Template talk:Gulf Cooperation Council

Gulf war (invasion of Kuwait) did involve the GCC and is important in the geopolitical history of the union.

 * The Gulf States and the crisis over Kuwait
 * After the Gulf War: the GCC and the world

As for the invasion of Iraq, the US troops were stationed in Kuwait, not sure how one of the biggest conflicts in ME history is irrelevant to the GCC? — &thinsp;♾️ Contemporary Nomad  (💬 Talk) 03:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

♾️ Contemporary Nomad , you are making stuff up. You are adding articles that are NOT related to the GCC. The Gulf War, Iraq War of 2003, and the Persian Gulf crisis have nothing to do with the GCC. Just because U.S. troops are stationed there doesn't mean anything. The geogrpahical regions of the EU that you cite are related to the European Union because those are specific matters of concern to the EU. The borders between say, Saudi Arabia and Oman are just borders. Nothing related to the GCC. Saudi Vision 2030 is just about Saudi Arabia. And I don't why you are adding "articles" in the template title when you edit, when the template's title is Gulf Cooperation Council. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * you are making stuff up. Gee @WikiCleanerMan what an unnecessary bold accusation. I've added related articles that concern the GCC countries to guide the reader, and yes the linked articles are relevant to the GCC and the current history of the region, before that the template was an empty shell of few articles that frankly I wasn't sure if it deserved its own template. As for the Gulf war and invasion of Iraq, the category reads: 'Geopolitical history' of the GCC, and yes, they're relevant. The Gulf war happened in Kuwait. The GCC played a political role back then, the whole union was even formed as a reaction to the Iranian-Iraqi war so even that was relevant to the union history but I thought it's more notable to start it with the invasion of Kuwait. Saudi Vision 2030, Nationalization, Migrants and the Qatari-Saudi dispute are all relevant to understanding the current GCC issues, although the articles need some work (and I intend to improve them (on my agenda)). Cheers — &thinsp;♾️ Contemporary Nomad  (💬 Talk) 15:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If one thing is about Saudi Arabia, then it's about Saudi Arabia, not the rest of the GCC. There was no direct role of the GCC in both Iraq conflicts. The former was an international coalition. There was no direct role of the GCC in the 2003 war. And the "accusation" is based on what you are adding. Unnecessary articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How are 'related' articles to understand and study the union member states unnecessary? For example the border disputes have been a major source of contentious between the member states and one of the leading factors for making border crossing accessible to the gulf citizens. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have just formalized their border last year 1 2 in an effort to end the dispute, the Qatari-Saudi border was one of the factors that led to both nations rivalry and state today. Although the articles need to be updated especially the Kuwaiti-Saudi one — &thinsp;♾️ Contemporary Nomad  (💬 Talk) 15:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are just articles about the border. Plain and simple. A border is not part of an international union in regards to the GCC. The only worthy article is the Qatar-Saudi dispute which involved the closing of the border until this January. Certain events in the region don't mean the GCC is related and/or involved. Also, why are you removing articles such as the GCC homosexuality test and adding the word "articles" to the templates' title when that isn't the name of the template? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The borders issue is an ongoing conflict between the GCC member states (and on that note we should have a wikipedia article for the GCC border crossing agreement (تأشيرة العبور) since it's one of the main actual functions of the union and was formed to address the border conflicts and citizens who live in neutral zones). The GCC is not an international union, it's a regional one confined in the Arabian Peninsula by states that more or less share the same political hierarchies (absolute monarchies). And this template discuss related articles to the GCC members states which includes the geopolitical history of their region, why else would we have the Kafala article when it's not specific to the GCC but the member states (and Lebanon). Or the Arabian Gulf Cup which has nothing to do with the union but the member states + Yemen and Iraq. Simply, this template should present a wide variety of topics that guide the reader on relevant topics to the GCC member states — &thinsp;♾️ Contemporary Nomad  (💬 Talk) 16:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you can create the agreement article as long it is noteworthy and it has credible sources. But for the time being the borders are just borders. There is no need to add any of the borders articles. Arabian Gulf Cup is related because it primarily involves the GCC states. And while Iraq and Yemen are not members, it would be pointless to simply say let's add conflicts like the two Iraq wars simply the states hosted American troops in the region prior to the invasion. And a regional organization is still international since six countries are members. Hence the inter-national. And for the time being, I'm going to be removing the borders section because there is nothing specific about its relation to the GCC, the two Iraq Wars, the Persian Gulf Crisis (not a specific GCC related matter), and Saudi Vision 2030 because that's an internal matter to Saudi Arabia, not the GCC. Not everything that involves the region is related to the organization. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We should draw a line to simplify this matter, our argument here is whether this template is about exclusively the union and it bodies (which would amount to few articles) or relevant articles to the union members and region which is my stance.I'm ok with deleting the geography section since this discussion seems to go nowhere (for now perhaps because I do intend on writing article on the border crossing agreement and cleaning up the disputes articles). But not really sure how the geopolitical history is irrelevant to the template, these conflicts did involve the union members, the union was also formed after the Iranian-Iraqi war so the Middle Eastern theater have always been the main focal point of the union — &thinsp;♾️ Contemporary Nomad  (💬 Talk) 17:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This template is exclusively about the union and its related topics like the Patent Office, Shield Force, and its sporting cooperation, etc. The geopolitical history isn't irrelevant. It's certain articles you have added. It was formed to counter Iran after the events of 1979. Would the war in Afghanistan in response to 9/11 be considered GCC involved since Bahrain and the UAE took part in the war as part of the international coalition? I would argue no because it's not a specific matter relating to the GCC's military activities nor were the two wars against Iraq and the Persian Gulf crisis since 2019. It would be considered GCC-related if all the countries took part in it. Only three member states of the GCC are part of the International Maritime Security Construct. Again, the GCC isn't directly involved just because a few of the member states are. However, all the member states are heavily involved in the Yemeni Civil War even if they haven't sent troops such as Oman and Kuwait who are on the same side of the Saudi coalition. Conflicts between GCC members are relevant such as the Qatar diplomatic dispute and Saudi Arabia's invasion of Bahrain to curb the Arab Spring. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a large difference between the US war in Afghanistan and the Gulf War. In the latter Kuwait (and a small portion of Saudi Arabia) got invaded by Iraq, all GCC member states had a notable role throughout the war and the GCC itself was active. Dude the GCC official website has an article on the union role throughout the war....... But I'm willing for us to reach a consensus by settling for a middle ground. How about removing the geography section now (and perhaps discussing it later), and removing the Iraq war and the Persian Gulf crisis even though I personally think they're very much relevant. But assuming good faith that we both want to present a good template for the wiki readers I offer this settlement — &thinsp;♾️ Contemporary Nomad  (💬 Talk) 17:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)