount of references in the lede

The lede of this article is a classic example of citation overkill, and leads me to question the validity of the statements rather than enforcing my trust in them. What is the reason for this? Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• "leads me to" seems a bit weasely to me. Please name individual citations that you have a problem with. Gregkaye (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ithinkicahn Take a look at the edit summaries around my last edit, and the difference between my last edit and the current state of the article[2] - there is continual nationalistic edit warring on this page about the Zaza ethnic identity. I have no idea at the moment if the sources even say what the text says. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Each user has changed article as they want, i reverted to version of 5 January. I hope, the users can disscuss here and then we can have a better article. Thanks--Gomada (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do not do that. You do not WP:OWN this article, and it's inappropriate to mass-revert multiple editors' work. If you have a dispute about specific edits made, then perhaps revert those specific changes (not everything done by the editor that made the change you object to). Given how contentious this article is, and everything in it being subject to WP:ARBAA2, it's better to raise disputes on the talk page and flag them (e.g. with {{citation needed}} or some other inline cleanup or dispute template), rather than revert.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: He did it, see [3]. I missed it. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Derp. Well, I'm disinclined to be a hypocrite and revert the revert; I'm sure the article will lurch along, back and forth, and hopefully actually incrementally improving despite that setback. I am liable to ask for some WP:AE people to watchlist this page, because there's an awful lot of partisan editwarring and POV-pushing going on here. Someone who knows this material better may want to look through the mass-revert and see what what deleted that has sources and isn't WP:ADVOCACY and restore those parts, piecemeal.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Request to change name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved: no consensus. You may want to clarify and propose again. Ground Zero | t 01:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Zazaki Zaza people → Zaza Kurds – The article keeps getting vandalised by people that claim Zazakis aren't Kurds. Therefore I propose that the name of the article should be changed to Zaza Kurds. --Relisted. DrKiernan (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC) --Ahmetyal (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Note: This will also affect History of the Zaza people and perhaps other articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Note: This page was preemptively moved from Zazaki to Zaza people.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC) No, it wasn't; I confused myself.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Note Zazaki is a redirect page to Zazaki language. The Zazaki page has had two edits and has not been vandalised. Would appreciate clarification of the request idea from Ahmetyal. What a waste of time. TY Dougweller for clearing confusion.
  

Oppose Gregkaye (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• I would support Zaza (Kurdish people), Zaza Kurds sounds like a product of cheese making. Am also aware of WP:PRECISION but sympathise with the identity issue. Gregkaye (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC) apologies for the tongue in cheek comment}}
• First, get the spelling correct; the name has diacritics, and should be Zāzā. I retract that; there doesn't seem to be enough support for this, upon further checking. Second, (to respond to User:Gregkaye, above), no one would confuse them but people who can't spell curd and have never heard of the Kurds, which is a tiny percentage of readers for whom we would never dumb the encyclopedia down. Per WP:AT policy, we don't use parenthetic disambiguation if we can avoid it. So, support Zāzā Kurds or Zāzā people Support Zaza people rename to Zaza Kurds, or retaining Zaza people about equally, and Zazaki continuing to go to the language, but not Gregkaye's "Zaza (Kurdish people)" version (even with diacritics). We wouldn't use that anyway, unless "Zaza (people)" was ambiguous; parenthetical disambiguations are always compressed to pretty much as short as possible, because they're already unnatural and awkward.

  Back to OP: Note that "people keep vandalizing it" (per the nominator) isn't a rename rationale. It's sourced excessively well in the article that the Zāzā "are" (i.e., self-identify, in the main) as Kurds. I think that Zāzā people Zaza people is actually fine, under a WP:COMMONNAME analysis, as most sources refer to them as the Zāzā (rarely I think, in English), Zaza, or by one of their other names, without appending "Kurds" after it. So, "Zāzā [or Zaza] Kurds" isn't any sort of official name, rather it would be a natural (non-parenthetical) disambiguation for WP's own reasons. A disambiguation is needed because the Zazaki language is also often called simply Zaza (or Zāzā). So the question is whether Zāzā Kurds or Zāzā people Zaza Kurds or Zaza people is a better disambiguation. the Kurds version has both brevity and specificity going for it, while the people version is a more typical name for this sort of article.

  PS: I don't see any evidence that majority of the sources, even in English, append a "-s" to the end of the ethnonym, so the informal "Zazas" is out of the question, except as a self-description among the Zāzā diaspora in places where they speak English, French, Spanish or some other language that uses -s plurals and in which Zazas is actually attested at all. I've cleaned up such confusion in the article itself, using Zāzā Zaza for the people and Zazaki for the language (I'm not certain but that may really need to be Zāzāki or Zāzaki, but someone else can look that up).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Revised.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

SMcCandlish ☺. I generally support the use of non standard Latin scripts whereever they are relevant so the input on the use of "Zāzā" is very welcome. If evidence of such use can be found in a government website or similar then WP:OFFICIAL NAME may apply. However, WP:COMMONNAME still states: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. On Google "Zaza Kurds" gets "About 24,400 results" whereas "Zāzā Kurds" gets "No results found for "Zāzā Kurds"". "Zaza people" gets "About 7,310 results" while "Zāzā people" gets: "1 result" We also need to see that "Zazaki" has a substantially different meaning or usage to "Zaza people". If the terms are merely synonymous then a change may do little to solve the stated problem. I will be happy to withdraw my Zaza (Kurdish people) or Zāzā (Kurdish people) suggestion if this can be qualified. Gregkaye (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"Zazaki" gets: "About 969,000 results" but this also relates to the language. Gregkaye (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to revert application of Zāzā throughout the article, because the diacritics don't seem well enough supported offline as actually being in use; my bad. Zazaki does indeed seem to have a substantially different meaning or usage; it's an adjective, and when reruprposed as a noun it refers to the language. It could also be used rather archaically to refer to an individual, in the form "She is a Zazaki", in the same was one may still encounter "He is a Chinese" (i.e. adjectival form used as noun after indefinite object). A problem for the Zaza Kurds case is that it's still not the most common name, but if Zaza people is too vague or otherwise problematic that could be reason enough to buck the commonest name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated SMcCandlish ☺. Lacking additional information I:

Support a change from Zazaki to either Zaza people, Zaza (people) or Zaza (Kurdish people) - but I'm British, what do I know? Gregkaye (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Confused Zazaki is obviously not the name of this article. So why are people suggesting that it be moved from that name to the current name> User:Gregkaye?User:SMcCandlish, when was this page moved other than an earlier move to [zaza Kurds]] in 2006 which was shortly after that turned into a redirect back to this name? Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Confused too: I saw this Rm to move the article from Zazaki to Zaza Kurds but it was at Zaza people so it seemed it must have moved. I thought I checked, but I have 47 windows open... I obviously erred. So, I don't know what's going on either, but the gist of actual discussion is that some people want the article on the Zaza people to be at Zaza people where it is now, others suggest Zaza Kurds, others Zaza (people), Zaza (Kurdish people).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Writing Zazaki instead of Zaza was my fault. --Ahmetyal (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Zaza are Assimilated

if zaza people describe themselves as kurds, we should note that they are assimilated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.77.205.146 (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)