Talk:Dersim rebellion

Sources

Are sources even being checked before changes are accepted? in the 6 sources provided for the starting "Alevi-Zaza" part, 4 of them mention it as Kurdish rebellion. Only 2 of them, which are rather dubious sources from Turkey such as "Islamansiklopedi" try to make it out like a "Zaza" rebellion. Please allot of people have already lost trust in Wikipedia because of these kind of things, so could people check the sources before accepting anything? 2A02:908:C65:C320:11BC:79C5:3ACC:AABC (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments

What a long Summary! A summary is directly taken from a book. It is too long, I think.Ayasi (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No kidding. I excised it without a second thought. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 02:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Dersim rebellion → Dersim Rebellion — Firstly, I moved it manually. Obviosuly it was not a good action to move it manually; so I restored the original page. I want to move Dersim_rebellion to Dersim Rebellion with the upper case letter R. A google search inside WP shows that the rebellions start with upper case R in the project. http://www.google.com.tr/#hl=tr&source=hp&q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+rebellion&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=b767c8f598543ffb A Google search also shows that "Dersim Rebellion" is the prefered name in English. Please help. Kavas (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per WP:CAPS. Wikiscient (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• It has already been moved. Thank you. No need to discuss it here. Kavas (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Dersim MASSACRE

In what kind of rebellion, women and children were killed and people were forced to migrate? There was a page named Dersim massacre and I and other users voted for massacre. Why the page is deleted? 86.57.55.12 (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia is the free neutural encyclopedia , so we cant change it rebellion to 'massacre'.

p.s.: its already a rebellion. -panteri

Thats why the word Massacre should be here. Do you mean that massacre did not happen and innocent people did not killed?37.27.195.2 (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not neutral. Deleting massacre and blaming the deaths on a "rebellion" is way too pro-Turkey. 82.102.110.228 (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, this presentation of the facts chalks up a legitimate genocide to a controversy. 145.116.173.184 (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Calling it a rebellion is way too pro-Turkey indeed. 134.147.174.80 (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Cited content

Please do not remove properly cited content before talking about it here first. Also, please do not modify statements which are supported by the citation by adding new information which is not supported (for example: women and children were killed because they were "helping the rebellion" -- the linked article says nothing of this).

NutellaPancake (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Dersim Massacre and Dersim Rebellion are different. Why were they merged into one?

The president apologized for the Dersim Massacre NOT the rebellion operation. They're two completely different things, why was the Dersim Massacre page merged with the Dersim Rebellion?!

In the Tunceli page, it even states that the Dersim Rebellion is not to be mixed with the Dersim Massacre and they're both differently hyperlinked. Yet when you click both, they come up to this page since someone decided to merged it together, which it shouldn't have been since they're both different topics. The Dersim Massacre happened due to the Rebellion, if you read the Rebellion page, it doesn't say anything about the massacre. It seems like someone is trying to hide the word "massacre", which is the reason they merged it. In Turkey both the massacre and the rebellion are used differently to describe the two events. Did the person who merged the topic think that "massacre" meant genocide? If so, it isn't, so the other Massacre page had nothing to do regarding the debate on genocide. The genocide can be debated, but the massacre doesn't need to be since it has been accepted as an event in Turkey by both the Turks and the Kurds.

The Rebellion Operation and Dersim Massacre both happened in the same time line and the same place, but they're two completely different topics. Please change it back to the way it was before, where the Dersim Rebellion and the Dersim Massacre had their own pages. Have some respect for the dead and innocent people who have died for absolutely no reason and give them back their page which explains their story. There's still family members to this day digging up their family's bones in their backyard due to the massacre. Where is the freedom of speech and informal education?!

It's like we took 2 steps back with removing the massacre page. I urge you to please make the Dersim Massacre page again.

70.31.4.23 (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Karen Martin

References

Dersim Massacre should have not been merged with the Rebellion.

The Dersim Rebellion

The Koçgiri Rebellion

Sheikh Said rebellion

Those three being merged into one page would make sense--BUT WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU MERGE THE DERSIM MASSACRE?!

There is the Dersim Massacre, where the Turks slaughtered innocent people, shot and killed women and children to control an entire region. They made them walk for days and then shot them dead or relocated them. The same massacre where the current president of Turkey has apologized for. This used to have it's own page, where there were articles, pictures, that explained the entire history of it.

Then there's the Dersim Rebellion which is linked to other Rebellions in the Kurdistan region. The rebellions were also ZAZA Kurdish people. Where a chief was unhappy regarding the taxation in the Dersim region and stood up to the Turkish government and started a rebellion. These are two different topics. Some idiot thought it was a brilliant idea to merge the two topics together. They removed everything about the massacre and made a very large lengthy post regarding the rebellion and one paragraph about the massacre and didn't even have the decency to name it what it was- a massacre where innocent people that had NOTHING to do with the rebellion, Kurds that were NOT even zaza kurds, people that lived MILES AWAY from where the rebellion happen, were slaughtered.

Change it back. This is completely wrong and I am without a doubt extremely upset. It's like someone is trying to hide information on the Dersim Massacre. Have some respect for the innocent lives that were taken. Why is this being covered up? It's ridiculous and a huge blow to the Dersim Kurds that had nothing to do with the rebellion and being lumped together.

It's like lumping the Armenian Genocide with the Kurdish Rebellions, or changing the Armenian Genocide to "The Armenian Incident that killed many people". I can understand all the Rebellion pages in the Kurdistan region being lumped together, but why the heck would you lump the massacre together?

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.69.128 (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 

Unmerge Dersim Massacre and Dersim Rebellion please.

I agree. The Dersim Massacre and the Dersim Rebellion are different. It even says it on the Kurdish page:

"Referring to the main policy document in this context, the 1934 law on resettlement, a policy targeting the region of Dersim as one of its first test cases, with disastrous consequences for the local population.[18] The Dersim massacre[15] is often confused with the Dersim Rebellion that took place during these events."

Taken from the wikipedia page of "Kurds in Turkey"

How could someone mix the two up? They're both different. The Dersim Massacre page shouldn't have been taken down and merged with the Rebellion pages. The president did not apologize for the rebellion. It was a rebellion, why would he apologize for that? What he apologized for was the massacre. The articles and pictures of the Dersim Massacre were removed when they were merged as well. Ugh, this is disgusting. Change it back. You can't just censor history, this is mad!74.15.71.244 (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Emma. CA

Agreed. 82.102.110.228 (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. 134.147.174.80 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Dersim Massacre should have it's own page

Turkey is doing what Turkey does best, sweeping things under the rug. What the heck is this? The Dersim Rebellion and the Dersim Massacre are two different incidents. Change it back and the person who decided to merge these two should be ashamed of themselves. I agree with the person who said the three rebellions should be merged together, since the topic is about the Kurdistan rebellions within Turkey, it makes since. One page even has one paragraph which can easily fit all three together--but the Dersim Massacre? That's whole different topic. What are you people thinking? Did it hit your egos too much to have that page exist? Seriously, get over it and change it back. 70.51.24.230 (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)A very disappointed person

I see the same kind of thing with every wikipedia page that talks about the past of Turkey. There are always turkish apologists that try to hide their bloody past. vmelkon 20:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 September 2015

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

The result of the move request was: moved. A history swap also had to be performed to preserve the history of the target page. Jenks24 (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Dersim rebellion → Dersim massacre – Per WP:COMMONNAME. A simple Google search result yields 40,900 for "Dersim massacre" while "Dersim rebellion" only yields 10,000. Though a rebellion may have been part of the events, it is now known more for the massacre. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom --Երևանցի ^talk 08:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support A search of Google Books shows more sources using "Dersim massacre" than "Dersim rebellion". Athenean (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Ridiculous rename. Farcical process in the renaming (a title with pov issues decided on thanks to just three posts made over just three days in a very obscure article). There is not a single piece of content detailing this "massacre" in the entire article! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

First sentence of article

An IP user has been adding the word rebellion in the first sentence of an article dedicated to a massacre. The sentence then becomes: "The Dersim massacre was a supressed rebellion Kurdish people"...

Not only is this sentence not grammatically correct, it is factually incorrect. Per WP:COMMONNAME: this event has been characterized as a massacre above anything else. I suggest the IP stop edit-warring and discuss these changes. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be said the overall event was a rebellion actually.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.170.64 (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC) 

It also needs to be said. Women and children were ruthlessly killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.110.228 (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Article is biased

I see all those antiturkish editors came here and changed the rebellions name to massacre. It was a surprassed rebellion and massacre was a part of it. So article should be cahnged to Dersim Rebellion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.170.64 (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This is blatantly false - The Massacre, or Genocide as one aught to call it, started prior to the rebellion and continued even after the rebellion. ANE passion (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

"It was a surprassed rebellion and massacre was a part of it." No...no it wasn't. The opposite actually. The massacre started 3 years before the rebellion happened and continued 1 year after the rebellion was snuffed out. The rebellion and massacre are not the same event. You would know this if Wikipedia wasn't censoring history and actually kept the massacre page open. 2607:FEA8:20DF:FF9E:6DC8:20D4:3C32:7A08 (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Emrah

About the previous name change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There was a rather poorly devised name change for this article a while ago from Dersim rebellion to Dersim massacre. This has caused some problems that were later moved to ANI, where I suggested an RFC to decide the title. None of the disputing editors took it up on it, and the AN/I thread was archived as usual. So I decided to start one myself upon the suggestion from Tiptoethrutheminefield.

Question: Should we keep the Dersim massacre as the new title of this article or revert it to the previous title, Dersim Rebellion Darwinian Ape ^talk 08:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• It should be Dersim Rebellion. By far the greater proportion of the article's content is directly to do with the event known in sources as the Dersim Rebellion. The content dealing with the supposed massacre (I call it supposed because the article's content is so vague about it regarding dates, locations, numbers, etc., that nothing much can be gleamed from it) plays a minor part in the article's content. The quick acceptance of the recent renaming proposal displayed gross incompetence, i.m.o., given the content issues I've just mentioned, and that the bulk of the earlier comments on this talk page should have indicated that such a change would carry pov implications. In addition, after a merge discussion [1], an earlier article named Dersim Massacre had been deleted and its content merged into Dersim Rebellion - this means that the renaming of this article to "Dersim Massacre" illegitimately usurped that earlier decision. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Dersim Rebellion - this article deals with events over multiple years. The term massacre is more usually applied to discrete events over a much shorter timespan. Days rather than years. Perhaps "genocide" might be a more appropriate term? --Pete (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Dersim Rebellion - Though "Dersim massacre" is used slightly more often in reliable sources, it isn't a neutral page name and as Pete noted, it took place over a longer period of time. Meatsgains (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Any reason this isn't a WP:RM? Meatsgains (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  The article does not have enough eyes on it to create a meaningful consensus. Note that the previous move request had only 3 comments, I thought it would be a good idea to decide the title via an RFC. Darwinian Ape ^talk 23:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how long a RfC should run, but I think we have a large enough consensus agreeing that the "Dersim massacre" title is inappropriate and that it should go back to its older "Dersim rebellion" title. What happens now? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: after a short look at the Talk page, I think that the identification of the two events is debated. If this is the case, we should differentiate them (for instance, the Battle of Stalingrad could not be renamed as World War II). Borsoka (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Dersim Rebellion - I waited to give my opinion thus far partly because I wanted to see the arguments for the previous name change from Dersim rebellion to Dersim massacre. It was one of the reasons why this was not a request move on my part, I wanted to assess the reasoning of the editors who made the move. While there is still time for people to give opinions, especially for those who voted to change the name, I started to think this was a drive by name change with no intention to fix the article itself. Furthermore, Tiptoethrutheminefield pointed out that there was an article named Dersm massacre that was deleted and merged into this article. This, and the fact that the article contains little to no knowledge about the massacre but details the rebellion, shows that the title change was inappropriate and should be reverted. Darwinian Ape ^talk 16:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Dersim Rebellion This massacre seems to be one event which is part of the rebellion. I see that the scope of the article here is about the series of events (rebellion) and not only the massacre. However, as "Dersim Massacre" has been used in reliable sources, I would like the article to at least mention the term. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Rebellion, to match actual scope of article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is why the two pages should NOT have been merged

This is why the two pages should NOT have been merged. The operation against the rebellion only took a couple of months, which was called the Dersim rebellion.

The Dersim Massacre was the result of the operation, that started a month later after the operation. The massacre lasted almost an entire year. The massacre happened after the arrest. Which is why the massacre is more known than the rebellion. Where they went after the entire province and massacred the people of Dersim. Women and children included that had nothing to do with the rebellion. Most of those people who were targeted were living up in mountains and had no idea that a revolt even happened in another village as they were mostly isolated farmers. It's considered a massacre because it fits the very definition of one. Because of it, it is just that, a massacre of the Dersim people.

an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people. "the attack was described as a cold-blooded massacre" synonyms: slaughter, wholesale/mass slaughter, indiscriminate killing, mass murder, mass execution, annihilation, liquidation, decimation, extermination; More verb 1. deliberately and violently kill (a large number of people). synonyms: slaughter, butcher, murder, kill, annihilate, exterminate, execute, liquidate, eliminate, decimate, wipe out, mow down, cut down, put to the sword, put to death; literaryslay "thousands were brutally massacred"

The President apologized for the massacre, NOT the rebellion. Not to say that the rebellion did not happen. It did. It existed. It should have it's own page.

He would not apologize for a rebellion, that makes no sense. What he apologized was for was the destruction of the province and it's people. Due to the massacre the population of that region dropped, which weighed in on Turkey.

Why do people keep confusing the two? Unmerge the two pages. This is why you'll have two sides clashing with one another. One saying the article is biased, well the other is saying it's censoring the massacre. Two events took place in this timeline, they should not be under the same page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:201F:FF8D:B86A:67CE:A13A:44F8 (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You are talking about a merge [2] that took place over three and a half years ago - shouldn't you have either got over it by now, or found enough new content to justify the article you claim should exist. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to create a section for the massacre if the reliable sources discuss it.(no offense, but your story has a citation needed tag floating above. Note that I don't mean you are wrong, just that you need to provide citations.) I don't think it ought to have it's own article though, because it's clear that the massacre is closely related to the rebellion. If what you said about the chronology is correct, it may be in a section detailing the aftermath of the rebellion. (also sorry about my absence after the RFC, the real life stuff kept me from it) overall the article is abysmal and I don't really think I'm the best person to fix it. Darwinian Ape ^talk 19:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Massacre not rebellion

Create two pages, one for rebellion and one for massacre, otherwise the name needs to be changed. Leo Freeman (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This would not be a hot topic if the ethnocide that took place did not overshadow the "rebellion". It just seems like an obvious way to hide the events that took place, so here I've created separate pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TataofTata (talk • contribs) 05:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a WP:POVFORK, the common name used in sources seems to be Dersim Rebellion. We need WP:RS showing otherwise. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually the common name used is Dersim Massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TataofTata (talk • contribs) 04:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 25 November 2018

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Dersim rebellion → Dersim rebellion and massacres – The article is quite clearly about both and considering the "massacre" title was merged and then article was name just rebellion it hides away from the events that took place. In fact this should be only about the massacres (genocide/ethnocide) and a new article purely about the "rebellion" done else-where, because the subject matter is hot topic due to the ethnocide that occurred there, not about the rebellion. Links to the page referring to the massacres now brand it as a rebellion. This is simply just trying to hide and distort history. The talk page is full of complaints. I tried to create a new article for the genocide/ethnocide/massacres, but search engines keep pointing to the rebellion. The truth should not be changed or hidden. Even after the rebellion was crushed the genocide/ethnocide was planned and actioned after the leaders and members killed. Attempts of wiping the people out for good was planned out, so now I don't get the difference between the Greek genocide and having no issues calling that a genocide. TataofTata (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It's mostly a WP:COMMONNAME issue. I tried to create a new article for the genocide/ethnocide/massacres, but search engines keep pointing to the rebellion. this comment is troubling because it indicates an editing style inconsistent with Wikipedia's purposes (per WP:RGW). As does this comment The truth should not be changed or hidden. These are some of the sources that use rebellion:

I don't think editors are trying to hide and distort history, they are following reliable sources which is what they are supposed to do to produce encyclopedic articles. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

References

---

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

Requested move 11 October 2019

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Dersim rebellion → Dersim Massacre – There is plenty of very strong arguments for the change made in the present talk page, but surprisingly no such arguments have been made when the time was up for renaming the page previously. Regardless of the actual outcome, the contrast reflects badly on Wikipedia's capacity to be neutral because it appears that a few organized users have successfully held an article on a controversial position. At the very least the article should be split into "Dersim Rebellion" and "Dersim Massacre" to remove the controversy. 134.147.174.80 (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Correction

Sooo biased , Dersim issue was a massacre NOT rebellion!! Hasti salah (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Clear consensus for move to Dersim Massacre

Dersim rebellion → Dersim Massacre There is clear consensus to rename the page to Dersim Massacre. Jerm has closed the last issue as inconclusive, however there have been only arguments for the move.

The article covers the whole revolt, so I oppose a move. But you can write an article about the specific massacre and then change the redirect. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The term "rebellion" in itself is Turkish nationalist propaganda (and editor is obviously Turkish). Even Erdogan himself has claimed that the event was thoroughly planned. The events therefore must be classified as "massacre" and not as "rebellion". This is a neutrality issue, not just a redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.120.125 (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculously pro-Turkey phrasing

This article reads like Turkish propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.110.228 (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This is insane.70.29.14.147 (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to edit on Wikipedia. Change what you can.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point Paradise Chronicle, however the title of the article states "Dersim Rebellion" and the rebellion and massacre/genocide are two different things so when the topic of genocide/massacre is included it's a travesty to the story by literally being a subheading to this. Instead actually it should be the other way around the main page title should be "Dersim genocide" and the subheaders such as the rebellion should be included. I sort of understand why it looked like a good idea to merge the article because the events before the genocide is relevant and part of the story, but the real agenda was to purposefully manipulate the article. The users who did this have now been banned from Wikipedia if I am not mistaken, yet this article has suffered from bias. TataofTata (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Arguments for 'Dersim Genocide'

People know of this story in particular as the deliberate attempt to destroy the people of Dersim, not just a massacre and definitely not as a "rebellion". Using sources that follow the preparators narrative is not neutral or accurate and thus should not take president.

• What is known of the event today was different to what some researchers knew in the past. For example a diary of a Turkish soldier sheds more light, which was only just found in 2019
• In 2011, then Prime Minster of Turkey; Recep Tayyip Erdogan apologizes for the killings, some say it was more of a political move than anything, but the takeaway here is the story and attention is not about the "rebellion". Erdoğan said: “What they try to do is legitimizing and cleaning from the memories of people what happened in Dersim by saying that it was a suppression of an uprising.” This title is exactly attempting to do that and against the very apology and understanding by the now current, Turkish President. Stating "“Dersim is the most tragic event in our history”" again not referring to the rebellion.
• Bianet is one of the few, unbiased and independent news agencies left in Turkey. Here they refer to event as the "so-called" "Dersim Massacre". As mentioned Bianet being a very reliable source also reported that the people of Dersim view this as a genocide, not just massacring of their people. The deliberate attempt to destroy the people of Dersim has already been clarified. Using "massacre" over "genocide" seems to not apply the same standards to other cases, nor does it seem to abide by the definitions.
• Another account of a Dersimli being interviewed calling it a genocide
• Ismail Besikci's book “Bilim Yöntemi Türkiye'deki Uygulama-IV - Tunceli Kanunu (1935) ve Dersim Jenosidi” calls it a genocide.
• Historian Ewout Klei explains in length that it was a genocide.
• On one hand you have the people of Dersim being defined as "Zaza" and not "Kurds" by some Turkish sources, which contradicts the whole argument that it was not a genocide on the premise that the people of Dersim were Kurds and they spared Kurds else-where in the region (ie Martin van Bruinessen). Now they are called "Alevi Kurds" here to what I guess to avoid that contradiction, but in reality the Kurds of Dersim are rather called Zazas when it suits the narrative.. Basically Wikipedia seems to be allowing two different forms of views at the same time. Allowing Turkish POV pushers to argue Zaza's are not Kurds on other pages and then here allowing them to argue they are Kurds thus it was not a genocide) Either way, the very clear and apparent agenda shouldn't be ignored.
  • For example here is another POV pushing user taking a similar approach. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zilan_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1039385166 Changing the narrative from Massacre to "rebellion".
• In any case the important thing to understand that Kurdish Zaza's or Alevi's are not the same as Kurds from other parts, they speak a different unique dialect, have unique cultures and traditioned formed over time. There was also Armenians that were fully wiped out that remained previously from the Armenian genocide. The attempt to wipe a unique people out was the case.
• Previously there was two pages, one called massacre and another called rebellion. The problem started with the "Dersim rebellion" page receiving more attention than the massacre page, a couple of merge attempts later and with the page content being more about a rebellion more than talking about the genocide resulted in the votes being in favour of calling it the "Dersim Rebellion" when it was merged, but now it is very apparent after some years how this has completely evaporated the content about the genocide (I think intentionally). This may be due to a few reasons. People also need to understand the environment in which Wikipedia editors can freely express themselves. Things were looking good in Turkey, but it sharply took a downwards turn, now it is back to one being able to talk about the military events that happened in Dersim, but that is where it stops. As for Wikipedia and specifically this article it seems unfortunately due to not enough people bothering or knowing how to provide sources on the genocide, the content has suffered.
• The rebellion and the genocide are connected, obviously. But as I mentioned, nobody refers to other genocides as "rebellions", the topic and background is provided in the article, so should this article be in line with that structure. The rebellion should simply be a section.
• Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal - Re-assessing the Genocide of Kurdish Alevis in Dersim, 1937-38 argues it should be classified as a genocide.

TataofTata (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Pinar Dinc, Lina Eklund, Aiman Shahpurwala, Ali Mansourian, Augustus Aturinde & Petter Pilesjö in Fighting Insurgency, Ruining the Environment: the Case of Forest Fires in the Dersim Province of Turkey conclude it was a genocide.

TataofTata (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

If you want to start a move request go ahead, but please don't tag bomb the article. FDW777 (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I was advised by more experienced user to start a discussion and get the ball rolling, I can start a move request if that is more appropriate. As for the tags, I was not sure if which was more appropriate and as nobody was responding to the talk page for a few days thought to add them. --TataofTata (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe first compare the google hits for Dersim Rebellion and Dersim Genocide before starting a move discussion. And as to me: Non of your arguments are good enough to move it from Rebellion to Genocide.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Google hits are not always reliable (see Wikipedia:Search engine test), Google Scholar is often a better way to filter out unreliable sources posted on the web. On Google Scholar there are 470 results for Dersim rebellion, 258 for Dersim massacre, and only 71 for Dersim genocide. (t · c) buidhe 22:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that one. Always good to receive some advice from someone experienced. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely none Paradise Chronicle? Not sure what to say... As for the numbers, in 2015 a vote was started and at the time "40,900 for "Dersim massacre" while "Dersim rebellion" only yielded 10,000" Now the numbers have somehow completely changed.. I do wonder if 5+ years of Wikipedia labelling it as a "rebellion" and being #1 on google made an influence. Same goes for Google Scholar, for example the #1 on the list "The Suppression of the Dersim Rebellion in Turkey (1937-38)" actually argues it was an ethnocide, yet being using as being in favor of "rebellion". That book is even mentioned in the article as arguing for ethnocide, some series of contradictions here. If I have gone through providing a list of sources, it should only be fair to provide sources and references as to which sources that state what or rather state clearly in your favor that killing 13000 civilians was in fact to quell a supposed rebellion. --TataofTata (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

TataofTata, You seem to have some misconception about the WP:Article titles policy. This comes up endlessly at the talk page for Srebrenica massacre, for instance, but the article title is generally going to be the most common name used in reliable sources even regardless of whether sources consider it a genocide or not, which for Dersim, does not seem to be the majority view in reliable sources. I've presented evidence that Dersim rebellion is the most common name and therefore it should be the article title. It's been suggested above to split into Dersim rebellion and Dersim massacre, which I can't agree with since most sources I've looked at discuss both. (t · c) buidhe 02:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

TataofTata as above, either start a requested move or stop tag-bombing the article. FDW777 (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

You really have not presented evidence and I cannot stress enough the misinterpretation you are doing here. You mentioned reliable sources, but none provided. Again, you are relying on Google Scholar's misconceived results, because looking again here's another source listed under the "dersim rebellion" result quite literally refutes what you have just said. (4th result) Pınar Dinç - Novels and short stories as products of nationalist competition: the case of Dersim 1937–1938 in Turkish politics and literature Page 5,6,7. Quite literally putting "rebellion" as least used in literary works (while also concluding it was a genocide). I do respect Google Scholar's results in normal situations, but it shouldn't be used in every case. The only reason "dersim rebellion" is counted in that article is because the researcher quotes it which stems from previous labels (similar to others) of it which originates from the perpetrators narrative from the 80/90s of the genocide which violates NPOV. As you touched on, the problem is the background story to the genocide is always going to mention the military operations, but the story to take home here is the genocide that took place which is not being presented on Wikipedia this way. What should take president, the military operations or the death of thousands? It was also previously called "dersim massacre" but we know it should be plural, massacres took place over the span of the years and a lot of the sources still refer to "massacre" mistakenly, that has changed though.

Also to point out, todays usage of the terms aka Recognizability - (The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.)

Twitter stats clearly shows Dersim genocide being the most popular.

• dersim genocide 1 2
• dersim massacre 1 2
• dersim rebellion 1 2

--TataofTata (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

TataofTata as above, either start a requested move or stop tag-bombing the article. FDW777 (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok I will. My intention was to start a discussion and then request to move. However I still have problems with the article and a lot of minor issues, missing things. I provided plenty of sources for people to refer to, to help improve the article. You have now reversed perfectly good edits unrelated to this discussion. You argue "Those don't appear to be alternate names for the event, but for one aspect of it" I honestly do not even get what that means. The "Dersim Massacre" page was merged, now you're saying it's a different aspect of it, so why do you think it was merged? Burying the genocide down below into the page is clearly NPOV, removing my tags without addressing the issues I feel clearly WP:OWN. Can you please revert that change and discuss specifics here or I assume we have to get an admin involved. --TataofTata (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

TataofTata, Wikipedia is not twitter and twitter is in most of the cases no RS. On Wikipedia we try to cite academic scholars. Then also, do you actually know what a genocide is? Turks sure attempted to Turkify Kurds in Dersim and this often in a very professional way, but they let them alive in the vast majority of the cases and this is not a genocide. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

If you think genocide is as simple as "let them alive", I seriously suggest you read up on it a lot more, in fact go and argue that to the researchers and academics who have concluded it was a genocide who actually know this topic a lot more than you. This has become a joke. I mean go read up on the Armenian genocide, Turkish POV is also because they "let them alive" it's not a genocide. Same goes for looking at the genocide of Yazidis, they were also left alive! Please read up more on what happened in Dersim to properly understand the destruction, not only to people, but to the unique local culture and language. What you may be referring to is the deportations which were basically children, exclusively female "adopted by the soldiers" as far as I gathered. "On Wikipedia we try to cite academic scholars." Yet even when I do, it seems to not work, you disagree with a historian. As for twitter statistics, I'm strictly using it to refer to Recognizability and to back up Notability, which was questioned. I am sorry if you got offended by such low class material.--TataofTata (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead

I have restored the stable version of the lead, since the new version has been objected to by two editors. "...massacre" and "...genocide" are not alternate names for the event, but for one aspect of it. FDW777 (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the version you have issue with It was there since the 31st of august without issue and you both reverted, however I am not sure the other user still wishes to revert after I explained.

• The event that occurred in 1937 to 1938 is referred to as the Dersim massacre and Dersim genocide in many sources. Like I mentioned above, the pages were merged/redirected previously so it's fair to have it placed correctly.
• For "Alevi Kurds" the more appropriate page to link to would be Kurdish Alevism, it is the beliefs of Kurds in Dersim, (this very topic involves those people).
• No where in the source does it say Erdogan apologies for the massacre, I could find no other source that backs that up either. It specifically says "killings", it would be fair to conclude he meant the actual massacres that took place; however to be accurate to the source, leaving it as killings is more appropriate.

Look, I already responded above to your revert, which you did not respond to. However thank you for creating a different section even though you said the objections regarding the title was objecting to my edits..(which I do not think is the case). The issue with placement is contradictory. You either talk about the whole subject completely or the pages should be split. Considering the killings is more notable topic than military operations, I think your revert is unwarranted. It would be like arguing the Armenian genocide should be called Armenian deportations. The only reason it was merged back then was the content on those pages were lacking and a lot of POV pushers added exclusively military context to it. TataofTata (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The "issue" happened when it was objected to. That it happened a few days after the initial edit was irrelevant. By definition, an "uprising against the Turkish government" is not the "Dersim massacre" nor "Dersim genocide", since that is the name of one aspect of the Turkish government's reaction to the uprising. FDW777 (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

So how do you suggest we proceed regarding making the lead more neutral? You can clearly see the pages were merged so the article needs to address both on a neutral point of view. As a result of turkey's military operations they committed a genocide on the people of Dersim. This is actually one of the reasons why I believe the article title being changed to genocide better reflects the topic, as the background can go into the details of the uprising and military operations. --TataofTata (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the lead is non-neutral, since your "evidence" in support of the claim includes things like recent hashtag use on Twitter. FDW777 (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

That was to argue recognizability regarding using the most common name for the title. You keep skipping the valid points I raised regarding this, quite literally above your comment, but you jumped to that? There is no reasoning with you. If there is no further issues from other people, please do not revert my edit.--TataofTata (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, was the "Tunceli law" which was done in 1935 a coincidence.. Renaming the place to "Tunceli" and labelled the region "a zone of illness that needed surgery". Just a pre-emptive "reaction" to an uprising that did not happen yet... What about the 1934 Resettlement Law which paved the way to basically deport anyone from anywhere in Turkey and also allow Turks to settle so as to essentially Turkify an area? Supposedly worked very well in Dersim. All of this somewhat 15 years or so after the Armenian genocide. --TataofTata (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 September 2021

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. No support for the move at this time. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Dersim rebellion → Dersim genocide – "Dersim rebellion" page was previously merged with "Dersim massacre" which was originally all about the genocide of the people of Dersim. Over time Turkish POV editors heavily added content regarding the military operations and then later moved the page to "Dersim rebellion" arguing the content is more about a "rebellion" which voters tended to agree basing it on the article content without understanding the full scope here's one example of many of agenda pushing and another - a complete rewrite of the page seems to occur at this point. The notability of this story in particular is the deliberate attempt to destroy the people of Dersim, not as a rebellion. The perpetrators, Turkey, official arguments for what happened back in 1937/8 was because of a "rebellion" and as a result of the uprising the killings occurred. This rational is fluently expressed here. The creation of "rebellion" was purely a Turkish POV dating back when the region was in complete military and civilian lockdown and only the Turkish POV was expressed. This POV and one narrative ultimately violates WP:POV, also see sections 'Balance' & 'Due and undue weight', also relevant Wikipedia:Be neutral in form.

A little more background: In the 80's and 90's Kurdish sources referred to it as the "Dersim massacre" in English, which may have been a poor translation to genocide, one giveaway is considering it is not plural as many massacres occurred during that time in Dersim. In fact "tertele" is the term used by Zaza Kurds (the victims) "which means being upside down, implying devastation across individual, societal, and environmental dimensions, connotating to genocide."Source also can read up on If I am not mistaken this book also. Today a lot of academics are now properly calling this a genocide based on better understandings and research instead of just a singular "massacre". Kurdish people when on Dersim's remembrance day refer to it as the "Dersim genocide". Adam Jones: Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction - Page 218

Due to the current title, any changes to improve even the lead section is being disputed, arguing that the page is about the "rebellion". I propose this move so that the structure of the page can end the issues people have constantly raised in the talk page. The background of the story could properly explain the uprising and the events leading up to it also, the more notable content such as the genocide acts can properly fit. Using sources that follow the preparators narrative is not neutral and thus should not take president. I have complied a list from academics sources on the topic, calling it genocide for evidence. I believe the common name referring to this is definitely not rebellion and rather most accurate and recently common is genocide. Massacre is sometimes used in sources, which I think is done mistakenly or outdated.

• Scholar Ismail Besikci's book “Bilim Yöntemi Türkiye'deki Uygulama-IV - Tunceli Kanunu (1935) ve Dersim Jenosidi” was one of the firsts to label it a genocide. [3]
• Historian Mark Levene In his book 'Annihilation: Volume II: The European Rimlands 1939-1953' states "Hitler may have said words to the effect of 'Who remembers the Armenians?' But then who actually knows that what happened to another set of peoples, from the same eastern Anatolian region twenty-three years on from the Aghet, was yet another case of genocide? What was done by the Turkish state to the various Alevi, Zaza-speaking Kurdish tribes of the Dersim region defies any other terminology."
• Mark Levene also goes in-depth in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal (GSP) on Countering previous arguments for being an 'ethnocide' by Martin van Bruinessen. Calling it the Dersim genocide. Specifically page 24.
• Dilşa Deniz (a socio-cultural Kurdish anthropologist and currently a lecturer) also calls it a genocide in the same journal above (starting from page 20).
• Scholar Adam Jones in his book 'Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction' calls it the "Dersim genocide" when referring to the incident. [4]
• In Fighting Insurgency, Ruining the Environment: the Case of Forest Fires in the Dersim Province of Turkey - concludes it can be seen as a "state act of genocide".
• Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal - Re-assessing the Genocide of Kurdish Alevis in Dersim, 1937-38 - classifies it as a genocide.
• Historian Ewout Klei explains in-depth that what happened in Dersim was a genocide [5]
• Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies Uğur Ümit Üngör calls it a genocide mentioned.
• Pınar Dinç - Novels and short stories as products of nationalist competition: the case of Dersim 1937–1938 in Turkish politics and literature Page 5,6,7. Quite literally states "rebellion" as least used in literary works for when describing the event (while also concluding it was a genocide).
• The The Human Rights Association (İHD) in Turkey refers to it as genocide. [6]
• A diary of a Turkish soldier sheds more light of what happened, which was only just found in 2019 [7]
• As explained, the rational has been to legitimize the killings as being due to an uprising. In 2011, then Prime Minster of Turkey; Recep Tayyip Erdogan apologizes for the killings, he specifically says: “What they try to do is legitimizing and cleaning from the memories of people what happened in Dersim by saying that it was a suppression of an uprising.” [8] [9] He obviously had a political agenda sharing this, but he was referring to his political opponents acts when describing the event that happened. There is also a resemblance to what happens on wikipedia, when vandals come they ensure Kurdish deaths are not massacres, but "rebellions". For example here is another POV pushing user taking a similar approach. Changing the article from massacre to "rebellion" Different user but same again. This used to happen for the Dersim massacre page too.
• People call it a genocide in Dersim and here's someone from there being interviewed calling it a genocide [10]
• The current "Dersim rebellion" talk page is filled with those disputing the title, as they are obviously were expecting to see things about the killings, not the exclusively a military campaign.
• The Kurds in Dersim are called Zaza Kurds which speak a unque Kurdish language called Zaza, their beliefs are very different to others in the region as they practice Kurdish Alevism even some Turkish sources argue they are different. The victims were these people, not the same Kurds they argue that they did not kill in the region, however even that is not true as they did try to erase Kurdishness from the region too.
• To better conform to WP:TITLE and to highlight Recognizability - (The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.)

Twitter statistics clearly shows Dersim genocide being the most popular term used for when talking about the event and not just a scholar point of view.

• dersim genocide 1 2
• dersim massacre 1 2
• dersim rebellion 1 2

Summary In light of all the sources provided here, I implore you to simply look at the sources, also research the topic more as there are a lot more books and papers on it and then evaluate the event for yourself. It was merged, but it should not have been merged in this arrangement. The talk page is filled with complaints and if a vote was able to be executed to change this page from massacre to rebellion and completely rewrite it in that narrative, so should it be easy to correct it. When searching on Google on the Dersim genocide, instead of getting an informative article, instead we get a controlled Turkish narrative which essentially misinforms people which does not represent what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia:Purpose I also believe this page should be put on some kind of protection. TataofTata (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose regardless of the above wall of text, "Dersim genocide" is not the common name for this topic in reliable sources and raises POV concerns about giving undue prominence to a minority view. On Google Scholar there are 470 results for Dersim rebellion, 258 for Dersim massacre, and only 71 for Dersim genocide. (Yes, Dersim rebellion refers to a different aspect than massacre/genocide, but most sources discuss both, so a split does not make sense either IMO). (t · c) buidhe 19:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I actually touch on your Google Scholar logic in my "wall of text" as to why it's even used, books even talk about the narrative and that's why you're getting the hits. Google Scholar is just a search engine, I understand the value of using it, but it is not an end all argument and definitely should not be used as a big brush to stroke everything away. I even pointed out to you in a previous discussion that you have results in there contradicting your argument so calling it "reliable sources" is untrue and out of context, but you're still repeating this.. IAGS which is a respected organization and people like Adam Jones and Mark Levene whom are renowned experts are not "minority views". Notability is relevant here. --TataofTata (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose common name is Dersim Rebellion. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:TITLE seems to have been totally thrown out of the window, instead there's constant clutching at straws. Such as the Pınar Dinç mention, it's completely and totally irrelevant how works of fiction define the event. I see also the analysis of Twitter hashtags has been repeated despite already being criticised. The entire wall of text appears to be "this person has called it a genocide and so has this person", but that totally missed the point. Those are insufficient to establish that the common name is "Dersim genocide". FDW777 (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

This. Another thing that's contradictory, Pınar Dinç's analyst is used as a "reliable source" being included in Google Scholar results under "dersim rebellion" (1st page) and now it's "completely and totally irrelevant". Even if it's literary works, it talks about what the event is commonly referred to, which is relevant here. I appreciate peoples opinions and views, but when I originally started a discussion, you provided no input and just said "start a vote" now you're clearly nitpicking. This "wall of text" is essentially Ad hominem. I would both like to politely point you to Wikipedia:Code of conduct. Of course when one argues genocide they should be extensive. If you're going to behave like some paragraphs are too much for you, then why are you voting. --TataofTata (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Supposedly (since I don't even see Pınar's name anywhere in the diff linked to) problematic referencing in a September 2016 version of the article is of absolutely no relevance to this discussion. I would politely ask you to stop presenting non-evidence in supoort of this move. FDW777 (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I never said that edit was connected to Pınar. Respectfully, what's impolite and actual presenting non-evidence is you misinterpreting me and making fake quotes stating The entire wall of text appears to be "this person has called it a genocide and so has this person" when that's not really what I said, in fact they literally call it the "Dersim genocide" in sources. Not only did I reference the books, I even linked page previews so you knowingly made false assessments. It's you who has missed the point. --TataofTata (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I believe the common name referring to this is definitely not rebellion and rather most accurate and recently common is genocide. simply not true. almost all sources calling it "Dersim Genocide" citing Besikci's book. Definitely not a common name. Beshogur (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

"Almost all sources". This is not evidence, sources are clearly pointing the genocide out. I was quite clear on that one already which is verifiable by actually opening the books. Also for full disclosure, you have been on this article since 2016, renaming the page to rebellion while it was titled massacre and again in 2020, you try to erase traces of the killings. This has basically been your contribution to this article, keeping the status quo. Turkish POV pushers have been ensuring this article avoids focusing on the genocide, Turkey banned Besikci's book so anyone with common sense can see the agenda here. Also I'm happy to keep adding sources. From your own link. Tözün Issa's book 'Alevis in Europe: Voices of Migration, Culture and Identity' calls what happened the "Dersim Genocide" page 15. The scope of this article should reflect this, not be a Turkish POV.--TataofTata (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An Islamıst Rebellıon

Contrary to popular belief, it was not a Kurdish revolt,because the people who wanted sharia in the region rebelled against the secular There are Turks among the rebels. Alexander Leone (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Leone: are you sure you are not confusing this with Sheikh Said rebellion? --Isvind (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Unclear reference

There are two references to "Ahmet Kahraman" without a title or other information and they can't really be used without additional bibiographic information. The first use supports the sentence "Seyit Rıza came to the government building of the Erzincan Province for peace talks and was arrested." While the arrest was widely reported at the time, the specific circumstances need evidence. Contemporary Turkish newspapers merely said he surrendered to authorities on September 12 ("Seyit Rıza teslim oldu"). The date of execution is also approximately verifiable from contemporary sources but I am not sure about "On the next day, he was transferred to the headquarters of the General Inspectorate at Elazığ". (I haven't gone back to check contemporary reports; it could be in there.) Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Found a report of his arrest saying that he was to be sent to Elâziz (old name of Elazığ) so that part checks out. Still need the circumstances verified. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Term of "genocide"

It is false and it will be remove from article. There is no independence and non-biased sources to support this claim in article. There was no consensus to add this information into article. Crasyy (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

The term is used in academia (including by İsmail Beşikçi) so it should stay. What do you mean by "false"? Read Wikipedia:CENSOR and Wikipedia:Consensus and stop being disruptive. Semsûrî (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I try to get used to Wikipedia jargon, I am not being disruptive or biased. But there is no consensus in that topic even at academia. We cannot use some terms because of some scholar used it. Crasyy (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

Semi-protect?

All or nearly all of the IP edits to Dersim rebellion are being reverted. Is this article a candidate for semi-protection? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The edits I double checked weren't really constructive. Do you have a specific edit in mind? As far as I know the article is not considered for semi protection and I am not aware of auch a discussion. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I meant, should it be considered for semi-protection? It's a source of noise in my watchlist from edits and reversions. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no real dispute or edit warring on the article. I guess it wouldn't be granted just like this. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

involvement of Muhsin Batur

He was a graduate of 1940 and began to serve as a pilot in 1942. His book is given as a source for his alleged involvement in the incident, but a print version. Please either put an accessible version or it would be removed. Egeymi (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Need for a Separate or Renamed Page for Dersim Genocide

I see that several people have already brought up similar points, so I understand that this will probably go nowhere, but I need to talk about it anyway.

The absence of a dedicated page for the Dersim Genocide, juxtaposed with the existence of a page for the Dersim Rebellion, implies that Wikipedia is doing nothing less than genocide denial. This is especially true when one considers that the current narrative on the page suggests that the Dersim "Massacre" (a term that does not accurately translate the meaning of "Tertelê", which directly translates to "genocide") was a response to the Dersim Rebellion. This interpretation has been refuted by numerous sources prior to the creation of this Wikipedia page.

It is important to note that Wikipedia does not attribute events such as the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide as responses to Jewish or Armenian resistance to the German or Ottoman states, respectively. Therefore, it seems inconsistent to apply a different standard to the Dersim Genocide. Heviyane (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. Generally, it's the same sources that cover both aspects, so we would tend to cover in the same article unless the size grew unreasonably large in which case splits could be considered. (t · c) buidhe 01:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

My problem is not necessarily with the fact that both topics are covered in the same article, my problem is with the narrative that this article, intentionally or not, promotes. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information. If a person who wasn't familiar with the events of 1930s Dersim were to read this page, they would assume that either the Dersim Rebellion and the Dersim Genocide are the same thing, or, as the page itself claims, that the events of the Dersim Genocide were a response to the rebellion. Neither of these ideas have any basis in reality.

By size, do you mean the amount of text/information on the page? If that's the case, I think there's sufficient well-sourced information on the Dersim Genocide to warrant a separate article. Would this be possible, and what would I have to do to make it happen? If this is not feasible, I suggest that we change the title of the page to something that more accurately represents the content of the page. Heviyane (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)