Talk:Dersim massacre

Delete discussion

Delete The creator of this article should read what genocide means.This is just a piece of propaganda.Abbatai (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm contesting the deletion and so removing the tag. The title aside, it contains useful information. If you wish to propose its merger into the Dersim rebellion article, I would support that. Otherwise, do a proper deletion proposal. Meowy 02:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

the motto of Turkish official history "whatever the majority says or you make them say is the truth" is showing itself once again in this delete attempt. it is a well known historical fact (see Jandarma Genel Komutanligi- Dersim Raporu, Dersim Kanunu) that the newly formed Turkish Republic had tested its power on these non-Turkish non-sunni people in Dersim even though they were keen supporters of Independence war at the begining. People of Dersim and all non-Turkish ethnic origins are still subject to discrimination in all aspects of social life in Turkey even though they seem to have the same rights according to the constitution. now can you call them "not telling the truth" if they complain about this because they will always be a minority. will the discrimination be unreal just because the majority says so? Turkish public has developed a habit of flooding the web sites with protests which reveals the information that has to be unknown or forgotten by all the world, even by themselves to keep their innocent identity. did you know that even web sites like youtube and most of the blog sites are not accessible from Turkey by of court orders because they are allegedly containing information or videos defaming Turkish identity? in 1937-1938 there was a genocide in Dersim for which the Turkish army and government even did not bother to hide, there was operation plans, mass killing, and concentration camps for those which were sent to forced exile. all these were done according to de-population (yes, it is described as DE-POPULATION) of Dersim district by Dersim LAWS. according to these historical facts, Dersim Genocide is one of the most organised and well planned genocide ever carried out in humankind history. hiddensun 3:27 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiddensun (talk • contribs) 05:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Genocide has a specific meaning and the term, because of its seriousness, should not be abused. I fail to see how the term can legitimately be used in this case. Also, just because some sources call what happened in Dersim a "genocide", that does not mean an article should exist with that title. The proper place for it is in an article about the events, where it could (if there were enough legitimate soruces) be mentioned that some have called it genocide. Meowy 21:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

what is not serious here? dersim genocide has all the factors for which you can call it a GENOCIDE. what do you wait for to call it a genocide? will the Turkish Government express its apology and call it a genocide? it was a pure attemt of purification and its effects are still felt in this region. one must bear in mind that in this decade (30's), racism was a very normal idea to defend and act upon even in west europe. you can see its early signs in new Turkish official correspondence and reports (I advise you to read the insulting reports submitted to CHP by Hasan Resit Tankut about people of Dersim and zaza people, and they were considered very serious in that time, in fact those reports seem to be still considered serious by the government). in summary, Dersim Genocide can be an extension of ittihat ve terakki's project of purification of anatolia of all non-turkic and non-sunni-islam elements. nearly all of leading members of CHP were previously members of Ittihat ve terakki and their minds didn't change overnight. the reason the turkish government don't even want to talk about this genocide is that, it is very easy to prove even with government documents (there are army reports mentioning the confiscated possessions of killed people which were generally living stock), it happened in republic era and it was done by the turkish army unlike the armenian genocide (in armenian genocide, government organised civilian militia were used to make it impossible to link those mass killings to the ittihat ve Terakki). there are people telling what happened in those dark years in dersim, such as burning the corpses of village people with carosene in the dry creek beds. in some villages noone was left behind to bury the dead people, so they were left as they are. now, it is time to leave the word games and call every event with a proper name. if you cannot call this a genocide, then what will you call so. will you wait the killers to call it a genocide. it seems like we'll wait for a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiddensun (talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It was year 1938. Don't ask, what would happen to Curds in Soviet Union or in Germany, in 1938. I'am sorry, what happened was terrible, but the word genocide is out of context of year 1938. You know, the nazis have killed more then 300 thousand Czechs in their own country just for being Czechs from 1938 to 1945. And the situation in countries like Poland, Ukraine or Belarus was much worse. The population of Belarus didn't get to prewar levels until 1970, including the massive migration of Russians to Belarus. I would not hesitate to use the word genocide, if this happened in 1980. In the context of 1938, this is not ok. --193.165.212.242 (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Genocide

Genocide?????? you are stupid?

Answer: is this all your opposing argument? just saying no, eh? you are repeating the million times repeated lies even you have believed to have happened so. Dersim Genocide was carried out when PKK didn't exist. you people should leave this pathetic attitude of being right everytime. in fact, even if you are proven wrong, your attitude shifts to feeling proud of having done a genocide. you don't sound like a reading person. so I advise you to watch Dersim 1937-38 documentary and confessions of Ihsan sabri caglayangil on youtube. if you have any humanity left in your hearth, these will mean something to you.(I am not sure whether you will get to understand the contents of this message). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiddensun (talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny how whenever someone says "when you're proven wrong" there is no real proof. TheDarkLordSeth (talk)

Massacre

I think the title should be Dersim Massacre, because it was not against a particular ethnic group but against all citizens of Dersim, after a rebellion. Not like Armenian Genocide or Holocaust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.211.95 (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

PKK, a Kurdish rebel group?

Is PKK a kurdish rebel group? As far as I know many countries (including U.S.) accepted PKK as a terrorist organization, and drug smuggler. And you are accusing Turkey for genocide by stating PKK? Is that what your objectivity? There is website called Google. You can search PKK in there and see some of their noble(!) rebellious massacre.

I used to love wiki. But now I see people are becoming obsessed with their lies and do everything to make the world believe the same lies. Objectivity is needed by all of us. Whatever you believe and whomever you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.32.135 (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

speaking of objectivity, many ultra-nationalis Turks have also did jailtimes in Europe for drug smuggling including Abdullah Catli, Oral (look at that name!) Celik and many more. so drug smuggling is not a uniuqe characteristics of PKK. even killing babies was fist practiced by MHP supporters in late 1970s in Maras, thus baby killing is not also a unique characteristics of PKK. in fact, I can see that your universe revolves around your so fixed ideas that,no human being can make you believe that there was a planned genocide in Dersim in 1937-1938 even if he'd put the sun to your left and the moon to your right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiddensun (talk • contribs) 13:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the relationship of Catli or other characters in this discussion? Did I say something about Catli or did i reference them? You are trying to mislead the discussion by stating some contract killers. Please grow up. At least try to stick the topic. You are saying there was a genocide and you are referring PKK as a relieable source. And when I say PKK is a drug smuggler terrorist organization therefore you cannot reference it as a reliable source; then you try to mislead topic and state me as a blind man. I am really tired of this obsessed, biased discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.59.190 (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

you're the one veering out of the subject. the subject is Dersim Genocide and you're talking about PKK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.109.179 (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course I have to say something about PKK. Because PKK is stated as a reliable source. Read the article: "On 2008, the PKK, a Kurdish rebel group, organized a "Dersim genocide conference" in which it reached a conclusion... blah blah blah..." A terrorist organization is a biased resource and cannot be referenced in an objective article. Therefore I demand the removal of PKK section completely. This is nothing to do with MHP, or their contract killers or my point of view. If you want to be objective, removal of PKK's view is crucial. Otherwise this article will be a fabricated one on behalf of a terrorist (also drug smuggler) organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.36.199 (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to say about PKK's reliability. If you pay attention to what I have written I see no difference between the two counterpart nationalist groups, I find them equal in reliability. Nevertheless, the fact that a genocide was carried out in Dersim in 1937-38 is not less true just because PKK said so, nor such a thing did not happen because T.C. said the vica versa. this is a fact, and it does not depend on anyone's acceptance whether whether they are reliable or unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.130.37.12 (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have nothing to say about PKK's reliability, let's remove "Association with Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocides of 1915-1923". Because it is totally based on PKK's sayings. To use PKK in an article, reduces its credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.223.1 (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's make something clear, are you saying that there weren't an Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocides between 1915-1923, or do you say that there were but PKK should have not been cited as a reliable source? please express yourself clearer than I can also put my thoughts in words.As I said before, a truth is not less true even an evil person gives voice to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.102.158 (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't you still get it? Our opinions, our believes, or our feelings don't count. Therefore I don't care about your opinion, neither should you care about mine. All I say is, in an objective article you cannot reference a terrorist (drug smuggler) organization. PKK is a terrorist organization and biased resource. My intention is not to dictate my belief and I won't change anything until all of us agrees. Once again I repeat myself, you cannot use PKK in an article. It will be the most subjective thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.223.1 (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

if this is where you are coming from, a full academic view, I have no objection to that. But I must say that I have many resources that also agree with this idea (Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocides between 1915-1923). "CUP (ittihad ve terakki) Rule in Diyarbekir Province, 1913-1923", a very well documented Master Thesis leaving no doubts about the credibility of the study by Uğur Ü. Üngör from University of Amsterdam, Department of History, "Ambassador Morgenthau's story" American Ambassador at Constantinople from 1913 to 1916 are the ones I remember in the first place. in short, PKK should go as you say but the title must stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.130.37.12 (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The article stays but I've removed PKK's section. I don't claim that I am fully objective; but that's what I am trying to do. We cannot trust every resource, first we have to examine the resource if it is reliable enough. And if we find it reliable enough, then we have to create an anti-thesis for the thesis. Therefore in your writings please try to include both sides. If we do things with hatred and revenge we will lose our objectivity and this leads to more problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.223.1 (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Today I've seen the article changed completely. Please read the the article. It doesn't involve an objective view. In fact the article became a propaganda manifest. I am really sorry for this. Maybe topic should be locked and reviewed carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.249.51 (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Friend, I must say I don't agree with you on the article's being a propaganda manifest. the events claimed to have happened during this period are unfortunately true. it was a post war era and these kind of brutal supression of uprisings were seen normal back then. these times are now past, there's no point in acting with grudge for these people subjected to this brutality. but this historical fact must not be forgotten in order not to repeat it. with my regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiddensun (talk • contribs) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is heavily subjective and written in sense of revenge I think. Let's examine the inconsistencies of it: - "...A key component of the turkification process was the policy of massive poulation resettlement.": There's no assimilation in Genocide. If you say there is an assimilation; you cannot also claim there was a genocide. Genocides involves the total annihilation of an ethnic group. Nazis didn't try to convert Jews to Germans; they tried to kill them all. When genocide is in charge, it doesn't lose time by assimilation; it just kills them all. And if assimilation is genocide; then there's no nation in the history of world, without genocide.

- "...a policy targeting the region of Dersim as one of its first test cases...": First test? Was that an experiment? It's totally based on personal review. Do you really believe in this 'test' sentence?

- "...The Dersim genocide is often confused with the Dersim rebellion that took place during these events." : Dersim rebellion started everything. They tried to fight the government to become independent. They failed. That's all!

To say "this condition is genocide" is like saying: "Jews tried to become independent in Germany and seperate it. And they fought to the government. But they failed and had been assimilated by Nazis." This is not what happened. Jews didn't face assimilation. They were just killed. And they did not start a rebellion; they were just systematically killed without reason. To equalize these events with the Dersim rebellion is nothing but a twisted idea. Even you don't know what genocide is; or you keep the fire of revenge on Turkey for not being able to win victory in Dersim rebellion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.223.1 (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Dersim genocide or Dersim Genocide?

Hiya to all. A question on the titling, as this article came up in a discussion about use of capitals in article naming on Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide#Requested move; specifically and NARROWLY PLEASE, about the capitalization of titles of events like these. Is Dersim genocide a proper noun, and if so, shouldn't it be Dersim Genocide? Here's my sense of it, copied from over there at the RfM, [where the proposal (not mine, I had questions that led to you) was to move the page from Denial of the Armenian Genocide to Armenian Genocide denial]: This was my first question, because I thought, "Well, this would conform better to the Manual of Style (which does not cover this specific point...YET):

• "However, should it not be Armenian genocide denial, unless there is some legitimate reason why in this case genocide should be capitalized? Further, why should not (for examples) the articles Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Srebrenica Genocide, Rwandan Genocide follow the same naming conventions as do Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, and Burundi genocide? I have the same question concerning titles containing the word massacre: Why Parsley Massacre but Rohingya massacre? Perhaps if such topics are considered events and as such are considered proper nouns...but I'd like to see all such titles conform across the board, to a coherently stated convention, whichever convention is supported by either clear policy or robust consensus. I haven't looked hard for it at all, but maybe someone else has: Is there any established WP policy, guideline, or village pump decision on precisely this?"

The response was:

• "I'll explain my vision. In the titles it is a name of an event ("Greek Genocide"), a term and not word-combination (adjective + noun) to mark the belonging of the event. The same way the terms for Cuban Missile Crisis or Caribbean Crisis and not Caribbean crisis with Caribbean as an adjective and crisis as a noun. Or the Berlin Blockade, for another example."

to which I queried further:

• "Is your vision... supported by a WP policy, and if so, please point me to that policy. I studied WP:Article titles and WP:Naming conventions#Capitalization to no avail. Where is this 'an event, or series of events, is a proper noun whose terms shall be capitalized' policy, if there is one? Declaring that something is an Event (not to opine in any way that this E/event isn't one) and thus is a proper noun that should be capitalized, could be controversial to some, and might encompass different scopes for different folks, so please explain also, if you can, why (as examples--there are a vast number of 'E/events' that might have this issue) the E/events currently titled (and capitalized like this-->) Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, Burundi genocide, and Rohingya massacre should not be capitalized as you propose for the move to Armenian Genocide denial, if there is a good reason to handle each differently. Staying arbitrarily within the narrow category of death and dying-themed events only, why Moors murders and Soham murders, but Parker-Hulme Murder? (the current examples suggest, somewhat irregularly, that single death is an Event, but multiple death is an event, unless it's a whole lot of death, in which case it's an Event??) What is the WP policy, if there is one, that sets these sorts of boundaries (or not) for E/events of all flavors?"

and got this answer:

• "I do think that massacres or genocides you noted above should be capitallised. Those are events. A murder is an event, a pogrom is an event, a mass murder (massacre) is an event, a genocide is an event, but an article "Mass murders" is not an event, an article "The genocides of Europe" is not AN event or Sexual disorder is a collective word-combination and a collective article but Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder is a name of one disorder. the same way Greek, Assyrian or Armenian Genocides are separate events and not some variety of genocides or something. I don't even thing this was ever discussed. Just all the WP:RSs write it with a capital letter so no doubts."

Please share your thoughts on the idea of changing the name of this page to Dersim Genocide, a proper noun. I'm going to try to edit the Manual of Style to address this question, and before I do, I'd like to find out what community consensus is on the matter.

Sorry so long-winded. =) Duff (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dersim Genocide like Armenian Genocide, upper letter for G. Kavas (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Merge"

We don't have to merge articles (Dersim Rebellion and Dersim massacres). Massacres took place in some stages of Dersim Rebellion and we cannot call whole of incident "Dersim massacres". Even if this case was not rebellion but "disobedience", this term is common name in books, articles. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Dersim massacres" 4
• "Dersim massacre" 1
• "Massacres of Dersim" -Llc 2

Takabeg (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Error

Erdogan didn't order this massacre. He wasn't alive then! This links straight from the main page (2011/11/25). What's going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.133.224.12 (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Erdogan wasn't even born then, except if he was but found the fountain of youth before Johhny Depp. Alkiviadis (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Zazas vs. Kurds

I have no knowledge on the subject, however I noticed earlier today that almost all mentions of Kurds / Kurdish people were changed to Zazas / Zaza people in this diff. Technical correctness aside, is that the term the sources use? If not, maybe we should change it back to Kurds (or Zaza Kurds, as it were). Aside from following sources, it would also be more recognisable to readers unfamiliar with the issue. wctaiwan (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources differ - I have seen contradictory information as to whether Zazas are Kurds - and also differ as to what the exact ethnic makeup of the area. I also don't know what the best phraseology is, but it seems that some people killed were not Zaza, which the edits made fail to reflect. . --FormerIP (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

In any case, there should be a mention in the article (preferably by someone who knows more about it then me) about the relationship of Zazas and Kurds, or even just a better description of what a Zaza is then just "ethnic minority group". In the wikipedia article on Zazas it says that "Almost all speakers of the Zaza language consider themselves as Kurds and are usually collected by international statistics and surveys (for example the University of Harvard and Columbia) as part of the Kurdish people. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]." The change made in this article without leaving any explanation seems like it may have been politically motivated.THEMlCK (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)