Talk:Democratic confederalism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2021 and 6 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GeorgeMandelYale.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Öcalan photo and other minors changes

I remove Öcalan photo that was in the middle of the article make it clumsy to read, and change the formatting a little bit --Il giovane bello 73 (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Why is this political philosophy capitalised? Others aren't unless they're named after people. Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure, but I've posted an uncontroversial technical request for moving over at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests to fix this. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 10:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The term democratic federalism is inaccurate and unsupported

The source http://carnegie-mec.org/diwan/55650 dos not mention the notion democratic federalism, so there is no basis to say that democratic confederalism is also called democratic federalism. Moreover, there should be other sources using this term, and there are not. Finally, democratic federalism is a general concept that has an already established meaning (the ideologies that favour democratic federal states), and that is very different from the anti-statist and ant-nationalist notion of democratic confederalism. I suggest democratic federalism should be removed unless more sources support that it can be considered a synonym. EnricX (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirect

The article, as written, is a coat rack that repeats lots of other info unrelated to the core idea of "democratic confederalism" from other articles. The first section on the history of the Kurdish people and PKK has dedicated articles. The second section on Bookchin's influence is exclusively sourced to a Bookchin reader (affiliated source) by Biehl (who had a particularly partial connection to Bookchin)—such a section for such assertions should be sourced with more editorial distance. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.) The rest of the sources cite an Öcalan reader, another primary source.

What remains does not add any light to the concept of "democratic confederalism" that isn't already covered in Abdullah Öcalan#Democratic confederalism as paraphrased from the New York Times feature article. Since democratic confederalism is exclusively associated with Öcalan, it would make sense to build out its ideas summary style within that parent section, splitting out to Politics of Rojava as appropriate. czar 20:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Economy

The article states that Democratic Confederalism is based on "sharing economy". This is not correct. Even though several terms are used to describe the alternative economic system that is proposed and some concepts of a sharing economy are surely part of it, describing the concept of "sharing economy" (as defined in the linked article) is not accurate. Terms that a more often used are: Communal economy, ecological industry or cooperative economy. More precisely, the cooperative economy is one important part of the communal economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.255.45.131 (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Add a philosophy section

I personally think a section on the larger philosophy promoted by Öcalan should be added to this page considering it’s a huge part of his work and undoubtedly a part of his system of Democratic Confederalism in general. He largely dives into his philosophical ideas in the “Manifesto for a Democratic Civilization” series so you could use those books as sources and cite the page numbers. If you also want secondary sources, I can find a few articles about him online mentioning some parts of his philosophy and his philosophical influences Serok Ayris (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism?

Concerns about synthesis led me here, wondering if the association of democratic confederalism with libertarian socialism had any backing in sources. And sure enough, none of the sources in this article for claims that democratic confederalism is a form of libertarian socialism verify this. Two of them were primary sources from Ocalan, neither of which even mention "libertarian socialism". The other two were secondary sources, the first of which also never mentions "libertarian socialism" and the second of which never references it in relation to democratic confederalism.

So I'm here asking if there are any sources for that explicitly, verifiably describe democratic confederalism as a form of libertarian socialism? Or is this yet another invention of Wikipedia synthesis? -- Grnrchst (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I added sources that describe democratic confederalism as a form of libertarian socialism explicitly.

Again, it is beyond me why you would delete the references to libertarian socialism on several different pages related to libertarian socialism because you don't like the sources instead of just finding better sources. Any basic search would disprove your accusation of these being Wikipedia syntheses. My suggestion as both a reader and a (more casual) editor is to use the feature instead of completely eliminating important information if you don't want to go find sources. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I would also add that you are apparently the first on this and several other pages to challenge the "libertarian socialist" label or reverse several other editors' (seemingly credible, to me) claims of libertarian socialism. Perhaps that should be a sign that editors using this descriptor with allegedly bad sources may have a point that is worth investigating further to see for yourself whether there are other sources that use this label that would cause so many people before you to not edit that out for years. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Grnrchst is only removing sources that clearly do not meet reliable source standards. Oftentimes there are no better sources and the passage should be removed as unverifiable or dubiously referenced. Many of our key articles have languished for years because they appear as seemingly sourced but their claims ultimately do not past scrutiny because no one checked the sources. Some of these efforts are covered in the archives of WT:@. You should feel free to contest specific removals by bringing them to the talk page for discussion. czar 13:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)