Jump to content

Talk:Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Comments requested

Question POL: How should the three official languages in the Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava be named in the box? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

As to my information, the three official languages are in official documents called "Kurdish", "Arabic" and "Assyrian" (the last being a non-linguistic term, see other question below). In this article, they were called "Kurdish", "Arabic" and "Syriac-Aramaic". Then you came, Ogress, and changed the first to "Northern Kurdish" and the last to "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic". If you want to follow the apparent official terminology, what I would absolutely support, please revert your edit and make it "Kurdish", "Arabic" and "Assyrian". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Cite, please. It would help the discussion if you could provide it. Ogress 22:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
This is informal information I got, another piece of such information would be that apparently Rojava de facto foreign minister Sinam Mohamed in yesterday speaking to an American audience in a briefing in Washington DC referred to this third language as "Aramean" and "the language of Jesus Christ". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I just saw that the article on Assyrians in Syria says "they are a Syriac speaking community". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Regardless of how the languages are named in Rojava's official documents, we should go for the common language names in English, and these are the titles of the corresponding wikipedia articles. Provided, of course, that the specific language varieties covered in these articles are the same ones as those chosen as official. Uanfala (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The only language I can myself identify in original sources from Rojava (because it is the only one written in Latin script) is language number one, and that one is without exception referred to as "Kurdî", which is known as "Kurdish" in English, and used as such throughout Wikipedia zillion times. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Concerning usage in English, the Google hits:
"Kurdish" 43.900.000 results versus "Northern Kurdish" 236.000 results
"Kurdish language" 349.000 results versus "Northern Kurdish language" 2.840 results
And in media, I do see each and every article on the language in Rojava referring to "Kurdish", I do not know of any article that calls that language "Northern Kurdish". In my humble opinion, this is a very clear result as to what is the common name. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
In Google, the combination of "Rojava" and "Northern Kurdish language" has 2 (in words: two) results.
The combination of "Rojava" and "Kurdish language" has 18.600 results. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Trying Google hits for language number three:
"Rojava" and "Assyrian language": 262 results
"Rojava" and "Aramaic language": 5.430 results
"Rojava" and "Neo-Aramaic language": 2.300 results
"Rojava" and "Syriac language": 4.460 results
"Rojava" and "Syriac-Aramaic language": 280 results
"Rojava" and "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic language": 6 results
Well. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking at the discussion here, my preliminary suggestion is to definitely name the first to languages as Kurdish and Arabic. These clearly are the names used by the Rojava government, these are the names exclusively used in English media to name the languages, and Google points to a universal use of these names for the languages in Rojava ("Northern Kurdish" is neither used by any media nor does is have any google results as a language of Rojava). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

First preliminary result of the discussion on NAMING LANGUAGES (outside of elaboration in the language section)

Among the three official languages in Rojava, for language one and two the naming issue (outside of the language section) appears to be resolved. These names are by all representatives of Rojava, by all English media, and by an extremely overwhelming majority of internet users called Kurdish and Arabic. The alternative suggestion of calling language number one "Northern Kurdish" is not supported by any statement from a Rojava official, not supported by any English media article, and while the combination of "Rojava" and "Kurdish language" has 18.600 results on Google, the combination of "Rojava" and "Northern Kurdish language" has only 2 results. There was no argument whatsoever brought against this. I will therefore now take care that outside the language section, the names "Kurdish" and "Arabic" for these languages are uniformly used throughout the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Fourth preliminary result of the discussion on NAMING LANGUAGES (outside of elaboration in the language section)

In all other Wikipedia articles on the Assyrian people, their language(s) is/are referred to as "Syriac" or "Syriac-Aramaic". No other Wikipedia article claims that the Assyrian people, in general or specifically in Rojava, would speak the language/dialect Assyrian Neo-Aramaic thereof to the exclusion of others. While such a claim was made here, no source for this claim could be provided. Therefore, the name for the langusge number three in Rojava (outside of the language section) must be reverted to Syriac-Aramaic. I will implement this now and remove the respective Request for Comment. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


Question LANG1: In the "Languages and Scripts" section, is discriminatory treatment warranted concerning the language of Arabic and its dialect of North Mesopotamian Arabic on the one hand and the language of Kurdish and its dialect of Northern Kurdish on the other hand? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to avoid misunderstandings, once again:
(a) This article referred to that language simply as "Kurdish", and nothing else, before you came.
(b) "Northern Kurdish" dialect is "Kurmanji" dialect. That is what people in Rojava speak. "Central Kurdish" dialect is "Sorani" dialect. Nobody in Rojava speaks that, and never did this article anywhere refer to "Sorani". In the Wikipedia, Sorani redirects not to Northern Kurdish, as you claim, but to Central Kurdish. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • And your accusations of discrimination are inflammatory and unwarranted. Modern Standard Arabic is the standard used for Arabic in every country where Arabic is spoken. Does Rojava use MSA or North Mesopotamian Arabic as its standard? I was not able to find out, so I did not change it. If you feel confident, go for it. Change it to NMA if that is what the state uses. No other state in the world even recognises a vernacular Arabic, so you better be sure. Ogress 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
(1) "Northern Kurdish" dialect is "Kurmanji" dialect. That is what people in Rojava speak. "Central Kurdish" dialect is "Sorani" dialect. Nobody in Rojava speaks that, and never did this article anywhere refer to "Sorani". In the Wikipedia, Sorani redirects not to Northern Kurdish, as you claim, but to Central Kurdish.
(2) The "Languages and Scripts Section" refers primarily to languages actually spoken by people. If there are differences between dialects, standardized and non standardized versions of the language, this is be the right place to name them and elaborate on the issue (my best guess is that in official use, the Rojava administration will employ standardized versions of both Kurdish and Arabic).
(3) The standardisation of Kurdish is a big issue which has been in process for many decades, and I hope that some people with first-hand in-depth knowledge will comment here on the issue. And it will hopefully help resolve the question if your suggestion to discriminate (the term is technical and not "inflammatory") between Arabic and Kurdish in the presentation is warranted or not. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Kurdish isn't a language. The Kurdish languages are three separate languages. Which of these are we going to say is the language being used? Ogress 22:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article Kurdish languages speaks of diverse "Kurdish dialects", not of different languages. The terminology in this respect is similiar to the Wikipedia article on Arabic that speaks of "dialects of Arabic". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
And, as I've mentioned, the status of Arabic in every country where it is official or national is simply "Arabic", because it has been standardised since the early periods of Islam and understood to be a single language codified by the form of the Quran. If you can find a cite that they have created a written form of the local vernacular and don't use the same Arabic everyone else does, let me know. Ogress 22:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Just stumbled over this source, it appears that in Manbij speaking Standard Arabic is an identifying characteristic of foreign ISIL fighters:
Moreover, he said, IS foreign fighters control the city of Manbij. “There were Chechens, Tunisians, Chinese, Saudis, Egyptians, Libyans, Jordanians, even French people. The city was full of foreign fighters, and they used to talk in standard Arabic,” Jumayli said.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/arab-civilians-welcome-overthrowing-isis-rule-near-manbij-1106140524 -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
One could write for elegant presentation
Arabic (in North Mesopotamian Arabic dialect, while in formal communication Modern Standard Arabic), ...
but is this acceptable without having a proper source? We do not want to do guesswork or original research. Ogress, do you have a source, direct or indirect, that would allow us to assume that Modern Standard Arabic being used in formal communication in Rojava? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Just read the article on Modern Standard Arabic in full, it appears that in Syria MSA is taught in school and universally used in writing. Appears safe to say in this article here ...
Arabic (in North Mesopotamian Arabic dialect, in writing Modern Standard Arabic), ...
... me thinks. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd like to comment, but I can't because the real question isn't actually stated. Obviously, the answer to the stated question is "it depends on what discriminatory treatment - some is warranted, some is not." But there must be a particular treatment at issue here that someone considers discriminatory. What is that? And I suspect not everyone agrees the treatment is discriminatory at all, rendering the question moot. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The different treatment, as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava#Languages_and_scripts -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The only different treatment evident on its face is the different syntax, in which one item in the list says, "D (a dialect of L)" and the other says, "L (in the D dialect)". If that's the disparate treatment upon which comments are requested, I say they should be the same, and I prefer "L (in the D dialect)". Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Would you consider the same to be appropriate for language number four?
(1) Kurdish (in Northern Kurdish dialect), ...
(2) Arabic (in North Mesopotamian Arabic dialect), ...
(3) ...
(4) Turkish (in Syrian Turkmen dialect), ...
Would be a presentation clear and not confusing for the reader, is it justified in your opinion? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fifth preliminary result of the discussion on NAMING LANGUAGES (presentation in the language section)

After lengthy discussion, there appears a consensus or at least a broad majority to use this presentation of languages in Rojava in the languages section:

(1) Kurdish (in Northern Kurdish dialect), ...
(2) Arabic (in North Mesopotamian Arabic dialect, in writing Modern Standard Arabic), ...
(3) Syriac-Aramaic (in the Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, the Chaldean Neo-Aramaic and the Turoyo variety), ...
(4) Turkish (in Syrian Turkmen dialect), ...

I will implement this now and remove the respective Request for Comment. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Reminder: All article-links behind "Syriac-Aramaic" now correctly refer to Eastern Aramaic languages, not incorrectly to Syriac language as they did before the big discussion on naming languages. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


Question LANG2: In the "Languages and Scripts" section, how should the language of the Assyrians be described? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • The Assyrian people article states, with two cites, "Most Assyrians speak a Neo-Aramaic language, whose subdivisions include Northeastern, Central, and Western Neo-Aramaic, as well as another language, dependent on the country of residence." There are zero speakers of Syriac in the world; it's a long-dead language used only liturgically. Why would we describe the language spoken by Assyrians other than by the actual name of the language? What motivation would have us do that? Can you please answer that? Ogress 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The article on Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, the term you prefer, explicitly states that "Speakers of Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Chaldean Neo-Aramaic and Turoyo are ethnic Assyrians ... Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is the largest speaking Neo-Aramaic group (232,000 speakers), which follows Chaldean Neo-Aramaic (206,000 speakers) and Turoyo (112,000 speakers)" so the term "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic" refers only to a subset of the people concerned. I have meanwhile done a bit of research, it appears that the Rojava administration itself uses the non-linguistic term "Assyrian" (the name of the ethnic group) to describe the (mutually intelligble) language(s) of Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, thus avoiding the terminology problem we talk about here. My information is that in official documents, the languages are called "Kurdish", "Arabic" and "Assyrian". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The Neo-Aramaic languages are highly distinct; the division between Western and Eastern was present already 2000 years ago and probably earlier. Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is the variety spoken in Kurdistan. Oddly, the official name you state is listed (can we get that cite, please? it would be useful information for this conversation) is also "Assyrian". Why would it be changed to "Syriac-Aramaic"? Ogress 22:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The Neo-Aramaic languages are highly distinct (...) Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is the variety spoken in Kurdistan. -> This article is about Rojava (not about a broad concept of "Kurdistan"). Do you have any source for your claim that among the varieties of Neo-Aramaic languages, in Rojava it would be in particular Assyrian Neo-Aramaic which is spoken? The Wikipedia articles you link do not provide such information. (edit: To avoid misunderstandings: These articles do not provide such information with respect a broad concept of "Kurdistan" either.) -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I just saw that the article on Assyrians in Syria says "they are a Syriac speaking community". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't Turoyo be included as well? From its wikipedia article it seems it's spoken on the territory of Rojava. Uanfala (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I just learned that it seems to be that this language number three is generally referred to as "Sureth" in Rojava. Funny thing seems to be that this is the word (with slight variance in phonetics) by which speakers of all Neo-Aramaic languages there (including Turoyo) call their respective own language. In Wikipedia, searching for "Sureth" gets a redirect to Syriac language. My petition now is Syriac-Aramaic. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Fourth preliminary result of the discussion on NAMING LANGUAGES (outside of elaboration in the language section)

In all other Wikipedia articles on the Assyrian people, their language(s) is/are referred to as "Syriac" or "Syriac-Aramaic". No other Wikipedia article claims that the Assyrian people, in general or specifically in Rojava, would speak the language/dialect Assyrian Neo-Aramaic thereof to the exclusion of others. While such a claim was made here, no source for this claim could be provided. Therefore, the name for the langusge number three in Rojava (outside of the language section) must be reverted to Syriac-Aramaic. I will implement this now and remove the respective Request for Comment. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


Question LANG3: Is the proper name "Arabic alphabet" or "Arabic abjad"? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia's article is Arabic alphabet, not Arabic abjad. Click on the link yourself, "Arabic abjad" redirects to "Arabic language". I'm very unclear why this is a big issue. Ogress 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If you're looking for the most proper name in this generic context then this will be a question that is already answered by the title of the target article: at present it's Arabic alphabet and not Arabic abjad. If it needs to be changed then the issue is better discussed there. Using the more technical term "abjad" could be warranted in a context where the distinction between alphabet and abjad is relevant, and this isn't the case here as far as I can see. Uanfala (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • For this article, the best terminology is "Arabic alphabet". The word "alphabet" as most Wikipedia readers understand it, denotes a superset of abjads. But given that, at least among linguists, there is some ambiguity, it would be sensible to mention the alternative too.
I don't, though, believe the title of the Arabic alphabet article is an authority for this. Wikipedia isn't an authority for anything. There are rules against using Wikipedia as a reliable source for facts in other parts of Wikipedia, and I believe the same principle applies to using it as an authority for the language used in Wikipedia. Still, the question of whether abjads are distinct from or included within alphabets would probably find a better hearing at the alphabet and abjad articles (and may already have had). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Second preliminary result of the discussion on NAMING LANGUAGES (here: naming scripts)

There appears to be consensus that the script for Arabic language shall be named Arabic alphabet (abjad). There was no objection to this suggestion. I will implement it now and delete the request for comment on this particular issue. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


Question STYLE: Should the names for these official languages be used uniformly throughout the article, or is it of minor concern if references to the same thing use different names in different parts of the article? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Consistent usage of unfamiliar terms is confusing. Using Wikipedia's guidelines is wise, because switching between "Sorani" and "Northern Kurdish" and "Kurdish" is confusing. Ogress 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I perfectly agree with that statement, Ogress, but it is surprising that you write that, because your vandalizing of the article in this respect created exactly the confusion which made me ask this question. Does your reply mean that we can now return to uniformly use "Kurdish" and "Syriac-Aramaic" respectively in the article, with the exception of an elaboration in the "Languages and Scripts" section, just as it was before your vandalizing? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Please stop accusing others of vandalism, especially when the textbook definition is "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." Ogress has not vandalized. GABgab 17:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not into discuss that word, I am interested in a good article, and will happily refrain from using that word further in this discussion, but what Ogress did to the "Languages and Scripts" section, before I restored it, (edit: and with respect to what is the issue here, artbitrarily changing some of the language references "Kurdish" to "Northern Kurdish", while leaving others at "Kurdish", thus creating confusion), is exactly what your definition of the word says. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Super convenient that you keep calling my edits "vandalism" then, when called on it, say "you should focus on the edits" instead of APOLOGISING. Ogress 22:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
We still have an article where one and the same thing is arbitrarily sometimes referred to as "Kurdish" and sometimes as "Northern Kurdish". This state of affairs which you claim to find as inacceptable as I do (I still wonder why you created it then), should be our focus. About anything else I will think once this is resolved, and not a minute earlier. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • They names should be used uniformly throughout. (But that's obvious enough that I suspect it is not actually in controversy).
And how minor a concern it is is irrelevant. It's easy enough to change from one to the other that even the tiniest concerns can be addressed to give us the best possible article. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

First preliminary result of the discussion on NAMING LANGUAGES (outside of elaboration in the language section)

Among the three official languages in Rojava, for language one and two the naming issue (outside of the language section) appears to be resolved. These names are by all representatives of Rojava, by all English media, and by an extremely overwhelming majority of internet users called Kurdish and Arabic. The alternative suggestion of calling language number one "Northern Kurdish" is not supported by any statement from a Rojava official, not supported by any English media article, and while the combination of "Rojava" and "Kurdish language" has 18.600 results on Google, the combination of "Rojava" and "Northern Kurdish language" has only 2 results. There was no argument whatsoever brought against this. I will therefore now take care that outside the language section, the names "Kurdish" and "Arabic" for these languages are uniformly used throughout the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Third preliminary result of the discussion on NAMING LANGUAGES (outside of elaboration in the language section)

There appears to be consensus that how ever the language of Assyrians shall be named in the article, one name for it shall be used uniformly throughout the article (outside of elaboration in the language section). While implementation must wait until a decision on the name to be used, I will now delete the request for comment from a style perspective on this particular issue. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Shahba Canton"

There is no "Shahba Canton" and the content on that article are just pure speculation. The Shahba region is just the region between the Euphrates and the Afrin Canton[1] and no source have stated that the PYD is proposing to establish a new canton there. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, all these names have no recognition from any third party, and everything in Syria changes from day to day. This "Shahba canton" should be deleted. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there a website?

The one mentioned in the Jazira article seems to be dead. If there is one please add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.150.177 (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The IPA currently indicates that the last syllable of Rojava is stressed; is that correct? Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Kurdish nouns and names are stressed on the last syllable. CathFR (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Turkish language names of towns

There appears to be some confusion about edits with respect to Turkish language names of cities and towns.

(1) First of all, ONE name should be given to every town in every language.

(2) With respect to the city of Al-Hasakah, the Turkish language name obviously is Haseke, which is the lemma of the Turkish Wikipedia article on the town. I see no reason why alternative names would be added.

(3) With respect to the town of Kobani, the lemma of the Turkish Wikipedia article on the town is Kobani. For some reason, some editors continue to change this to "Mürşitpınar, Arap Pınar". The first is the name of another town, on the Turkish side of the border. The second has almost no Wikipedia hits, and by multitude less Turkish language Google hits than "Kobani".

So if you want to use other names than the obviously common Turkish language names for those towns, please explain your motivation/reasoning here on the talk page. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not agree with you. Kobani was never used before 2014, and you can't find the name Kobani in Turkish books or Turkish maps. The Turkish name of Kobani is Arap Pınar or Mürşitpınar and not Kobani. Beshogur (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The criterion is contemporary use. And both the Turkish Wikipedia and Turkish media use "Kobani". I am fully aware that the term "Kobani" was virtually non-existent in Turkish language two years ago (and it will neither show up in books or maps), but today is today and not two years ago. If you want to argue your case, please present arguments for contemporary use. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
By the way, here is a quote from the Kobani article: "Kobanî was built between the village of Arap Pinar (Kaniya Ereban) in the east and the village of Mürşitpinar (Kaniya Murshid) in the west" -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any source? Beshogur (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
If you are interested in the history stuff, look at the sources given in the Kobani article, there appears to be at least one scholarly book about the history of the place. However, for our discussion here this is pretty irrelevant. What is relevant is contemporary naming of the town in Turkish language media. So this is what we should argue, not history. I would still wish that you reply to the arguments I made above. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Moving history stuff to the articles of the cantons?

While there appears agreement in principle that the history part is still somewhat long for the article, almost all of the information left there is quite relevant in the context of Rojava. However, much of it concerns only one particular canton. Wouldn't it be an idea to consider, moving much of that history stuff to the articles of the respective canton concerned (and prominently linking the canton articles at the top of the history section)? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Map

Hi, Someone might want to update the military situation map. It will change significantly soon. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's news for those interested

US, Russia oppose Kurdish autonomy in Syria

US, Russia agree on preserving Syria’s territorial unity, reject Kurdish Rojava project

213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Rojava does not support separatism in the first place so Russia hasn't really changed its stance. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The link “A Personal Account of Rojava' - from the Lions Of Rojava website” should be changed. The web page “the Lions Of Rojava” doesn't exist anymore. But exactly the same content is placed in rojavaplan.com website. The title should be “'A Personal Account of Rojava' - from Rojava Plan website” and the right link is now http://rojavaplan.com/join-3-2-personal-account.html

I'd also suggest the highly informative link to the PDF entitled “A mountain river has many bends” http://rojavaplan.com/uploads/amountainriver-web.pdf 89.130.49.225 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 constitution, representative assembly for Rojava

Dear user:Dlpkbr, I really very much appreciate your edits to the politics section concerning institutions in Rojava, because sparse information on that in my view is one of the weak points of the otherwise fine article. However, with some details I have an issue.

You write, "establish a Federal Assembly, the Democratic Syrian Assembly" (probably you mean what is usually called "Syrian Democratic Assembly"). I would be happy if things were so easy. However, there are issues.

Actually I have no information that the "Syrian Democratic Assembly" has ever met after their initial meeting, that any of the legislative achievments we attribute to Rojava has been done by it, or that it has named the officials in the box below into their office. Do you have information, or even sources, on any of this? I have some doubt, because your link below them is to the article on the "Syrian Democratic Council", the executive institution which was put in place on that one initial meeting of the Syrian Democratic Assembly I know of.

Another issue is that the article speaks of planned elections. However, the "Syrian Democratic Assembly" is composed of representatives of selected groups of society, not representatives of political parties. Changing it into an assembly of representatives of political parties would be most fundamental. Do you have any information if this is what is planned with respect to "elections in Rojava"?

One more point: Probably all these questions could easily be answered if an English translation of that final draft for the updated 2016 social contract were available. However, this seems to simply not be available. Can you help? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry to take so long to respond.

You write, "establish a Federal Assembly, the Democratic Syrian Assembly" (probably you mean what is usually called "Syrian Democratic Assembly").

Yes, there doesn't seem to be an official English name, which means that it is called various names depending on the translators preferences and the language that is being translated from. I have just changed that section to "Syrian Democratic Assembly" since "Syrian Democratic Assembly"/"Syrian Democratic Council" seem to more common.

Actually I have no information that the "Syrian Democratic Assembly" has ever met after their initial meeting, that any of the legislative achievments we attribute to Rojava has been done by it, or that it has named the officials in the box below into their office. Do you have information, or even sources, on any of this? I have some doubt, because your link below them is to the article on the "Syrian Democratic Council", the executive institution which was put in place on that one initial meeting of the Syrian Democratic Assembly I know of.

From what I understand the 43 member full assembly is meant to meet 3 or 4 times a year, but the 9 member executive Council/Assembly meets monthly (although they seem to have emergency meetings after certain events). The full assembly has a website with some information, but it is only in Arabic. Here is a news report of last month's executive meeting.

Another issue is that the article speaks of planned elections. However, the "Syrian Democratic Assembly" is composed of representatives of selected groups of society, not representatives of political parties. Changing it into an assembly of representatives of political parties would be most fundamental. Do you have any information if this is what is planned with respect to "elections in Rojava"?

There supposedly will be elections around 3 months after the full assembly's next meeting at the end of the year, but that is only if the 2nd draft of the constitution is OKed. The Electoral Commission is supposedly preparing for them and is trying to get international observers into Syria to watch the elections.

One more point: Probably all these questions could easily be answered if an English translation of that final draft for the updated 2016 social contract were available. However, this seems to simply not be available. Can you help?

Unfortunately the only version of the constitution /social contract that I can find is in Arabic. Dlpkbr (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE THE MAP

This map is very old. The SDF now controls Manbij and all the are east of it. Rojava has also expanded south. Please take the Syrian civil war map as reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewnited (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, regarding the Turkish invasion and the lack of reaction from the west, I guess it's not necessary to add Manbij and the area east of it anymore...--Ermanarich (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Still waiting for you to update the map if you can. SDF is there to stay, Turkish forces won't take any land from SDF. If you know someone who can edit to map to the reality, I'd appreciate it. Jewnited (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the note. Turkey will proceed further into territories of Northern Syria to install proper rebels instead of PYD/YPG terrorists and their new front, the SDF. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Proper rebels like Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki, which aim to establish the Sharia law in Syria? The YPG are still not terrorists, even if Turkey and its Propaganda wants everyone to regard them as such. But the fact that Turkey supported al-Nusra (al-Qaeda) and Ahrar al-Sham actively and that they did nothing against the thousands of IS-terrorists, weapons and oil-transporters from IS crossing their border speaks a more than clear language, that Islamism is currently destroying the Turkish democracy.--Ermanarich (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Just like the mentioned groups you dislike, the PYD and its armed wing, YPG, have direct links to the PKK and they all work to kill innocent Turkish and Kurdish civilians who do not agree with their ideologies and goals. They are terrorists. Not calling them as such is a matter of conflict of interest and semantics perhaps. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

History section

Please kindly do not remove important historical topics from the article. Some editors have moved the relevant stuff to canton articles, but some others like those related to Raqqa and Aleppo cities do not belong to those cantons. Therefore I have re-inserted those information, especially the ones regarding Janbulads and Millis.Vekoler (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Rojava is allegedly a polyethnic entity and so, this article isnt meant to be about the Kurds alone. Those historic info about Kurds belong in the Kurds in Syria article not in the new creation called Rojava.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Structure of the introduction

The introduction has by now reached a three-paragraph structure which I find highly appropriate and helpful for the reader. It approaches the topic from three perspectives on "Rojava", all of which are intertwined in the article:

(1) First paragraph is about "Rojava" as a socio-political phenomenon.

(2) Second paragraph is about "Rojava" as a self-declared political entity, the "Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava (NSR)".

(3) Third paragraph is about "Rojava" from an ethno-political perspective.

I would suggest, and recommend, to respect this structure when editing the introduction. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Article map and legend: Rojava is a civilian, not a military thing

Whatever map is used to illustrate the article (there appears to be not one perfect solution), neither the map nor its legend should seek to present "Rojava" as a militaty terms concept. As the article elaborates in depth, "Rojava" is all its shades of meaning and definition always is a civilian polity and civilian administration concept. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course there is a perfect solution (current military map), not what you (and one or two other users) are inventing (maps and names) here and trying to legitimize those names. The maps you are creating and using are of no value and should not be used here. This entity is a result of a military situation, and the territories under control by the different belligerents are changing by the day, if not by the hour. Obviously, the areas claimed by PYD have been expanding everyday, at least under the Turkish intervention, but this is not a reason to put these maps here. The de facto situation is the only thing that counts here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Pretty much every state and other political entity in the world is "result of a military situation", and if you want to elaborate on Syrian Democratic Forces, you should do it on their article (or on the Rojava conflict article, which is about the emergence of the polity we call Rojava today). Both Rojava in its aspect of as a purely factual phenomenon (see first paragraph of introduction), or in its aspect of NSR as a self-declared federation with a constitution (see second paragraph of introduction), is a civilian polity thing, and does not stand out at more or less "result of a military situation" than other political entities in the world, and definitely not to a degree which would justify an outright denial of its character as a civilian polity, which you appear to try implementing on the infobox. Besides, the infobox of an article should reflect the content of the article, and this article is about Rojava as a civilan polity. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Rojava is a civil concept. However, adding a map that unrealistically shows a huge amount of northern Syria as "Rojava", even though they're not under Rojavan control, is simply misleading. Just like the map in the Iraqi Kurdistan page, this map shows the de jure and the de facto situation. Besides, the map you want is imposed on superficial district borders, something that Rojava does not recognize. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Is this a reply to me? Then it is a misunderstanding. The map I prefer as the least flawed solution (and will now revert to) is not the one with the district borders, but your map (which I only find flawed with respect to the fact that its border lines are wrong in one section, directly to the north of DeZ, denying the fact that in there actual control is beyond claim; it opens the map to the criticism that it would not properly reflect the de facto situation). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear Editor abcdef, just once again, here is the "official map of Rojava" as used in the NSR representation offices abroad, and here is the frontlines. The one issue with your map is that it simply does not depict either of them accurately, and in some areas even gets them very much wrong. Other than that flaw, I find the idea behind your map great. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

To give an overview over proposed maps to readers who are not familiar with the discussion concerning the infobox map, there are two maps which I would consider generally suitable:

There is one map which looks most professional of all, but has major flaws in substance, as pointed out by Editor abcdef above:

And there is one map which I do not find suitable at all, because it is a "military map" which does not reflect the topic of this article, namely Rojava as a civic polity phenomenon in its diverse aspects (this map might be suitable to illustrate Rojava conflict however):

Please feel invited to comment. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Female role in militias

The picture under the subtitle Militias reads "Female fighters of the YPJ play a significant combat role in Rojava." Really? What percentage of the force is female? Please stop false representation and propaganda for YPG forces. It is not professional and does not fit Wikipedia standards. Just because supposed gender equality is espoused does not mean it is actually implemented in real life, let alone in military forces or militias. -78.171.152.206 (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The number usually given is that 40 percent of the overall YPG fighting force are female YPJ, and casualty ratios from combat on average mirror that. There are many good documentaries, and many good articles, for example this BBC piece. If you are interested in the role women have acquired in and after the "Rojava Revolution", I also definitely recommend this Kongreya Star paper. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Map of the area

The map currently used in this article (Claimed_and_de_facto_territory_of_Rojava.png) is outrageous, fake and unacceptable by any means. It keeps expanding and it oviously annexes large parts where there are no kurds at all, annexes even Aleppo city. This article in its current state is a pure blackwashing and PROPAGANDA for the YPG militias. This is Wikipedia, not a Kurdish nationalist site. I suggest a map that shows Kuridsh inhabited areas instead. If this issue is not rsolved due to two or three extreme Kurdish users, then I would request aribitration on this article and every thing related to it (Human rights aricle, canton articles, etc.). You decide. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The map is there because the PYD administration claims it, that's all. This is what the word de jure means and the map in the article Iraqi Kurdistan shows the same thing. Isn't the separation of colours between de jure and de facto enough?
The territory of Rojava has nothing to do with Kurdishness. Tel Abyad isn't Kurdish but is still under the firm control of Rojava. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Being occupied by MILITARY FORCE is one thing, and being part of a political entity is a completely separate thing. Does that make sense to you? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
There is only one political entity that has control over Rojava and it's called the Syrian Democratic Council, who is the one claiming all of these. Editor abcdef (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
And the political entity you are talking about enjoys recognition by no (ZERO) country or international organization. The areas in your maps are occupied by military force (as part of the Syrian civil war), and the Kurdish militias will be kicked of from those areas. If you want to write on the map "Areas occupied by PYD forces" then that's OK with me, but to invent a name and depict on the entire northern Syria territory, that OR and inventing facts. Until these maps get international recognition, I will be removing them from this and similar articles. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Making the "Autonomy" subsection of the "History" section what it should be

There currently in the "History" section is a sub-section headlined "Autonomy", which does not adress the topic it is supposed to address, namely the historic process of gaining de facto autonomy, but mostly is a dump for anything that could not be placed elsewhere. I take the liberty to clean that up. Details:

  • Changing the headline to "Gaining de facto autonomy" for clarification
  • Deleting the Syrian Civil War 2016 frontline map as well as another historic frontline map. Such (and in concrete these) maps can be found in many related articles anyway, for example Rojava conflict (which is prominently linked on top of the subsection), or articles on militias, where they are appropriate.
  • Moving the paragraph about ISIL displacing Kurds in Northern Raqqa Governorate in 2013 to the Kobanî Canton article.
  • Deleting the paragraph about clashes with Syrian regime forces in Hasakah and Qamishli, the content of which is amply covered in diverse related articles.
  • Deleting the catch-all paragraph about alleged YPG misdeeds, the content of which is amply covered in the Human rights in Rojava article (which is prominently linked on top of the subsection).
  • Deleting the sentence on foreign offices of Rojava, which is covered in the respective section of this article further down, and a random sentence about naming of an airport, which is not relevant here.
  • The two remaining paragraphs, which actually concern the topic of this subsection, get a slight overhaul in language.
  • Adding one new paragraph between them, because the events of 2014 were not covered at all in this section until now.
  • Adding an appropriate map, the cantons in early 2014.

Please feel invited to improve. In any case, my recommendation is that this sub-section should stick with its actual topic from now, and within these bounds keep the balance of all events with respect to their importance. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Important discussion about the situation in PKK held areas in Syria

The YPG supporters have been able to portray its entities as legitimate historical regions and Wikipedia has turned into a playground of zealot pro-PKK activists. Hence, it is important to bring some sense back. I kindly ask all interested parties to participate in this discussion here.

Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

While I find the aggressive partisan political activist attitude and language employed in this post unsuitable for the Wikipedia, I would also point editors interested in the topic to the talk page of the "Human rights in Rojava" article, where input is welcome. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Turkey's "this is all PKK" meme

Dear editors 85.109.220.31 (talk) and 213.74.186.109 (talk), the "Kurdish question" subsection documents the all open and obvious PYD's shared political ideology and joint membership in the KCK with the PKK, the "Politics" section does in depth elaborate on the political ideology, and the "Foreign relations" subsection of the article does explicitly document the fact that Turkey thinks and says "this is all PKK". There is definitely no need to say the same thing with ever more words. If you think that the opinion of second-tier international organisations, or U.S. politicians trying to be polite towards Turkey, or else, on all this should be more elaborated, please use the Democratic Union Party (PYD) article, or the Foreign relations of Rojava article, whatever you think appropriate, but in this article here it does not really fit topic, and definitely would destroy balance to give this "PKK connection" aspect even more weight. On a separate note, if you edit on this in other articles, I would strongly recommend that you go for sources with some distance to the topic, sourcing claims about Rojava or PYD with Daily Sabah or the like is not convincing. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear editor 2A1ZA (talk), you talk too much and most of your rhetoric is inconsistent blabber. All points of view should be included. The sources provided have everything to do with the subject because Turkey is directly involved in the fight. I personally do not take the opinions of Senator McCain to be of any value as he is a conservative Republican and we all know what Republicans think when it comes to war. Stop vandalising please. -85.109.220.31 (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "A PYD spokesman told Reuters their aim was to declare a federal region in northern Syria." -> Redundant, the entire article says that. Not sutable for "foreign relations" section anyway. www.bitaf.org inacceptable as source anyway.
  • "This is seen as changing the current borders and causing further instability in an already hectic region." Nobody sees it that way. Not sutable for "foreign relations" section anyway. No source.
  • "The US, NATO, and Israel have also been accused of supprting ISIL." Yeah, by every lunatic around. Irrelevant here anyway. www.globalresearch.ca inacceptable as source anyway.
  • "PYD and YPG groups have often called on Westerners to join them in attacks against Turkey." Bullshit (and please spare me the freak individuals who made private youtube videos). www.dailysabah.com inacceptable as source anyway.
  • "The PYD was designated as a terrorist group at the Meeting of Council of Foreign Ministers of the 13th Islamic Summit of the OIC|Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on 12 April 2016 at Istanbul, Turkey. (...)" Lack of significance of this second-tier organisation for the brief summary in this article, might fit in the Foreign relations of Rojava article.
  • "Defense Secretary Ashton Carter admitted to links between the PYD, the YPG, and the PKK. (...) Secretary Carter replied, 'Yes' to a US Senate panel when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked whether he believed the Syrian Kurds are aligned or at least have substantial ties to the PKK." Hell, the whole world does. Nobody denies it. This article elaborates about it in depth. How is that significant?
Thank you for your attention. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
By the way, do not get me wrong: I do not think that this passage of the article currently is particularily brillant. It is the product of much "fighting" in the past, which I myself at some point went away from and just took note of the result. I would very much appreciate it if that section could be turned into an elegantly formulated thing which does justice to every view. I would very much appreciate a discussion on the talk page to that effect. I would very much appreciate you to engage in it in good faith. Edit-warring does not do good. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems anything 2A1ZA (talk) does not agree with or does not like constitutes a bad sourced data unworthy of being mentioned in Wikipedia. Yet everything he/she supports is worthy of inclusion. Hmmm, hardly impartial or NPOV. Let experienced admins decide then. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
All 2A1ZA (talk) wants to do is argue and debate without much room for consent or an effort to cooperate with others. Noted. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
2A1ZA (talk) keeps edit warring and accuses you of edit warring. Funny how Wikipedia does not seem to care. -78.171.182.10 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Overhauling the "International relations" subsection

The only subsection of this article which I clearly found not meeting the good standard of this article is the "International relations" subsection. After discontent from some quarter led to some edit fights over the past days, I now took it on me to overhaul that emotionally charged section. The general line of this overhaul was to delete details, all kind of, but in particular those which are emotionally charged without providing actual insight. This presentation now is lead by the the desire to let the reader understand Rojava's foreign relations, not trying to sell narratives. Most sources/references were retained, additional references copied from the main article Foreign relations of Rojava.

Please feel invited to improve, however while doing so please consider that turning the section into another fight of competing narratives will only result in the deterioration we have seen before. Who "designates" whom as what and who whom as what not is not so much relevant for the presentation here (all the internal links given offer hours of everything of that kind for the interested reader). It is part of the competing narrative sale stuff which I strongly encourage to avoid here. If you absolutely feel competing foreign policy narratives must be presented under the headline of Rojava, make a section for it in the Foreign relations of Rojava article, I would recommend. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear 213.74.186.109 (et al), your attempt to enforce this highly problematic edit does not work that way. What you are doing here at the very least borders vandalism. Please engage in a discussion here instead of edit-warring. Just the main points:
  • Structure: Your edit deletes the entite first paragraph of the section, which contains important information, without any discernable reason and with no explanation given. As such, your edit gravely corrupts the section by removing the existing paragraph on Rojava military cooperation with the "International Coalition", a major and probably the most important aspect of international relations of Rojava, and creates a section where two of three paragraphs are focused solely on Turkey.
  • Your edit inserts much content and sources which is plain inacceptable, see section here above with details. If you are interested in going through these points in a substantial discussion, please reply to what I wrote above in substance.
  • With respect to the overhaul, you re-insert all of these fighting narratives stuff like who "designates" whom as what and who whom as what not. If you think, other than me, that this is a good idea, please explain.
If you want to continue this in the article, please consider at least inserting additional stuff at the end of the section instead of deleting the existing first paragraph for it. Cheers, -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I have added a note on the "who 'designates' whom as what and who whom as what not" to the section, please feel invited to improve the content of the note. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Overhauling ?? you mean like when you overhauled the section of YPG atrocities with endless statements by every activist you could find just to tone down the severity of the crimes ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Why are ethnic cleansing reports (ARA News as well), being repeatedly deleted?

It takes about 1 day for 2A1ZA to delete anything that is variously referenced but negative. Placed them right in the center of the page again. Berkaysnklf (talk), 2 November 2016, 19:12 (UTC)

Yes, if its not supporting the YPG,PKK.. whatever then its a POV pushing and against his famous strict policy of NPOV. You can report this behavior.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Berkaysnklf, you mean this? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection for the article

Due to the high level of IP vandalism on the "International relations" section, I have now requested semi-protection for the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

What's the matter? No tolerance for events and facts that do not fit your agenda? -213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear IP, you are not obligated to make an account but it wont hurt. Anyway, please go to the report page and express your opinion. Do not allow him to have the only voice.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
2A1ZA, interesting. As soon as somebody tries to correct your the fake information you post you run to request protection. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Removing info referenced by ARA News

Hello, ARA News is not a reliable news source. I suggest everything that is referenced to it be removed. Awaiting some suggestions from impartial users before I make a move. Thank you. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

ARA News is the most reputable and reliable source of all from the region. I have no idea how you get to think otherwise, and I strongly object to the idea that "everything that is referenced to it be removed". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh wow ! in the whole region !! really ?!!!!! seriously ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (yes, we know that you are infatuated with anything Kurdish or use the word Kurdistan, but this doesnt mean that its a universal school of thinking)
Ara identify itself as: "ARA News is an independent press agency reporting on local developments across Rojava, Kurdistan Region, Syria, Iraq and Turkey". So, they already separated the Syrian north from Syria and named it Kurdistan.
It is partisan, un notable and no self respected world agency use it as a source. The IP said impartial users (note, this exclude you). And as for the sentence "I have no idea how you get to think otherwise", please excuse him for thinking in a manner different than your very so hugely "NPOV" way.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Those guys are vowing to ban Daily Sabah from Wikipedia, because it's "not reliable", while they're using PKK media's like: ARA, ANF, Hawar on Wikipedia. Funny. Beshogur (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thats because they are the incarnation of NPOV in this world. How lucky we are that reddit activists are here to guide Wikipedia and offer their very very true and righteous view to the readers so that everyone can see the light of the PKK.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
It's funny how Kurdish users, such as Ferakp deleted everything which is against the PKK or YPG. For example, he delete everything without any source about the forced displacements of Turkmens and Arabs from the region, or the designation of YPG as an terror organization in Turkey. Also, living in a country which accepts PKK as an "terrorist organization" while you're writing PKK as "guerillas" on the Wikipedia pages. Beshogur (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I recommend someone deal with or report this user. He thinks he is king when he is obviously just a menace to the community. -78.171.182.10 (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Beshogur Everything is fine as long as you follow WP:RULES. For the forced displacement, you need a reliable sources and use the neutral language. Turkey's view towards YPG was already mentioned in the article but you keep adding duplicates every corner and that's a big problem which I've tried to explain to you. Wikipedia is a neutral place, so whether your or my country see the PKK as a terrorist organization, it doesn't really help you write negative statements portraying them as blatant terrorists. Ferakp (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, the PKK, YPG, DAESH and any other group that uses illegitimate means of fighting for its cause using terror tactics through its militia are designated as TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS. Simple. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

— 213.74.186.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

—Dude, the other guy (the famous NPOV editor) is also a single purpose account.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The Daily Sabah is concipated as a professional partisan voice of the Turkish AKP party-led government, just like ANHA/Hawarnews is a professional partisan voice of the Rojava PYD party-led administration, SANA of the Syrian Baath party-led government, Rudaw of the Iraqi Kurdistan KDP party-led government, or same thing ANF/Firat for the PKK. All such source should be used with great care, at best only to explicitly state positions of and information from their respective patrons. And the more valuable are professional sources like Hurriyet Daily News or ARA News which are concipated independent. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
With their statement "ARA News is an independent press agency reporting on local developments across Rojava, Kurdistan Region, Syria, Iraq and Turkey," they obviously have NOT "separated the Syrian north from Syria and named it Kurdistan", but rather use "Kurdistan region" (as well as "Rojava") for a socio-cultural region, as opposed to the three states mentioned. And there is nothing particularily "partisan" about that ARA News statement. And if you would read theit actual contents, you would not make such an absurd claim. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Absurdity is your thing (when you claim that you are NPOV). They obviously seperated the Syrian north and stop using fancy words !! 40 millions Kurd use Kurdistan as a national ethnic concept and here you are, as always, being philosophical, and saying a socio cultural region (that doesnt even have a Kurdish majority if you compare the numbers of Kurds in syria with the general statistics about the population of each northern Syrian province).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Just like Hurriyet Daily News reflects a general "Turkish perspective", ARA News reflects a general "Kurdish perspective". Of course one has to keep that in mind when using the sources, but this does not make either of them illegitimate as a Wikipedia source. Without being too philosophical, it is pretty safe to say that every media outlet is a reflection of a particular "national" perspective, the most cherished English language publications included. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The earlier statement 'And the more valuable are professional sources like Hurriyet Daily News or ARA News which are concipated independent.' CONTRADICTS the above statement 'Just like Hurriyet Daily News reflects a general "Turkish perspective", ARA News reflects a general "Kurdish perspective".' In any event, please do not compare a legitimate government's newspaper with a terror network's propaganda outlet. Thanks. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Hurriyet Daily News is not "a government's newspaper", and neither is ARA News or The Guardian or Le Monde or Der Spiegel or The Times of Israel or whatever (while all of them still being a reflection of a particular "national" perspective). You might wish to familiarize yourself with the concept of independent media. However, my impression is that what you consider "illegitimate" is simply a specific Kurdish perspective on things as such. I wish this use of "Kurdish" as a pejorative with delegitimizing intent by some editors would end, it does not suit the Wikipedia. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

How about ANHA and Kurdistan24? Should they be kept as references in the article? -213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

ANHA is definitely pro-PYD, but Kurdistan24 is entirely neutral. It covers all sorts of groups, from the PKK to the KDP. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
ANHA/Hawarnews can only be used as reference for information/views attributed to the governing coalition in Rojava (PYD, TEV-DEM), in my opinion. Kurdistan24 is a fair independent media source, just like ARA News. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I ragards to reliabilty, ARA News is comparable to SOHR, in that it has a bias, but still reports mostly neutral about events; for example, ARA News has several times reported about the unlawful arrests of KNC politicans and critized the PYD, proving that it is not a state/propganda outlet (like for example ANHA, which should be only used in the way 2A1ZA described). Applodion (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The majority still agrees ARA News and ANHA are problematic while Kurdistan24 is alright. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a funny discussion. I do not like Kurdistan24 so much, because its editorial line is a bit too conservative and Kurdish-nationalistic for my taste, and I prefer the more liberal, center-left editorial line of ARA news. But serious professional independent media, fine for Wikipedia, are both. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Sub-section "Human rights and ethnic cleansing", flags for "unbalanced" and "clarification"

User:Berkaysnklf recently added a sub-section "Human rights and ethnic cleansing" to the article. Some issues concerning the section:

(1) There exists no report of Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch or any other reputable source concerning anything Rojava that contains the term "ethnic cleansing". The section definitely needs a different title.

(2) The first paragraph copies a sequence of sentences from the Human rights in Rojava article. That article puts the stuff in context. If the topic should be covered in this article here as well, I would strongly recommend to rather make a good faith summary of the entire section, rather than copying an arbitrary sequence of sentences. I will not do so myself for now, because I speculate Berkaysnklf might want to do so himself, and just placed an unbalanced flag with the section.

(3) The second paragraph also copies a sequence of sentences from that main article, but has a separate issue as well. It concerns the "expropriation law", which to my knowlewdge exists in all Rojava cantons. It is basically a socialist ideology thing, following a principle of "ownership by use" (see also economics section of this article), establishing that an owner of real estate loses his title if he does not personally make use of the property. This definitely is a controversial thing with human rights consequences in several directions. The particular concern of Assyrians is that their ethnic group has a strong tradition of real estate ownership as well as a high number of outbound Syrian Civil War refugees, who risk losing property titles. The important topic should be elaborated concerning its facts, not only consist of "accusations" and buzzwords. I will not do so myself for now, because I speculate Berkaysnklf might want to do so himself, and just placed a clarification flag with the paragraph. See also the same discussion in the Human rights in Rojava article.

Cheers, -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph is fine as it is. Accusations should be included, if they're coming from reliable sources.79.246.20.245 (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with 79.246.20.245. Applodion (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you might misunderstand my point concerning this Assyrian topic (2nd para). I do not suggest to delete the reported accusations, I suggest to expand the topic by elaborating what the issue is about in substance. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

As nobody else appears interested, I now make the section a fair summary of the main article Human rights in Rojava, using as much internal linking as possible. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

No, no. Sub-section should say as 3 others also suggested. I will take care of it further more when I have free time from my exams. Berkaysnklf (talk) 10 November 2016, 14:20 (UTC)

Gosh, looking at how you made a summary, I'm shocked. Good job mentioning "contested accusations" without even mentioning Amnesty's cleansing reports. I'm putting the reports back in the page same as they are. Berkaysnklf (talk) 10 November 2016, 14:24 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Amnesty's cleansing reports", there exists no report of Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch or any other reputable source concerning anything Rojava that contains the term "ethnic cleansing". If you disagree with the text of the section, please auggest another reasonable balanced NPOV formulation, but stop edit-warring reverting to inacceptable propaganda blackwashing with invented buzzwords. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Forces of Democratic Syria in Efrîn welcome people fleeing from ISIS". ANHA. 3 June 2016.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autonomous_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria/Archive_3&oldid=966972798"