Talk:Deportations of Kurds (1916–1934)

Widespread issues

This article is replete with broad brush strokes such as the two statements in the lead:

• 'Turkish historian İsmail Beşikçi emphasized the influence of fascism on these policies, and Italian historian Giulio Sappeli argued: "The ideals of Kemal Atatürk meant that war against the Kurds was always seen as an historical mission aimed at affirming the superiority of being Turkish."'
• 'Occurring just after the Armenian Genocide, many Kurds believed that they would share the same fate as the Armenians.'

The first problem with this is that per WP:LEAD, any statements in the lead must be detailed below in the article. In this instance, not only have these not been further elaborated, but their meanings, historical coherence (How can a policy in 1916 be influenced by "fascism", which came into prominence in the 1920s? Did the AG still have effects on the Kurds' collective imagination in the 1930s, given that there were two discrete phases?) and reasons for selection from papers (What is Beşikçi's general thesis on the causes of this policy? Why has nothing else been added to the article, but only his statement on fascism conveniently WP:CHERRYPICKed?) and inclusion in the lead appear unclear.

Furthermore, the article basically relies on a single source to construct its framework (Üngör, 2011. It is unclear if any other academics working in the field share this view of continuity between the different phases, nor is it clear how they have responded to this view). This is backed up with unreliable sources (an article from Saradistribution.com, whose author is a certain Yücel Emrah - a quick Google search reveals that this almost certainly is a pseudonym and that the author has strong Kurdish nationalist tendencies) or sources that are about something else entirely, from which the bits where the subject matter is peripherally touched upon may have been cherry picked (Bruinessen's biography of Beşikçi). It also ignores the other causes of the Sheikh Said rebellion e.g. the abolition of the caliphate (which is certainly explained by Üngör) and conveniently places it within a framework of Kurds resisting Turkish policies of national dismemberment. Furthermore, there is clear manipulation of wordings from the source - Üngör never says that the policy of Kemalist Turkey was one of "dismember[ing] Kurdish territorial unity". Üngör in fact refers to this as a manifestation of the Young Turk mindset in the introductory paragraph only to establish a sort of intellectual framework, and the exact wording is "Territoriality and ethnicity were two closely related phenomena in the Young Turk mind and needed to be prioritized in Young Turk population policies and ethnic homogenization. Spatial planning therefore was not only an aspect of ‘modernity’ but, in the Young Turks' words, had to ‘dismember Kurdish territorial unity’ (Kürt arazi vahdetini parçalamak)."

This is severely concerning and reveals a possible POV issue in the article.

--GGT (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

unexplained removal of template

Why removing the template I have added, without using the talk page and give a reason? 201.24.201.156 (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

you know exactly why. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

“Non-constructive edits”

My sources are peer-reviewed and RELIABLE and they disprove a lot of Kurdish ethnonationalist propaganda in this article, and the rebellions were more driven by feudal landlords' interests and the opposition to the abolition of the Caliphate. Ataturk always supported the multi-ethnic Turkish Republic, and he allowed the use of the Kurdish language and the practice of their culture even though he did Turkification. LeonChrisfield (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

What relevancy does the reasons for the rebellion have for an article that is about deportations? Also, your last sentence is ridiculous and you clearly have a POV towards Atatürk as seen by your edits on other articles[1]. Semsûrî (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)