Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish-Israeli relations (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This naturally does not preclude cleanup and merge proposals on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 00:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kurdish-Israeli relations

Kurdish-Israeli relations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Page discussed at a prior AFD, with a poor quality discussion. After deletion, DRV discussion resulted in overturning the decision for this relisting. While my nomination is technical, I opine below. GRBerry 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Contrary to some previously expressed opinions, sub-national units can have diplomatic relations worthy of encyclopedia coverage. For example, see Aroostook War, in which a single state of the United States declared war on a foreign country. However, in the case of this article, that whole issue is irrelevant, as the article is not really about diplomatic relations. The drafted article is about the history of interactions between Jews or modern Israel and Kurds/Kurdish parties. By text it is a sub-article of History of the Kurdish people, not in the diplomatic relations series. Coverage about the ten tribes story is already in Ten Lost Tribes#The Kurds and Origins of the Kurds#Connection with the Jewish People. All of the rest of this article could, and should, be similarly housed elsewhere. I don't see anything that is sufficiently well supported to just merge elsewhere. I therefore propose that we delete the article and redirect to History of the Kurdish people. GRBerry 13:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all of the above (sort of). I do believe that articles with such titles should only refer to the diplomatic relations of countries, or even better a different naming scheme should be used. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Rewrite. This article does not reflect its title at all. The content should be merged with appropriate articles, and the article should be stubified, if it should be kept. Deniz^T_C 14:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per nom and per following:

1 I think it should be made crystal clear that (un-)(semi-)official bi- or multilateral diplomatic relations can be had, and be encyclopedically notable, between any political entities, especially of such a quasi/de facto state as Iraqi Kurdistan, regardless of their affiliation with the United Nations and/or of general international recognition.

2 The current contents of the article should be split and merged:

2aKurdish-Israeli relations#Relations => Foreign relations of Israel#Iraqi Kurdistan

2b Kurdish-Israeli relations#The genetic bond claim between Kurds and Jews => Origins of the Kurds#Connection with the Jewish People.

2c Kurdish-Israeli relations#Jews in Kurdistan & Kurdish-Israeli relations#Kurds in Israel => History of the Kurdish people#Modern history of the Kurds

3 Redirect [[Kurdish-Israeli relations]] to Foreign relations of Israel#Iraqi Kurdistan

--Victor falk 15:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This page should be deleted as per reasons I mentioned on the previous nom (I will not repeat myself). There is nothing on the article that is worth a merge. There shouldn't be a leftover redirect as a redirect would serve to no purpose. This is neither a common way to referance "Kurdish history" or "Foreign relations of Israel" or a commons misspelling. A redirect would probably be controversial as well without the content. Redirects can be controversial no doubt but not for the purpose of being controversial only. -- Cat ^chi? 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep/rename into a title that does not allude to official inter-national foreign relations, something like Relations of Israel and Kurds or Ties between Israel and Kurds. As seen from the article, the topic is valid. The nominator themselves writes "The drafted article is about the history of interactions between Jews or modern Israel and Kurds/Kurdish parties." And I fail to see why this "history of interactions" cannot be in a separate article, since it is a clearly separate subject, with sufficient amount of verifiable information to fill a page. Mukadderat 18:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  Such an article would be fine but not with the current content (per nom). -- Cat ^chi? 18:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  What about just Kurdish-Israeli relations#Relations (point 2a in my proposal)?--Victor falk 19:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  Most of it is OR, remaining is not a Kurdish-Israeli relation. It may be an Iraq-Israeli relation (Iraqi Kurdistan and Israel, Iraqi Kurdistan is a part of Iraq according to everyone and themselves) and a seperate Turkey-Israeli (PKK never claimed to be a country. If it received any international help that can be talked about in Kurdistan Workers Party) relation. If it must be covered in seperate articles... there can be articles on PKK-Israel or KDP-Israel relations in a non A-B relations format. In a nutshell the relationship is between governing bodies and not "people" in general. -- Cat ^chi? 20:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  I see your point and I agree they are not "Kurdish-Israeli relations", but like you say between Iraqi Kurdistan and Israel; refining Mukkaderat's proposal above, what would you say about Ties between Israel and Iraqi Kurdistan? --Victor falk 20:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  Look, Iraq is a mess. This is a complicated manner. My statements aren't intended to have loaded meanings. Let me clarify some important points on the topic at hand. Agree/disagree if you will.

  • Between the first and second Iraq war involving the US, there were two factions (KDP and PUK) in control of North of Iraq due to a power vacuum as a result of the northern no-fly zone. These two factions were at a state of war between each other for most of the time and at times one or the other were nearly annihilated. Weather that constitutes as a defacto country or two different defacto countries or none at all may be up for debate. I dare not venture to close to that heated debate.
  • After the second Iraq war involving the US the entities in North of Iraq have merged and pledged loyalty to the Iraqi government and are recognised as an entity under the central government of Baghdad, Iraq. Neither PUK nor KDP ever claimed to be a country ever since. California is an entity under Washington DC's rule. Relations of California with other non-US entities (Countries, or what ever goes here) is always conducted through Washington DC and is a relation between US and the non-US entities (Countries, or what ever goes here). So the coverage should be likewise.

  I feel the coverage of "pre 1st Iraq war" era, "post 1st Iraq war & pre 2nd Iraq war" era, "post 2nd iraq war" era relationships should NOT be covered together. Dynamics of the eras are significantly different. Aside from "post 1st Iraq war & pre 2nd Iraq war era", there was/is no entity in Iraq that can have any relationship with any entity without using Baghdad. Not certain if "post 1st Iraq war & pre 2nd Iraq war era" can have real relations either and it may be better to cover the related material on a history-related article. Perhaps histories of KDP and PUK.

  -- Cat ^chi? 21:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There is a Kurdistan and a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Kurdistan. What is currently called Kurdistan is actually broken down into 3 regions/entities an automous entity called Iraqi Kurdistan; another entity is called Turkish Kurdistan and many in that region have aspirations for independence/separation and it has separatist/terrorist groups; another entity called Iranian Kurdistan and many people in that region have aspirations for independence/separation and it has separatist/terrorist groups. The nominator for the previous AFD already acknowledged that "A-B relations" aren't only for countries. In order to make this non-arbitrary, "A-B relations" should be permitted for any entity that has relations with another entity. By these rules, "A-B relations" should be permitted for each of the three entities as they have had relations with other entities. Iraqi Kurdistan opens liason offices for other countries and also benefitted from unofficial aid in terms of weapons and other materiel. Various terrorist/separatist groups in Turkish Kurdistan has in the past and possibly present benefited from unofficial aid in terms of weapons and other materiel. And various terrorist/separatist groups in Iranian Kurdistan currently recieve unofficial aid in terms of weapons and material from Israel. The question now is whether we need 1 article, 3 articles, or several articles (with each article representing the separatist/terrorist group). In my view, 1 article is the best as it's not always the case where only a certain terrorist/separatist group in one region is having the relations. In terms of this particular article, we've seem plenty of news about Israel co-operating with Iranian Kurds. Rather than an "Israeli-Iranian Kurds relations" it makes more sense to call the article "Israeli-Kurdish relations". The article could be structured similar to Japan-Korea_relations. Korea in and of itself isn't a country but actually two countries. Whenever we create articles about "Kurdish-Other entity" relations, we would take into account the three regions in the same manner as which the Japan-Korea article took into account the two countries. Just because the current article is poorly written isn't a reason to delete it as I believe the article can be improved. Pocopocopocopoco 01:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  Not similar at all. Both Koreas are UN recognised countries. A-B relations to date has been reserved for country relationships on wikipedia. None of the so called Kurdistans claim to be a country. Treating them like countries would be soapboxy WP:OR. Any raid by Israel to any organization can be discussed on the article on the organizations. A breakaway article can also be created if the organization articles get too long. -- Cat ^chi? 22:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  Don't interpret this as criticism directed at you but I don't understand why you're flip-flopping on whether or not non-countries are allowed in "A-B relations". In the previous AFD you first said that it should be for countries, later on in the same AFD you said it that something like "PKK-Hezbollah relations" are OK and unrecognized de-facto entities are OK. Now you're saying that it should be for UN recognized countries. Also, I brought up the Korea article as an example of how "Kurdish-Other entity relations" article could be structured. Pocopocopocopoco 01:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  don't forget Taiwan...--Victor falk 02:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  I did not say "it should be for UN recognized countries". I did say "do not compare relations between UN recognised countries" and others. As for Republic of China (Taiwan is no country) it was one of the founders of the UN and was later de-recognised. That entity claims to be a country and should be treated as such as per WP:NPOV. An inter-organization relation is fine because it's scope is well defined but this still would not be an A-B relationship. An inter-ethnic diplomatic relationship is problematic conceptually. Even countries only "represent" their citizens. When you toss in "Kurdish" there and since there is a lack of "Kurdish government" (no one claims the existence of one that can have diplomatic relations) you are implying directly or indirectly a relationship between Kurds as a whole even though the relationship is between a few select organizations such as the PUK or KDP. -- Cat ^chi? 22:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  As I mentioned I wasn't comparing Kurdistan with Korea but suggesting that the structure of the article could be similar when this one is rewritten. I also think that you can't compare Kurds with Korea but you also shouldn't compare Kurds with African Americans which you seem to be suggesting as many Kurds in the three countries (Iraq, Turkey, and Iran) seem to be trying to assert their independence. I think that a fairer comparison is Waziristan and I see no problem with articles such as Waziristan-Afgan relations if they were created. Also you seem to suggest that something like PJAK-Israeli relations would be OK however Kurdish-Israeli relations is not OK. I think it's better to just have the article say Kurdish-Israeli relations as you might end up with a host of articles with overlapping information. Pocopocopocopoco 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  I do not know what Waziristan supposed to be but Afghanistan is a UN recognized country. African Americans are a nationless ethnicity so I see no difference. A group of people seeking an independence is completely irrelevant so long as they have not achieved this. Once and if there is an independent country the articles can then be easily created. Wikipedia is not a christal ball. -- Cat ^chi? 20:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  As for stuff like "PJAK-Israeli relations", fundamentally there are no problems with it but the coverage may be better of at PJAK as that article is quite short. If it gets long it can be broken up but thats a mere editorial decision. -- Cat ^chi? 22:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  I don't know why you seem to keep insisting that you see no difference between African Americans and Kurds on this issue:

  1. As mentioned Kurds have an autonomous region that seems to develop relations with other entities
  2. Kurds are an indigenous people trying to assert independence and in the process they have developed relations with other entities (including Israel).

  Also, Kurds seem to have relations with Israel not just in terms of PJAK, I found this without much effort searching. It can be used to beef up the article. Pocopocopocopoco 03:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  As you agree Kurds are trying to assert independence which means they are not independent yet as they do not claim to be independent. Therefore they cannot develop any kind of relations with anybody by very nature. Israel will not have a relationship with an entity it does not recognize diplomatically to a degree. Israel covert operations in Iraq and Iran is article worthy but this is not really a "relation" between Kurds but with Iraq at best.

  Even if such an entity claiming to be independent existed, that would be a relationship between that entity and the country. It would not be a relationship with Kurds in general. Ethnicities cannot have relationships, only governments can. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL

  -- Cat ^chi? 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  You seem to be arguing for a binary policy on "A-B articles" where if it's a country or an organization such as PKK or PJAK it's OK but if it's a people then it's not OK. I don't think this is a good idea and every case whether it's a people or an organization or a country should be allowed to have "A-B relations" articles based on it's merits. Pocopocopocopoco 23:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - As said in the previous one, Basque relations with another nation would be relevant. In specific, I'm thinking of, say, the Basque-French relationship (the Basque region, while multinational, is mostly in Spain); while there's no article on it, it would be very encyclopedic. For example, during the Franco era, the relationship was complex to the point where France often (apparently) ignored Basque terrorists in a snub to the Spanish regime. However, after the Franco era, it all changed. This is incredibly important and equally encyclopedic, even if there's no article on it. If one people group relates different to a friend/enemy of its nation state, this is important. Similarly if the Quechua people (they span many present day South American nations) were to have a separate relationship with a historic enemy of their hosts, this would be worth an encyclopedia entry. We're out to maintain knowledge here, not get rid of it just because we don't like the way it looks. If necessary, the article can be renamed or, at best, changed to better reflect the fact that it's not a nation. But deleting this article would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. 128.118.161.244 07:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC) — 128.118.161.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Shouldn't we be paying attention to the argument, not according to how many times this user has contributed? 64.178.96.168 20:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Yes and no. If the argument is new, or contains new facts, it should be listened to accordingly. Arguments from new contributors that are a rehash of those by established users and contains no new facts, don't provide evidence as to how many people hold a particular opinion, because it is far too easy for one person to contribute with multiple accounts/IPs. There are some IP editors with stable IP addresses who are established users with a long edit history, but they are rarer than hen's teeth. GRBerry 21:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per myself from the previous AFD and Pocox4. It would've been nice if someone notified me about this. This article needs a rewrite not a deletion. I would like to point out that there is another Kurdish - x relations article, (see Kurdish-Armenian relations) which is well written and sourced. Is White Cat going to AFD that one as well? Also I'd like to point out that White Cat's whitewashing Wikipedia out of anything Kurdish related never stops [1] . VartanM 03:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  This deletion was not initiated by me. I am ignoring your personal remarks as they have nothing to do with the AFD. -- Cat ^chi? 20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  No personal attack was intended, that was just my observation of your editing pattern of Kurdish related articles. VartanM 08:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  This is not the place for it. Feel free to file an RFC or an RFAR or use other means of WP:DR. -- Cat ^chi? 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article is fine. But this AfD discussion is rather heated it seems. . .--S.dedalus 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.