Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan/Archive 2

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . 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. 

No consensus.-- Hús  ö  nd  20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Kurdistan → 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 Wikiproject Turkestan doesn't and shouldn't exist. 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 :) ) denizTC 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. denizTC 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. denizTC
 * 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 "WikiProject Kurdistan" is an unnecessarily controversial title for this wikiproject. I hence propose a rename to 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 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 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 []. 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. denizTC 12:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Can't a compromise be worked out? Perhaps move it to WikiProject Kurds and Kurdistan.--Domitius 16:03, 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 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)
 * "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 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)


 * 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 
 * "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 and Three-revert rule. I already explained the rationale for my objections at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan. 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 . 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.

Socks?
The Must's Edits look like the Cat's Edits. Can somebody check it. --Bohater 13:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to take it to Requests for checkuser -- Cat chi? 14:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How or when does the move request close? Could we close it if its possible. Ozgur Gerilla 13:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, it is possible through Checkuser. If we have enough Difflinks, which describe the using of socks, then he will be closed it. --Bohater 13:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It will be closed by an uninvolved party when a desicion is reached. -- Cat chi? 14:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Believe me, Mustafa and Cool Cat are not the same person, not by a long shot :)) But you are welcome to file a checkuser here: Requests for checkuser Baristarim 12:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I second Baris, Cool Cat debates alot. While Makalp is very funny :) in his nationalist patterns. Artaxiad 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On my opinion, that is very striking. --Bohater 12:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then start a checkuser request now. -- Cat chi? 13:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is only one sock here(currently,known);Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bohater. Must . T  C 16:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * well what is about that []. --Bohater 16:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Portal
First the Project, then the Portal. Where is this leading us? Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kurdistan--Bohater 14:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an attack on the Kurdish gathering in Wikipedia. It's ridiculous, and its done only and only by Turkish users. Ozgur Gerilla 14:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are also Turkish, You are using Crescens&Stared Passport.Dont politize wiki. Must . <sup style="color:blue;">T <sup style="color:blue;"> C 14:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Who the hell do you think you are? Telling me what ethnicity or nationality I am! I am British and ethnically Kurdish. Do not lie about me and other users this is against Wikipedia rules. Ozgur Gerilla 15:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, No that is not true. I have Turkish friends, which support our Projects. Only Cat vandalizes here. That is true. --Bohater 14:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please take your accusations to WP:ANB/I -- Cat chi? 14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't Worry, I will do it, if the time has come to do something!. --Bohater 14:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, You would give answers to possible alleges about Yourself; One of them here, above, "Cat vandalizes here"!. Think about it and your behaviour,current and past. What about your Vandalproof tool aproval? Must . <sup style="color:blue;">T <sup style="color:blue;"> C 14:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You think about your back; telling people what ethnicity and nationality they are! how barbaric! Ozgur Gerilla 15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Back? ethnicity/nationality? What on earth are you talking about? Please take this discussion elsewhere unless it concerns the wikiproject. -- Cat chi? 15:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A couple of post back, somebody that supported your actions to move this WikiProject is telling people what ethnicity and nationality they are. That's what I am talking about and don't worry will take it somewhere. Ozgur Gerilla 10:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bohater, can't we start closing this request since it had its time? Ozgur Gerilla 15:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the simultaneous proposal of both WP:Kurdistan and Portal:Kurdistan is a wise decision. It gives the wrong impression, and offers arguments to those speaking about an adgenda and a plan here. Especially, it is not wise to start a MfD against the Portal, after you realize that your attempt to rename the project goes towards "no consensus".--Yannismarou 15:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe it is wise to create a controversial Kurdistan portal and Kurdistan wikiptoject at the same time on multiple language editions. -- Cat chi? 15:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems, speaking at least for the project, that the majority of users do not regard it as controversial.--Yannismarou 15:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The there is nothing to worry about. -- Cat chi? 15:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Who worries?--Yannismarou 15:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A brake would be good for all of us. :) Ozgur Gerilla 15:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe a "worry" was the point of this thread? -- Cat chi? 16:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? :) Ozgur Gerilla 10:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessment
Ok. The project is finished. We, the Members should begin with Assessment now.. ! --Bohater 10:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What the heck, I did not follow all the discussions but don't finish the project like that. If you want to, you can remove yourself from the member list, but don't decide on finishing the project, unless there is a consensus now (at least I don't want this to end, and I am a member). I don't want to read all the discussions above. denizTC 16:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If somebody wants to open a new discussion section, it is his/her right to do it. If you want to follow the previous discussion, just move above and post a comment. It is that simple. If Bohater wants to discuss assessment issues, it is his right to do so - the above discussion remains open as long as there is interest in it, and nobody can close it unilaterally. If you want to discuss the name issue, disregard Bohater's comment go above and do it - no reason to get upset.--Yannismarou 17:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Category:WikiProject Kurds articles structure already exists.. Baristarim 17:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not against someone creating discussion sections, my comment was only for finishing the project. Maybe I will read the discussions, at this moment I don't really want to read them. I hope you guys don't take it as a sign disrespect, sorry if you do that. I have a vague idea of what's going on. I haven't edited Kurdish related articles in a while, I hope I will soon regain will of editing them. I made my suggestion, my first option is WP:Kurds then WP:Kurdish people, then WP:Kurdistan. denizTC 02:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I see I might have misunderstood things. I thought finishing the project meant completely ending it, canceling it, deleting it, etc. It might be just finishing the initial general discussions about the project (name, scope, etc), and finally starting it. denizTC 02:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser from Cat
First the [] Project, then the Portal [] and now [][] I. Where is this leading us? --Bohater 16:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know. How is it relevant to this wikiproject? This isn't your complaints department you know. -- Cat chi? 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I am Member. --Bohater 16:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which means nothing. WikiProjects are lists of articles not lists of members. -- Cat chi? 16:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is this, Wikipedia is that gosh and whoa re you the creator? let the guy talk about his suspicions, we as the members of the project want to listen to him because we consider your actions as an attack to our project. Ozgur Gerilla 01:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * File an arbitration case then. Stop waisting my time with your (plural) non-stop accusations. -- Cat chi? 01:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which accusation are we talking about? I am just asking question, that's it. Ozgur Gerilla 02:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Bilateral relations discussion
I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you.  Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan map
For Wikipedians who claim Kurdistan is not a controversial topic, I have gathered a couple of Kurdistan maps; I'll let you decide what Kurdistan really is.


 * 
 * I really wonder on which basis they made this research, there have never been an ethnic population count in Turkey
 * This one consists a little bit of Armenia
 * Good one. Look how it stretches from the Persian Gulf to Mediterrenea. Also getting very closer to the Black Sea
 * Another good one

I couldn't find the one that goes as far to the coasts of Black Sea. Let's make one thing clear, Kurds populated these areas through centuries under the rule of many kingdoms and empires and Turkey. Just like today they are populating major cities like Istanbul, Izmir, Adana and Gaziantep in large numbers. Kurdistan is a political agenda that takes advantage of this ethnic distribution. Its also ethnic oriented, nationalist and doesn't represent the people of the region wholly. Though ethnic oriented, we know Kurds diversify in themselves; as much as for Turkification, there is also a case for Kurdification in the region. Also elections in Turkey show right-wing parties like AKP and DYP have a strong voter base in Southeastern Turkey.

Anyway, bottomline, Kurdistan is controversial.-- Doktor Gonzo</tt> 14:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Even Adana has majority of Turkified Kurds, I am from there and I know this well, and if Turkey isn't so afraid of a proper "ethnical research" in Anatolia why are they still restricting it? and relying on some bias research. Don't forget the rumours of how Turkey has a very little Turkic population.


 * 2. There are millions of Kurds living in Syria, Iraq and Iran so the map's extension is not exaggerating.


 * 3 50% of Turkey did not vote in the last elections. Plus there are so many illiterate people in S.W even though they voted majority Democratic Society Party.
 * Ozgur Gerilla 15:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If Adana has a major Kurdish population that's because of the mass emigration to the region during the second half of the last century. You are proving my point. That doesn't give anybody the right to throw it in the Kurdistan basket.
 * I don't know since when not dividing your population into ethnic groups is a bad thing. Yes Turks of Turkey are multi-ethnic, once again you are saying it yourself. When I say I am a Turk I don't mean it racially but nationally. This is the base of my argument why I won't favor your seperatism based on ethnic difference. And with your Kurdistan map you are just exploiting the wide Kurdish population changes in Turkey to create pseudo Kurdish cities.
 * Variation of maps are enough to prove the controversy surrounding Kurdistan.
 * Not just the last elections, right-wing parties always had support in SE Turkey. And my initial point is still valid, despite of the people who didn't vote, percentage wise the parties I listed had strong support in SE Turkey, I'll bring out the numbers if you like.
 * Lastly you made an interesting point, there is a serious issue of illiteracy in the region which brings the question of priorities.-- Doktor Gonzo</tt> 16:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember you saying in another page that you were from Tunceli Ozgur.. How come you are from Adana? Anyways.. Ozgur, your comments wreak of ethnic-origin searching that reminds me of some of the darkest periods of human history. cough cough. You see, that's the problem - the human civilization had moved on to so many different levels, but jokers like Barzani and Apo are still thinking with the mentalities of the early 19th century. Why do you care what percentage of Turkish citizens are of "Turkic origin"? Does it matter? Do you think people will care? There are tens of thousands of blacks in Istanbul who have Turkish citizenship and speak Turkish - what should we tell them? "No, you are not a Turk - go speak Swahili!" You know what, I will tell you about myself: My father's side immigrated from Central Asia in the beginning of 19th century (traders originally - see my father's cousin's picture), my mother's side is a mix of Levantines of Constantinople and Jews of Spain who converted to Islam (centuries ago, I had enough of people thinking that I am a Jew or something :)) - my grandparents spoke Ottoman Turkish not modern Turkish - but I don't go running around saying "I want to learn Venetian!!!!" or "give me my God-given right to learn math in Ladino!!!" Heck, my father's side, way back, spoke Central Asian Turkic, I don't speak that either. If any of them came back from the grave, I wouldn't be able to speak with any of them! :) But I don't care, it is not how my grandpa danced at the local village festival that is going to dictate who I should be. I am Turkish, end of story - couldn't care less if my great-great-... great-grandpa was a Venetian adventurer! Who cares! Honestly, all this ethnic this, ethnic that talk is a bore.. I don't see any Normands where I live running around saying "I want to learn physics in old Nordic!!". You know, unlike many Turks, I don't get offended with this talk of Kurdish ethnic talk - simply because I consider it to be completely irrelevant and empty. Turkey was never an ethnic state, it is a "nation-state" with one language and identity, yes, but it was not based on ethnicity - anybody could accede to it. Just like in France, England etc.Baristarim 07:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You should seriously go read how French identity was created - in 1789, only FIVE percent of the people in "France" spoke French. During the 19th century, all town names, people's names, schools - everything - was changed; "Frenchized" by law and by force in many instances. "Turkified Kurds" - do you even know what those notions mean? Local languages always had to erase themselves in the face of national languages - in Italy and France this led to the extinction of 30+ languages - but who cares??!! Languages, races and religions are "social constructs" - they do not exist by nature: as such anyone who has been able to realize these basic tenets of human social evolution shouldn't care about them since they are only born out of neccessity (the "tribe effect"). So the question is, what is going on that is pushing some "people" (not Kurds - ethnicity is also a social construct - unless you care about the genes, but then you missed the train by exactly 74-62 years) to seek a different identity than the one that has been offered to them? It is not nature, or any loony theories about "millenia-old-traditions", let's cut the BS: the only thing that has pushed the people in upper Mesopotamia to seek a different identity (again the "tribe effect" and the "survival instinct") is a very very simple fact of human nature: economics - kinda funny how you claim to be a communist and all Ozgur, Karl Marx clearly states that the history of human struggle is an economic one. Ergo, had some of them been a bit richer, they wouldn't be seeking a different identity (also should be noted that this is the reason why PKK fighters come from dirt poor families, and not rich Istanbulite Kurdish families, btw).Baristarim 07:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But got news for you: grass is always greener on the other side. There are those in those lands who have convinced themselves that if they "choose" (not assume, it still is a social construct) a new identity, they will have a better future, since all the other identities that have been offered to them have not brought themselves what they wanted (see greed, another fundamental of human nature: a derivative of the God complex present in all humans) - but that's where you are mistaken: what has been offered to "Kurds" (in Turkey; I wouldn't say the same thing for Iraq for example - but Iran and Syria are ok) is much better than what they would have had had there been a different state called "Kurdistan/Disneyland" - nearly all the Kurdish women who has went to university in this world did so in the universities of Turkey - you know this. And let's cut the crap, most Kurds are not revolutionaries, that's utter BS - 90percent of Kurds are extremely religious bordering on Islamism - you know this as well, just go to Mardin and say you are a communist/atheist - you would be coming back in a bodybag. You are an exception. Had there been an independent Kurdistan, it would have been a second Saudi Arabia - and don't worry, still nobody would be speaking Kurdish et al - you would have been most probably speaking French or English, like the Lebanese, Africans of Tunisians.. Give it up Ozgur, you seriously have your notions all messed up. But time will pass, and when you hit thirty+, you will see what I mean. Kurdistan, what a joke - first know that race/ethnicity/religion/languages are pure social constructs, and ask yourself why you would want to construct a different identity - when you will have analyzed the sentiments that is leading you to seek it, you will see that the correct treatment for them is not what you think you seek... Baristarim 07:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:SOAPBOX. - Francis Tyers · 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow! man when you sit down you can write some BS. No, I'm kidding you had some good points but you're judging me with what I contribute to Wikipedia which is not all my thoughts. I don't know where to start to disgaree. First of all, I am not from Dersim. You claim to know it all and claim that I will know much more when I'm thirty but what is the difference if I stay ignorant and do not read and learn? I think you was thinking in Turkish and writing in English there. According to your logic on ethnicity, now that Turks have their authority set in Anatolia, we should shut up and wait to be Turkified? Is that what you're suggesting, you're comparing the Kurds in Turkey with the black people in Istanbul; do you realise that Kurds form more than 30% of the population? Look, I did say I do support PKK but didn't say I'm a member and I have my reasons for not. There are millions (x,000,000) in Turkey who support it but even more supporting the independence of Kurdistan. Even the general who was responsible for the coup on 12 September 1980, Kenan Evren, said what he had to say about the Kurds in Turkey, how federation was a solution, now Kurds have been crying that out for 100 years, where was the military's mind then? You're argument on how "your family background doesn't matter, be what ever you are offered" is senseless, that is the mentality in Turkey that has let us back. That's why there was so much oppression to the Kurds in Turkey and when we are at the stage where they say "hey, we can't handle these bloody Kurds". A language is used for many other thngs then Maths and Physics. Kurds are not Nomads (if that's what you mean with Normands, cause it doesn't exist in dictionary) they are there since 5000 BC (of course changed its identity at times) or later, millions of them don't even speak Turkish so what do you expect them to do?

Turkey was always an ethnic state and is trying to change now but alot of "negatives" are occuring during the process that has started with the application to EU. There are a lot differences of France and England compare to Turkey. I want the better of Turkey, of course I do, but this can't be achieved by restricting or banning a language in a country (socially now) and an ethnic group to enter the parliament by imposing a percentage to pass in elections, when you know that south east of TR has large illeterate people and deliberately maneuvering political/economical tactics to the region. If I am living in a democaratic country and I want to learn, write or study in a language widely used in the country then I should have the right to do this, this is the basic notion of democracy and have I got that in Turkey? Ismail Besikci, Leyla Zana, Turgut Ozal, Mehmed Uzun, Yilmaz Guney and the others, I don't think I got that it Turkey; not at all. So what if languages, races and religion are social constructs, then logically, ethnicity is much more natural then nationality so we should stick to that shouldn't we? The fact is we need some social constructions to calculate some kind of communication and maintainance. The way you're arguing on the destruction of the languages is as if your admiting that the actions of restricting a language is righteous, please tell us clearly what you mean. Because your judgements are vague. Talking about missing the train by about 70 years you must of jumped of the train of something, because you sound really nationalistic to me even though it's true that if you compare yourself with the Turkish nationalists in Turkey your more of an anarchist. If ethnicity and nationalistic age has eroded we wouldn't have Turkey, Kurdistan, England, France or others we would have something more dense. I would always defend such social system to be honest, I don't like passports. If, even though I don't agree, the Kurdish women had educated themselves in "Turkish universities" it's because their grandfathers were fighters in Canakkale and even before that in Ottoman times and they were the best of best fighters of the sultans. They not only deserve that but they own what you call "Turkish Universities" it's their land too just like it is every Turkish citizens right. So do you see where you dragged the issue, now it is you who is making ethnical seperation.

How can you say "most Kurds are not revolutionaries" when most members of DHKP-C, MLKP and others are Kurdish. Turkish left is packed of Kurds. Why make such proposition because of Said Nursi? whatever the reason it is prejudist and not valid. There is a lot of supporters of PKK and independent Kurdistan in Mardin. In Treaty of Sevres 1920, Kurds were promised independence but got oppression instead and I don't understand how can someone like you cannot see this and understand the "Kurdish struggle". 90% of Kurds Islamist? what a guess on what source do you rely on? Kurdish is a rich language! it has undergone all the suppressions and still is Kurdish, had Turkish undergone the same events it was for sure extinct. Turkish is a language borrowing thousands of words from neighboring languages; not that I mind it, infact I love it, it's very flexiable. I can say "Nasilsin arkadas" and "Arkadas nasilsin, beautiful. Considering current political events Kurds in Iraq are doing quite well forming an independent Kurdistan even though, once again, I think middle east should be much more liberal and open with social systems; I always advocate a federal system in Anatolia and Mesopotamia. So when I'm thirty I would probably visit Kurdistan and think damn I wish I see Baris Tarim some where around here to shove it all on his face :). An identity is not created when we talk about Kurdistan it is an identity which exist getting what it deserves. I have no benefits from Kurdsitan but still think it is better for the future and federalising the regions seems a good solution. The sentiments that lead me to seek are analyzed and concluded that they're righteous at the process of seeking it and putting it into practice, particularly after what Kurds faced in the 20th century. —Ozgur Gerilla 14:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:SOAPBOX again.--Yannismarou 18:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)