Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ossetia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Zandweb, I appreciate the effort you put into this, but don't you think Wikipedia:WikiProject Ossetia is a little bit POV? It's like me creating "WikiProject Kurdistan" and adding "Kurdistan stubs" to articles like Diyarbakır Province, Urmia, and Iraq War. Just something to think about. —Khoikhoi 03:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Khoi

The Goals of this WP are attentioned in it and so you can read here:

Goals

WikiProject Ossetia was created to help those interested in improving all of the Ossetian-related articles on Wikipedia to find a particular area in which they are interested in working. Our goals are as following:

• Present a realistic view of
  Ossetian people
  in the world.
• Make Wikipedia a primary and reliable source of Ossetia related information.
• To improve the quality and quantity of Ossetia related articles, including improving Ossetia to featured article status.

If you saw any part of this Goals are mentioned:

Goals

WikiProject Ossetia was created to POV User:Zandweb's Idea ...

then you can say it is POV.

If you think any of those mentioned Goals are POV you are free to moderate it, but before that I suggest you to read at least two more WPs and their Goals.

If you want to create any WP yu can read [1]. Fortunately I will not remove all stubs related to its articles like this: [2] / [3] / [4], and I will not stimulate or persuade someone to do like these: [5] / [6]. Because these are exactly POV and POV organize according to chauvinism and bigotry.

ZANDWEBT

Zandweb, you must understand that I have nothing against Ossetians or Iranians in general. Myself, along with another user even made Iranian peoples Wikipedia's 1000th featured article a few months ago. My concern is basically the title. The idea that North & South Ossetians should unify to become one country (or entity) is a POV, and I don't think it's out job as Wikipedians to take that side, or the other side for that matter. I think a more neutral title would be "WikiProject Ossetians" or "WikiProject Ossetian". However, compare to this scenerio:

I decide to add Arabia-stubs to Ahvaz and other Khuzestan articles, Kurdistan-stubs to Sanandaj and other articles, and make most articles about places and people from south-eastern Iran part of WikiProject Balochistan. By doing all of this I am effectively Balkanizing Iran—WikiProject style. Tell me, would you accept that?

Also please understand that I reverted you simply because the articles in question were not stubs (I am not an anti-Ossetian). Anyways, I would like to hear your input on this, as I am afraid some people will propose your creations for deletion if some sort of compromise is not made. Khoda-hafez, doosteh man. —Khoikhoi 05:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Khoikhoi, try to read the article about

Slavik IVANOV

22:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Khoikhoi, If you think a more neutral title would be "WikiProject Ossetians" or "WikiProject Ossetian" you can take part in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ossetia as a Participant then it is possible for you by using Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ossetia/Voting with regards to all Participants, give your suggestion and reason. This is not my own project it is a Wikiproject.

ZANDWEBT

I believe there is no harm in putting a page for South Ossetia as there is for any other piece of land claiming to be sovereign. Whether it is recongized is an issue of individual countries. Take Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica---also known as Pridnestrovie, Transdnistria or the Transdniestr Republic. In a similar situation as South Ossetia, it has claimed independence from Moldova after a civil war ended in 1992. Its main aim is to be reunited with its ethnic Russian brethren in the mainland. The debate over whether it really wants Independence however, is seemingly obvious. Initially it wants recognized independence, because this would allow it to pursue re-unification with Russia, with a reduced risk that Georgia would use the military to try and hold on to it. My point is that recognition in itself violates viewpoint neutrality. Secondly i commend the article but question the quotes by Senator John McCain and British Labour Party member Terry Davis, simply because they are not juxtaposed to other quotes that might hold a different viewpoint. If South Ossetia controls its own internal affairs independent of Tbilisi, controlling its own borders and citizenry then it is under international law a sovereign political entity--what some might call "internal sovereignty." Recognition, is complicated by the fact that nations (as opposed to states) have no say in the international political community, because states dont want to recognize pissing off others and detrimenting their more long standing and valuable relationships. I encourage you all to read a report on Pridnestrovie by the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty to understand why external recognition is a dubious criteria for classifying a state as independent. pabmd

Hello. The

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)