Talk:Garnik Asatrian

Asatrian's interview with Gayane Sarmakeşyan

Can someone find the original interview?

http://www.zazaki.net/haber/ermeni-nasyonalistin-kurt-nefreti-446.htm

In his interview with Sarmakeşyan, Asatrian describes Kurds as an "ethnic disaster". I'd like to see the original interview since the source is not reliable enough to cite. 46.154.59.100 (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Date of the interview: 19 November 2009

The journal or newspaper: Golos Armenii (Voice of Armenia)

46.154.59.100 (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Why deleting Martin van Bruinessen?

Why HistryofIran deletes criticism of Garnik Asatryan? van Bruinessen explicitly says the Armenian scholars around Asatryan separate Zazas from Kurds because they pursue a political agenda, why deleting it?

"In Werner’s case, the inclination to consider Zazas as separate from Kurds appears to be due to SIL methodology rather than a definite political agenda, as in the case of the Armenian scholars around Garnik Asatrian or certain actors in Turkey’s state apparatus." 185.240.17.104 (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yezidikhaya project

Should this information be added to the 'Views and Criticism' section?

Asatrian is also a supporter of the Yezidikhaya project, which aims to distinguish Yazidis from Kurds in Armenia by using the term ‘Ezdiki’ instead of ‘Kurmanji’ for the Kurdish language. He argues that Yazidis and Kurds are entirely separate ethnic identities. However, this perspective is opposed by most other scholars.[1] Sikorki (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The Yazidi page contradicts you. It’s not uncommon for scholars to disagree with each other, however that doesnt mean every disagrement should be in their article, unless its notable (the Yazidi article is probably a better place to talk about their identity). Moreover, Rudaw is a newssite, not WP:RS for historical matter, even if they claim to quote Asatrian, Philip, and so on. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. However, Rudaw remains a reliable source for highlighting his statements just not the historical ones. I would definitely add more sources, as I only used Rudaw to question the information, which I thought was relevant to this article.

I will discuss some of the concerns in detail to make them clearer. If you have time, please review it.

I want to ask about why Asatrian researches are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia and so widely represented on Wikipedia? This man clearly shows a bias against Kurds. His research often seems like he’s already made up his mind and only uses information that supports his negative views. Asatrian frequently misrepresents or ignores important parts of Kurdish history and culture, His methods are not thorough or balanced, and other scholars have criticized his work for these reasons. Additionally, he has strong nationalist views. I’m not interested in his biography I don’t believe a person’s background makes them immune to bias or nationalism.

He also supports the separation of Kurds from each other with his biased views. Even if Kurds have different origins, what’s the issue? We are one people now, just like many other nations with mixed origins, such as Arabs. This doesn’t make them any less Arab. He rejects the idea that Kurdish ancestors are linked to any historical groups. Instead, he argues that Kurds are merely Iranian nomads who were mistakenly labeled as Kurds and have no historical connections to each other. This perspective oversimplifies the complex history of the Kurdish people.

It's clear he pushes this narrative on purpose. There are currently around 800,000 to 1,000,000 Zazas in eastern Turkey, but their numbers are rapidly decreasing. They are losing their language and becoming Turkified. In places like Elazig, Erzincan, and Malatya, almost 80% of the Zaza population has already been Turkified, for example, we’ve mapped the Turkified villages in Elazig, and nearly all Zazas in the city center are already Turkified, based on the extensive work we’ve done on this. [1] Only the provinces where Zazas live alongside Kurmanji speakers are holding on. However, this situation is also changing. [2] Additionally, the low fertility rate and high migration to western Turkey have caused the Zazas population to decline, as evidenced in Tunceli, which is the heartland of the Kirmancki Zazas. [3]

Scholars like this worsen the situation by claiming that the Zazas came from the Daylam region and were 'Kurdified.'[4] This isn’t proven, and genetic tests don’t support it.[5] Even linguistically, Zazas are closer to old Azeri, Gorani, and Tati than to the Caspian region. It seems he’s trying to weaken the Zaza community by separating them from the Kurds to make it easier for them to be assimilated into Turkish culture. This approach is similar to what has happened to other smaller ethnic groups in Turkey, the Zazas have managed to maintain their unique identity, largely due to their Kurdish nationalism and ongoing resistance, and The fact that Turkey is teaching his views as fact in universities in Zaza regions, despite the lack of solid evidence, and with the support of a group of Zaza nationalists backed by certain Turkish political factions, raises even more concerns. [5]

In his interviews, Asatrian has stated that Turkey's territorial integrity and stability are in Armenia's best interest. He argues that the creation of a Kurdish state to the west of Armenia would pose a serious threat to Armenia. However, he supports the concept of Zazastan, using language that closely resembles that of Zaza nationalists.[6] In Turkey, simply mentioning "Kurdistan" can lead to imprisonment, [7] while Zaza nationalists can openly promote the concept of "Zazastan" without facing similar repercussions. [8] as In a series of reports written in the 1930s and 1940s, Hasan Reşit Tankut, argued that assimilation of the Kurds would be more feasible if the Alevis and Zazas were separated from the main body of Kurds.

Martin van Bruinessen has made similar claims to mine, stating that, In the case of Armenian scholars around Garnik Asatrian or certain actors in Turkey’s state apparatus [Zaza Nationalists], the effort to separate Zazas from Kurds is driven by a definite political agenda. [9] Pp. 378 Sikorki (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Rudaw is useless in this case. And please read WP:TLDR, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP (which is also mentioned up above). HistoryofIran (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I received the response as I expected my concerns were dismissed due to my lack of experience here. I respect your experience, as I haven't been as active on Wikipedia as you have, and I understand that my words and sources might not meet Wikipedia's standards. That was my last article for this year, as I’m planning to take a long break from digital activity. I hope my words remain and that someone else addresses the issues and discusses them with administrators. I’m sure you’ll defend this individual, using your experience on Wikipedia, as I’ve observed in your discussions with Martinbreu, where it seems you share similar ideology with Asatrian and have defended him many times, such as in your talk with Volkish Kurdish. Sometimes, I feel like the Turkification of us might not be so bad, as it could lead to a group that might care about us, unlike being associated with Iranians. So, I may not be as invested in this topic anymore. Sikorki (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

where it seems you share similar ideology with Asatrian and have defended him many times, such as in your talk with Volkish Kurdish.

This has nothing to do with ideology, it's called following policies of this website, which you ought to do as well. Please don't make anymore personal comments about me again (WP:ASPERSIONS) nor Asatrian/any other person (WP:BLP), or what you consider to be right or wrong (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS) thanks. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran Alright, whatever you say. Sikorki (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)