User talk:Vuzorg

Welcome!

Hello, Vuzorg, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Zazaki alphabet, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 13:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vuzorg. You have new messages at Talk:Northern Zazaki.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yes

Yes I do, because other map is incorrect. --MehrdadFR (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Zaza language

Template:Zaza language has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 09:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Kurdish music, you may be blocked from editing. Semsûrî (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answer and previous answers here. Vuzorg (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Semsûrî (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answer and previous answers here. Vuzorg (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Semsûrî (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answer here. Vuzorg (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Vuzorg reported by User:Semsûrî (Result: ). Thank you. Semsûrî (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zazas

Dear Vuzorg, Your talk page looks rather difficult. and I suggest you cool your temper. I do not really understand the issue, I so far haven't found much RS that suggests Zaza's are not Kurds. I and Semsuri have had an extensive and patient interaction with an editor called @Benahol, who was also of the view Zaza are not Kurdish. I believe we are missing a Wikipedia editor interested in the Zazas and have great hopes in you, that you might be the one. But then please calm down, be patient and present good sources. Make it step by step and follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise Chronicle:, thank you so much for your consideration. I made some edits in the Zaza language article and enriched the article. You can easily see in the history of the article, user Semsuri reverted all my edits for a long time without any valid reason. He did the same in other articles related to Zazas/Zaza language. We have discussed the issue on his talk page too and I presented my arguments about the issue, you can see all with taking a look at them. I was finally able to make some edits after a long series of reverting patterns of Semsuri. He previously removed the warning messages on his page and now he has reported me. While the Zazas are considered as Kurds by some, a significant amount of the Zazas consider themselves as a separate nation. Despite this fact, in the Zazas article, at the beginning, which is the most important part of the article, Zazas are explained as "Zaza Kurds". On such a controversial issue, it is not encyclopedic to present definitive statements such as "Zazas Kurds", "are often described as Zaza Kurds by scholars" or "Zazas generally consider themselves as Kurds (with only one source without any broad sociological or ethnological research), as if they were the only truth. There is also a lot of research that disagrees with that. It is not scientific, academic and encyclopedic to present only one view as the only truth in the content of the article. Yours sincerely. Vuzorg (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Zaza people from the Ottoman Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:Zaza people from the Ottoman Empire indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, hello, I created that category for Ottoman-era Zaza literary figures like Ahmed el-Khasi and Osman Esad Efendi. However, user Semsûrî you can see on my talkpage persistently removes the category and word Zaza even though the literary figures are ethnic Zaza. They also represent Zazas as Zaza Kurds in the Zaza article. There is a category can be an example of Ottoman Zazas in Turkish Wikipedia,tr:Kategori:Osmanlı Zazaları. In Zaza language wikipedia, those figures are represented as Ottoman Zazas as well. For this reason, in my opinion, the category should remain and should not be deleted. Vuzorg (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Semsûrî (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:19th-century Zaza people

A tag has been placed on Category:19th-century Zaza people indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:20th-century Zaza people

A tag has been placed on Category:20th-century Zaza people indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Zaza people from the Ottoman Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:Zaza people from the Ottoman Empire indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Semsûrî (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Zaza language, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Semsûrî (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You removed all the warnings I previously added to your message page, interestingly. You follow these pages and subjectively undo the slightest change. You must provide a valid reason before reverting sourced changes. What is your reason? Vuzorg (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Zaza language. Semsûrî (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you remove all the warning messages left on your message page by Wiki users and why do you follow all the articles about Zazas and the Zaza language and remove even the slightest changes in these articles, without any analysis and why do you leave warning messages on others users' page while you delete the ones left on your page. This is Cyberbullying, wikimobbing. Vuzorg (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vuzorg! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. I'm not going to get into the edit warring that you are clearly doing. I'll let someone familiar with the topic handle that, but stop marking your edits as minor. Onorem (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me, Onorem. I also do not want to get into an edit war with any user. Vuzorg (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zaza language, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ossetian and Talysh. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2025

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Semsûrî (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

And just after removing the well-sourced statistical content here without any explanation leaving this message here? The source of the contet that you removed without any good reason there clearly states: ... in terms of ethnic distribution (composition), out of 100 people in Türkiye, 79 are Turkish, 14 are Kurdish, 1 is Zaza, 3 are Arab, and 3 are from other ethnic backgrounds. ... The other source used there also does so. There are other sources also which I have not used yet, supply data about the ranking of Zazas among ethnic groups of Türkiye. They provide statistical data and have nothing to do with identity debates.

As you see, my talkpage is almost full of these kind messages of you, accusing me of disruptiveness many times (no concrete data has been provided so far), threatening to block (instead of encouraging and motivating), starting discussion on admins' noticeboard and accusing me of disruptiveness and violation again there (no violation found), removing and reverting my edits without any good reason (just like the recent one you've done and I mentioned it at the beginning of my answer), etc... And after all that, again leaving me a message mentioning that you "have noticed" that I do not use an edit summary.

Well, I appreciate all well-intentioned actions and information. Despite everything you've done that I mentioned above, I appreciate your last message. On the other hand, I would like to draw attention to NPA, CIVILITY, HARASS, especially OWN again. I do not want my talkpage to be this occupied. You can use the "talk" sections of the articles if you notice any problem. Thanks. Vuzorg (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that you are ascertaining that Zazas are an ethnic group with that sentence when that goes against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The article should not state that Zazas are an ethnic group nor that they are Kurds, when there's no consensus in academia. I will once again remove that part, and I encourage you to involve an admin if you believe you are in the right. Semsûrî (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, before anything, for this "my issue is that you are ascertaining that ..." I should make mention of NPA, HARASS, AVOIDYOU, AGF and AOBF again. Before anything, we should assume good faith, istead of accusing users of ascertaining something with anything and accusing others of bad faith. As I mentioned above, these sources only provide statistical data, they do not mention idendtity debates, they do not ascertain anything and have nothing to do with identity debates. Objective and verifiable sources, RS, (particularly the statistical ones) should be presented in the article and after reading it, the audience should decide on the topic who are the Zazas. Well-sourced content should not be censored. And, since I am not the one challenging the source and content and questioning its "deep" meaning and removing the content, I think I am not the one who should involve an admin. For this, JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

Secondly, whether they belong to Kurds, Turks, Persians, Caspians, Parthians or something else, Zazas possess certain instruments that constitute an ethnic group, before anything they have their own language (Zaza language) and actively speak it, they live in a defined geographical area, they have identifiable common cultural and traditional instruments, they share a common, longitudinal history, they are well-known by neighboring peoples and they are considered an ethnic group in studies. Identity debates and constituting an ethnic group are two different things. While they are considered parts of Persian people in some studies and even their languages referred as dialects of the Persian language, especially in Iran, other small Iranian populations like Semnanis, Gilaks, Tats, Achomis, etc. are considered ethnic groups in studies, and in Wikipedia too. For instance, category:Ethnic groups in Iran.

In the case of Zazas, some consider Zazas a distinct ethnic group, some consider them a sub-ethnic group within a larger population (like Kurds or Turks) but whether they are considered a distinct ethnic group or sub-ethnic group belongs to a larger population, in the first phase all consider Zazas an ethnic group and later discuss their possible origin and upper-identity, where do they belong. Constituting an ethnic group as a group of people and belonging to another larger population as an ethnic group are two different phenomena. Despite all this, if we avoid mentioning them an ethnic group, then how else will they be mentioned? Zazas have a population of approximately 2-3 million and thus form the fourth largest "homo sapiens" group in Turkey after Turks, Kurds and Arabs? So referring to Zazas as an ethnic group has a big nothing to do with violating the neutral point of view policy. Whether they belong to the Turks or Kurds or Caspians, at first, Zazas are an ethnic group. Vuzorg (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Vuzorg. Thank you for your work on Northern Zaza. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice start!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Vuzorg. Thank you for your work on Southern Zaza. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice start!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}.

Mariamnei (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note

An editor has brought up some questions regarding the nature of my edits, here. In the interest of transparency, I have addressed these points. To provide further clarity and clarify any potential doubts, my responses, rationales, and the ongoing talk page discussion, here, are provided directly below: Vuzorg (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Please also see WP:ECREXPLAIN. HistoryofIran (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment up above (WP:GS/KURD). HistoryofIran (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC) [reply]

Sure. I understand conflicts in the debate surrounding these issues. I'm just curious, why are you deleting my comments under the talk pages, when "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." (according to WP:GS/KURD)

Am I being disruptive? I hope not. It was only intended to be constructive criticism. Did you not find any merit in my arguments? Kurdanparez (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC) [reply]

I highly appreciate and thank @HistoryofIran for their fight against vandalism.

Just for the record, this has absolutely nothing to do with constructive criticism: Vuzorg seems to have a very biased way of editing, not acknowledging the fact that there are multiple perspectives on the Zaza identity. He has had past issues with edit warring.... This is unfaithful. Exactly which part of these statements is about giving constructive criticism?

Strangely, a user with only 3-4 edits so far is completely familiar with all of Wikipedia's rules and principles, gives advice to experienced users (here) and is completely familiar with my contributions and edits and tries to produce professional-looking articles in their sandbox (even though the content is inaccurate and biased)? Let me address other issues, the well-sourced contents has also been completely removed: here, here, here.

Even though it is thoroughly elaborated in the Zazas article, let me clarify it for interested parties: The Dailam theory has been consistently substantiated over the past 150 years on historical, linguistic, and etymological grounds. The Daylamite conquest of the territories currently inhabited by the Zazas, the robust linguistic affinities between the Zaza language and regional languges spoken in in Daylam such as Tati, Talysh, Gilaki, Mazandarani and the underlying etymological metathesis, constitute compelling evidence supporting the Daylamite theory, which remains extensively documented within Iranological literature. On the other hand, the putative connection between Dunbüli and Dimli, predicated on phonetic resemblance, was extensively analyzed and debunked by Karl Hadank in the early 20th century within his authoritative work on Zaza, Mundarten der Zâzâ. About a century later, Werner also concluded in his work that the potential Dunbuli connection was irrational and its historical basis was very weak. The Kurdish Dunbuli tribe view also fails to provide even a single reason to explain the striking linguistic closeness between the Zaza language and those spoken in the Daylam region, Tati, Talysh, Gilaki, Mazandarani. If the Zazas originated as a faction separated from the Kurdish Dunbuli tribe, assuming that the Zaza population diverged from the Kurdish Dunbuli tribe, how can the profound linguistic proximity between Zazaki and the dialects of the Daylam region be accounted for? Why does the Zaza language exhibit such a close linguistic affinity with the languages spoken in the Daylam region but not so with Kurdish? It is contended that the so-called Dunbuli migration occurred at a much more recent date relative to the Daylamite migration. Given this premise, why does there remain a complete absence of even a single reference within any Zaza tradition regarding the Dunbuli migration, which supposedly transpired at such a comparatively recent period? The so-called Dunbuli migration, cited in the Zazas article as well, relies solely on original research. The so-called Dunbuli migration is unsubstantiated from linguistic, historical, and endogenous Zaza traditional viewpoints. Thus, this perspective fails to qualify even as a fringe theory. Interestingly, attempts by Kurdish authors to substantiate the so-called Kurdish identity of the Zazas through the Kurdish Dunbuli tribe inhabiting the Salmas region instead corroborate the plausible Daylamite origin of the Zazas, given that the historical name of Salmas was Dīlman/Dīlmagān (Dailamite, Dailamites) and the Salmas region was conquered by the Daylamites. Regarding the Northern Zaza dialect and Kirmanjki, Kirmanjki constitutes merely one of the numerous endonyms for Northern Zaza. The dialect is also referred to as Zonê Ma, Kırmancki, So-Bê, Dımılki, Zazaki, Dersimki, Dersimce or Alevice by its speakers. Among contemporary Alevi Zazas, the subgroup currently identifying themselves as Kırmanc and their language as Kırmancki historically defined their identity and linguistic idiom as Dimili rather than Kırmanc. This paradigm is actively reflected in historical nomenclature. For instance, the authors Andranik and Mkrtčʿean, who visited Tunceli and its environs during the final quarter of the 19th century and provided comprehensive ethnographic observations on the regional Zaza population, documented these inhabitants not as Kırmanc but as Dimili (dǝmǝli, dlmikner). Consequently, the designation Kırmanc constitutes a subsequently adopted endonym among the Zaza populations residing in these areas and the same endonym Dimilki is still by northern Alevi Zazas for the Zaza language. Etymologically as well, the word Kirmanjki refers to a livelihood, not an ethnicity, quite the contrary to what you claim. As I stated before on my message page, No user has the right to unjustly/falsely blame other users and waste their time. Vuzorg (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you were attempting to justify your edits (that violated WP:GS/KURD) and was looking for a discussion, which is not really any of that. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC) [reply]

If there are rules, there are rules. I’ll respect that. I was just curious on why you deleted my talk topics. I’ll also give my answer to Vuzorg:

Yeah, I would say it’s constructive. Because I think it is better to acknowledge people’s perspectives rather than going biased.

I’m going to be honest. I’ve read works from people like Hadank. They’re good. But they’re good in the same way that Bohr’s atomic model contributed to more advanced knowledge of atoms, and Darwin contributed to more advanced knowledge of evolution. Both Bohr’s and Darwin’s principles are not 100% correct anymore. They’ve been refined. Corrected. Revised.

There are good arguments for Zazas being Kurds. You have to admit that. There are also good arguments for the contrary. I understand this.

You’re incorporating a gagillion sources that are old works from more than 100 years ago before the advent of new research in linguistics and DNA technology. While I think they are fine sources, you’re going overboard and being biased, because you’re excluding or pushing away sources talking about Zazas as Kurds (!)

What’s funny to me is the bias on Wikipedia in the articles about Zaza people being related to other Northwestern Iranians, literally every group, including Balochis, are mentioned as related, except of course Kurmanj and Sorani Kurds, that are next-door neighbors.

This indirectly contributes to the flawed and racist notion that Kurds are Persian, since Persians are not Northwestern Iranian (and what else would Kurds then be if not NW Iranian?)

You diminish sources of Zazaki people calling themselves “Kirmanc” or “Kird” by adding small disclaimers without ANY sources of documentation.

This indicates that it is not just an issue about Zaza identity, but the manipulation of a knowledge source that students, teachers and a wide variety of different people use to attain more or less real knowledge about a subject. What for? To justify anti-Kurdish sentiment, including anti-Zaza-Kurdish-bias.

This does not mean that I personally get to say what ethnicity Zaza people truly are. But it’s obvious that you aren’t going to be more open-minded about this. Such a long answer you wrote. While I appreciate the time you took to give an answer, you’re actually doing the same thing in the articles. Making a bunch of arguments based on cherrypicked sources.That is called original research. Your application of sources should be more descriptive.

And therefore, I believe it has no place in Wikipedia. Keep it to yourself - you could make a cool website, or a thesis or something. I assume it would be fine in that context. On WP sources from a variety of sources are necessary. Which goes for me too!

I hope you took the time to read. All the best. Kurdanparez (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of the greatest non-answers I have ever heard.

Bohr, DNA technology, atomic model, Darwin, cool website, make a thesis or something??? What has all of this got to do with the Zazas? For "you have to admit it, keep it to yourself, you’re incorporating a gagillion sources.., you aren’t going to be more open-minded about this, you diminish sources... you’re being biased, making a bunch of arguments based on cherrypicked sources, the manipulation of a knowledge source, indirectly contributing to the flawed and racist notion and many others, once and for all, no user has the right to make baseless and unfair accusations against other users. None of these or the previously used expressions have anything to do with making constructive comments. As I assume the violated Wikipedia policies are already understood, I am not listing them one by one here. Theories in linguistics or the social sciences do not have to be addressed using the methods of the natural sciences, nor do they have to align with the methods of the natural sciences. Confusing these realms (linguistics and natural sciences) would demonstrate a profound lack of academic maturity. For nearly 100 years Zaza has been classified as an independent language rather than a dialect of Kurdish or any other language in linguistics and the status of the Zaza language as an independent Western Iranian language has been extensively documented in Iranology. Notwithstanding current linguistic evidence and comprehensive analytical frameworks, some Kurdish writers who continue to postulate Zaza as a Kurdish dialect remain unable to provide a substantiated account of the causal factors and linguistic parameters through which Zaza was disassociated from the Caspian group and reclassified within the Kurdish. If Zaza is a dialect of Kurdish, why does it linguistically align with the Caspian languages located a thousand kilometers away, and even with the more distant Semnani, Aftari, and Sengsari? On what grounds did Zaza develop shared linguistic innovations with Semnani? Why does its grammatical gender system parallel that of Tati? Why are its verb conjugations compatible with Gilaki and Mazanderani? Why do its verbal paradigms correspond with Gilaki and Mazanderani? Despite being spoken in Anatolia, hundreds of kilometers apart, through what mechanisms did Zaza exhibit identical phonological innovations and sound changes parallel to those of the Caspian languages? This is merely one of the reasons why primary emphasis was placed upon the Caspian languages and Caspian provenance, rather than Kurdish, within the respective articles for the Zaza language and the Zaza people. Just for the record, an anonymous user engaged in disruptive editing by persistently removing the content and reverting edits on the Median language (this, this, this, this) and asserting that Kurdish and Balochi are not "Perside". These disruptive edits were partially reverted by HistoryofIran and partially by myself. Exactly one day after June 13, Kurdanparez posted a lengthy, accusatory statement targeting me on the talk page of the Zazas article. And I am quoting Kurdanparez's statement verbatim: "What’s funny to me is the bias on Wikipedia in the articles about Zaza people being related to other Northwestern Iranians, literally every group, including Balochis, are mentioned as related, except of course Kurmanj and Sorani Kurds, that are next-door neighbors. This indirectly contributes to the flawed and racist notion that Kurds are Persian, since Persians are not Northwestern Iranian (and what else would Kurds then be if not NW Iranian?)". I am not accusing anyone; I am just writing to put a similar pattern of behavior on the record. For "...What for? To justify anti-Kurdish sentiment, including anti-Zaza-Kurdish-bias.", this is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand and serves merely as an emotional appeal designed to divert attention from the main argument. No Wikipedia editor possesses the authority to dismiss another by suggesting they establish an independent website or compose a academic thesis. Vuzorg (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The ad hominems are flying around.

First and foremost, I don’t know about any anonymous user. I’m sure there are more people than just me who disagree with your views on the Zazas, but hey, accuse me of something. With your logic, I should assume by your statements that HistoryofIran is a mystical sockpuppet because of your “common pattern of behavior”. But I don’t do that because I have genuine respect to other people. I bet you’ll now complain to him and allege that I accuse him of being a sockpuppet.
Yeah, I genuinely think you are being discriminatory towards Kurmanji and Sorani Kurds. Now would more evidence be better, yeah. It would. And I would certainly hope it makes it more clear that you aren’t discriminating. But I can see right now that you’re purposefully dividing Kurmanj and Zaza history which I don’t think is fair. Anybody with a little bit of a critical mind would understand that. Kurmanji and Sorani are Northwestern Iranian languages and are related to Zazaki more than they are related to Persian. The only reason there is relatively more Persian influence in the language is because of borrowing and linguistic cross-contamination, since Balochis and Kurds in general are a highly migratory people.

Now I want to address the epistemological issue:

Qualitative sciences like linguistics are held to the same standards in terms of the scientific method to other fields of science. Otherwise it wouldn’t make sense for it to be a science.
But they are not held accountable to the same standards, in the same way at least, as quantitative sciences like a lot of natural sciences. This is true. But you’re twisting the argument purposefully, unless you genuinely believe qualitative sciences cannot evolve and build upon past assumptions.
And considering linguistics, which you seem to be very knowledgeable about with your input of sources, you should know by now that linguistics is more and more quantitative. Try taking a look at quantitative methods in linguistics. I’m sure you’ll find a lot of sources about that.

Zaza issue:

From a pure linguistic perspective, no, Zazaki is not a dialect of Kurdish but a Kurdish language, like Gorani is a Kurdish langauge (and Zazaki and Gorani are more related than you think. The sources you mention yourself don’t even refute the notion of a Zaza-Gorani subgroup). We consider Kurdish from an ethnic perspective, similar to how we can call Bantu languages and Khoisan languages African languages, though they may not be related (directly at least… but they are probably not related at all).
From an ethnic perspective, a dialect can be considered a dialect based on shared ethnicity. So yeah, Zazaki would correctly be considered a Kurdish dialect from this perspective. Not because of linguistics, but because of shared culture and ethnic relations.

So last point. There’s nothing emotional about my argument. Describing your seemingly emotionally motivated editing, that is not me being emotional.

I would question my thoughts if you could at least be a bit more including of Kurdish Zaza people. But I won’t because you won’t.

End of discussion. Write all you want. I’ve said what I said and don’t want to waste my time anymore.

Anyway. Wish you all the best. Have a nice day. Kurdanparez (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The truth will always come to light.

I am unsure if the probability of a user, who is very established and has an extremely high number of edits, being a sockpuppet is the same as the probability of two users being sockpuppets, one anonymous and one registered, who suddenly appear without any significant prior edits and make accusations about the same topic. Before defaulting to claims of ad hominem, I encourage you to re-read the discussion. So rather than jumping to conclusions and accusing others of ad hominem, consider reviewing the discussion objectively. Take a step back to look at what you’ve actually written. There is not a single piece of concrete proof. No evidence or argument was provided to counter my questions and arguments. And instead of accusing another user of purposefully twisting the argument one should address their claims with more robust counterarguments. And it is inconsistent to praise my expertise in linguistics while simultaneously questioning the accuracy of my contributions. And let's hear your explanation, explain it to all of us, if the Zaza language is a dialect of Kurdish (or a Kurdish language), why does it linguistically align with the Caspian languages located a thousand kilometers away? And even with the more distant Semnani, Aftari, and Sangsari? On what grounds did Zaza develop shared linguistic innovations with Semnani? Why does its grammatical gender system parallel that of Tati? Why are its verb conjugations compatible with Gilaki and Mazandarani? Why do its verbal paradigms correspond with Talysh and Aftari? Despite being spoken in Anatolia, hundreds of kilometers apart, through what mechanisms did Zaza exhibit identical phonological innovations and sound changes parallel to those of the Caspian languages? While the Zazas were living in Eastern Anatolia in isolation, did they establish a linguistic affinity by communicating via smoke signals with the Semnanis, Gilakis, and Mazandaranis hundreds of kilometers away?

From a linguistic standpoint, Zaza, Gurani, and Luri are classified as independent Western Iranian languages rather than constituents of the Kurdish language. Zaza has no shared historical phonological and morphological innovations with the Kurdish languages. No shared linguistic innovations exist to substantiate the classification of Zaza within the Kurdish dialect continuum. Comparative linguistic analysis yields no unifying features that would categorize Zaza as a subset of the Kurdish linguistic group. And, contrary to other Iranian languages, Zaza and Gurani share no jointly developed linguistic innovations that link them together. Historically, some scholars relied on isolated hypotheses, such as the shared development of the labial-velar approximant /w/ from the Proto-IE *sw-> NW Iranian wx- (> w-), SW Iranian xw-. However, this assertion faces two primary counterarguments: first, the phonological shift toward /w/ is not exclusive to Zaza and Gurani, as it is also attested in Balochi and specific dialects of Sivandi. Second, the /w/ phoneme lacks universal distribution across the Gurani dialect continuum, with certain dialects exhibiting divergent phonological developments. Furthermore, the passive morphemes (-i, -y) and the causative suffix (-n), predicated on the assumption of a shared innovation, are also typologically attested in other Caspian and Central Iranian languages. While Gurani exhibits a present indicative paradigm analogous to New Persian (Perside), Zaza displays an identical present tense inflectional paradigm to that of the Caspian languages. On the other hand, while the southern dialects of the Tati language exhibit present tense morphology closer to Gurani, its northern dialects, such as Harzandi, demonstrate closer affinities to Zaza and the Caspian languages. Furthermore, the word for "three", a critical lexical item within the core vocabulary, manifests as reflexes of "hire" in the northern dialects, aligning with Zaza, whereas the southern dialects utilize reflexes of "se", corresponding to Persian. And, substantial systematic differences exist across various other components of the two languages' grammars. In other words, Zaza shares shared linguistic innovations with specific Caspian languages that are entirely absent in Gurani. Conversely, Tati, another Caspian language, exhibits certain shared traits with Gurani that are absent in Zaza and the rest of the Caspian group. While grammatical gender has undergone attrition in many Gurani dialects, mirroring the morphological loss found in Persian, this feature is robustly preserved in Zaza, alongside several Tati dialects of the Caspian region and the Semnani languages. Notably, although Talysh exhibits a close genetic relationship with Tati, it has entirely lost its grammatical gender system. Additionally, Zaza shares highly specific lexical items with Tati and Talyshi, spoken thousands of kilometers away, which are entirely absent from Gurani and all other Iranian languages.

For "We consider Kurdish from an ethnic perspective..." Sorry, the scientific consensus does not validate this perspective, nor does scientific methodology operate in such a manner. Those who employ these methods are certain Kurdish writers endeavoring to incorporate Zaza, Gorani, and Luri within the Kurdish language in some manner. The linguistic classification of the Zaza langauge is clear: it is not a dialect of Kurdish or any other language, but a distinct and independent Iranian language in its own right. This status has been proven repeatedly, remaining clear and well-established in Iranology and general linguistics for decades. Resorting to ethnological or sociological perspectives to deny or misrepresent plain linguistic reality lacks any linguistic basis. Linguistic taxonomy operates on the basis of linguistic methodology.

Rather than accusing another user of racism, discrimination, or the distortion of linguistic data, objective scientific evidence must be provided. Character assassination based on emotional rhetoric should not be achieved so effortlessly. Vuzorg (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've also read Paul Ludwig, my friend. But we can discuss this on some other platform more productively. Only if you want to, of course. Now I don't know if it's ethical to ask that in a Wikipedia-context. I don't want to break any rules.

Anyway. There's again no benefit to these discussions being done here. It's just so tiresome to see people's identities being invalidated because of yap-and-dap. You don't get to say what many people in Dersim say about themselves. You don't get to say what many people in Çewlig or Xarpet say about themselves. If they call themselves Kurdish and identify as such, it is irrelevant to bring up linguistics to "refute" this point.

You can't refute self-perception. But you can bring this up to influence people in a certain direction. And this is what I see as a problem. You're using this place as a platform to influence Zazaki-speaking people to give up their Kurdishness. That's problematic, because Wikipedia is not normative as far as I know.

When you influence people like that, using platforms as puppets for a very one-sided ideology, it's per definition clear that you have a motive do so. Therefore answering my points about Kurds in an objective, open-minded way, recognizing different perspectives, would be contradictory to the purpose of you doing what you do.

This is not character assassination. Anyone, even Zazas who do not identify as Kurds, but who have a grain of open-mindedness, would recognize the fact that you're distorting truth.

Distorting truth by moving Kurmanji so that it doesn't lie next to Zazaki in language tables.

Distorting truth by inserting the Zazaki language into the headline of every Northwestern Iranian language except Kurdish, even though this could wait a few paragraphs.

Distorting truth by inserting an obnoxious amount of sources that don't even conclude in the same way as you do, and inserting paragraphs without ^{[citation needed]}.

Distorting truth by deleting sources attesting to the Kurdishness of Zaza people

So tell me again. Is this really character assassination based on "emotions"? Kurdanparez (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Parthian, Tati, Talysh and the Caspian languages exhibit greater phonological proximity to Zaza, even including identical phonological developments, on what grounds should Kurdish, a language phonologically and linguistically more distant, be positioned immediately adjacent to Zaza in the phonological table?
Despite extensive literature demonstrating that Zaza is linguistically distinct from Kurdish and that a significant portion of the Zaza population identifies as Zaza but not Kurdish, Zaza, along with Gurani and Luri, is still categorized under the Kurdish languages in the Kurdish languages article, as if they were dialects or variants of Kurdish, while dozens of studies proving their status as independent languages?? Read Kurdish languages.
It would be highly beneficial to thoroughly review the provided sources prior to offering further commentary. All submitted contributions are rigorously documented and supported by credible references
Accusing me of deleting content without any good reason or in a manipulative way is baseless.

Numerous individuals among the Zaza, Gurani, Luri, and Laki populations do not identify as Kurdish, maintaining that they constitute separate peoples with distinct linguistic, cultural, and historical identities. Interestingly, addressing this topic often results in being labeled as anti-Kurdish.

And, your statement "Anyone, even Zazas who do not identify as Kurds.." implicitly reinforces my argument that self-identification as Kurdish is not universal among the Zaza population. Meaning, there are Zazas who identify strictly as Zaza but not Kurdish. Constantly reiterating the so-called Kurdishness in every sentence, as though the Zaza population universally identifies as Kurdish, is both illogical and constitutes undue weight. Indeed, numerous academic studies demonstrate that a significant portion of the Zaza population does not identify as Kurdish, maintaining a distinct Zaza identity instead. What should we say regarding the dozens of linguistic studies establishing Zaza as an independent language, alongside multiple ethno-sociological works demonstrating that the Zazas are a distinct ethnic group?

Have you ever encountered a Kurmanji or Sorani individual who claimed they aren't Kurdish but a distinct people from the Kurds? Most likely not. In contrast, Zaza, Gurani, Luri, and Laki people persistently emphasize their own distinct identities, separate from the Kurds. Reflecting on this distinction is crucial to understanding the core of the issue.

I have yet to receive a response to my previous question. Could you clarify why Zaza shares such a close proximity with Caspian languages in terms of morphosyntactic structure, core lexicon, and diachronic development, if it is supposedly a dialect of Kurdish or a Kurdish language? The Gilaki and Persian languages are distinct, yet their speakers have shared the same regions for a thousand years, resulting in profound cultural and historical interaction. Does this make Gilaki a dialect of Persian, and Gilakis a subgroup of Persians? Likewise, Ukrainians and Russians have highly similar languages and cultures, does that make Ukrainians Russian? Vuzorg (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Germans originally had dozens of dialects. Many of them were not related to each other. In fact people from one side rarely understood people from the other side. Guess what? They’re still Germans. They’re even genetically farther away from each other than Zazas and Kurmanj/Soranis.

So even if Zazaki demonstrates linguistic similarity with Caspian languages (which doesn’t even amount to mutual intelligbility, really), it doesn’t make the language less Kurdish.

Nobody, whether Kurmanj, Soran, Goran, etc., has ownership of the term Kurd. It doesn’t even mean Kurmanj. It just means Kurdish. Historically it is argued be to a past identifier for a wider variety of people, perhaps some greater clans, that with time became genetically very similar.

Now, back to ethnicity. You say a “significant” proportion. Significant could mean 1%. It could mean 5%. It could mean 10%. It’s all contextual. But … even if a majority of Zazas identify as only Zaza, the fact that there are Zaza Kurds, real human beings with lives, that identify as Kurds, some even EXCLUSIVELY as Kurds (yes, a “significant” (as you say) amount of Kirmanjki people REJECT the Zaza term), you can’t just define their identity.

You say:

” Have you ever encountered a Kurmanji or Sorani individual who claimed they aren't Kurdish but a distinct people from the Kurds?”

Yes, they exist. Or have existed. Some Sorani-speaking people have even considered Kurmanj a relatively negative term. But this isn’t majority opinion at all.

You say:

” In contrast, Zaza, Gurani, Luri, and Laki people persistently emphasize their own distinct identities, separate from the Kurds. Reflecting on this distinction is crucial to understanding the core of the issue. “

Let me reflect… one second.

What?? So Selahattin Demirtaş says he’s separate from the Kurds? There are no Kurds in Hawraman? Hawraman is literally not known as a part of Kurdistan or what? The northern Bakhtiari Lurs don’t consider themselves as Kurds at all?

So you’re saying Shaikhbizaini (Laki) people “persistently emphasize their own distinct identities?” even though they literally held the largest Newroz celebration in Central Anatolia? (And imagine they’ve been separate from their original homeland for at least 300 years yet they still identify as Kurds?!)

You’re lying. And you so obviously know it. Kurdanparez (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently either didn't understand my arguments or you simply refuse to understand the science. The position you have presented diverges significantly from empirical evidence. During the Middle Ages, despite the existence of hundreds of small principalities, duchies and diverse dialects, a distinct sense of German collective identity, Germanic consciousness, prevailed. Crucially, this consciousness was not predicated upon modern political boundaries of Germany or a standardized language; rather, it was rooted in a shared ethnic lineage, historical heritage, and linguistic commonality. In medieval Europe, modern territorial borders and the concept of the "nation-state" did not exist; instead, primary political allegiance was pledged to localized authorities, such as a duke, count, or municipality. Nevertheless, these regional loyalties did not preclude individuals from maintaining a distinct ethnic and cultural identity as "German." Despite the existence of distinct regional dialects, the constituent populations designated their vernacular as "Deutsch", thereby establishing this linguistic boundary as the primary foundation of their collective "identity". But that was not the case for the definition of the term "Kurd". The term Kurd did not represent a common identity or consciousness; rather, it was an exonym. The transformation of the term Kurd into a category of collective identity was a much later development.

"So even if Zazaki demonstrates linguistic similarity with Caspian languages (which doesn’t even amount to mutual intelligbility, really), it doesn’t make the language less Kurdish." There is absolutely no sense in this explanation. You have failed to account for the close affinity between Zaza and the Caspian languages regarding their morphosyntactic structure, core lexicon, and phonological and diachronic development.

Several field studies demonstrate that the vast majority of the Zaza population do not identify as Kurds, but rather maintain a distinct and separate Zaza identity; a selection of these studies are: Hennerbichler (2004), Keskin (2025), Aratemür (2025), Torgut (2019), Rençber (2013), Çetkin (2016), Tasci (2010), Baydaş (2022), Selcan (1994), Bozbuğa 2019, Kaya (2010). Numerous other studies on this subject are also available in the literature. These are among the studies establishing that the Zazas constitute a separate Zaza identity, rather than being Kurdish: Çağlayan (1995, 2020), Gündüzkanat (1997), Kehl-Bodrogi (1998), Aktaş (1999), Arakelova (1999), Tahta (2002), Taşçı (2006), Fırat (2010), Aratemür (2011, 2014, 2025), Werner (2012, 2015, 2017, 2021), Schulz-Goldstein (2013), Trompf (2013), Arslan (2016), Hakobian (2017), Maria Philipp (2017), Bozbuğa (2019), Törne (2020), Keskin (2025). These represent some of the studies establishing that the Zazas constitute a separate Zaza identity, rather than being Kurdish and establishing the Dailamite origins of the Zazas: Mkrtčʿean (1898), Andranik (1900), Schrijnen (1921), Christensen (1921), Hadank (1930), Minorsky (1932), Шалджян (1941), Henning (1954), MacKenzie (1961), Lockwood (1972), Bosworth (1977), Windfuhr (1989, 2009), Cereti (1995), Asatrian (1995), Arakelova (1999), Paul (1998), Shapira (1999), Koymaz (2005), Russell (2011), Shoup (2011), Bozbuğa (2014), Hakobian (2017), Werner (2017), Grigorian (2018), Williams, (2020). How can we account for the large number of academic sources that explicitly differentiate the Zazas from the Kurdish population? The guy called Demirtaş is simply a politician, nothing more, just like their peers and other politicians. I leave the question of how reliable a politician’s statements can be to the judgment of the community. The endonym "Kirmanjki" is only one among "several" endonyms for the northern dialect of Zaza. It is used exclusively by a certain part of the Alevi Zazas who speak Northern Zaza, not by all of them. The dialect is also referred to as Zonê Ma, Kırmancki, So-Bê, Dımılki, Zazaki, Dersimki, Dersimce or Alevice by its speakers. And, of greater significance, those within the Zaza community who self-identify as "Kirmanj" explicitly distinguish themselves from Sunni and Alevi Kurds, whom they categorize as "Khurr" and "Kirdas", while designating the Kurdish language as "Kirdaski", not Kirmanjki. Furthermore, despite its very limited application, the endonym "Kird" is employed only by a small number of the Zazas for self-identification, whereas they classify neighboring Kurdish populations as separate entities under the exonyms "Kurmanj" and "Kırdasi", not "Kird". Irrespective of their self-designation, the Zaza population has consistently differentiated themselves from their neighboring ethnic groups—namely the Kurds, Turks, Turkmens, Armenians, and Syriacs—across all regions of cohabitation. Crucially, the endonyms utilized by the Zazas for self-identification have never been extended to encompass any of these distinct populations.

The portrayal of the Zaza, Gorani, Lur, and Lak populations as Kurdish originates primarily from Kurdish writers and certain external authors unfamiliar with the region, rather than from the self-identification of these populations themselves. And Nowruz does not belong exclusively to any single ethnic group, including the Kurds. Vuzorg (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, I would like to apologize if I am being rude. I would really like for this to be a good and open-minded debate.

What I would say is the fact that you don't even recognize sources like Demirtaş, who is a very popular Kurdish politician and has been jailed because of a protest he encouraged people to join, with the unfortunate consequence of being accused of murder (unfortunate in my opinion).

Such a popular politician, who has been a presidential candidate several times, been in TV multiple times, does not have irrelevant opinions if he is talking about his own identity. If he explicitly states that Zazas are Kurds, then this should be recognized and not diminished. Identity is not a matter to discuss really, this should be his own judgement.

You're saying: "I leave the question of how reliable a politician’s statements can be to the judgment of the community." Exactly! This is what I agree with also. You just don't leave it to the judgement of the community, however, if we don't count all sources and nuances.

Furthermore, you say "The endonym "Kirmanjki" is only one among "several" endonyms for the northern dialect of Zaza.". "Kirmanjki" means the language of the "Kirmanj" in other words "Kurmanj". Kurmanj up until like 30 years ago meant Kurd in general. I still use the word Kurmanj instead of Kurd in my own dialect, and we call Soranis, Zazas etc. all Kurmanj with an izafe like "Kurmancê Soranî, Kurmancê Zazakî" etc. Generally speaking, the word Kurmanj was used by all Kurds speaking the Northern Kurdish dialect. When we see that there are Zazas calling themselves Kurmanj also, it indicates self-identification with Kurdishness. It does not matter whether it is only 10% - if some Zazas do, then we should recognize that.

You say: "Furthermore, despite its very limited application, the endonym "Kird" is employed only by a small number of the Zazas for self-identification". Generally it is the Zazas of Diyarbakir/Amed and Bitlis/Mush that call themselves Kird. This indicates that Kurdish identity is not only among the Kirmanjkis of Dersim, but also spread around in the Zazaki-speaking realm.

Khurr does not mean Kurd either. "Khurr" comes from "gavur" which means infidel. I think in this context it is more appropriate to say a person who is not a member of the sect (either Sunni or Alevi). This is common among other ethnic groups as well. You should know that Alevi Turks have been discriminated by other Turks, but it doesn't mean that they are not Turkish, even though genetically speaking, they have a significant amount of Armenian, Iranian and interestingly Pashtun DNA (Which may be due to Qizilbash origins, perhaps).

Kirdas does not exclusively mean Kurd either. Some Zazas call their language "Kirdki" and the Kurmanji language "Kirdaski". The -as ending is unclear. It's probably not random, and likely refers to some tribal or religious element, but we can't immediately know.

The term Kurdish is not a modern term either, and similar to German principalities, there are a lot of examples of historically Kurdish principalities that existed in the boundaries of modern Kurdistan, including predominantly Zaza areas. Kurds are also a highly tribal people but less organized than what we see from the Holy Roman Empire, for example, in German history.

Examples of principalities include the Emirate of Çemishgezek, the Donboli, the Palu Emirate, the Bulduqani, the Milan and the Koçgiri. These are also described in the Sherefname of Sheref Xan.

Tribes were also explicitly called Kurdish with the "title" of "Ekrad". Examples of this include in Evliya Chelebis "Seyahatname": "Ahali-yi Bingöli beyan eder: Evvela Ekrad-ı Zaza ve Lolo ve İzolî ve Yezîdî ve Haltî ve Çekvanî ve Şîqaqî ve Kîkî ve Pîsyanî ve Mudkî..."

From this quote, we can see that the Ekrad were almost exclusively speakers of Northern Kurdish and Zazaki and the "Zaza" and "Lolo" likely indicate separate tribes with "Lolo" being "Lolan". "Zaza" probably stems from the term "Zawzan al-Akrad" (The Kurdish highlands) which has been described by Hemavî and Ibnul Esir. Zaza is also a term used for a select group of people in the Kurdistan Region (of Iraq).

In my understanding, this is not a derogatory word meaning "stutterer" or something else. It is likely an exonym or endonym for a specific tribe in some way, but not with an inherently negative meaning, though it may have acquired that later. And there is no documentation of it meaning stutterer in the Kurdish language. But it is still worthy to mention both etymological theories in order to remain descriptive. Because it is not my opinion that should count, but what is described in academia.

Looking at modern history, Werner (2017) acknowledges that about 40% of Zaza people identify as Kurdish, while the majority of the rest have been asimiliated into Turkish culture: "Werner and his colleagues consider the Zaza as a distinct people, different from the Kurds by language and history, though they are aware that many Zazas do in fact consider themselves as Kurds. He estimates that 40% of the Zazas are assimilated to Turkish culture and another 40% identify themselves with the Kurds. Of the 27 “famous Zazas” – artists and politicians – about whom he compiled some biographical data, he notes with apparent regret that they all spoke of themselves as Kurds and of Zazaki as a Kurdish dialect (pp. 295–8)." (Van Bruinessen, 2024).

Examples of Zazaki journals promoting Kurdish identity is also the Vate magazine. The book Zazaki/Kirmancki Kurdish by Gulsat Aygen also describes Zazaki as a Kurdish language.

You can accuse these of being propagandists, but then everybody engages in conspiracy theories about each other. This would not be productive and appropriate.

You say: "The portrayal of the Zaza, Gorani, Lur, and Lak populations as Kurdish originates primarily from Kurdish writers and certain external authors unfamiliar with the region, rather than from the self-identification of these populations themselves. And Nowruz does not belong exclusively to any single ethnic group, including the Kurds."

This is a gross misrepresentation of identity and you have not provided a single source backing this up about the Goranis, Lurs and Laks. If you search up Goranis and Laks, usually you'll find sources attesting to their Kurdishness. You cannot omit them without being biased in editing. Even if you disagree with them. And even if some researchers disagree. It's simply being neutral, because even some researchers should not be given precedence over others.

Furthermore, you are correct that Nowruz does not belong exclusively to Kurds, but in the context of the Haymana event, it is evident that it is a Kurdish Newroz event that was very popular.

I think we are done now. Kurdanparez (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange; you label and attack me, then you apologize. Afterwards, you insult and attack me again, and immediately after that, you reconcile. The "arguments" advanced in your discourse are structured in a highly disjointed, fragmented, and inconsistent manner. Formulating them with greater coherence and structure would significantly enhance their clarity.

"Sources" like Demirtaş... Jailed, encouraged people to join, being accused of murder, popular politician, being presidential candidate etc... These statements are entirely subjective, emotional and lack any empirical basis required for a scientific and objective assessment. They carry far less significance than you believe. And, the individual referred to as Demirtaş is of Zaza descent, not Kurdish. However, both he and his family of origin have long been extensively involved in the Kurdish movement, similar to some Zazas (but not all). Consequently, he self-identifies as Kurdish. Furthermore, akin to nationalists of all other nations, he is a nationalist, specifically a Kurdish nationalist. Indeed, it is not anticipated for a Kurdish nationalist to self-identify in any other manner. "Kurmanj up until like "30" years ago meant Kurd in general, Kurmancê Soranî, Kurmancê Zazakî, Khurr gavur...", these are merely your personal interpretations, completely devoid of any etymological or sociological evidence. I have elucidated the divergences between German and Kurdish histories. Therefore, projecting Kurdish history through the lens of German history lacks both analytical validity and scholarly merit. The paragraph you quoted is probably from Bruinessen's work titled The Zaza Kurds of Turkey: A Middle Eastern Minority in a Globalised Society..., by Kaya. Werner has published many works and academic studies focusing on the Zaza people and the Zaza language. Werner's work on the Zaza people constitutes the most comprehensive ethnological study produced to date. Bruinessen does not possess even a fraction of the effort that Werner dedicated to the Zazas and the Zaza language. He is a Kurdolog. Werner has devoted his entire life to the study of the Zazas and the Zaza language. And Werner, similarly to Paul, categorizes the Zazas as an ethno-cultural entity distinct, different, separate from the Kurds and classifies the Zaza language as an independent, separate Western Iranian language. Werner expresses that over time, many Zazas have been assimilated by Kurds. Similar to Werner, Paul expresses that many Zazas have been assimilated by Kurds over time, a point also made by other scholars. The assimilation of the Zazas by Kurds and Turks is not a new phenomenon; it is a phenomenon that has been recognized for a long time, Selcan (1994), Kehl-Bodrogi (1998, 1999), Arakelova (1999), Werner (2017), Bozbuğa (2019). As a result of this assimilation process, groups within the Zaza population emerged that identified themselves as Kurds or Turks. This exemplifies the phenomenon outlined by Werner. And in a recent publication, Keskin (2025) examines the identity dynamics and ethnic consciousness of the Zaza people, providing multi-faceted evidence of how apolitical, ordinary Zazas differentiate themselves from Kurds and maintain a separate, distinct Zaza identity. This elucidates the political motive behind the Kurdish self-identification of Demirtaş, the politician whom you highly commend. Bruinessen showers the book's author, Kaya, with praise, while leveling accusations against Werner and Asatrian. He charges Werner with a lack of scholarly knowledge while accusing Asatrian of harboring political motivations. The defamation of scholars who hold differing views is not an anomaly within the academic community. However, Asatrian is widely acclaimed for his countless studies (grammatical analyses, dictionaries, and ethnological, sociological, and cultural studies) on the Zaza language, Old and New Persian, Kurdish, Talysh, and various other Iranian languages and Iranian peoples. Therefore, again, Bruinessen possesses not even the slightest fraction of the dedication that Werner and Asatrian have devoted to the Zazas and the Zaza language. And although the periodical titled Vate has published a many works in Zaza, it portrays the language as a Kurdish dialect, a stance that flies in the face of scientific consensus. The journal faces criticism for undermining the purity of Zaza and for systematically 'Kurdifying' the language through political motives, specifically by supplanting authentic Zaza vocabulary with Kurdish substitutes in its publications. Furthermore, with respect to the recent publication by Anonby, and Gülşat Aygen, it should be noted that neither scholar offers a linguistic justification for displacing Zaza from its autonomous standing within the Western Iranian languages and reclassifying it as part of Kurdish. Even Anonby, operating on entirely unscientific premises, categorizes Zaza and Gurani into a strange and novel configuration that he calls Kurdic. He does not linguistically explain by which linguistic criteria or how he classifies Zaza within Kurdish. The same tendency is also observed in Aygen. For, "...you have not provided a single source backing this up about the Goranis, Lurs and Laks." I had previously included sources establishing that the Gurani and Zazas identify as a distinct ethnic group rather than as Kurds. But you removed them completely without justification, don't you remember? see here. Meanwhile, there are many more sources indicating that Lurs, Laks, Zazas, and Gurans do not consider themselves Kurdish.

Well, despite your personal attacks since the beginning, I have chosen to engage with your "arguments" rather than reporting your conduct, in hopes of maintaining a constructive dialogue. However, regardless of how many counterarguments and how much evidence I provide, they will inevitably be rejected. And there seems to be a reluctance to engage with both the clarity of my points and the underlying scientific data. I trust you will not waste more of my time. Good luck. Vuzorg (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]