Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 December 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 22[edit]

Kurdish Genocide/Kurdish genocide → Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey[edit]

The result of the debate was Disambig. The target article discusses the dispute about whether genocide is the correct term. Some users typing this phrase would be looking for this page. As such, these redirects match the Dubya example in the When should we delete a redirect? section. However, genocide has also been used to describe the Al-Anfal Campaign. Therefore, I have converted Kurdish genocide to a disambig and redirected Kurdish Genocide to Kurdish genocide. Any NPOV issues regarding whether genoicide is an appropriate term should be addressed in the disambig articles. -- JLaTondre 00:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per the logic behind CSD g10, both redirects should be deleted. Cat out 00:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - G10 "Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile")." I'm not seeing it. Kurdish genocide is a likely search term, and the redirect takes the reader to a legitimate page that talks about Kurdish genocide. Tom Harrison Talk 01:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is no speedy deletion, and not about attacking, but NPOV and verifiability. Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey" has nothing to do with "genocide", or a non-verified "Kurdish genocide". -tembelejderha 20:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Was just about to say what the reader above said! Open up the editing... and the writing has already been done for me, thanks! Just need to be quicker to be the first one for next time.... Mathmo Talk 01:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - couldn't "kurdish genocide" refer to genocide of Kurds in nations other than Turkey? --- RockMFR 02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It can. there is no recognized genocide in turkey against the kurds. If we are to call every human rights issue a genocide there will be awful lot of redirects. Every war is a genocide right? --Cat out 03:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Tom on the G10 thing. I too think that these redirects don't qualify as attack pages, but there certainly is another problem. I believe they are violating WP:V, since it can't be verified that a genocide really occurred. To be honest i don't really know whether it happened, it may or may not be true. But if we are gonna refer this as a fact, than it must be verified. The policy clearly states that the content must be verified, not true. RockMFR has a point though, "kurdish genocide" could refer to some other genocide of Kurds in nations other than Turkey. In that case the redirects would be POV, another reason to delete. But if they are talking about something that happened in Turkey, they must verify it. The article contains some references to the works of certain academics. I find it very hard to accept them as reliable sources, since i can name at least 100 same level-reliable sources claiming the opposite. As a matter of a fact, i strongly believe that the word "Genocide" itself is a POV and should be removed from Wikipedia. I am a tr.wiki admin and i can proudly say that we stopped defining people as terrorists and limited the use of "Category:Teror" to the conceptual articles and also prohibited the use of "Category:Terrorists". I believe the same should apply here. The history should be "handled" as neutrally as possible.--Vito Genovese 03:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tom. Even if WP doesn't have an article on the (alleged) incident itself that article contains the information one searching for "Kurdish Genocide" would be looking for. When an article is started (or found) about what has been going on in Iraq etc, then we could convert them into disambiguation pages (for the alleged genocide in Turkey, see X, for the alleged genocide by Saddam, see Y...). //Dirak 10:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or how about the Japanese genocide of American culture with Anime? I am sure I can find an adequately biased source or two. Sarcasm aside, the point is we cant afford to use the word genocide so... casually. --Cat out 13:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese genocide of American culture with Anime? I thought it was the other way around. Seriously, I think any likely search term is a legitimate redirect. Maybe it should go to a different page, or to a disambiguation page, but it shouldn't go to "No results found." Tom Harrison Talk 14:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is such a redirect (American Genocide/Japanese Genocide) to anime is unacceptable. --Cat out 21:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Native American genocide Tom Harrison Talk 18:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That redirect is also very problematic. --Cat out 11:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biased source? I thought the source I used when I wrote that article was an academic source... ergo it merits being mentioned. //Dirak 14:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The mere idea that this search will not contain 803,001 hits (instead of the current 803,000), is laughable. NikoSilver 16:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This search returns pages about attacks of Saddam Huseyin on Kurds in Iraq. Again not related with "Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey". -tembelejderha 20:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just for the fun of seeing a certain wiki-stalker chuck another fit. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikistalker? How did you guys turn up here so fast? I hope that the closing admin takes note of the commentary above et al. There has been a huge debate and edit wars in another article, and I really would like to know how some users got wind of this article. Moreover, please watch out for certain information distortion that is taking place: "kurdish genocide" -wikipedia returns 57,100 hits [1], and nearly all of them refer to Iraq, not Turkey. There is no reason why this should be redirected or disambiged to HR of Kurds in TR article, which was just created after an AfD of the Kurdish Genocide (Turkey) article created by User:Dirak. It is still a mess with only two paragraphs. At best, this article should redirect to "Human Rights in Iraq", where it rightly belongs. Baristarim 21:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weather the term is used or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We do not create a redirect for every term. It is highly problematic to refer to every human rights issue as "genocide". --Cat out 21:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -tembelejderha 00:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, anything that prevents yet another Turkish POV battleground being created is a good thing. Proto::► 15:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that rationale disturbing. --Cat out 11:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per numerous arguments above. --- RockMFR 15:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Genocide is used all to frequently in place of oppression (political, economic, cultural, etc.). The fact of Kurds being oppressed by the dominant culture in the countries they live in is established (to a greater or lesser degree). But to go to the next level and suggest that a systematic extermination of a people (my understanding of genocide) did/is taking place should require more than proof of oppression. Also, the point has been made, that if kept, this actually points to the lesser of the 2 biggest oppressors. Happy New Year (assuming we're using the same calendar ;-) --RCEberwein | Talk 18:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2006_December_22&oldid=1138574099"