Talk:Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tags

I nominated this for POV check since there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources to back up the large claims of the article. This is simply the thesis of one-two non-notable writers. The article is written in a way that assumes their assertions as certified fact. Contains Original research as well for these reasons.Baristarim 00:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Title

I'm sure you could have come up with a better title than this... writing "Kurds" instead of "Kurdish people" would be much simpler for a start. //Dirak 15:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you suggest such a thing? Can you support your idea? What is the difference between Kurds and Kurdish people? Caglarkoca 21:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Re-write

As an editor of Greek origins, I find this (potentially usefull and necessary) article to contain much anti-Turkish sentiment - almost certainly unintentional. From the very first words, it gives no context but kicks off with a 'massacre'. Turkish editors have shown respectable elements of patience with it and Greek editors - though honest in their intentions - seem to have lost the objective of the article. The article also pitches Greeks against Turks (and vice versa) in the name of Kurds. I suggest that unless Kurdish editors become involved, Greeks should keep out of it. Greek editors might be far more relevant on the Greeks of Istanbul and such relevant issues. Let us remember that over 10 percent of the population is Kurdish, that President Turgut Ozal had recognised Kurdish origins, and we cannot ignore Kurdish terrorism. I will not dwell on the continuing state of war between various 'Kurdish nations' that has spilt so much innocent blood... In friendship, Politis 12:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Politis, yesterday and today I think I had a good level of co-operation with Baristarim. We have our differences, but we find ways to co-exist. I don't see why I have to abstain. And something else: If we think that this article must not be deleted, we must try to improve it. I do not intend to abstain because of my nationality! And a "massacre" is a "massacre". If you want to change the title of the section, let's discuss it. But Baristarim changed the initial title (Dersim massacre or genocide) to its current form. I'm sure as Baristarim did more Turkish editors can provide their sources to make this article more balanced.--Yannismarou 16:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kurdish deputies

I was not putting the fact tag next to the number of Kurdish deputies because I was disputing the existence of Kurdish deputies, in fact, it was the opposite: there are many more than 23 Kurdish deputies. In that example, and throughout the article I am trying to make sure that not all Kurds are portrayed as activists/nationalists/terrorists etc. This is the most fundamental part: Whatever the reasons, an overwhelming majority of Kurds are not activists or militants, and the active few make more noise than their size. You can give a link to Turkification for that I suppose.

Exactly the reason why I added the bit about language courses. Look people, Europe blows this Kurd-Turk thing way out of proportion. I don't know why but I am assuming it is because of either a)orientalism or b)boredom or c)incapability to deal with its own problems. After years and years of constant pressure, Kurdish courses opened, most of them generously subsidised by European organizations and Kurdish diaspora organizations, and nobody showed up. And you know what? Most of the students were Turks who registered so that they can work as translators part-time, or were Turkish contractors who were doing business in northern Iraq. That's a fact. The world had enough of "bigs" of Europe creating artificial borders, boundaries and peoples on its whims - look at Africa. They wanted to create tons of countries and they drew them up in fancy aristocratic tea houses in London; funny that none of the borders of those countries actually make sense. Look at Sudan's borders. They literally trace the meridians for god's sake... You know, with all that talk of clash of civilizations blah blah, I think the biggest problem in the "clash of civilizations" is the rooted orientalism in many parts of Europe. I had Europeans come up to me and ask if they sold alcohol in Istanbul.. Go figure... For all that talk of Kurdish people being slaughtered in Turkey, Turkey cared more about its Kurdish citizens than any other country. Turkification? Well, as if "Frenchification" or "Italianification" didn't happen. Let alone the Frenchification of the regions of France, the French actually managed to Frenchify huge swathes of land in the jungles of Africa. Kinda puts "condescending" in context... Turkey is the only country who is actively trying to alphabetize Kurdish women and to break the millenia old feudal attitudes against women AND the religious webs surrounding entire communities. No other country in the region even gives a shit. Check this out for example [1]. Yeah well, when that happens, it is mentioned simply as "they have faced increasing government oppression in the last decade" here. When it is Turkey, it is genocide!! At the end, the joke is not on the Turks but on the others who can't, or don't want to, understand the region and see what is really going on. -ifications happened in every country in the world, that's no basis to call anything a genocide. If the Turkification of Kurds in Turkey is genocide, then America and nearly every European country is guilty of tens of genocides.. Give me a break..

By the way.. An interesting example... Couple of months ago young girls in Batman, Turkey wanted to hold a demonstration against the honor killings that cause the death of thousands of Kurdish women in the region. You know who showed up apart from a handful of local girls? Leyla Zana? She was busy eating dinner in some fancy Paris restaurant I guess. DEP members? No. Kurdish newspapers? No. Only Turkish media and the local Turkish "government appointed" (not-elected, so they were not Kurdish) officials showed up. Yeah, that's right. Don't be talking about human rights no more... Baristarim 13:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

1st paragraph of yours: OK.

2d paragraph: I deleted a half sentence of yours, because it was repetitive. Do you want to include it? Fine! But it is bad for the article to say the same things again and again. About the private classes you may be right, but why isn't the Kurdish language included in the program of the public schools in Kurdish regions of Turkey, in the way the Basque language is taught in their public schools in Spain, and the Turkish language is taught (as a first language!) in public schools in Greek Thrace?

3d paragraph:I think Leyla Zana after being in prison for some time deserves a "dinner in some fancy Paris restaurant". Maybe she eats the money the European Court obliged the Turkish state to pay for the violations of her human rights.

Look, Baristarim, I do not say that efforts aren't made. They are! But I still believe that the Turkish state does not feel comfortable with the free manifestation of the Kurdish national identity and with the full recognition of the cultural, educational, political and social rights of such a huge minority. I honestly hope I'm wrong! But EU believes I am not. And the Commission's report is nothing but positive for Turkey. And believe me: the current Commission and the Commissionnaire responsible for the Report are everything else but anti-Turkish!--Yannismarou 14:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah you are right I suppose. Btw, I agree that Leyla Zana merits a mention. I was just trying to "enrich" my example above, could have been somebody else :) Baristarim 14:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Kurds do not have a free run in Europe. In Greek city of Patra the Kurdish 'refugees', far from appreciating Greek hospitality are such a problem that the authorities are seriously considering restricting them to a specific area. In 1999, Kurds occupied Greek embassies and damaged a number of them, they also carried out a violent demonsration in Athens. In Germany and UK, Kurdish gangs are reported as running large drugs and people trade.

But we also foget the philosophy of the secular Turkish state. Would a democratic person prefer to live in the 'medieval' (no offence meant) social structure of Kurdish communities in eastern Turkey where women can be treated like 'objects' and where there is no room for disagreement? Or in other parts of Turkey, such as Istanbul, Ankara, etc...?

As for the EU, it is looking for every reason to keep Turkey away. Some of them are fully justified; but an important reason is not the influx of Turks but of Kurdish Turks! Politis 16:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Politis, the Commissionnaire who issued the Report does not want Turkey out of Europe but inside Europe! I think this is an important detail you fail to take into consideration!--Yannismarou 16:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot that. I was thinking of the European Council; that is where the power lies because it represents the individual EU governments. Then, of course, some countries like France and Austria want to hold referenda on all newcomers. Politis 16:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My last edits

I apologize for deleting a number of empty sections. I understand there is work in progress. Still, the article must not look as an ugly half-skeleton. All "to-do" lists may well be maintained in the talk page. `'mikka 18:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"European Court of Human Rights decisions" section

Items of this section are too detailed for this general article. It makes sense to put each notable person into a separate article, and the section itself must be an overall summary, referring to individual personal subarticles.

BTW, it looks like these pieces were made in a hasty cut'n'paste way, with references to non-existing "paragraphs" and other problems. `'mikka 18:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the section probably tomorrow. If you regard it as completely uncyclopedic, remove it.--Yannismarou 19:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Renaming proposal

I propose renaming this page to "Human rights of Kurds in Turkey". --Mardavich 16:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Or, "Kurdish human rights in Turkey"? I would suggest that the article must also include the Kurdish violations of human rights against fellow Kurds - and to take care in avoiding causing offence to the dignity of Turks and Kurdish Turks. Politis 22:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Could be both, or could stay as is, there is no big difference really. I don't mind either way. Let's wait to see what others think.. Baristarim 03:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll move this page to Kurdish human rights in Turkey if there are no objections. The current title doesn't get any Google hits besides Wikipedia & mirrors. Khoikhoi 05:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Object. It is not about Kurdish human rights in Turkey, it's about the human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey, please see my additional posts on the bottom of the page. On second thought, I think that it should stay at "Kurdish people" instead of Kurds since it is more formal and more consistent with nearly all people related articles in Wikipedia (ex Turkish people etc) Besides the title sound very formal and encyclopedic, and has the potential to cover many areas. If not, this article will become a fork of Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict or Kurds in Turkey. If we rename as such, then we can simply merge it to Kurds in Turkey. That article says pretty much the same thing as it does here, from an idelogical point of view. This article should be a very encyclopedic and informative article about the rights of Kurdish people in Turkey, in many areas, and its historical evolution. Pls also see my post about the gender-equality. That's very important as far as human rights are concerned. The title is more than adequate and encyclopedic.. Cheers! Baristarim 07:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between "Kurdish human rights in Turkey" and "Human rights of the Kurdish people" other than grammar? It's like saying, "Joe's book" and "the book of Joe". Khoikhoi 07:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There is, because it implies a subtlity: that the emphasis will be on the Kurdish people, and not on the human rights. Joe's book and the book of Joe also have that: one implies an emphasis on Joe, the other one on the book :) I am only objecting since the article's new name will force the article to parallel too much the Kurds in Turkey article. We already have Kurds in Turkey, Turkish Kurdistan and Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. This article has to show that it won't be a fork by orienting itself towards a specific aspect first and foremost. This title may also force a parallel on the human rights in Turkey article, but considering the depth of the subject, I would prefer it to focus on the human rights first and foremost. Would the title "Turkish rights in Germany" make sense more than "Human rights of Turkish people in Germany"? It just sounds better, that's all.. Baristarim 07:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think let's just wait a while until the article settles down. I am not going to be edit warring for that, but let's reconsider this in a shortwhile. First let's fix the layout of the article, then we can do either way, no problems. I am not objecting strongly at all, it's just that the current title is ok for the moment. Baristarim 08:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Mardavich's proposal: "Human rights of Kurds in Turkey"? It is shorter, it is not "Kurdish rights", and I think Kurds=Kurdish people.--Yannismarou 08:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for reorganization

This looks better than a few days ago. I would suggest the following:

1. dump the history
2. move the Dersim massacre to a new article
3. restart the history in 1980, or in the decade immediately preceding
4. expand, slightly, the paragraph on the war with PKK, to give a chronological scope.
5. delete the Individual Rights section (3 subsections, of which 2 are stubs and the third is not specific to Kurdish women)
6. expand and clarify group rights

   divide education from culture, and add chronological elements to both

   create a section for language rights (with chronology)

   greatly expand the political rights section, again with chronology.

7. delete all references to genocide. These are clearly fringe accusations with language that is designed to enflame rather than describe

   The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes several which the article currently doesn't touch, but should:

8. Freedom of movement and residence (destruction of villages. damage to economy causing involuntary economic migration west, esp Istanbul - but would need sources. Hm, might not exist - my OR)
9. Right to a nationality (add as a subsection under group rights. spec reference to "Mountain Turks")

Does any of this make sense? I am especially concerned that the article gain more focus, which leads to my last suggestion, a name change to Kurdish Rights in Modern Turkey Jd2718 04:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with deleting the individual rights section. Illiteracy is pretty specific to Kurdish women because of feudal attitudes in Kurdish inhabited areas, please see the BBC reference that is added. Thousand of women die because of honor killings, and they are pretty specific to Kurdish inhabited areas as well. We are not talking about an ex whacking his ex-girlfriend coz he got angry: this is about murder committed by the girl's own family. Human rights includes every right of a human being: not only those that gives us a right to gang up on Turkey

Freedom of movement? I am sorry, but we are not talking about the Soviet Union here. Turgut Ozal, the president of Turkey in the 80s was of Kurdish descent. There is no block to freedom of movement in Turkey. Right to nationality? What does that mean? Do you mean the fact that certain Kurdish families in the southeast don't register the birth of girls, simply so that they don't have to go to school and to escape the mandatory education through the back door? Yeah, let's talk about that as well.

History section is also important. The article's title implies that there will be some background. Please do not confuse this article with the Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. If your suggestions are to be implemented, this article will nothing be a FORK of that article, and will need to be merged. Believe me, this article is not as straightforward as it might seem at a first glance :)

The article is about the human rights of Kurdish people; ergo: all the human rights of every Kurdish person will be discussed. As I said, this is not exclusive to things that give us a right to bang on Turkey. And neither will the article will be about the "violations" only. It will be about the global human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey, and in context with other rights. We shouldn't delete the individual rights section and not talk about the horrible feudal attitudes present against the women in the southeast. Within that section, it will be also mentioned that Turkey is the only country in the region that is actually trying to break the millenia old feudal and horrible religious attitudes within the parts of Kurdish society. Since the article is about the Kurdish people in Turkey, and since that Kurds are dispersed over four countries, the human rights of Kurds relative to other places where they are present imposes itself by its nature. Baristarim 05:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of conscience is also important: Even though some Kurds are leftists and ergo not religious, a majority of Kurds are deeply religious Sunnis, and some of them founded the Turkish Hezbollah that committed violence both against the local Kurdish populations and the PKK. This is also extremely important in context to demonstrate the deep divisions among the Kurdish people. In fact, contrary to what some might think, the real violence against the Kurdish population is not from the Turkish state: it is from the local feudal and religious webs present in the southeast. As I said, thousands of women are murdered each year, many Kurdish girls are hidden from the census registries to avoid the compulsory secular education, isn't that important? User:Baristarim|Baristarim]] 05:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good ideas. I am certainly not an expert, but I would suggest that, Baristarim's proposals seem fair since they are of immediate concern to 'human rights' - irrespective of who violates them. Also Jd2718 has a few points, especially regarding Dersim, dumping most of the history (too many articles sink in their history section), and perhaps genocide (although the term is used by Kurdish groups and some supporters as an argument). Remain neutral on title of article.

By the way, there is no province entitled 'Turkish Kurdistan'; at the risk of being obtuse, this sounds like there is a country called Kurdistan with a Turkish region. But there is a Kurdish region of eastern Turkey (I base my comment on the supposition that there are dense geographical areas in east Turkey inhabited almost exclussively by many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Turkish Kurds). Politis 12:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Dersim massacre could be a seperate article, but I believe a detailed reference in the history section of this article is also necessary. Now, the section about the genocide is really problematic! I am not sure what is the best solution. I wouldn't like to completely remove it, but I also think that there is an over-dependence on Fernandes. Maybe less dependence on his views and a more neutral writing is the best solution. Baris could also add criticisms against Fernandes or against the allegation that the Dersim incidents were a genocide.--Yannismarou 12:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Something else, I am thinking for some days: The term Kurdish Genocide applies also to the events that happened in Northern Iraq during Sadam's rule. But I suppose this should be the subject of another article, because this is about Kurds and Turkey.--Yannismarou 12:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of the education section

Pls see my recent expansion of the gender equality section and the related BBC story that is cited as reference. If someone thinks that a wacko liberal getting thrown in jail just because he wanted to be a rebel deserves more space than hundreds of thousands of young girls going to school for the very first time thanks to the secular politics and determined campaigns of the Turkish state, instead of being forced to marry at 12 years of age, than I doubt if those people understand the subject matter at best, and that they need a reality check at worst. Please do not be swayed too easily by the headline-grabbing sensational news you hear on the media sometimes.. Cheers! Baristarim 07:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Genocide section

I think the current "Genocide allegations" sub-section should be trimmed, summarized and incorporated in the "PKK" sub-section of the first section as a second paragraph. But I'm not willing to implenment myself this solution, if we do not previously reach a consensus for a POV wording of this second paragraph. Thanks!--Yannismarou 10:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I endorse wholeheartedly the solution proposed by Yannis, even if I also don't feeling like doing it personally, because I'm a bit exhausted with disputes and controversial articles. But I do hope somebody else will do it.--Aldux 20:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the World Genocide Research Center (or whatever they are called) recognize this event as a "genocide"? If they do or do not, it must be noted here. Korrybean 21:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Kurds were no victims; they helped the Turks to slather hundreds of thousands of Armenians. It is unbelievable that they are now also claiming a genocide. The only thing the Kurds are trying to do is to piggy back ride the Armenian genocide for there own political aims. .--Aldux 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.234.27 (talk)

Dersim

To those who work on this article, I repeat, it is highly unorthodox and unparadigmatic when compared to other similar articles, for this article to start with the the Dersim massacre - or even with a stub on the Ottoman empire. There must be some reports (from the UN, Amnesty, EU, etc...?) that offer examples of more suitable introductory paragraph. Politis 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Finley ?

Who is him? He's quoted, but he's not included neither in bibliography, nor anywhere else. According to Finley, which book, report, date, etc? Sorry for my ignorance... Tazmaniacs 17:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake! "Filner". Corrected!--Yannismarou 19:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

References

Some of the references are not to outwards links, but only to the text. They should not be called references, then, imo. Please provide links or titles of the articles/books. Also, Dersim (Tunceli) is in Eastern Anatolia. Besides these, the article contains a lot of stuff not so related to Kurds in Turkey in particular, many things are just copied from the human rights in Turkey page. I think we should delete the unrelated parts (if we won't be merging those two articles). deniz 14:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Leyla Zanna, She hates Turks, She is a fasist woman, and she is supporter of PKK (bloody armed terorist group).. APO leader of PKK. And so on...

If you support these kind of people, this means you commit a crime (this means you are also murderer). This is nothing about human right. Because you are supporting murderers...

Kurdish people free to speak Kurdish in Turkey.. And they can be educated kurdish.. They can open courses for that (They did onces but very few people attended so they closed it..)..

Truth is in Turkey, most of the kurdish people has a feeling of low quality personality.. Most of them hates Turks, (I think they are jealeous).. For the Turkish side, Turks only hates terrorist ones.. Because almost half of the population is Kurdish, and noone cares about the race.. Everybody's concentration is earning money.. but interestingly, Kurdish people concentration is to f.ck the Turkey in any field.. They never think that we are in the same boat. In that point, I proud with Turkish people's dignity, patient and humanity.. I think Turkish people is perfect, in any case, they are so helpful for kurdish people.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.102.53.191 (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

HOLY POV!!!!!!

If the first sentence of any topic is about Human Rights starts with "An earlier massacre..", I would seriously consider it a propaganda. Whoever typed this up is seriously biased against Turks. Korrybean 00:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

if you want to propose a rephrasing, I am open to suggestions, Korrybean.--Yannismarou 06:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, here are my suggestions:

1- Make that massacre section not the opening paragraph, as the opening paragraph tells us what the content is about, and the content is about human rights and not massacres 2- Individual rights section is unneccessary, it has nothing to do with Kurdish rights, but instead its about genereal human rights in Turkey (should be in Human Rights in Turkey) 3- Genocide Claims? Another BS genocide claim? A. That is not a human rights issue, B. It's the opinion of just ONE person, therefore its an opinion piece.

I would've done all these myself, but I just know a billion people will run in saying "ZOMG ZOMG ULTRANATIONALISTIC PIG!!!!". I do accept that I may be somewhat biased because I am Turkish-American, but I also believe these points I made are perfectly valid.Korrybean 21:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Forget about it Korrybean, there is a disambiguation page named "Kurdish genocide", and this article is one of the items there. deniz^T_C 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It still has nothing to do with this specific article, therefore should be taken off. Also, you should read Wikipedia is not a soapbox. And also further, you make it pretty clear here that the only reason that section was MADE UP was to support that article. Edit: I took it off personally. Korrybean 00:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem with 1 - we could place it later on - I think the answer to that would be the expansio of the "Ottoman Empire" section. Individual rights section was added by a Turkish user, Baristarim. About 3 I had proposed the merge of the section somewhere else, and I still insist on that. But it seems that it is higly contested.--Yannismarou 13:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? Individual rights are important - the title is "Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey" not "Kurdish rights". The article is there to give a complete overview of the human rights of Kurds who live in Turkey. And yes, the article forks HR in TR article, but this was discussed in the original AfD. Agree with no 3, however. Baristarim 15:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"I think the current "Genocide allegations" sub-section should be trimmed, summarized and incorporated in the "PKK" sub-section of the first section as a second paragraph. But I'm not willing to implenment myself this solution, if we do not previously reach a consensus for a POV wording of this second paragraph."

This was my proposal; not make the section disappear. And only if a clear consensus is here. I will also inform about the discussion the Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdistan.--Yannismarou 08:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think denizz made it clear here that section only exists to support another section, therefore it violates around 100 wikipedia rules.Korrybean 15:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted again - first it can be ironed out in the talk page. There is way too much irrelevant info in that section, is too big, and gives undue weight to the thesis of one author. If Wikipedia is going to be a serious encyclopedia, then it should be proven that a significant portion of academia considers it to be a genocide - and should be clarified as to if it is normal genocide or cultural. I am sorry but, undue weight is also a wikipolicy. "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" - see WP:FRINGE. Baristarim 16:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional sources have been provided (three scholars including Mark Levene). There is no "exceptional claim", because the article doesn't say anything about taking a position. Plus, this is a WP:POINT vio, because there's an AfD for its dab-redirect (here). I'm reverting. NikoSilver 19:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this debate has been going on for a long time. Exceptional sources have not been provided, genocide is an exceptional claim. Giving coverage to two guys' theses is undue weight - there is no indication that those claims represent the slightest of concensus in academia - what exceptional sources? Are they the chair of the history departments at Yale and Harvard? The section has weasel and pov issues, not to mention bad formatting that has turned the article into an exposé of their thesis. Undue weight definitely applies. I will revert it again, I have clearly set out my reasons above per wikipolicies.

Btw, as for the tag, it just means in common sense that there are particular problems with that section. Baristarim 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think undue weight provides for deletion as you are misleadingly presenting it. It provides for disclaiming the extent of a particular position's acceptance (providing it is sourced of course). Also, we have had an AFD on whether that material is to be deleted and the consensus of the latest one was to keep it.--Domitius 19:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It was not a "keep" - in any case, the information as has been provided definitely doesn't conform with undue weight. "X Y, Senior Lecturer at X Uni" is repeated twice in the lead of that section - it is an utter joke. And yes, undue weight exists to ensure that Wikipedia is not some common blog but a serious encyclopedia. There are 6 billion people and everyone has an opinion: if they do not reflect even a considerable portion of views held by academia, then it definitely falls under WP:FRINGE Baristarim 20:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's that fringe, why don't you cite some counter sources? As you like threats regarding Macedonia, I'll use an example from there: Borza's fringe theories are given extreme undue weight there - even Britannica contradicts, yet his doubts on the Greekness of Macedonia are all over WP! Another example: TRNC is another example of a galloping undue weight case throughout WP, and there are many sources for this. Where are your counter sources??? Where are your sources which "affirm" that what the TR government was really doing to the Kurds was taking them on a picnic?--Domitius 20:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling: since you are making the claim, you have to bring the sources. I wonder what is undue weight about TRNC, there is no-one stopping from modifying the article with sources. If it is about the title, then there is also PGG. As for "threats to Macedonia" - there were none, and I replied to this in Nikos's talk page. You will never see me push a stupid agenda in any of those pages, in fact I have been reverting vandals and blatant POV in those articles for months, and letting slide some stuff like this [2] - I, whether you believe it or not, don't have any sort of anti-Greek agenda. Please people, there are better ways to cooperate rather than get into useless edit-wars. Baristarim 20:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith. Multiple sources for this have been cited, yet the mere whiff of a counter source remains a dream. Pretty odd I can find sources disputing "TRNC"'s status, eh?--Domitius 20:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can, and they are mentioned. But you will never find a source disputing its "existence" - that was my point. The content of the article can be modified, no problems, but I have a hard time understanding the "undue weight" argument about TRNC. What exactly are you referring to? Or maybe it will be better to use the talk page of that article. Baristarim 20:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't you remember that revert war with Garnet the other day? Or that AFD with the article created by the non-Greek non-Turk which you started? In both cases sources are cited yet ignored.--Domitius 20:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me clarify - when I ran across the TR setlement article, I looked at its history and saw that it was a barely registered user who had started it just a couple of days ago. I truly had thought that it was some random fork article like Turkish Human Rights: A Non-Turkish Perspective which I also AfDed, along with three bios that day who were not notable. I also speedy at least ten articles every day since I check recent changes tab. I honestly didn't have any "agenda", and I clearly said in my summary "merge if possible any content to Cyprus dispute". I am still of the opinion that the content of that article belons to Cyprus dispute, and that it is a fork. There was no ill-intent. As for the revert war with Garnet, I am lost. Which article? Baristarim 20:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish genocide Claims

These have NOTHING TO DO WITH human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey, therefore have been taken out. Do not put irrelevant stuff in articles please, not matter how "right" you believe it is. Korrybean 03:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this was the result of AFDs, you can't change it on a whim.--Domitius 08:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no "result of AfDs" - none of the AfDs dictated "so dorénavant shall stay the paragraph" - it is all dependent on conjecture in the talk page, and discussions. I think you are confusing what an AfD is. There is no whim either, this has been talked about for a long time now. However as long as the AfD is going on, I am not going to make a big deal about it.. Baristarim 08:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can if the section is completely irrelevant to the main article. Make a new article called "Kurdish Genocide Claims" if you want, but this section is irrelevant to this article (Ps: did not want to log in from school, this is User:korrybean216.54.15.126 13:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I claim genocide too, Gonzo Genocide. Turks tried to get rid of me by selling me no good döner kebap. Bloody Turks, I was sick for a week. On a more serious note, since when there is a distinction between Turks and Kurds? Who was the first to make this distinction? Kurdish genocide suggests we divide our country into ethnic groups and act accordingly, which is definitely and constitutionaly not true. Kurds are in every position of this country, including once a PM and a President, Turgut Ozal. These are rantings of Kurdish seperatists/nationalists/racists, under the sponsorship of anybody who has a beef with Turks or some kind of profit to be made from the situation or some plain ignorant. These are crafted words, forged history, sponsored politics. Any questions?--Doktor Gonzo 14:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX - You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. Ozgur Gerilla 10:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have one: are the Freemasons, the Illuminati and UFOs behind this devious conspiracy.--Domitius 14:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And which category do you fall under Domitius?--Doktor Gonzo 14:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Grey Wolves.--Domitius 14:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Really, I'd say Golden Dawn.--Doktor Gonzo 15:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oku bu sayfayi.--Domitius 15:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You should read it too. If my Golden Dawn violates WP:NPA then so does your Grey Wolves for the same reason.--Doktor Gonzo 15:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

???--Domitius 16:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OPA!--Doktor Gonzo 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

domitius, stop editing this section back in, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN RIGHTS. Korrybean 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd think death has a lot to do with Human Rights. LamontCranston (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Denizz

Denizz, if you're so sure it's undue weight, why don't you cite some sources contradicting the claim. If it's such a minority view, there should be thousands of them. Thus far we have some sources saying "yes it was genocide" and no sources saying it wasn't. The pro-genocide faction has cited its sources - the onus is on you now.--Ploutarchos 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure it is like proving that the invisible unicorn does not exist. Deniz^T_C 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying there are no sources claiming the invisible unicorn does not exist? LOL!--Ploutarchos 16:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are they reliable? Did they prove it? Deniz^T_C 16:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

They are about as reliable as the sources there are claiming Allah doesn't exist (I'm sure you've come across many - User:Baristarim is one).--Ploutarchos 16:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I see , so it probably does not exist (even if some say it exists). I wish I could have ridden one. First, I need to learn to ride a normal horse I guess. 16:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway Domitius, I am not going to edit this for a while, I don't want to keep this edit warring. Please revert yourself. I'm sure you understood what I meant with the weird discussion above. Are you really looking for someone notable to say that something that didn't exist, didn't exist? We might find some, but I am not going to look for one. If almost nobody refers to it like that, then almost nobody refers to it like that. I hope the next generation will stop this senseless "zero-sum" thing. Deniz^T_C 16:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is where you have misunderstood what we're doing here. Even in my version, the article doesn't say that a genocide did take place. It says that in the opinion of those authors a genocide did take place.--Ploutarchos 16:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Source

Actually this concerns all ethnic groups including Kurds, but it seems to focus on the latter. [3] NikoSilver 17:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

this is the most stupis bubble article i have ever seen Niko, i have just read some few pages, find some serious stuff. quotations are coming from American Hellenic mumbo jumbo, article is written by some religous lunatics, in fact nobody is caring about the rights of kurds but just to use it for some other reasons..

Btw, there are more greeks in here than Kurds..--laertes d 18:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: genocide of Kurds?

Dispute over the inclusion of sources suggesting a genocide of Kurds in Turkey.

Statement by editors previously involved in the dispute

User:A.Garnet

WP:Undue Weight states - "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all...We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view...To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute...Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Currently, two non-notable views are being fleshed out through large quotations (see depth of detail, juxtaposition of statements) and being placed in positions, such as the background (see prominence of placement) to make these nearly non-existent views concerning human rights of Kurds in Turkey seem part of the mainstream debate, when they are not. As I've argued before, why should these two scholars gain such a prominent place in this article as opposed to the views of Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International? Are these not far more relavant and authoratative sources on human rights?

Finally, a note should be made about the origins of this topic. User:Domitius, latest name User:Ploutarchos (he has had around ten user names) originally created an article called Kurdish Genocide as a WP:Point in response to a dispute with Turkish editors on the Pontic Greek genocide article. That is why rather oddly this article is a dispute between mainly Greek and Turkish editors. An afd for Kurdish genocide decided to create the current article, but there was no consensus for the carry on of the genocide allegations into this article, that is something that has been stubbornly kept here by those same editors who supported the Kurdish genocide article.

Allegations of genocide against Kurds are not part of the mainstream debate on human rights of Kurds in Turkey, and the large quotations from Fernandes and Levene violate Undue Weight and NPOV. This edit of mine is how much weight I believe these sources deserve. --A.Garnet 09:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments Instead of simply declaring that the genocide thesis is a "minority", "non-notable" view that is "not part of the mainstream debate", the Turkish side must demonstrate that this really is the case. That means quoting a significant number of reputable sources contradicting those already cited. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 07:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:Undue Weight again.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

There is no obligation here for me to go searching for sources contradicting these statements because no commonly accepted reference text (e.g. Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International) makes reference to a genocide of Kurds by Turkey, nor will you find such claims in reputable online sources as Encylopedia Brittanica, Encarta and so forth. So that sorts me out fine. The problem here is that you have to prove your claim does not fall under the third bullit point which is an extremely small or vastly limited number of proponents which "does not belong in Wikipedia". Since Levene is the only source which throws the genocide claim at Turkey, and he is by no means eminent or distinguished, I think you really better get looking for sources if you expect this to stay. For now, Wiki policy is well behind me in removing these statements. --A.Garnet 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My 2c:

• To Kekrops: Garnet is right on one point, it's difficult to prove a negative, and he isn't under an obligation to do so. If mainstream treatments of the topic don't even mention the issue, then that should be support enough for a counter-position.
• To everybody: Didn't we agree, on some other article, that big glaring block quotes are A Bad Thing®? Why are they still here? Block quotes are a sure sign that POV-pushing is going on. It's a law of nature, I don't know why.
• To everybody: This article will never make progress unless you all sit down and do your homework and: REWRITE IT. From scratch. None of you can seriously claim that the version you are reverting to is a good article. Heck, you've reverted it a hundred times and didn't even notice a glaring error like calling the early 20th century "this century" (apparently, some passage of text plagiarised from somewhere?)
• I propose the following. Forget this text. Stop debating here. Stop reverting. Instead, start writing. Each of you create a temporary sandbox page somewhere and write down your own draft of a new, improved passage to replace the disputed one. (Or the whole article, if you prefer). Rewrite it from scratch. Make your best effort at taking your opponents' concerns into account. Your measure of success will be whether you manage to come up with something that your opponents will recognise as a decisive improvement over both of the old versions. If you are not able to do that, then you will be noted down in all eternity as hopeless cases of disruptive POV-warriors.
• If any of you wants to seriously claim that either of the versions of this revert war is a decent article and couldn't be vastly improved by rewriting it, you will never again be taken seriously as a disputant in any NPOV debate.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fut, thanks for the comments. But I see absouletly no reason not to erase this material right now. I've contacted 2 admins, FayssalF and you, the former tried to delete the block quotes but was reverted by Niko, you seem to agree that the blockquotes are bad and lacks a mainstream position. I tried to improve the article but was reverted by Kekrops. I filed an RfC, made a lenghty statement and left the article for 3 months, only for Niko and Kekrops to ignore this and continue reverting. Yesterday I answered Kekrops and made my position quite clear, again he has reverted without any answer. So I have been more than patient, more than willing to disengage and bring in third party editors, to improve and discuss the article. You cannot in the least bit compare my conduct here with Niko and Kekrops. If I saw anything reasonable in their concerns I would of course discuss it, but when their concern seems to be to push an obvious pov (which you seem to agree) and is in clear violation of Wiki policy, then why should I or you or anyone be wasting any more time in removing this trash? --A.Garnet 09:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll say: Just don't bother with the trash, for now. Just go and write something better, and then paste it in if there are no better proposals. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

But some parts in the article have been trash for months. Should they stay so for years? :) Baristarim 05:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Levene reference, since he states within his book that the Dersim event transpired in 1936 and therefore does not qualify to be listed under the WWI heading. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Kurdish genocide during World War I was the mass killings of Kurds of Ottoman Empire" is absolutely a rubbish sentence and I think purely written to defame. This is only based on a book, which now widely accepted it is written biased. --85.101.174.3 (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Awful

This article should be dropped. The organization is terrible, there is a whole lot of unsubstantiated rhetoric and the relevance to the current situation in Turkey is not made clear.

One comes away from reading this mess with less understanding than when one started. Even the spelling is bad.

This is way, way below Wikipedia standards. Delete the article and start over again.

And, not that it matters, but I have no dog whatsoever in the fight between the Kurds and the Turks. Or the Greeks, for that matter.

Youssef51 08:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is awful, but it needs sustained involvement by editors to improve it, that means editors such as yourself and Fut. staying involved. To begin with I'm going to remove the material that is not directly related to Kurds but seems to have been copy and pasted from the Human rights in Turkey article. --A.Garnet 13:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont want to involve in this debate again, however i just felt the need to point out that sources like `Armenian forum` are neither suitable nor meet the neutrality criteria for any wikipedia article..Fernades` ideas are presented through the wording of someone else, i would rather want to see what Fernandes himself said on the issue..And that Armenian forum article has its hate speech tones, saying things like:`Armenians and Kurds should unite against their common enemy, Turkey`..

I just wonder some non-nikosilver, non-Kekrops, and non-Turkish persons, who is indeed interested in the human rights of Kurds in Turkey, could work on this article to create something decent out of it--laertes d 21:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Resources

Help yourself to these references, which were sitting unused in the article:

Printed sources

• de Baets, Antoon (2001). "Turkey". Censorship of Historical Thought: a World Guide, 1945-2000. Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-31193-5.
• van Bruinessen, Martin (1997). "Genocide in Kurdistan?". Genocide:Conceptual and Historical Dimensions edited by George J. Andreopoulos. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-812-21616-4.
• Manas, Jean E. (1996). "Council of Europe and Ethno-National Strife". Preventing Conflict in the Post-Communist World: Mobilizing International and Regional Organizations by Abram Chayes. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 0-815-71385-1.
• Gilbert, Martin (2004). "Genocide in Kurdistan?". America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915 edited by Jay Murrey Winter. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-82958-5.
• Winrow, Gareth M (1997). "International Dimension of the Kurdish Question". The Kurdish Question and Turkey: an Example of a Trans-state Ethnic Conflict. Routledge (UK). ISBN 0-714-64746-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• A Quest for Equality: Minorities in Turkey, report by Minority Rights Group, London, 2007

Online sources

• "Backgrounder on Repression of the Kurds in Turkey". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 2006-12-28.
• International PEN. "Newsletter of the Writers in Prison Committee of International PEN" (PDF). Retrieved August 2, 2006.
• O'Toole, Pam (2003-03-26). "Turkey's fears of Kurdish resurgence". British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2006-12-17.

--Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of these sources were initially added by me some time ago. But the article has gone through many phases, some parts of it were removed, and its current form is completely different than the one I left. That is why these sources are now unused. I'm not sure that removing them is the best solution. They could be used as further reading and external links.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks for formatting them properly. But articles are not supposed to be repositories of links. My experience is that lists of this sort just attract more of their ilk. There are still many claims that need to be sourced. Since you presumable familiar with these refs, perhaps you can cite some of them. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 14:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiculturalism, Assimilation section

This section is strangely outdated. The claims therein do not reflect the actual situation at all. You can see the pictures of the Diyarbakır Municipality on Google.tr, the name is written in huge letters in Kurdish and Turkish: Where did all those editors who stressed the negative points of old times go? Why did nobody dwell on these positive developments of the last several years? I really wonder. Note: I added a ref to the trilingual website of the said Municipality but still the section is horribly one-sided negative POV. That is against the spirit of WP. Regards, --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

language of instruction

Kurdish is a language of instruction in Turkey after AK Party's reforms.--95.10.67.174 (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/198103,kurdish-politiican-zana-sentenced-to-prison-in-turkey.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212100408/http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnestynow/leyla.html to http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnestynow/leyla.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927171858/http://www.evrensel.net/03/04/15/kose.html to http://www.evrensel.net/03/04/15/kose.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181201/http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=115171&bolum=109 to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=115171&bolum=109
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2002/12535.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=161690
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230013120/http://www.internethaber.com:80/news_detail.php?id=172188 to http://www.internethaber.com/news_detail.php?id=172188
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.economist.co.uk/research/articlesBySubject/interstitial.cfm?subjectid=682266&storyid=8413029

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304060409/http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2006/nov/tr_sec_1390_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2006/Nov/tr_sec_1390_en.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=163330
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140831202619/http://www.diyarbakir.bel.tr/default.aspx to http://www.diyarbakir.bel.tr/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice

If all the editors who so virulently defended this article on the AfD could lend a hand in finding sources for the statements made here. As it stands, this article is one of the weaseliest ones out there. If no sources can be found, this article is going to end up even shorter than it already is.yandman 14:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Err, what is AfD? Politis 14:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Articles for deletion" is a place where editors lend their informed opinion on whether an article should stay or not. A lot of editors came out in support of this article, and as they are obviously knowleadgeable about the subject (or else how would they have known what to decide?), it would be nice if they could lend a hand. yandman 14:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Yandman. The greek participants fought very hard to keep this page. Hence I really expect them to work ver hard to convert this page into a reliable and useful one. I would suggest them to support their ideas with UN resolution. If it were a genocide, then UN must have decided on some resolutions in order to stop or prevent such events. A question? Can we vote on another AfD when an article alreday survived one? Caglarkoca 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is a totally nonsense! I have checked references #2 and #3. They do not present any material on so called Kurdish Genocide. #3 is on Cultural Genocide and any it does not present any information on a genocide. Can someone call the increasing events of Malaria and Anemia a method of genocide? I am asking the Wikipedian who has sited this source as reference to Kurdish Genocide, whether (s)he has read the article or not. The word genocide, when it is used alone means planning extermination of a population by the state, not just cultural genocide. Hence how it is used to site an article with the name Kurdish Genocide. In fact, it does not include any detail of a cultural genocide i.e turkification of the population. #3 does not include anything related to the article. #2 is not very different. I have read the Kurds sub-section (I do not believe that the person who sited #2 also hasn't read the source thoroughly.) The subsection does not include any detail on a genocide. It even gives the date of the abolishment of Caliphate wrong. It is written 1925 in the site whereas in Atatürk's Reforms it is clearly stated as 24.3.1924, so why do I trust such a report? I endorse anyone voted for keeping this article to read the references and make this page a decent Wikipedia page if they can. Caglarkoca 22:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to reassure Yandman that personally I've not forgotten this article. But I would also like to preserve for myself the right to handle in the way I regard as most appropriate my limited wiki-time. The article will not go away, and I do intend to contribute here, when time is going to be more generous, and when my other occupations in Wikipedia allow me to. Regards!--Yannismarou 14:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to take the opportunity to let you know of some problems with that article and the majority of your additions. Human rights covers everything related to the right of a human being. I am sorry, but you are treating the article as if its title was "Human rights violations .." or "KG". What about gender equality Yannis? Most of the women in Kurdish villages don't know how to read and write because of local feudal customs.. What about honor killings?? Don't hundreds of Kurdish women getting shot by their family because they made a pass at the neighbor's son merit a mention? This was exactly the problem there was at the HR in TR article before I rewrote it. Human rights covers everything. Gender equality, labor rights, gay rights, freedom of expression, freedom of press etc. Pls take a look at HR in TR article. That's why I am still for a merge: the article is FORK of 2-3 articles, and is becoming more and more so with every edit. The main has scant relations to the title, think about what I said about women etc. I am sorry, but this article is being used to bang up on Turkey, and not really talk about the "human rights" of Kurds. People can think what they want, but hundreds of Kurdish women getting killed to cleanse the "family honor" is much more important then some wacko liberal getting thrown in jail for a few months because of a book. Don't think so? And it is the feudal attitudes native to the Kurdish and Arab tribes that are causing this, not the Turkish govt. In fact, TR state is trying with all its might to crack down on such feudal native practices. Please try to contextualize things Yannis and don't let that article turn into some sort of punching bag. If you really care about the Kurds, you should mention what i just wrote and give them greater coverage then some stupid Istanbulite writer who got thrown in jail just to be a rebel. You included whole paragraphs about some random write and NONE for all those honor killings? That's all. Cheers and happy new year! Baristarim 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job, Baris abi!:) Now this article is much more useful and educative than the previous article. The article was a mess which was created to humiliate Turkish people and government. Now, backed with historical evolutions of the events, it tells pretty much the truth in academic way. Thanks for this valuable contribution. Caglarkoca 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before, I have no problem with the title nor its scope. In fact, it is a good academic area. However, I also share the concerns of this page being created to simply gang up on Turkey. I restructured the article, and hopefully it will develop in a way to give a good overview of the historic evolution. Many sections need to be expanded. I also created some sections so that we remember that human rights cover all the rights of a human being. I suppose if we nobody creates some of those sections in a few months, they can be removed :)

Well joke aside, this article has potential. And I am willing to work on it, no problems. However if only references that will come to the table will be those that bang up on Turkey, then I will be obliged, even though I hate such a reference war, will have to dig up counter sources, which will inevitably make me look like "Turkish POV pusher".

Now back to square one.. I still think that some people have not understood why this is a fork... HR of KP in TR inevitably covers other subjects in HR in TR. The whole article is simply a mirror site, but only concentrating on HR as concerns the Kurdish people. Yannis, I don't think that you understand the true nature of the merge proposal: gender-equality is already talked about in HR in TR. Kurds in Turkey and casualties of the TR-PKK conflict already cover many sections in this article. In fact, I really think that this article is a fork of THREE articles as is. Well, I will restart working on HR in TR article soon, and when it will be finished it will cover the same thing as here. There is no need to list every single ECHR case either, even in Religion in Turkey article the landmark ECHR headscarf case is talked about in two sentences, not three looong paragraphs like it is here. Well, I will get around to it some day soon :) Baristarim 06:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. I am still split about the merge. I suppose this article can be good, however we will need to do some serious work... It can be done I think... Well, we will see how it goes... Baristarim 07:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Is there any reason this WP:FORK article should be separate from Kurds in Turkey and Human rights in Turkey and Minorities in Turkey?--Persian Lad (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Discrimination

This article is suppose to mention the discrimination different ethnicities in Turkey but once again it has become a field of discrimination towards, mainly Kurds but also Arabs.

Nearly all of these so-called honor killings take place among the Kurdish population and persons found guilty of committing an honor killing are sentenced to life in prison per the Turkish Penal Code.

This is preposterous because "honor killings" are known within the all the Muslim communities; so why the hell discriminate Kurds! AND the bloody source has no statistics so why the hell make such large argument with no source!

This low figure is mainly due to prevailing feudal attitudes against women in the Arab and Kurdish inhabited southeastern provinces of the country. Many Kurdish families refuse to send their daughters to school because of centuries old tribal traditions. In fact, it has been stated that even economically wealthy families do not want their daughters to follow the mandatory primary and secondary education, instead preferring them to get married when they are comparatively very young. It has also been stated that for many of the local Arab and Kurdish population of the southeast, a school is simply not a place that girls go to

Concluding that the low figures is mainly due to some of these families is such a bad argument. I mean a BBC report on the region shouldn't enable people to discriminate these people, because the low figures are directly affected by the economically non-developed region which has negative implication, such as the argued cultural effect. The source isn't a statistical source and thus users cannot make statistical arguments shoving to peoples' face false propositions. Özgūr ^{Talk Hist} 10:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ozgur, what do you think of my suggestion about renaming the section called "claims of kurdish genocide" to claims of forced assimilation, or something in the kind..The word genocide is hardly convenient if one considers that there are millions of kurds who are living in turkey..

And sorry but i can provide statistical data about the honor killings that are occuring in turkey and they say most of these events took place in kurdish southeast, but certainly there are many turks and people of other nationalities who commit honor killings..however i also dont see why these data should be included in this article, as it seems to me unrelated with the subject..--laertes d 15:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

About the section to be called "genocide" or not, I would suggest to look in detail the important Kurdish uprisings such as the Dersim or Kocgiri. I think after examining these we could identify the suppressions' size. I, myself, do not know this yet. But do remember that the suppression towards Kurds has always been hidden in the Western media due to the Palestinians and else where because of different reasons. Please do find statistical source of the honor killings; please do not bother if they are from the Turkish point of you or particularly Turkish newspapers which have a anti-Kurdish political view and are compiled by a bunch of journalists which have done no research and as you mentioned it has little relevance and isn't required in this article. Özgūr ^{Talk Hist} 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Allright i found these, but as i said i dont consider them relevant to the article..

"'Honour' killings are common amongst Kurds (the UN has recorded 40 honour killings in Kurdistan in 3 months in 2007)"

www.stophonourkillings.com

"Activists say honour killings are particularly prevalent in the mainly Kurdish southeast, which is generally more conservative, and poorer, than western Turkey."

Kurdish Women Action Against Honour Killing

it can be considered as a kind of statistic i think:

"Though they make up an estimated 20 percent of Turkey's population, 43 percent of the crimes police classified as Honor killings from 2000-2005 occurred in the east or southeast of the country, where Kurds are predominant. Of the remaining Honor killings committed in the west, 45 percent were committed by people who were originally from the east or southeast.

[4] --laertes d 23:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I do apologise but your first source does not function and the second is irrelevant to the Kurds in Anatolia, the third however is about them but seems to be a writing referencing Bosporus University professor Hakan Yilmaz and making irrelevant conclusions to what the study is saying; from what we know this person might be making its own decisions on the matter and this is not what we need. We need an academic explanation and academics wouldn't bother with such explanations because it is clearly insulting. It is also really difficult to make statistical facts about these issues particularly because "honor killing" traditions are more religious related than ethnical. This meaning that both Turks and Kurds are doing it and it is difficult to understand which does it more and there is no need to come up with such academic document because of its objectivity. Nevertheless it has nothing to do with this article and if it has a place in another article its reasons has to be detailed. Anyhow I will try my best to help with other matters on the subject. Özgūr ^{Talk Hist} 11:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just read a more general article of this matter and I cannot believe what is written, in this article and that particular article; Human rights in Turkey]. There is some baseless arguments that do not reflect the sourced materials and rather change what is meant in those sources, this can indeed be considered as a POV fork. We need to ar least put the Kurdish perspective in those articles too. Thus I am seeking people to help me on this matter. Özgūr ^{Talk Hist} 14:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

References

Kurdish genocide Claims

The section, if it is going to stay, has to be renamed to something like "claims of kurdish cultural genocide" as we dont talk about a genocide in its real meaning, there are millions of kurds living in turkey..And these paragraphs about the pontic greek genocide are unrelated and unneccessary as there are many of such articles dealing with the events..Otherwise one can easily add information to Mr. Levene's assessment about "genocidal attempts of nation states" considering what Greek state had done in the same period of time in western anatolia..--laertes d 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:Undue Weight states: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all...We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view...To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute...Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

As I've said, the current section is misrepresenting the dispute concerning human rights of Kurds in Turkey. Accusations of genocide are not part of the mainstream. Yannis and Aldux have also indicated above that these claims should not have their own section. --A.Garnet 08:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You're clutching at straws here. The section is in proportion to the academic sources provided. I'm afraid it is Turkish denialism that is the tiny-minority view. I request that you provide sources supporting your view. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Really, I'm clutching at straws? The section is larger than contemporary issues, ("depth of detail", "quantity of text") and copies two large statements from two vague sources ("juxtaposition of statements"). Shouting "Turkish denialism", besides being a personal attack, is not an acceptable answer to my concerns here. --A.Garnet 10:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And your failure to provide sources to contradict those cited is entirely unsatisfactory. Turkish denialism isn't a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. I've made my three reverts for today. Cheers for now. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss any more regarding the deletion of this. See past discussions, AfD's, RfD's etc.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kurdish_genocide
• Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2006_December_22

The section is sourced by the accredited historian Mark Levene,(1)(2) plus it is not a separate article, plus it has the awkward section title "claims". I would strongly recommend for it to be {{main}}ed out, but I don't want to inflame the situation further. NikoSilver 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, pardon my accidental misuse of the 'revert vandalism' button. The screen jumped up one line when loading a picture or something as I was trying to click on 'undo' so as to write a decent edit summary, and I accidentally pressed it. I would have written: 'Already discussed, well sourced, see talk for history'. NikoSilver 15:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This response is too low, and I suggest you find a proper rationale (if any) for your repeated reverts. At least yours could be blanking vandalism... NikoSilver 15:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Leven is not an expert on the region and his opinions are far from being mainstream, he basically wants to give examples about the evils of nationalism and nation building practices..

It is unrelated but i just wanted to say it, St. Clair who is an expert in the 19th centry greek history used the word "genocide" describing the mass killing of Turks in Peloponnese, im sure now youre going to open a separete article about it called "Claims of Turkish genocide in Peloponnese" as youre an examplary defender of human rights Niko..--laertes d 15:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have the actual text of Mark Levene, and it only talks about Turkey in the early 20th century. No examples of evils and such. And yes, if you have such quotes about Greeks, I would be more than happy to include the information in the said articles. You see, I believe that we actually improve ourselves when we don't sweep our past mistakes under the carpet. I suggest you do the same. NikoSilver 15:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dont make me laugh, youre the person who did everything for the deletion of pelopennese article when i opened a separete one based on completely neutral sources about the massacres in Peloponnese and thanks to the helps you received from some "administrators" it was censured..I can well suggest to {{main}}ed out the section about the organised greek atrocities in western anatolia during the greek occupation of it as there is a separete article called Pontic greek genocide.What happened there, by far deserves more the title "claims of genocide".. --laertes d 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Your article was deleted by consensus because of a previous AfD, because it was almost a copyvio, poorly written, lousy sourced, and a WP:POVFORK of massacres that happened from both sides. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacres in Peloponnese for a reflection, and remember that I have not intervened since then in your (some times irrational) expansions in the Greek War of Independence#Massacres during the revolution to which all salvageable information was supposed to be merged. NikoSilver 16:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

By contrast, I am not aware of any Turkish civilians being killed by Kurds at that time, so placing all this in here rather than on a separate article is debatable, and instead of blanking it you should be at least grateful. NikoSilver 16:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, using scare quotes for our administrators to discredit them will not help you. I cannot discuss this any further if you do not refrain from repeated personal attacks and bad faith assumptions for your fellow editors. NikoSilver 16:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the topic, Levene's ideas are far from being mainstream and and he is the only person that talks about a genocide in the conventinal sense. The rest mentions about a "cultural genocide" whihc is not the sam thing..--laertes d 15:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And that may be a good reason why we have smacked "claims" and haven't {{main}}ed it out yet. But what you were doing was deleting sourced content, and that is unacceptable. NikoSilver 16:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

bla bla bla..., i used the mainstream academical sources about the greek war of independence and they were not copyvio of anything, but this is not the right place for discussing it..--laertes d 16:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And as i said there is a quite notable historian who uses the word genocide for the mass killings of Peloponnese, then lets open a section named as "claims of Turkish genocide in peloponnese" but without having maining it out yet..--laertes d 16:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just say it in advance, if these completely unrelated "pontic greek genocide" thing would stay, im going to add some few sentences about the near genocidal acts of the greek army in the same period during greco turkish war..Just take relevant parts from Levene which are about Kurds..--laertes d 06:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I would not disagree with the title "cultural assimilation", nor reference to Fernandes who makes the claim of "cultural genocide". However, I think there are more relevant sources to be used than Levene, especially since assimilation is an important issue. --A.Garnet 08:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, there is no consensus in deleting sourced material by accredited scholars like Levene on the basis of "more relevant sources" which have not been presented by the way. NikoSilver 21:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is only one scholar Niko, not scholars "like Levene"..And you still didnt answer my question regarding the mass killings in Peloponnese, St. Clair used the word "genocide" in relation to them, George Finlay mentioned by them as "extermination of Turks" and both of these guys are experts in greek history.. it is by far more appropriate to open an article naming Turkish genocide according to your "logic"..--laertes d 22:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I said "I haven't intervened" in these articles and as you see I continue to do so. "Scholars like Levene", doesn't imply "many" and there don't have to be many. This section has survived two XfDs and what you are doing is unilateral deletion of sourced material. NikoSilver 22:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

not the section of "genocide" bu the idea of having a separete article about the human rights of kurds have passed..--laertes d 22:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And as always same tricks, same stupid games, same nonesense talking im really bored with these stuff, just to say it advance i dont give a damn aif somebody is going to block me for it i am going to revert as hell..Write whatever hell are you going to write, i so far didnt delete aynthing that is sourced, just changed the title of the section..

There is only one scholar who use that word genocide and he is using in a meaning he himself created, there are millions of kurds in turkey, and genocide is not a conveniet term..By contrast there isnt any turk in Peloponnese who were butchered in thousands, yet we cant even open a separete article about it..--laertes d 22:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

1. You're wrong, the XfDs were about the genocide section and redirects (just click them), but feel free to file a third one. NikoSilver 14:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
2. You are not helping yourself with this second paragraph. NikoSilver 14:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
3. You included "genocide" in the relevant section [5] (as retribution? as a WP:POINT violation? -whatever) and I (at least) didn't revert you. The separate article issue has been discussed in 2 AfDs and has been decided that given that massacres came both ways it would be undue. NikoSilver 14:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the Kurdish genocide article created by Ploutarchos was a WP:Point violation in response to the dispute on the Pontian Greek genocide article. Secondly, the afd for that article was a vote stacking joke, and since Wikipedia is not a democracy, I do not feel inclined to take it seriously, not least when WP rules are being so clearly violated. Thirdly, the second afd was for this article, human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey, which is of course a valid subject, not the section on Kurdish genocide. So no, I do not see any justification for this section, it is undue weight, it is the result of petty wiki disputes and poor conduct by editors turning wikipedia into a battlefield. --A.Garnet 09:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet, you have failed to cite any sources to contradict those provided. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This ridicolous argument was used a lot on the Pontian article to justify its existence, but as i said there, the burden is on you to first prove it is a signficant academic opinion before you ask for sources to counter this tiny minority view. You can keep shouting Levene! Levene! but just having an author mention the word genocide in connection to Kurds does not make the view necessarily encylopedic or noteworthy. --A.Garnet 10:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And I say that you have to prove it is a tiny-minority view, by citing a significant number of alternative sources that dismiss the genocide thesis. We can't simply take your word for it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't take my word for it, i've invited others to comment. --A.Garnet 11:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I've made some changes to the section.

• Changed the title to Cultural genocide instead as per the content of the section.
• Removed the paragraph about Turkey displacing its own citizens in Southeastern Anatolia as it has nothing to do w/ any cultural genocide against anyone.
• Removed Levene's quotes as they emphasize more about the 1878-1923 Ottoman period. It is also considered as quote farming → {{Template:Quotefarm}}.
• Removed POV tag as a consequence. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• • The section talked about bona-fide plain genocide (Levene).
  • Displacement is indeed not related by the context, possibly some sort of argument was made?
  • Levene speaks about "the last 100 years" in one quote, and "until 1990" in the other. Levene's work does not "emphasize more about the 1878-1923 period", and interested parties can receive by me the full text by e-mail on request. NikoSilver 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes as a consequence:

• Added Levene's quotes in the background section.
• Added a sentence after Fernandez regarding Levene's contemporary remarks, and extension of the genocide to a lot more than "cultural".
• Cleaned up a few stray headings. NikoSilver 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The title of the section should be changed to reflect the content of both sources, and I think that striking "cultural" is in order. I'm not doing it myself though (yet). NikoSilver 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hı FayssalF thanks for your sane approach to the ıssue first..Upon your edits i am going to suggest some few changes, it was me back some time ago who changed the name of the section from "claıms of kurdish genocide" to "claims of forced assimilation", then Nıko opened a new section with the tıtle genocide after reversıon war..These two sections basically deals with the same issue therefore i thınk they have to be merged into one..

Another issue is with the name of the section, ı think it has to start with the assertion that these are claims about the cultural genocide, there is not a consensus of opinion among scholars and there has to be sıgnıfıcant amount of historıan who are makıng such claims ın order to make such a definite suggestion.. --laertes d 13:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The section was here before you even registered and you deleted it. I agree with "claims" btw, but why did you revert me? NikoSilver 20:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

i did not delete it Niko as you may notice, i simple merged these two sections which are about the same exact things..and check it better, there wasnt such a section called as "Forced assimilation", i renamed it as such some days ago..But of course that's something you already know, right? Just your daily dose of POV pushing..

thats the version before i changed it, written by you..

[[6]]

I cant see two different sections, can you Niko?--laertes d 20:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's not different, then you won't mind me reverting. And yes, you did revert me: [7] and you also reverted the minor edits along with the rest.

Here is the comparison. Show me where there's a mention of Levene in your version? NikoSilver 20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And I'm done taking personal attacks from you. I take issue with "just your daily dose of POV pushing" and such, and you'll be reported in every single chance. NikoSilver 20:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do so, but in the meantime reply my question, can you see two different section as Forced assimilation and cultural genocide? This was your version of the story and it was your edits only some few days ago and you recently claimed that it has been there for years..--laertes d 20:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not my version, this is the version of FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®}, thats a third party opinion.. i reverted your recent edits to the version FayssalF prepared..

And again thats also something you already know, and thats also nothing but your daily dose of POV pushing..--laertes d 20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Im waiting for a reply, you made two strong claims and i suggest youre well knowing that they are false assertions when saying them..

First, you claimed there were two section as forced assimilation and cultural genocide for years, i showed that just five days ago in an edit made by you there wasn't..

Second, you claim this version is made by me, i showed that it wasnt made by me, but it was a third party administrator opinion..

there is no insult in here, but you consistently either lie or manipulate things in order to get an upper hand in the discussion, that makes you highly unreliable, and not fit for a serious, decent discussion and foremost not fit to edit this particular article...--laertes d 21:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Replies:

• The section in March ("cultural" euphemisms removed): [8] and your first edit in this article in June: [9]
• I said you reverted my modifications after Fayssal
• Your block log suggests better who is better fit for a discussion, but I don't hold that against you. Still, if you persist in addressing your fellow users (including me) rather than the content, you will be blocked, for your third time for personal attacks. NikoSilver 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

thats a Nikosilver classical, youre again manipulating things. There was one single section not two, whatever its name, be it "forced assimilation" or "cultural genocide", and now there is two and they word by word say the same thing..Thats something you know, but again you chose to manipulate things in order to get an upper hand in the discussion..

FaysallF made his edits and you simple reput everything according to your single point of view, before the version of his edits..that also is something you know well and again you chose to manipulate argument..

Third, instead of focusing on the issue in hand and discussion we're having now, you brought up unrelated things like how many time that i am blocked..Again a manipulation of arguments in order to get an upper hand in the discussion..

Lastly, now you started to threaten me that i am going to be blocked, i also take it as a manipulation, as it shows you have nothing to reply other than threats..

--laertes d 22:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

To the points you raised:

• You reverted me completely without response, explanation, reply, whatever. [10] Then you merged. [11] I didn't reinstate a repetitive section, I added stuff about the background in the background section. [12] I also added a freakin' sentence about the present, in the section that talks about the present. [13] Both are sourced.
• Fayssal is an editor like all of us, with a few extra buttons (WP:ANOT as he himself would probably say). He made an edit assuming Levene was talking about early 1900s. Levene wasn't, and I said so. [14] Nobody replied.
• Your block log is there to remind you of your mistakes. You've been blocked for attacks to other editors twice, and I don't see you taking the message, so I thought I should stress it, after *four* times that I have already warned you only here! (right above)
• I'm sorry if you see a threat in a simple and civil WP:NPA warning (which btw is foreseen by policy -do read it). Yet, you keep insulting me in every edit of yours... NikoSilver 23:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

i reverted you because of the simple reason that you reput the same things albeit in different places..you never discuss any issue in talk page but directly engage in manipulating arguments to prove yourself right. here again you made another one, call it an insult but you again lied, thats what FaysallF said : "Removed Levene's quotes as they emphasize more about the 1878-1923 Ottoman period. It is also considered as quote farming " thats not the same thing with what youre claiming, right?..anyway im bored with the discussion as it seems nobody is going to do anything with you, i think i do take wikipedia too serioulsy to waste my time with you, but it is absurd, so have fun..--laertes d 23:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)