Talk:Tell Abyad/Archive 1

Population composition
We had reached a consensus earlier with Ermanrich to mention all population numbers in the article, which agree that the overwhelming majority of the population is Arabs. However, user 2A1ZA. insists on removing these sourced-numbers and hiding that by a vague statement about "sources claiming to have an Arab majority". This is another example of the blatant bias of user 2A1ZA. The article needs to go back to its orginal consensus version. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not care about the "Demographics" section at all, in my humble opinion this quarreling of which ethnicity might be larger and if so by how much is of very minor relevance, both in life and for this article. All I ever did there some days ago was remove duplicate sentences which you had inserted into the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Mess
This talk page is now a mess... Shadow4dark (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Persistent removal of SOURCED, high quality Quotes by Paradise Chronicle
, you might also be intersted in this. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You had previously closed a 3RR complaint against Paradise Chronicle without sanctions but the user is back to the same old edit-warring tricks. They have removed many times the exact same sourced, relevant quotes from the Tell Abyad article they were sanctioned for. As a reminder, we had opened a DRN case about the quotes, but the user paradise did not like the suggestion of volunteer user Nightenbelle, and decided to remove two SOURCED quotes (2-3 lines each) from the Washington Post material and The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. They even removed the material during the DRN. The material in question describes the political situation of the town after it was captured by YPG militias (one of the belligerents in the Syrian civil war). Both works are VERY relevant; the Washington Post story is a field investigation done by an American journalist sitting across across the border from Tell Abyad. Fabrice Balanche (with the Washington Institute) is an expert in the Syrian civil war and author of Sectarianism of Syria's civil war reference work. Balanche is quoted in so many articles on WP and elsewhere. In the beginning, the user was complaining about just one word (unilateral) in one quote, but after all their arguments were debunked now they are talking about some strange quote guidelines that do not really apply to our disputed quote, but they are using the guidelines a s a pretext to remove the material that goes against their POV. The user has just come back and removed the two quotes they didn't like, really undermining all WP rules (DRN, Talk page, NPOV, etc.). As you can see on this Talk page, I have engaged extensively on this Talk page and the DRN page and provided lots of details why these quotes are true, relevant and important to the page. I hope you can look into this and stop this edit warrior.
 * Ibn Amr never answered on the term unilaterally. Not in months. Nor about the relevance of the authors quoted. He dismissed Fabrice Balance as an opinion at Kurds of Syria but here he calls him an expert, and Liz Sly is a simple reporter at Washington Post, with no relevant "unique" connection to Tell Abyad worth of a quote full of faults. Have you ever heard of Liz Sly as a relevant person in the middle east, or to content of Tell Abyad? Tell Abyad was never renamed into Gire Spi and there are also no images of it. Tell Abyad was always called Tell Abyad, before, during and after the rule of the AANES, and Latin script was present in Syria before and after the YPG captured Tell Abyad, we have decalred this multiple times in the course of the discussion and it is really very easily confirmable just checking at the traffic plates in Damascus, Afrin, Deir Ez Zor or Qamishli also if you like. Here are the points I raised on the 3 September. As to me there has been no answer since to any of these points. Why does he call him at one article an expert and in an other an opinion etc.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If anyone sets up and runs a proper WP:RFC at Tell Abyad you can still contact me to close it after a reasonable time. Be aware there is another option in which sources that have different opinions about Tell Abyad are both quoted in the article. Then we leave it to the reader to make up their own mind as to the real status of the town (e.g. on whether or not it was Kurdified). If you want to consider such a compromise (quote both sides but don't try to state in WP's voice which one is correct) then you might use as a basis some of what the moderator User:Nightenbelle said in Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 191. EdJohnston (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the essence of what user Nightenbelle had suggested at the DRN, but user chronicle rejected. Thanks Ed. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That definitely sounds like an improvement. Konli17 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I strongly support EdJohnstons comment that: "sources that have different opinions about Tell Abyad are both quoted in the article. Then we leave it to the reader to make up their own mind". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources and the info is not the problem, the prominent fashion of the quotes are. WINEP is not reliable as per WP:RS Archive 48, nor is Fabrice Balanche a notable figure or citizen of Tell Abyad. The WaPo quote includes several obvious inaccuracies as stated at different places throughout the talk page. To remove the Kurdifying link doesn't improve Wikipedia as well.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But you did not change the quotes into information, you deleted the quotes so the information was completely removed. Had you changed the quotes into information keeping what the quotes say then there wouldn't be a problem. Fabrice Balanches bio : "associate professor and research director at the University of Lyon 2"...", has spent ten years in Lebanon and Syria, his main areas of study, since first engaging in fieldwork in the region in 1990. Today, he is frequently called upon as an expert consultant on Middle East development issues and the Syrian crisis. His publications include Geopolitics of the Middle East (2014, in French), Atlas of the Arab Near East (2012, in French and Arabic), and the book version of his thesis, The Alawite Region and Syrian Power (2006, in French). Balanche holds a doctorate in geography from the University of Tours (2000)." I would say his opinion is notable and it is attributed to him, not presented as "fact". I would not regard WINEP itself as a RS, but Fabrice Balanche definitely is. If there are inaccuracy's in what Fabrice Balanche says then you are free to ad that information to the article, so we can have both opinions, no one is stopping you. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing
Why is there still nothing in this article about the ethnic cleansing of the last few months? Konli17 (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent reverts 2
Dear Amr, you just reverted again without bringing in sources refuting my 3 sources of the Welcome to Tell Abyad plate images from before and shortly before and after the capture of Tell Abyad by the Turkish army. The consensus is 2-2. But this is only a matter of number of votes, not in numerous of arguments. While you only show an image of a private twitter user and want to have it seen as a reliable source (reliable source means it is accepted that Tell Abyad was renamed.) and Shadow4dark doesn't address any of the disputes made like "unilaterally" detaching it from the Raqqa Governorate or renaming of the town from Tell Abyad to Gire Spi. He just claims Washington Post is a reliable source. You, too don't refute my concerns about the terms "unilaterally" and "renamed" from Tell Abyad to Gire Spi. "Detached unilaterally" and "renamed" are the terms that are in the dispute. It is not about whether Washington Post is a reliable source or not. Washington Post is good, but maybe Liz Sly, the author of the article is not so good. Erdogan and Bayık also wrote for the Washington Post, shall we source now how Turks and Kurds function in their terms as a fact because Washington Post is a "reliable source"? No, this is not neutral. The whole quote is a farce for Wikipedia. Latin script was used in Syria also before the SDF/YPG were governing in Syria. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Demographics
Governor's claim is not a reliable source. The Basnews mentioned governors claim and I replaced it with a reliable source. The source itself doesn't talk about demographics, it just mentions the governor's claim.Ferakp (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, the claim of the Governor of Sanliurfa is not reliable. But neither are these 45%. As long as we have no census there (and that won't happen for a long time, since a civil war is waging over there), we won't know how the Demographics look like. But apart from that, it's very good if you bring in new sources (I'm referring to the 30% source).

Just don't put it as the absolute minimum of Kurdish population.--Ermanarich (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What you think about this source, ? It is recognized organization and well known, but it says that Kurds consist 55% of the city/town population, 30% of the whole Tal Abyad area (+villages) and 15% of the Hasakah area. It will be against the statement of the lead section, where is said that the majority of inhabitants are Arabs. Ferakp (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean 15% of Raqqa Governorate.
 * Well, 55% sound quite strange to me, since it's mentioned very often that there is an Arab majority in Tall Abyad. I'd say that you can use this source to replace the 45%, but the under 2% have to remain, or at least the 10% of kurdwatch.org. The source sounds on the one hand quite neutral, but the other question is just how they found out that there are 55% Kurds, since there are no new censuses (or how the plural of census is called...).--Ermanarich (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think, the Kurdwatch doesn't mention that it is 10%. It is talking about Tal Abyad neighbors (newly captured areas), not the city. It neither explicitly nor implicitly mention that 10% of the city are consist of the Kurds.
 * 55% is not actually quite strange since the published is Arab organization and it is from 2013 before hundreds of thousands of refugees came to the city.
 * Another thing is that 2% is absolutely unreliable and it should be mentioned differently as source doesn't confirm it, just mention what he said in his interview. Ferakp (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:FAKE, WP:RELIABLE and WP:NPOV sections removed and a new section was made for demographics. All sources were mentioned and also, Turkish governor's claim. Ferakp (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with this solution, other opinions? Only one thing, I would make the structure a bit different and make demographics not as a subsection of history, as well as the part "Governance" and maybe even "Syrian Civil War". Demographics are, even if we don't know of they exactly look at the moment not part of history. The Syrian Civil War is still ongoing, so an own section may be good. And governance should be put into this Civil War section, since it's too small to be an own section.--Ermanarich (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC) I don't know where the 55% Kurdish came from. Even the Al-Monitor opinion article talks about 30-45% Kurds. The Kurdish, Germany-based human rights group Kurdwatch report says about Tell abyyad "it is mainly populated by Arabs", and estimates Kurds of the areas around Tell Abyad at 10% and Turkmen at 15%, the rest being Arabs (page 5). I think this is the most credible source we have so far. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing up this source. Partially, Ferakp is right, when he says that the 10% etc. are for the areas outside Tall Abyad.
 * But actually in this text there is another much more important citation, which says: "Following the assumption of power in Tall Abyad the PYD formed a council of elders consisting of ten Arabs, three Kurds, one Armenian, and one Turkmen, whose task it  is  to  administer  the  region.  The  ethnic  composition  of  the  council  suggests  a  fair  representation of the Arabic majority population." This would mean, that two third of the population in Tell Abyad are Arabs, 20% Kurds and 6,7% Armenians and same number Turkmen. These numbers fit quite well with how it looks on this map (with some Kurds inside but nearly no outside the town and with the Turkmen the other way around): http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Syria_Ethnic_Detailed_lg.png
 * 55% is definitely far too high, but on the other hand it's also a quite reliable page: http://www.vdc-sy.info/pdf/reports/talabyad-English.pdf
 * However, I'm quite sure that Kurdwatch should know much better how the ethnics in Tell Abyad are composed.
 * I'd actually like to take the numbers of Kurdwatch.org for the article. Their opinion is definitely not anti-kurdish, they know the topic very well and city many sources in their report. We may should add in another phrase something like that there are other contradictory sources who say that there are either under 2% or up to 55% Kurds in the town.
 * Anyway, I think we are on a good way to a conciliation, at least in the Tell Abyad article.--Ermanarich (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I can tell you that Kurdwatch is a unreliable source. I tried to mark it as unreliable last year in Wikipedia, but it was lucky because one US pentagon report had mentioned them in one of their reports. We couldn't mark it as a unreliable, but as admins said, we should mention that source which we have used is not accurate and their reports are mainly claims. Kurdwatch is banned from Rojava and they don't have any experts, researchers and employees there. Also, they are saying in their webpage that their news are not accurate and they are not responsible for them. Kurdwatch is actually not even under control of Kurds. The vast majority of their employees are anti-Rojava and anti-HDP and they are known among the Kurds. The organization is just registered to Germany and it has never been accepted in any Kurdish organization in Turkey, Iraq, Iran or Syria. It has been isolated from all Kurdish human rights organizations. About 10-3-1-1, you can't use it, it would be WP:ORIGINAL. Before al-Nusra and ahrar al-Sham ethnic cleansed the Kurds and dozens of thousands refugees came, the Kurds were clearly majority. Turkish governor's 2% and 30% of other sources are not true anymore. As Amnesty mentioned, the Kurds forced thousands of Arabs to leave the area and also dozens of thousands were sent to Turkey. (The vast majority of them were refugees who had been there since the civil war started). In this case, I would just leave it as it is now. It's too complex and we don't have enough sources.  Ferakp (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are being reasonable here, unlike Ferakp, who insists on his cherry picking classification of sources. Obviously, KurdWatch cannot be anti-Kurdish as Ferakp claims. I agree that 55% Kurds in Tel Abyad is absurd by all measures. The KurdWatch numbers I have cited above are the most reasonable so far, so I'll add that to the article. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see that they are somehow not pro-PYD, but that's not necessary to cite them as a source for the population of Tell Abyad or this elder council. With the council I formulated it in a way that is it not WP:ORIGINAL. Many sources speak not about direct numbers but about an Arab majority in Tell Abyad. To show just all of them is the best thing and maybe also the only thing we can do here.


 * But I'd really recommend you to read the report. It's definitely not anti-kurdish, because then it would accuse them of ethnic cleansings. It criticises PYD's handling with opposition figures, but that's another thing and may even have some truth.--Ermanarich (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I know the Kurdwatch very well. I already heard about them last year. It's not registered as human rights organization. It's just an internet portal, as they also say: . You can't trust an internet portal. I am not saying that their reports are fake or totally false, I am just saying that you can't use their reports/pages as reliable sources. Internet portal is not a good source for such claims.Ferakp (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, but I'm quite sure that they didn't invent this council. Also, their report on the displacements near Tall Abyad is definitely the best and least POV-source we can get in any way. We know that human rights abuses took place in Syrian Kurdistan and this source shows that it hasn't anything to do with ethnic cleansing but rather with other aspects of the PYD-policy.--Ermanarich (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)