Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan/Archive 3

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 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →

Contents

Deletion Tour

Cat's Deletion tour is topical again. Here [[1]].--Bohater 16:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Template survey: Casualties of the PKK conflict please vote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ozgurgerilla (talk • contribs) 12:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC).


TfD nomination of Template:Casualties of the PKK conflict

Template:Casualties of the PKK conflict has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --denizTC 04:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Most wanted articles

There are currently 29 articles listed at Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles#Kurdish that might be of interest to this project. --Sapphic 20:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Deletiontour Nr. x->

[[2]] --Bohater 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion- Common-Project as Admin

see here: [[3]].

That is absolutely unacceptable. Cat uses his Admin rights for his POV. --Bohater 11:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Distincts of kurdish Area

I have put these subcategories to the Category:Geography of Kurdistan, too. Thanks. --Bohater 11:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a part of Kurdistan as per WP:V and WP:NPOV. You cannot tag provinces of Turkey under Kurdistan. -- Cat chi? 11:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Well you are right, but the distincts consist of cities in Kurdistan. And there is category Category:Provinces_of_Turkey, which whould not put with this templates. --Bohater 11:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I see no template involved. How can you talk about "cities in Kurdistan" when very borders of Kurdistan are disputed. -- Cat chi? 12:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the dispution of Kurdistan. I know, that there is a historical and cultural Area. How can somebody diputes that? --Bohater 12:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Very easily, burden of proof falls on you since you are calling random places under Kurdistan. Unless you can establish solid borders you cannot make such a categorization. Also we do not categorize cities per geographic regions. In fact we barely ever mention the geographic region(s) a city/province is actually in. Consider Category:New York City (North America), Category:York (Europe), Category:Kyoto (Asia), Category:Sydney (Oceania) articles. -- Cat chi? 12:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand that. How you compare New York with Kurdistan. Please read the article Kurdistan and see our skope. --Bohater 12:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Easily. Articles on cities, provinces and states are categorized in an identical manner. I have no intention of "reading" articles to second guess "our" (who do you mean by our) scope. So far you made no attempt to establish a verifiable and neutral inclusion criteria. -- Cat chi? 14:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Well that is your opinion, On the other hand, not that I know that this categorizing is againt the wikipedia rules. Sure a Admin can decide it. --Bohater 15:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
So you can mess with categorization and only admins are allowed to revert you. Is that what you mean? -- Cat chi? 20:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
No, that isn't what i mean, I said, if we don't agree on the Category, than a voting of the members or the admins should decide it. Do you have another sugestion? --Bohater 22:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:V and WP:NPOV are not negotiable with a vote. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it. -- Cat chi? 13:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but WP:V and WP:NPOV are not negotiable with your opinion, too. --Bohater 15:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read the actual policies before making any other edits. -- Cat chi? 15:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Vandalism - Antikurdish

Every Members are invited. --Bohater 20:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


That must stop now

The Users Makalp and Cat try to remove not only removing the category, but also every reference to Kurdistan and Kurdish People- including the ethnicity.

Clean ups
[[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] [[17]][[18]] [[19]] [[20]] [[21]] [[22]]

Applications for moving and deletion of Kurdish related articles
[[23]] [[24]] [[25]] [[26]] [[27]] [[28]] [[29]] [[30]] [[31]] [[32]] [[33]] [[34]] [[35]] [[36]] [[37]] [[38]] [[39]] [[40]]


special White Cathas a history of #POV editing, and has been enjoined from disruptively editing articles relating to Turkey or the Kurds. During the second CFD for Category:Kurdistan he stated: I dont care about this vote at all. I have no reason to keep nonsense like this on wikipedia, I will eventualy get it deleted, watch me. Category:Kurdish inhabited region was created by User:Ed Poor as part of discussion on Category talk:Kurdistan where User:White Cat has been adamantly opposed to all efforts to establish consensus on usage of this category. User:Francs2000, whom User:White Cat asked to comment, ended up telling him that you need to change your attitude. :and here unconstructive comments on others: [[41]] --Bohater 17:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are being quite demanding, aren't you? Have you actually tried joining discussions or have you been actively ignoring them by dismissing arguments with a "Well that is your opinion". You are welcome to take this case to WP:RFAR. Please stop the WP:CANVASSing, is not constructive. Oh and btw "Category:Kurdish inhabited region" was my idea as a possible compromise to Category:Kurdistan. -- Cat chi? 18:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please remain civil to one another at all times - the room temperature here is through the roof (excuse the pun) and it's not beneficial to the encyclopedia. Both of you - please, detach for a few days. Hopefully when you return, you will both be able to speak to one another in an acceptable fashion ~ AGK 11:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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 WP:SNOW Speedy close. Please talk POVs but don't try to enforce POVs. Polls are not for this.--Húsönd 03:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdistan → Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdish people —

Because Kurdistan is a controversial term as demonstrated on the previous discussion linked above, I propose a rename. -- Cat chi? 23:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support move -- Cat chi? 23:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy close this discussion. The last proposal was a month ago with no consensus, and it is highly likely this will have the same result. The term being controversial doesn't mean people have to keep repeating the same arguments instead of working on actual Wikipedia content. –Pomte 02:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    Several of the editors involved in the previous vote has been blocked. -- Cat chi? 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy close per Pomte, Cat does its Turkishness again, let's not repeat and insist on already democratically decided surveys. Özgūr Talk Hist 08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy close this has got to stop, we already went through this before and you did not get the name change you wanted and I don’t think you’re getting it this time either. --D.Kurdistani 02:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    This isn't a war. -- Cat chi? 10:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. "No consensus in last proposal" means; "No consensus" last time due to the votes of blocked&banned users. Only this reality makes the last discussion as "invalid".Must.T C 10:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close these polls are useless. First build consensus. Make some discussion, shed some ground (on both sides), then have a poll. Otherwise we're just going to come out with the same results time after time. - Francis Tyers · 23:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    You say "I don't think a speedy close would be adequate" at one time, then you completely reverse your position... What's up with that? -- Cat chi? 23:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Question:
What happens when we change the name of this project to what you proposed and someone else start another project under the old name Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdistan, will you then try to change the name of that project also? --D.Kurdistani 02:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not have such an intention, I would have proposed it directly if I had such an intention. Renaming something non-controversially titled is actually quite difficult. The proposed name change will only change the projects name giving the people a greater freedom in including articles. The non-controversial proposed title would be more workable basically.
Right now the validity of inclusion of practically any article is disputed. Certain inclusion appears like an endorsement of Kurdistans borders which is in violation of quite a variety of policies and guidelines. They may be "Kurdish" related but that does not make them "Kurdistan" related.
Think of it this way, Turgut Özal is known to be half-Kurdish (one sourced mention of this in the article); him being related to "Kurdistan" would be original research (Kurdistan isn't even mentioned on his article) and such a relation would be disputed by the vast majority.
Since the intended scope is "Kurdish related" articles, the title of the wikiproject should reflect that.
-- Cat chi? 10:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think a speedy close would be adequate: In my opinion opposing something because the previous vote failed because of stacking isn't a valid oppose reason. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 12:28, 15 May 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.


Colours

This is such a non-issue. What is the problem with having a nicely decorated main page... if it was a flag, maybe I could understand, but simply some colours, what is the problem? WP:Turkey has colour on it, and there are no complaints from Kurds. - Francis Tyers · 13:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Francis, Please take a look here for reasons.Regards.Must.T C 16:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The stament there is absolutely ridiculous. These are cultural colors. Please don't politize everthing here in Wikipedia. You are well-known for your removing kurdish related articles. We are not be willing to do what you want. --Bohater 16:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I find the colors out of place and WP:NOT#SOAPBOXy. WikiProject Turkey is a country related wikiproject and is in no way comparable to this one. Kurdistan wikiproject is supposed to be about a mere geographic region and we are already comparing it to country specific wikiprojects. See WikiProject Central Asia. The colors may be "cultural" to you but they also have a political meaning as I explained a few times so far, see Kurdish flag for a more detailed explanation. -- Cat chi? 16:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
See our Scope. Thanks for your discussion. --Bohater 16:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't done discussing. The wikiproject's scope is incompatible with your argument here -- Cat chi? 16:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The colours are used by all Kurds, not just by PKK supporters. Its cultural not political, and as Kurdistan is a geographic and cultural area, I don't see the problem. - Francis Tyers · 17:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The colors are also used by Iran, and even on an average traffic light, the broad usage is not the point. Because the colors are used by the PKK, PUK, and KDP as well as other political entities it is problematic to use it as a symbol on this wikiproject. Kurdish flag explains that "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". The article further explains that the "traditions among Kurds hold that the colours of the Kawa blacksmith's apron are now the colours of the Kurdish flag". Kawa article explains that the blacksmith's apron represents "Persian independence, resistance, resilience and the revolutionary momentum of the masses revolt against evil invaders". Due to all of this the colors are far too controversial and it appears they are hardly Kurdish but instead Persian. -- Cat chi? 17:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

language course political or controversial? - Francis Tyers · 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The flag behind is the official flag of Iraqi Kurdistan. On English language dvds they typically display both the US and UK flag so as not to favor either country. -- Cat chi? 17:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this dictionary is controversial? - Francis Tyers · 17:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, nor do I see the relevance. It definitely has an unattractive cover and is that fire pictured on the image? -- Cat chi? 17:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - Francis Tyers · 17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I still do not see the relevance to the wikiproject. -- Cat chi? 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We could perhaps compromise by removing the red that perhaps is causing yourselves to see red? So it would leave green and yellow? - Francis Tyers · 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are the borders critical? That is something I do not understand. This isn't "WikiProject:Kurdish people" you know. -- Cat chi? 17:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Because the majority of the members of this WikiProject prefer it that way. - Francis Tyers · 17:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It is still WP:NOT#SOAPBOXy. This isn't a cabal. "The members of this WikiProject" is a mere list of users, not an elite group that makes decisions ignoring all objections. That still doesn't explain why the borders are critical. -- Cat chi? 18:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:kurdish People

Could somebody check that. Thanks. --Bohater 16:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked, looks fine. Either rename this project to "Kurdish people" so that logically falls into this category or else do not categorize people specific articles and categories with this geography related wikiprojects banner. It is original research to tie every Kurdish person to "Kurdistan". -- Cat chi? 16:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)