File talk:1946 Kurdistan et groupements Kurdes isolés.jpg

Claim by Orijentolog that this map "does not represent neither "Kurdistan" nor "Kurdish inhabited regions" [sic]

This map does not represent neither "Kurdistan" nor "Kurdish inhabited regions," it's an ideological fantasy of diasporic nationalists from 1946. Thus it should include only relevant categories: 1946 in Egypt (date, place), Kurdish nationalism (ideology). That's how similar issues are treated all around the region (Armenian, Azerbaijani, etc). --Orijentolog (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The map is clearly labelled as Kurdistan and described as such by multiple reliable sources. Your position is wholly untenable. GPinkerton (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No lies please, even in reliable sources it's treated as nationalistic fantasy. Here's a CIA map (right) which is quite realistic, now how can we treat two as the same? There are various other nationalistic and irredentist maps, and most are in proper categories. Labeling doesn't matter. --Orijentolog (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A fantasy of what? GPinkerton (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Fantasy of this, the same thing from the same times. And I see it's properly categorized, not under "Maps of Germany". --Orijentolog (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It is categorized under Category:Locator maps of Nazi Germany, so that disproves your silly argument. You have been told you have no consensus for your POV changes, so please, obtain consensus before implementing them, or refrain from attempting to force your opinion on the world. GPinkerton (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Your chosen example also isn't categorized as "fantasy map" as you appear to be claiming, so really your position is without logic or reason. GPinkerton (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Nazi Germany, not Germany. It means it has an ideological prefix. Don't think you'll achieve anything with "silly" insults and summary provoctions, you can not. Or with tu quoque attempts, like I'm one who is trying to put outdated fantasies in realistic categories. P.S. All nationalistic and irredentist maps are fantasies per se. --Orijentolog (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Nazi Germany is not a fantasy or an ideology but a fact. GPinkerton (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Greater Germanic Reich or Lebensraum is a fantasy, therefore it's under irredentist category. Not under "German inhabited regions." --Orijentolog (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

None of this proves anything except that your vandalism is unacceptable. Your claim that This map does not represent neither "Kurdistan" nor "Kurdish inhabited regions," is laughable and there is no need to engage which such an incompetent and illogical position as yours. GPinkerton (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Your claims are laughable, bear in mind that both subjects, Kurds & Geography of Iran, are highly familiar for me (I'm an author of those articles), therefore accusations of some "ethnic POV" is truly nonsensical and contradictory. You know, some people use Commons and Wikipedia for promoting free knowledge, not archaic ideologies. --Orijentolog (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. There will be no need for the state-sponsored denialism so frequently espoused in the Middle East. GPinkerton (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@De728631: As I told you, "other party want both tag and discussion to be removed." He got warned by admin A.Savin not to engage in further edit wars, but he's still reverting and desperately wants this explanation to be deleted. Also, accusing me of "hosting ethnic POV" is heavy WP:PERSONAL ATTACK. --Orijentolog (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

And G.Pinkerton was blocked for a day by A. Savin. De728631 (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

And Orijentalog was repeatedly warned by both myself and admins and carried on editwarring and vandalizing regardless. GPinkerton (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Third-party verification of credibility

I have no problem that third party decide about verification, i.e. should it be tagged as incorrect ({{Inaccurate-map-disputed}}) or not. My three points are:
(1) Text above.
(2) Easy comparison of disputable maps with realistic ones:

• 
  Disputable map from 1946
• 
  Simplified disputable map
• 
  CIA map
• 
  Simplified CIA map
• 
  Another CIA map
• 
  Yet another CIA map

We're not speaking of 10 km or 100 km of incorrectness, but almost 1000 km.
(3) All large Wikipedia projects use CIA and similar maps, for describing both Kurdistan and Kurdish inhabited regions. --Orijentolog (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Even on the map Orijentolog is claiming as quite realistic, the mapmakers have written "Boundary representation is not necessarily authoritative". There is nothing implicitly "more realistic" about any of these maps; all of them are legacy political instruments from the 20th century. The implicit assumption that the CIA is somehow authoritative for Middle Eastern geography is quite bizarre; the reason there are many of them on Commons is because they are public domain in the United States, not because they are automatically reliable. They are not even consistent. Some, as you have demonstrated, are very like the map you have been vandalizing. Others conflict dramatically with one another. The CIA's maps of Syria in 2011 show a dramatically different area of Kurdistan in Syria to their 1992 map (reprinted 2003). All have disclaimers urging the user not to assume boundaries are official, precise, or official in the view of the US Government. Orijentolog's claim that This map does not represent neither "Kurdistan" nor "Kurdish inhabited regions" is obviously a falsehood. All the maps Orijentolog has added to this talk page prove the point: the part of the world where Kurds commonly live is approximately shown over a large area of the Middle East, just as in this map. The size of this area varies from map to map; all are approximations and can also vary depending on the mapmaker's definition of "Kurd". In this map, Luristan is counted as part of Kurdistan because that was a fashionable opinion at the time of its manufacture. The idea that this somehow justifies that absurdist declaration that Thus it should include [sic] only relevant categories: 1946 in Egypt (date, place), Kurdish nationalism (ideology) is nothing other than a declaration of intent to disrupt Commons with vandalism, a fact bourn out by Orijentolog's subsequent and repeated actions. This vandalism on the part of Orijentolog seeks to remove the indisputably pertinent categories Category:Maps of Kurdistan (this file is a map of Kurdistan, and a famous one at that), Category:Kurdish inhabited regions and Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions (this file is map of the Kurdish inhabited regions and is explicitly labelled as such), and Category:Old maps of Kurdistan (this file is clearly an old map of Kurdistan, and is explicitly labelled as such and described as such by multiple reliable sources. Orijentalog's fatuous denials of these facts has been nothing other than disruptive. GPinkerton (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

So what, you're claiming that CIA maps are incorrect? That West Azerbaijan, Lorestan, Ilam, Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad, northern Khuzestan, northern Bushehr, northern Fars provinces are inhabited mostly by Kurds, as this maps shows? There's no single reliable source which back such claims. You used Maria T. O'Shea's 2004 book Trapped Between Map and Reality: Geography and Perceptions of Kurdistan with one cherry-picked sentence in file's description to prove its credibility, but this is what author actually says inside:

• page 150: In the 1940s, the first substantial indigenous cartographic attempts came from Kurdistan, the most detailed of which was compiled by a Kurdish group in Egypt in 1947. It is this map that survived, barely altered, until today in the form of several widely accepted Kurdish propaganda maps. The map is claimed as the result of ‘impartial’ academic research, according to the accompanying notes, which attempt to justify the results on very thinly stretched premises.

• page 153: At the outset, it is admitted that the map is not the result of original study or on the spot investigations. It also adopts the style of hatching the areas about which they are uncertain, thereby giving the map a pseudonomous air of objectivity. The presence of Kurds in any given area is only indicated where it is expressly stated by a trustworthy authority,’ state the authors. The truth of the matter is, then, that this map consists mostly of the mental spatial conceptions of certain areas...

• page 155: Many of the suppositions on which this map is based are of doubtful veracity, and merit further analysis. They do outline many of the remaining difficulties in creating an ethnographic map, although they show little understanding of blurred and permeable ethnic boundaries. (...) Within every set of parameters may be found dissenters and exceptions. For example, the Lurs, an ethnic group living to the south of the Kurds in Iran, are presented by the authors of the Cairo map as ‘dilute’ Kurds who would probably wish to become part of a Kurdish state. It is possible that some Lurs may feel closer to Kurds than to Persians, but it is equally possible that the opposite be true. The Cairo cartographers also include a large part of the traditional Bakhtiari lands within Kurdistan, an inclusion that the text does not attempt to justify. The hatched areas that include the Mediterranean and those areas by the Persian Gulf inhabited by the Arabs of Khuzistan, are inexplicably attached to Kurdistan, and represent a cynical attempt to provide sea access. No real justification is given in the text for these additions, but it is acknowledged that sea access is desirable for Kurdistan.

• page 155: Despite its tenuous background of research and its age, this map, admittedly usually without the access to the Persian Gulf, continues to be reproduced by many organizations as Kurdistan. The naivety of the notes accompanying the original is touching, yet their tone and content also appear startlingly representative of contemporary indigenous commentaries. At least this map adopted the convention of hatching the more extreme spatial excesses of Kurdish claims, a convention largely abandoned by modern Kurdish cartographers.

• page 156: That ‘all maps are abstractions of reality’ is particularly salient in the case of maps of Kurdistan. There is no agreed reality to represent, yet maps of Kurdistan are presented as the representation of something more than Kurdish nationalists’ ambitions. Since the 1946 Cairo map, many maps of Kurdistan have been produced by Kurds and their sympathizers, yet none adequately explain or justify their methodology. Few maps claim solely to be ethnographic maps showing where Kurds live, as this brief would not produce the immediately recognizable ‘boomerang’ outline that has become a staple of the Kurdish nationalist movement. No one map is accepted by all Kurds, nor even by Kurdish political groups, although they are all share grandiose territorial claims. These maps of Greater Kurdistan have not been used in any negotiations with the governments of host states. All maps of Kurdistan are propaganda maps, yet this suggests to most a map that is ‘untrue, evil, or salacious’. This is undeserved, as while Kurdistan may exist via its inhabitants’ perceptions, its potential for realization is unknown. The maps of Kurdistan depict a wish-fulfilment of extreme Kurdish nationalism.

Author above backs everything I said: it was produced in Egypt in 1946/1947 by nationalist mythomaniacs, it's heavily outdated in cartographic and political sense, and it has nothing with Kuridstan as defined historical region, nor Kurdish inhabited regions. Plain and simple. Further manipulations, accusations, insults, intimidations (like absurd calling for global lock) won't work. Sorry. It would be better for you to apologize to the community for everything, as well as this obvious misrepresentation of map. --Orijentolog (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Your quotations prove only that you don't even understand what this map is. The map is a historical artefact. Yours (or anyone else's) opinions about whether it relfects a "true" Kurdistan are irrelevant. All your quotations prove the opposite of what you are claiming. You claim the map does not show Kurdistan, yet in all your quotations the map is clearly described as a map of Kurdistan. Further claims by you to contrary are just further expressions of your denial. You claim West Azerbaijan, Lorestan, Ilam, Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad, northern Khuzestan, northern Bushehr, northern Fars provinces are inhabited mostly by Kurds, as this maps shows? but this is clearly your own interpretation of the map, one which is false. The map makes no claims about "inhabited mostly by Kurds"; that's just your misinterpretation. Are you still claiming that Thus it should include only relevant categories: 1946 in Egypt (date, place), Kurdish nationalism (ideology). That's how similar issues are treated all around the region (Armenian, Azerbaijani, etc). Because if you are, you are still wrong, and you still don't understand the disruption you have wrought and and are wreaking. All you pointless talk of the map being "outdated has nothing to do with anything. The map was made in the 1940s. Why should it need to be updated? As you can see, nothing in the reliable sources to which I have frequently referred (and which, until now, you denied existed) contradicts what I have said, and everything you have quoted from that source in order to prove your bizarre claims that vandalising Commons is helpful disproves your lies and proves my point. The map shows Kurdistan, whether you or anyone else likes it or not, and removing relevant categories such as your have ben doing is simple vandalism, no question. GPinkerton (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Again straw man fallacy. I never said this map should be either updated, or deleted, just properly categorized. Mentioned provinces aren't inhabited mostly by Kurds, and that's not my own interpretation, that's an undeniable fact. Above-mentioned citations clearly confirm it, as well as that it shows archaic ideological fantasy, not Kurdistan as a historical region. There's no problem of opening Greater Kurdistan for this historic and other current irredentist concepts. Regarding repeated accusations of lying and vandalism, they speak about you, not me. --Orijentolog (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

If your idea of "properly categorized" involves removing all categories relevant to Kurdistan, as you have repeatedly suggested (no strawman, but a cold fact), then you clearly don't understand that your idea of "properly categorized" amounts to vandalism. Stripping relevant categories because the map doesn't suit your idea of what "should" be on a map of Kurdistan is POV vandalism, nothing more. GPinkerton (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

As for the pseudo-historical claims that the CIA is somehow the ultimate arbiter of cartographic truth, we need only turn to the standard academic sources to show that your cherry-picking and misconstrual is just that:

However, maps of Kurdistan produced by non-Kurds are used for illustrative purposes rather than political reasons and they are usually used in relation to an event that made it to the news. The extent of these maps and what they cover also vary. Nonetheless, whichever purpose they are used for and whatever their extent is, these maps recognised Kurds with varied place names and borders. A Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) map in 1992 represented the whole of Kurdistan, almost identical to the map used by Kurdish nationalists themselves, labelled ‘Map of Kurdish Lands’ (Map 6.3).

— Kaya, Zeynep N. (2020) Mapping Kurdistan: Territory, Self-Determination and Nationalism (1^st ed.), Cambridge University Press DOI: 10.1017/9781108629805.008. ISBN: 978-1-108-62980-5.

The idea that George H W Bush's government's idea of what and where Kurdistan is somehow more or less "accurate" than 1.) other CIA maps which show a different area, and 2.) other 20th century maps which also show a different area is nonsensical. GPinkerton (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Only currently existing relevant category is Kurdish nationalism, which I properly placed. The ones you inserted are irrelevant and misleading. There are numerous similar cases in category Irredentism and as I can see, most are properly placed under political-ideological parent categories, not under Maps of ethnic groups.

CIA maps are realistic because they have slight bordering differences comparing to other relevant maps which exist in encyclopedias, scholarly literature, and so on. Beside maps, numerous other academic publications, cited in Wikipedias, properly describe rough borders and inhabited areas. Zero of them confirm your claim about above-mentioned provinces. As I said before, I see no problem if some map shows 10 or even 100 km difference comparing to other, but this is something exceptional, almost 1000 km of error. Thus, using it for a defined historical region or inhabited areas is inappropriately. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I have not made any claims about any provinces, only you have done so. Other users do not agree with your POV [1], and state (as common sense dictates) that the file belongs in Category:Old maps of Kurdistan and Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions; you, by contrast, vandalized the file by removing these categories and then pushed your bizarre POV that "this map does not represent neither "Kurdistan" nor "Kurdish inhabited regions" [sic], following this odd behaviour up with the even weirder procedure of quoting from a book about maps of Kurdistan to prove that this map of Kurdistan is somehow not a map of Kurdistan. Surely you can see how illogical argument is not going to persuade anyone and doe not justify your vandalism? GPinkerton (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll repeat it once more: this map does not represent neither "Kurdistan" nor "Kurdish inhabited regions," it shows only an outdated political concept from 1940s. It's a fact confirmed by above-mentioned sources and all relevant literature. Analogically, extended maps of Greater Italy from 1940s don't show Italy or Italian inhabited regions. If you don't understand difference between these three, that's your own problem. --Orijentolog (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Repetition only reinforces the inescapable fact that your arguments are confused and wrong: maps of Italy are maps of Italy no matter how big Italy is on them. Displayed on this map is Kurdistan, regardless of its extent. The bizarre claim you are circularly repeating (this map does not represent neither "Kurdistan" nor "Kurdish inhabited regions") is simply wrong (and ungrammatical), and your edit warring proves you will go to any lengths to see your peculiar POV vandalism preserved. GPinkerton (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Really? Then try to put Map of Greater Italia under the Italian inhabited regions category. Just for the record, I'm not writing all this for you, others will decide which proposal is correct, as well as who's a bizarre vandal. --Orijentolog (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no such category, so your irrelevant comment is not grounded in reality. GPinkerton (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

There's differently named Maps of the Italians. Not change my point. --Orijentolog (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Unintelligible. GPinkerton (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)