Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →

Contents

Move

- - I moved the WikiProject name to "Kurds". I am sorry, but I fail to see why there was such a unilateral creation when this was discussed in the WP Proposals page. Everyone knows that it will be ten times easier with this name than the other one, and the scope of this project will be better oriented. There is also the other issue of POV: if Kurdistan is a geographical region, why is there a flag on the project banner? I really would have liked that there would have been greater discussion in the spirit of good faith about this. I am also willing to lend a hand, but there is no way that such a WP with a political flag in its banner will be used to group these articles. That's why there are two different categorization systems for Kurdish people and Kurdistan. I am sorry, but there isn't much Wikipedia can do if there is no seperate Kurdish state. I will also oppose, and I am sure many other editors will as well, the inclusion of this template to Turkish-related articles as long as that unrecognized political flag stays there - find some other picture of Kurdish culture or something. Believe me, I am telling this as an advice in good faith since otherwise I know that only thing this project will be doing will be to edit-war over the template and categories for all eternity instead of doing real work, right? Baristarim 06:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC) - - :I updated the and created the neccessary categories for class and importance that will go along with the template. I will see what other logistic stuff that I can be take care of in future. Cheers! Baristarim 08:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC) - - So, any sugegestions on the picture for the template? Before anyone gets hyped up over this, remember that TRNC-stubs for example are speedily deleted for "not being a internationally state" - as far as Kurd.. goes, there is no state, recognized or not, and that flag is just something that is used once in a while and not for official purposes. I hope that anyone that will come by here to voice off will understand that the best way to make this WP functional is to actually make it work as smoothly as possible - and not engage in or invite further edit-wars over legitimate concerns over the definition of the words Kurdistan and the use of that flag. I am sure that there are many quality pictures about Kurdish culture et al that can be used. Baristarim 08:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You did not even try to get everyone else input on this before changing the name. You do not have the right to change the name by yourself, we as a group decided on that name. Stop trying to rename it, if you can’t contribute in a positive and constructive manner then please don’t contribute to this project at all. All I have seen you contribute to in this project is in naming it, other than that I have not seen you do anything else. --D.Kurdistani 19:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish celebration of Norouz

I'm trying to add reliable sources to Kurdish celebration of Norouz to establish the notability of the Kurdish celebration, as differentiated from the Iranian celebration, see Talk:Norouz#Merge_2. I would appreciate any help with finding sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Kurds discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Description: A project to encourage people to expand Kurdish related articles and to structure these articles on Wikipedia.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name):

  • Ozgur Gerilla 01:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Khosrow II 22:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • D.Kurdistani 18:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Heja Helweda 21:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. Should be named "Wikiproject Kurdish people" or something along that line. --Cat out 18:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Stallions2010 01:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • KazakhPol 06:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Awat 13:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Doindo 08:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

It should be renamed to "Wikiproject Kurdish people" as per naming conventions. --Cat out 15:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I say we name it Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdistan, it's a shorter name. And as far as naming conventions go Wikipedia's policy clearly say's, "it is important to note that these are conventions, not rules carved in stone." --D.Kurdistani 18:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
"Wikiproject Kurdistan" would be fine however kurds in europe would be beyond the scope of such a wikiproject.
  • It would restrict wikiprojects to issues related to that geography rather than kurdish people as a whole. I'd in fact favor such a thing more as I dislike the "wikiproject for an ethnicity" idea somewhat.
  • Though Kurdistan is a contraversial term, s preferably something like "Wikproject Kurdish inhabited region" would be better.
Unless there is a good reason not to follow them, naming conventions need to be followed. Mind that I said "should" and not "must".
  • A wikiproject should not be named "plural". So it should be either "Wikiproject Kurd" or "Wikiproject Kurdish people", alternative suggestions are welcome.
  • A wikiproject's title preferably should be non-contraversial.
Why is "Kurdish people" bad as opposed to "Kurds"? Are kurds not people?
--Cat out 18:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
We currently have some options to go with, these are: Kurds, Kurd, Kurdish People, Kurdish inhabited region. The problem with naming it Kurdish People is that we will not only work on articles that are about Kurdish people but Kurdish food, region, religion, culture... which obviously is connected with the Kurdish people. I chose 'Kurds' thinking that the term Kurdistan is a controversial term. for, Kurdish inhabited region, it just is long for a WikiProject title. In conclusion I think it should be either 'Kurds' or 'Kurdish People' or 'Kurdish'. Let's wait a little longer for different opinions. Ozgur Gerilla 15:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Anything related to Kurdish people weather it is food or culture would be in the scope of a "Kurdish people" wikiproject asuming the article is significant enough to Kurdish people. --Cat out 15:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy with Kurdish people. Ozgur Gerilla 22:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Kurdish People, Kurd or Kurds, Kurdistan and Kurdish inhabited regions are all fine for names but let’s wait a little longer to get more people onboard and then we can choose a name amongst our selves. For now I think it’s more important to think about getting people together for this project rather than thinking about a name for it. --D.Kurdistani 06:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I should have a proper name from the begining. Name changes can be complicated. --Cat out 09:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest Kurds & Kurdistan. The WikiProject should be both about people (Kurds/Kurdish people) and geography/history of the region(Kurdistan). Heja Helweda 21:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should go with Kurds. Ozgur Gerilla 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Heja Helweda, the name Kurds & Kurdistan is a good name for this project as it covers the Kurdish people in general and the region of Kurdistan. --D.Kurdistani 00:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys are we ready? can we start this now; if yes, please let's all decide on the name and open the page. Ozgur Gerilla 02:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest WP Kurdish people. Kurdistan would lead to many edit-wars, and somewhat rightly so: there are no specific borders. However, I also would like to know how many people will actually be participating in this project. I also suggest that people refrain from using the Kurdistan flag on the project template, just put something another image or so. It is not fair to be putting a flag to places when there actually doesn't exist one officially. If it were named Kurdistan, it would be the perfect invitation to remove the template from articles that fall outside the jurisdiction of the only official entity that uses the name Kurdistan, in Iraq. I am sorry but we cannot correct the geopolitical situation in the world, in Wikipedia we have to ask ourselves if names used coincide with an actual official entity. Kurdish people would be different however. On another note, can I get a roll call of people who are interested one more time? It has been a long time that the proposal was made, so what do the potential contributors think of the naming issue? Baristarim 17:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians who want to join this WikiProject / Name they would like to suggest for this WikiProject

  • D.Kurdistani 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC) - (WikiPorject Kurd's & Kurdistan)
  • Ozgur Gerilla 01:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC) - (WikiProject Kurds or WikiProject Kurdistan)
For people who think WikiProject Kurdistan will create problems between users; well I think we need to understand that Kurdistan is a region not a country which is refered by nearly all historians. If a very good reason isn't given by users not to go with Kurdistan I think we should use it. I think it will also be a good reason for users who are not familiar with Kurds to understand the current situation and geographical position of Kurdistan. It will simply be attractive and informative. Plus let's not waste much time on naming the project as it's the content that matters more.

We don't need a reason to not use WP Kurdistan, we need a reason not to use Wikiproject Kurds, if you don't want to go with that. see below deniz 10:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is not closed yet right?

I'm voting for Wikiproject:Kurds it covers more than Wikiproject:Kurdistan, is not controversial, more people accept that. I won't mind WP:Kurdish people or WP:Kurdish. I don't want WP:Kurd, WP:Kurdish inhabited region, WP:Kurds & Kurdistan, nor WP: Kurdistan. In my opinion Wikiproject:Kurds and Wikiproject:Kurdish people are same thing. 'Kurds' can be used as a synonym to Kurdish people, in both senses, plural to Kurdish person and as a people. deniz 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This poll/proposal was for Wikiproject: Kurds. There was almost a consensus about WikiProject:Kurds (except Catout who is for wikiproject:Kurdish people, which is not that far away from Kurds). D. Kurdistani, you seem to have unilaterally made the decision to move it to Wikiproject:Kurdistan, many people would not disagree with that name, but almost nobody disagrees Wikiproject: Kurds. Please move it to Wikiproject:Kurds, otherwise we will be needing another proposal, another vote. I don't see what is wrong with Wikiproject:Kurds, apparently you have agreed with that too.

We can have another template for wproject Kurdistan that redirects to wikiproject Kurds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Denizz (talk • contribs) 10:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

The name

I am sorry, when did this move happen? It was at WPKurds.. D. Kurdistani, please do not do such unilateral moves. I do not see any discussion here, what was your reason for doing such a move? And deniz, the discussions is not closed yet.. Welcome by the way :)Baristarim 15:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on, you made the first unilateral move [1]. If the name is bothering you that much (I fail to see why), try WP:RM.--Domitius 15:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not an article, RM rules do not apply. The concensus was never for Kurdistan. I am actually trying to make sure that this WP will not be a dead project that will be constantly fighting over its banner. Plus, that flag will be removed from the template. Most Kurds do not like that flag, especially in Turkey since it is associated with the PKK. I know many Kurds who hate that flag. If it is a geopgraphical region, then there is no need for a flag. I raised this point in my original post which was blatantly vandalized by user:d kurdistani. Baristarim 16:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
And please keep your nose out of this User:GreekWarrior. Thank you. Baristarim 16:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not move any more of the pages back to their original names, until a final decision is made. I still don’t see why everyone is all hyped up about the name and the Kurdish flag being on the page. IT IS NOT A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE it’s a WikiProject, get that in your head its aim is to improve Kurdish related articles on Wikipedia not to get a political message through. Look at the articles Türkmeneli and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, neither is officially recognized states or entities, but you see Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus treated as a country with a flag. How about Türkmeneli it has a flag and an inaccurate and politically motivated map on the page, but no they are not considered political to have flags on them. Do you see a Kurdish flag on the article Kurdistan, if I put one on the page, every Turkish Wikipedian will rush in and move the flag out of the article and say that I am using the flag to achieve my political aims and spread hatred. Using the name and flag for this project is noting to fight about, it’s not an article. A final decision about this has to be made, for the time being lets all agree not to move or rename the project or its subpages until we come to a final decision. Another thing Baristarim you do not have the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot engage in. --D.Kurdistani 20:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please D. Kurdistani, read what you have written above, not as the writer but as the reader, listen to yourself. "IT IS NOT A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE it’s a WikiProject, get that in your head its aim is to improve Kurdish related articles on Wikipedia not to get a political message through." I don't mind Iraqi Kurdistan flag, except that it is Iraqi Kurdistan flag. I don't know about you but most Kurds are not Iraqi Kurds. If you are an Iraqi Kurd, consider that you might be biased. "A[n] final initial decision about this has to be was made, [but] for the time being lets all agree not to move or rename the project or its subpages until we come to a final decision." In my opinion, what you did was wrong, disregarding a proposal/vote, let me admit that I am expecting that you accept what you did was not so right. It is only natural for someone to protest. denizTC 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not do anything wrong, the WikiProject was proposed and everyone voiced their opinion for the name and content of the project on the WikiProject proposal page. For a while nothing happened, and the project was not started. I talked with a few of the people who were interested and we came up with the name WikiProject Kurdistan and then I started working on the project. Then Baristarim changed the name and all of its subpages to the new name that he picked, but he did not get anyone’s input before changing the name. After he renamed the project and all its subpages, he posted a comment on the main talk page. So who is wrong? --D.Kurdistani 23:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Lame.. Comparing TRNC to Kurdistan?? TRNC is an actual political entity. If anything only Iraqi Kurdistan can be compared to the TRNC. Read my post below: IT IS LAME. Create the country first then the WP, not the other way around. It is very childish otherwise. Obviously it is much easier to create a WP sitting in the comfort of your home rather then going out there and getting your hand "dirty", if you know what I mean. "What final decision"? Have you actually taken a look at the WP Proposals discussion? I had asked for a second roll call, and only two users showed final interest, it was not some overwhelming concensus among thousands of users. Besides, during the discussion, the only other user that was interested, Ozgur, said he could care either way with Kurds or Kurdistan. The creation of this WP was your unilateral action, so relativize first of all..
Anyone who takes a look at WP Proposals discussion and even now can see that there was never a concensus for Kurdistan, fyi. As for the flag, let's go to PS 101. There is no such thing as the "Kurdish flag". That flag is not the Kurdish flag, there is no such state as Kurdistan. In fact, the UN has an official office for the registry of national flags (it is kept to avoid two countries using the same flag). That flag is a political flag that is used by some groups and certain people.
Whatever, it is obvious that the aim is not to improve the Kurdish articles but to get a message through. I completely support WP Kurds, but with Kurdistan there are actually many WP:V issues, how hard is that to understand?? It is not even clear precisely what "Kurdistan" is.. Geo region? If it is so, it cannot have a flag. There is no flag for the Himalayas or the Sahara Desert. It is clear that it is not an actual state, recognized or non-recognized. So what is it? I am not asking what you would like it to be Diyako, but what it actually is. Again, shed some sweat and blood creating the country, then you can fly the flag. If WP Turkey can use the Turkish flag or WP France the French flag, that's because long time ago for a long while hundreds of thousands died defending those flags (not just simply creating WPs from their univ computer labs :)) and tens of millions worked hard for centuries making sure that those flags will be present in the world stage as proudly as possible on the ground - not in the virtual world. Think about it...
In any case, that flag is definitely going. I am just waiting for someone (you can do it too you know) to come up with a quality picture of Kurdish culture or something. If not I will just pick one out myself. (As you pointed out, the article Kurdistan doesn't normally have the flag, therefore neither will the template, create a WP Iraqi Kurdistan and you can use it there) Let's go back to the naming issue. WP Basques is at the name of the people not at WP Basque Country, think about it. And the Basques actually do have administrative and cultural structures. Baristarim 03:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody should come here without making any improvements nor any contributions discuss what the name of the Project shall be. We are here a group of people that have decided the name of the project and will contrinue to reach our goals with or without those who want to be in it. Nobody has the right to tell us what to name it as long as we stick to the rules of Wikipedia and make improvements. I don't see what the problem is with naming it Kurdistan. Kurdistan is a region and people who call this a political propaganda are those who try to suppress us and try to limit our freedom. People who accept this fact should work with us else they have the freedom to start another project called WikiProject Kurds if they care about it that much. Please do not distrupt the project with such irrelevant, time-consuming issues. Thanks. Ozgur Gerilla 23:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW we have WP:MWNB which is for a highly disputed region (with arbitrary ill-defined boundaries) and no one uprises. A dispute over the validity of this article's title would be so pathetic it could fuel waves of LOLs throughout wiki for a long period of time (especially if there was an edit war - it could be listed at WP:LAME).--Domitius 23:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The only problem is that Kurds are much more than a reality, but Kurdistan is far from being so. Everyone knows the name, but no one knows what it exactly is nor can they define it. That's all, I don't care much really. Look at this way: Berlin is also Turkish-inhabited but is not Turkey, it doesn't have the WPTR tag, but Turks in Germany does... As far as Wikipedia rules go, TRNC article has had a POV-title tag for ages, and TRNC-stub has been deleted by WP Stubs.. The only issue with the name is that there will be WP:V issues since the notions of "Kurds" and "Kurdistan" are not the same - kind of like the Berlin example I gave... Anyways... Baristarim 23:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
But Britannica has no problem with using the name "Kurdistan"!!--Domitius 23:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You see, this is the general assumption and kind of assumes that the other person is stupid. Of course the name and the notion exists - Do not make it out as if I am blindly contesting anything that it has to do with it or the existence of the term or of Kurds. My point was only that since it is a hazy notion, the degree of connectivity of other notions and subjects with Kurdistan are also hazy. You see what I mean? Example: Armenians also have a legitimate claim of cultural presence in many places frequently included in Kurdistan, stuff like that.. The problem will be determining which subjects can fall under the term "Kurdistan" and which ones won't - thus my claim that it will be harder to work with than "Kurds" for example. Anyways, no need to discuss what Kurdistan means here, we will just waste time I think... Cheers! Baristarim 00:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
well i see, but please read this here: """Kurdistan is the name of a geographic and cultural region in the Middle East, inhabited predominantly by the Kurds. As a traditional ethnographic region, Kurdistan is generally held to include the contiguous regions in northern and northeastern Mesopotamia with large Kurdish populations. From a political standpoint, Iraqi Kurdistan """. Nobody claims that a national Country like Kurdistan exists. I claim that Kurdistan is a cultral area. That is my opnion and I hope your too. --Bohater 00:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied from the project page

I have been a bit busy so I did not have too much time to work on this project, but before we start putting the project banner on articles, we still need to move some of the pages back to their original names. The project was called Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdistan, but Baristarim (talk · contribs) moved the project and all it subpages to Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurds. I moved some of the pages back to their original names, but some cannot be moved back. We need to have an administrator move the subpages of this project back to their original names and delete the redirects. I cannot do this, only administrators can do this, we need to move the project pages back to their names, because we need to stick with a standard naming system.


Below is the list of the pages that have to be moved back.

Original Name Name Baristarim moved it to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdistan/Assessment Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurds/Assessment
Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdistan/Project Userbox Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurds/Project Userbox
Template:WPKURDISTAN Navigation Template:WPKurds Navigation
Template:WPKURDISTAN Template:WPKurds
Category:WikiProject Kurdistan Category:WikiProject Kurds

The page (Category:WikiProject Kurds) has to be change back to (Category:WikiProject Kurdistan), but the subpages in (Category:WikiProject Kurds) should all be deleted, as they were created by Baristarim (talk · contribs), and it would be much easier to start fresh than renaming all those pages. --D.Kurdistani 07:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not "need" to be changed back, since you were the one who unilaterallyt went ahead and created the project at Kurdistan and then moved it back. Please take a look again at the discussion at WP Proposals discussion. WPs do not "belong" to anyone, you know that. You cannot say "I am creating this and so it shall stay since I am the one who created it." So what about the discussion, what is going on?
First off the bat, that flag will be removed from the template, most people of Kurdish origin in Turkey do NOT like that flag. Since it is a WP about a geo/region or people, it cannot have a flag. Use an image of Kurdish culture or something.
As far as the naming goes, I would like to remind that the WP Basques is at the name of the people not at "WP Basque Country" (Pays Basque). Food for thought. Kurdistan name is riddled with WP:V issues. I am seriously trying to make sure that this WP doesn't spend all its time fighting for the template. Kurds conveys the same message, so what is the problem? I mean, why not actually create the country first then the WP? Sorry but I find it pretty childish really. Baristarim 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, anybody there? Isn't anybody going to comment on the naming issue and how only one user went ahead and chose that name even though in the WP Council Proposals page discussion that lasted for months there was never such a concensus.. There are WP:V issues with this name, I am telling you guys, this is going to attract a lot of legitimate edit-wars over the WP banner. The usage of the term Kurdistan is far from being the concensus, let alone universally affirmed fact. Please be careful about WP:OR and don't try to use Wikipedia as a personal web-site. No-one came up with a response to why WP Basques is not at WP Basque Country (Pays Basque)... Baristarim 08:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I support this naming. - Francis Tyers · 09:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:V issues all the way then, what can I say? Come on, we are not supposed to let our opinions get the better of the wiki rules like WP:V. If the name stays as such, there will be legitimate such disputes across many articles.. I had really suggested WP Kurds (don't forget that in the months of WP Council Proposals discussion the current name was never the concensus) so that the WP will work much more smoothly and academically. As is, it can only try to get some sort of a message across.
By the way, can you explain to me why the TRNC-stub was deleted in that case? (Just like Kurdistan-bio-stub btw) It is academically confusing and non-verifiable, is it that hard to see? I really don't care really, I got many articles on my watchlist. Articles in question will have to definitely meet WP:V for "Kurdistan" and not just "Kurdish" or "Kurdish-inhabited". Making such a jump is original research, right? That's all.. Berlin is also a "Turkish-inhabited region" but I don't tag it with WPTR template since there is a difference between the two concepts: the notions are not the same, and saying that they are is original research if it doesn't reflect academic concensus, which is gravely lacking for "Kurdistan" for many legitimate academic reasons... Baristarim 09:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I would have voted for keeping the TRNC stub. I don't know why it was deleted. Kurdistan is verifiable (check the OED), so WP:V is not a problem. - Francis Tyers · 10:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Er, no. There is definitely not an academic concensus on the matter, let alone an overwhelming affirmation in the English language. You will never hear on CNN or BBC "so our correspondent Mr. X Y was in Elazig the other day, in Turkish Kurdistan" - it will say that there are Kurds, but as far the English language usage goes, Kurdistan is definitely not a majority usage, let alone the universality neither in everyday usage or academic usage. As such WP:V, WP:OR and undue weight, right? Obviously there are those who refer to it as such, but what concerns Wikipedia is the prevailing usage in the English language - those are the rules. That's all. For every source that you find referring to any city in the "Turkish Kurdistan" as such, I can find you ten times more who refer to it exclusively as Turkey (we are not talking about if it is Kurdish inhabited - Berlin is also Turkish inhabited but it is not Turkey: let's not confuse the notions). As wikipedians we should try to not let our personal opinions get in the way.. So, Kurdistan is verifiable in some cases, but it is undue weight, doesn't reflect academic or everyday usage in the English language thus the contradiction with wiki rules. I don't care if the WP stays at this name, but this issue will come up at every single article: Sources will be needed that reflect a greater usage of Kurdistan vis-à-vis anything else in the English language per WP:V and WP:OR. Hope you hear what I am trying to explain...Baristarim 11:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that cities in Turkey should be tagged with "WikiProject Kurdistan". If you wish to make a new project for tagging cities in Turkey that is called "WikiProject Kurds", be my guest. You seem to be reading too much into my posts. I merely said that Kurdistan was verifiable, as in as a word it exists and can be defined and verified (consult your OED). I made no prescription as to the scope of the project or as to the articles which would come under its area. - Francis Tyers · 11:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah maybe you are right.. I might be getting worked up, I should take a rest really.. :) I agree that Kurdistan is a term and notion verifiable in itself, no doubt about that. It has been used for a long time in many different works in the English language. But the lines are way too grey to my liking. lol Baristarim 11:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm in general not a prescriptivist. If people can come up with a reasonable scope for this project then great. I agree that the lines are grey and that the scope should be clearly defined (and shouldn't include villages in Turkey!) But that is up for discussion. I think the input of more people would be valuable (although not those with known fixed agendas) :) - Francis Tyers · 12:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Francis, when you say the scope should be clearly defined are you referring to the scope of the Project; the aim and goals of the projects? Ozgur Gerilla 00:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Scope of the project and the general motif

I am looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia, a well developed regional wikiproject and I see a lot of key differences between it and this one. And please correct any of my assessments if you feel they are inaccurate.

Central Asia Kurdistan
Title not controversial Title controversial
Covers different cultures and countries without favoring any single one Focuses on Kurdish people
Focuses on most of Asia, the largest continent Focuses on a comparatively tiny area
Symbol is the Bibi-Khanym Mosque Symbol is/was the Kurdish flag
Title page contains no touch of any specific nationality or culture Title page's borders is covered with the national Kurdish colors (assessment based on Kurdish flag article)
Scope is well defined and is without any controversy. Scope is not defined and can easily be the subject of a controversy.

I think the scope of the project should be adjusted to either...

...to include only Kurdish-related topics in a non-controversial manner

or

...to include a general range of topics dropping the Kurdish dominance

-- Cat chi? 19:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

CoolCat, thanks for the difference table, I'm sure it will help us because we need to compare the project aims and status with other projects, but please note that we are still a very new Project and need a lot of improvements. Ozgur Gerilla 00:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree this is helpful for this project, we could use or any other good WikiProject as an example for what this project should be like. --D.Kurdistani 07:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You guys should define what the scope and intention of this wikiproject supposed to be. Are you intending to cover Kurdish related topics? -- Cat chi? 13:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's do that denizTC 22:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Current scope is more ambiguous than what was before. I do not understand why this wikiproject wants to cover detailed "pre-kurdistan" (what is pre-kurdistan anyways?) history coverage when there are various wikiprojects already covering it.
As it stands, Kurds in Europe, USA or even in Ankara, Bagdad etc... are beyond the scope of this wikiproject unless we extend the borders there.
-- Cat chi? 11:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well let us wait and see it. What is the problem.? The project is at the beginning and have to review it yet. --Bohater 11:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As the person mass creating sub pages are you not "reviewing them" as you are creating them? -- Cat chi? 10:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I am primarily active on Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia,I dont think that these two projects are similar enough to warrant comparison. This could best be associated with Wikiproject: Uyghurstan (there is none yet) in its scope, aim etc. I dont want to be labeled with an agenda, especially an anti-Kurdish agenda of any sort. I have no objection to Kurds having another fragmented, failed nation-state in the region. Yet, I think it is inevitable that Wikiproject:Kurdistan will run into troubles at every move. In my humble opinion, it could be better organized as Wikiproject:Kurdish people. Just take a look at articles under the history section; they are exclusively on the history of Kurds, as a people, not the history of the land. The history of the land has been shaped by the history of Roman, Persian, Arabic, Ottoman, Safavid, British... empires and the recent nation states built upon them. If you want to recreate each and everyone of these histories in a distinctive Kurdish nationalist interpretation (and you have a right to do so), good luck edit warring on multiple fronts. :)cs 13:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I second this assessment. -- Cat chi? 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Concur.. Baristarim 17:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
To cs, I totally disagree with your statement on how Kurdistan is shaped only by those mentioned. No, it is not; it has a Kurdish factor with its empires and dynasties. Thus it is important to have the Kurdish sourced view on those articles, why not when there is all the others? Plus when Kurdish related articles (thousands of them) are in need why is it that there's always oppositional views right in your face, that's why we here; to improve and create articles related to Kurdistan and the Kurdish people and the name of the project maybe doesn't reflect the content perfectly. But hey we think it suits it. Ozgur Gerilla 00:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Who is this "we"? An elite group? If the intention is to focus on Kurdish people, the wikiproject should be labeled as "Wikiproject Kurdish people". -- Cat chi? 12:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The "Illuminati"! No I am just being sarcastic, the aim is to improve everything related to Kurdistan and Kurdish people. May I ask why you're against the projects' aim and existence? We the members of the project like the name and will keep it, so good luck with the digging. Ozgur Gerilla 13:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe my entire argument is that the wikiproject should be either renamed to "Wikiproject Kurdish people" or its scope should be redefined to exclude "Kurdish people" and instead focus strictly on geography (which may include bits of info about the kurds). You can take example of other wikiprojects such as the Central Asian one which I picked randomly. -- Cat chi? 14:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Still haven't adressed the issues relating to the scope mentioned on top of the section Ozgur - please take another look at it. You do know that if those issues are not dealt with, the project will be way too disoriented and vague. Baristarim 16:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Look guys, this is going to be an informal explanation, but how else clear can I make it when I am saying that the projects aim is to improve or create Wiki-articles that are related to the Kurdish peoples; whether it's the Sorani's, Kurmanci's, Faili's, Zaza's or the rests' history, politics, culture, geography, language, science, literature and other subjects I missed. Kurds are the largest ethnic group without a country and we live in an "national" age, thus attacks and elimination attempts have been done (Turkification) and will be tried (current middle east situation). We are here to protect or share the development of this ethnic group by providing sourceful information. Coming to the scope of the project we should be covering everything that touches the Kurdishness; whether it's Kurdish or not, to at the least put the Kurdish perspective on the board. The are some things in the project that are vague and need further specification but let's remind ourselfs that this is a new WikiProject and that member's contribution amount varies. Ozgur Gerilla 17:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Please start a blog or personal website to publish your own ideas. Wikipedia is not the median to publish them. The point of this and every wikiproject is to create and develop neutral articles. This is non-negotiable. POV pushing "Kurdish perspective" into articles is disruptive, you are to provide every notable perspective. "Kurdishness" is not a verifiable inclusion criteria and is highly subjective. This wikiproject is not owned by the Kurds/"Kurdish perspective" nor is it for the Kurds/"Kurdish perspective". -- Cat chi? 17:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ozgur Gerilla. We are not living in an age of nationalism, (you may prefer to live in the past though). We are living in an age of post-nationalism. Who gave you the right "to defend" Kurdish people? The future of Kurdish people lies on the possibility of a post-nationalist Middle East. Inadvertently, you are pumping new blood to the veins of ugly Turkish nationalism which we thought was on the verge of death. I despise nationalisms of all kind! cs 17:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
We are just a WikiProject, just like WikiProject Turkey, Syria and the rest with some aims within the Wikipedia boundaries. Please do not make personal attacks and just like you I don't favour any nationalism. Ozgur Gerilla 17:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Everything we provide is well sourced and has NPOV, please remind yourself that Wikipedia is not a battleground. The neutrality of articles cannot and will not be effected, that's one reason why we are here, to help create neutral articles by putting Kurdish sources in related articles. May I ask why your extremely against the project? since all you do is critise the contributions? Ozgur Gerilla 17:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Kurdistan is a nationalist dream, and pretty much ethnic oriented, don't let anybody fool you. It wouldn't have taken this many steps if it wasn't for the certain foreign interests of certain foreign groups in the geography. I will support the rights of every Turkish citizen, I will not support seperatism based on ethnicity.--Doktor Gonzo 18:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Man, nationalism is not native to these lands. Borrowed from Europe a century ago. Europeans have almost completely abondoned it decades ago. Middle Eastern people are still sticking to this stupid idea as if it has ever been any solution to any of their problems and killing each other days in days out. Be fair for a moment, not only this one, all Middle Eastern country projects are driven by nationalist impulses.And you are saying that you (or Turks, Iranians, Armenians, Greeks...) are acting in the best interests of WP:NPOV. You should be kidding!cs 18:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to discuss the details of nationalisms negativity but think about it, you are part of an ethnic group that has no country and is suppressed in all the countries it is inhabited in: you have got to understand the Kurdish problem better. Nationalism is something different something irrelevant to our topic; current Kurdism is defending your natural rights (basically live with your identity) from Turkification or Arabization and stop genocide Al-anfal. I have nothing else to say here, please let us not make this page a forum, those who are willing to contribute and join the project please feel welcomed. Ozgur Gerilla 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Please stay on topic. Please take your discussion on nationalism to another median such as IRC, email. -- Cat chi? 20:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, now there is some sort of physical bot to repeat what we say. Ozgur Gerilla 20:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

National borders

Regardless of the future of this wikiproject - weather it stays as a "wikiproject Kurdistan" or a "wikiproject Kurdish people" - the national borders must go as per WP:NOT. See Wikipedia:WikiProject France (if you consider Kurdistan to be a country)/Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia (if you consider Kurdistan to be a geographic region)) as examples. WikiProjects are a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia they are not tools to demonstrate customs. -- Cat chi? 20:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I also dispute the "universal Kurdish culture" status of red yellow and green. Even traffic lights have those colors. -- Cat chi? 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For Everybody

The colors are not political!. These colors represent many peoples like in Afrika. . Kurdish People understand these colors for Sun-beginning or freedom between the peoples in Middle Eeast. What the Politics think, that's none of my business! Sure , we can change the scope of the project. --Bohater 20:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The borders' colors are political enough to be on a political flag used in Iraqi Kurdistan. Your statement of representation is your opinion and is not a credible source and is unlikely to be shared by the vast number of inhabitants of the middle east. -- Cat chi? 20:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course the 'Kurdish' colours wouldn't be shared by the majority in the middle east because all the people around the Kurds have political agendas against the sake of the Kurds, now that's a POV. But anyway the border colours of the project page are the memebers' preference and will stay like that until "someone" digs and finds a Wiki:Rule that contradicts it. So for those that will do the extra work and sweat all night, good luck. Ozgur Gerilla 00:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. I don't want to get into but you do know that there are Kurds who do not like those colors because of its association (and political recuperation) by the PKK. That applies to Kurds from Turkey obviously, and I doubt that there is such a thing in Iran for example. What I am saying is that names, colors and symbols can get "hijacked" if you will. The most extreme example of this (I am not saying it is similar to this color issue obviously) is the history of swastika and how it got hijacked by the Nazis. Nevertheless, the colors of the WP are not on my priority list at the moment.. Baristarim 00:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Ozgurgerilla what do you think is the point of this (or any) wikiproject? It is supposed to be a list of articles for everybody and nothing more. Is the wikiproject going to be controversial starting with its symbolism? I shouldn't be "digging up" wiki:rules, people should be following them. The wikiproject should be compatible with WP:NPOV, it should not intentionally violating WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- Cat chi? 12:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Please remind yourself too that Wikipedia is not a battleground and our WikiProject does comply with all necessary rules so please stop accusing us of being symbolistic. The points of the wikiprojects in general are too many to discuss or list here but do have a look at; WikiProjects. Ozgur Gerilla 13:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe I am battling. I am just pointing out other similar Wikiprojects. Even country wikiprojects do not have national colors so why does this one have them? -- Cat chi? 14:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Why shouldn't they have it? Plus Kurdistan is not a country so no need to compare it to other countries wikiprojects, the border colours are the members' preference and have no political message. Ozgur Gerilla 15:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The colors have a political meaning weather that is intended or not is irrelevant. The colors would be fine if this wikiproject had nothing to do with kurds, kurdistan (such as something like Wikiproject Star Trek or whatever) -- Cat chi? 00:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
“
Red symbolizes the blood of Kurdish martyrs and the continued struggle for Kurdish freedom and dignity.
Green expresses the beauty and the landscapes of Kurdistan.
Yellow represents the source of life and light of the people.
 ”
source Kurdish flag which inturn sources [2]
Looks political to me... -- Cat chi? 23:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Kurdistan's sub categories

The above category tree (except Iraqi Kurdistan one) fails to meet the following:

  1. Wikipedia:Attribution#No original research and Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources.
  2. Any existing categorization scheme anywhere on Wikipedia and is one of a kind. (if we consider Kurdistan as a geographic region instead of country)
  3. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight
  4. Wikipedia:Categorization#Some_general_guidelines #8


Kurdistan is neither a defacto (no entity Kurdistan claim to be a country) nor dejure (no entity recognizes the existence of a Kurdistan country) country.

A number of similar categories have already been deleted:

Hence I hereby initiate the discussion on the matter. This is my last attempt to start a discussion on the matter before taking the matter to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee as Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-03 Category:Kurdistan was ignored and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Category:Kurdistan was rejected.

-- Cat chi? 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you have the right to do that.
The name and the categories will be acepted in other Wikis. That is the fact. There we don't have the problems (or your problems). Thanks. --Bohater 20:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
"Other wikis" is not a reliable source. What is the point of this wikiproject if you are going to simply ignore the relevant discussion? -- Cat chi? 21:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Should we along the Turkish wiki? denizTC 21:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Again!, Wikipedia is Wikipedia. the German Wikipedia is the second bigest. Please accept this. I'm not having any discussions about it! --Bohater 21:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
If you are forfeiting to discuss you are agreeing with the result of this discussion whatever that may be. -- Cat chi? 23:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not the German wikipedia, this is not the Spanish wikipedia, this is not the Tamil wikipedia, ..., this is not the Turkish wikipedia. It is the English wikipedia. Bohater you are not making much sense. On the categories, I think they should be renamed to ... in Kurdistan not of Kurdistan. Also, we should put some explanations on the category pages, we should mention what they will cover.denizTC 22:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. No city in Turkey/Syria/Iran/Armenia can be tagged as a part of Kurdistan in a verifiable manner. By nature borders of Kurdistan are not defined. -- Cat chi? 23:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, You are absolutely right. By nature borders of Kurdistan are not defined. But there is a cultural and historical one, which you should not forget it. I wonder whether it's advisable for you to read this Article Kurdistan --Bohater 23:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
If something is by nature not verifiable (as you agree) then we cannot categorize according to those undefined borders. We need a solid inclusion criteria and not something arbitrarily defined.
Also, Wikipedia:Categorization#Some_general_guidelines #8:
Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option.
-- Cat chi? 01:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Summary: rename settlements and subcategories to "... with a large Kurd population" or something similar.

  • User Cool Cat is right: I disagree. No city in Turkey/Syria/Iran/Armenia can be tagged as a part of Kurdistan in a verifiable manner. By nature borders of Kurdistan are not defined. -- Cat chi? 23:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As quoted above: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option.
  • This means the geography (lakes, mountains, etc) categories should be removed. However, if for example a number mountains is important to Kurdish tradition (as the Olympos is to ancient Greece for example, not just geographical location) a category 'Mountains in Kurdish tradition' or something similar could be created.
  • It is useful to have settlements with a large (in %) population of Kurds in a category. Therefore I suggest renaming those to "Category:Settlements with a large Kurdish population". A large percentage of Kurds is notable, because the Kurdish issue is very well-known around the world - even here in the Netherlands, many know the issue.

--User:Krator (t c) 09:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Response to third opinion.
    • That was considered at a point but "majority" becomes an arbitrary inclusion criteria. Would you support a list rather than category? That is the best solution I see out (I am open to suggestions of course). We can even have something like "List of cities with Kurdish population in Syria/Turkey/Iran/Armenia/Whatever" displaying percentages/sources. Although there is the absence of an ethnicity spesific census to back the percentages such a thing may work.
    • Mount Olympus is categorized as a part of Greece and as a part of Category:Locations in Greek mythology so Something like Category:Locations in Kurdish mythology would be fine. However Category:Mythological places is sourced by civilization and not ethnicity. So I am not certain where that puts Kurdish people.
    -- Cat chi? 13:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Categorizing cities by ethnicity may be problematic. If "Kurdish cities" are to be given category, so should every ethnicity. -- Cat chi? 17:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    I am sure categorising the cities by their predominantly inhabited ethnicites isn't a bad idea and can be done by every ethnicity. I don't see the harm. Ozgur Gerilla 17:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    How do you verify predominantly inhabitance? What is predominant supposed to be? 50%? 20%? Isnt that just an arbitrary number? How is such categorization even helpful? -- Cat chi? 18:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Some might want to know about places like that, because of the high news value (and the high amount of news references) to the Kurdish question. --User:Krator (t c) 09:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps. But the "Kurdish question" can't be an inclusion criteria. -- Cat chi? 09:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a matter notability (high news and academic value), and the fact that people are interested in those places especially because of the Kurd population. Wikipedia should offer those readers a good way to find them, whether a list or category. --User:Krator (t c) 23:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
African Americans, Asian Americans are also notable. New York city alone is a melting pot. I do not believe notability is an issue here. A list can present info with annotations as we will need citation per city. However, categories can't have annotations by nature. Cities are categorized in a binary manner and country inclusion criteria makes such a task easy. It is indisputable that Washington DC is a US city. It can be disputed that Washington DC has an African American majority. Same logic applies to these categories. Let's stick to the existing categorization schemes. -- Cat chi? 00:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey and issue of "genocide"

I think the members of the project should follow the discussion here, and comment on it. The issue has to do with the "genocide" section, whose existence has raised reactions there.--Yannismarou 08:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is beyond the scope of a geography wikiproject. -- Cat chi? 04:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It's so not. So everyone that has something to say on the section please, as Arabs put it yallah habibi Ozgur Gerilla 13:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a point? If so I am not getting it. -- Cat chi? 14:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Armenian, Greek, Assyrian and now Kurdish genocide. If you feel your name should be on the list, please contact European Parliament; American Parliament can not be reached at the moment. And don't forget to get your free "Genocide Business is Good Business" t-shirt.--Doktor Gonzo 13:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)