Steve,
It's the TITLE that needs changing, i.e., the NAME of the topic.
The topic is not the point of view. The territory is not the map.
I suggest:
* leave the raw notes on Metawikipedia or on someone's Wikipedia talk page
* create an article with a bland name like [[Violence against Kurds]].
Didn't we settle the article names for Middle-eastern violence with article titles like [[Israeli attacks on Arabs]] or [[Terrorism against Israel]]?
The point is: we need to find a NAME for the topic with does not *in itself* present a point of view about the topic.
For example, the US "invaded" Afghanistan a couple of years ago. Whether that invasion was IN FACT an "attack" on a sovereign state is a debatable point. So the article was renamed "US invasion of Afghanistan".
Why? Because everyone, regardless of their POV, could agree that US forces did "invade", i.e., enter the borders without permission. When Saudi Arabia allowed US forces to use bases on their territory, no one said the US "invaded" Saudi Arabia.
The "US invasion of Afghanistan" article did discuss the legality or illegality on the invasion of Afghanistan, without coming to any conclusion that would justify the Wikipedia calling it an "attack on Afghanistan".
Please, Zoe, Steve, et al., let's try to find neutral-sounding names for articles.
Uncle Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Stevertigo [mailto:stevertigo@attbi.com]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 9:47 PM
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Turks and Kurds
Zoe: "Although I agree that the subject deserves an article, any article with this title cannot be NPOV."
Your statements although brief, contain usually at least one assumption. 1. That the subject being 'deserving' of an article is even close to being in question, and that 2. such a thing cannot be NPOV, simply because its controversial. It is what it is. Turks in the late 90s killed far more Kurds than the Serb "Christians" were killing Croat Muslims. The US sanctioned, supported, and suppressed it. It further has relevance because the US reportedly was in the process of selling out the Kurds to Turkey again, striking a deal to allow Turkey dominion over certain sections in Northern Iraq that border Turkey.
As for Danny's assertion, which Jim seconded, that this is no place for notes, I don't see how some structured notes are any different than an article in formation. There are two ways of sculpting something: By building up, (like clay) or breaking down (like chipping a marble). Im speaking as an artist, of course, but the analogy is valid, I think. Of course, provided work gets done to article-ize the page. Hence, time, which I did not have in abundance, while I was taking notes. Not that I dont understand the usual concerns.