Talk:Euphrates Region

The actual name

The actual name of the city in western Kurdistan or in reality Syria is Kobanî, with an î. So the canton is named Kobanî Canton. Not Kobanê! Please, if you can Wikipedia good, change all Kobanê to Kobanî.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kobanê which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruption

Legacypac, you removed this map here saying: "if you want to discuss this change to how Golan Heights is shown do so on the Syrian Civil War article, not this minor article about an area on the other end of Syria" [1]

That image has already been discussed here:[2] and here: [3]

The majority of people in these two discussions support showing the Golan heights in white with the text "under Israeli occupation".

The map you added shows the Golan Heights as striped brown with the text "Disputed areas". (Despite the fact that all of Syria is disputed and not only the GH)

This article was also created on September 19, and from the beginning it showed the Golan Heights as white and "under Israeli occupation": [4]

Could Legacypac please show me the consensus established at any discussion anywhere to change this to the map you added? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Supreme, generally the change which you are trying to impose (from Syrian civil war map.png to Syrian civil war map 2.png) has not yet gained a consensus on the main page of Syrian Civil War, even though there are some users including you who support this. The reason your preferred map was initially here, was due to your own disruption in late August, so don't count on that. Wikipedia is a community effort for expanding knowledge and hence i encourage you to respect community discussions and decisions, as this most recent one. The map you are trying to promote may have relevance to some wikipedia issues, and your proposal to adopt it at Syrian Kurdistan article is a better start (though next time you should notify all previous discussion participants), and we may discuss it again. However, if you will try to change the existing map to your preferred version on all Syrian Civil War articles with no consensus it may get you blocked, same as the case of your recent block in wikipedia commons just a week ago.GreyShark (dibra) 08:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not received a reply to the issues I brought up above. Where is the consensus for showing GH as stripped brown and labeling it as "disputed" when all of Syria is disputed? Why is your map in the article right now? You say: "respect community discussions and decisions," ... where is the community discussion and consensus to have GH in striped brown and not mentioning that Israel is occupying part of Syria? Majority support is for Syrian Civil war 2 map, as can clearly be seen in two previous discussions I pointed out above. I also noticed now that you had seriously misrepresented the votes in the discussion:[5] Unless someone can give me a a reply to this, I have no other option but to restore the consensus map and remove the map you added as it has no support. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Supreme changed the map again, and I reverted. Why would he type there is no reply right below the reply? User:Greyshark09? Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, you cant just revert me without replying to the things I have said here at the talkpage. That is very disruptive. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I've already addressed this elsewhere as has GreyShark right here. Where is your discussion of your change (a revert of my edit) before you did it today? Your map puts Israel in the brightest of white making Golan the most prominent area on the map. It also adds a non-combatant to the legend. It makes no sense. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the first post in this discussion where I said: "That image has already been discussed here:[6] and here: [7] The majority of people in these two discussions support showing the Golan heights in white with the text "under Israeli occupation".". What of this is incapable of getting through your head? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Show some civility please. This article on Kobani Canton (across the country from Golan) is the wrong place (of many places) to push this map on Wikipedia. Take it to Syrian Civil War please and stay off my talk page. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The second discussion I linked to above was at the Syrian Civil War article were the majority supported the map I added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Supreme, please don't claim falsehood. There is no majority for the change you are trying to apply - see again the talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel discussions. You have been warned over this issue and already blocked once on Commons.GreyShark (dibra) 19:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In the latest discussions Here: [8] and here:[9]. Support inclusion that Israel occupies Golan Heights: Supreme, FunkMonk, Dylan, Amr, Emesik, IRIS, Kudzu, EvergreenFir and Victor falk, so that is 9 people.

Oppose: Greyshark, Legacy, Spesh.

Not clear if they oppose: EkoGraf "Make that six people who oppose the suggestion. Even though Israel is involved in the conflict its on a really low level (almost non-notable). " No one is saying Israel is involved in the SCW, only occupied part of Syria, so his comment is based on the inaccurate way Greyshark presented the discussion.

Have I missed something? 9 against 3. How is this not consensus? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Supreme, using Kobane Canton talk page for pushing your agenda on Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War is irrelevant; Your disruptive and single topic editing is illegal and abusing; you miscount of "votes" by mixing two different discussions and omitting new participants seems a deliberate attempt to fool the system. It seems you are forcefully trying to get banned from English wiki, like you have recently done on commons.GreyShark (dibra) 15:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This discussion:[10] took place at the Syrian Civil War talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because i moved it there, and there was no majority to change the status quo. It was 6 supports to your view against 6 opposes. If you like, you can restart the DRN process on this issue, which has been initiated in 2013, but never progressed.GreyShark (dibra) 21:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There was 9 people that supported me in two discussions listed here by names:[11]. There was 3 people including you and your two side kicks Legacypac and Speech that supported your pov. And now you three have resorted to massively edit warring all over Wikipedia forcing your pov with the use of tag teaming and other illegitimate tactics. One new guy showed up recently GregKaye, and supported your pov. So that is 4 people. You said 6, who are the other two? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There were at least 20 editors opposing inclusion of Israel in belligerents at talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel discussions.GreyShark (dibra) 13:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How many opposed mention that Israel occupies Golan? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop the forum shopping and accept consensus Supreme. Changing the maps and legends to highlight Golan and Israel is getting very old. Legacypac (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Greyshark09 and Legacypac, the Golan heights is illegally occupied (not simply disputed or controlled) by Israel since 1967. As such, Wikipedia should respect this and present facts as they are. The map showing the Golan Heights in white with the lagend (occupied by Israel) is the most appropriate one whenever a map of Syria is presented. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Golan Heights situation is irrelevant to Kobani Canton and Syrian Civil War; discussion of this issue here is forum shopping, as mentioned by user:Legacypac. Relevant discussions of the main map are to be made on the talk:Syrian Civil War page (and consensus as of now is not writing Israel/Israeli-occupied Golan/Israeli-occupied Palestine/whatever, because Israel is not a participant in the Syrian War).GreyShark (dibra) 20:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As have been said multiple times by me and others: if Golan Heights is not going to be mentioned, then don't mention it at all. Now it's in a specific colour and mentioned as "disputed". It is recognized as occupied territory by Israel so this is unacceptable. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kobanî Canton. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208115353/http://www.cbssyr.sy/General%20census/census%202004/pop-man.pdf to http://www.cbssyr.sy/General%20census/census%202004/pop-man.pdf

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) 07:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

FRNS-Decree on adm. divisions and renaming of Kobanî Canton into Euphrates canton

The new FRNS-decree issued on 27/7/2017 renams Kobani canton into Euphrates canton http://fdr-bs.com/2017/07/31/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%88%D9%85-%D8%B1%D9%82%D9%85-1-%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A/

This document leaves out the newly liberated/conflict areas bc it is crafted for relativly nearby election organisation reasons that might not yet include Raqqa and Tabqa area's.

Euphrates Canton:-- The Euphrates canton consists of two provinces: the province of Kobani and the province of Tel-Abyad.

-1- Kobani province. The Kobani province consists of two regions/districs: the Kobani and the Srin regions.

• Kobani district: It includes the center of the city of Kobany and its towns, villages and farms as well as the area of ​​Sheeran and Qenaia district.

• Srin district: It consists of the city center of two cities and towns and villages and its farms, in addition to the area of ​​the majority.

-2- The province of Tel Abyad/GireSipi consists of the area of ​​Tel Abyad towns and villages and farms affiliated with it in addition to Ayn Issa and salawk districts.

--Niele~enwiki (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I cannot read the original sources in Kurdish or Arabic, but my understanding is that this renaming was made with an eye on the idea of the Raqqa council/area joining the canton in the forseeable future. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So after I always disagreed with User:Editor abcdef painting the Raqqa region as part of Kobani Canton in his/her (much laudable) administrative maps, it appears that we are on a path to justify his/her approach in retrospect. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 18:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Kobanî Canton → Euphrates Region – The cantons have been organized into regions. No longer referred to Kobanî Canton in DFNS media. Keeping name here creates confusion as the subordinate provinces are also sometimes referred to as cantons. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 04:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Which sources would you cite for this? Batternut (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Here are a couple of sources: http://en.hawarnews.com/cizire-regions-administrative-division/, http://en.hawarnews.com/euphrates-region-within-the-administrative-division/, http://en.hawarnews.com/the-administrative-division-of-efrin-region/, http://fdr-bs.com/2017/07/31/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%88%D9%85-%D8%B1%D9%82%D9%85-1-%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A/, https://aawsat.com/english/home/article/1085621/syria%E2%80%99s-northern-federation-gears-local-elections, http://hilbijartin.org/info02/ AntonSamuel (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Euphrates Region is a new entity which contains Kobanî Canton, according to the Hawarnews Euphrates Region page you mention. Batternut (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand the article, the former three cantons have been renamed to regions (Afrin, Euphrates, Jazira), and they have subordinate provinces also called cantons (Afrin, Shahba, Kobani, Tel Abyad, Qamishli, Hasakah). All of the political infrastructure of the former cantons are intact and unchanged, they have just been renamed into regions. AntonSamuel (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Raqqa, which was in Kobanî Canton, seems not to be in Euphrates Region. Do you have further sources explaining the mere renaming aspect of this change? Batternut (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Raqqa, Northern Deir Ez Zor Province and Manbij were never assigned to any regions/cantons, they have yet to join the DFNS officially even though they are controlled by the SDF or SDF-aligned militas, they are controlled by the Raqqa, Manbij and Deir Ez Zor Civilian Councils. Maps showing them as part of cantons/regions are not reflecting official DFNS decisions or policy. They don't reveal many official maps with borders however because of the sensitivity relating to alleged separatism by Damascus and the U.S regarding claim to borders. However the http://fdr-bs.com source I provided states it quite clear as well and if you compare it with the original social contract (https://peaceinkurdistancampaign.com/charter-of-the-social-contract/) it's quite clear that former cantons equals the new regions. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything that says Kobanî Canton shall now be called Euphrates Region. Perhaps it needs more spelling out. Batternut (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Support - The established Cantons (Jazira, Kobani, Afrin) have been reorganized as Regions (Jazira, Euphrates, Afrin) with newly organized subordinate provinces/cantons, areas, districts and communes. The upcoming elections of the DFNS will likely increase attention in the media about DFNS and it administrative mechanisms, I suggest a quick move so that confusion is minimized. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Surely it is premature to change the article as the proposer (AntonSamuel) has done here, prejudging the outcome of a requested move (and ignoring WP:BRD too)? Batternut (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Put on hold - As far as I can see, serious sourcing is difficult. While my impression is that indeed Euphrates Region is denoting the entity now known as Kobani Canton, I would not know how to source that claim convincingly. I would recommend to wait for good sources, for now adding a sentence on the issue to the article as it is. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This article seems fairly well researched, and pretty clearly states that the former cantons have been reorganized into regions: https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/08/turkey-syria-kurds-fear-improved-ties-ankara-washington.html Would you consider that to be good enough of a source to justify a move? AntonSamuel (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, you can probably see as well as I do that there are some inconsistencies in the presentation of that source. But I would not mind you to go ahead, so here is my formal weak support for moving the article (in fact you already have rewritten the articles concerned for the new lemma anyway). However, I recommend to be careful with that source, as the author apparently misunderstands and misrepresents the previous canton system. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Support - As AntonSamuel noted, several sources, most importantly Hawar (main news outlet of Rojava and the SDF), confirmed the reorganization - it does not matter that the new "regions" cover to a large part the same area as the old "cantons"; they are treated as the new, official components of Rojava, and that should be reflected here. Applodion (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Claim of Kurdish majority in this area

@Konli17:, besides the credibility of the reference you provided to support the claim of the talk about a Kurdish majority in euphrates region, can you tell me exactly where the reference mentions the Kurdish majority (may be copy the text here)? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)