Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jash

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 to delete; the issue of merging can be taken up on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jash

[edit]
Jash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A dictionary definition of a Kurdish word, with very confusing citations. This might belong on Wiktionary in some form, but it doesn't appear suitable for an encyclopedia article. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It's not a dictionary entry, it's a short article. There are two different sentences describing the useage and history of the term. The article is cited very reliably, even including page numbers of the books referenced, so it's hard to see what's confusing. No policy-based rationale for deletion given. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't an 'article'. It is a dictionary definition, with two examples of the usage of the term, separated by 1300+ years. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a dictionary of the Kurdish language. The two examples are interesting and should be included in articles on Kurdish history. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Merge the two examples to articles on Kurds or, as mentioned above, Kurdish history. The dictionary definition can then be deleted.
  • Delete As someone who has studied the Battle of Badr extensively, the attempt to link Kurdish women to the battle smells fishy to me. I have no problem with the word Jash having it's own page, but the persistence of the OA to have it linked to a historical unrelated battle is confusing.Thebutterfly (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The previous comment was made by an abusive sockpuppeteer and should be ignored. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an entirely inappropriate comment to make. For one, the editor has not been confirmed as a sockpuppeter at SPI or using Checkuser. The thread open at ANI is simply your accusation and discussion on thie article Jash, without any further commentary to logged-out edits. To make such an accusation outside the proper forum, and to imply that it has been confirmed, is entirely incivil, even though you might be correct. In any case, until/unless Thebutterfly is actually banned for sockpuppetry, his/her contribution to this discussion is entirely valid and should not be ignored by any admin worth his/her salt. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 21:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who actually takes the time to look at the very clear evidence I presented would come to the same conclusion I came to, that he's blatantly logging in and then back out to sneak his edits in and give the appearance of multiple unrelated users. The lack of following the bureaucracy of SPI (which is mostly just a behavioral evaluation, something I'm quite capable of myself) means absolutely nothing in the face of obvious evidence. Speaking of "incivil", how about him calling me an "Islamophobe" without provocation? Take your "incivil" and cram it, Bahamut. If someone can call me an Islamophobe with impunity then I can do the same. If you don't like that, then block me. Be sure to leave him unblocked, though. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which again, isn't relevant to this AfD. I'm not an admin, so I won't do any blocking, but if I were, I'd give you some time away to cool down based on the fact that you were insulting me for warning you to cool down. Tit for tat doesn't fly on Wikipedia, and him insulting you doesn't justify a response like you gave in any civilized forum. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is DIRECTLY RELATED. Abusive sockpuppets are not allowed to participate in AfDs, especially when they're POV pushing sockpuppets. Do you have anything useful to add to this discussion? If not please stop playing Civility Police because all you're doing is inflaming the situation and proving to me that there are different rules for different people. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not related. Until/unless he is blocked for sockpuppetry, he is not barred from any sort of participation. And my contribution is to get you to stop "inflaming the situation"; You shouldn't be taking it personal that I need to remind you of the rules, just take a chill pill and think about this objectively. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really this dense or are you deliberately trolling me? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Burpelson, WP:CIVIL applies to you as much as it does to everybody. Bahamut is being civil. You are not. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where were you and the rest of the civility police when an abusive sock was calling me an Islamophobe? I was ready to let this "civil" nonsense be done but here we are again, with another drive-by commentor who feels the need to share his opinion without knowing the facts. Not only was my report at AN/I ignored, but instead of looking into the socking and warning the person who personally attacked me, my article was sent to AfD without any legitimate rationale for deletion. At this moment I am feeling attacked and hounded because very little of what has happened over the past few days has followed any kind of objective logic. And since AfD is pretty much always a simple numbers vote (in spite of the rules which say otherwise), this perfectly well-sourced and appropriate article will be deleted, while people hound me for calling a WP:SPADE a spade after I was personally attacked by said spade. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 23:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The venues for your grievances are not here. I've directed you where to go for your sockpuppet concerns, so you should be submitting an investigation instead of calling me names and other methods of disrespect. This isn't a case of you calling a spade, this is a case of you being a dick because you got reprimanded for being incivil. If you feel attacked, that's your choice, and doesn't much excuse your hyperdefensive responses. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You, sir, are a First Class moron. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of personal grievances, Thebutterfly's remarks are inappropriate here imho. False content – unless the whole article is a hoax – should be addressed on the article's talk page. —Tamfang (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If so then I will "vote" to delete based on WP:OR since it has not been established that there is such a thing as a "Jash" which is a Kurdish disloyal person distinct from a disloyal person of any other nationality. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it's not original research and multiple reliable sources presented in the article prove this. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite - the term of "jash" is just their word for quislings (collaborators with the enemy), and is used not only in relation to the former pro-Saddam militias (200,000 during the Gulf War, like in the National Defense Battalions (Qiyadet Jahafel al-Difa al-Watani) and formerly also the Fursan Salah ad-Din irregulars and the 100,000 mercenary tribal gunmen "loyal" to Baghdad, in 1991 they were actually most of the rebels and not the peshmerga who were really only 15,000 or so before the defection) but also to the current pro-Ankara and pro-Tehran militias (there are over 50,000 such militiamen in Turkey currently). HUNDREDS of books use this term. When you people say things like it has not been established that there is such a thing as a "Jash", I wonder what kind of research are you doing, because just every book about Kurds uses it and it entered the the English language as a common term. The jash ("donkeys") in the Baath-speak were fursan ("knights"). It should be kept AND REWRITTEN ENTIRELY, and seriously it's like saying "peshmerga belong to the Kurdish dictionary and not Wikipedia", it's just stupid. The jash is an umbrella term for the opposite of peshmerga, and usually they were more numerous too. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these groups should be discussed in articles on the periods and events of Kurdish history or even in distinct articles for each group. No need to lump them together just because a word exists. I am fairly sure that WP does not have articles for American traitor and Russian traitor. Why should it for Kurdish traitor just because there is a word for that? P.S. I think the Kurds are cool and support their struggles for freedom and a better life. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it has them for quisling and hanjian, which are both equivalent terms. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a dictionary entry. It's exactly the same as quisling and Hanjian, both of which are equivalent terms. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be implying that words that have a cultural significance in other languages are not encyclopedic. SilverserenC 21:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if Kitfoxxe is implying that, but I'll say it. That language X has its own word for concept Z is not interesting in itself, even if that word "has a cultural significance" (whatever that means). If there is anything substantial to say about Kurdish collaboration, rather than about the word, that's material for an article. —Tamfang (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As was stated above and linked to, there are other articles of the same type. SilverserenC 03:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's delete them too, then. —Tamfang (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think peshmerga is also a Kurdish "word for concept Z is not interesting in itself" and should be merged with freedom fighter or whatever? Do you think, I don't know, samurai should be merged with knight, kamikaze with suicide attack, "because Wikipedia is not a Japanese dictionary"? I must say i just don't quite get you people. Also I'm not saying the article is good, it's bad, it should be rewritten. As I said, there are hundreds of books in English available with info on this subject. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand the difference between word and substance, between an article about the peshmerga or the samurai and an article about the word peshmerga or samurai or knight? If from the article Samurai you removed everything about vocabulary, and renamed it Knight (Japan), a substantial article would remain; if you did that to Jash, you'd have a very short paragraph. If you want me to believe that your new article has potential, don't start by concentrating on a word. —Tamfang (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Do you know how many jash formations were there (and some remain), in several countries, over generations, their complicated history (like the mass defection in Iraq), and you think you would write about them all in a very short paragraph? Incredible! Please show me, because obviously you know so much about the subject. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't - that's why, if so many formations existed, you should add them to the article so we can learn about them. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we can do a bunch of additional work only to have it be deleted anyway because its only a "dictionary entry"? No thanks. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 23:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you overcame your pessimism far enough to improve the article significantly. —Tamfang (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added three of the references the IP editor linked to [1]. The text of the article is mostly the same. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't distinguish between the Jash, the word jash, and an article about them — argh, I have no constructive advice for you. —Tamfang (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you want to merge it into Collaborationism? Did you see Collaborationism#See also there? Like, Chinilpa? Hanjian? Hello? It must be just some exlusive anti-Kurdish bias here on Wikipedia, I see no other explaination. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of bias aren't constructive, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid. If the article can be reliably and verifiably sourced as a notable subject, then it should be kept; if it can't, it shouldn't be, regardless of what else does, or does not, have its own article. - - The Bushranger One ping only 17:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article's suybject is verifiable, multiply-reliably-sourced and, therefore, notable. That fact that it is short and/or poorly written and/or incomplete is not a legitimate deletion rationale. Yet multiple people are repeating the same rationale. If it needs to be improved, improve it. If it needs to be rewritten, then help improve the encyclopedia by working on it. Wikipedia has no deadline and an article that satisfies WP:N and WP:V with multiple reliable sources that is neutral in tone is not deletable, unless we're going to just pitch all the guidelines out the window with it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 23:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid these days that "verifiable" and "multiple RSes" don't equal "notable" anymore. They should, IMHO, but the consensus seems to be that WP:GNG trumps WP:V, to the point of absurdity on many occasions. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the absurd part, but I think this actually satisfies GNG. The main elements of GNG are significant coverage (meaning more than trivial passing mentions) and in multiple, reliable, third party sources. "Multiple" has always been a point of contention, but I read it as a literal definition meaning "more than one". There's some argument to be made for an unsourced article failing WP:GNG, but that can usually be resolved guideline-wise simply by proving that multiple reliable non-trivial sources exist. Maybe my understanding is out of date or something. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to merge, say, francs-tireurs into "some appropriate article such as guerrilla warfare and/or an aprpriate artical on France", too? Or what about hiwis, for example? (Yes, I know people everywhere care 1000x more about WWII than about Kurds.) --94.246.150.68 (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument that should be made pro or against deletion Prove that this subject is notable, verifiable, and reliably sourced. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excpet that anyone who looks at the article can see it satisfies all three of these guidelines. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 23:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, yes sir. I prove that this subject is notable, verifiable, and reliably sourced." About 443 books. What now? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My anti-Kurdish bias is as strong as it ever was, but since I last wrote here Burpelson has upgraded the article in question from a dicdef to a legitimate stub. —Tamfang (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. All I did was add three of the references the IP editor pointed us towards, while the text itself is the same. There are about 440 more references helpfully provided by the IP. Articles can't be deleted for lack of WP:N if 443 reliable sources covering the subject exist, even if they're not necessarily added to the article. I still can't grasp how people are determining what is a dicdef and what is an article stub, and that is not me being obstinate, that is me expressing a genuine lack of understanding how the deletion rationales, dependent on the view that this is just a dicdef, were reached. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jash&oldid=1068867380"