Talk:Human rights in the AANES/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Many unreliable sources in this article

This article has many citations from unreliable sources. Rudaw is not a reliable source. Should we delete all those sections which use Rudaw or replace them?

I agree that Rudaw is a highly problematic source because of its concept/mission as a mouthpiece of Masud Barzani, however most of its uses in this article here are presentations of the Barzani view on things, and as such it appears fine. In general, of course there shall not entire sections be deleted if a Rudaw reference appears somewhere in them, I assume this was a joke. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Just went through it, the only place in the article where there is a problematic use of Rudaw in my view is this exlusively Rudaw-referenced sentence at the end of section 3.1.3.:

On 22 September 2016 the security forces of Rojava prevented Rudaw’s journalist Rengin Shero, coming from Iraqi Kurdistan, from visiting her family in Jazira canton. Rengin accused the forces of tearing her clothes and using violence against her, even though they knew she was pregnant.

I would happily agree to delete that sentence, if only for its Daily-Mail-buzzword-style without actual significance. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you would happily delete it cause it show the true face of the YPG. So this was the only problmatic thing you found!! Unexpected (not). This paragraph is suitable for such an article, it isnt a cambridge paper. The sentence is about a rudaw personal and attributed to them. Its the same when we mention the position of the Syrian government and attribute the mention to SANA. The sentence is referenced and relevant and wont be deleted, just like the irrelevant Jarablus accident.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice to see you still around. Yes, this is actually the only problematic use of Rudaw I find in the article, in all other instances Rudaw just complements other sources with additional details, the only exception being the publication of the complaint oncerning withdrawal of its own licence. Anyway, I did not and will not myself delete the Daily-Mail-style story about Rengin Shero, because I know how important it is to you. (And you know how much I would prefer a balanced abstract assessment of Asaiysh abuse of power concerns by a serious source instead.) -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I told you the nightmare will continue on your talk page and I told you I wont leave without getting an understanding regarding your zealous editing and pov. You didnt show any sign of softness and thats why you will see me a lot. And I tend not to take your opinion about what is problematic and what is not cause anything that doesnt suit you is problematic in your always humble opinion.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Rather than softness I would consider sincerity the value guiding me in Wikipedia editing. Anyway, as I told you, I do not mind having you around, and hope for good faith cooperation in editing never dies. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes I cant help but smiling when I read what you write. Dude, Wikipedia is not your house, you cant have anyone in it. You not minding having me was never a concern. The value guiding you is a partisan political activism driven by strong extreme belifs and superiority complexes.. thats it really. Come on, we dont need to write a newspaper everytime we engage. Im not gonna reply anymore.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Women's Rights in Rojava

Here's a news article that needs to be added in the article and is sure to ruffle some feathers:

Female suicide bomber who murdered 37 in Ankara bloodbath was in all-girl terror gang and plotted attack at Syria training camp

Yes, gender equality in Rojava: the PKK and PYD/YPG are equally as eager to use women as suicide bombers as they are men. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Kind of funny considering that the article itself doesn't even draw a relation between the attack and Rojava. That woman was a member of the TAK, a TURKEY-based organization and they're NOT related to Rojava. Maybe related to the PKK, but NOT to Rojava or the PYD.

And the PYD using suicide bombers is utter nonsense. There's no evidence for that claim.79.246.20.68 (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Not funny at all considering the tons of evidence linking the PKK with the PYD and its military wing, the YPG. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Where did i say that the PYD and PKK aren't linked? I didn't deny their affiliation, only that the PYD is using suicide bombers.

Anyway, the Daily Mail article is irrelevant for "Human Rights in Rojava", since the attack isn't attributed to the PYD, but the TAK.

Now stop with this nonsense, your Anti-PYD rhetoric isn't contributing at all.79.246.13.45 (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Before more and more people continue the conversation, shouldn't we note that this is completely irrelevant to human rights in Rojava? This discussion belongs to the article Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present)#Accusations of war crimes. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming removal of the "Neutrality" flag

A "Neutrality" flag had been added over two months ago by an editor who claimed that the Assad government would object to some elements of this article, as evidence offered an Arabic language source other editors could not read, and insisted to put up such flag until the elaboration of such objection would be done. However, a "Neutrality" flag is not there to stay forever, it is to be removed once any of three conditions is met:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Apparently condition 3 is met. Most probably condition 2 is also met. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As even the editor who had put up the flag explicitly does not object, removing the flag now. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)