Last modified on 15 August 2012, at 05:27

Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/05/Category:Geography of Kurdistan

Category:Geography of KurdistanEdit

Following subcategories of Category:Kurdistan are very problematic.

As long as I know, Kurdistan is many meanings.

We'd better use

Category:Kurdistan province for Kurdistan Province of Iran

Category:Turkish Kurdistan for Turkish Kurdistan

Category:Iranian Kurdistan for Iranian Kurdistan

Category:Iraqi Kurdistan for Iraqi Kurdistan

If this category means Kurdistan, its borders are very ambiguous and this category make matters more complicated.

Some users want to use "nature of", "geography of" Kurdistan,

in the same way, some users want to use "nature of", "geography of"

Western Armenia. Manchuria, Zazaistan, Alevistan, Chameria etc.

for same places.If one wants to

I think especially for categories related with nature, geography, we'd better prefer to use Category:Categories by country (for example Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria).

Takabeg (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

See Category talk:Kurdistan#? and Category talk:Villages in Kurdistan for my answer. See also this… Thank you--Ghybu (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
PS: An admin can restore the historical of these categories? Because I am not the creator of all the categories. They had been deleted because they had been emptied without discussion--Ghybu (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
As used here, Kurdistan is the region of the Kurds, a large region with many disputable borders and overlapping many regions in several countries. If one wants to properly educate people and document Kurdistan, one has to focus on the items that are pertaining to the culture and the people of it. We don't make categories for Birds of the European Union or Mammals of Northern Africa: our finest grain division goes to natural areas, often much smaller than the countries, which are in their turn classified again in countries. Political/administrative countries are not always the best divisions for such categorisation, but those are the ones that are mostly used here. For specific birds, plants ... named after Kurdistan (with basically an unknown meaning and area scope), I would suggests to create a category "things named after Kurdistan": at least that would be clear for everybody and not disappear in millions of other things that are only very remotely related to Kurdistan. --Foroa (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I wonder, why do you always come to talk about your fears? You always tell, people can create categories as Alevistan, Zazaistan, Western Armenia, Turkmeneli etc. They can create, its not end of life. This is a free project. All users try to protect their languages and cultures. This is Wikimedia. Its not Republic of Turkey. You cant ban an international name (for example : Vulpes vulpes Kurdistanica is used as Vulpes vulpes in Turkey.) None of categories are problematic. Its interesting that, Categories are problematic just for Turks. Where is the problem? Its easier for me (and users of ku:, ckb:, diq: wiki projects) to find Kurdish villages in category of Villages in Kurdistan. If you want, and if the village is in eastern Turkey, you can add categories related to Turkey. Nobody is againist that. Wikimedia should be useful for all users of all wiki projects. Same situation is possible for nature, insects, geography etc. There are dozens of animals and plants which are named Kurdistanica. People want to know about fauna and flora of Kurdistan too. Why do we have to worry for categories? If users can find what they find, there is no problem. By the way, stop to empty categories without discussion!--Gomada (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The presence of scientific names including kurdistanica is not enough reason to create "Category:X of Kurdistan". In the same way, the presence of Agdistis turkestanica, Coleophora turkestanica, Tulipa turkestanica etc. is not enough reason to create "Category:X of Turkistan" (en:Turkistan). Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

To Takebeg, i told you few times. If you really think, categories of Kurdistan are confusing, why dont you do anything about turkish categories? Here some examples: Kasimiye Medresesi, Kirklar Kilisesi, Mardin Ulu Camii, Mor Yuhanun Kilisesi, Anadolu Hisarı‎, Rumeli Hisarı‎, Sakip Sabancı Müzesi‎, Yalı, Galata Mevlevihanesi‎... There are dozens of them. Why are those categories in turkish langauge? Who can find category of Yalı? Only a person who can speak turkish. We dont have much time to spend as you. Therefore, please stop to waste our time by your discussions about Kurds and Kurdistan.--Gomada (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

We aren't discussing Kasimiye Medresesi, Kirklar Kilisesi, Mardin Ulu Camii, Mor Yuhanun Kilisesi, Anadolu Hisarı‎, Rumeli Hisarı‎, Sakip Sabancı Müzesi‎, Yalı, Galata Mevlevihanesi‎.... When you find reliable sources in English, you can translate them to English. Takabeg (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I dont care any of them. i will not spend my time for categories or articles related to Turkish. We expect same respect from you. But im not sure, if you can control yourself. Therefore, I just show to people how you act againist Kurds and Kurdistan. Even if you deny, i know what you are doing (about articles related to Kurds) on Turkish Wikipedia too.--Gomada (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support It prevents mental confusion as Takabeg says and Kurdistan is an area which many people live in there like Kurds, Turks, Zazas, Arabs, Turkmens, Iranians, Iraqians etc. For this reasons we should change. Also I believe that this discussion should not be a political subject. In addition, I'm Turkish and I am not against Kurds. However, I against racist and fascist. The important thing for me is neutrality and goodwill. I apologize for my English. It is not bad but not good.--Reality006 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Why do you need to say : I against racist and fascist ? Is there a racist here? Do you have a claim?--Gomada (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

We are not Buranovskiye Babushki. Lets do something useful. Please remember that:

  • there can only be one category with one name for a specific topic, mainly the one that is most common in English lingua franca
  • Commons categories are mainly split in around 250 (political/administrative) countries
  • Wikipedia's exist in 280 ethnic groups/languages out of the couple of thousands I guess, so we have to live with some priorities and ethnic groups will often be hidden behind political countries.

So to be able to do productive work:

  • Is there some list from all the Kurdish villages and their corresponding offical name (in the country they belong to) ?
    • Is this list generally accepted and by whom ?
  • Is there some sort of formal list from all the Kurdish villages belonging to what you call Kurdistan ?
    • Is this list generally accepted and by whom ?

Without an answer on the questions above, Kurdistan and Kurdish villages do not exist any more, so we can delete most of the related categories. I will remove all contributions that do name calling or racism accusations; they tend to be unfair and ungrounded anyway. --Foroa (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete categories. In Kurdish Wikipedia, we create articles about all Kurdish villages and cities. Maybe you know, Turkey has changed names of our villages in last century.(Kurdish villages in Turkey) Therefore, Kurdish names are still banned in Turkey. (in Iranian and Syrian Kurdistan, there are similar problems) This is a list of Kurdish villages that had burnt by Turkish soldiers.We try to protect a culture. Its not easy. You shouldnt say, lets just delete. If people cant develop and protect their culture on Wikimedia, why do we use it in hundred of languages?--Gomada (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not treat Kurdistan in a regional sense?Edit

We can simply treat Kurdistan as a geographical region, because no matter where the state boundaries run, it is still a region that can be circumscribed (between the Caucasus and Mesopotamia, basically). "[Stuff] of Kurdistan" categories would be in "[Stuff] of Asia" as well as in the pertinent country categories (because these countries all have a Kurdish part, but are not all Kurdish).

Compare Category:Mojave Desert and Category:Kalahari, which pose the same problem.

The main category of "Kurdistan" would be Category:Subregions of Asia. We have some politically disputed regions there already and it works fine. Whether we put it into Turkey/Iran/Iraq/Syria as a standard subcategory or with "see also" is more a matter of taste than anything else.

I would favor such a solution due to the fact that political and natural boundaries are not coincident everywhere, so we need a "by region" scheme in any case.

In a nutshell, "Kurdistan" categories would run alongside, not within the "by country" tree and connect to it at the appropriate points.

NB: we have a similar problem when "[Stuff] of Turkey" as soon as we start using continent categories. There is simply no proper reason for deleting "Kurdistan" categories, at least not when we have regional categories.

(Politically I'd say that the more pressing problem is the Brythonic nationalists who want to treat the Norman regions as "countries", which they are clearly and empathically NOT. See e.g. Category:Culture of Jersey.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Kurdistan on its own is a political and controversial term and refers to an "aspired country" with ambiguous borders. It is not even one of the states with limited recognition so we have no reason to treat it like one.
You cannot treat it the same way as non-controversial regions such as w:Caucasus (Region between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea), w:Mesopotamia (toponym for the area of the Tigris–Euphrates river system (Most maps of Kurdistan you find on google would overlap Mesopotamia some maps I randomly found: [1])) etc which are more or less defined. Borders of Kurdistan are defined by the next person defining them. What would be the goal of this category?
However, there is a valid political entity "Iraqi Kurdistan" (Autonomous region of Iraq) with defined borders and likewise "Province of Kurdistan" in Iran again with defined borders. These can be tagged accordingly.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 13:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear Dysmorodrepanis, dont waste your time. Takabeg, Reality006 and とある白い猫 are Turks. Therefore they know the best(!) about Kurds, Kurdish and Kurdistan.Some of them wants to delete categories of Kurdistan, some of them wants to change codes of Kurdish wikipedia etc... For example, this file. If you show a map of Kurdistan, they will say; its not correct and there is no source. If you show sources. They say: Thats Kurdish claim. In short, you can never come to an agreement. Whatever, i love you guys (: --Gomada (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
As long as I know, Reality006 is a Turkish, I and とある白い猫 are not Turkish. Anyway, comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course (: Ziya Gökalp wasnt a Turkish either. But, he was the creator of Turkish nationalism. This is a result of assimilation. I dont need to discuss your ideas ;) Gomada (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
You are under the impression that being Turkish somehow nullifies any argument from people. This isn't how commons operates. We do not discriminate people based on their nationalities. I kindly ask you to adjust your tone. ---- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 22:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like to remind everyone here that neither racism nor personal attacks are acceptable on Commons. Please treat each other with respect. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, the fact that the political boundaries are disputed doesn't matter. As you will note we have already an established system for treating this and similar cases. We can simply use this for "Kurdistan" (as we would use it for "Mesopotamia" which is neither part of Iraq nor of Iran but both, or "Central Asia", or "South Asia" which is basically the former British India etc., or "Yucatán Peninsula" which is Mexico and Belize and Honduras,or "Cyprus" and "Korea" which are 2 states in one region). No political claims are made, NPOV is maintained, as is usability. Remember: The user is the most important person on Commons, and we cannot know how users call the region in question.
Instead of clumsy constructs like "Iraqi Kurdistan" we can then simply use "Iraq" and "Kurdistan" categories. Take for example File:Ramphastos vitellinus -Palmari Reserve -8a.jpg, it has three locality categories, two of which are "bird" categories. (If we had "Javarí River" or "Palmari Reserve" categories, there would be there too BTW)
You will note that it is in the national category "Birds of Brazil", and in the regional category "Birds of the Amazon Basin". Brazil is a country. The Amazon Basin is not a country but simply an important region (for birds).
In the contested case, the national category would be "Birds of Turkey", and the regional category "Birds of Kurdistan". This way, all users can find it regardless their politicalbent. And as I said, this is the only thing that counts after all has been sad and done: whether users can locate the content from every angle they could reasonably seek it.
TL;DR: this works for "Palestine" categories and there is no reason it would not work for "Kurdistan" categories. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Dysmorodrepanis for a clever point of a view. I fully understand Gomada's frustration in this discussion. --MikaelF (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurdistan DefinitionEdit

Forgive me but your analogy is full of misconceptions and incorrect assumptions IMHO.
  1. Unnecessarily controversial: First of you are completely disregarding the controversies surrounding the category. "Kurdistan" can refer to "Where Kurds happen to live" or can refer to an "Aspired Country". By using this category you are marking any territory or places where a species lives as Kurdish soil. Commons categories should not be used for such original research or fantasy. This isn't territory grab phase of the board game Risk.
  2. Borders not defined: There is an agreed definition on where Yucatán peninsula, Mesopotamia, Korea, Amazon Basin begins and ends. These are geographic regions unlike Kurdistan which is an ethnic region with purposefully vaguely defined borders. By definition borders can include Istanbul or even Munich depending on how one wishes to define them. This is not a good way to categorize any topic aside from content that is relevant to the term "Kurdistan" directly which could include flags and maps and other similar content.
  3. Not how pages are categorized normally: That is more like referring to New Mexico with New and Mexico. Iraqi Kurdistan is a valid political entity (autonomous region) and is a sub division of Iraq unlike Kurdistan. Tagging Iraqi Kurdistan content with Iraq would be redundant as that is the root category. This would be more like tagging stuff in "Michigan" with a "United States".
  4. Not a [single] political entity: "Palestine" is a valid political entity with partial recognition. There is a Palestinian parliament and government etc. In the case of "Kurdistan" not only is there no such political structure but you would have (at best) four (or more) different independent (of each other) political representation in four (or more) different countries.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 13:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
As stated above and higher up, until we have an agreed definition of Kurdistan and a formal reference for its boundaries, all categories that are related to the undefined Kurdistan territory make no sense. --Foroa (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)