| Revision as of 00:10, 22 May 2007 editGarzo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,611 edits →Unofficial capital: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:11, 22 May 2007 edit undoとある白い猫 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,796 edits →Unofficial capitalNext edit → | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| :::::I don't see it written anywhere, but 'Do not use Misplaced Pages guidelines as weapons' should be written somewhere. Verifiability policy is there to make sure that article text is reasonably supported, not as a licence to delete material. I have alraedy stated, for the exact same reason you give, that another wording that represents the importance of the city to the Kurds of Turkey could be found. However, one user continued to delete the entire statement after being asked to discuss it first. The fact that we have had an editor here who believes that they can edit without discussion led me to revert the edit and lock the page. I certainly didn't use 'admin tools to gain advantage', simply enforce an old page image that isn't mine and isn't how I want it to be. I do not believe that the link to armeniapedia.org is a good one, but its deletion along with that of a statement about the city's importance to Kurds clearly suggest biased editing to me. The proper spelling of that airbase should be used — so move the article to the right name first (see ] and ] and choose the best link)! The list of people could also be cleaned up. My issue is this: that this was all done mixed with clearly biased edits. It is a fact that Diyarbakır was historically important to Armenians, and that it's currently important to Kurds. I would like to see the non-controversial edits made alongside those that stress the importance of the city to various different peoples rather than deleting them. I certainly do not agree to such a deletionist agenda as you suggest should be employed: how is community consensus to be reached if their documents keep disappearing? Can we be a little more constructive? — ] 00:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | :::::I don't see it written anywhere, but 'Do not use Misplaced Pages guidelines as weapons' should be written somewhere. Verifiability policy is there to make sure that article text is reasonably supported, not as a licence to delete material. I have alraedy stated, for the exact same reason you give, that another wording that represents the importance of the city to the Kurds of Turkey could be found. However, one user continued to delete the entire statement after being asked to discuss it first. The fact that we have had an editor here who believes that they can edit without discussion led me to revert the edit and lock the page. I certainly didn't use 'admin tools to gain advantage', simply enforce an old page image that isn't mine and isn't how I want it to be. I do not believe that the link to armeniapedia.org is a good one, but its deletion along with that of a statement about the city's importance to Kurds clearly suggest biased editing to me. The proper spelling of that airbase should be used — so move the article to the right name first (see ] and ] and choose the best link)! The list of people could also be cleaned up. My issue is this: that this was all done mixed with clearly biased edits. It is a fact that Diyarbakır was historically important to Armenians, and that it's currently important to Kurds. I would like to see the non-controversial edits made alongside those that stress the importance of the city to various different peoples rather than deleting them. I certainly do not agree to such a deletionist agenda as you suggest should be employed: how is community consensus to be reached if their documents keep disappearing? Can we be a little more constructive? — ] 00:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| {{cquote| | |||
| * Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. | |||
| * Editors adding or restoring material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. | |||
| * The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it. | |||
| ::::-- from ''']''' an ] on the English Misplaced Pages}} | |||
| ::::Verifiability policy is a policy (indeed not a license) to delete material not based on reliable sources. Weather you agree with the official policy or not to be blunt is none of my concern. I am trying to be reasonable and was not blanking out the entire article since most of it isn't sourced. I merely removed two questionable sentences. | |||
| ::::*You are welcome to propose such a wording to replace the "kurdistan capital" thing based on a ]. Since you haven't done that you really have no reason to keep those statements in the article that are seemingly advocating "Kurdish separatist propaganda" which you agree are problematic. I am not going to offer you an alternative wording because I do not have any reliable sources for it. Kurdish people were a nomadic people so it is unlikely for any city or settlement to have a cultural significance mythologically IMHO. | |||
| ::::*I have constructively added {{tl|fact}} tags at the end of "reasonable" text w/o proper citation which was reverted. I have added a {{tl|weasel}} pointing out an existing problem throughout the article, which was reverted. I have constructively removed an out of place external link, which was reverted. I have constructively moved a gallery page to commons, which was reverted. All which have been done in multiple edits. It is hard to be constructive when blanket reverts are happening. You could have just "restored" the parts you didn't agree in its removal but you chose to revert and in the immediate aftermath protect. That is hardly constructive now is it? | |||
| ::::--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 13:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:11, 22 May 2007
 | Turkey B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Kurdistan B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
 Archives |
|---|
|
Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 20:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Archives: |
Comment
When mentioning PKK, it should be provided as an important information that it is a terrorist organization which is world-wide recognized by international organizations such as the EU. The activities of PKK cannot be named as 'guerilla war', these activities are constituted of terrorist activities.
- We follow simple guidelines of Misplaced Pages the 💕. http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kursarta (talk • contribs)
- Yes, and it says it can be mentioned that it is considered a terrorist organization by many people and countries.. Baristarim 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Which, it is by the way :) Baristarim 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Whilst sources should be properly shown.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kursarta (talk • contribs)
- Yes, "whilst" the sources are properly shown, just go to BBC website, type "PKK" in the search box and you got thousands of sources - just couple of clicks away!! :)) Baristarim 21:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Unofficial capital
We have already had this discussion here. I'm not happy with the undiscussed removal of comments about Kurds and Armenians from this article, as that shows a clearly biased approach. It is a demonstrably true that Diyarbakır is an important city to Kurds now, and to Armenians in the past. I would hope that those who wish to change such sensitive parts of this article would be able to discuss their changes. — Gareth Hughes 16:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Objections were raised there and were actively ignored. The sources provided (, , ) do not fall under what we consider as a reliable source. While Britannica is reliable, it makes no mention of the capital claim . -- Cat 16:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- As the centre of Kurdish activity within Turkey, I think that 'unofficial capital' is not an unreasonable statement, the quality and availability of sources aside. The removal of an Armenian link at the same time, though, suggests that the approach is biased towards Turkish nationalism rather than a real quibble over sources — questionable motives disguised behind administrative labels. — Gareth Hughes 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Armeniapedia does not meet verifiability and reliability criteria we expect in our sources, it is a wiki anyone can edit. A bias towards Turkish nationalism in this case is only in your mind. -- Cat 17:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Unofficial or official; Capital is the center of the government of a country.In this case; on which country, we are discussing, also which government? Where is "Turkish kurdistan", when declared its independency?......Diyarbekir may be called as "the capital of the Kurdish culture",etc.
- Armenipedia.org,as Cat stated is not a reliable source. Regards.Must. 17:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well I disagree with the statement that Diyarbakir is an unofficial Capital because since Kurdistan isn't an official country, it shouldn't have its own capital as it seems unreliable and I disagree with personal propagandas and most of the sources aren't verifiable..----Cometstyles 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- As the centre of Kurdish activity within Turkey, I think that 'unofficial capital' is not an unreasonable statement, the quality and availability of sources aside. The removal of an Armenian link at the same time, though, suggests that the approach is biased towards Turkish nationalism rather than a real quibble over sources — questionable motives disguised behind administrative labels. — Gareth Hughes 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with something like "it is a hub for Kurdish activities in Turkey"? Or indeed "for Kurdish culture in Turkey"? - Mark 11:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is no problem on my end if there is a verifiable source that suggests the city is somehow significant for Kurdish culture (weather its folklore or some other reason). The article can and should explain why the city is culturally significant for the Kurdish people provided that there is a source for it. For instance Mecca is indeed a culturally significant city for Muslims. It however is not the Capital of the Muslim faith. -- Cat 12:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the debate is over one sentence in this article, why were the last few edits more widespread? I wouldn't mind replacing 'unofficial capital' with any other wording that emphasized the importance of the city to Kurds in Turkey. I would stand up to any attempt to erase comments about anything not Turkish about the city, as that is clearly biased. To encourage editors to use the talk page to discuss their edits first, the article will be locked for a week. — Gareth Hughes 22:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Anything not sourced can and will be removed from articles as per WP:V (see it in a nutshell). I generaly do not bother with {{fact}} tagging and remove content directly, see how I "mercilessly" move non-cited content on Republic protests article to the talk page. Removal of non-cited content is encouraged by notable wikipedia editors. I can name some if you like.
- I consider your use of admin tools to gain advantage in your preferred version to be of poor taste.
- -- Cat 14:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- You know, there is something that puzzles me with your protection summary. You suggested that the reason was "undiscussed, controversial editing" on your protection summary. I would think calling a city the "unofficial 'capital' of a non-existent aspirational country" would be at least a tiny bit controversial. I do not consider any other change any bit controversial.
- The proper Turkish spelling of the airbase is definitely not controversial.
- Moving image galleries to commons is also definitely not controversial and in fact is encouraged. That is the point of commons. There was no reason to remove the link to the commons page.
- The dual line <div> list of people is also definitely not controversial.
- {{fact}} tagging of material isn't generally encouraged, instead the more encouraged method is removing the unsourced material until a source can be found. If the material covered is obvious, finding a source should be trivial.
- The external link to ottomanhistorians.com was out of place and does not belong to this article it can be a source/external link on Abdüssamed Diyarbekrî (whoever he is)
- armeniapedia.org is a random wiki out there and hence is not a reliable source and does not add anything useful to this article. It should be removed unless you can make a convincing argument on how it is relevant.
- -- Cat 14:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- You know, there is something that puzzles me with your protection summary. You suggested that the reason was "undiscussed, controversial editing" on your protection summary. I would think calling a city the "unofficial 'capital' of a non-existent aspirational country" would be at least a tiny bit controversial. I do not consider any other change any bit controversial.
- If the debate is over one sentence in this article, why were the last few edits more widespread? I wouldn't mind replacing 'unofficial capital' with any other wording that emphasized the importance of the city to Kurds in Turkey. I would stand up to any attempt to erase comments about anything not Turkish about the city, as that is clearly biased. To encourage editors to use the talk page to discuss their edits first, the article will be locked for a week. — Gareth Hughes 22:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see it written anywhere, but 'Do not use Misplaced Pages guidelines as weapons' should be written somewhere. Verifiability policy is there to make sure that article text is reasonably supported, not as a licence to delete material. I have alraedy stated, for the exact same reason you give, that another wording that represents the importance of the city to the Kurds of Turkey could be found. However, one user continued to delete the entire statement after being asked to discuss it first. The fact that we have had an editor here who believes that they can edit without discussion led me to revert the edit and lock the page. I certainly didn't use 'admin tools to gain advantage', simply enforce an old page image that isn't mine and isn't how I want it to be. I do not believe that the link to armeniapedia.org is a good one, but its deletion along with that of a statement about the city's importance to Kurds clearly suggest biased editing to me. The proper spelling of that airbase should be used — so move the article to the right name first (see Pirinclik and Pirinçlik and choose the best link)! The list of people could also be cleaned up. My issue is this: that this was all done mixed with clearly biased edits. It is a fact that Diyarbakır was historically important to Armenians, and that it's currently important to Kurds. I would like to see the non-controversial edits made alongside those that stress the importance of the city to various different peoples rather than deleting them. I certainly do not agree to such a deletionist agenda as you suggest should be employed: how is community consensus to be reached if their documents keep disappearing? Can we be a little more constructive? — Gareth Hughes 00:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
| “ |
|
” |
- Verifiability policy is a policy (indeed not a license) to delete material not based on reliable sources. Weather you agree with the official policy or not to be blunt is none of my concern. I am trying to be reasonable and was not blanking out the entire article since most of it isn't sourced. I merely removed two questionable sentences.
- You are welcome to propose such a wording to replace the "kurdistan capital" thing based on a reliable source. Since you haven't done that you really have no reason to keep those statements in the article that are seemingly advocating "Kurdish separatist propaganda" which you agree are problematic. I am not going to offer you an alternative wording because I do not have any reliable sources for it. Kurdish people were a nomadic people so it is unlikely for any city or settlement to have a cultural significance mythologically IMHO.
- I have constructively added {{fact}} tags at the end of "reasonable" text w/o proper citation which was reverted. I have added a {{weasel}} pointing out an existing problem throughout the article, which was reverted. I have constructively removed an out of place external link, which was reverted. I have constructively moved a gallery page to commons, which was reverted. All which have been done in multiple edits. It is hard to be constructive when blanket reverts are happening. You could have just "restored" the parts you didn't agree in its removal but you chose to revert and in the immediate aftermath protect. That is hardly constructive now is it?
- -- Cat 13:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Verifiability policy is a policy (indeed not a license) to delete material not based on reliable sources. Weather you agree with the official policy or not to be blunt is none of my concern. I am trying to be reasonable and was not blanking out the entire article since most of it isn't sourced. I merely removed two questionable sentences.