Talk:Democratic Union Party (Syria)

Untitled

All of members of PYD are kurd.Not arab.تیراژه (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The flag used in this article is the official flag of PK, the offical flag of PYD is this one PYD FLAG

Yeah you're right. I'd put it up as I thought it was in use due to the source referring PYD replacing Kurdistan flags with PUK flag, however in the source with the interview with Salih Muslim it looks like he's standing in front of a flag with the PYD logo on it. Any idea on the copyright status of the PYD logo and whether we can use it? (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Guest2625 and I were having a discussion about the nature of this flag[1], as it's being used quite a lot in Syrian Kurdistan at the moment. The only clear source/authority we could find on the matter says it's a PYD flag.[2] MrPenguin20 (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Terrorist Organization

This is not a soapbox; the talk page is not a forum, and this discussion does not comply with WP:NPOV and WP:OR.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{Hidden begin Hi, the PYD has been added to the list of terrorist organisations at the 13th Session of the Islamic Summit Conference through the Istanbul Declaration on Unity and Solidarity for Justice and Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.130.160 (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Great. But Wikipedia is still no platform for an islamist organisation which sees Shariah as a law dominant to the basic human rights, which sees homosexuality as an illness and which is known for declaring rebel groups as terrorists except for the Palestine Independence movement including Hamas. And as long as the UN, the US or the EU doesn't say anything, this view's simply not relevant.--Ermanarich (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Another Islamophobe. I am not surprised. "Islamist organisation"? You sure sound biased. Shariah law is the only valid law in the sight of God, but that is beside the point since the organisation does not claim such things. Only you do. Oh, Palestine... Are you a sour Zionist? Who said the UN, the US or the EU was relevant to the rest of the world? This is Wikipedia, not your political platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.130.160 (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC) I'm not sure if discussing makes sense here. The UN are the United Nations, which means that it is actually most relevant what they designate as terrorists and what not. Apart from that, member states of this islamic organisation like Egypt are proved to be supporters of the PYD. I will not start a political discussion here. But it should be enough to look at the point "positions" of the organisation's Wikipedia page. Rejection by liberal Muslims for example is a clear sign. There's still a little fault I have to admit. When I reverted it I thought that this would be a statement only by Turkey. This was obviously wrong.--Ermanarich (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Shariah law is the only valid law in the sight of God How would you know that? Are you God? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC) I know that through faith in God and the Prophet He sent. The details are open to interpretation obviously. This might be too difficult to understand for those lacking faith or those who only believe in secular man-made laws that clearly left the world in a state of misery and continuous warfare. -78.171.130.160 (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Since you are an islamist who supports a caliphate, this discussion makes even less sense, but well.--Ermanarich (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC) You know you should not accuse other users. No, I am not an Islamist. No, I do not want a caliphate. That does't make sense either. Last it was around was 1350 years ago and the Muslim World grew. The misinformed only believe such utopia. Yes, I want a caliph just like Catholics have a pope, but not the fake one the Obama administration found to fool silly Muslims in Syria and Iraq. Do you think the world is that unaware of what's going on? -78.171.130.160 (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC) You leave out the UN (United Nations) with full awareness, because you know that it is the highest instance. Either you revert your edit soon or I will report you for vandalism. It's up to you.--Ermanarich (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC) The UN does not mean a thing for me. It is the countries involved that matter, not the phoney, bologne club of 5+1 that cannot impose it's will on the situation in Syria and leaves its dictator to massacre its own citizens by the hundreds of thousands. What are you talking about the UN for? It lost its credibility long ago. As for your suggestion, I suggest you look at yourself in the mirror. -78.171.130.160 (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC) I don't understand these racists, you don't accept their laws. But, you expect they accept yours :D. PYD (PKK) is a terrorist organization, doesn't matter which religion you are. Terrorists kill all people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.111.139 (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC) References Edit warring by User:78.171.130.160 This editor's contributions show a determination to impose his own point of view (contrary to WP:NPOV), violation of WP:3RR (see [3], [4], [5], [6]), a strange view of what constitutes a reliable source (especially as regards contentious labels such as "terrorist") and a reluctance to engage in debate. I encourage this editor either to cease his disruptive behaviour and engage in a constructive discussion, or to depart. If he persists, then a referral to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is inevitable. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Are you kidding? You might be partial but at least don't make it obvious! You have obviously chosen to neglect how the user who started the edit war threatened me. You should advice them to engage in meaningful debate first. Otherwise, you should be ready to bear what I have to say. In any event, I could care less about your accusations. I see, a reference that does not fit your point of view constitutes an unreliable source, is that it? I encourage you to not take sides but show the same attitude towards the other user as well. Thank you. -78.171.130.160 (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC) So, you already called me a racist and you claimed that I threatened you. Both are obvious and agressive lies and I think it would be a good move to say sorry for that.--Ermanarich (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Everything is out in the open and archived in history. Please do not attempt reverse psychology with me. It is you who owes an apology for your rhetoric and actions. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC) For the record, I backed away from defining the PYD as a terrorist organisation after a user disagreed vehemently. Then I proceeded to define it as a militant group to which I was met with a similar attitude. It seems there is an agenda to define this nationalist, racist organisation as legitimate. The reasons could vary, but I can think of a couple. Firstly, the US media has misinformed the US public regarding the facts. Secondly, agents of an intelligence agency might be working for Wikipedia. Thirdly, Islamophobes who think they are standing with secularism (PYD in this case) are ignorant of the big picture, and will not let anybody interfere with this article to add contrary information even though I provided reliable sources from the internet. People are aware Wikipedia is not what it used to be. Suit yourselves. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC) You are lying again, you didn't back away from your position at all. Also, the PYD is not a militant organisation. Yes, it has a military wing, but to be part of the PYD doesn't mean automatically that you are also participating in the YPG. It is also a lie that the PYD is a racist organisation, since they work together with Arab, Christian and Turkmen organisations to establish a new autonomous area in northern Syria. The problem is that I see that a discussion with you makes no sense, because you are obviously unable to accept that the view of the UN or even the US or Russia is simply much more important than the view of Turkey or Saudi-Arabia. But from my view, you could add somewhere under the section "history", that the 13th Session of the Islamic Summit Conference declared them as a terrorist organisation. But if you do so, you need to add that neither the UN nor Europe, Russia, USA, China etc. accept this view. Since you repeat on and on that I'd be Islamophobic, I can only repeat: I am against archaic intolerant groups of the Islam, which repress women, homosexuals and people with other beliefs, etc. I'm not against liberal and progressive groups. Greetings, Ermanarich (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC) (sponsored by Mossad) Here is some news regarding the UN for your enlightenment: UN paying millions to Assad regime under ‘Syria relief’, investigation reveals. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC) (sponsored by the CIA) That's a perfect example. You don't like Assad, I don't like him as well, but he's still the president of Syria. And of course, paying millions to Assad is not neutral at all. But in this conflict as well as in others, there is no neutral party anymore. Let's take Turkey as an example: They provedly supported al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham and made it possible for the Islamic State to trade with oil over their borders and supply with weapons and thousands of Jihadists from all over the world. They even accepted the Islamic State over three years in Manbij without any menace, but when the SDF liberated it the suddenly decided to attack - mainly the SDF. I have nothing against a section where positions of countries and international institutions towards the PYD are explained, but labeling it as a terrorist organisation is simply wrong, because the highest, even though not neutral instance, the UN, as well as the plurality of countries around the world don't regard it as a terrorist organisation. But I've already said that.--Ermanarich (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Better than child abuse by the terrorist PKK-connected PYD/YPG terrorists I suppose: PYD child abuse caught on camera as girl shoots automatic rifle shouting PKK leader’s name. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Who Has A Say In Syria? Those interested might want to check out who's supporting who in Syria: Diplomatic recognition of the National Coalition as the legitimate representative of Syria. -78.171.130.160 (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Please can we have a civilised discussion

This article has just been fully protected, (i.e. it can be edited by admins only, and I'm not one) for 24 hours, with the request [7] that we discuss matters here, and then go to dispute resolution if needed.

If this article is to be of any value it needs to follow Wikipedia guidelines. In particular, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. The recent name-calling ("racist", "Islamist" and "islamophobe" come to mind) has not been helpful, but neither have some of the contributions to the article itself. A commitment by all interested editors actually to read at least the first section of WP:NPOV and mentally agreeing to abide by it before editing would be a good start. Refusing to admit that there are other points of view from one's own should be a warning not to proceed.

There does seem to be scope here for a "Criticism of the PYD" section, and perhaps someone interesting in documenting what that criticism is and who it comes from and what evidence it is founded in would like to do so, in draft form, here (at least initially).

I for one would rather that we did not need to go to dispute resolution, or that this article became so contended that additional rules were imposed on editing it (as has happened in the case of, say, Arab–Israeli conflict). It's in our hands - let's keep it civilised, please. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times says the PKK and the PYD are affiliates

"As a result, analysts now say that there can be no final settlement of the Syrian civil war without the resumption of peace talks between Turkey and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, of which the Democratic Union Party is its Syrian affiliate." If you are an affiliate of an internationally recognised terrorist organisation, wouldn't that make you a terrorist organisation as well? See recent NYTimes article. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Further evidence emerges

Captured PYD terrorist reveals group's plans to assist PKK in Turkey attacks -213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ideology

I suggest we trim this section to what RS and the party itself claims. None of the current are sourced. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Democratic Union Party (Syria). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015194927/http://www.peyamner.com:80/english/PNAnews.aspx?ID=283053 to http://www.peyamner.com/english/PNAnews.aspx?ID=283053

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Serious war crimes and multiple human rights violations

The PKK and the organization's Syrian offshoot, the Democratic Union Party's (PYD), have been commiting numerous acts of oppression in Syria's north. The Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) reported that the PYD has been aggressive in its policies starting in 2012 with the withdrawal of government forces from the area. The atrocities include ethnic cleansing and the abuse of women, children and media workers. Where should this take place in the article? -213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This is nonsense (Daily Sabah is AKP propaganda). 2003:77:4F14:1172:1D60:4420:778F:ECFD (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Ideology of PYD

Is there a reason why "Kurdish nationalism" isn't represented in the infobox under the "ideology" section, when it is clearly stated in the articles of other KCK affiliate groups? JCamatte (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, the other affiliates of the Kurdistan Communities Union are the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Kurdistan Free Life Party, and the Kurdistan Democratic Solution Party. The PYD is the only KCK-affiliated party that does not openly endorse the ideology of Kurdish nationalism. Last year the PYD-led administration in northern Syria explicitly removed the Kurdish word "Rojava" from the name of the region, changing it to a neutral, Syria-centric name. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Editor abcdef, we are either reading different sources of news or you have a POV on this issue. HEICOgel (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

CIA reclassifies PYD as PKK's "Syrian wing"

See the recently changed World Fact Book entry for Syria, "Terrorist groups - foreign based":

Salih MUSLIM Muhammad leads Kurdistan Workers Party's Syrian wing, the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD)

-- 89.204.130.84 (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as "guilt by association"?

I added some info along with what I believed were reliable sources but was reverted by a privileged editor. From what I've been reading, the YPG and the PYD are Marxist-Leninist organizations. Some may argue that only certain related militia, like the PKK, are as such. Well, look at what I just read on NPR today in an article titled "Top U.S. Commander In Afghanistan Accuses Russia Of Aiding Taliban":

In an appearance before a Senate Armed Services Committee in Feb. 2017, Nicholson had this exchange with Florida Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson:

"If Russia is cozying up to the Taliban — and that's a kind word — if they are giving equipment that we have some evidence that the Taliban is getting ... and other things that we can't mention in this unclassified setting? And the Taliban is also associated with al-Qaida? Therefore Russia indirectly is helping al-Qaida in Afghanistan," said Nelson.

"Your logic is absolutely sound, sir," Nicholson replied.

Based on this analogy, since the PKK is a Marxist-Leninist organization - not to mention a terrorist militia according to the State Department and the CIA - and it is a sister organization of the YPG/PYD, as they share fighters, weapons, ammunition, resources, intelligence, etc. then the YPG/PYD are also a Marxist-Leninist organization.

I sure hope I don't get reverted again based on silly excuses specially after running into the below excerpts in an article by the Washington Post titled "How two U.S. Marxists wound up on the front lines against ISIS":

the People’s Democratic Union, the Marxist-inspired political party that controls northeastern Syria. and

Belden wants to marry his girlfriend and return to Syria with her — to join a Marxist-Leninist political organization, not to fight.

And just in case you might not consider the Washington Post a reliable source, as I'm not sure I do anymore, consider these sources freely available on the internet:

• German socialist killed fighting with Kurdish forces in Syria
• America’s Marxist Allies Against ISIS
• Spanish leftists join fight against ISIL

I believe those who have a problem with these facts can either do their own research or just face the truth and let go of their POV. HEICOgel (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The PKK was Marxist-Leninist prior to Öcalan's development of Democratic Confederalism, I believe the PYD&YPG were formed after the switch to Libertarian Socialism. Thespündragon 12:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

@Konli17: Once again you revert somebody else's edit and remove sourced content without using the talk page, simply because this goes against your POV. The sources you just removed are probably the most credible in this entire article. Can you explain the removal of the content? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Neither of your assertions are true. You are presenting information in a POV way, e.g. describing the PKK as Turkish. Konli17 (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Here you add your own POV way and make this article a sub kurdish article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Land_Forces&diff=964744635&oldid=963935588. I get tired from you, you delete content when you don't like it. Shadow4dark (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Konli17, your problem is with the description of PKK as Turkish? As funny as this sounds, you could just have deleted that word and left the rest. I have a ton of references to add to show that PYD/YPG is an offshoot of the PKK, and I guess nobody is really trying to hide that, are you? I hope you can revert your edit yourself, and be my guest to remove the word Turkish from "PKK". Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That's not my only problem. You ought to present the information in the references in a more neutral manner. Konli17 (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Konli17, I guess the Carter Center, Global Security and Fabrice Balanche (The Washington Institute) are neutral with regard to the Syrian civil war and PYD/PKK issues. Any further removal of this content will be reported. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Their neutrality doesn't matter if you're using them to push your POV. If you don't want to discuss your controversial edits, then stop editing this page. Konli17 (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Then I guess you decide what stays and what goes according to your POV? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I explained to Ibn Amr why Eva Savlesberg is not a reliable source, I am sorry I didn't explain it here, too. Peacetowikied apparently wants an explanation, too. Eva Savelsberg is often invited by SETA also known as Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research which is a think tank very close to Erdogan and his views about Turkey and Kurds. At forums of the SETA, she talks very weird about the PYD and the YPG. Regarding the other source, to use a source which calls the PYD and the PKK separatist is a bit weird, and just not true, therefore I guess we should find another source, which Konli17 did, as he mentioned Turkish source claim, and not multiple. I am happy to go the Reliable sources noticeboard if anyone reverts again. I'll have to wait for now to revert, as my 24 hours haven't passed yet.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

At Kurds in Syria, Amr has argued that Balanche is not a reliable source, describing him as an "opinion source". [8] Konli17 (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Paradse, Konli: I am sorry, but I am not sure what you mean by saying "At forums of the SETA, she talks very weird about the PYD and the YPG.". Is that because she documents their human rights violations? You know what, I get it, you don't like her, period. So, I brought you are a few other examples (list not exhaustive by any means) of sources talking about the affiliation/connection between PYD and PKK. I tried to avoid any Turkish government/media sources to avoid bias:

1. Reuters: [9]
2. International Crisis Group: [10]
3. The Hill: [11]
4. Global Security: [12]
5. Washington institute: [13]
6. Georgetown security studies review: [14]
7. CFR: [15]
8. Academic paper: [16]
9. Academic paper: [17]
10. Book: [18]

I hope that convinces you to restore the deleted material, and you can pick any of these sources. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you consider Balanche reliable or not? Konli17 (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The specific content you are referring to goes against the consensus of other sources, otherwise I consider Balanche reliable, albeit I might still disagree with some of his opinions. At the end it about sources, not my thoughts, and I hope you feel the same about your opinions. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it, Amr. Konli17 (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Look, folks, get uninvolved outside input, if needed. Use a dispute resolution request like WP:3O or WP:RFC (but not WP:DRN) if you are finding the discussion on the article talk page is otherwise at an impasse. Be substantive, be concise. That's just how it is. WP:ONUS should be respected until there is clear consensus. If it is codified in a discussion close, that will almost certainly conclude any given dispute. So you all need to start going through these necessary motions. El_C 23:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Reuters says: The PYD is heavily influenced by the ideas of Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan, a founding member of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) — where is there mention of it being a wing of the PKK? El_C 23:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I said Reuters because it is the first ref cited in the addition under contention, so it seems intuitive to start with it. El_C 23:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, Reuters talks about heavily influenced, how about the next one on the list? ICG: "For the US, any assessment should begin with a sober assessment of who the YPG is. US officials privately concede that the difference between the YPG and its civilian arm (the Party of Democratic Unity, or PYD) on the one hand and the PKK on the other amounts to little more than a useful fiction. While the rank and file is mostly Syrian, the YPG’s upper command levels are heavily dominated by cadres trained in the PKK’s headquarters in northern Iraq and steeped in the party’s ideology." I can get all the quotes from those sources (and more) if you wish. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That's good enough, for now. Konli17, please substantiate your objection, if it is still in effect, to correspond to this excerpt. El_C 00:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a reasonably good source, with useful information even if it has some contradictions. (Briefly; thousands of Syrian Kurds have served in the PKK, many of whom have trained in Southern Kurdistan. The source makes a false distinction here by assuming or implying that the former PKK cadres in the YPG hierarchy aren't Syrian Kurds). But why tarnish it by presenting it in a POV way? All that does is make people more likely to reject the reference along with the POV text. Konli17 (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. What "POV way"? Please substantiate. Just throwing slogans around is not helpful. Your claim that the source is assuming or implying that the former PKK cadres in the YPG hierarchy aren't Syrian Kurds has not been established. Please be detailed by quoting excerpts, if needed. El_C 00:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Like you said, there's no mention of "wing" in the source, but that's how it ended up being presented. The source contrasts the rank-and-file, which it describes as "mostly Syrian", with the upper command levels, which it describes as "cadres trained in the PKK’s headquarters in northern Iraq and steeped in the party’s ideology". For me, this is implying that these former PKK cadres, now in the YPG hierarchy, aren't mostly Syrian. Konli17 (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, maybe find a compromise phrasing, or produce sources that specifically talk about it being a "wing" of the PKK... El_C 01:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't reckon it would be hard to find such sources, but that terminology comes across as pejorative and loses us nuance. The PYD and PKK are both part of the Kurdistan Communities Union. Given the disparity in numbers between Kurds in Syria and Kurds in Turkey, it's not hard to see which is going to have the most influence, but describing the PYD as a wing of anything won't fly. Let's try compromise phrasing. Konli17 (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"Wing" does imply being part of a structure, formally, with procedures for decision-making in place and so on... An informal affiliation, even if of a strong nature, is not necessarily the same thing. Why not say something to the effect of "strongly associated with," or something to reflect this strong affinity accompanied by loose organization-to-organization structure. El_C 01:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Something along those lines would work, maybe "sister party" or similar. Konli17 (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, does that compromise work for you? El_C 15:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I am back, had to take a short break. To answer El C's earlier question, here are some quotes (with key words relevant to our discussion in bold):

• The Washington Institute, page 2. The PYD is the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), a Turkish group that has been fighting Ankara since 1984 and has been on the State Department’s terrorism list since 1997 (2016)
• Civil War in Syria: Mobilization and Competing Social Orders, page 169: PYD, as the local branch of the PKK, ... In reality, the PKK remained the true authority behind the diverse activities of the individual TEV-DEM bodies. This books goes into details about the decision-making in Syria's Kurdish-inhabited region, and the levels of influence of the party on everyday life. (2017)
• Middle East Policy Council, First sentence: U.S. military support for the People’s Protection Units (YPG), the Syrian branch of the Turkey-based Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), ... (2020)
• Eva Svalsberg, Syrian Studies Association Bulletin:and the Kurdish Union Party (PYD), the Syrian branch of the Turkey-based Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). (2013)
• Georgetown Security Studies Review (Georgetown University), 2nd paragraph: From 2003-2005, PKK authorities established the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK), an umbrella group for new PKK affiliates in countries with Kurdish populations — the Democratic Union Party (PYD) in Syria, the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK) in Iran ... (2018)
• Council on Foreign Relations, halfway through the page/timeline (September 20, 2003): Affiliated with the militant Turkish PKK, the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) is founded in Syria Timeline until Oct. 6, 2019. (published 2020)
• The Atlantic Council, 1st paragraph, page 4: Both Ankara and Washington were initially reluctant to to engage the Syrian Kurds, largely because of concerns about the main Kurdish force, the PKK-affiliated Democratic Union Party (PYD). (2014)
• Gunter and Yavuz, 2020. Middle East Policy journal: Trump's decision to pull out some 1,000 U.S. troops acting as advisers, supporters and protectors of the PKK‐affiliated Democratic Union Party/Peoples Defense Units/Syrian Democratic Forces (PYD/YPG/SDF), ... (2020)
• Fabrice Balanche of (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), published by Stanford University on page 3: PKK militants founded the PYD in 2003. (2018)
• Global Security: The PYD is affiliated with the Turkey-based Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), considered a terrorist group by the United States and the European Union (2016)
• Book: The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts: Relations developed between ythe PYD and PUK increased tensions within the KRG. Refugees fleeing Syria added to its economic burden as well as to its political responsibility to Syrian Kurds, and checking the increasing influence of the PYD/PKK also became control to the KRG-Ankara relations. (2019)

I hope this is enough evidence that the PYD is the Syrian branch of the PKK (more than just influence). @El C: It's not about my opinion, it's about facts and evidence. Thanks for your time commitment with us here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, are there any "branch" sources which are recent? Because what was true decades ago may not reflect the organization today (in terms of how it is seen in contradistinction to the PKK). El_C 20:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. PYD was established in 2003, so there won't be any older references than that. I just added publications dates at the end of all the documents I had listed above. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"Branch" is effectively a "wing," so you've put fourth a strong argument. El_C 21:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd still question that terminology for describing the current relationship. "Affiliated to" seems more accurate for describing the relationship under the KCK, although it does seem reasonable to describe the PYD as a branch of the PKK at its genesis. "Wing" is a term that for me denotes a particularly close relationship, one I would use for describing the PYD/YPG relationship instead, i.e. "The YPG is the military wing of the PYD". Konli17 (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a reasonable distinction, I agree. I think we are close to a resolution now. El_C 21:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, how about something like: "PYD was established by PKK in 2003 as a Syrian branch and both organizations are still closely affiliated at various levels"? This sentence can go in the lead, and more details can be added in relevant sections. This Sorbonne researcher book documenting the Syrian civil war has a complete section (p. 175) named "The PKK Expansion into Syria's north" and described various levels of influence (ideology, training, fighters, decision making, policies, supplies, food, energy, local councils, etc.) that PKK exhibits in northern Syria (through PYD). Another good source is "The curious question of the PYD-PKK relationship" in the book "The Kurdish Question Revisited". The information in both books will be useful in many related articles. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"The PYD was established as a Syrian branch of the PKK in 2003, and both organizations are still closely affiliated through the KCK." Konli17 (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

OK with me if we detail the levels of affiliation (especially shared fighters) in a following sentence, and describe the KCK as a shell entity for PKK as shown in this European document showing all shell entities for PKK (including PYD, YPG). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You lost me at "and". Konli17 (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Totally. El_C 02:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Konli added the KCK to the agreed upon sentence. Consequently, we will need to add a sentence about what the KCK is, a shell to PKK entities. Otherwise, you can leave the KCK out of the sentence. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, that needs to be established by multiple high quality sources. El_C 03:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Another reason why we don't need open this can of worms right now. Just leave KCK out of the sentence. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

So, the sentence would read: ""The PYD was established as a Syrian branch of the PKK in 2003, and both organizations are still closely affiliated." Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Through the KCK. There isn't even a whiff of this shell nonsense on that article, nor its talk page, in over ten years. Leaving out the current relationship implies it's similar to what it was at the start, giving a false impression. Amr wrote "we will need to add a sentence about what the KCK is". Fine, we can take a short description from its article. Konli17 (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It is, after all, the umbrella organization linking the subject with the PKK, is it not? El_C 09:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It is. Konli17 (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that was meant to be a rhetorical question. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, therein lies the problem. While the PKK may exercise the most influence in the KCK due to its size, your characterization of its outright domination of the KCK needs to be reflected in the main KCK article first. It should be our wikivoice authority, based on high quality sources submitted to that article talk page for audit. Once those changes are made there, they will apply project-wide (approved sources could be refactored, if needed). Until then, we reflect what its says presently. As for removal of the KCK from the sentence all together, a sentence which refers to the subject's affiliation and structural nature... Well, you can see why that would be puzzling. El_C 12:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not really interested in expanding into the KCK at this point, this is why I would rather have it out for now. Anyway, let's then stick to Konli's sentence "The PYD was established as a Syrian branch of the PKK in 2003, and both organizations are still closely affiliated through the KCK." If everyone is OK with this, then I will add it to the end of the lede. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you got it — that's sounds like the re/solution. El_C 10:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

(Re)moved sources and a phrase

I have removed some sources from the lead as many of them didn't even mention the KCK. So I moved the sources that mention the foundation of the PYD by militants of the PKK to the phrase mentioning so, and then moved to phrase as this is a POV of mainly Turkey. In the rest of the World the PYD is known for their achievements concerning democracy following the defeat of ISIS. The only place where I read that someone spoke with a founder of the PYD is at International Crisis Group, but they don't disclose who it is. The added reference number doesn't lead to anywhere, which also speaks for the notability of the ICG article. The other two sources are from n unknown author and from Fabrice Balanche, but the article is now very on focus on the dominance of the PKK and both also don't mention a specific founder in person. Harun Yahya refutes Darwinsim and is accused of anti-semitism according to his Wikipedia article. Maybe not the best source for a controversial phrase on Wikipedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

See my edit summmary. The PKK-PYD relationship took us 2 weeks and many attempts to word. However, you can remove the KCK part if you have strong feelings about it. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't remove the mention of the PKK-PYD relationship. I also kept the KCK part which is really true, but was not included at the right place. I just removed some not really relevant sources and added infos to the sources like who the author is and removed some very awkward sources included by you from wikipedia. I just moved and split a phrase in two. Please explain why you defend the inclusion of the Harun Yahya source.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Will you answer, Ibn Amr? Why do you defend the inclusion of a controversial figure like Harun Yahya as a source for the PYD article. Harun Yahya is a known conspiracy theorist and through his foundation a supporter of the denial of the holocaust, just check at his wikipedia article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ibn Amr, while you are answering, also take some time to read my first edit in the discussion and answer to the arguments raised there, as well. About the part on the Turkey-POV in relation to the political work of the PYD after the defeat of ISIL and also the notability of the knowledge about the founders of the PYD.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Thepharoah17, I have seen you did not agree with my removal of Harun Yahya and the update of the sources. What do you defend on using Harun Yahya while concealing him as Bill Rehkopf? Is he really a reliable source for Wikipedia (see my edits further up in the discussion)? Most of the sources don't mention the KCK at all, as I've made clear in the first edit in the discussion. Why do you re-include them to cite the KCK, even if it is explained by me that the KCK isn't even mentioned? And also, why do you try to conceal the fact that Fabrice Blanche is the author of the article of the Hoover Institute or that the Carnegie Middle East center is the author of an other source? I updated this in my last edit and you reverted it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

After the ANI was closed with the comment it was the wrong forum, I have opened a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you want you can take part. There was no mention of a personal information needed at the RSN, so I inform the potentially interested editors in question here.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm restoring the agreed version, PC. If you want to discuss it, I'll hear you out. Konli17 (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, this was now a long struggle to get out the source of Harun Yahya and a large update of the sources, which most do not even mention the KCK. I've joined the mentions of the KCK in the section Ideology before. So I'll revert it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If Amr is introducing weirdo cult references, I've no problem with getting rid of them. My problem is with your wording. Konli17 (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Adapt it to the wording you think is best, but please, I have really invested great time into the sources, bring your own sources for the wording.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

How about the wording Amr and I agreed on? Konli17 (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

Thepharoa reverted twice today even though it is clearly shown hat it is only allowed to revert once every 24 hours. I kindly ask Thepharoah17 to revert. Thank you.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)