Talk:Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

The lead section

I'm going to put aside the fact that you seemingly don't grasp the point I'm trying to make for now. There were and I'm rather certain that there still are sources that state the AANES was and also known as Rojava. You're free to prove me wrong on that if you are able to as I am not completely sure. I will also be reverting your latest edit to the lede as it is completely unnecessary and a source that states that the NES is also known as Rojava (and only that) is provided. Sisuvia (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Sisuvia, all other sources state that it was the name of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. It is extremely needed to explain what the origin of the name is.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Yes, the previous name of this autonomous administration was the 'Democratic Federation of Northern Syria'. That is explained and stated in Rojava#Polity names and translations rendering your inclusion of 'DFNS' in the lede completely pointless. The "source" of the name Rojava, is that is what you were referring to when talking about the "origin of the name", is also explained in the same section. I've also checked the Lister source and unfortunately I have found no mention of either 'Rojava' nor 'Democratic Federation of Northern Syria'. If you have, kindly provide the evidence in the form of a screenshot. Sisuvia (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The name was the former official name of Northern Syria. That needs to be in the lede. The Lister source doesn't mention Rojava because it is not a well-known name but West Kurdistan see above argument which is why there is that note in the source. In 2013 there was only Northern Syria.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

If it needed to be in the lede, it would've been included hundreds of edits prior. The former names of the region are clearly articulated in Rojava#Polity names and translations. Stop ignoring that. Only the official name and the name which is used to refer to the region, Rojava are necessary to be included in the lede. As for your newly added source, it is completely unnecessary and pointless. Rojava as the official name for the autonomous region may no longer be in use by the administration itself, but it is there because it is the most common name that is used to refer to the region as a whole. Remove it and the rest of your edit to the lede. Sisuvia (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

the name was the former official name of North Syria, that needs to be mentioned.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagging recent contributors here, @Applodion: @KasimMejia: @AntonSamuel:. This individual refuses revert his edits (which in my opinion are disruptive, if anything) to the lede. Input would be appreciated. Sisuvia (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I thought that we had talked about this. The name "Rojava" is still used, not just in the context of its past official title. I support a revert to the original wording. Applodion (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

For the sake of God, I am not saying that it is not still used but that was the former official name. To avoid mixing between the Rojava as a region and as a political entity. --SharabSalam (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

There was and still isn't any confusion nor mixing between Rojava as used to refer to the autonomous administration and Rojava Kurdistan as a geographical region. The fact that Rojava is used separately from Rojava Kurdistan to refer to the autonomous administration is detailed in the source by Allsop & Wilgenburg and is recognised by virtually all editors of the page, with few exceptions present, and readers alike if I may be so bold as to claim as such. Sisuvia (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

So what's the problem with adding the fact that it was the former official name of Northern Syria?--SharabSalam (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I have already explained this just a couple of replies ago, it is completely unnecessary. Every single previous name is mentioned in the article itself. If it were important enough to be added in the lede, it would've been. Sisuvia (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It is completely necessary, things that are in the lead section should be in body of the article. An important note like that should be mentioned in the lead section. You saying unnecessary is subjective argument.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I also don't see why it is neccessary. We usually don't explain in the lede why something is named the way it is - we simply say which names are commonly used. The explanation is provided in the etymology section (here: "Polity names and translations"). Applodion (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

there is no doubt it is necessary to mention that so that there is no confusion between the region and the political name and the "known as" name.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: for the hundredth and also the last time, no one, absolutely no one was ever confused about the naming of the autonomous administration. You say necessary, yet I can guarantee you more editors than just me and Appolodion would disagree. Revert your edits, they're not needed and no matter what poor defense you put up, they will remain unnecessary and pointless. Sisuvia (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Sisuvia, putting "Rojava" like that alone without context is going to confuse the reader. No one care if editors are not confused. We need to clarify what sources say. It is a sourced factual content. Why are you arguing about removing it?--SharabSalam (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Seeing as I never mentioned that editors wouldn't be confused, try again. The original lede which stated "The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria also known by the name Rojava" makes just about 100% more sense than the current lede. Readers don't even need to read past the first sentence of the entire article and they would know CLEARLY, that the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is also referred to as Rojava. It is as bloody simple as that. There is absolutely no confusion about the previous lede. Regardless, if said readers bothered to read further than the bloody lede, which most readers that actually give a flying thought about the subject matter would, they would know the source of the term Rojava which is apparently what you're so worried about. No, the former name of the autonomous administration does not need to be in the lede. No, readers have not and will not be confused. Revert your edits. Sisuvia (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Sisuvia, The sources themselves say that. The lead is absolutely fine and more clear now than before. Rojava (as a region) is a very tiny small part of Northeast Syria. There is no way saying "Rojava" alone is clear. That's utterly false. The lede should summaries these key points that are mentioned in the body.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I'm not afraid to admit my patience with you is simply non-existent at this point and what I view to be your extraordinary ability to be oblivious, utterly maddening. But I will try my best and be as civil as is humanly possible for me. Yes, Rojava as a geo-cultural region is but one relatively small part of the northern and eastern geographical parts of Syria as a whole. However, it is well established, and I have explained this to you before so don't act dumb, that when using the term Rojava there are two meanings. One use is to refer to Rojava Kurdistan, also known as Syrian Kurdistan and Western Kurdistan . The other is to refer to the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. It is clearly stated in Rojava#Polity names and translations the origin of Rojava and it's use by the administration in its prior names. There is a clear distinction in the article between Rojava as a geo-cultural region and as the unofficial name for the autonomous administration. Your contribution is absolutely unnecessary, and I sincerely hope that is the last time I have to say so. The original lede was very bloody clear and bloody fine. If there was a problem with it, countless other editors that are FAR more able than you and me would've changed it, would've raised it as a legitimate problem. But no, they didn't because the lede was fine as it was, because the supposed confusion is only found on your part. Neither does the source you added, or others add weight to the argument in your favour. The naming of this article and that of the Autonomous Administration had already been previously dealt with. Revert your edits. Sisuvia (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Sisuvia, first of all I have been civil and polite during this discussion or at least I am trying. I believe you need to be more patient and that you have to calm down. Try taking a deep breath while forgetting about this issue.

We almost agree on everything, I agree that when using the term Rojava there are two meanings. One use is to refer to Rojava Kurdistan, also known as Syrian Kurdistan and Western Kurdistan . The other is to refer to the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. You said "It is clearly stated in 'Rojava#Polity names and translations the origin of Rojava' and it's use by the administration in its prior names. " that is true but the lead section is what is seen firstly by a reader. Readers don't usually go down and read everything, they often just read the lead section which should be a summary of the body of the article and it should make ambiguous terms like Rojava more clear.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: If we went by your logic, we should accordingly fit every single detail in the article in the lede since that's what the readers will read first. Your logic in regards to this matter is faulty and holds no water. You claim readers don't usually go down and read everything as if it were a fact. I believe that other editors and I would benefit from evidence in the form of statistics that prove your claim. No matter how hard you try and portray the name Rojava as an ambiguous word, it won't work because one the origins of the name Rojava and the reasoning as to why it was used less frequently and eventually dropped altogether by the autonomous administration. Two, it is clearly written in a way (also known by the name of Rojava) as to make it clear that the Autonomous Administration is not the geo-cultural region of Rojava. Rather, it is simply what it is also known as in name. Stating that the name Rojava is also what the Autonomous Administration is referred to does not convey any ambiguity, at the very least from my view and I believe other editors would also agree. I would also like you to find me one instance of a reader getting confused about whether or not the Autonomous Administration as a political entity is a separate from Rojava Kurdistan as a geo-cultural region.

P.S, I would like to apologise for my previous hostile attitude. I will admit that I am not someone that has a lot of patience. Will work on that. Sisuvia (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sisuvia, that is not my logic. That is common sense. We wouldn't let an ambiguous term in the lead section without explaining it. You said it is unnecessary yet you also said that the term has two meanings. What if a reader thought that this is the geographical-cultural area of Rojava? Don't you think that we should make it clear for them that this is not the geo-cultural term which is much smaller comparing to the AANES?--SharabSalam (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: If it were common sense other editors would be agreeing with you, unless you mean to say you're the only one with common sense? The odds that a reader would mistake this page for the geo-cultural region of Rojava Kurdistan are literally astronomical. Want to know why? Because it is clearly stated in the previous lede that the Autonomous Administration is also referred to as Rojava. In no way within the English language can that possibly give the idea that the Autonomous Administration is the same as Rojava Kurdistan. Stating that "something" is also referred to by another name does not mean that, and definitely does not convey the idea that said something is what the other name is. Neither does your new lede make it any clearly, if anything it makes it even more confusing. "The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (NES), also known by the former name of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, Rojava" One, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria are the same thing, that's a fact that you CAN NOT deny. Therefore the old name of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, Rojava is also the old name of the Autonomous Administration. That means your edit is literally redundant, stop trying to dispute that point. The other editor that was also involved in this little debate agrees with me. It's 2 to 1, you're in the minority, unfortunately for you. I'll throw in a little statistical fact for you here. The average reader that visits Wikipedia stays on for an average of 4 minutes. I don't know about you, but for most people I know four minutes would be enough to read at the very least 35% of the article. That includes Rojava#Polity names and translations Sisuvia (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sisuvia, you are very mistaken. Just because there are two like-minded editors disputing with me, doesn't mean I am not applying common sense or that you are not, it means you might be mistaken. The other editor also doesn't actually support what you are saying. The difference between the the Democratic federation of Northern Syria and the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is like the difference between between the first and the second Saudi kingdom. It is a past establishment with different geography and the name Rojava was an official name of that establishment which was only Northern Syria. The term is ambiguous and has to be clerified in the lead section..it does not matter whether the average reader stays 4 mins in this article, ambiguous terms should be clerified. All of your argument sounds like I just don't like it. You have presented no real objective argument, instead, you have admitted that it is an ambiguous term and you don't want it to be clerified in the lede???--SharabSalam (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: The other editor actualy supports reverting to the previous lede, which is the main point really. The difference between the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria and the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syriais not as drastic as the First and Second Saudi State. That's a false equivalency. The Emirate Diriyah and the Emirate of Nejd were two related states but certainly not the same, which is what the DFNS and NES are, the same. There was a 6-year interregnum between the end and establishment of the respective states which saw an Egyptian occupation. No need to mention the fact that Diriyah was literally toppled and Nejd a completely new state. The only connections between them are the Wahhabi doctrine, style of government (Imamate) and leaders of the same bloodline. Whereas the difference between the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria and the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is literally a number words in the constitution and a name change. It's also interesting that you would use the First and Second Saudi States as examples for you argument. Don't you think that if the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria was actually as different as the two Saudi states were, there'd be a separate article for the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria exclusively? Really makes you think, doesn't it? This alone renders your whole argument essentially moot. Yes, in this specific debate it is a matter of whether the reader stays and reads an article for an average of 4 minutes, because you yourself used an argument about how readers usually only read the lede, meaning they only stay on pages for a very short period of time, which is of course an unverified statement that you have been unable or refuse to provide evidence to support. It's also amusing that you would allege I have no real objective argument. Rojava is not an ambiguous term, not in this context, and I believe I have stated that more than once throughout the course of this frankly idiotic debate. The term Rojava is clearly stated as an alternative name also used to refer to the autonomous region. That in no way implies that said autonomous region is the same as the geo-cultural location of Rojava Kurdistan. The grammar previously used in the lede is incredibly clear and is able to be understood by anyone with even the fluency of an 8 year old child. Fluency in the English language, anyways. Sisuvia (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sisuvia you have totally misunderstood what I meant by the first and the second Saudi states. The geographical area of the previous establishment( Democratic federation of Northern Syria) was controling a small area which was officially called Rojava which is what the sources next to the paragraph say. The term "Rojava" in reference to the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is ambiguous and you, yourself, said that it is ambiguous instead you want the reader to be misled if he is just going to read the lead section? Is that what you want? The reader would think this is Rojava as the region. The current lede totally make it clear that the name was the previous official name of the democratic federation of Northern Syria. Rojava as an official name was just few for a small period of time and then there were more lands they took and then they changed the name to Northern Syria (doesn't have to have its own article especially that the AANES is a developed entity from it) and then there were more lands they took and then they changed the name to North and East Syria. Here is the problem you want to make North and East Syria region = Rojava region. This is what the previous lede suggest. Which is why I said that the AANES is known by the previous name of the democratic federation of Northern Syria.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I find the founding of this entire thread disruptive and demonstrative of WP:OWN. You discuss controversial things. You don't give people a few hours to see it before you impose your will.--Calthinus (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, what? I came here because I saw a huge part of original research and I have all the right to remove original research. I didnt remove but instead I came here to ask you guys for explanation until the original research was solved by Applodion who added non-original research sources-direct sources that explicitly say it as it is. You need to look at Sisuvia who is shouting REVERT YOUR EDIT and down there saying he is going to ask an admin like if the admin is going to block me because I disagree with him.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Unfortunately, my detailed response which probably numbered around 800 words or so was . . . lost because the Google Chrome tab for Wikipedia reloaded itself. I literally do not have any motivation to rewrite what is essentially an entire essay so I will just write a relatively short response. Indeed I misunderstood what you were trying to convey when you used the first and second Saudi states as an example in favour of your argument. I previously wrote something rather detailed and long about how your example is nevertheless still wrong, but of course as that was lost I'll just offer you a short recap. The first and second Saudi states are different, they are separate because one was founded as the successor to the other. There is a reason one is referred to as the first and the other the second. Because Nejd was founded to succeed Diriyah and was not founded as a continuation of the same state. That is what makes them separate entities. Unlike with the subject of the article, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria was not founded to be the successor of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. On the contrary and as I have argued for far too many times, it is the continuation of the DFNS. Your idea that the DFNS and the NES are two completely separate entities like the first and second Saudi state are is horribly misguided. You want to use historical examples to add weight to your argument? I can do the same, take the Ottoman Empire as an example. The empire, which is officially called the "Exalted Ottoman State" in Ottoman Turkish wasn't founded as the "Exalted Ottoman State". It was founded as the Beylik of Osmanoğulları, a minuscule little state when compared to the Ottoman Empire at its largest extent in the 15th century. (Here is the map of the Anatolian Beyliks, you can find the Ottoman Beylik at the top-right area bordering with the Byzantines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beylicats_d%u2019Anatolie_vers_1330-en.svg. You can find the Ottoman Empire at its largest extent in this map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OttomanEmpireMain.png) Yet, despite the increase in territory held and the change of name from "Beylik of Osmanoğulları" to the "Exalted Ottoman State", the two are still essentially the same entity only that they were in different periods of development. This is unlike the first and second Saudi states which were separate from each other. Likewise, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria are the same thing and not as you view them to be, separate entities. Moving on to your other arguments, no. Readers will not be misled by the previous lede because it is made abundantly clear with very understandable and basic grammar that the Autonomous Administration is also referred to as Rojava. That does not mean nor in any way convey the idea that the two are the same thing. No one is contending that Rojava was the official name for only a period of time, but that's not even the point nor is it relevant to the argument. We are not discussing whether or not Rojava was a historical name used by the administration, nor how long it was used for. I'll be brutally frank with you, this confusion which the previous lede supposedly conveyed, something which only you raised a problem about for that particular reason is resultant from the fact that you are not fluent in the English language. I don't mean that in an offensive way, nor is it meant to be a personal attack. I recognise that your edit was done in good faith, I seriously do. However, it is simply that your lack of fluency happens to be the source of this problem. The previous lede was phrased in a particular way, in simple yet clear grammar as to ensure that there would be no confusion. This is the last time I will be asking you this, revert your edits. If you refuse to do so, I will be seeking intervention from the Wikipedia administration to settle this issue once and for all. I don't mean that in a threatening way, it's simply that this has gone on for long enough. Sisuvia (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sisuvia, I am not going to read all of this off-topic thing see WP:EXHAUST . At the end of the day, you said when using the term Rojava there are two meanings. One use is to refer to Rojava Kurdistan, also known as Syrian Kurdistan and Western Kurdistan . The other is to refer to the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. and that means the term is ambiguous which means we have to clarify it in the lede paragraph. I honestly dont know your problem with that except saying that it is already clarified in the body which is sort of not knowing what the lead section is all about. It should summaries all key points in the article and should clerify ambiguous terms. I dont think you have said any thing objective against this except that you just dont like it. Calling admins for a dispute? What?--SharabSalam (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: One, it's not off-topic, I'm literally countering your points and expressing my own. If that's off-topic, virtually all your interactions with me are essentially off-topic. Rojava within this context is not at all an ambiguous term, and I have explained that multiple times, there is absolutely no need for clarification. The fact that you can even claim that I have stated noting objective and that my only point is about how I simply don't like your edit, and to continue to act as if you're in the right says a lot more about you than it does about me. Calling for admins to resolve a dispute also doesn't mean that they're going to block you, as you had claimed above. Calling in an admin to resolve the dispute means just that, to resolve a dispute. It's a clear and straightforward statement, much like the lede prior to your edits. This just reinforces my point that this whole problem is the result of your lack of fluency in English, seriously. Sisuvia (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I dont have to read 4000 bits comment. I dont want to waste my brain cells on reading a comment that can be summarized. Let see, if I said for example: Levant also known as Syria. the term is ambiguous and we have to clarify it in the lede. It is not clarified in the context of the previous lede , it was simply saying that Autonomous Administration of Syria is the Rojava without clarifying that it is not the Rojava region that is inhabited by Kurds.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I honestly have no idea how many times I have to repeat this, but the lede was not in any way saying that the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is Rojava. It stated that the Autonomous Administration was also referred to as Rojava. That is completely different from stating that the Autonomous Administration is Rojava! Don't play the "ambiguous term" card here either, because the lede stating that the Autonomous Administration is also referred to as Rojava is not ambiguous in any way whatseoever! The meaning is absolutely crystal clear! You are literally the only person that holds that viewpoint out of all other frequent editors here, you are in the minority, your edit to the lede is not necessary, and in my personal opinion frankly unwelcome. Your analogy with the Levant and Syria is also completely moot, the Levant article specifically states "historical region of Syria" because it is equating the geographical location of the Levant to that of historical Syria. That is completely different and your inability to realise that again only reinforces my earlier point. Sisuvia (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sisuvia, the term is still ambiguous whether it is "is" or "also referred to as", it is still not clarifying which Rojava we are referring to. Honestly, you can ask an admin to participate. I just dont think an admin would not allow a clarification of an ambiguous term in the lead just because it is mentioned in the body of the article. I dont think I would want to waste more time with this discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Also admins are just like any editor here except that they have the ability to block an editor etc. I dont know why you would ask an admin to participate. Why dont you ask someone who holds the pending changes reviewer permission instead?.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I am going to remove a lot of content from this article soon

So that the article be about Rojava not North and East Syria as there is no reliable source that says Rojava = North and East Syria. Please provide reliable sources that says Rojava (West Kurdistan) = North and East Syria or say goodbye to the original research.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I will give you guys few hours so that you have time to see my post. Then I will delete the original research content.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

If you do, you will be reverted. Almost all of this article is properly cited, even if some of the sources are not the best. Mass deletions do not solve any problems, especially if they are driven by POV motives. Simply put, the given references do state that the current administration (the AANES) has been referred to as Rojava in the past, and is still occasionally called by this name. For example, Lister says that "On 19 July the PYD formally announced that it had written a constitution for an autonomous Syrian Kurdish region to be known as West Kurdistan." Applodion (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Ehem. This aljazeera article directly states "the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, also known as Rojava". At least google this before throwing tags around. Applodion (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Applodion, that is not a solid source I have literally spend days searching for sources and all I found was this al-Jazeera (which is known for being state-owned by Qatar) source. They probably got mislead by the Wikipedia page since it is only them who said that. There is no other reliable source.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Xinhua does so too. See here. The Economist also equals the two, saying "In September they replaced the name Rojava with the more inclusive, but wordy, “autonomous administration of north and east Syria” (NES)". In addition, there are literally hundreds of left-wing publications ("Rojava, or the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria") which describe it similarily. Applodion (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Applodion, The Lister source does not mention the North and East Syria as the West Kurdistan, the PYD in 2013 way before there was an "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" which is not mentioned by the source. Let me tell you what the Lister source was talking about. It was talking about the region that is called "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria" not the "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria"--SharabSalam (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Lister & Wilbenburg were used as sources for the use of "Rojava" per se. I added the Jazeera source to prove that the name is still used as equivalent to the present NES. Applodion (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Applodion, You have broke the 1rr, self-revert please.-SharabSalam (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Sigh, done. Could you please restore the old link? The new one is broken, the book seems to have been deleted on archive.org as copyright violation. Applodion (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The link works fine. I think you didn't copy the link accurately because there is a dot at the end. try again.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I need you to relax. No need for rush. I believe there is something very wrong in this article and that it confuses the "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria" later was known as Rojava(West Kurdistan) and the "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria". These two should not be confused with each other.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The entire issue is moot anyway. "Also known as" does not imply that both names are used in an official capacity at the same time. The Northeast is, simply put, still often called "Rojava". As the AANES governs the area, they are stated to be the same. It really does not matter whether this is correct or anything. People do it, and that suffices. People still call Eswatini "Swaziland", even though the old name was quasi-denounced by the locals. Applodion (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Rojava has never been used as a reference to North East Syria ecept in the Al-Jazeera report which is updates which could be mislead by Wikipedia. Historically speaking, the first thing that was established was the "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria" this later was changed to Rojava which is what the Lister source talks about. Then the name was dropped. Years later, a COMPLETELY different entity was established called "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" which the overwhelming sources use the term "North and East Syria to reference to.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Applodion I need a solid source that says that Rojava has been used to refer to "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" other than Al-Jazeera report which is the only source that says this and could has been misled by Wikipedia. The Lister source proved to be original research.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I provided more sources above. Also, it is false that the AANES is completely different from the previous administrations. Allsopp & Wilgenburg directly state that all these different names refer to the same polity. Applodion (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Applodion, you have only provided the al-jazreeza report (which is an update and could be misled by wikipedia). The other sources do not support your claim and they are all original research. This only shows that you have got no source and that this article needs to be written.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I literally listed other sources above (see Xinhua or The Progressive)! Also, just google " Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" with "Rojava" and you get almost ten thousand hits! The Economist states "In September they replaced the name Rojava with the more inclusive, but wordy, “autonomous administration of north and east Syria” (NES)", directly implicating that they are one and the same entity. Look, I am honestly sure that we are really not on the same page here. We talk past each other. I am 100% sure that it is not original research, and you think it is. I am currently really tired of this discussion. Could we please wait with any further actions (including mass deletion) until other users have voiced their opinion? I also want to say that I am sorry if I am too aggressive in this discussion. I am just feeling a bit strained, so no offense meant to you. Applodion (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Applodion, thanks for providing these sources, I have to say that I really believed that there was an original research or sort of distortion . I have no political opinion about this conflict but I felt that there were editors who are making things up. I will read more about this and see. Obviously, I am not going to remove any content now. I was proven wrong.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam's request and comment is 100% right. Even the most ultra-nationalist Kurds don't say Raqqa or Deir-ez-Zor are part of their claimed rojava. They are 100% inhabited by Arabs since ever. I have provided maps before I do this again here. No respected source says Kurds used to live in Raqqa. The Economist piece is an oinion stiry and full of BS. Look at the CIA, BBC maps. These are the claimed "rojava" cantons of rojava when it was announced by PYD, and the areas they kept conquering using military power with US help were not even inhabited by Kurds. As per the majoriy of users voting earlier on the move requests: rojava ≠ AAOENS. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Applodion Congrats on finding something that says the two are synonymous. Now how about bringing me a credible map that says so? How about the millions of articles that call this area simply "northeastern Syria" or simply Kurdish authority(ies). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said before. It does not matter whether it is correct to say that Rojava and AANES are the same. It can be completely false - yet we still have to mention it because many people do equal the two. Not to mention that Rojava as ethnic, geographic idea of a "western Kurdistan" is not the same as Rojava, the proto-state. Simply put, this article is about a polity which gave itself various names over time, and one of them (Rojava) stuck so well that it is still applied to this polity regardless (and despite) of old connotations. I do not want to imply that all of northeastern Syria is Kurdish - I said several time that the region is multiethnic. The problem is that a Kurdish name - Rojava - is currently used to refer to the polity which controls northern Syria. To take a comparison - the Holy Roman Empire was neither "Holy", nor "Roman", nor an "Empire" from the 16th century. Regardless, people continued to call it the "Holy Roman Empire" until its dissolution, and historians still use the name. Factual correctness is secondary in these matters. Applodion (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: By the way, here are some maps which label (almost) the entire region "Rojava": Economist, Tagesspiegel, and Washington Institute (the small upper map, red area), Zeit. Zeit and Tagesspiegel are German newspapers, but one can see the label on their maps. Applodion (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I am going to add in the lede paragraph that Rojava Kurdish name is used to a region in northern Syria only not Deir-ez-Zor or Raqqa in the lede paragraph as there is no culture, Historical or ethnical relationship between Kurds and these areas in Syria. I found some credible sources for this. I will share them later.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Will also try to create an article called Rojava (region)(just like we have an article called Syria (region) which would end this dispute and we can add a tag (not to be confused with Rojava (region)).--SharabSalam (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point, friend. It doesn't matter if the areas of Deir-ez Zor and Raqqa has no cultural, historical or ethnic connection with the Kurdish people, because the name 'Rojava' is used to refer to the whole Autonomous Administration informally, regardless if certain portions of it have any Kurdish presence. The application of the name informally over the whole of the NES does not imply nor assert in anyway that the autonomous polity is wholly Kurdish, that is a fallacious argument. The creation of a separate Rojava article about Western/Syrian Kurdistan would be welcomed. Sisuvia (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I get it. I get it. I will try to solve this issue once and for all by creating a separated Rojava (region) article and I think Rojava region includes parts of Turkey so this article would be helpful. We should probably say in the lede paragraph "it is known by the former name of the 'Democratic Federation of Northern Syria', Rojava". Agree? Since this is what the sources say.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Alas, it seems that you don't. First of, no Rojava as sub-region of the larger geo-cultural Greater Kurdistan does not include Turkey. Greater Kurdistan is divided into four parts, Turkish, Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian (more commonly known as Rojava) Kurdistan. The creation of a separate page for Rojava as a geographical region which the Kurdish people inhabit does not change the fact that the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, shortened to simply NES, is also commonly known as Rojava. It is important to distinguish between two different uses of the name Rojava. One, Rojava meaning the geo-cultural region in Syria which is part of Greater Kurdistan. Two, Rojava as used to refer to the NES. Now according to Wikipedia policy regarding names of articles, we use the most common name out there. (WP:COMMONNAME) Rojava happens to be the most common name that is used to refer to the NES, no matter how hard individuals such as Amr tries to discredit that reality by linking news sources that refer to the NES as 'northeastern Syria' or 'Kurdish Syria'. That fact is proven in the previous move discussion which you can read. Sisuvia (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

That sounds a little patronising. I don't think we need to continue this discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If that's meant to be directed at me, maybe don't view everything that explains a situation to you as patronising and attempt to shut down a discussion with that accusation. Lastly, if you seek to go ahead with your creation of a separate article for Rojava as a geo-cultural region, I welcome it. However, any attempts to remove the name 'Rojava' from this article and others related to it will be reverted. I can ensure you that. Sisuvia (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sisuvia, I already said I was proven wrong and that I am not going to remove anything. You still barking about that?. --SharabSalam (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Since this is essentially a request for a reopening of the debate regarding the name change (which I was in favor of but was voted down), please check the guidelines of WP:THREEOUTCOMES in relation to the older name change debate - multiple sources were provided in defense of keeping the name "Rojava" and how the name was used for the de facto autonomous region. Stating that you are "going to remove a lot of content from this article soon" and that you will "give you guys few hours so that you have time to see my post" is not an acceptable attitude to have on Wikipedia with regards to WP:CON and contentious issues. Regarding the creation of a "Syrian Kurdistan" in line with the previous version before the Syrian Civil War - that would be another debate that has already been raised on this talk page (#Split Syrian Kurdistan into new article?) without any significant opposition. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not a request for a reopening of a debate. You should be thankful I posted in the talk page before doing any edit. Instead I am getting bad faith from you. Again you should probably thank me.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Thank you for what would essentially be a vandalisation of this entire article? You're amusing. Had you removed what you erroneously viewed to be OR and etc. your edit would've been reverted regardless and the possibility of a ban could've also been entertained by the Wikipedia administration. Sisuvia (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sisuvia, removing original research is not vandalism. It is the exact opposite, but I didnt ask thanks for that. I asked for thanks for being here first. All I am getting is hostile responses. You are welcome! --SharabSalam (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Indeed, removing OR isn't vandalism. However, what you would've removed were what YOU viewed to be OR, and as I said in the very reply that you responded to, what you viewed as OR wasn't actually OR. Learn to read more intently. You don't deserve appreciation for starting a pointless talk section and then asking for said appreciation for consulting the frequent editors of this article first before your planned edit, which is what you should do in the first place. Sisuvia (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sisuvia, it was an original research before I came. For example, Lister never mentioned AANES so he didnt explicitly say that it is known as Rojava. That was original research. If there was a fair-minded guy he would give me credit for that. You apparently dont even know what an original research is in the first place.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Ha ha, yes one instance of original research. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you intended, as this talk section's title says, to I quote, "remove a lot of content". I'll just end this reply with that, and let you contemplate. Sisuvia (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of content should be removed because there was no source mentioning the AANES as Rojava, therefore, the content about AANES was original research.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

A decision was made, your viewpoint did not "win" the RfC, and Applodion has indeed graciously provided a source. "Yolo", as they say, don't waste your life beating a dead horse, move on already.--Calthinus (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Links to suicide bombings committed in Turkey

This information needs to be added, particularly in the light of the vigorous support given to it by several western countries and media outlets. This was published by no less a source than the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.

The third wave of attacks by the TAK has seen a growing operational connection to the Kurdish Rojava, with the attacks being planned and prepared in the Kurdish majority cantons in northern Syria. The perpetrators involved in the February 17 and March 13 Ankara attacks as well as the April 27 Bursa attacks received military training in camps in northern Syria for lengths of time spanning eight months to two years and participated in clashes in that area. For instance, Abdulbaki Somer, the perpetrator of the February 17 Ankara attack, spent 10 years in northern Iraq and Turkey before joining the TAK in 2014. Later that year he moved to northern Syria and joined the YPG for a year and a half. He then assumed the identity of Syrian refugee Salih Neccar and “legally” entered Turkey in July 2015, thus erasing his incriminating record in Turkey and arming himself with a new identity. After returning to Turkey he kept a low profile and did not even contact members of his own family. Cagla Demir, the female suicide bomber who carried out the March 13 Ankara attack, and Eser Cali, the female suicide bomber who carried out the April 27 Bursa attack, each spent more than six months in Syria

Link - https://ctc.usma.edu/the-kurdistan-freedom-falcons-a-profile-of-the-arms-length-proxy-of-the-kurdistan-workers-party/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insidethelight (talk • contribs) 02:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Photos

KasimMejia, could you please prove to us that there are photos of regions that are outside the adminstration control? I am a bit confused because of the title misleading term. Also what are the non neutral wording in the article. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I think he meant that because territories like Ras al-Ayn are now under Turkish/FSA control, their photos (such as the church in the religion section) should no longer be featured in the article. This makes little sense, however, as such photos are meant to show certain features at certain points in history, i.e. Christians live in northern Syria, and the photo of a church in Ras al-Ayn sowcased an example of Christian architecture in northern Syria. He also claimed that "bombarded" is a POV word which I honestly don't understand (by the way, KasimMejia claimed that Battle of Raqqa (2017) is written in a pro-SDF language, yet it features quotes like this: 'the situation for the besieged populace was "beyond catastrophic, I can't describe the situation as anything besides hellish. People are just waiting for their turn to die." ' How this this pro-sdf?) Applodion (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Why should it make little sense? The article is about the "region". What's the point of displaying areas outside of it. An comparison, is Aleppo city included in article Syrian Opposition, they did control half of it for 4 years. The word bombarded is POV, the word airstrikes should be used which is neutral. KasimMejia (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not think photographs of areas not presently under the control of the SDF should be neccesarily removed, as due to the civil war, territorial control is constantly in flux. Either replacing the photo with another equivalent photo (a photo of, let's say, a church, in a different area under the Admin's control), or addding in something like "under SDF control until –Month– 20XX", "not currently under Administration control as a result of –Relevant offensive name–" etc to the caption, would work far better in my opinion than simply removing the photographs. -Thespündragon 01:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Pictures or reference to areas not under SDF control anymore

There are pictures and reference to areas not under SDF control anymore, which need to be updated. Also, claiming that Halabiye is part of rojava where it is 99% Arab just adds to the severe credibility issues in this article. You can keep reverting any attempts to solve these issues, but that will only worsen the credibility of this page and implicated users. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Why should we remove all images and references to said areas? They were part of this region in the past, and the images showcase that. Furthermore, the images in the geography section are not supposed to provide any claims on territorial control, but to give readers an impression on northeastern Syria's geography - and all these territories, Rojava or not, are still part of Syria anyway. Applodion (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Amr ibn Kulthoum that there is no point in including these pictures of formerly controlled. By that logic Syrian Rebels should be shown as controlling half of Aleppo still. 171.97.79.145 (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Your argument simply makes no sense whatsoever, and completely misses the point of the problem. Aleppo's history section shows images when the city was partially held by rebels, and when it was under Ottoman rule, and so on... Images do not imply current control. Applodion (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The Aleppo article and Syrian Rebel/Rojava articles are not the same thing buddy. 171.97.79.145 (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

You were the one who used it as comparison... And your argument still does not make sense. Why should we use different standards in relation to images for different articles when these images are used for the same purpose? Applodion (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

My argument does make sense since there is consensus which you disagree with. I'm not gonna repeat my argument in a circle. 171.97.79.145 (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Lol. Which consensus? The consensus of yourself and Amr ibn Kulthoum? That makes two, and - oh no - myself and Lightspecs are also two! Which means that there is no censensus for removing the images. Also, consensus or not, your arguments make no logical sense. My argument is simple: The images give readers an idea of northeastern Syria's history and geography. That is their purpose, therefor they are here. You think that they imply current ownership, without properly explaining why or how - and no, the mere existence of an image does not automatically say "these lands belong to XYZ". Applodion (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I also disagree with the inclusion of the non controlled locations due to having no connection to the region. This is Wikipedia, not imaginationland. 183.89.13.86 (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Guys, it does not work that way. One has to give proper reasons for the removal of content. Otherwise your deletions will just be reverted. Also, IPs can be easily changed, so we don't even know whether IP 1 and IP 2 are different people. Applodion (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Amr and the IPs. These locations are nowhere in Rojava or any connection to Rojava. images that are not in Rojava should not be in that section.-SharabSalam (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

They were part of Rojava, and they are related to the area insofar as they visualize its geographic features and history. Applodion (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Applodion: History is irrelevant and short lived. According to history logic, we should include pictures of Paris under Germany article since they once controlled it 1940-44, briefly like the "SDF". DongFen (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What? You know that this article is called "Rojava" and discusses matters related to Rojava and northeastern Syria? The equivalent would be not the France main article, but rather German military administration in occupied France during World War II which includes, surprise surprise, images of German-occupied Paris. Applodion (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@DongFen:, It was completely necessary for me to participate and lay bare my reasoning for doing what I did here specifically due to two reasons. One, I had already provided my reasoning in the summary of the action itself. Two, the edit which I reverted itself was illegitimate, as there was no consensus to remove the pictures. Try again. Sisuvia (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The inclusion of Ras al Ayn in the middle of the article without context is pure portrayal, as it is part of this "thing". (Don't know whatever it's suppose to be now, (oil field proto state?)). Anyway. Context need to be added next to image captions to highlights areas no longer controlled. Or place them in a "history" section. @Applodion and Sisuvia: Alright? DongFen (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

While I am not opposed to clarifications in the image descriptions, I am unsure about whether noting, for example, that a specific church in Ras al-Ayn is not longer under control of the Rojava-administration is all that useful. The church, for example, is supposed to visualize the presence of Christians in northeastern Syria. It does not state that Ras al-Ayn is still under control of the PYD-led quasi-government. So why should we add this statement? One could just read the actual history section to learn that Turkish-led forces conquered Ras al-Ayn in 2019. Applodion (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

North East Syria is an ambiguous term undefined by borders. The article can include areas under control of SDF or shared between SAA and SDF. Besides I don't see any reason not to remove the mere 3 images. 2 of them are Tal Halaf and 1 is Ras Al Ayn. Both under Turkish control. DongFen (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You still do not give a proper reason why these images are so bad... So why should we remove them? Again, their purpose in the article is NOT linked to the current territorial control. They simply show buildings and geographic features. Lets talk about all of them: 1st of all, the photo showing Khabur river - this one is still partially controlled by the PYD-led administration. The area shown by the photo directly, though, is probably not. However, the main purpose of the photo is to show the river, and give readers an impression of bodies of water in northeastern Syria. I do not understand why the question of territorial control is so important in this regard. 2nd: A photo of Tell Halaf. This one is used to show the long history of northern Syria in its entirety; the description itself says "Northern Syria has several Neolithic sites such as Tell Halaf" - note "northern Syria", not "Rojava". Removing the image would just deprive readers of a visualization of the region's overall history. 3rd: The church. This one I explained above. It is a church in northern Syria, and it is supposed to show a church in northern Syria. Nothing more, nothing less. However, perhaps we could replace this photo with a less contentious one. Applodion (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Clear and simple, this is article is about a state/quasistate, and those images are no longer a part of the state/quasistate. DongFen (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You really do not try to listen to any other reasoning other than your own, do you? Applodion (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I also like to state that your argument saying "This is about a geographic region and not a state" is a total Chewbacca defense and false. As it is about the state, institutions, schools, armed force. etc. You're POV pushing and battle grounding. DongFen (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The "geographic region" was not my argument, by the way. I simply believe that the images in quesion are used in a context that is not directly related to the proto-state. Perhaps we could find fitting alternatives to the disputed images. I already said above that the church photo is probably replaceable. Applodion (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Update for everyone interested in this discussion: Turns out that DongFen is a sock of another user well known for his numerous sock puppets and aggressive behavior. This does not mean that all his arguments are invalid (I honestly think we should replace the church photo with another one, considering that it would be less contentious), but I still think people should know. Applodion (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: the lede paragraph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lede paragraph be:

• A:

  The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (NES), also known by the former name of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, Rojava,

• B

  The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (NES), also known as Rojava,

• C: Another suggestion

--SharabSalam (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Notes

References

Survey

• A The sources in there are all about the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. Rojava is an ambiguous term, it can mean the Kurdish region which is very small comparing to the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. According to the article when the Kurdish-led government expanded it changed its name from Rojava to "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria" after that it expanded further and the name was changed to Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. However, the term Rojava was still used among some locals and some sources. The term Rojava can also mean "West Kurdistan" which is a small area in Northern Syria. If we say that Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is known as Rojava we risk confusing the reader of what Rojava we are referring to is. Is North and East Syria, West Kurdistan? of course not! Therefore I worded it to make it clear that, Rojava was the former name of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. Somehow this is not agreed by some editors for subjective reasons like, "that it is already explained in the body of the article and that it is not necessary to put it in the lede. I believe we need to make ambiguous terms clear in the lead section.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• I would go with A, for now until something better emerges. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support for Option B - This was discussed above by myself and several other editors, and I stand by my opinion that a simple "also known as" or something equivalent along with a note for further clarity sufficies. While I understand the concern that confusion might arise due to the name "Rojava", this does not change the fact that the current polity in northern Syria (the AANES) is nicknamed "Rojava" in many sources, regardless of historical connotations with this term. The name "Rojava" is not just applied to the polity because it was formerly included in one of its official titles; it has become a quick shorthand for many, and has become closely associated with the polity itself. For example, many leftists are non-nationalistic but still use the "Rojava" name - not because they consider northern Syria Kurdish, but because they associated "Rojava" with the current polity that follows partially anarchistic-communist ideals. Anyone who wants to be informed why and how the AANES came to be known as "Rojava" can read the etymology section, just like in any other article. Applodion (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option B, option A is flatly false, as it is not actually "known" by that name. --Calthinus (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Limiting results to the past year and filtering out Wikipedia and its mirrors, the string "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria" has only 1500 results.[1]. This is small, especially compared to symmetrically filtered results on the entity when called Rojava, which yields 2,180,000 results, i.e. a factor of over 1,000 between them. It is simply false to say that the "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria" is a name in English that Rojava is actually known by.--Calthinus (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• I would recommend Option B or something similar to it, "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria" is not the common name of the de facto autonomous region and the lead becomes pretty cluttered and unclear with that name featured there as well. It and other terms that were used and that are used for the region are also already featured in the pop up text featured in the lead and in the polity names section. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option B. WP:Disambiguation is not the purpose of lead sentences.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option C. The article was started(4Oct2012) as an article about a region called Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan. That are both Kurdish nationalist namings of a geographical area(4Oct2012). It is one of the four parts of 'Kurdistan' or Greater Kurdistan which ofcourse is also a Kurd.nationalist naming, and which region(Kurdistan) is roughly defined, as Wikipedia rightly states. This logically implies that also Syrian Kurdistan (the part of Kurdistan that was 'parachuted' into the state of Syria, in one of the peace conferences after World War I), is only roughly defined.

Since 'Western Kurdistan' translates into Kurdish language as Rojavayê Kurdistan, which was/is also commonly referred to as simply Rojava(said Wikipedia on 2Dec2013,with a ref source), Wiki at some point decided to title this article 'Rovaja', which logically, just as on 4Oct2012, still means nothing else than a roughly defined part of Syria.

Within that 'rough' region, as of 2012, Kurdish (military) control arose, and in Nov2013 even a de facto government was declared—for areas Afrin, Kobane and Jazira(Wiki version 2Dec2013). These three areas probably lie within Rovaja, but should NEVER in Wikipedia be identified with Rovaja. The de facto declared (autonomous) government will probably have enlarged their territory, perhaps even have lost parts of it, buth regardless of which territory they (claim to) govern (at some moment), they should NEVER in Wikipedia be identified with the roughly defined 'Rovaja'. A government is not a (rough) region.

Therefore, the lead (first two sentences) should be restored, into something like: Rovaja, or Syrian Kurdistan, or Western Kurdistan, is a roughly defined region in northeastern Syria …. Since 2012/2013, parts or all of this region are being governed by self-proclaimed autonomous Administrations or governments. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Option B. The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria are essentially the same thing. One is the former name of the other, meaning Rojava is also the former name of the Autonomous Administration. Thus making Option A completely nonsensical. Neither did the lede prior to your edit use "also known as", rather it was "also known by the name" and before that "sometime referred to by the name". If anything we should be using "also referred to as" or "also referred to by the name" to make it even more clear that the NES is referred to as by the name of Rojava. Not that it is the geo-cultural region of Rojava Kurdistan itself, which is what this editor is so obsessed about as if it wasn't already clear before. Sisuvia (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

عمرو بن كلثوم, Do you have another proposal? I tried to only mention what the sources next to the lede paragraph say. Do you have another option that will also reflect what sources say?.-SharabSalam (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Square in Manbij.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Problems with introduction

The introduction currently describes Afrin as a "self-governing" part of the "de facto" AANES. It's not, and the AANES claim to it and its council-in-exile would more appropriately be addressed in the body of the article. The introduction also emphasises the anarchist influence on democratic confederalism, even though this isn't done on the DC paragraph of the Ocalan page (where the link goes), where it would be more suited. Also, DC is piped to libertarian socialism, even though LS has its own article. Of all the criticism that is made of AANES, the Kurdification trope has the least traction, has been thoroughly refuted, and the only sources for it given here are jihadists. There are genuine points to be critical about, but this isn't one. If it's to be discussed, again the body of the article would be more suitable. Konli17 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Konli17: Afrin, or rather what remains of it, is technically under self-governance as far as I know. It certainly hasn't been fully conquered by Turkey, Syrian rebels or Syria. There's nothing wrong with emphasising anarchism's influence on the ideology of democratic confederalism in the lede. It's a pretty widely-accepted fact that democratic confederalism is really just Ocalan's version (I say version, but I really don't see any differences between it and the original) of communalism, which is itself an anarchist-/ic ideology founded by the late Murray Bookchin, who is linked to in Ocalan's Wikipage. Personally I haven't seen any proof that refutes the allegation that Rojava is running a Kurdification campaign. If there are, it'd be great if you could provide them for us. Just because it's an allegation by Islamists, it isn't automatically false. Sisuvia (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Add mention of Rojava being one of the greatest examples of the solidarity economy including a link to its page.

Also, please add hyper links for the mentions of co-operatives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_economy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operatives

The addition of these links will help provide more relevant information about the social solidarity economy of Rojava. Rojava is one of the best examples of the solidarity economy. Jon-Manifesteer (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

They can be added to the "Economy policy framework" section. Jon-Manifesteer (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Old accusations of war crimes is misleading people

I was linked to this page claiming that Rojava have committed war crimes... I am guessing because of this line:

The criticism against the region has included accusations of war crimes[33], authoritarianism,[34] Kurdification,[22][35][36] ban on critical journalists,[37][38] collusion with the Assad regime[33], and influence from the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).[37]

In 2017 the United Nations dismissed such accusations, so it's not that this vital fact of information is missing, but the quality and poorly worded line (basically existing due to half truths), the reader is in some cases walking away believing that "Rojava" has committed war crimes. How does "Rojava" do that, I'm not sure, however looking at the sources and the criticism of Rojava committing war crimes is mostly from one very biased source. The author of that one article was also pointed out as fabricating a quote within the article about massive displacement of 500,000 Syrian Kurds due to the YPG, when in fact it wasn't political as the article suggested. https://twitter.com/TheWarNerd/status/831888925245444097.

I have checked out the wikipedia page on Turkey and I don't see a section right at the top about Turkey's criticisms which I am sure is a huge list. With consideration to this, I have created a section for accusations and "criticism" to be properly addressed.--TataofTata (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not revert my edit without first providing proof of fresh claims of ethnic cleansing. This is unfounded and since the 2017 UN report, nobody has really claimed it. We can't rely on claims coming from social media and such.--TataofTata (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@TataofTata: Frankly, your additions did not improve anything. You removed a reference, and changed to "Various times between 2015 and 2017". As Sisuvia said, this is simply untrue: Pro-Turkish sources still throw these accusations around see here; yes, various groups have disputed these claims and outright called them bogus, but they remain still noteworthy - just as everything Trump says is noteworthy despite much of it being bogus. The accusations also did not increase or start when the SDF adavanced "west of Euphrates river, at the disapproval of Turkey." They started long before, and remain in force, all over Rojava. Applodion (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Applodion: I have just checked your link and these aren't fresh claims... "Erdogan has also accused the YPG of conducting its own ethnic cleansing against Arabs living in the border area." This is lower at the bottom of the article that is not focused on accusing Rojava again, that line also has nothing to do with the news headline/topic being discussed and it looks more like the author of the article is adding that as a reference or using it as a filler for the subject matter, most likely also referring to the past accusations made by Turkey, pre-UN report. Do you have anything better? You said the accusations remain in force, all over Rojava, so you should have some substantial evidence.

In regards to the time frame of accusations my claim can be backed up. First here is a time-lapse of territory control in Syria during that time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pbjdp_ianQ You can clearly see the border between ISIS and Turkey is cut off very close to the date mentioned of when the accusation first emerged. June 2015. Then the next set of accusations repeats in 2016, February 2016 when YPG pushes west of the river and again 2017 as they still fight to take Manbij, further cutting off ISIS and the obvious threat to the TSFA areas as Turkey keeps repeating to go back east because they know they will be pushing further west, until finally the U.N. report disproves such claims and we no longer hear it.

Look, Maybe I am wondering it wrong and you can do better, but at the time and even now it's very obvious Turkey was running a smear campaign. Rojava can't be ethnically cleansing people and the best you can do is provide an indirect article. There are a lot of journalists in Rojava. --TataofTata (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@TataofTata: Again: This is not about the claims being true, but about the claims existing at all: The link was just one example. For more examples, see claims of the pro-Turkish council in Tell Abyad which (falsely) suggests that ethnic cleansing was ongoing until the Turkish invasion. But even reputable sources such as the NYT have written about more recent claims by refugees about alleged ethnic cleansing, such as in 2018: "some 200,000 Arabs were displaced"; again, it is probably not true and even if refugees were forced to flee, it was probably not part of an intentional campaign. As for other areas, this propaganda piece accuses the YPG of anti-Arab ethnic cleansing not just in northeastern Syria, but even in "Free Aleppo". This obviously complete idiocy. But the claims persist! In addition, the claims were also thrown around due to advances east of the river (see for example The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts, p. 130). Look, we don't try to give great credit to these later claims; it is just that they exist, and thereby it is wrong to say that they only ocurred "various times between 2015 and 2017" or "west of Euphrates river, at the disapproval of Turkey." Applodion (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi عمرو بن كلثوم, I respect your attempts to improve the article, but to accuse the YPG of forced recruitment "at gunpoint", you need a better source than Roy Gutman. It wasn't even in the lead before I removed it. The accusation of the opposition politician is already present at criticism. And the child soldiers are widely discussed in the article, I've expanded the section recently. So "restore SOURCED materials" is a bit deceiving.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I've seen now that editor Applodion has adapted the info. I still think since a lot of the criticism was denied by the UN, the HRW report, as well as Van Wilgenburg which are all better sources, we could just mention the main criticism like authoritarianism, and Kurdifification in the lead. I've read of 1 active minor (17 years) soldier in the mentioned sources. And the YPG had the fewest amount of minors of all parties in the Syrian civil war. They admitted they have minors who are volunteers and kept away from battle zones. Also their families are informed. If the reader reads of a soldier in a civil war area, they probably think of a soldier IN the battle zone, and this is not the case. So I think this does not belong into the lead.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I also think the whole child soldier issue is probably not very fitting for the lede, yet it is often mentioned by critical sources. The problem is to balance the different POVs in the lede; the child soldiers might be WP:UNDUE, but others obviously disagree with that assumption. Applodion (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I guess so, too. Child soldiers don't even figure in the ISIL , Jabhat al Nusra nor HTS articles even though they according to the HRW report they sometimes had far larger amounts of child soldiers. In the Free Syrian Army they are mentioned in the last section of the article. In the Turkish occupation of Northern Syria, nor in the Syria article there are sections about child soldiers. Why the Rojava article (also about a region) which accused to have the least child soldiers or the three has one? This sure should not be in the lead according to WO:UNDUE Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I have a bigger problem with discussing the accusations of Kurdification in the introduction, these seemed pretty thoroughly refuted to me. There's lots not to like about what they do, but this comes across as grasping at straws and it would be better to criticise them for what they've actually done. Konli17 (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the child soldiers: Perhaps we should remove them from the lede then, and rewrite it more to "accusations of war crimes" to include all the stuff the SDF was accused of in the past.
Regarding Kurdification: As far as I know, this issue has not been refuted. The ethnic cleansining issue is mostly disproven (it was more "political" cleansing, considering that ISIL supporters were targeted), but "Kurdification" includes the spread of the Kurdish language by Rojava officials, the inclusion of northern Syria in Kurdistan in Rojava-issued maps and schoolbooks, and the (to a lesser extent) heroification of Apo and the PKK. Of course all of this is much more complex and has more nuances; yet these points still face criticism, and not without reason. Applodion (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair point, I hadn't considered that. Konli17 (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• SDF celebration in Raqqa 2017.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)