Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan/Archive 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus.--Húsönd 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdistan → Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdish people – More neutral title, establishes project scope with greater clarity -- Cat ^chi? 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support -- Cat ^chi? 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose —Ozgur Gerilla 20:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose --Bohater 21:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Baristarim 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC) No offense anyone, I am just being consistent with what I have said before, even in the WP Proposals page. I definitely would like this project to stay and help improve certain articles that need urgent attention, but I am also convinced that it will be much less ambigious for the project as the time goes by and that it will function more smoothly. It will also be much easier to organize categories and stubs, since stubs like TRNC-stub and Kurdistan-sport-stub always get deleted (sometimes speedily) by WP Stubs since they do not conform to the criteria for the organization of articles, which has been fixed as UN or officially accepted entities. It will simply be easier, and there is no need to change the layout of the project or anything. Baristarim 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support--Doktor Gonzo 12:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support I think WP:Kurdish people would be a better name for the project, WP:Kurds would be even better name, imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denizz (talk • contribs)
• Oppose--Domitius 13:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. No problem with WP:Kurds, but I respect the opinion of the Kirdsh members of the project, wanting it to keep its original name WP:Kurdistan. And Kurdistan is, of course, a region with a distinct culture.--Yannismarou 13:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose this is ridiculous. This is not article space. - Francis Tyers · 13:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  Which is a very good reason why it should have a neutral title. -- Cat ^chi? 16:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  Everything is controversial to some whether we like it or not, so please just get over it. Ozgur Gerilla 22:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  Yes. Majority opinion is in the core of WP:NPOV. -- Cat ^chi? 00:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  You're making it controversial. - Francis Tyers · 07:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  I do not believe I am. Are you suggesting that Wikiprojects should have intentionally biased titles even when such a thing can be easily avoided? -- Cat ^chi? 16:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The use of Kurdistan here is no different from the way the Turks use Turkestan to refer to parts of non-Turkic countries like China, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Iran, and needn't necessarily entail a particular political connotation. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  Yes thats why a Wikipedia:Wikiproject Turkestan doesn't and shouldn't exist. [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject Turkic people] would be fine. -- Cat ^chi? 20:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  Why shouldn't it exist. It should if members may. Ozgur Gerilla 22:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  WP:NPOV, WP:A -- Cat ^chi? 00:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  I wouldn't have a problem with a Turkestan project. - Francis Tyers · 07:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  I wouldn't have either a problem with a Turkestan project.--Yannismarou 08:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  The question is, do you have a problem with Kurdish people? (WP:Kurdish people :) ) deniz^T_C 08:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  Lets see, the majority of Kurdish people here want one name for the project, and the majority of Turkish people want another name. I think we don't have a problem with the Kurdish people, I don't know about you. - Francis Tyers · 08:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  Of course I don't. deniz^T_C 17:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  Obviously at the proposals stage, no-one would, but can you explain how those projects will work in conjuction with other projects? I mean it is easy to "want" something, but it is one thing different to ensure that when things get real, it would be workable, practically. Really? So are you guys suggesting that if there were a WP Turkestan, it would simply tag all the articles of the countries in the region, provinces, schools et al with its banner? And that would cause no stir? Are you guys joking? Do you know how many arguments, reverts, edit-wars and downright insults there have been between editors in determining the ethnic background of one friggin' 13th century Turkic prince?? And between all of that, I would simply but a blatant WP Turkistan tag (with a nice pan-Turkic flag on it) in the main article of Uzbekistan, Eastern China, Turkmenistan, all sorts of historical figures ever since the Gokturks - come on guys, let's get real: as Jimbo said: the tasks do not revolve around us, the participants revolve around the task, which is to create the best encyclopedia possible and that in the most efficient way. Can't anyone see the problems this project will have at every corner, as the impartial user Cs pointed out above? If I were a friggin nationalist, I would have opposed the project outright, but on the contrary I support it. But what I also do know is that it makes so much more sense to have it at WPKurds since that way neither the scope nor the aims of the project will be ambigious. Do not forget that TRNC and Kurdistan stubs are speedily deleted by WP Stubs and impartial admins for one precise reason: they are ambigious, unneccessarily lead to confusion and tension and are therefore not helpful to the project. The view that Kurdistan is a geo/cultural region is a matter of interpretation: everyone knows the word, but no-one, I repeat, no-one, can explain what it is precisely and what its borders are, what they were etc. Again, unless the God himself is going to come down from the heavens and decide for us, the UN borders are the best thing we have. Baristarim

  Yannis, the proposal here would be akin to a WP "Greater Macedonia". So if I went along and created one, you are seriously saying that there would be no confusion with WP Greece?

  Besides, the reasoning that "Kurdish members wanted it, therefore they should have their say" is wrong per WP:OWN. No nationality or group "owns" something in Wikipedia, even at this stage most participants to this project are non-Kurds. Again, per Jimbo's reasoning, WPs exist to ensure efficiency in Wikipedia, there is no "ethnic turf". Anyone can become the member of any project and have an equal say and input to make sure that those projects run as smooth as possible. Right? Baristarim 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  You're confusing yourself, your comparison of Kurdistan with Turkestan is nonesense because one is a single ethnic group and the "Turkic Family" is more than one ethnic groups together. The similar would be "Iranian Peoples" where Kurds would be included and it might actually lessen confusions to start a WikiProject such as. Plus Kurdistan is official and "Turkestan" is just a theoretical product. Ozgur Gerilla 12:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  Of course comparison "of Kurdistan with Turkestan is nonesense" but in opposite way.Please check the ethnic roots. There are much more differencies between Kurdish peoples than Turkish peoples.

  Your proposal about "Iranian Peoples"("it might actually lessen confusions"); it is better to have another-including Kurds in- and more realistic(by roots, by geography, by population etc) Turkish Peoples.

  "Official"..? Your evidence is in contradiction; this is a web page of a regional/province government in Iraq, shortly Northern Iraq. You means; WP Kurdistan covers this area, isn't it? Or what?

  Must.^{T C} 13:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  I really don't like the commenting in this section especially on the the "oppose" votes. Let's respect that this is the "poll" and that the "comments" are next. Therefore, I'll not respond here to the above comments about my one-sentence comment.--Yannismarou 16:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose--D.Kurdistani 19:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- bogdan 08:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - nonsense. Artaxiad 01:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Must.^{T C} 08:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Suggestion I know this survey is not over yet (sorry about that), and I know we are having a heated discussion once again. Maybe this will cool it down a little bit. I suggest 'voting' for a rename to WP:Kurds along with WP:Kurdish people. I support it. I think it reflects the project's scope pretty well, better than Kurdistan. People had agreed on it, there was almost a consensus. It is short, if this matters. It is not controversial. We don't even need to talk about projects like Star Wars, or whatever anymore. If both of these fail I might support WP:Kurdistan as well, per Yannis, but I want to insist on them for now. I hope WP:Kurds will have some consensus now as well. I don't think having a plural name is definite no-no for project names. deniz^T_C
• Strong Oppose Kurdistan is used many times in google books and it has even an Encyclopedia Britannica entry. It also a historical region and its name predates even Turkey. Wikipedia is not UN or US government. Its an encyclopedia. --alidoostzadeh 23:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  Your argument applies to Kurdistan, an article. This is a wikiproject. -- Cat ^chi? 12:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support per Cool Cat. --Rayis 13:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose biased nom. --Diyarbakır 12:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• I strongly believe "Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdistan" is an unnecessarily controversial title for this wikiproject. I hence propose a rename to Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdish people which would be a completely neutral title and would determine the cope of the project with greater clarity.
  Kurdistan is a wannabe country (meaning some people seek it to be an independent country). Kurdistan is currently neither a dejure (no one recognizes Kurdistan to be a country) nor a defacto (no entity claims to own a Kurdistan) country.
  Even though it supposed to be a geographic wikiproject (if so it is among the smallest), currently the wikiproject focuses on Kurdish people unlike other geography wikiprojects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia.
  -- Cat ^chi? 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't the first time anti-Kurdi users trying to eliminate the Kurdish community in Wikipedia. Kurdistan is a region and has distinct language, culture and politics — current political events in the region which could change its status. It even has a notable article and many subarticles that are developed around it. I cannot think of anything more natural to have a WikiProject; there are a thousand of articles related to the region Kurdistan and we are here to organise those created and create more articles to better the information on Kurds in Wikipedia. The name is projects' memeber's preference and we want it to stay like this, the project has no political message nor an aim but it is one user (User:Cool cat) from outside the project who is trying its very hard to stop positive things happening for this project. The project aims to cover the history of the land thus it is necessary to name it Kurdistan (a geographical region known to all) to halt confusions. —Ozgur Gerilla 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  How is a rename going to destroy anything. This wikiproject is not and could not be intended for a "Kurdish community". Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia and not a Kurdish encyclopedia. -- Cat ^chi? 20:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  A community is not something physical or something negative; Wikipedia is a community itself. We are here to improve Kurdish related articles, how can an encyclopedia be a Kurdish encyclopedia? it is obvious that you have something personal against the Kurds. I would also like to add that the majority of the project's members are not of Kurdish origin. Renaming will stop the title of the project reflect the content. I've said it and keep repeating myself to you; the groups name is member's preference and it reflects the aim perfectly. Ozgur Gerilla 20:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  Nobody should politicize Wikipedia!! Wikipedia is community of all people and languages. When people want to difference the articles, they create Projects. And a Project Dear Cat must not represent a Country with official borders. We can also have a Project for a cultural and a historical Area. It cannot be denied that this area (Kurdistan) exits with its people, who have own Language and Customs, today. Everybody knows that. --Bohater 21:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  I "deny" anything not verifiable with credible/reliable sources. "Nobody should politicize Wikipedia", Kurdistan is a political term. -- Cat ^chi? 21:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  I think first parties should agree that they will abide with the results. Do I need to be a project member to vote? I have been involved a bit. But I have no interest to be a project member, except that I want to improve the Ahmet Arif page sometime in the future.cs 21:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  Of course you do not need to be a "member" to be able to vote. You can participate in any vote or discussion. -- Cat ^chi? 23:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  Kurdistan is verifiable with reliable sources please check its article, plus there's even Star Wars WikiProject, Cat, I am afraid your reason to rename the article is beyond belief. Ozgur Gerilla 22:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  Kurdistan is a controversial term no matter how you look at it. If there is a way to avoid a controversial wikiproject name, why are you guys refusing to take it. Is this wikiproject even trying to be non-controversial?
  Existence of Kurdistan can be verifiable, but its borders are not. I do not understand why you brought up the Star Wars wikiproject.
  -- Cat ^chi? 23:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  I remind you what a user above has said and a project, dear Cat, must not represent a country with official borders. We can also have a project for a cultural and a historical area. for this I gave you the Star Wars example. Ozgur Gerilla 23:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  Unofficial borders are fine but this wikiproject is nothing like Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia. Like I said, is this wikiproject even trying to be non-controversial? "Star Wars" is not a controversial term used for wanabe countries.
  Drop the "kurdish national colored" borders and "kurdish barnstar" and overal kurdish dominance on topics covered and you'd have no problem from me. Or else you should rename this to be a "Kurdish people" wikiproject and follow the relevant guidelines.
  -- Cat ^chi? 23:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  Nothing is controversial about Kurdistan, it's a geographical region (covering Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq) and is an official region in Iraq. Please cut the political agenda. Ozgur Gerilla 23:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  It looks controversial to me, why else is pentagon apologizing? And that is one incident. (that map).
  There is a New Mexico and a Mexico. That doesn't mean New Mexico is a part of Mexico. Iraqi Kurdistan is a political entity part of Iraq. Nothing geographic or cultural there.
  -- Cat ^chi? 09:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  What has Mexico and New Mexico got to do with this? Kurdistan is controversial to those who cannot accept it, and I guess you're one or live in a country that denies its existence. Kurdistan is more than a political entity in Iraq, it also has culture and history in the neighbouring countries, it's an ancient ethnic group with remarkable empires and it is a region known and used in the past (even in Ottoman politics) and current politics. Showing a "Turkish" newpaper article isn't going to prove anything; because it's biased. Further more, this is not an article and it meets all the standards/criterias of WikiProject, thus what is the problem? —Ozgur Gerilla 16:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  Fact is that our projects had very good results with this in other Wikis. In German Wikipeda for example. There is a lot of Turkish Users, who are not against this name. Furthermore they even link our portal from Turkish project. See here [[1]]. I don't understand you Col Cat. You give us only stress with your meaningless discussions. I've had enough! --Bohater 23:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  You had enough? You made no attempt to even counter my arguments. -- Cat ^chi? 09:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is renaming to WP:Kurdish people bad? I think it would be a better name for the project. Stretching it a bit, we might cover some cultural and other similar stuff under the WP:Kurdistan, supposedly a geographical project, but why do we need to do that when we won't need to 'stretch' when we rename it to WP:Kurdish people (which had some consensus before)? What is wrong about renaming it to WP:Kurdish people (or WP:Kurds)? Please do not oppose or support for other reasons. The suggestion is that WP:Kurdish people is possibly better (at least not worse) name for the project than WP:Kurdistan, is it, or is it not? Forget the scope and geography, etc, it was something people agreed on. Lets get over these stuff. We might maybe question the reasons behind this proposal, lets assume good faith. Other wikis might be some guidelines, but we are not bound by them, this is English wiki, and will stay like that, no need to impose consensuses(?) of other wikis here. It is good that they reached a consensus there. Let's reach to a consensus here as well, and start this project without spending any more time on these. deniz^T_C 12:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Even an arbitration decision from the largest wiki (this one) has no weight elsewhere... -- Cat ^chi? 13:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• If a group of people cannot name a WikiProjects' name by themselves then Wikipedia is really a non-freedom community. This is just ridiculous, some members from WikiProject Turkey are trying to oppress us and decide the projects name for us! Ozgur Gerilla 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not an anarchy. Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Oppression is only in your mind. -- Cat ^chi? 16:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  Please do not make personal comments about users because it can be considered as a Wikipedia:No personal attacks and please try to be civil. Wikipedia does not restrict users from naming a project. Ozgur Gerilla 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  Feel free to take it to WP:ANB/I. There is nothing incivil with my comment. Do not accuse me of opression, it is only in your mind. -- Cat ^chi? 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't a compromise be worked out? Perhaps move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurds and Kurdistan.--Domitius 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Kurdish people" is the compromise. "Kurdistan" is the controversial word. -- Cat ^chi? 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It not controversial at all, it is a fact, the region is officially accepted in Iraq and Iran, and there is some who cannot accept it like you and Turkey. If it was that controversial why is it that, even an article,Kurdistan, exists? According to your logic let's rename all WikiProjects that are controversial like Turkey, to some it is controversial. You are just trying your best to make your political agenda successful and we are fully aware of it. —Ozgur Gerilla 16:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You are accusing him of having a political agenda when your userpage says you support an independent Kurdistan which consists a portion of Turkey.--Doktor Gonzo 16:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

An idea is untouchable and it doesn't hurt anybody does it? Ozgur Gerilla 16:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ozgurgerilla, what do you think is the dictionary definition of controversy? It is a "disputation concerning a matter of opinion". The fact that there is a "disputation concerning a matter of opinion" between those who "accept Kurdistan" and those who don't makes it controversial. -- Cat ^chi? 16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cat, Kurdsitan is not controversial because it is official so please stop consuming people's precious time. Ozgur Gerilla 22:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You are the one defying dictionary definitions in a self conflicting manner... and you accuse me of waisting time... -- Cat ^chi? 00:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that's what makes an agenda, idea: root of idealogy. Now you are accusing him of violating NPA right after you called him a cat with a political agenda. But Turkey is a controversial name, agree with you on that. I prefer Turkiye, so the bloody bird doesn't redirect to the Republic of Turkey.--Doktor Gonzo 16:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

random edit point

Domitius' proposal has its merits. - Francis Tyers · 08:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am happy with Domitius' proposal, but opposing voters need to understand that the name of the project has to perfectly reflect the projects' aims and content. We want to cover the history of the people who lived in Kurdistan before and with the Kurds. Thus naming it Kurdistan will filter confusions. Ozgur Gerilla 12:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Other projects also cover much of the history stuff that you have mentioned (see Cs's comments to that effect). Nevertheless, it is understandable to cover "Kurdistan" - however as I have said above, even though everyone has heard the word, no-one can say what it is. Even your example of the Northern Iraqi web-site is proof of this: it is only about an entity in the northern part of Iraq - then I take it that a) Kurdistan=Northern Iraq and b) everything else will be excluded. You said it was official, fine, but there is only one such entity as such including anything else will be WP:OR. So we are back to square one really. Ozgur, we are also discussing the project's aims and content. As I have said above, it is the general Wiki community that gets involved to ensure that the overall project (Wikipedia) is run as smoothly and efficiently as possible. This is the point: the project's aims and content are not clear because of the confusion over the name. "Cover all" solution, in other words the fake "safe" solution, is also vague as I explained above because it is simply confusing and ambigious. The Kurdistan article itself says that the definition is ambigious and borders very confusing, particularly considering the intertwined history of the lands. Therefore, since there is no country called Kurdistan, any criteria for inclusion is completely subjective. Otoh, I would be the first to sign up to a WP Kurdistan Autonomous Region-Iraq. Your analogy with Turkestan was also not correct: Kurdistan is also a fictional entity, since there is only one entity in Northern Iraq that even uses that name officially. If you say that "even though it is not official, it exists", well, the same thing could be said of Turkestan, which brings us back to square one again. Wikipedia cannot be built on such vague and subjective criteria. It is for this reason that TRNC and Kurdistan stubs are speedied every single time, as was pointed above. We revolve around the tasks, not vice-versa - clarity is paramount. Baristarim 13:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not that we don't know about "what Kurdistan is" we know exactly what it is and it's just a matter of time that we see it as an official country, for now it is official and it is not Northern Iraq, it is Kurdistan. Wikipedia hasn't got no problem with naming a WikiProject, because it doesn't hurt anybody does it. The only people who oppose this the Turkish users from WikiTurkey which they don't even realise that the "stan" at the end of Kurdistan just means "land of Kurdis" in which they inhabit in Iranian Languages, it doesn't necessarily need to be a country; it can be a region or a place just like the Iranian word "Gulistan" which means "Land or Place of roses". The user cs has said that there is some WikiProjects covering the history and people that have inhabited in Kurditsan but not all re covered. There is a lot missing in these articles, thus why would you want to change the groups' name which will lessen the scope of the project. My analogy with Turkistan was on the spot, that is why all you could say is "it is wrong" and give absolutely no reason. Kurdistan is so not fictional, it is the reality it self. There is nothing vagur about the project and its aims, it is specific as possible and no one here argues against the revolvement around the tasks. Ozgur Gerilla 15:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Bekara karı boşamak kolay gelir. (It is very easy to diverce for single!). it's just a matter of time that we see it as an official country, It is very easy to make judgements -without restraint- from England. Costruction of official Country;How? In which area? With which population-Most of the families; half Arab-half Kurd, half Turk-half Kurd and so on.. This is unrealistic-utopic idea. Must.^T

^C 15:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How can an ethnic group, its geographic region, its language and culture be utopic? Ozgur Gerilla 12:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This user is directly insulting me and the Kurdish people and this is how people with opposition to this project are like, I am from England, yes so? do you think I cannot follow on what is going on there? The area that I was refering to was the official Kurdistan, Northern Iraq as you know it. You are Wikipedia:No Personal Attack attacking and insulting me and my ethnic background, and dragging this whole conversation into another subject. That is wrong and it is the prove of your political agenda being applied here. Once again Kurdistan is an official region and for this but not only this it deserves a good WikiProject with its name. Oh ps. the Kurds are less mixed than modern Oghuz Turks of Turkey, think about it you meant to be cousins with the Mongolians but do you look like them? I think not! but the Kurds are Iranians and look absolutely Iranian. :) nasilim? Ozgur Gerilla 22:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Being a Turk was never about ethnicity, that's what you fail to understand. It is exactly this ethnic oriented thinking that's the enemy, whether Turkish or Kurdish.--Doktor Gonzo 01:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's in your view, a Turk is a member of the ethnic group and the nation of Turkey now tries to use Euporean politics (as usual) to "Turkify" mainly Kurds and call it the umbrella of Turks includes Kurds. Nonsense to us. Ozgur Gerilla 13:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are seriously confused. You are saying Turks are an ethnic group right after you wrote we are far from being descendants of the Oghuz Turks.--Doktor Gonzo 13:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

With Galbraith's words, we are dealing with conventional wisdom here. Just like Armenian Genocide, which entered the terminology decades after its occurance, today it is something we are expected to come into terms with, now Kurdistan being pushed into our dictionary. Now they will say "it is official", decades later they will say it is something that must come to reality. Hardly any historical basis, at least for the so-called Kurdistan map, its geo-politic existence, its borders. Kurdish inhabited areas? With more than 10 million Kurds spread all around the country? Conventional wisdom is more powerful than you think it is.--Doktor Gonzo 13:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan is not being pushed into our dictionaries, because it is already in it, except those in Turkey that are not implemented well. Ozgur Gerilla 15:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of controversial terms such as "Negro" in our dictionaries. A "Wikiproject Negro/Nigger" would be out of the question though. -- Cat ^chi? 16:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Misleading comparison. I still think this case could be considered something like WP:MWNB - Francis, you can back me up on this from your personal experience - which is about a region not officially defined and extremely controversial.--Domitius 16:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• "We are a WikiProject, a group of registered Wikipedians, who try to improve articles related to the Kurdish geographical area (Kurdistan) and the people's culture within this territory.""Kurdistan is the name of a geographic and cultural region in the Middle East, inhabited predominantly by the Kurds."

I brought into your attention these two sentences above, defining the scope of the project and Kurdistan. Maybe you think that I start from scratch, but I just wanted to make clear that I fail to find anything POV, confusing, insulting for the Turks or Turkey, and I find Kurdistan very well and clearly defined. Therefore, can anybody really tell me where is this notorious confusion that the nominator and the "support" voters speak about?--Yannismarou 16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Easy. Define me the precise borders of Kurdistan in a manner it cant be disputed like borders of a continent or country. Its "Macedonian Wikipedians' noticeboard" not "Macedonia noticeboard". -- Cat ^chi? 16:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Only continents and countries with defined borders from all the geographical regions of the world deserve a project in Wikipedia? Oh, and can you really define me with accuracy the borders between Asia and Europe?! And I mean the same accuracy you demand for Kurdistan.--Yannismarou 16:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe anyone is suggesting those continents will be future countries. Ozgurgerilla is explaining how Kurdistan will be a country really soon a few paragraphs above. Thats the root of the problem. -- Cat ^chi? 18:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And why is this the root of the problem? Being paranoid isn't going to resolve anything, I said, once it is an official country I'd like to see you request a move. A region also reserves a WikiProject not only countries. I've gave you reasons why "Kurdistan" reflects the projects content You've also keep asking the borders' of Kurdistan, they are the cities in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Armenia that are predominantly inhabited by Kurds. A map is also available upon request. :) Ozgur Gerilla 13:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what he says (or you think he says). What I say is something different: Kurdistan is adequately defined as a geographical region, and the scope of the project is clear. Do you want to send you Kurdistan's map from Britannica (which also clearly defines it in the relevant article)?--Yannismarou 19:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why is the wikiproject like a 4th of july celebration with kurdish colors and et all? -- Cat ^chi? 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you accusing us of doing political propaganda? This is beyond belief and ridiculous. Those colours are the colours of Newroz, which is an important celebration of the region. Thus we thought the colours of Newroz will suit the borders' of this project and we implemented them. What was the problem again? Ozgur Gerilla 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

source Kurdish flag which inturn sources [2]

"We thought"? Is there any evidence of this discussion? See Kurdish flag for an alternative explanation of the three colors. Weather you are here just for political propaganda or not remains to be seen. -- Cat ^chi? 23:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely ridiculous, how you (Cat) compare the KDP's emblem with the kurdish customs. Sorry but i must say : ,,Go to other encyclopedia, where you can spread your Dreams." --Bohater 00:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not, KDP compares and explains and they are a verifiable source. I am not going anywhere. a simple google search points out a greater level of controversy. -- Cat ^chi? 00:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We agreed to the colours by not reverting it and protecting it from people who tried changing it, that's a couple of discussions with you, this means the agreement is done not directly thus an evidence can be above. Oh! my status remains to be seen, by who? and if my status "remains to be seen" yours is too because of your extreme opposition to any improvement and development of Kurdish related articles. The colours of Newroz should be used for the borders and if you don't want it like that, join and request a change. You're just contradicting youself now, you said Kurdistan is unofficial and argue that the Kurdistan regional flag colours "explain" something, what do you think they explain? As far as I know colours cannot speak, or can they? Can you also explain why the opposition to Kurdistan is only by those Turkish users? Ozgur Gerilla 23:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I meant you in a plural manner. You as in everybody else involved.
"by not reverting and revert warring to keep" is not a discussion.Continuing revert war is a blockable offense as per See Help:Reverting#Revert wars considered harmful and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule.
I already explained the rationale for my objections at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan#National borders.
Sorry for sounding "self conflicting remarks" but thats unavoidable with the self conflicting nature of this wikiproject's inclusion criteria. It works like a country, it switches to geographic region (whenever convenient), it switches to ethnic (whenever convenient).
I cannot explain why Turkish people are voting here any more than I can explain why Greek or Kurdish people are voting here.
-- Cat ^chi? 00:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I can explain. Kurds are here obviously because the project concerns Kurdish people, Turks are here because the title of the project, Kurdistan, is a political agenda that consists a significant portion of Turkey. Greeks are here because, well, think of them as the bonus that comes with Turks.--Doktor Doktor_Gonzo 01:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The possiblity that Greeks are interested in this issue and in this project is out of the question for you. Thank you for assuming good faith.--Yannismarou 09:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No actually, I am pretty sure Greek Wikipedians have interest in most of anything related to Turks and Turkey, which is flattering. I am sorry we can't show the same interest for articles related to Greece.--Doktor Gonzo 10:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If more Turks were liberal I am sure they would support a Kurdistan. This is a non-stop nonsense debate, Kurdistan is more accurate since it covers the significant location, for example Iraq and Turkey it covers those areas, while Kurdish people does not exactly since Kurdistan is historical, person wise, political wise etc. Artaxiad 01:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your original research to yourself. It is unproductive, unhelpful and frankly uninteresting. -- Cat ^chi? 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well frankly I think it is interesting. So please do not tell him to keep it to itself. Ozgur Gerilla 13:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Kurdistan should be a better name since it covers the area and.....? Artaxiad 01:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan has no verifiable borders. It is a controversial and confusing term. Kurdish people covers everything Kurdistan can cover (in a verifiable/neutral manner) and more. -- Cat ^chi? 02:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, but the vote clearly shows more people oppose the move. The borders indeed are out of line. The vote may not mean anything, but it shows more people are in favor of keeping it this way so leave it as is because this discussion means nothing. Unless we can make a final decision for example making a sub-page and get admin votes too, anything to get a solution. Artaxiad 02:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is a non-consensus vote proves the title is clearly controversial. Admin votes are no more valuable than our votes. -- Cat ^chi? 02:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I know. Good luck debating this for the rest of the year. Artaxiad 02:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been discussing this (Kurdistan) matter for the past 2 months. Another 8 would be fine. I don't care if it takes a decade. Eventually there will be an agreement at some point. -- Cat ^chi? 02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ozgurgerilla read WP:CRYSTAL (regarding "it's just a matter of time that we see it as an official country" comment). -- Cat ^chi? 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat, seeing the course of the discussion, I can say that the more you argue about the whole matter the more attention you attract in the arguments you fight. Since no consensus means that the title does not change, maybe you should let it go. I disagree with Ozgurgerilla predictions, but this is not an argument strong enough to support and substantiate your stance, because it has nothing to do with the wikiproject itself. Subjective desires or predictions may be met with discontent, but they are not reasons strong enough to justify the renaming of a project.--Yannismarou 09:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We have the article Kurdistan, based on the fact the term is out there so people are entitled to know what it is but having a WikiProject Kurdistan is another issue. I am in favor of a less controversial title such as Kurds. I don't understand users who claim Kurdistan is not a controversial topic, have you seen its borders (there are a couple of versions of the map by the way, my personal fav is the one that stretches from the Black Sea to Mediterrenea and to Iran)? It is obviously a political agenda with no solid base but a good sponsorship deal.--Doktor Gonzo 10:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou there are mechanisms in wikipedia that is put into action in such situations. I will use those mechanisms until a non-biased consensus is reached. Ozgurgerilla "predictions" merely demonstrates a level of bias. -- Cat ^chi? 11:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What has what I said about the future of the region got to do with the WikiProject, I wasn't talking to you and wasn't talking about the effects it would have in this WikiProject. You are trying to use it and think you can achieve something, you are more bias than me since you are attacking every Kurdish related subject and not improving any. You also hide you identity and the rest of the voters are Turkish. Makes me think. What part of what I said is bias? Ozgur Gerilla 12:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know... maybe the part about the "official independent Kurdistan"... just maybe controversial... -- Cat ^chi? 01:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.