Talk:Kurdish recognition of the Armenian genocide

Expanding on Assyrian parts?

The beginning of the article mentions the Assyrian genocide but it barely elaborates on it. I understand the article title is under Armenian genocide but why mention Assyrians or Assyrian genocide if no topic is going to open up, in the article, about it? ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 23:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Merging with Recognition of the Armenian Genocide

I support the merging of with Recognition of the Armenian Genocide. We must just do it now. --Vitilsky (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that proposal. Alternatively, the subject and title of the article should be changed to, say, "Kurds and the Armenian Genocide", and expanded to encompase the historical Kurdish role in the Armenian Genocide and its aftermath. As it is now, this article is not needed because all the important bits (and there are not many of them) could easily be included in the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide entry. Meowy 22:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is irrelevant to the broader debate. Should we include in the article information about every country recognizing it? If so, put this in, if seperate articles for seperate recognitions is prefered don't.

On a side note, did the Kurds forget that much of the "kurdish" Turkey is claimed by the Armenians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.160.57 (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Kurdish recognition is actually very different from any other type of recognition since it's a recognition by the descendants of the perpetrators the Armenian Genocide.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That could be addressed in one sentence. It is not a justification to maintain a separate article. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

recent edit and its revert

The text "is the recognition by Kurds of Kurdish participation" was changed to "is the recognition by the Kurds of their participation". This is a silly edit, imho. Every Kurd who participated in the Genocide is now dead, so participants cannot recognize their own participation. What is being recognized is Kurds recognizing Kurdish participation, so the initial wording is more accurate and reads better. The word "innocent" was also added. This is pov, is not needed, and also sounds silly. What exactly would "guilty" Armenian and Assyrian civilians and refugees consist of, and would it have been be OK to commit genocide on them? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Just thought that this ""is the recognition by Kurds of Kurdish participation" might be arguable or need rewording. Is Kurds acknowledging that Kurds took part in the genocide a requirement of Kurdish recognition of the Armenian Genocide? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Now stop vandalizing content and seek consensus. --92slim (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger into Armenian Genocide recognition

I propose that this page is merged into the Kurdish position section of the Armenian Genocide recognition article. I realize this has been proposed before, but I don't see that the discussion got very far. My reason for this proposal is primarily that Kurdish recognition of the genocide is self-evidently one aspect of overall recognition. Certainly, the substantial involvement of early 20th-century Kurds in carrying out the genocide makes recognition by modern-day Kurds a different thing than recognition by France, for example. However, this particular intersection of topics does not merit its own article in a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia.

As to what gets merged, I suggest we look at a substantial rewrite of the content. The background on the genocide and Kurdish participation should mostly be dropped as it exists in many other places on WP. If there is unique content in that first section, we might look at adding it to the relevant parts of other Armenian genocide articles. The bulk of the current article is largely a table citing primary sources for specific acknowledgements of the genocide. We should aim to instead have a summary that focuses on secondary sources, per Wikipedia policy. It would be useful for readers to know what types of Kurdish organizations have acknowledged the genocide and what types have not, plus whatever is know about motivations for either position. All of this needs to be WP:NPOV without WP:OR, of course.

I don't have an angle to push here (that's what they all say, of course). But I think all readers would be better served by high-quality content on this still-contentious topic. I'll post a similar note on Talk:Armenian Genocide recognition and perhaps we can consolidate discussion there?

Finally, I haven't checked who added this, but the term recognizance does not mean what that person thinks it does. The term intended was surely recognition. Rupert Clayton (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. This article is in disarray. It even lacks a purpose; notability is not explained well. Merging it with the "Kurdish position" section might improve the content. I am concerned, however, with the way in which the merger will take place. Choosing what to keep is key to avoid accusations of NPOV. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 18:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Caballero1967: Thanks for your thoughts, and I'm glad you concur. The only other response I have had in the past six months was supportive, too, so it seems we should move ahead. I'll try to make progress by expanding/rewriting/referencing the Kurdish position section of the main article. (That may have to wait until January.) Once that gets to the point where all the salient information from this article is incorporated, I'll turn this article into a redirect. That should preserve the article history in the event that someone wants to check that nothing was "covered-up". I would appreciate any assistance or feedback on offer! Rupert Clayton (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge issues

I have more than one concern regarding a possible merge. The length of time is far too excessive, with only the nominator and one other weighing in (supporting), that would suggest a non-controversial move. The comments "The background on the genocide and Kurdish participation should mostly be dropped as it exists in many other places on WP.", needs to point to these many other places for editors that don't know. There are other issues but:

• Biggest concern: Armenian Genocide recognition is already an extremely large article (161,164 bytes as of March 15, 2017), and any merged coverage of this topic, adhering to NPOV, would only expand the article even more. This would push an article already past the need of splitting to an even more unreadable point.

I don't know what the size of the article was in 2008 but now editors must see if there is a way to edit out the "disarray". Merging to "improve the content" is not a very good idea because if content can be improved somewhere else---then why not here, and the suggestion could be seen as biased. I am not saying I would be against a merge, as I didn't get that far to weigh in on reasoning why this article should or should not exist, as I couldn't get pass the point of why it shouldn't be merged into an article that is already around 1/2 times too big. Requesting an AFD would certainly bring cries of foul and likely fail.

• I would suggest the nominator close this merge request. If this is not of interest to the nominator I will see if I can do it in a couple of days. After that some discussion would be in order to see if there is some possible editing solutions for improvements. recognizance is certainly the wrong word. Otr500 (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Armenian Genocide which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)