Category talk:Kurdistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This category was nominated for deletion or renaming on 2006 January 17. The result of the discussion was no consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found on this log page.

This category was nominated for deletion or renaming on 2006 March 3. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found on this log page.

Contents 1 Controversy 2 I am against removing this category 3 Which articles should have the tag 'Category:Kurdistan' 4 Category:Kurdish inhabited regions 5 Areas that belong to the category Kurdistan 6 Definition 6.1 Response 7 A neutral point of view 8 Majority

[edit] Controversy

There is some controversy over the use of this category. However, the article on Kurdistan clearly states what the name means, and this category is applied to those geographical areas that are traditionally Kurdish, and does not imply a political stance. This approach is also based on the historical existence of Kurdistan as a political division of the Ottoman Empire. --Gareth Hughes 15:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

So, that was in the past. As of today Turkey is composed of 7 geographical regions to ease the management of the country and such. Which are namely:

• Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi
• Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesi
• İç Anadolu Bölgesi
• Marmara Bölgesi
• Karadeniz Bölgesi
• Akdeniz Bölgesi and
• Ege Bölgesi

The article kurdistan is not yet free of controversy and shall not be used as a concrete reference.

levent 08:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I would very much like to see specific administrative divisions of Turkey (20 provinces, I counted) removed from under the category of Kurdistan. I was going to do it myself, but do not want enter into a tug of war. (1.) The categorization has militant (not to say chimerical) content, no official value. It is not confirmed by the votes obtained by militantly Kurdish political entities in Turkey. The more so because not all citizens of Kurdish stock in Turkey vote for them. People living there have a say as much as ... (2.) 'Geographical areas that are traditionally Kurdish' as a basis is very open to discussion. Try replacing 'Kurdish' with any other ethnic denomination in the same context and you have explosive material. (3.) The article that treats 'historical existence of Kurdistan as a political division of the Ottoman Empire' is a stub. I learned that Bedirhan Bey had revolted for the Kurdish cause back in 1847 and a Kurdistan province had been constituted and then a few years later, new administrative arrangements had been brought into effect because of that. Well, and then what? The article on the 'administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire' seem desperately short of maps (they are asking for them!) relating to different periods and names. I am mischievously tempted to bring out other regional names in history as 'Rum' and 'Turkestan' and 'Padania' but I will avoid the temptation.

I think categorizing any article on a location in Turkey under the category 'Kurdistan' should be avoided. It would be unavoidably political. There is a Turkish saying that goes like, 'It takes one fool to throw a stone into a well, and it takes forty intelligent men to pull it out.' --Cretanforever 08:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am against removing this category

Kurdistan is a geographical area. This doesnot necessarily have a political meaning. It has been used for the first time in 12th century by the Seljuk Sultans. The term is being used in Iraq and Iran officially,and it can be found on all encyclopaedias such as Britannica. The category is important since it shows which areas this term is referring to. There is a Kurdistan page, and if this category is removed then users unfamiliar with the region won't be able to understand that article in the geographical/historical context as well. Many of the articles here refer to the geography and history of the region. I agree that in Turkey this term isnot recognized, but this is only after 1923. May be a compromise solution is to acknowledge somewhere that the term isnot recognized by Turkey. Heja Helweda 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am against the existance of this category the way it is.

If kurdistan is a "geographical area" then the category is unecesary. We do not tag New York under North America do we?

Why do articles related to kurds treated any diferently?

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

We do tag New York under North America! – or rather, under a more specific subcategory. New York is in Category:States of the United States, which is in Category:United States, which is in Category:North American countries, which is in Category:North America. So would it answer your objection if, for example, Diyarbakır was a category for Diyarbakır vilayet, which was under a category for Southeastern Anatolia, which was under category:Kurdistan? QuartierLatin1968 17:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurdistan regardless is a contraversial region. Name me a single "geographic" region with the name of an ethnic minority engraved in it. its Kurdistan. If any region in Turkey, Syria, Iran etc is acceptable to be tagged like this, I guess I can tag Athens as a part of turkey or I can tagg france as a part of greater germany. Or how about tagging every article with the category of the United Federation of Planets. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Turkestan? QuartierLatin1968 17:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Equaly contraversial. We have a Turkmenistan and an approporate category. We do not tag cities and etc of Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, etc... under a "Turkistan" category. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 07:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which articles should have the tag 'Category:Kurdistan'

This conversation began on Talk:Batman, Turkey and it was suggested that it be discussed here. --Moby 13:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Category Kurdistan has repeatedly been removed and I feel that tagging articles about the region that Kurds live in is a reasonable thing and will be adding the category back to the Batman articles and others. The primary argument (beyond personal opinion) used for the repeated removal has been that it somehow implies that Kurdistan is a country; as far as I know, no one has advanced the idea that it is a country — it demonstrably is not. However, the category has twice survived CFD and the use of the category does not really have this implication, it simply indicates that an area is a part of the historic lands of the Kurds, the land they have, and do, live in. Kurdistan may, at some point, become an independent nation — with northern Iraq as a likely start — but beyond documenting populations and the fact that there is a movement for the establishment of a Kurdish state, wikipedia articles should not, obviously, misrepresent the current state of the Land of the Kurds. Areas that can reasonably be cited as having predominate and historical Kurdish populations should be so categorized. --Moby 11:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Except that it doesn't seem likely to me that Kurdistan may become a nation state (and I am not so sure if it would be desirable). But these debate has been taken intensively during the nominations for deletion of the category. So let's defer to the majority decision: that the category stay. Bertilvidet 12:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the category stays; that's been decided. I would like to establish a consensus about the use of the category on articles. Summary removal against an established consensus will not fly. As to the likelihood or desirability of an independent Kurdistan... who really knows. There are many possible directions this could go; see Aceh#Administration, for example. --Moby 12:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Moby, we have two issues at stake here. 1) Whether 'Kurdistan' is a legitimate category, 2) What articles fit into this category.

The first question has been answered positively in the CfD vote. However, I believe that before we start adding this category haphazardly to a lot of articles, we might better find a consensus on issue number two. The right place for such a discussion would be the category's talk page. What do you all think? Please answer that question on Category talk:Kurdistan ;-) --Hippalus 13:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that this category should only be used in articles where its meaning is geographic, not political. For example, it should be in an article about a Kurdish village, but not in an article about a Kurdish person, where the meaning of "Kurdistan" changes. --Khoikhoi 17:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

On the CfD Kurdistan was kept for being a region. yet Kurdistan is a political entitiy. there is nothing geographic about a region that is also a proposed country. No geographic region on earth carry an ethnic minority in its name. Its Kurdistan. We arent talking about Europe the Balkans or even Central Amercia. We even have a political entity in northern iraq with the word kurdistan engraved in it run by the kurds.

Kurdistan is treated like a political body on Kurdistan and on the web. Well an obvious example is http://www.kurdistan.org . They are not talking about a geographic region on that web page; they are however talking about the Treaty of Lausanne as a sanction. I encourage anyone in this discussion to visit that page and read the blue print and comeback and claim the place is just a geographic region.

From where I am standing, there are no contravercies here, just pov a infestation. And if anyone finds my attitude hostile, I honestly do not care as I had tollerated this enough. I requested admin intervention via anb, irc, talk pages countless of times. I even RFCed 3 people using this category like no tommorow of wich few people cared to comment. I had done everything I could without direct involvement due to my pov. Frankly, I am more than done talking.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Kurdistan is a geographic region! And it is not a functioning political entity! (as in a nation-state)

My view is that it is a geographic and demographic characterization and this seem quite supported by many sources and usages. I fail to see just what "pov infestation" you are referring to (unless you mean the view that Kurds are distinct from Turks, Iraqis and others in the region).

I find many of your examples and analogies irrelevant and contrived. Please stick to the question at hand.

If you are "done talking" about this, I would expect you to recuse yourself from related articles. Talk is fundamental to a wiki; as is accepting consensus. --Moby 08:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I suggest everybody to make yourself familiar with the debates during the nominations for deletion of Category:Kurdistan and Turkish Kurdistan. I hope we can avoid a repetition of the heated debates we had in these two nominations. The outcome of these two debates were however clear: 1) We keep, relevant for a (not always clearly defined) region, and 2) Despite not being a state or a recognized entity Kurdistan deserves encyclopedical coverage as a region within the current states of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. On the basis of these discussions and votes I cannot see how we can conclude anything else than Category:Kurdistan is to be applied on geographical locations within Kurdistan (in the states of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey). Bertilvidet 08:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that by focusing on the demographics of places — both historical and contemporary — we can avoid the charge of defining a proposed country. FYI; there is another discussion "Cool Cat" has started at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Pov categories for regions. --Moby 09:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh? Seems like you know everything I do. Which is not a good thing. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, it is quite relevant to this debate, and good that the involved parties know about it. Bertilvidet 12:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bertilvidet here. This discussion is a good test-case for the more general discussion on controversial (geographical) categories.--Hippalus 13:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

When English speakers see a proper noun ending -stan they think of it in political terms. They regard "stan" as meaning "country".

So how about a name change for the category tags applied to Turkish provinces and other places where substantial numbers of Kurds dwell?

I propose category:Kurdish inhabited region. What do you all think? --Uncle Ed 20:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Khoikhoi and Bertilvidet. The category should be used for geographic purposes only. Villages, towns and cities that fall within the Kurdish inhabited regions, can be tagged under this category. Heja Helweda 20:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Uncle Ed. There is also a lot of controversy regarding which area the geographical region 'Kurdistan' covers and whether this is the correct geographical term for the region. Moreover Cool Cat rightly remarks we are not tagging villages in southeastern Belgium and in Luxembourg 'Category:Ardennes' either. 'Kurdish inhabited location' or a similar naming would be more precise and maybe less open to controversy. It could be a subcategory of a main category 'Kurds' or 'Kurdistan'--Hippalus 13:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I oppose to tag any Turkish cities under the category kurdistan or any subcategories of it. It is dream country of some people and they are using this category for propaganda. --levent 12:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Uncle Ed may have a sensible compromise there, if the ending -istan risks being perceived as overtly political. I don't however, necessarily think that every single village and town in a Kurdish inhabited region would need to be tagged this way – it could be used primarily to group other categories, and also for articles concerning regions (Iraqi Kurdistan, for example). QuartierLatin1968 17:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree. However I still believe categorisation based on ethnicity is absurd. That is what we are doing and I'd like another example. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 07:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Kurdish inhabited regions

FYI, this new category, Category:Kurdish inhabited regions, is currently nominated for deletion - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_27#Category:Kurdish_inhabited_regions. Bertilvidet 14:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Areas that belong to the category Kurdistan

In my view, articles about Kurdish inhabited regions of Middle East (cities, towns, provinces), with a Kurdish majority, can be tagged under this category, since that's the definition of the term Kurdistan. This applies to Turkey/Iran/Iraq/Syria.Heja Helweda 00:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add something like "traditionally inhabited". Due to the large amount of internal migration and displacements in the Middle East there are several places outside Kurdistan that now have a Kurdish majority (villages around Konya, Tarlabasi district of Istanbul - and probably many similar examples in Syria and Iran). Bertilvidet 08:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldnt. Tradition is pov. Who defines which region is traditionaly kurdish? And who is to say which place has a kurdish majority? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 07:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Lots of academic research do exist on that. Lets base our articles on these, rather than uncritically believing either the involved states or pro-Kurdish sources. Bertilvidet 07:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

From the Oxford English Dictionary of "Kurd":

One of a pastoral and agricultural people of Aryan stock, found in northern Iran and Iraq and eastern Turkey, with the adjacent regions of the U.S.S.R. (the area being collectively known as Kurdistan).

So there we have it, the area of Kurdistan is northern Iran and Iraq, eastern Turkey and adjacent regions of the former USSR. Any competing defintions? - FrancisTyers 13:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Reliable and adequate. Bertilvidet 13:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Kurdistan is a cultural region ("where kurds live") whenever conviniant and a proposed political entity/nation ("land of the kurds") whenever convinient. We do not have double standards elsewhere on wikipedia. Kurdistans borders are vaugely defined if at all.

There is no competeing definition as there is no definition. You can't tag provinces with a region which has no commonly accpeted borders as borders are defined by whoever is drawing them.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As a competing definition; anywhere in Turkey where the pro-Kurdish party (parties) obtains more than half the votes. As opposed to the parties who has not been seen pronouncing or advocating the term, or even has been seen loathing it (Turkish nationalist MHP scores better than Kurdish nationalists in some parts of the alleged Turkish K.). I fear being led to the conclusion that the naming of their geographies will be done against the wishes of a large part of the populations there. --Cretanforever 09:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You can obviously not define a region on the basis of the (ever changing) political viewpoints of its inhabitants. Should we then delete the Thrace article on the grounds that there is no (significant) movement advocating some kind of Thracian auto-determination?? Bertilvidet 12:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thrace article is an article, not a category. --Cretanforever 12:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, my mistake. I would however not objecting to set up a Thrace category and tagging Edirne, Tekirdag and Kesan nomatter how the inhabitants vote. Bertilvidet 12:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would most certainly object to that. You see, with the way you are using categories we would have several pages worth of categories.

How the inhabitants vote is not an acceptable reason for category tagging. We most certainly do not tag Texas for being a red state. Categories ment to be about static definitions such as occupations (such as Category:Film actors), international borders established with treaties (such as Category:United States), continents (such as Category:Asia)...

See Wikipedia:Category. Please have a basic understanding of categories before proposing them.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This category is not proposed, it exists. And what is discussed here is how to apply it. Please point out more precisely where in Wikipedia:Category you find the requirement that geographical entities should be international borders established with treaties. Maybe you should conduct your attack more general, since Category:Taiwan and Category:Tibet should be deleted according to this logic. Bertilvidet 07:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Yes and that is one of the reasons why its existance is problematic. You do not just create a contraversial category and use it to draw borders.

Regarding your examples:

• Tibet and Taiwan are both with defined borders. Kurdistan is not.
• Taiwan is a highly contraversial 'nickname' of the Republic of China.
  • Republic of China issue is a matter of international dispute and was a recognised sovern state at a point by the United Nations (infact was one of the founders) and stayed that way for tens of years. See [1] for details.
  • We do not however tag Beijing under Category:Taiwan or Category:Republic of China just because Republic of China claims all of Mainland China.
  • This is a poor example to be placed in contrast with Kurdistan.
    • Kurdistan never had a seat in the United Nations nor founded it
    • Kurdistan never had any international recognition to this date establishing some sort of borders.
    • Nor is there a political entitiy making claims behalf of Kurdish people unlike the Republic of China. Also to note even if sucha thing existed it wouldn't matter. Same case as Republic of China.
• Tibet was a former country, it was an actual country that lasted centuries.
  • The disputed territories are clearly marked on the map as belonging to who and claimed by who (china /india etc). Note that Tibet is being claimed by many nations, the claims on occasions overlap (China and India claim the same green areas for example also the goverment of Taiwan (Republic of China) also claim the place).
  • Tibet is a historic article. We do not tag chinese provices with Category:Tibet.
  • This is a poor example to be placed in contrast with Kurdistan.
    • Kurdistan is not a historic country that lasted for centuries that was taken over.

I thought you said kurdistan was just a geographic region yet you are trying to put it in the same category as former/de-facto nations and while treating it no diferent as actual nations. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, I am not attacking. I am on the defensive. Trust me on this. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A neutral point of view

I have been asked to come here to offer a neutral point of view. As I stated over at Talk:Batman, Turkey though, just because one person has asked me to come here, doesn't mean I'm going to side with them.

As Moby pointed out quite eloquently above Areas that can reasonably be cited as having predominate and historical Kurdish populations should be so categorized and this I have to say is something that I agree with. At first glance however Category:Kurdistan doesn't actually say that. It doesn't say anything other than that this article has something to do with Kurdistan and I don't believe that is specific enough for the purpose of including this category in articles like Batman, Turkey. It needs to be obvious from the article content as to why that category has been included, and if you have pointed out (for example) Such and such city is predominantly Kurdish, then the category needs to be (merely an example) Category:Cities of predominantly Kurdish population. Or Category:Places formerly in Kurdistan. Or whatever: you're the experts on this subject, not me.

An example from my own editing experience is Category:Places formerly in Buckinghamshire, which is a sub-category (eventually) of Category:Buckinghamshire. The articles under the former category have something to do with Buckinghamshire, but just including them in that category with no other information may come across as misleading, which is why we have sub-categories. I note that at present there isn't actually a sub-category that says what you (Moby) pointed out above.

As far as the CFD goes this is a legitimate category, and I'm not questioning that at all. -- Francs2000 23:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont see a Category:African Americanistan. I am fine with a category about kurds. I am not fine about a category for a proposed country that exists solely to mark the proposed teritory.

If it is fine to tag like that, I'll go tag mainland china under taiwan, or France under germany. This isnt ment to be a threat but it really is the same thing.

--Cat out 14:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You asked me here for my neutral point of view, and I've given it. Please don't threaten me just because you now don't like what I've said. I have not said that Category:Kurdistan should be included in articles like Batman, Turkey and I have said that this would be misleading. What I have suggested is that it is acceptable to create a category that defines the ethnicity of the population of a specific area, or that defines a place as having formerly been in a specific historical region (if that is the case, I don't know the history of Kurdistan). Either of those two, if apropriate to these circumstances, are acceptable as far as Wikipedia's NPOV is concerned. That is not the same thing as making up a pretend country and categorising articles under it. -- Francs2000 14:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There are Occitanie [2] and Arpitanie [3] categories and even an Occitanie portal [4], but no such fervour from les utilisateurs. Quelle civilisation! Behemoth 08:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't really compare what goes on at French Wikipedia with what goes on here: as the criteria for inclusion are largely decided by the user base each individual Wikimedia project is unique. -- Francs2000 08:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

...and it's a bad thing. It's that Anglo-Saxon prudishness again :-( Behemoth 10:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do with prudishness, I didn't set the rules. That's just the way the project has developed. -- Francs2000 20:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This category has been extensively fought over and expanding into subcategories may well simply expand the dispute. I am, however, not opposed to refining the categorization — I just don't look forward to an endless struggle over this.

As I have previously stated, I do not view this category as about a proposed country. I see it as about a region and the ethnicity of the people who currently live, and historically have lived, there. A category about a proposed country is quite likely a poor idea and is obviously inflammatory (although documenting the proposed boundaries of said proposed country in a specific article would be entirely reasonable).

I believe there is a need to summarize just what this category is for, and would welcome proposals for a précis. --Moby 07:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to research the history of Kurdistan more closely: I deliberately didn't because that would have made me less neutral as a facilitator to discussion. I think my original point stands though: sub-categorisation is not a bad thing and if we can agree to a stance in discussion here regarding the scope and use of such a category, disputes will be easier to resolve. -- Francs2000 20:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be aproporate and unlike Moby I do see kurdistan as a propsed country and I frankly do not care if the category page or the article suggest otherwise. --Cat out 16:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Then to be frank Cool Cat you need to change your attitude. Saying things like I do see kurdistan as a propsed country and I frankly do not care if the category page or the article suggest otherwise does not suggest a willingness to reach a negotiated compromise and that's what will be needed to find a conclusion to this dispute on Wikipedia. If you're not prepared to revise your attitude then I see no point my continuing to put any effort into this. -- Francs2000 19:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Majority

The fact is that Kurdish people make the majority in this cities and provinces, then if someone dosen´t want this to appear or being showed here at Wikipedia or somewhere welse, that´s a another story.

SO I see no wrong to link this cities to Category:kurdish cities, with the text, cities in Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria where kurds form the majority of the population. --Otro DiA OtrO DiA 11:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the ongoing discussion at Talk:Batman, Turkey. -- Francs2000 21:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)