"

 Ataturk and Kurds 

AW, the article is about Ataturks life in a factual historical context. It is about the things he had done in his life. Not about what Kurds think of him.

Let's take Coca-Cola for example, a completely benign subject. If someone said ""Pepsi lover's critique Coke for being too acidic"" (source:Pepsi lovers magazine)"" would you consider that part of the history of Coke or part of the history of Pepsi lovers? It certainly is an opinion, that could only be the history of a Pepsi lover because Coke has nothing to with their taste or aspirations of how a cola should be. (sorry for the silly analogy but you get the point I hope). Furthermore, this maybe a fact (it's a fact that someone had this critique of coke), but it's not an historical event, a historical fact, nor is it NPOV. 

Now if you apply this to Kurdish ""criticizms"", then you would get the same outcome. It's all a matter of taste. And there a millions critiques of Ataturks out there, some being offensive to Kurds. Shall we include those as well?

Not to mention, which Kurds criticized? When did they do this? How many are there? What are their credentials? So you also have a credibility problem here.

Moreover, your sources can't possibly speak for all Kurds. I would be surprised if you could dispute that FACT.

Finally, it is inflammatory and controversial. Yet, you seem to want it in there really badly for some reason which would lead people to ""criticize"" you, and come to the conclusion you are not working with the best of intentions here. Correct me if I am wrong.  "