Talk:Kessab

Transliteration[edit]

My mom grew up in this town, and I've always seen it transliterated, "Kessab". The double-S ensures the S is unvoiced and the stress more naturally falls to the first syllable this way. The Armenian is more literally "Kesab", with one S, but this doesn't always pronounce correctly when said by an English speaker. I don't speak Arabic, so I can't comment on that. I'm going to go ahead and create a link from "Kessab". However, I think the main page should be either "Kessab" or "Kesab". I can be convinced otherwise, though. arnoha (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On further research, it appears that "Kesab" never appears in Wikipedia referring to this location, but "Kessab" appears frequently. "Kasab" also shows up, though I don't know if that's because of the transliteration of the article is influencing those. I do see a number of links that replace the "Kasab" with "Kessab". So, "Kessab" appears to the be correct one. arnoha (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common used name[edit]

Upon my recent visit to Kesab, I noticed that the common name of the town used by the locals is "Kesab" as it is written on the road indicators and all shops interfaces and sign boards. Since the Lattakia Governorate did not assign the exact English spelling of the name of the town, the correct expression would definitely become "Kesab". kevorkmail (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kesab → Kessab – Per WP:COMMONNAME Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right that Kessab is the more common spelling. But I think you need to present some evidence that it is the more common to justify the change request. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure...here's the evidence: "Kesab%2C+Syria" "Kesab, Syria" Google search yields 1,480 results. "Kessab, Syria" Google search yields 24,700 results. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request[edit]

Could we please have some references with page numbers where appropriate, to accompany the various paragraphs of this article. Common knowledge isn't enough in an article that has, thanks to recent events, become important (with all the associated side effects). We already are seeing problems arising form the lack of them (such as a spurious fact tag added to an obviously correct statement about loss of grazing lands post 1939). And as for Davutoğlu's vomit-inducing words.... I've done my best to make the context and the value of his words clear by quoting the tape where he is heard potting to engineer a war with Syria. But much more specifics about what Turkey has done to Kessab over the years would help. "The Sivdigi Greek Orthodox chapel, once stood on a small hill just on the Syrian–Turkish borderline, was destroyed by the Turks in the early 1980s" - is this a vague reference to the platoon of Turkish troops who entered Syria to blow up a shrine on the Syrian side of the border, or is it referring to something the Turks destroyed on the Turkish side? Clarity is needed. And specific facts. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits[edit]

An IP is making disruptive edits, removing sourced material. Considering the importance of Turkey opening its doors to Syrian-Armenian refugees I see no other chance than reporting the IP for edit-warring. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a compromise - removing the worst of his obnoxious statement (the insincere "Armenian friends" bit, and the "When humanitarian issues are at stake Turkey does not consider any ethnic or religious differences" obvious falsehood, and the "Armenian Patriarch in Istanbul" bit which is probably also false given that the Patriarch has had no official visits by anyone for years due to his illness). Also, those bits are not from the source in English - so they are presumably translations from the Turkish-language Hurriyet source. Who translated them? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your IP that makes those disruptive edits? Words like obnoxious (and others you use in another talk above) give an idea about your POV. You should better keep it out of WP. This is not a war-field. And do not try to read people′s intentions (like when you say ″insincere″). Assume good-will. Everybody living in Turkey and Armenians around the world know the situation in the Patriarchate. For sources in Turkish most contributors to WP who write on Turkish-Armenian issues can and do read them, but I see that some of them have a selective approach on using sources. That is maybe not all are here to take a picture of things but to make a painting. I made changes to the edit and added a source to the Patriarchate visit. (I will also update the article on the Patriarchate so you will understand better.) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You had better start to assume good faith. And learn what is acceptable on Wikipedia and what is not. I can say whatever I like about the obnoxious Ahmet Davutoğlu - as far as I am aware he is not a Wikipedia editor, and obnoxious is a fair description for a person who plots how to start a war in secret while insincerely talking about peace in public. You, on the other hand cannot go around making false accusations about another Wikipedia editors. Are you even slighly aware of the seriousness of what you have just accused me of? The only edits I have made here have been done when I have been signed in and this is the only user name that I have. I am going to remove the content that is taken from the Hurriyet source given the unknown origin of the Turkish to English translation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did 80 people die in Kessab on March 21st, 2014?[edit]

I read the following sentence in this article regarding the events of March 21st, 2014 in Kessab: "Early reports talked of 80 people being killed in the attacks". This is a weasel statement. It doesn't actually assert that 80 people died, but it weakly refers to some reports that make this claim. I think that this is a very important claim. It should be supported by reliable sources and stated in a strong language. If it can't be supported by facts, however, it should be removed entirely. This claim seems to have been made mainly by the Fresno-based Armenian-American newsweekly Asbarez on March 24, 2014. I looked at statements made by the Armenian Government, for example, the Diaspora Minister, Hranush Hakobyan. She doesn't make any claims of Armenian deaths. She mostly refers to Armenians who were displaced, not to any Armenians who were killed. I have also searched the mainstream international press sources. I cannot find a single reference to Armenians killed as a result of the March 21st attack on Kessab. Finally, I found this article which acknowledges the Asbarez claim but concludes that no credible report has emerged to substantiate any Armenian deaths in Kessab during the March 21st attack. Based on all these factors, I removed the statement "Early reports talked of 80 people being killed in the attacks" from the article. ---Vikiyazar (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The report dates from when that section of the article was created, from the first day or so of the event starting. It was not a weasel statement, it was just stating accurately what these early reports said and indicating that they were just that - reports. I believe that subsequent reports clarified that the 80 killed were members of the Syrian army or militia, and that figure covered the whole area of fighting. In Kessab it is known that one civilian inhabitant was killed, and he was an ethnic Armenian (there are reports out there and he is named in them), and a small number injured, and reports also mention several score of its inhabitants were missing (mostly elderly people who were not able to escape in time). Most of the missing later turned up in Turkey, having been taken there under restraint by the invaders and handed over to the Turkish authorities. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kessab Armenian inhabitant who was killed was 23-year-old Kevork Jourian. He stayed behind with his parents in Kessab and was murdered there by the Islamists who then forcebly took his parents into Turkish territory (from where his death was reported). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification, Tiptoethrutheminefield. I think what you just wrote here is much closer to the truth. If it is clarified that all deaths except one were members of the Syrian Army or militia and support that statement by a reference, I have no objection. ---Vikiyazar (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kessab. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]