I'm not sure whether Rudaw editorial board is considered to be the same standard as big online channels, but there certainly is an editorial board there [1] - which is the key indicator of reliability.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. They announced the will do it but have not formed one yet.
2. Flag, national anthem etc. etc. were still not accepted. As far as I understand this authority should draft Constitution which will be than put under referendum and that will approve it. Only there flag and anthem will be finalized. Many Kurdish parties are still loyal to Ala Rengin.EllsworthSK (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some reverts recently regarding the mentioning of Israeli occupation in the legend of the military situation map. See map and legend to right. I feel it belongs in the legend because (1) the map is not solely about the civil war and, more importantly, (2) we should not leave a color unexplained. It's not a political statement to include it; it reflects the current military situations in Syria. If you all feel the Israeli occupation shouldn't even be in the map, that should be discussed on the talk page for the map image or a new image should be chose to replace the map via discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The map should show the only Syrian factions. All sides are some degree of Syrian. Some Kurds want to become autonomous, the FSA and pro-Assad factions are obviously Syrian. This map should show a battle between Syrians, and should not include outside forces unless they have officially declared war against a faction. —SPESH531Other05:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any such maps available? Or can you request an edit of this map on its talk page so that it excludes the blue section? Supreme Deliciousness created the map, so maybe it can just be discussed here. I honestly have little interest in this either way, I just really dislike when legend aren't complete (and I've asked the people at Project Map if there are any rules about map legends). Anway, I'll wait for Supreme Deliciousness to reply and let you all work it out. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The map shows the current military situation in Syria. it doesn't matter if Israel is or is not a part of the civil war, it is still occupying a part of Syria during the civil war. We can ad another sentence after "Occupied by the Israeli military" explaining that Israel is not fighting in the civil war.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And besides, where was the consensus to use the map with the Israeli occupation? On the original file, you created the blue Israeli occupation, and then the edit was reverted. Making a new map and replacing it on all the pages was not a consensus made. —SPESH531Other14:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MAPS comment There is a validity to the argument that the Israeli Golan occupation is part of the military situation. However, the map absolutely misleadingly presents Israel as an active belligerent faction in the conflict. If the Israeli occupation is to be included at all, great emphasis must be placed on that it is not so. A suggestion can be seen with in the box at the right, where the Golan is coloured white, the Israeli legend rewritten and parenthesised with a link to the Golan Heights, and with a separator from the other boxes. Perhaps this can be agreeable to all parties? walkvictor falktalk23:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is obvious that except Supreme Deliciousness, no one here is aware of the previous closure (see this), to use striped coloring on Israeli-controlled Golan Heights in Syrian maps. Syrian Kurdistan talk page is not a proper place to change the previous consensus, especially considering that participants of previous discussion had not been notified (deliberately?). Furthermore, placing the combatant of the Six Day War (Israel) into the maps on Syrian Civil War is obviously WP:OR.GreyShark (dibra) 07:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this article why not just hide the southern half of Syria and the white box caption as they are irrelevent to the article. Or is that technically difficult?
Jzlcdh (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there sources (as judged by Wikipedia to be reliable) that notably or at all link the Golan Heights as an issue in the Syrian Civil War?? I personally view the occupation of the Golan heights as being morally wrong but that is just my unrelated opinion. The Syrian Civil War only mentions the Golan heights as a location where "Israel has provided treatment to 750 Syrians" - "750". I see no encyclopaedic justification for highlighting the Golan Heights on Syrian Civil War related maps. This illegal occupation relates to entirely different topics. This is not a !Vote issue. WP:Consensus relates to Wikipedia's goals which primarily involves building an encyclopaedia not the advocation of editor opinion or WP:OR. GregKaye✍♪04:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So the map, being relevant to the Syrian Civil War, should list participants in the Syrian Civil War. Israel is not a participant in the Syrian Civil War. Its really that simple. GregKaye✍♪14:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to mention that user:Supreme Deliciousness has recently been banned from Wikipedia Commons for disruptively promoting his agenda that Israel is a belligerent in the Syrian Civil War and was unblocked only after promising to seize such actions (he had been trying to add "Israel" or "Israeli occupation" in the belligerent section of various Syrian Civil War-related articles for already more than a year). Supreme's currently ongoing edit-warring campaign is clearly undermining his promise in November and following my WP:GS/SCW warning, i'm now considering to have him reported on WP:AE. His current engagement with me, as well as user:Legacypac and content dispute on this with GregKaye and Jzlcdh is just illustrating his inability to gain consensus at main discussion page of the Syrian Civil War (see talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel). I'm doubtful that this pattern of single-topic editing, active edit-warring despite clear lack of consensus and recently issued bans and warnings will make him last any longer as editor on English wikipedia. Magog described it correctly, by issuing a "last warning" in October on Commons - Supreme is actively progressing on a destructive pathway and i call upon him for perhaps the last time to reconsider before descending into permanent bans.GreyShark (dibra) 15:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this up at the "Kobani Canton" talkpage:[3] How is this not consensus? Are you going to reply to this? You and Lehacypac voted against, and have now resorted to edit warring your pov through Wikipedia against the consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Supreme forum shops the issue on enough low traffic loosely related articles eventually he will get the result he wants somewhere. His agenda is clear. I'll support any effort to deal with this. Legacypac (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to recuse from any administrative action at this point. So now that I've done so, I might as well freely give my opinion.
Personally, I don't care whether or not it's included. It adds nothing of value either way: it's one of those stupid us-vs-them pieces of thinking that only matters to partisans (cf. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, Northern Ireland flags issue, etc.).
However, I do care that use the same word for all powers. The suggestion above from May has "occupied" (negative connotation) when referring to Israel, but "controlled" (neutral connotation) when referring to other powers, including the universally loathed ISIS. This is a fairly obvious POV-push via WP:COATRACK.
Mildly in favour - if no one objects give it a try (on the "more" tab near top right) but make sure there is a redirect from the old name (maybe that happens automatically when you move it) and don't get annoyed if someone reverts it.
Jzlcdh (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. the official name is Syria. All the territory is inside Syria, all countries and international bodies recognize the territory as being part of Syria and the administration's own "Charter of the social contract in Rojava (Syria)" [4] carefully does not use the word "Kurdistan" once. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The official name of the governing structure of the region is the Democratic Self-Administration (Kurdish: Rêveberiya Xweseriya Demokratîk, Arabic: الإدارة الذاتية الديمقراطية), which deliberately avoids any connotations of ethnic "property" in line with the guiding philosophy of the governing apparatus. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be called Rojava. Locals call the area Rojava, and that is the administrative name used by the governing apparatus in the region. Syrian Kurdistan is equivalent to North United Kingdom (for Scotland), or Catlonian Spain. The de-facto name of this region is Rojava. Similar to the article on Kosovo, where Serbs objected to the name Kosovo, and object to the article. Now there is a guy here objecting to this article existing, and its name of Rojava (see edit 04:09, 18 January 2015). The fact is that this is an article about PYD-led region which calls it Rojava.
The article should be called Rojava, as that is what is is referred to in the foreign press, and what the locals call it. The article is about a region which is under the governance of the PYD, which also refers to the region as Rojava. The only people who object to this are Syrian Arab nationalists who don't live in Rojava, and are against its separatist aspirations. The fact we have articles on Catalonia (not Catalonian Spain) and Kosovo (not South Serbia), is precedent that this article should be called Rojava. Genjix (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - i was requested to give an opinion here by Genjix. First - i must note that this section is not a formal WP:RM, but a kind of preceding opinion poll. Second, if anyone would like to make an official WP:RM proposal (whether to "Western Kurdistan", "Rojava" or "Democratic Self-Administration") - please do so below, and if we see a consensus within (at least) one week vote - then move will be feasible.GreyShark (dibra) 18:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm currently placed under WP:1RR, I have to bring this flag matter to the talk page. SerokKurdi and an editor under the IP 67.225.33.148 have changed the flag in the infobox from the flag of Syrian Kurdistan to the flag of Iraqi Kurdistan. Has there been an announcement on the change of the flag at all? If not, we shouldn't be changing the infobox to show the wrong flag. [Soffredo]16:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've stumbled across what is actually a (depressingly) contentious issue within Kurdish politics. The "flag of Syrian Kurdistan" is the Kurdish flag as created and promoted by the PKK, while the "flag of Iraqi Kurdistan" is the older Kurdish flag generally credited to the early nationalist leader Celadet Bedir Khan[5]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Map showing the claimed borders of Western Kurdistan (Rojava)Map showing de facto cantons of Western Kurdistan (Rojava) in February 2014, as well as territories claimed by Western Kurdistan (Rojava), but not controlled by the Kurds in February 2014Map showing de facto cantons of Western Kurdistan (Rojava) in February 2014
I see that map which shows claimed borders of Rojava was removed from the article. Why? Article about Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has an infobox map which shows “Territories claimed by ISIL”, but in the same time, map which shows “Territories claimed by Syrian Kurdistan” was removed from this article. This is, by all means, fully POV. If readers of Wikipedia are able to see territorial claims of ISIL then why they are not able to see territorial claims of the Kurds? By my opinion, presentation of both these claims would serve informative purpose of Wikipedia.
Now, here are 3 different maps of Rojava:
1. The first one shows territories claimed by Rojava
2. The second one shows both, territories claimed by Rojava, and de facto cantons of Rojava in February 2014 (this is a time after formation of these cantons when they had largest territory)
3. The last one shows only de facto cantons of Rojava in February 2014
So, which of these maps is best to be used in this article? I propose the second one as it contains two informations that are currently missing from the article. Currently, article uses only map of current situation, and readers cannot see either territories claimed by Rojava or territories formerly controlled by Rojava. 92.60.225.16 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And who exactly is "claiming" said borders? Random people passing around woefully inaccurate maps online? Ideologically, the autonomous administration fundamentally rejects the very notion of fixed borders, so this cannot be presented as if it were an official territorial claim. I would vote to not include that map at all anywhere. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with Lothar. These "cartoons" are pathetic, and I don't know how Commons allow this bullshit to be published, and then people claiming those as "maps". For those who know the area, there are no Kurds in Azaz area, or in the immediate vicinity of Aleppo. What the Kurds are calling Syrian Kurdistan is a land of mosaic ethnic composition; Assyrians, Chaldeans (oldest communities in the area), Arabs (2nd oldest), Armenians and Kurds (most recent). Kurds are the majority in some areas because of the massive west-bound immigration of the other communities, not because this is "Kurdistan". Bottom line, these cartoons have no foundation in history or geography (look up Kurdistan maps in the Treaty of Sevres) and definetly have no place in an encyclopedia. The ISIL maps represent the areas they control, and maps of the Syrian conflict do present areas under Kurdish military control. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't really agree with me. My position is based on the ideological basis on which the cantons were founded and the fact that the map is actually and simply not an official claim, while yours seems to be based on just refuting any Kurdish claims to self-determination in the area. This "mosaic" claim depends on which area you're looking at, it's not like in all areas you just see a formless mixture—Efrin, for instance, has been quite solidly Kurdish for centuries. Also, the Assyrians/Syriac communities in Jazira began arriving there in the 1920s & 1930s—same time as Armenians and many but not all Kurds. Most of them are from Tur Abdin (Mardin) area in what is now Turkey while a minority are from the areas of Hakkari and Urmia, and fled to the area as a result of the genocide against them during WWI (some began to move there for economic reasons later on as well). Yes, in centuries long past there were Syriac/Aramaic speakers living there, but they had pretty much abandoned the region by the end of the 1500s due to a combination of invasions, climatic changes, and raiding by nonsedentary Arabs and Kurds—there is no continuous population history of these old groups with the modern population. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, I am not against Kurdish self-determination, or for that purpose self-determination of any group. However, Kurds are claiming that those areas are their land, which is arguable. I don't know what your sources are for what you are saying above, because this is news to me. According to this story, Kurds have cooperated with Ottomans against Christians and were granted their land as a reward.
I quote: "Suryanis began to emigrate from Syria after the Amuda massacre of August 9, 1937. This massacre, carried out by the Kurd Saeed Agha, emptied the city of its Suryani population. In 1941, the Suryanis of Malikiya were subjected to a vicious assault. Even though it failed, fear, anxiety and the immigration of Kurds from Turkey led to Malikiya, Darbasiya and Amuda becoming completely Kurdish. The historically Christian city of Nusaybin had a similar fate after its Christian population left when it was annexed to Turkey. They crossed the border into Syria and settled in Qamishly, which is only a few meters from Nusaybin. Thus Nusaybin became Kurdish and Qamishly became a Suryani Christian city. Things soon changed, however, with the immigration of Kurds beginning in 1926 following the failure of Saeed Ali Naqshbandi in his rebellion against the Turkish authorities at that time."
In addition, I have an influential Kurdish friend in Jinderes (Afrin District) who told me the Kurdish presence in that area is very recent, definitely less than a century old. If you don't want to use Treaty of Sevres maps, then you could probably use CIA maps or a credible historical (1911) map from an established Atlas which shows almost no Kurdish presence in Afrin area.
CIA map of Kurdish-inhabited areaEthnic groups in the Balkans and Asia Minor as of early 20th Century
In the current war, PKK militants have controlled in agreement with the Syrian government the Kurdish-inhabited areas, including dozens of Arab villages in al-Malikiyah, al-Yarubiyah, and al-Hasakah districts. Consequently, the so-called "cantons" represent, at best, an exaggerated extent of Kurdish-inhabited areas. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A number of Kurdish tribes did indeed participate in the WWI Ottoman genocides of Christians in Anatolia—as I already noted, these killings were the original impetus for the emigration of thousands of Syriacs and Armenians from that area and their settlement by French authorities in Jazira. Certain ones did, however, shelter and assist Christians—the Hevêrkan are notable among them, not least for the fact that they later fled to Jazira themselves.
It is true that the Amude massacre changed the demographics of that area. However, it's important to note that not only Kurds, but many Arabs as well participated in the massacre, which occurred in the context of an autonomist movement in Jazira that was led by Syriac and immigrant Kurdish notables. The Kurd and Arab tribes who committed the massacre were anti-autonomist and aligned with the National Bloc, whereas Kurds who supported the autonomy movement even helped Christians fleeing the bloodshed. Anyway, the emigration of Syriacs was even larger in the early post-independence era when nationalist governments instituted land reform policies which were disadvantageous to landowners in the area—the wealthy Asfar and Najjar families of Ras al-Ayn, who had played an enormous role in the modernisation of farming methods along the Khabur, were among the thousands who left during this time.
I have yet to see an ethnic map of Syria that closely matches current or historical reality, whether the CIA's clueless blob or Mehrdad Izady's error-laced crypto-irredentism. As regards Efrin, the estimate your "friend" makes is contradicted by Ottoman (cf. Stefan Winter's Die Kurden Syriens im Spiegel osmanischer Archivquellen) and European sources (e.g.) from past centuries. Do note that the 1911 map that you show does in fact show orange bars denoting Kurdish population in the area northwest of Aleppo.
I am relying on a number of sources that I have read over the past few years. Foremost amongst these, I encourage you to read Seda Altuğ's dissertation entitled Sectarianism in the Syrian Jazira: community, land and violence in the memories of World War I and the French mandate. There are PDF copies of it online, go ahead and search. It is deeply detailed, thoroughly researched, and will surely provide you much better insight into the formation of modern Jazira than whatever you rely on currently. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to determine what this article is about. Is it about an irredentist Kurdish claim of parts of Northern Syria being part of a "greater Kurdistan", a claim that seems to require its supporters to conveniently forget that it is founded on the genocide of the region's original inhabitants? Or is it about something real: the virtually self-governing, self-defending, and de-facto autonomous areas in northern Syria that have formed as a result of the Syrian civil war and whose populations are predominantly Kurdish. I think the article should be about the latter, and the map should be restricted to showing what areas this "interim government" controls, and the place names that are on it, with the exception of Kobane, should be the official Syrian names. (i.e. use the map titled "Map showing de facto cantons of Western Kurdistan (Rojava) in February 2014", but using the official names for the population centers). Maybe also (on the same map?) show the maximum area of territory the "interim government" held before the IS advances. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jzlcdh, I don't mind restructuring the article, but given that there are no known geographical definitions for the area and no borders, then we need to give the reader some information about its extent, as described by third party observers, and put this in context with Kurdistan. Another point, you added this sentence: "... the border crossing of Yaroubiyah is intermittently closed by Iraqi Kurdistan. This is Rabia, Iraq on the Iraqi side, and it's in Ninawa Province, not in Iraqi Kurdistan. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another point, the population of 4.6 million is simply and mathematically impossible, with all estimates putting the number of Kurds in Syria at 9-12% of the population (~23 million before the war), this figure including Kurds in big cities like Aleppo and Damascus. If you add up all the population in Hasaka, plus Ayn al-Arab plus Afrin, you would barely get 1 million. I'd rather use the estimation from the CIA factbook. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi عمرو بن كلثوم, I certainly agree with you that "we need to give the reader some information about its extent, as described by third party observers". However I am not skilled with graphics and so even if any maps did need changing I would not easily be able to do so. I see that currently there is no geography section so I will add one now. Of course feel free to improve it.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Syrian Kurdistan → Rojava – This article is about a region governed by the PYD, which calls the area Rojava. Foreign press also uses this term, for example [6] (BBC) [7] (Guardian) [8] (Independent) [9] (VICE). Other examples on Wikipedia such as Kosovo (not South Serbia), Catalonia (not Catalonian Spain) or Scotland (not Scottish United Kingdom) indicate this article should be called Rojava as per convention. Genjix (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that criteria: "Rojava" 881,000 results, "Syrian Kurdistan" 796,000 on Google. I would have expected "Syrian Kurdistan" to get more results due to the terms Syrian and Kurdistan. The only convention I've noticed is that "Rojava" is used for articles more specifically about this region than in the context of Syria as a whole. Also Google aliases "Kurdistan" to "Kurds" and "Kurdish" producing more results. Genjix (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking my opinion. I just checked google.co.uk and there are indeed more results for Rojava than Syrian Kurdistan.
I see it is called Rojava in "The Guardian" (a quality UK newspaper) and on the BBC.
I support this move.
Jzlcdh (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you put the terms in quotes you get these search results: for "Syrian Kurdistan" -> 127.000, for "Rojava" -> 884.000. The quotes give you the search results containing the exact terms. --Moplayer (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is moved, the "Syrian Kurdistan" should become a disambiguation page, since Kurds in Syria covers the traditional geographic extant and history of the region of Kurdistan in Syria -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I was set to oppose per WP:COMMON, but contrary to my expectations, "rojava" actually produces more results than "syrian kurdistan" on Google, which is a quick-and-dirty but fairly reliable metric. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I checked major Canadian media. They rarely use either title - just say Kurds or YPD etc. Syrian Kurdistan is deceptive descriptive (darn spell checker) like Iraqi Kurdistan while Rojava is specific like "Kurdish Autonomous Region' which I was surprised to see is not the title of our article, but a redirect. We do have Kurdistan Regional Government though. Maybe that Iraqi Kurdistan should move too - they have an even more officially recognized Autonomous region then the Syrian Kurds do.Legacypac (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This(ese) area(s) is clearly not part of Kurdistan according to any respectful map. Also, as Legacy said, there is no official status or recognition for the area, and it's rather a pocket here and a pocket there of PYD-occupied areas, and the whole status with the Syrian government is vague. You can't compare to Scotland or Catalonia, because these two have official status and recognition in their respective countries. The situation here is part of the Syrian Civil War, and the areas are just like any other area of Syria; today controlled by X and tomorrow by Y. I feel it would be best to merge this article with Kurds in Syria, as it used to be. The other option would be to merge it with PYD or even call it PYD-Controlled areas, which is the most common name for the area as Legacy pointed out. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for the word Rojava, this is mostly used by blogs and mirror sites, but hardly any reliable source, so I don't really trust google numbers on this. In addition, it might include results talking simply about the word (meaning west in Kurdish), not about the areas subject of this article. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I said at all. I find all kinds of RS uses of Rojava. It is the English version of the Kurdish word for West, so we are not going to pick up Kurdish language uses, only English language uses referring exactly to this entity, Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really, Supreme Deliciousness, why are you wasting everyone's time making a suggestion that have no chance of success under Wikipedia npov guidelines? Or is it just meant to be a distraction? "Occupied" implies a military occupation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, you have changed the name to "Kurdish-run areas of Syria or PYD-Run Areas of Syria"? The administration is not exclusively Kurdish, nor is the PYD the sole (although it is dominant) governing organisation. I feel like your edits are more about de-legitimising Rojava, than about creating a good article and are counter-productive. I can understand other's have different opions like Attar-Aram syria, but he's been very productive and willing to work to improve the article. Try to be constructive rather than making these kinds of politicised edits. Genjix (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Genjix, this is interesting. You just deleted the mere one-line sentence from the 116-page Human Rights Watch report about human rights violations by PYD, and replaced that with a couple of unknown people commending PYD for women's rights. What I am trying to do here is bring some neutrality to the bullshit in this article, although I see the Canvassing happening here. AGAIN, the name of this article should be neutral and meaningful to the English reader, not to the Kurdish reader, hence the name Rojava does not work. Furthermore, the name should be in line with the consensus of the English-speaking media, and you can hardly say "Rojava" meets this criterion. I suggest you check Wikipedia guidelines before voting or commenting here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete anything. Tell me which line you're talking about. I expanded the section by adding more information and quotes with the personal opinion from the guy who actually wrote the report itself. He says they're in the middle of a war yet taking steps towards addressing the problems like child soldiers. They're creating a new justice system, training new police (inexperienced) and transitioning politically but he says they've demonstrated a commitment towards democratic ideals and are proving themselves committed to that by their actions. That is the opinion of the guy who wrote the report. I think it's fair to include it alongside the problems listed in the report. Genjix (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: given that the bulk of the article is about the recently emerged de-facto autonomous entity that calls itself Rojava, given that "Syrian Kurdistan" is not a title that is accurate as a description of that entity (since it is not a title that the entity uses to describe itself, and in fact it seems reluctant to emphasize its "Kurdishness" at all), and given that the phrase "Syrian Kurdistan" is extremely pov under any context anyway (though I would support it being a disambiguation page since some users might search using it). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Kurdish run areas" are three words; each of them getting many results standalone in Google's search engine. If you put the quotes, you only will get 533 results. If you search "Rojava" (with quotes) you will get 915,000 results. For "Syrian Kurdistan" (with quotes) there are 127,000 search results. In conclusion you can say that "Rojava" compared to "Syrian Kurdistan gets 7 times more search results. --Moplayer (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I removed that huge quote which is difficult to read and is already in the Kurdistan article. But it was reverted by another editor. Is there any reason to have such a large history section which dominates the rest of the article? Maybe if the article was bigger it would make sense. Genjix (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its called by Kurds as Kurdistan, and readers who are interested only in the Syrian parts must be able to know the historic background of this particular area without having to go to the article of Kurdistan. That quote is referenced and on topic, so there is no justification for its deletion. Plus, I find it so weird that those 6 lines dominate the article in your view ! this article is being filled daily with all kinds of info's but this quote is the one that annoy you the most ! .. or maybe you are not annoyed and dont have any agenda and just want the article to look better and in this case I apologize for misunderstanding.
a good compromise is to remove the quote into a note section, but keep the information about Kurdistan Tigris borders, if this is Ok with you and the other editor, then I can do it. --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok, sure. I don't want to remove anything useful. I'm just saying it's long and difficult to read. The language is arcane and old style, and it goes into lots of details that many western readers won't understand (all the old place names in non-standard spellings). If the article were longer, it would make sense to have a bigger history lead. However the purpose of this article is to inform readers about the current situation of how this region is. "Kurds in Syria" is more suitable for in depth history, as this article shouldn't be Kurd specific either. Genjix (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Aram, and I think it is pretty much needed here, especially given the discussion about the name. This area is not a historical part of Kurdistan by any means, and this should be clear. If Kurds live here, so they do in Istanbul, Damascus, Beirut, Adana, etc., and this does not make any of these areas part of Kurdistan. This quote is an important historical reference, and hiding it does not help the reader understand the context of the problem here. I will keep it visible to the reader, not as a note. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Amr, I understand your points but, the note is visible in the article, just not in the history section, and the first sentence of the history section give the summary of the quote which still exist and visible at the end of the article.. please avoid edit warring, and lets keep the things as they are now, a summary of the quote in the beginning of the history section, and the quote itself can be read and unhidden in the notes section at the end of the article.... I will interfere in this no longer, I hope you and the other editor settle this and keep my edit which is a half way between you two, if you choose not to do that, then it concern me no more, I shall interfere in the is article no more--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Aram, thanks for your intervention. As you can see, I have always been avoiding edit-warring. This article is full of crap, you read it and you would think yourself in Utopia. There is no mention of all the atrocities PYD militias are committing against civilians, Arabs and Kurds alike. According to this report by Human Rights Watch, PYD militias are kidnapping and killing children, torturing and kicking people out of their homes in the area simply because they don't want to fight with them. Anyway, your suggestion is acceptable to me. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What has the Wikipedia article on (Iraqi) Kurdification got to do with the article on (Syrian) Rojava?
User:Supreme Deliciousness, your change here [10] is about Kurdification under Iraqi Kurds. The Syrian Kurds and Iraqi Kurds are 2 groups opposed to each other. There's even a blockade from the KRG, and they recently condemned the PKKs role in Sinjar. Also Rojava is not solely a Kurdish project. Genjix (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are attempts to vandalise this page from Syrian and pan-Kurd nationalists, replacing references to Rojava and its flag with the flag of the KRG and the name 'West Kurdistan'. See this edit from a random IP address. Genjix (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "governance" info from the introduction because
1) The link to "democratic confederalism" redirects to the PKK. However there is no explanation for the reader who is completely new to the topic as to how the PKK relates to Rojava.
2) The stated aim of self sufficiency seems to contradict the requests by Rojava politicians for free movement and trade across the borders with Iraq and Turkey.
If you want to put it back I suggest you put it in a lower section (maybe called "politics" or "governance") with more explanation to clarify the 2 points above as I feel the necessary explanation would be too detailed for the introduction.
Jzlcdh (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen mentions of Semalka being open. Is that the same as Sihela and Yaroubiyah mentioned in this article? And do people trade across the non-river border at will?
Jzlcdh (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The process of Kurdification can be applied to other countries. Iraq does not have exclusive rights to use the word so you have no right to remove the link from this article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdification includes by definition expelling non-Kurds from their land, whcih is happening in the areas under PYD control. BTY, the name "Rojava" and the adjective from it "Rojavan" sound like OR. TBC. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak Arabic but even with the wonders of translation software I cannot find the name "Saeed Agha" in the references given to support the sentence about Amuda which says: "This massacre carried out by the Kurd Saeed Agha emptied the city of its Assyrian population." So unless anyone can add a convincing reference I will remove this sentence.
Jzlcdh (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the sentence containing
"Kurdish tribes cooperated with Ottoman authorities in the massacres against Armenian and Assyrian Christians in Upper Mesopotamia"
as I could not find mention of places in what is now called Rojava in the citation at
R. S. Stafford (2006). The Tragedy of the Assyrians. p. 25.
Therefore it seemed irrelevent to this article, which is about Rojava.
@Attar-Aram syria
I agree wıth you that Rojava is part of Upper Mesopotamia but as far as I can tell the new refs you have added do not refer to the part of Upper Mesopotamia now called Rojava. Of course my geography or history knowledge could be wrong and I stand to be corrected if anyone know better.
Jzlcdh (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well User:Jzlcdh, when there is a conflict, you leave the article as it is and go to the talk page, instead of deleting what you want then asking others to come to the talk page.
I don't dispute your point about Wikipedia ettiquette but I am afraid I am too lazy to look that up in the Wikipedia guidelines - if that was rude I apologise. However I think the problem with the sentence was that a typical uninformed reader would think the event mentioned occurred in what is now Rojava.
Jzlcdh (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Im bored with this article ! every one trying to hide some shameful past or force an agenda (and Im not talking about you in particular Jzlcdh but in general).. so I'm not gonna bother my self with putting those materials you deleted.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing whether or not there was a massacre of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, but even if there was how would it be relevant to Rojava?
Varous terrible things were done by the British Empire but those which occured outside colonyX before it became independant from Britain
are probably irrelevent to countryX even if people ethnically the same as those from colonyX were among the perpetrators. Of course there may be one or two exceptions (perhaps in world war 1) but in general I think that would be the case. I might be able to think of a more specific example but I don't want to offend anyone.
Jzlcdh (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its relevant when it happen in turkey and the survivors emigrate to Syria. If you wrote that Assyrians came to Syria and stopped, there will be no context ! and the readers wont understand what happened and why those people came !!!!! So, it is relevant because it is WHY those people came to Syria on the first place.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The way the government of Rojava is displayed is inconsistent with that of other states (and feminism isn't really a type of government)
Similar to how Cuba etc are "Marxist-Leninist single-party state" or even just "Socialist state." It should probably say a. Socialist state b. Provisional socialist state c. Libertarian socialist state or d. Democratic confederalist socialist state — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.68.130 (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A paragraph taken from the 19th century John Miles book, does not mention anything about Syrian Kurdish areas (Afrin/north Aleppo/north Raqqa/Jazira), so naturally it can not be used to show that Kurdistan does not include Rojava/northern Syria. Moreover, it contradicts other sources such as Kreyenbroek which is recent and scholarly and more reliable.Vekoler (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What make it Kurdistan ? was it part of a Kurdistan province ? or was it acknowledged as a Kurdistan region ? Not any place the Kurds migrate to become a Kurdistan. In the 19th century, Kurdistan was not that large. That quote is historical and represent the situation back then. I will restor it and I hope that you reach a consensus here before removing sourced material. Mills was talking about Kurdistan region not about Kurds. There is no contradiction. Not all the places Kurds live in become their historic land.
One more thing, there was no Ottoman Kurdistan for most of the Ottoman history. Only for 20 years did an Eyalet of Kurdistan existed from 1847 to 1867 and it didnt include Jazira [11] So how did Ottoman Kurdistan included Syrian Jazira ? What does Kreyenbroek mean with Ottoman Kurdistan. Is he talking about an actual region (which in this case did not include Syrian Jazira) or is he talking about places Kurds live in ?? because it is clear in the article that no one is denying that Kurds migrated and lived in many parts of Syria.
I read the source [12]. He is talking about areas inhabited by Kurds and not about a well defined geopolitical region such as a province or autonomous state. He also doe not claim that there was such a unit in the Ottoman empire that included Syrian Jazira. Mils on the other hand is talking about Kurdistan as a geopolitical unit for the Kurds... A distinction must be made between a Kurdistan and Where Kurds live, or else, even Haret al-Akrad neighborhood in Damascus will be claimed as part of the ever expanding Kurdistan.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Attar: Can't agree more. Very-well said. Most of the Kurds in those areas are descendants of people who immigrated from Turkey in the 1920's, and that's about the same time when many cities in the area were established (Qamishli, Ayn al-Arab, etc.). In addition to the maps from Attar, Treaty of Sevres maps, CIA, among many others, show a minimal presence of Kurds in Syria. For example, The Historical Atlas (New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1911) Historical Atlas, 1911 – Distribution of Races in the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor.jpg here shows some Kurds in Ayn al-Arab area and almost no Kurds to the east or west within the Syrian border. Some people here think that every land where Kurds were hosted/live becomes Kurdistan, that's simply wrong. In addition, Kurds are currently practicing ethnic cleansing in the areas they invade by force. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Amr, All we care about here is to improve the content of the encyclopaedia by providing academic/reliable sources. There is a definition of traditional Kurdistan and that has nothing to do with the unfortunate recent events in Iraq/Syria. Not every land Kurds live on is part of Kurdistan, simply because that region has a historical/traditional definition. For instance Britannica has the following definition:
Kurdistan, Arabic Kurdistān, Persian Kordestān , broadly defined geographic region traditionally inhabited mainly by Kurds. It consists of an extensive plateau and mountain area, spread over large parts of what are now eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and western Iran and smaller parts of northern Syria and Armenia[13]Vekoler (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The problem is the misinterpretation of the Mils book. It does not say this or that area did not belong to geographic region of Kurdistan. For instance, it also does not mention Diyarbakir, can we conclude that Diyarbakir is not in Kurdistan? Please keep in mind that what we discuss is the geo-cultural region of Kurdistan not any political entity. What Kereynbroek means is the traditional areas in Middle East under Ottoman control with a Kurdish majority, not any specific province. Ottoman Kurdistan is a well-established term in academic circles and it included parts of contemporary Syria. One can find numerous academic sources which mention break-up and division of "Ottoman Kurdistan" between Turkey/Iraq and Syria in the Treaty of Lausanne. Also there are academic sources that include northeastern Syria in Kurdistan (see source 3).
1) M. Moaz, G. Sheffer, "Middle Eastern Minorities and Diasporas", Quote:Under the 1923 Lausanne Treaty the former Ottoman Kurdistan was divided between the newly-formed states of Turkey, Iraq, and Syria, p.185
2) M. Ahmed, M. Gunter, "The Kurdish Question and the 2003 Iraqi War", Quote: 1923 Treaty of Lausanne which formally divided Ottoman Kurdistan among Turkey, Syria and Iraq, p.17
3) C. Dahlman, "The Political Geography of Kurdistan", in Eurasian Geography & Economics, Vol.43, No.4, 2002, p.271 Quote: The environs of Kurdistan encompass the mountains and plateaus of southeast Anatolia, the eastern Taurus and northern Zagros mountains, along with their foothills, and extend out onto the upper reaches of the dissected Transtigridian plains of Mesopotamia and the Jazira region in northeastern Syria.Vekoler (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vekoler, obviously your third source is too recent to give a historical perspective that goes against all established sources and maps, let alone their vague definition of Kuridstan environs of Kurdistan not land of Kurdistan or territory of Kurdistan, possibly meaning that these DO NOT belong to Kurdistan, but rather the outer extent or zone of influence, which would make sense given the other maps. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Vekoler and Amr, I guess that the reason for our disagreement is that this article is about a political entity and "Kurdistan" have two meanings, 1- a real political unit, which in my mind started when the Seljuks created the province of Kurdistan in the land that witnessed the birth of Kurds from the union of the 5000 years old Iranified Zagrosian Tribes, and evolved until it became the Kurdistan of the Ottomans created in 1847. 2- Traditional lands that had a Kurdish majority after the incorporation of Kurds into the Ottoman empire by Selim I.
As it is obvious, Kurdistan did grow substantially from the old smaller zagrosian Kurdistan as Kurds (like all other people in the region including Armenians, Arabs, Syriacs and Turks) expanded their presence for different reasons. But this article is about Rojava, which became a de-facto political unit. And the Kurdistan described by Mils is a land actually ruled by Kurdish princess (so a political unit). while the Kurdistan identified by Britanica and other newer sources is about Kurdistan in its modern version where Kurds had became a majority. For example, in the 20s and 30s Syriacs, not Arabs or Kurds (Im not a Syriac by the way regardless of my user name), where the majority of Jazira. So how can this land be part of the traditional Kurdish inhabited areas.?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Attar. Huge demographic shifts have happened as a result of massacres and violence, which led to two opposite migrations, inbound by Kurds and outbound by Syrics/Assyrians. I come from Aleppo and have several friends (Syriacs and Assyrians) who still have their ID documents issued in al-Hasakah Governorate (and renewed there), although they have been living in Aleppo for decades. This is why is strongly feel the title of this article should be "Areas under control by Kurdish forces", as part of the civil was articles. Furthermore, there is nothing to substantiate the claims of a territory; no international or national recognition, no clear border, no agreements with other parts of Syria or international parties. This area is no different from any other area in Syria under military control by any of the different factions. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The YPG taking Tell Abyad seems to have connected Cezire and Kobani, this at least according to pro-Rojava sources like Roarmag and the New York Times:
With that, the Kurds connected two of their self-administered cantons along the border with Turkey, putting even more pressure on Raqqa.
What does "libertaed" mean? Does this mean that any part occupied by YPG using military force becomes automatically Kurdish? Tell Aybad has an Arab majority. This whole article needs to be renamed to YPG-controlled areas. BTW, the map of the Syrian civil war shows the areas under military control of each faction. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No that doesn't mean that obviously. With "liberated" I meant, free of the freaking ISIS group. And I read that the kurds don't want to establish a kurdisch state. They want a confederalist democracy with selfcontrolled counsils and cantons where the different people live on their own and so on.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source (Kurdish this time) confirming that PYD militias burnt down houses in Arab villages. This is yet another reason why this article should be called PYD-controlled areas (or Kurdish-controlled areas of Syria). Will reopen the discussion soon. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk)
If you closely read the source, you should notice that it's not a kurdisch source. It's an arab source. On top of that: "We do not believe that the PYD fought in Tall Hamis and Tall Birak to weaken the Islamists". It's not confirming, it's claming. That's silly.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the idea that Pradva.Ru may be a one-sided source but, if it is propaganda machine of Russian government, so what about websites such as Kurdwatch and leavelike which are propaganda machines of the corrupt and bankrupted so-called "Syrian coalition of oppositions" and are used for same nonsense claims to YPG! I would recommend to delete all contents in Rojava article which are based on these sources. At least Pravda.ru has an entry in Wikipedia.--Multi-gesture (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but the difference : we dont use those sources to say that YPG are murderers, thieves and degenerate. As for Pravda having an entry, so is Stormfront (website) and many other sites. It doesnt make them a place to get neutral news from. I will look in Rojava and delete liveleaks material now.
Please read this section of Rojava article again carefully. This section which was added by Ibn Kolthum accuses PYD for every crimes that can happen in the world! All of those accusations are based on these junky websites (especially Kurdwatch which is truely a propaganda and nonsense site - I would explain more about this site -). Another important thing I must say is that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is trusted and creditable and it has been used by many well-known references and news agencies.--Multi-gesture (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Multi-gesture, those are accusations about violations committed at time of war and not personal attacks against YPG, which is different from the style of Pravda which make personal attacks on people they dont like. Well, I see kurdwatch and the observatory from the same rank. Maybe we can go here : Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. They will study the source. But you need to make a case for it and tell them why it isnt reliable as a source for making mere accusations. Remember, we dont use Kurdwatch as a fact source but as an allegation source.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdwatch must be removed from wikipedia. It's wondering that how forcible recruitment is a huge concern for this so-called human rights website but mass-killings of more than 200 civilians in Kobani after ISIS attacks is not worth to mention by them! It shows insane entity of this website and shows that it is not related to any Kurd and it is created for propagating propaganda rumors for someone's or a group's interests. It's a good idea to check these sites (Kurdwatch for me and maybe Syriahr for you)--Multi-gesture (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Multi-gesture, since our discussion didnt include any special correspondence between us outside the Rojava subject, then I moved it to here so that other editors can participate since this discussion will have effects on the article and sources. Also so that any other editor interested can participate and give his opinion about Kurdwatch and Syrian observatory.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Attar-Aram syria; also the sentence "Kobani siege was led by an ISIS Kurdish leader Abu Khattab al-Kurdi" without more information, not only unrelated to the Rojava article (and as you mentioned is considered WP:SYNTH) but it is also shouldn't come in continuation of the sentence "one of the biggest massacres by the group in the country since its offensive began in the summer of 2014" because ISIS offensive through Syria began before its plans for the siege of Kobani.--Multi-gesture (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Multi-gesture, look at the edit history of the article. I already removed that sentence about the Kurdish leader and removed that ISIS is led by Arabs. Both are irrelevant to Rojava and the crimes being done. ISIS isnt killing because its led by Arabs. Actually ISIS killed much more Arabs than Kurds.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Attar-Aram syria; if ISIS isn't pro-Arab, so what does it mean when they call Kurdish people live their conquered areas and repopulate those places with Arab people? Of course there are many brain-washed kurds among ISIS but it doesn't change anything about this terrible organization. Can you explain me who ISIS is? ISIS and even its non-Arab followers believe that because Mohammad was Arab, so Arabic race is superior than other races.
I also clean this article from sources such as Kurdwatch and leavelikes as you deleted Pravda-linked contents.
Well, we cant use Wikipedia as a forum to discuss about ISIS. But anyway, listen to their leader speeches. He invited all Muslims from all around the globe to emigrate to Syria. ISIS knows no borders and no ethnicity. Again, ISIS is identified as a salafist terrorist group not as an Arab. They denounce ethnicities and declare that Nationalism is Haram. They are not fighting Kurds because they are Kurds but because Kurds are not surrendering and allowing them to control their areas, just like they did to the Arab Al-Shaitat when they slaughtered 700 young man of them with kitchen knives. So, ISIS isnt pro Arab. It is pro ISIS and only the people who believe in her ideas. remember that three of ISIS top leaders just below Baghdadi are Turkemen ISIS LEADERS and that ISIS most important general is Al-shishani. As for Kurdwatch, we agreed that it should pass first on Wikipedia reliable sources committee. I dont agree with removing this. Kurdwatch claim to be neutral and write in a neutral way unlike the infamous Pravda. I believe that other editors will bring back those material you removed and an edit war will start again, sadly.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned before, the fact that many brain-washed non-Arab terrorists have joined ISIS Fascist group doesn't change anything, as many non-Arabs joined Ba'thist Fascist regimes of Syria and Iraq (ie. one of those ISIS Turkmen generals was Iraqi Ba'thist). Also, most of ISIS war strategists are former ba'thist colonels but Sunni Islam has a major priority for them though.
Regarding to the controversial sources such as Pravda and Kurdwatch, since we have not decided on their credibility, I restore the deleted Pravda-linked contents.---Multi-gesture (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You restored pravda but didnt restore Kurdwatch. The thing is : Pravda isnt talking about Rojava. Its irrelevant to the article to mention Pravda thoughts on the subject. You are making this so hard with this attitude. I think this has to go to Admin incident noticeboard.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I see it, Kurd-Watch should be removed, you have with HRW: https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/06/19/under-kurdish-rule/abuses-pyd-run-enclaves-syria also a good source. KurdWatch is known in the german Wikipdeia society for propaganda. They never wrote a bad thing about PDK, it is obvious that they are not independet. SOHR is propaganda free, they wrote about violations committed by FSA, YPG, MFS, not only Assad. And Attar-Aram syria, I am not multi-gesture. That I support some of his points, do not mean I am him. Sorry for my english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.189.238.20 (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop acting smart, In 28 June 2015 an IP (one of yours) made this edit deleting Kurdwatch [14] with the following summary : KurdWatch is PDK near, not independent. They have records of proven false allegations against PYD in Syria.
Then Multi-Gesture admitted that he made that edit [15]
Then you came deleting Kurdwatch [16] with this summary : Allegedly, because KurdWatch is not independent (PDK near, never against PDK), KurdWatch should be replaced by other sources(HRW same alleg), In german articles, we don't use KurdWatch, low standards here.)
The summary of Multi-Gesture IP and yours are practically the same style :
Multi-Gesture : KurdWatch is PDK near, not independent
KurdWatch looks pretty partisan to me; I don't see how it can be cited on its own. On top of that Attar, you need to stop writing up their allegations as fact. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gob, you need to see the history of this article and Multi-Gesture and his puppets racist propaganda edits. See here [17][18][19]
As for Kurdwatch, Fine, we will continue the discussion but without the participation of Multi-Gesture puppet. And Kurdwatch is listed as independent by Human rights archive of Columbia university [20]. With that being said, Im not a huge fan of any website and I dont mind removing Kurdwatch but as a result of a discussion that doesnt include the racist Multi-Gesture. PS : I did not write a single paragraph in this article. I only added some sources to the history section and none of the Human Rights section was written by me. --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Attar-Aram syria, are you really blind like that? Look:
"The summary of Multi-Gesture IP and yours are practically the same style :
Multi-Gesture : KurdWatch is PDK near, not independent
You : KurdWatch is not independent (PDK near, never against PDK).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)"
Maybe this is so, because it is a fact that KurdWatch is PDK near? And Multi-Gesture and this IP are both right? Independent from each other?
I have made researches and it is really a fact that KurdWatch is "never against PDK", although there are a lot of violations committed by PDK, KurdWatch is ignoring that. KurdWatch is obviously for political reasons against PYD and PKK. And this IP:178.189.238.20 is not lying regarding "KurdWatch is known in the german Wikipdeia society for propaganda". In fact it is not used there, it is marked as a propaganda source. Attar-Aram syria, you need some sort of self-reflection. And regarding Columbia university, you should know that the PKK is listed as a terrorist organisation by the US, because of that propaganda against PKK is welcomed, as it is always so when it comes to proscribed organisations. You can easy believable & credible accuse such organisations. Many people would believe it, because it is a terrorist organisation. Doubts? Why? Terrorist organisation... Wikipedia should not be a puppet for political parties. KurdWatch is very unlikely independent. They even forgot to plant one bad report against PDK, so that nobody can accuse them for being pro-PDK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.101.58 (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you still visiting this page! you are not allowed to participate and neither your multiple IP and puppets. Stop acting smart ! you cant fool anyone by claiming you are a Kurd activist like Multi-gesture, or an old German guy from Austria like the IP that was blocked !!! Wikipedia does not work according to what you consider neutral. PKK is a terrorist group and is considered as such not only by USA. Your words that Kurdwatch is not independent have no weight compared to Columbia university.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a bad joke? I am not multigesture. Everyone against you is multigesture or what? What is wrong with you? I am also not from austria. I was by chance here. You have serious problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.101.58 (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Population of Rojava appears heavily inflated, I would not rely on Kurdish sources. Alternatively a pro-Government source suggested 5-10% of the country's population is in Kurdish control which would be ~900,000-1,800,000. That figure seems more reasonable however is inaccurate and does not have a specific relative source.
If you are going to make bold claims with only one source (mind you, a very biased, anti-YPG partisan source), then please back it up with other sources. Please also include YPG's side of the stories (if there's any, that is).
KurdWatch, by definition, reports and documents any human rights violations against Kurds in Syria, whether that perpetrated by PYD (the de facto dominant military group) or other groups. It does contain tens of stories against other factions, ISIL and others. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk)
have changed the flag in the infobox from the flag of Syrian Kurdistan 
to the flag of Iraqi Kurdistan 
. Has there been an announcement on the change of the flag at all? If not, we shouldn't be changing the infobox to show the wrong flag. [Soffredo] 
16:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
![[5]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ku/7/7c/Hawar.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1855_Colton_Map_of_Turkey,_Iraq,_and_Syria_-_Geographicus_-_TurkeyIraq-colton-1855.jpg){kind=link}