Jump to content

Talk:Shahba Canton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Shahba region)

there is no such a region

[edit]
Map of Northern Aleppo as of today.

unrealistic region like other three. dont invent regions and put it on wikipedia please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.44.29.248 (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'unrealistic region' -> Pleace take in to account that this talk page is no place to discuss politics or personal views nor is wikipedia a place for NPOV Pushing.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Haven for more than 5 Million displaced Syrian refugees

[edit]

Yes, you are right, there is no such a region but a district created for the protection of displaced Syrian refugees. Their borders are not fully determined but subject to change on daily basis until all those 4 MİLLİON Syrians living in the southern Turkey returns to their homes.71.191.8.25 (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--> Pleace take in to account that this talk page is no place to discuss subjects that are not related to the self governed Shahba region of Rojava.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shahba region is a concept in terms of geography, and in terms of civil administration. It is not a military concept

[edit]

Shahba region is a concept in terms of geography, and in terms of civil administration. It is not a military concept. As to my best knowledge, nobody (in particular not the SDF) has ever used the term "Shahba region" in a military context. Please abstain from inventing a military concept of the term in text or infobox. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Citation needed" on demography?

[edit]

Dear Beshogur, you just added two "citation needed" flags on the demography section. The sentence reads:

The ethnically highly diverse population of Shahba region consists of partially Arabized Kurdish[citation needed] as well as Arabized Syrian[citation needed] population found throughout the region, as well as a considerable Circassian population in the city of Manbij and a considerable Syrian Turkmen population roughly along the Turkish border. A smaller minority are Armenians.

What exactly do you think needs citation? That there is ethnic Syrian and ethnic Kurdish population living throughout the region? That ethnic Syrians are completely and ethnic Kurds there partially Arabized (i.e. speaking Arabic language as their mother tongue)? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, where are you sources about Arabized Kurds and what do you mean with Arabized Syrians?
Edit: please add a source about Arabized Kurds on the article and remove Arabized Syrians, because Syrians are a people with semitic ancestry, if they speak Arabic, then they're Arab, if they speak Assyrian and if they are Christian then we call him as Assyrian. So, talking about Arabization on Syrian people is funny. Beshogur (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(1) On Syrian ethnicity, Arab panethnicity (and Arabization in general), please consult the respective Wikipedia articles, all of them are fine and elaborate. "Arab" in the narrower sense of an ethnicity denotes people and communities who identify as Arab peninsula bedouin descendants. If you really think that the term "Arabized Syrians" needs citation, would you tell me which one of the numerous citations in the Syrians article you find suitable?
(2) The issue of "Arabized Kurds" indeed is one of the most interesting anthropological topics of Shahba region, in my humble opinion. I will seek to add one or more fine sources on the topic. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does an "ethnic majority map" in the article really make sense? I do not think so

[edit]

Does an "ethnic majority/plurality map" in the article really make sense? In my humble opinion, they do not. "Majority/plurality maps" always have the problem that they make no difference between a 100 percent homogenous ethnicity and a 30 or 40 percent plurality. Taking this tohether with the extremly mixed situation in Shahba region, as well as the definition issue if an ethnic Kurd or Circassian with Arab as his mother tongue should be consedered "Kurd"/"Circassian" or "Arab", it appears to me that such a map can never be considered POV.

Right now, there have been two maps, which give a complete different picture. While I invite a discussion on the topic, I will take the liberty to remove until conclusion of discussion. And point to the fact that the probably best scientifically accepted map on the issue would be the one from rhe Gulf2000 project of Columbia University. Here is a good discussion of that map, as well as related mapping problems. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the disruptive implementation of partisan maps on top of the article

[edit]

To 71.191.8.25 (talk) and anyone else concerned: Please cease and desist from the disruptive implantation of maps with the apparent intent to convey ultranationalist/supremacist messages, ethnic or military or whatever, on top of the Shahba region article. This conduct is juvenile an does not suit a Wikipedia editor. Thank you.

And more general, Shahba region is a civilian and polyethnic concept, this article here in general is the totally wrong place to promote ultranationalist, supremacist, military or other fantasies of partisan grandeur. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree, this has to stop. Needed a lot of time to restore the article because of 71.191.8.25 vandalism and disruptive editing.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The question above says. Beshogur (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assyria

[edit]

Assyria was an historical ancient state located in this region between Turkey and Syria around 2500 BC–612 BC and they were not Christians.71.191.8.25 (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of 'fringe theory'-label

[edit]

For obvious reasons the placing of 'fringe theory'-label on this article is completely out of place, ridiculous and subject of NPOV pushing.

The user that placed it is just politically not happy with the reality that SDF, local population succeeded in establishing this fully self-governed de facto autonomous region. Because he wishes it does not exist, he tries to remove as much information about it for political reasons.

Shahba Region is a existing, established, declared, governed, military defended de facto autonomous region. It is ground-reality and sourced. It has by far nothing to do with a theories and it's existence is well-known by all people, annalists, governments, media,...

Because the misuse of this label here is abusive and subject blatant NPOV, it should be speedy removed.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree and removed "fringe" flag. There never was any required reasoning given for that obviously abusive flag anyway. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs clear concept: Geographic region and/or factual Rojava control

[edit]

On one crusial point, this article needs clear concept. When I last went through the article some weeks ago, I helped make clear distinctions in every section (starting with the introduction) between on the one hand the claimed geographic region as a the whole and on the other hand the part of it which is actually under administration within the Rojava framework. It seems that later edits have blurred that line, which makes different sections of the articel contradictory. I strongly recommend to reinstate the clear concept of explicitly addressing both perspectives separately in every section. Or at least radically choose one the the two perspectives and only allow that one in the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All this sounds like OR and making up facts, as usual from the editors involved here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the two perspectives is "OR". The factual administration within the Rojava framework most obviously is not, and the perspective on the geographical region can point to some respectable media. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you consider ARAnews and Hawar news and some other Kurdish sites and blogs respectable media sources, but I don't and Wikipedia doesn't. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does consider ARA news a respectable and professional independent media source, just like all of civilized humanity does, because it is. With ANHA (hawarnews) I would be careful, not because it is "Kurdish" (I do not share anti-Kurdish racism), but because it is the official news agency of the Rojava administration. Talking about official news agencies, for those of us with particular interest in "UN recognized sovereignty", here is the official news agency of UN member state Iran using the term "Shahba region" for the area. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This page had a clear concept, it started as Shahba Canton not as Shahba Region.
But because Shahba Region was more frequently used for the autonomous administrative region, it was renamed.
This obviously does not change or migrates the subject of the article to 'Northern part of Aleppo Governate'-region.
That would be very confusing and make this page a battleground page of different parties
'Northern part of Aleppo Governate'-region" should have an other page, because it is a different subject.
While 'Shahba region/canton' should be renamed 'Shahba region (autonomous region)' if the canton word is no longer mentioned to prevent confusion. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This solution is fine with me. However, now I recommend even more that the infobox must be "de-militarized" following the example of the other canton infoboxes. And of course those elements of the article, which explicitly elaborate on territory in the region that is not under autonomous self-administration within the Rojava framework, must be deleted. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shahba is the unofficial name for Aleppo region, it's not a region. Beshogur (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Beshogur, you may want to contribute in the deletion discussion. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least the FARS news agency appears to disagree with you, treating it as a name for the region to the north of Aleppo; and I would also point to the fact that only to the north of Aleppo can we observe the name "Shahba" for landmarks. . However, as there appears to be consensus that this article shall be about the autonomous administration within the Rojava framework only, the topic is obsolete anyway. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares about FARS agency? What credibility do they have? Close to zero. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave juvenile "Turkey stronk" posturing out of this article

[edit]

Please leave juvenile "Turkey stronk" posturing out of this article. Once again one editor start to post such content which is pretty much unrelated to the topic of the article. There are dozens of articles on Wikipedia on military operations and announcements of future military operations in the area. Please use those. This here is an article on civil administration. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming removal of "unbalanced" flag

[edit]

This article has an "unbalanced" flag, which had been put up without the required explanation given, if I recall correctly by editor 71.191.8.25 (talk). I kindly ask that editor or anyone else to submit an explanation why this flag should be on the article, which can be discussed, otherwise the flag is to be removed without discussion. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The history section mention only the ethnic history of the kurds while this area has been inhabited for thousands of years before the kurds came and constituted a minority. In its current form, it gives the reader an impression that this is a historic land of the Kurds and only them since it focus on them and only briefly mention other ethnicities. The paragraph about kurds must be removed to the article: kurds in syria, or new paragraphs about the Arabs, Armenians, Circassians and Turkmen should be written. Otherwise, its unbalanced.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I would not listen to any claim as to which ethnicity would allegedly be a majority or plurality in the area, I do agree with you that the "historic background" sub-section is not balanced, because it only covers a Kurdish narrative, and should be completed by adding other perspectives (by other perspectives I do not mean propaganda to delegitimize Kurds, but narratives on the history of other ethnicities in the region). However, for this purpose, the "unbalanced" template should be moved exclusively to that sub-section. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, move it to the history section.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just wait a bit if there come additional opinions. On the concrete subject, in my view these historic background sections of such canton articles should really focus on the area concerned. Be it Turkmen, Kurds, Arab Syrians, Circassians, whatever, no general deliberations on their presence in Syria or northern Syria, but only with an explicit focus on the concrete topic area of the article at hand. I agree with you that the general deliberations belong into general articles, be it on a broader area and/or more general on the ethnicities concermed. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The flag should stay, and the article should go. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was started by IP sock 213.74.186.109 / block evasion of indef blocked user "Human like you". If necessary, start new discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Not a part of Rojava

[edit]

The Shahba region was occupied by Rojava forces and claims were made in March 2016 adding it to supposed Rojava territory. However, it remains heavily populated by Arab Syrians and not Kurdish Syrians. Someone might want to note this in the article. 213.74.186.109 (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rojava has nothing to do with a Kurdish majority. If Rojavan forces control an area and claim it to be part of Rojava, then it's part of Rojava. If not then Rojava doesn't exist since no country recognizes it. Jazeera Canton and Kobane Canton don't have a Kurdish majority either, especially since the Raqqa offensive, but they're still part of Rojava. Editor abcdef (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shahba region. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manbij part of the Shabha Canton and Afrin Region?

[edit]

@Applodion: @2A1ZA: @Editor abcdef:‎ @Niele~enwiki: Hi! This article states that Manbij is part of the Shabha canton and Afrin Region. I'm a bit unsure about this, and from what I understand Manbij is under the rule of "Manbij Legislative Council" and "Manbij Military Council" and since Manbij wasn't included in the elections or mentioned in the announcements about the new administrative regions (http://en.hawarnews.com/the-administrative-division-of-efrin-region) that casts further doubt upon the situation. If there are official DFNS sources that show that the Manbij Legislative Council is subordinate to Shabha Canton and/or Afrin Region, or that it is planned in the future to be so, then I don't mind that it states as such. What do you guys think? AntonSamuel (talk)

I think this article should be deleted altogether, as there is no such thing on the ground or through recognition of any third party. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info on geography

[edit]

Let alone its credibility, the Rudaw reference only mentions the following at the end: Afrin region includes Afrin canton and Shahba canton including Manbij town. It does not describe any geography. Did I miss anything? As for the Koeppen reference, it does not mention any Shahba thing, so this is OR, or faking the reference content. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@عمرو بن كلثوم: Ah, thank you for the clarification. Now I understand what you mean. I have found a more reliable source for the current geographic extent (as Manbij was split off into its own area): "He participated in the battle to remove IS from the town of Tal Rifaat and the nearby Menagh airbase. The YPG captured the area in February 2016 and unilaterally declared it Shahba Canton of Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. Shahba region remains under Kurdish control despite Turkey seizing nearby Afrin in March 2018. When Turkey began its operation on Afrin in January 2018, thousands of people, including Husen and his family, fled their homes and resettled in Shahba." (from a report by VOA). I will add it to the article. As to the Koeppen reference, it is meant to clarify the geography of the area in general, not make claims about the extent of the SDF-held area. Applodion (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
VOA is a better source for sure. For the climate info, I think that should stay out. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, your VOA reference points to Tel Rifaat, so any other territories (al-Bab, Safirah, etc.) should be left out of this article. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV content

[edit]

Konli, the Aljazeera reference does not mention "Shahba canton" or AANES. This is faking the reference content. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any problems with the rest of the edit? Konli17 (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shahba_Canton&oldid=1199014179"