This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Diyarbakir (talk | contribs) at 13:00, 9 April 2007 (Portal:Kurdistan - keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:00, 9 April 2007 by Diyarbakir (talk | contribs) (Portal:Kurdistan - keep)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Portal:Kurdistan
- The Portal focus on Kurdish-related articles only unlike any other geographic portal. Compare/contrast with Portal:Asia which not only focuses to a variety of topics but also a vast number of wikiprojects.
- Kurdistan is a non-defacto (it doesn't claim to be a country) and non-dejure (no one recognizes it as a country) region. Kurdistan however is currently an aspirational country (WP:CRYSTAL applies)
- Kurdistan's borders are ill-defined. (google image search, some examples of inconsistent maps: ). Hence the scope of the portal is also ill defined.
- Boundaries of Kurdistan are currently defined at the moment by wikipedia editors' personal opinions on what falls inside and what doesn't rather that being based on reliable sources. So topics displayed often violate Misplaced Pages:Attribution#No original research and/or Misplaced Pages:Attribution#Reliable sources
- Kurdistan exists as a dictionary entry, however Kurdistan is a controversial term. For example displaying a map of it to Turkish authorities had lead to a Pentagon apology. While controversial terms as project/portal titles are somewhat 'OK', I strongly feel they should be avoided whenever possible.
- Delete or Rename to "Portal:Kurdish people" -- Cat 13:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. We will neither delete it , nor rename it. We have decided here .]. --Bohater 14:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Voters must be careful about their words and tones. "We will neither.."", "We have decided.."; Firstly you cannot dictate your POV to others,Secondly Who are you?(Are you a suspected sock?) What you decided?(I couldnt saw any decision in this link). Lets assume another decision for another article, Why interested for us here.?Must. 14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- That is a no-consensus and has no bearing here. That particular discussion was dominated by Turkish/Kurdish/Greek wikipedians. I am seeking a more general opinion. Weather the portal stays or gets renamed will be determined by the wikipedia community, not you. -- Cat 14:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also that survey was for renaming the wikiproject, this is for deleting the portal, not that relevant I'd say. Also, there wasn't a consensus, and it was a survey (so the results are not binding). nationalities should not matter so much. denizC 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, with mixed opinions on renaming. Portal is new but appears to be off to a good start. Topic is widely acknowledged as an aspirational nation with hopes of statehood and as a de facto semi-independent part of Iraq with genuine discussions of combining with primarily-Kurdish portions of neigboring states. I don't think it's practical to split into two portals, one for the broader "Kurdish people" and one for "Kurdistan"; therefore the related WikiProject needs to decide how to focus this, unless they make a decision which is clearly against Misplaced Pages policies. Bohater pointed to the project's discussion so far; there is a self-selected group of users participating and no firm consensus, but this makes it incomplete rather than invalid. Yes, there is considerable international controversy associated with the topic; as long as the portal and the related articles are clear about this, rather than claiming current statehood, WP isn't taking one side. (Where such claims appear, this is a matter for editing, not for deletion.) The portal will need ongoing attention to WP:NOR and WP:RS, but this is not a reason for deletion. Barno 14:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Currently project claims/implies Diyarbakir is a part of Kurdistan (by displaying a photo of diyarbakir). On the talk page my argument was countered with a "The capital of Turkish Kurdistan is not part of Kurdistan?" comment. (A geographic region can't have a capital/Aspirational capitals fall under WP:CRYSTAL) -- Cat 14:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Must. 14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Again an attack on the Kurdish gathering in Misplaced Pages, its done by Turkish users and it is not funny any more because Kurdistan is official in Iraq and it is detailed enough to have a portal and a WikiProject. Ozgur Gerilla 15:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Portals and Wikiprojects are not intended to gather a specific ethnicity. Kurdistan can't be "kurdish specific" it is a geographic region.
Also, Iraqi Kurdistan officially claims to be a part of Iraq, yes. They do not claim to be a country, they don't claim non-Iraqi territory, and even their borders are disputed (Kirkuk for example).
-- Cat 15:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)- No body said the gathering is only by those people whos ethncity is Kurdish, it is also people from other background, actually the majority of interest on Kurds in Misplaced Pages is by non-Kurds. So don't start the usual defensive paragraphs. Ozgur Gerilla 20:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Portals and Wikiprojects are not intended to gather a specific ethnicity. Kurdistan can't be "kurdish specific" it is a geographic region.
- Delete Due to lack of similarities to other Portals, as well as being very small (however its quality, not quantity).Tellyaddict 16:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete/rename per Tellyaddict/nom - I had explained my position many times - no inconsistency. Baristarim 17:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep When the topic has an article in Britannica and other encyclopedias it merits an article on Misplaced Pages and a portal. This should also apply vice-versa, if particular topic doesn't merit a portal, then it has no business having an article (policies should apply throughout Misplaced Pages). We have portals like Portal:Middle East and Portal:Europe which also have vague frontiers (is Armenia in Europe? is Cyprus in the Middle East? etc) If you're concerned about Diyarbakir, don't worry about that either - that's also mentioned as part of Kurdistan in Britannica. I must say, I don't like the way Cool Cat misquoted me above, presenting me as if I had said something without a source when that is clearly false from the diff. If petty tactics like that are what one has to resort to to get the portal deleted imagine the weakness of the arguments.--Domitius 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a wide-ranging topic that has a number of high-quality articles. Whether it's a country or not doesn't matter; neither does the size of its borders. CloudNine 20:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- It does matter, what is the inclusion criteria supposed to be? -- Cat 21:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- "The idea of a portal is to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Misplaced Pages topic areas." It doesn't claim anywhere that's it's a country; it's a informative portal with a clear mission and should be kept. I'm not sure why you're trying to delete it. CloudNine 10:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Inclusion criteria is entirely subjective (What falls into Kurdistan? Who is to say?). Kurdistan is a "wanabe country" and is a political term, weather the portal directly claims this or not is irrelevant. -- Cat 12:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- 'Kurdistan is a "wanabe country" and is a political term' - no sources, it's your opinion, your POV.--Domitius 12:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is not an article but I'll get you a source. Here: . Granted it ain't the best source. -- Cat 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Great. Whether or not it is a country has no bearing on it being a portal. If it's a collection of articles on a particular subject, then it should be a portal. Would you say that a Chechnya portal had no suitable articles? No, because there are Chechnya articles. The same applies here. I see no inclusion critera for portals, let alone what you're talking about. CloudNine 14:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Chechnya has verifiable borders (it is a Russian state officially). It is officially recognized internationally. A portals scope is well defined right there. Very poor comparaison since Kurdistan is not recognized in any similar manner. A "Portal:Nagorno-Karabakh" would be fine. -- Cat 15:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- How about my examples, Europe and the Middle East? Where is Armenia, where is Cyprus, where is Iceland...--Domitius 15:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you look at {{Europe}} or {{Middle East}}, you will see disclaimers/footnotes explaining what is being disputed. That is for entire countries. I have no opinion on those individual disputes. -- Cat 15:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- How about my examples, Europe and the Middle East? Where is Armenia, where is Cyprus, where is Iceland...--Domitius 15:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Chechnya has verifiable borders (it is a Russian state officially). It is officially recognized internationally. A portals scope is well defined right there. Very poor comparaison since Kurdistan is not recognized in any similar manner. A "Portal:Nagorno-Karabakh" would be fine. -- Cat 15:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Great. Whether or not it is a country has no bearing on it being a portal. If it's a collection of articles on a particular subject, then it should be a portal. Would you say that a Chechnya portal had no suitable articles? No, because there are Chechnya articles. The same applies here. I see no inclusion critera for portals, let alone what you're talking about. CloudNine 14:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is not an article but I'll get you a source. Here: . Granted it ain't the best source. -- Cat 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- 'Kurdistan is a "wanabe country" and is a political term' - no sources, it's your opinion, your POV.--Domitius 12:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Inclusion criteria is entirely subjective (What falls into Kurdistan? Who is to say?). Kurdistan is a "wanabe country" and is a political term, weather the portal directly claims this or not is irrelevant. -- Cat 12:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- "The idea of a portal is to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Misplaced Pages topic areas." It doesn't claim anywhere that's it's a country; it's a informative portal with a clear mission and should be kept. I'm not sure why you're trying to delete it. CloudNine 10:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- It does matter, what is the inclusion criteria supposed to be? -- Cat 21:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DennyColt (talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
- Keep - Strong nationalist attacks, keep informative area. Artaxiad 21:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- strong keep Kurdistan is a region, even if unofficial it is cited by google books many times.]. 3000+ hits in google books which are almost virtually all scholarly books is not a joke. Also has a Britannica entry.
- Misplaced Pages has articles on terms like Nigger or Negro. Both of those terms are controversial/insultive and would make poor portal titles. -- Cat 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, this is where the difference lies: Britannica has an article on Kurdistan, yet no articles on "nigger" and "negro".--Domitius 12:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages has articles on terms like Nigger or Negro. Both of those terms are controversial/insultive and would make poor portal titles. -- Cat 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There is no reason to delete regional or provincial portals. If there is concern about nationalism, that is no reason to delete as we can keep an eye on it and make sure nationalists do not make the portal a soapbox for their politics. But I am sure at this point in the juncture of WP the nationalists are becoming fewer in number so this should not be a problem as most Kurdish editors are interested in the information, not propaganda. Khorshid 03:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- The term "Kurdistan" enters soapbox area (grey area at best) - "Kurdistan" is a "wanabe country" after all (doesn't matter if that is the intention of this portal or not). Kurdistan is a highly controversial political term. If this was called "Portal:Kurdish people" we would have lesser problems. It is much easier/neutral to relate something to "Kurdish people" than to "Kurdistan". How can we talk about neutrality on a portal if its title is controversial needlessly? -- Cat 12:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- '"Kurdistan" is a "wanabe country" after all' - I think that's a paranoid way of looking at it. As far as I can tell, it's devoted to a region only; the word "country" doesn't appear anywhere in reference to Kurdistan.--Domitius 12:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I frankly don't understand. Why are you claiming that the term "Kurdistan" is without any controversy whatsoever? Why would be pentagon apologizing then? -- Cat 13:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- What they are apologizing for is for displaying (=endorsing?) a map with negative territorial designs on Turkey. This portal doesn't endorse any of those designs (when one believes one sees separatists everywhere, that's the paranoia I was talking about).--Domitius 14:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that Turkey is bothered by it makes it controversial doesn't it? Please take your paranoia accusation else where (such as WP:ANB/I). -- Cat 14:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- No proof of that. What bothered Turkey was the idea of losing territory, not the name. You're trying to say that 1=2.--Domitius 14:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- The very notion of Kurdistan is controversial, not just its name. That news article and pentagon's statement is proof of that. -- Cat 14:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- All it proves is that Turkey doesn't like people discussing schemes which would involve loss of territory. Considering Turkey's imperialist attitude in the Aegean, I'd say this is more than understandable.--Domitius 14:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for that claim? Are you are saying we should tag Aegean islands under Turkish territory? (If Kurdistan is fine such a thing would be fine too) -- Cat 14:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, just citing Aegean islands (and I forgot Cyprus) as examples of Turkish imperialism. Turkey is trying to gain territory there, they wouldn't want to lose their own back yard (Turkish Kurdistan) at the same time.--Domitius 14:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground -- Cat 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Come again?--Domitius 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground -- Cat 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, just citing Aegean islands (and I forgot Cyprus) as examples of Turkish imperialism. Turkey is trying to gain territory there, they wouldn't want to lose their own back yard (Turkish Kurdistan) at the same time.--Domitius 14:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for that claim? Are you are saying we should tag Aegean islands under Turkish territory? (If Kurdistan is fine such a thing would be fine too) -- Cat 14:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- See it this way: if the map had not called it Kurdistan, but something like "Diyarbakiri Republic" would, in your opinion, Turkey have not objected?--Domitius 14:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would not know, that would be original research. Such a discussion would be pointless here. -- Cat 14:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well your speculations are unsourced anyway - that's all you've been doing thus far. The fact that Turkey protested to those particular maps being used by that particular institution at that period in time does not mean that the name Kurdistan is controversial. Linking the two is original research on your part.--Domitius 14:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would not know, that would be original research. Such a discussion would be pointless here. -- Cat 14:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- All it proves is that Turkey doesn't like people discussing schemes which would involve loss of territory. Considering Turkey's imperialist attitude in the Aegean, I'd say this is more than understandable.--Domitius 14:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- The very notion of Kurdistan is controversial, not just its name. That news article and pentagon's statement is proof of that. -- Cat 14:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- No proof of that. What bothered Turkey was the idea of losing territory, not the name. You're trying to say that 1=2.--Domitius 14:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that Turkey is bothered by it makes it controversial doesn't it? Please take your paranoia accusation else where (such as WP:ANB/I). -- Cat 14:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- What they are apologizing for is for displaying (=endorsing?) a map with negative territorial designs on Turkey. This portal doesn't endorse any of those designs (when one believes one sees separatists everywhere, that's the paranoia I was talking about).--Domitius 14:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I frankly don't understand. Why are you claiming that the term "Kurdistan" is without any controversy whatsoever? Why would be pentagon apologizing then? -- Cat 13:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- '"Kurdistan" is a "wanabe country" after all' - I think that's a paranoid way of looking at it. As far as I can tell, it's devoted to a region only; the word "country" doesn't appear anywhere in reference to Kurdistan.--Domitius 12:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- The term "Kurdistan" enters soapbox area (grey area at best) - "Kurdistan" is a "wanabe country" after all (doesn't matter if that is the intention of this portal or not). Kurdistan is a highly controversial political term. If this was called "Portal:Kurdish people" we would have lesser problems. It is much easier/neutral to relate something to "Kurdish people" than to "Kurdistan". How can we talk about neutrality on a portal if its title is controversial needlessly? -- Cat 12:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - portals are useful presentation and navigation aids, much more user friendly than categories. A portal that has significant positive interest that covers a number of reasonable articles (not a walled garden) should be kept by default. Addhoc 13:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Portal Kurds, or Rename to Portal Kurdish people, or Keep denizC 16:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, the way it is is fine. Renaming it is not a very good option, although I'm rather fine with moving the article too. Terence 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Defined regional region, no confusion, no controversy, no offense for other countries, portable for a notable geographical region and culture, looks to cover a considerable number of articles.--Yannismarou 17:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? Why is Pentagon apologizing if Turkey wasn't offended? -- Cat 20:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Answered by me above.--Domitius 20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cool Cat, I think you could something more constructive instead of commenting on each vote you do not like.--Yannismarou 09:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are welcome to actually answer to my question. -- Cat 20:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are welcome not to make again and again the same questions to the "keep" voters.--Yannismarou 08:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have already answered above when you asked this question the first time. Are you intentionally doing this, asking a question and once it has been answered, ask the same question again and pretending it was never answered?--Domitius 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are welcome to actually answer to my question. -- Cat 20:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cool Cat, I think you could something more constructive instead of commenting on each vote you do not like.--Yannismarou 09:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Answered by me above.--Domitius 20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? Why is Pentagon apologizing if Turkey wasn't offended? -- Cat 20:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - This seems to be bordering on harassment of all things Kurdish. --Diyarbakır 13:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)