Talk:Southern Kurdistan
Calling the area "Southern Kurdistan" instead of, say, Iraqi Kurdistan is a point of view that pushes for independence of a certain Kurdistan country from Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. This is clearly non-NPOV. roozbeh 12:41, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- IMHO it is not non-NPOV. "Southern" is geographically correct and does not automatically imply a tendency towards political independence. Erdal Ronahi
I agree with Erdal Ronahi. It is certainly possible to speak of a Southern Kurdistan without insisting on independence or any other political project. Compare the provinces of France, which are geo-cultural regions without any administrative character. I do agree we should try to keep this article from being merely Kurdish nationalist propaganda, but the fact is that Southern Kurdistan is a real place. QuartierLatin1968 01:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Southern Kurdistan" may well be an important cultural region, but this article is clearly describing that portion of Kurdistan within the boundaries of the state of Iraq.--Pharos 21:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- As there are Kurds outside of the autonomous region, this should not be a redirect, but should probably be either Iraqi Kurdistan or maybe Kurds in Iraq.--Pharos 09:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Its unnecesary, Kurdish Autonomous Region is what you may refer as Soulthern Kurdistan, an imaginary state (that is not a POV rather a fact). This article is very unnecesary as there is an article with identical content and is actualy Neutral. This article is just propoganda and when you remove propoganda you are left with almost nothing. I am relinking it to the right article. This action is taken in accordance with wikipedia policy please dont revert like infants. This is not quite open for discussion as two things are the same thing. There is a Iraqi kurdistan article and there is a southern kurdistan article, these all refer to the same thing. You cannot call every region the Birtish live as Great Britain. Why would you want to declare a KLurdistan that extends throughout the planet. You may want to declare protions of Germany as kurdistan? I really cannot flolow your logic. -- Cat chi? 07:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just an addition, Kurdistan is what a buch of seperatist Kurds refer to a chunk of region on 4 different countries. Those 4 countries and people living in te region in question does not uniformly agree to this. Hence there isnt a kurdish stae. So this article and the other article are just a POV. Now you may have a demographic article. I dont really see why the heck wee need a "Kurdistan" article since the demographics should be placed on the aproporate articles.
- Kurdistan of course is not a state, its a cultural region that some people think should be a state. In this way, it is very analogous to Basque Country. If you want to delete all references to Kurdistan, I suggest you put Kurdistan up for VfD. Barring that, you cannot expect the concept to go unmentioned. Obviously this article does not describe the same thing as that on the autonomus region, but describes Kurds in other areas in Iraq that they consider part of Kurdistan, and so I tend to agree with you that "Southern Kurdistan" is POV (see my comments before) because it obscures the fact that this region is within the borders of Iraq, but as an important POV it should be mentioned as such in the article, which as I said before you entered upon this, would be more appropriately titled Iraqi Kurdistan or Kurds in Iraq. I find it hard to see how you could say Kurds in Iraq would be POV. I am going to revert your wholesale disposal of this article again, but will be glad to work with you in addressing POV issues in the name and content, to create a neutral article that fairly describes Kurdish-majority areas in Iraq, including outside of the autonomus region.--Pharos 14:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This article started as a propoganda, it is currently unnecesary you do not need to portion varous parts of several countries and give it names independently there is a [[Kurdistan article that explains things already, I am cleaning this artcicle and moving/linking there. There is no reason to insist, Kurdistan refers to something that offends me but thats my POV and wikipedia does not run with povs. -- Cat chi? 17:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- All kurd information belong to the spesific countries demographics or united in Kurds article, there is no reason to cluther wikipedia. All Kurdistan related stuff belongs in the Kurdistan article which is not remotely close to 32kb. Soulthern Kurdistan refers to a protion of an independent state in this article. Kurds dont uniformly agree on a nation of Kurdistan, frankly I dont belive it benefits them to have their own state. Even if they get a state countries around them will not let anything go through their borders or this may be an excuse to have a war in middle east thats been theorised to death by military experts. Thats where I stand. Those are my views and since it conflicts with the views of the article this article clearly is not neutral. I am working on this article and will be adding whats left from pov to the Kurdistan article -- Cat chi? 18:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Requested move[edit]
... is actually a proposal to delete, or to merge, since both source and target have content. Please recast in those terms. Alai 14:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No I want the material here merged with the remote article who in actuality already has significant material. Cat chi? (unsigned - Cool Cat)
- Isn't that what I said? That's a merge, not a move. Alai 23:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. All you need to do is get consensus to merge content and change this article into a redirect to the target. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Object. The requested move project facilitates moves; it is not for deleting pages, especially not when the deletion is likely controversial. Suggest listing on WP:VfD if you want to delete the page. Jonathunder 16:05, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
- Object. Not pratical to move, as both articles exist, See:WP:RM Introduction which states: If you want to merge two articles please make a request at Wikipedia:Duplicate articles instead of here. Philip Baird Shearer 17:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I merged the articles however people are insisting on reverting the article back even though material is avalible remotely -- Cat chi? 22:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Obviously I also Object, as per my original comment, though I was hoping Coolcat would simply remove the notice and spare the article lingering pointlessly on requested pages moves for five days. But I've just noticed he's saying he's left WP. Would anyone object if I treated this as a "speedy non-move" (if that's not the ultimate contradiction in terms) and delisted it myself? Alai 22:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agree I agree with myself. I left temporarily as people were irritating me. This material is in the remote article and has no notable value. No back ground no nothing which are in the remote article. -- Cat chi? 22:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Therefore, you should place a merge tag, or if you really must, list on Votes for Deletion, and suggest "merge and redirect". Or simply ask for a straw poll on turning the article into a redirect. As currently requested it's not procedurally feasible. Persisting with it will simply cause people to point this out, and to vote against on those grounds; and in the unlikely event of it getting a consensus, an admin would simply refuse to carry out a such a "move", as it'd involve a loss of content people hadn't been asked to vote for. Alai 23:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Coolcat: I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by "remote article". Are you are refering to the article used as the source for merging material with another article? If so, the license WP operates under requires that history must be saved somewhere so we have a record of contributions. Jonathunder 22:54, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
Well, Ill put the tag there, but I prefer we merge this quickly.
From History listing of WP:RM -- 02:02, 2 Apr 2005 Alai (→April 1 2005 - delisting Southern Kurdistan merge, not a move)