Talk:Tell Abyad

Ethnic composition numbers

@Gesture, it's interesting how you treat your source claiming that Kurds represent 40-45% of the population as a fact, when it's an opinion article by some unknown writer. On the other hand, you use the word "claimed" for numbers provided by a Turkish official (Governor of Urfa situation across the border from Tell Abyad). Nice standards!! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Kurdish Accusation

User:Multi-gesture, the last sentence you added had nothing to do with Tel-Abyad, or the Kurds percentage or the Governor ! This is considered WP:SYNTH.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

But it had a lot of information about Turkish govrnment (which the governor is part of it), and the relations between ISIS and this government, and the fact that the governor's words are not apropriate references to use in these articles. Also it tells us about Turkish government-Kurdish relations which is necessary for these kind of articles. --Multi-gesture (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a city. Those information belong in the Tel-Abyad campaign article or Kurdish-Turkish relations article (if it exist). As for the governor, he didnt make his "claims" because the Kurds are accusing turkey of helping ISIS. The connection between his words and Kurdish accusations is not established by source. The governor words or a columnist words are both not the highest quality sources. We need official sources and according to the CIA factbook maps, Tel-Abyad have Arab majority [1].--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The accusations was not made only by Kurds, review the references. Also, when an independent columnist says something in a well-known website, it's acceptable but, what about a Turkish official's propaganda which is made for many obvious reasons. By the way, if you have any higher quality official references, I would be glad to see them in the article.--Multi-gesture (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest that we only mention that the majority are Arabs with a considerable Kurdish minority and stay away from being very specific in regard to percentages since we dont have any official census. But thats up to you.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, do this in both Tel Abyad city and district.--Multi-gesture (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Attar, the word majority might mean 51% or 90%. I still think the numbers are important, while indicating who said what to give full context. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Population

The source doesn't say that only 10% Tell Abyad population are Kurds. This is the source says:

The newly captured areas around the city is only ten percent Kurdish. Ferakp (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Another problem, the source is not a reliable source, it is widely discussed in Rojava's talk page.Ferakp (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The 30% to 45% are absolutely no option. Of course, these under two 2% are absolutely not reliable, but neither are the 45%. Furthermore, that's the sense of the following sentences: To say that the composition of the population is completely unclear and that the thematic is ethnically charged.

Regarding the recent accusation against you, you should be really much more careful with your edits. Just because some are blackwashing articles, whitewashing is absolutely not better. And more important, that's not what Wikipedia is supposed to be. It's supposed to be neutral!

Please revert you last edit.--Ermanarich (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Demographics

@Ermanarich: 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)

@Ermanarich: 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) @Ermanarich: 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)

@Ermanarich: 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)

@Ferakp: 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)

@Ermanarich: 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: [2]. 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)

Reversed change

@عمرو بن كلثوم: You edit[3] was reversed.

Reasons why I reverted your edits:
1. You removed sourceddetails (55%) without any reason.
2. The Kurdwatch is not Kurdish and it is not human rights group. It is just an internet portal as they say here, [4].
3. It doesn't confirm anything, it claims and it has no statistical or original studies. It is just an internet portal.
4. The Kurds consist 10% of the population of newly captured areas in Tel Abyad, not the whole Tel Abyad.
Ferakp (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ermanarich: Thanks for your intervention here. BTW, the proportions for Turkmen and Kurds are switched in your edit, should be 15% Turkmen and 10% Kurds, according to KurdWatch, not the other way around. I still don't agree with the 55% number, and as you had said before this is obviously WRONG and extremely exaggerated, and it is not mentioned in the al-monitor story (30-45%). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: Thanks for saying. In fact I changed the numbers accidentally. The 55% are mentioned in this source: http://www.vdc-sy.info/pdf/reports/talabyad-English.pdf at page three. It's definitely as wrong as the turkish statement. So either we take out both or let them both there.--Ermanarich (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Confirming vs claiming

Confirm is a strong word and should not be used without any court decision, especially if a source is not a reliable and strong. In case of Kurdwatch, it's nothing else than a claim, since it has itself said that they aren't responsible for their reports/news and their accuracy.Ferakp (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tell Abyad. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.basnews.com/en/news/2015/06/13/us-expresses-concerns-about-pyd-human-rights-violations-in-syrian-kurdistan/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.basnews.com/en/news/2015/06/13/us-expresses-concerns-about-pyd-human-rights-violations-in-syrian-kurdistan/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop removing content massively!

Hello Attar-Aram and 2A1ZA,

I don't have much time now, but I'm very angry about your edits here. The things you removed without anything even close to a discussion was reached after intense discussion. It was definitely no propaganda as you, 2A1ZA, said, in contrary. It only shows the different claims and points out that we currently haven't official numbers. It was clearly mentioned that they aren't official. So: revert all of your disruptive edits you made here today! I'm quite angry about this!--Ermanarich (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Angry!! wow, you should really not be this connected to Wikipedia dear. Plus, Wikipedia dont care about your feelings whether you are angry or satisfied as your feelings arent a criteria for Wikipedia's articles.

Can you take a look at the edits before mentioning me ? I removed nothing, but if ferakp wants to remove all the estimations calling them propaganda then Al-monitor estimations should go as well. On a different note, we dont need a section for the estimations. No one knows sh.. about the actual numbers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see the section below. I do not think that half the article should be presentation of into-the-blue claims of what would or would not have been the ethnic share of population of the town a decade ago. If someone wants to improve the article, there would be many other aspects of Tell Abyad to tell, which do not appear in the article at all. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, your 30-45% "neutral" number is also an into the blue claim. No percentages or all of them.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

My preference would clearly be to state no percentages and no claims about majority at all, just mention the ethnicities present, Arab and Kurd larger and Turkmen and Armenian smaller, and that's it. However, my point is that all this issue of ethnic composition (including all the equally baseless claims concerning majorities and percentages) should be in one or two brief sentences in the "Demographics" section, not extensively and dramaturgically narrated throughout the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The city have an Arab majority, this is known and even you know it. Its important to state this in the face of the claims of Kurdish nationalists thinking they will establish the great Kurdistan empire. Even the CIA maps shows the area as having a Kurdish minority. No percentages or all of them.. this is the neutrality. Otherwise, keep it as it is.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you say, but the fact that some editors highly interested in the topic of competing quantifications of ethnic composition have reached a equilibrium, which in turn makes half the article discuss this topic, invites some idea of improvement of the article. Can't one simply but this equilibrium into one or two brief sentences in the "Demographics" section? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Attar-Aram syria: Well, if you would have taken a look at this talk page and at the articles' history, you would maybe stop making fun of me. It was a bunch of work to get the Users Ferakp and Amr ibn Kulthoum to a acceptable compromise. And because I saw you complaining some times that 2A1ZA would be a sockpuppet of Ferakp: He's definitely not, since his English is much better. Apart from that, Ferakp isn't even a blocked User.

@both: Well then, let's take out any numbers from this article. It wouldn't ever stop to lead to tensions between Arab and Kurdish nationalists anyway. I tried hard to make this article better and I still think that to show the different numbers and adding the comment, that the true ethnic cmoposition remains unclear is the best. But since I'm not even close to the mood for being a adjustor between two completely opposed views again, I'll leave it up to you. Cheers, Ermanarich (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

One more thing. This counts for the allegiations of Kurdwatch as well. This section now leaves some facts away(and this even if this report clearly isn't anti-Kurdish). But I guess I'm talking against a wall right here.--Ermanarich (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess I was rude. No hard feelings I hope. As for ferakp, I already have evidence.... I just genuinely dont want him blocked. He is not bad and better than multi-Gesture who I fought and blocked. Im just collecting evidence now. I wont open an investigation now cause we need a Kurdish voice on those articles and that guy isnt a rock head like many Kurdish nationalists Ive met (though he think anyone who doesnt agree with him to be a supremacist).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Formulation concerning ethnic demographic composition

Kurdish-inhabited area by CIA (1992)

There was and is high emotion concerning the formulation of the ethnic composition. Current state is:

Before the Syrian Civil War, Tell Abyad had a population of 14,825. Sources often claim that the majority or plurality of the inhabitants were ethnic Arab, suggest around 30 to 45 percent ethnic Kurdish, and a smaller share of ethnic Turkmen and ethnic Armenian population.

I consider this the most neutral that is possible and achieved yet. If you want to change, please explain here. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You consider??? no one care. I consider the 10% kurdish percentage the most neutral... also no one care.

If you will mention percentages then mention them all or none--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please try to use a mature language of cooperation towards a good article. I do not care at all which of these equally baseless claims are mentioned in the aricle. Due to the fact that there was and is no serious census about the issue, due to the fact that the assymetrical definition of "Kurd" and "Arab" makes a considerable part of the population fall under both definitions anyway, due to the fact that the population was and is highly fluent, all of them have few or probably rather zero value, which the article at least explicitly states in the last paragraph. My point is that all these equally baseless claims should be in one or two brief sentences in the "Demographics" section, not extensively and dramaturgically narrated throughout the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The CIA doesnt have baseless information. It isnt baseless that this isnt a Kurdish majority area.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, and now? That map isn't only old, it's also very inaccurate. This one of Syria is much better and it is actually from a reliable project of the american Columbia University: http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Syria_Ethnic_Detailed_lg.png --Ermanarich (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

And according to the map you removed now in favor for anotherone, the Kurd Mountains around Afrin wouldn't even have Kurds in it. Reliable or accurate? Definitely not.--Ermanarich (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed cause it was from 1992 while this from 2002. Your map is by Izady, the guy claiming the Kurds are the grandsons of Halaf cultures 6000 BC....... That should be enough to talk about this man. By the way, his map shows that Kurds live in tel abyad not that they are majority. He also put a lot of Armenians in Deir ezzor but we know they are not a majority.. It also miss the Armenians in Kassab.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

True... By the way, I didn't want to prove that Tall Abyad has a Kurdish majority (Because it definitely haven't). I only wanted to say that the map of the CIA doesn't proof anything as well. The beginning of the Kurd mountains is also shown there, but it shows no Kurds there, as well as is Shehba area north of Aleppo, where several villages with a Kurdish majority can be found, like Dudiyan or Aktharin.--Ermanarich (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Order of the page, including information that is unrelated to who-is-ethnic-majority wars

After one user reverted all updates to the page and any inclusion of content unrelated to ethnic-majority wars, I will now make a second attempt. However important these who-is-ethnic-majority wars may appear to some, it cannot be that this article does prohibit any other informatuion on Tell Abyad. I will for now in Edit: CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER leave all content concerning the who-is-ethnic-majority wars untouched, just make the order of the history section chronological rather than dramaturgical as it is now, add new information unrelated to who-is-ethnic-majority wars, and delete one sentence about government which is onviously outdated. If you have an issue with this, please talk about it here rather than reverting without reason. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing the "Kurdwatch" Junk

"Kurdwatch" is not a serious source. Currently, this article gives extreme weight to a quote from that "Kurdwatch" website, without there being any reason to do so, as all the content of that quote already is in the article, and if one would want to elaborate, there would be many much more serious sources around for each and every point mentioned. I strongly suggest to either completely remove the "Kurdwatch" part or at least cook it down to one sentence. Suggestion for cooking down:

Kurdwatch, a Germany based internet portal, suggested displacements, no large-scale ethnically motivated expulsions, repressive measures against persons with ties to ISIL, ethnic discrimination based on the fact that only Kurds from Tall Abyad could act as a guarantor for refugees so that they can return to Tall Abyad from Turkey.

This would also serve the aim to correct the overall balance of the article, which gives absurd undue weight to this one issue. And it would serve the aim of embarrassing Wikipedia less by less presenting this "internet portal" as an alleged quotable source. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Kurdwatch is a serious source. It already went to the reliable sources portal.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

Self-administration within Kobanî Canton

I kindly ask Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) to stop vandalizing the "Self-administration within Kobanî Canton" section by deleting highly relevant, informative and well-sourced content without any discernable reason or explanation. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually the word vandalizing applies to your actions more than anyone else. You deleted my Washington Post story, which is a source more reliable than any of the sources you use. I will revert that, and then come up with a serious source for your kobani story. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, the Reuters reference is good. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, the Reuters reference was part of the concerning text section all the time, including at the time when you deleted it entirely. And your accusation "you deleted my Washington Post story" is plain false. I kindly ask you to either provide proof for that accusation or apologize. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Washington Post story is still there. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Kurdish and Turkmen community

Since both Kurds and Turkmen are significant minorities in Tell Abyad, consisting of 10-30% and 15% of the town's population, respectively, Tell Abyad would be listed both as a Kurdish community and a Turkmen community in Syria. Please don't remove either category without a clear consensus. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

According to all sources, Tel Abyad has an overwhelming Arab majority, so if any of those ethnic categories are to be used, it should be Arab communities in Syria. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Can't we use all 3 categories? if these communities are attested for at the town, then why not? I just saw that there isn't an "Arab communities in Syria" category, which I guess makes sense as all towns have significant Arab communities. I don't object to having the categories for Turkmen/Kurds as per categories for religious minorities. See: Category:Druze communities in Syria, and Category:Christian communities in Syria. Yazan (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Then, that would be misleading to have categories for Kurdish and Turkmen communities since they are minorities here. This might lead people to think/claim there are no Arabs here. It's different for christian and druze communities, as these would usualyy be uniformly christian or druze. See my point?? Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Amr. Let's agree that there are no "pure" ethnic/religious towns in Syria (not yet anyway), and so you'll always find significant minorities of one ethnicity or another in a town that might be dominated by another community (e.g., Yabrud, or even Maaloula). And since Arab communities (and in a similar way, but to a slightly lesser extent - Sunni Islam communities) are almost ubiquitous in all towns, I doubt whether it makes sense to categorise them as such (the category becomes almost redundant). Adding a "community" category actually means that it is present in the town, rather than that the town is "exclusively" made up of such and such community. That's my rationale. But if you decide to create an all-encompassing category of "Arab communities", then I wouldn't object either - so long as all attested different communities in town foo are also categorise. Otherwise, we'd be be sacrificing the usefulness of the encyclopaedia to POV-warriors/ethno-religious ideologues - never-mind the practical impossibility of actually establishing which is the largest community in one town (especially in such terrible times of demographic shifts). Best, Yazan (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent reverts

عمرو بن كلثوم, my recent edit in the SCW section was made to avoid redirects and repetition, link relevant articles, arrange the information in a logical sequence, introduce a more NPOV, and improve the English. Why are you reverting me? Konli17 (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I duly explained why I reverted your edit in my edit summary; again because you were trying to sneak in removal of sourced content under your claimed cleaning/sequence/English summary. Your edit summary is simply not true and not innocent. You insistently removed the Washington Post paragraph below, which is very important ton understand some of the recent events in the city:

The Kurds formally renamed Tal Abyad with a Kurdish name, "Gire Spi", and proclaim its new identity in signs throughout the town — written in the Latin script used by Turkish Kurds but not readily understood by Syrian Kurds or Arabs. They have also unilaterally detached it from the existing Syrian province of Raqqa and made it a part of their newly formed autonomous enclave, carved from areas traditionally inhabited by Kurds but steadily encroaching also on territories that were historically Arab.

I hope in the future you work collaboratively with other editors, and do not insist on unilateral unjustified content removal. You are welcome to do the other Engish/sequence edits without content removal. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't hope in vain. The quote doesn't make a lot of sense, especially given the content in the article's next section which describes the four years Tell Abyad was in the AANES. This part of this section only describes the period from June-October 2015. There was no formal renaming; there were no political structures in place to effect this until October. The Kurdish signs were a display of Kurdish identity, which had been illegal under the regime and an invitation to violence from the jihadists who succeeded them. There's no evidence that Arabic signs were removed, and road signs with both Arabic and Latin script are common throughout Syria. The only detachment of Tell Abyad from the province of Raqqa had been military; at this point Raqqa was still the caliphate's capital. They certainly made it a part of the AANES, but most Tell Abyad residents seem to have preferred this to being part of the Islamic State. Why do you believe this misreading of events in a four-month period in 2015 is more important for understanding recent events, than the four-year period that followed it? Konli17 (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't care what you think about the WP article. Obviously we have very different opinions on this. Still, this is a widely respected media outlet and the text is well sourced, so you simply can't remove it because you disagree. I hope this is clear now. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

If you really believe in working collaboratively with other editors, please address the issues I raised. Konli17 (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I explained my edit in detail, and asked you just one question. Will you answer it? Konli17 (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Konli17, you seem to be missing the point if Wikipedia. This is not a forum for your opinions and interpretations. You are making up "facts" by saying "most Tell Abyad residents seem to have preferred this to being part of the Islamic State", and theis clearly shows your POV pushing. It's not your business who the residents prefer. If you have reliable, SOURCED information then bring it up. Otherwise, stop your vandalism and nationalistic zeal to change facts. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of the points I raised, nor answered my question. Konli17 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

City is under control of Turkish armed forces and Free Syrian Army. Officialy Turkish,FSA and EVEN KURDISH SOURCES call city Tell abyad. It is weird as changing name of New York to New amsterdam. Tell Abyad is ruled by FSA and even Kurdish newspapers call city Tell Abyad. Police station to goverment buildings inside also Tell Abyad. It is weird calling somewhere not even in control not officialy to gri spi. Name can stay but official and main name is Tell Abyad. Here recent news about city 1)https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/095a0270-9e50-4025-9232-cd516a79e35c 2)https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/06/turkey-uscrif-syria-maenza-kurds-yazidis-christians-religion.html 3)https://www.aa.com.tr/en/turkey/turkish-red-crescent-delivers-ramadan-aid-in-n-syria/1819011 4)https://www.trthaber.com/haber/dunya/tel-abyadin-guvenligi-turkiyenin-egittigi-yerel-polislere-emanet-453889.html 5)https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/turkiye/tel-abyad-nufus-mudurlugu-hizmete-girdi-/1857827 6)https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/dunya/tel-abyadda-smo-aracina-bombali-saldiri/1871349 7)https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/turkiye/tel-abyad-ve-rasulaynda-yillar-sonra-huzurlu-bayram-sevinci-/1852157 8)https://www.ahaber.com.tr/video/yasam-videolari/tel-abyada-iki-turk-bayragi-asildi HERE IS OFFICIAL POLICE STATION = https://iasbh.tmgrup.com.tr/67c29c/752/395/0/75/1108/658?u=https://isbh.tmgrup.com.tr/sbh/2019/12/04/turkiyenin-egittigi-polisler-devrede-1575489605182.jpeg

Road Signs: https://ahvalnews.com/sites/default/files/styles/is_article_featured_top_1200x550/public/2020-01/20191025133235afpp--afp_1lq4gt.h.jpg?h=7fe56d7b&itok=K0xI94Uc Local court : https://www.bik.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Tel-Abyad%C4%B1n-g%C3%BCvenli%C4%9Fi-T%C3%BCrkiyenin-e%C4%9Fitti%C4%9Fi-askeri-polislere-emanet-16.jpg Cengizsogutlu (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I read the Washington Post article and I support the removal of a Washington Post quote, which states the YPG has unilaterally detached Tel Abyad from the Raqqa Governorate in 2015. It is simply not true, impossible that there are reliable sources that state the SDF/YPG had a governing alliance with the Islamic State, who governed Raqqa until 2017. And it is also normal to write the Kurdish name that was formerly forbidden. Makes sense to me. The other parts of the contested Washington Post quote can be sourced also with other sources.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, you are cherry picking here. The WP story is balanced and presents both sides of the story. It seems this is something you and some other pro-YPG editors here cannot tolerate. Well, this is Wikipedia, not a Kurdish propaganda forum, so the story is sourced and presents an accurate depiction of the situation. As for the name, I will go with the consensus, although I am not convinced why we should put a recently-invented Kurdish name for a town that has no, or very few Kurds. May be we should then add Ukranian, Urdu, and Chinese names for the town. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

10–30% of the town's population isn't "no, or very few Kurds". No one is suggesting we rename the article to Girê Spî‎ or something. Cengizsogutlu is presenting a strawman. All we're saying is that we should keep the Kurdish, Turkish, Armenian, and Syriac names in the lead and in the infobox, as these are the recognized minority populations after Arabs. The Arabic name, Tell Abyad, should still be the article name and it should still be listed first in both the lead and the infobox. How are you objecting to this? Lightspecs (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It is simply not true that any Kurdish entity detached Tell Abyad unilaterally from the Raqqa Governorate in 2015. It can say who ever says it, it is not true and Konli was right to remove the quote. And this quote is the only thing you talk about here. I think you are cherry picking here. Raqqa Governorate was in a vast majority part of the Islamic State until 2017 and also today a minor part is governed by Assad. The SDF did not act "unilaterally". How is this article a reliable source? I haven't seen any Gire Spi signs on my search to source the display the name of Gire spi throughout the town. Not even from ANF.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)