Talk:Syrian Kurdistan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Yet more proof, if proof were needed

I've noticed editors' difficulties with this topic are centred around a misunderstanding of English. In English, according the unimpeachable Oxford English Dictionary's 3rd edition, from 2018, Kurdistan is defined as the following:

Kurdistan, n. (Kurdish Kurdistan, lit. 'land of the Kurds'), the name of any of various (current or historical) regions inhabited by Kurdish people, now chiefly located in parts of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. The place name is attested in English contexts from at least the 16th cent. (initially as Curdistan).

Now let us turn to some other claims, such as that Syrian Kurdistan was "invented by the PYD". This can be shown to be a fable by consulting the maps produced by interested parties long before the PYD was born. So hopefully we can all agree to put this nonsense aside and abandon claims about the PYD and the Civil War which through pure chronological logic cannot possibly be true. Along which all the rest of the evidence presented, and nothing but spurious misrepresentation of the very same sources, this should really be enough to quell any non-tendentious editing for good. GPinkerton (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

And 'Syrian Kurdistan' has other meanings, implied and explicit, notably Kurdish nationalism#Syria. From your added content, you are writing an article not about that portion of Kurdistan in Syria, but through bludgeoning and equivocal use of sources an article about a multi-ethnic region from the perspective of one ethnic group. The ambiguous title and scope of the article allows a selection of content from Kurdistan, Kurds in Syria, Kurdish Nationalism, Rojava, Syrian civil war, etc. to form the article implied by this title: a Kurdish only nation of Northern Syria. fiveby(zero) 15:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fiveby: I'm curious - what about the title implies either of those things? What about "Syrian Kurdistan" implies either Kurdish only or nation? There's not a suggestion of anything of the kind anywhere from my perspective. What about the title is ambiguous? It's simply a territory like American Samoa or Welsh Bicknor. Is Samoa only for Americans? GPinkerton (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton are you purposefully obtuse? If not you can look at the index from Tejel here under "Syrian Kurdistan, terminology" and view those pages, or Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria#Polity names and translations. fiveby(zero) 19:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Per the Kurdish language lesson from Pinkerton above: "Kurdistan" means "Land of Kurds". Where does that leave the original, native population of northeastern Syria per this British map? Intruders on the land of Kurds? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The lesson was given by GP citing the Oxford English Dictionary. And Kurds ARE the native population of North East Syria. Just check Kurds in Syria. After the Ottoman turmoils there came more Kurds and also Christians, both were welcomed by the French. But the Kurds are the native population of North East Syria. You just need to look at also the map of Mark Sykes of the Kurdish tribes. You knew that map as we have discussed this before. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did look, and they are all north of the border (i.e., in Turkey). As for Arab pinar (what Kurds call kobani), that's right ON the border, so "around" might mean anything; east or north would be in Turkey. West is The Euphrates, across which is Jarabulus, a predominantly Arab area. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that's it, I give up reasoning with you. There are enough sources and maps that show there lived Kurds in the area and that there exists a Syrian Kurdistan. An admin has to rule here.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's consult a source which Amr should again have no trouble accepting as repudiating his claims, since he has cited it already as though is did the opposite. See:

The settlement of the Djézireh. - An aerial and ground reconnaissance, carried out in May 1925 by A. Poidebard who also benefited from the documentation gathered by the Service de Renseignement de Hassetché, allows to get a precise idea of ​​the human occupation in Djézireh on the eve of pacification [i.e. on the eve of French occupation in late 1919]. In the North, apart from the Muslim Circassians (Tchatchans tribe) established in 1876 near Ras el Aïn (villages of Saf eh and Tell Rouman), the area of ​​villages or fixed camps forming villages stretched from Arreda (east of Ras el Aïn) to the vicinity of the Tigris out of 130 km long and 15 to 20 km wide. It was stuck along the railroad, that is to say the border, and inhabited by Kurds whose tribes occupied territories perpendicular to this border and straddling them. They cultivated the northern part of Djézireh and pushed their herds in winter to Djebel Sindjar and Djebel Abd el Aziz. Jebel Sindjar was held by the Yazidis, a population of Kurdish dialect and a strange religion. Their villages were in the mountain in the south of which they nomadized in winter, ... The pattern of the occupation was therefore relatively simple: Kurds along the border, Arabs on the riversides, semi-nomads and nomads everywhere.

De Vaumas, Étienne (1956). "Le peuplement de la Djézireh". Annales de Géographie. 65 (347): 70–72. Le peuplement de la Djézireh. — Une reconnaissance aérienne et au sol, menée en mai 1925 par A. Poidebard qui a bénéficié en outre de la documentation rassemblée par le Service de Renseignement de Hassetché, permet de se faire une idée précise de l'occupation humaine en Djézireh à la veille de la pacification. Au Nord, à part des Circassiens musulmans (tribu des Tchatchans) établis en 1876 près de Ras el Aïn (villages de Saf eh et de Tell Rouman) , la zone des villages ou des campements fixes formant villages s'étendait d'Arreda (à l'Est de Ras el Aïn) jusqu'aux environs du Tigre sur 130 km de longueur et 15 à 20 km de largeur. Elle était plaquée le long du chemin de fer, c'est-à-dire de la frontière, et habitée par des Kurdes dont les tribus occupaient des territoires perpendiculaires sur cette frontière et à cheval sur elles. Ils cultivaient la partie septentrionale de la Djézireh et poussaient leurs troupeaux en hiver jusqu'au Djebel Sindjar et au Djebel Abd el Aziz. Le Djebel Sindjar était tenu par les Yézidis, population de dialecte kurde et à l'étrange religion. Leurs villages étaient dans la montagne au Sud de laquelle ils nomadisaient l'hiver, payant le Khaoua (impôt de fraternité) aux Chammar. Les vallées du Khabour et du Jagh Jagh, de même que les environs du lac de Khatouniyé et de la source ďel Hol, étaient aux mains des Arabes semi-sédentaires qui utilisaient pour leurs troupeaux les grands espaces nus qui séparaient les vallées. Les grands nomades enfin (les Chammar des Zors) avaient pour terrain de parcours toute la zone située entre Tigre et Sindjar à l'Est, Euphrate et Khabour à l'Ouest, se déplaçant d'une ligne Anah-Bagdad au Sud jusqu'aux approches de la voie ferrée au Nord. Le schéma de l'occupation était donc relativement simple : Kurdes le long de la frontière, Arabes sur le bord des rivières, semi-nomades et nomades partout. The area of ​​villages or fixed camps forming villages ... inhabited by Kurds ... They cultivated the northern part of Djézireh ... Djebel Sindjar and Djebel Abd el Aziz .... This is quite unambiguous and states that Kurds inhabited the areas straddling the border in 1919 before the border was established, which has already been proven beyond doubt long before. GPinkerton (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The WP:OR sentence YOU ADDED to the text above [i.e. on the eve of French occupation in late 1919]. explains it all. You are deliberately mischaracterizing the source, which explicitly mentions 1925 as the date of the survey, and you tried to make it 1919. A lot happened between the two dates, and after. Sir John Simpson says the following: The number of Kurds settled in the Jazira province during the 1920's was estimated at 20,000 people. (side note, other sources mention 25,000 as the number of Kurdish refugees flowing into Syria). Jazira's population in 1929 was estimated at 40,000, meaning this Kurdish immigration doubled the existing population, and the flow even intensified after that. You also stopped short from quoting the next two paragraphs, especially the quote from the French geographer R. Montagne about the Kurds descending from the mountains:

We are seeing an increase in village establishment that are either constructed by the Kurds descending from the mountains to cultivate or as a sign of increasing settlement of Arab groups with the help of their Armenian and Yezidi farmers.

More info. on this Kurdish descendance form the Anatolian mountains is given in Rondot 1936. Le massif montagneux de l'Arménie et du Kurdistan tombe assez brusquement au sud, au delà de Mardine, Nissibin, et Djéziret ibn Omar, vers les steppes de la Djézireh , domaine du nomade arabe. C'est la frontière de deux mondes : tandis que les Arabes, grands nomades dont l'existence est liée à celle du chameau, ne sauraient pénétrer dans la montagne rocailleuse, les Kurdes considèrent avec envie la bordure du steppe, relativement bien arrosé et plus facile à cultiver que la montagne, où ils pourraient pousser leurs moutons et installer quelques cultures. Dès que la sécurité le permet, c'est- à-dire dès que le gouvernement - ou le sédentaire arme- est asses fort pour imposer au Bédouin le respect des cultures, le Kurde descend dans la plaine. Mais la sécurité ne règne pas longtemps, les récoltes ne sont pas toujours bonnes, le climat débilite le montagnard; la plaine "manges" les Kurdes, et il y a flux et reflux. Google translation: The mountain range of Armenia and Kurdistan falls rather sharply to the south, beyond Mardine, Nissibin, and Djéziret ibn Omar, towards the steppes of Djézireh, domain of the Arab nomad. It is the border of two worlds: while the Arabs, great nomads whose existence is linked to that of the camel, could not enter the rocky mountain, the Kurds envy the edge of the steppe, relatively well watered and more easy to cultivate than the mountain, where they could push their sheep and install some crops. As soon as security permits, that is to say as soon as the government - or the sedentary armed - is strong enough to impose respect for cultures on the Bedouin, the Kurd descends into the plain. But security does not reign for long, the harvests are not always good, the climate debilitates the mountain dweller; the plain "eats" the Kurds, and there is ebb and flow. I guess this is PLAIN and ADEQUATE evidence about the origin of Jazira' Kurds (or at least the vast majority of them). May be you are happy with this going on for ever to divert us from the MAIN ISSUE, which is the name, but unfortunately I have to pass on the opportunity to entertain you here any further. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

References

You're showing your ignorance again. You haven't provided a single source for your absurd POV that Kurds living in Syrian Kurdistan in the 17th century magically disappeared the minute the French appeared only to reappear later. Why aren't you capable of reading sources? Plenty of evidence has already been adduced that Kurdish migration to Jazira before 1925 was minimal and that the Kurdish population was already predominant. But I don't know why you bother continuing to reply in reality-based encyclopaedia. This fantasy project of yours will not gain traction here. This project is built on the use of reliable sources, not the strenuousness of your denialism. Your source says nothing a about majority of Kurds anywhere, and as I have quoted from the relevant section (which you wrongly deny) which states that the opposite of what your claim. It will not be necessary for you to comment further. Your views have already been repeated enough times, and each time with less evidence. Your quotation of this document is specious misinterpretation, which is either wilful or incompetent, and I am not inclined to listen further to your griping. The extract you have quoted nails the final nail in the coffin of your ideology. If the Kurds have long been living at the edge of the steppe, they can hardly have only just arrived there within the past five years. Chrono-logical fallacy. Again. GPinkerton (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, this comment is uncivil. Had you held back on the personal commentary about another editor, it would have been half as long, easier to read, and much more helpful. I've already asked you to stop this, please do so. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Well, the whole dispute is not about what civil or uncivil is. It is about if a Syrian Kurdistan exists and well, we provide source after source and we would like to have an actual ruling. The denier faction is currently denying it with simple WP:OR and a misrepresentation of sources against well over 50 academic sources explicitly mentioning a Syrian Kurdistan. Is refusing to edit according to academic sources also worth a comment? I repeat my willingness to provide an additional 50 academic sources for the claim that Syrian Kurdistan exists.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, I am not here to adjudicate on which side of this dispute is correct - that is not the role of the administrator. I have started watching this discussion because I am concerned that over a period of time, civility (one of our five pillars) has gone out of the window. I intend to do what I can to encourage civil discussion, and to encourage the use of our dispute resolution processes; if people believe that there is bad faith editing going on, along the lines of WP:CRUSH and WP:TE, then by all means follow the normal channels; I am no sort of barrier to that, but nor am I going to act as the adjudicator on such matters in a subject I know so little about. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: You don't need any special knowledge to look at the sources and see one interpretation of them is tendentious and ideological, and one only. You can easily comment on the source quoted above, and see how an editor would have to contort it dishonestly to reach any conclusion at variance with what I have said. GPinkerton (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

For background, a basic summary of the history of Syrian Kurdistan can be found, for example, in a review of the 2015 work The Kurds: A Modern History by Michael M. Gunter. The review summarizes Gunter's whole chapter on the Kurds of Syria as follows, including a mention of this very ideological talking point, namely, that Kurds do not belong in what is now Syria:

Under the French mandate after World War I, Syria became an important center for Kurdish political and cultural activism until its independence in 1946. In addition to the Kurds in major urban centers and Kurdish enclaves in northern Syria, Kurdish refugees also arrived from Turkey. A Kurdish nationalist organization, Khoybun, operated in Syria and Lebanon and spearheaded the Ararat Re-bellion (1928-31) against Turkey. Exiled Kurdish nationalists from Turkey played a major role in Syria and Lebanon. The Jaladet, Sureya and Kamuran brothers from the princely Bedirkhan family, for example, led a Kurdish cultural movement. The end of the French mandate and the eventual rise of the Baath regime in Syria created a serious backlash for the Kurds. Gunter indicates that the Baath regime came to view Kurds as a foreign threat to the Arab nation, and it repressed them after the early 1960s. Kurds in Syria, as a result, came to be less known in the West, as compared to their compatriots in Iraq, Turkey and Iran. Some Kurds were stripped of their citizenship in 1962 on the grounds that they supposedly all came from Turkey. Moreover, the state tried to Arabize the Kurdish territories in northern Syria. Gunter adds that the fractured Kurdish political-party system is another reason for the invisibility of the Syrian Kurds until the early 2000s.
— Akturk, Ahmet Serdar (assistant professor of history, Georgia Southern University) (2016). "Review: The Kurds: A Modern History, by Michael M. Gunter. Markus Wiener Publishers, 2015. 256 pages. $26.95, paperback". Middle East Policy. 23 (3): 152–156. doi:10.1111/mepo.12225. ISSN 1475-4967.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

We can therefore see that there is no merit to the bigoted claim that Syrian Kurdistan does not exist, and we can see both why this claim exists and who pushes it and why, and how it is antithetical to the purposes of Wikipedia to continue to allow such partisan claims. GPinkerton (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Girth Summit, concerning civility. Amr Ibn is the only one who accuses others of vandalism in the edit summaries in this article.

See here, here herehere. At least in the last few weeks.

here I am supposedly "sabotaging" the page,

here I am "hijacking" the page, we can find numerous more, like calling the from ISIS (the best known terrorist organization in the world) liberated areas occupied by the "Kurds". What I write is mainly sourced well, specially in such a disputed article. I'd never edit-war a non-notable PhD source back into the article like Amr Ibn did. And sorry, to deny a whole cultural region which is often mentioned I academic sources and edit war academic sources out of the article is now also not very civil. Then Amr ibn also accuses Konli as a previously blocked editor, and refers to a block that was caused through Amr Ibn after a complaint where Amr Ibn reverted once more than Konli17, while both weren't breaking any rules at the time. I adverted the blocking Admin EdJohnston of it, but to no avail.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, once again, I recognise that there has been a history of incivility on this talk page, and that it has not been one-sided. It was allowed to continue for too long. I am trying to stop it, but that does not extend to going back and blocking accounts retrospectively. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

As with GS, I'm here to stop the ongoing incivility, which I agree has come from multiple editors. I am not going to get involved in the content disputes; that would make me involved, and I'd not be able to help with the behavior issues. And the point is, I don't need to understand the content dispute in order to understand and help deal with the behavior issues going forward.

I strongly recommend you all stop with the walls of text. Very few editors will read anything more than a few sentences long, so learn to write short. Draft, then edit down mercilessly to only what you really need to say. It takes longer to write short, but it's a valuable skill for persuading other editors. —valereee (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Can we acknowledge now that the "Kurds are from Turkey" stuff had no place in Wikipedia besides objective treatment as a nationalist propaganda exercise no different to the Turkish nationalist claim that Kurds are just "Mountain Turks"? Please affirm that this is a correct and reasonable interpretation of all the sources I've quoted until this point? GPinkerton (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, as I explained just above, if GS became involved in the content dispute, they'd no longer be able to help here in an administrative capacity. We need WP:UNINVOLVED admins here to help with ongoing behavior issues. Neither GS nor I are going to get involved in the content dispute. —valereee (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Well someone needs to, because the ongoing behavioural issue is tendentious use and abuse of sources and a WP:AGENDA with a blithely carefree approach to uncritically repeating 20th-century propaganda claims as though appropriate for deciding content. Incivility is just a by-product of stonewalling; the content dispute is the behavioural issue. GPinkerton (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

24 hour block for abuse of sources and a WP:AGENDA with a blithely carefree approach to uncritically repeating 20th-century propaganda claims —valereee (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed edit nov28

I suggest the following material be copied in to expand the lead:

Syrian Kurdistan is one of the Lesser Kurdistans that comprise Greater Kurdistan and is also known as Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojava Kurdistanê, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'). As such, Syrian Kurdistan is one of the four territories into which Kurdistan is divided by the boundaries of sovereign states, alongside Iranian Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojhilatê Kurdistanê, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun rises') and the neighbouring Turkish Kurdistan (Bakurê Kurdistanê, 'Northern Kurdistan') and Iraqi Kurdistan (Başûrê Kurdistanê, 'Southern Kurdistan').

The territory consists of three discontinuous areas on the northern border of Syria, in the Aleppo and al-Hasakah Governorates of Syria. In the extreme east of Syrian Upper Mesopotamia (Arabic: الجزيرة, romanized: al-Jazira, lit. 'the island'), al-Hasakah Governorate (historically al-Jazira Province) is adjacent to Iraq's Sinjar District, part of Iraqi Kurdistan, and has been Kurdish-majority "since official records began". Ayn al-Arab District in the Aleppo Governorate is centred on Kobanî (Arabic: عَيْن الْعَرَب, romanized: ʿAyn al-ʿArab), which like the nearby town of Jarabulus is on the border with Turkey's Şanlıurfa Province, part of Turkish Kurdistan. The Afrin District, also in the Aleppo Governorate, includes the town of Afrin (Kurdish: Efrîn) and the Kurd Mountains (Turkish: Kurd Dagh) at the north-eastern corner of Syria's border with Turkey's Hatay Province.

Al-Hasakah, the seat of the governorate of the same name, stands at the confluence of the Jaghjagh River and the Khabur, two tributaries of the Euphrates, while Ras al-Ayn lies upstream of the Khabur at the point where the Syria–Turkey border intersects the river. Jarabulus, in the Jarabulus Subdistrict, stands on the border with Turkey where the Euphrates enters Syrian territory, while Kobanî, likewise on the border, stands between the Euphrates valley and the Balikh River. The Kurd Mountains, outside the Euphrates–Tigris Basin, constitute a detached extension of the Anatolian Plateau on the edge of the Anatolian Plate.

References

GPinkerton (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: we have an open rfc for exactly this. The word CONTESTED is the key here. This proposed edit gives all the weight to one side. I would be okay with it if the other side gets the same prominent place, and in the first paragraph as well.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: cherry picked sources that further pushes the debunked "Syrian kurdistan" fraud. Completely agree with Attar-Aram syria here, its very one sided. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

blocked for one hour for cherry picked sources that further pushes the debunked "Syrian kurdistan" fraud —valereee (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: the lead needs to be balanced, presenting sources on both sides. We have many sources and statistics describing the population of the different discontigious areas under the scope of this article, and they are very different from what is suggested above. We also have Abdullah Ocalan who denies the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan but that is left out. On top of that, this text presents the name as the "official name" while so many other sources use names such as "Kurdish-inhabited region in Syria" or "Kurdish enclaves in Syria". Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Strong support the lead is probably one the best and extensively sourced on wikipedia. I've never seen a better sourced one at least. What Abdullah Öcalan mentioned can be added, too, but probably not in the lead. I don't know, if you really believe he is a reliable source. If so we could source multiple sections with his books on Syrian Kurdistan. But this not even the pro-Kurdish editors would attempt. And don't misinterpret the text Amr Ibn, it is clearly mentioned in the lead that Syrian Kurdistan is a part of a sovereign state.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, please stop this: But this not even the pro-Kurdish editors would attempt. And don't misinterpret the text Amr Ibn as it talks about editors, not edits. —valereee (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions

1. Read I.C. Vanly here(pseudonymous, see his article) for what 'Syrian Kurdistan' meant in 1992. This is misused as a citation in the article, try and read for understanding, not as a means to push a POV.
2. Think about the difference between "are Kurd-Dagh, Ain-Arab, and Northern Jezireh Syrian Kurdistan?" and "Afrin, Jazira, and Kobanî are Syrian Kurdistan"
3. Use modern sources, don't use older ones to push a POV.
4. Describe Syrian Kurdistan without trying to define a boundary. Where, when, and how predominately Kurdish an area should be in the Kurds in Syria article.
5. Editing here while really arguing Turkish occupation of northern Syria should earn a page ban.

fiveby(zero) 16:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

blocked 1 hour for not as a means to push a POV, don't use older ones to push a POV —valereee (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Konli17 is blocked for sockpuppetry

His comments should be not used for consensus. Shadow4dark (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Compromise time?

I hope that now, the editors, from both camps, have come to the conclusion that a compromise should be reached. Those who refuse the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan, based on historic arguments , are not Nazis!(yes, this is not a historic cultural region, and no source till now has been able to prove otherwise i.e. these regions were considered part of Kurdistan by lets say Western travellers of the 18th and 19th centuries, or Ottoman historians.. etc). Those editors who wish to see an unqualified usage of the term Syrian Kurdistan are also not zealot nationalists. I would say that both camps deserve a voice. So, please vote on this formula, and please keep in mind that no one party will overcome the other! This is not how things go here. I suggest retaining the second (with reservations concerning that Kurds have been the majority since official records began, which is not what the French records show) and third paragraphs GP wrote in a section earlier, and I changed the first one (and it will be sourced using the same sources I used in the rfc):

Syrian Kurdistan, also known as Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojava Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'), is an area of three Kurdish-inhabited regions in Northern Syria. The concept of a Syrian Kurdistan gained prominence during the Syrian Civil War, as, before the war, Syrian Kurdish political factions usually chose to remain within a Syrian national framework. On the other hand, the Syrian government, and most Sunni Arabs of Syria, are opposed to the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan.

Please give me your thoughts, and don’t focus on me. Try to accommodate your "opponents" instead of aiming at total victory, which neither parties will attain. Sad that Im talking about fights and victories, but this is what this page turned to. Ofcourse, compromise isnt the way to go when it comes to delivering an accurate information, but in this case it is, as the truth lies in the middle.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• It would help if you sources existed for these claims. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. GPinkerton (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The sources are in the rfc Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#Support_A. I will add them if this formula finds consensus, otherwise, I wont do the effort. P.S, the view of the rest of Syria is not minority, and the mainstream scholarship do not deny that the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan is not universally accepted. Anyway, these discussion have expired. We conducted them earlier, a lot. I’m looking here for a middle way, and I hope that what happened earlier have shown that its only the middle way that will work.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Even the whole of Syria is a tiny minority compared with the reliable sources of the English-speaking world. There is no reason to privilege some conjectural Syrian attitude to geography; this is the English language Wikipedia and takes a global perspective. GPinkerton (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

When it come to geography, most English academic sources will call those regions northern Syria, not Kurdistan. I will argue no further, as I meant to have some sort of compromise, which I see will not happen here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Attar-Aram Syria, what do you think about the current first line "Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎), often shortened to Rojava, is regarded by some Kurds and some regional experts as the part of Kurdistan in Syria." why does it need to be changed? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Compromise is why it should be changed, but maybe I made a mistake, as no editor is willing to let go and everyone wants to force their version on everyone.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Attar-Aram syria, your version says that the name of kurdish-inhabited areas in Syria is "Syrian Kurdistan". We all now very well that is not the areas real name. And it can not be presented as such. It can be presented as a kurdish belief only. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Attar-Aram syria, per MOS:FIRST, the first sentence should define the subject of the article. It explicitly advises against using phrases like 'refers to', because we need to define the subject rather than the subject's name. Given that WP:INVOLVED explicitly allows me to suggest possible wording, I would suggest that this might be better phrased along the lines of 'Syrian Kurdistan, also known as Western Kurdistan... ...is an area of Kurdish-inhabited regions in Northern Syria.' Note please that I am not advocating for the specifics of that definition - it's the semantics I'm aiming at. The subject of the article is not a noun phrase, it's a geographic region (whether or not it is contested).

I have no comment on the rest of your proposal at present. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Girth Summit. I edited my paragraph and inserted your wording.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• I further object based on the fact that two out of three sentences are both irrelevant and untrue. The concept of a Syrian Kurdistan gained prominence during the Syrian Civil War is incorrect, as many sources has already been adduced for the region's prominence in the 1920s, when Syrian Kurdistan was established by the Mandatory borders. GPinkerton (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

So no compromise. Lets see if a consensus will emerge when the other editors comment.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd further suggest that, if the content in the body of the article is contested, that should be agreed upon before discussing the lead (which merely summarises that content). We're doing this in the wrong order. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We need to decide the scope of this article, and Fiveby summarized the issues with the scope.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there something you'd like to add to the article body? GPinkerton (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

On the proposed edit: Which notable Kurdish faction involved in the Syrian Civil War (like PYD) has advocated for the creation of Syrian Kurdistan that was not part of a Syrian national Framework? The PYD has declared numerous times that the area it governed is a part of Syria. To this I agree though:Syrian Kurdistan, also known as Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojava Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'), is an area of three Kurdish-inhabited regions in Northern Syria.

Nothing about the "Syrian national framework" is really relevant here, and neither is the politics. This is just geography. Syrian Kurdistan does need advocates for its creation, it was created a century ago by the establishment of the border. The PYD has nothing to do with anything, and in any case the Kurds are reliably said to prefer "western" and not "Syrian" as the name. GPinkerton (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Then also as the threads name is compromise time: Can we agree to edit ourselves and replace/exchange the two three words we don't like instead of just reverting edits of several hundreds/thousands bytes? I mean that we just revert for a word or two, edits of more than 100 bytes is not really helpful, specially in a contested and protected article like this one.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

PC: Im using Appolodion's words when it comes to the Syrian framework. Kurdistan as a term does not merely have a cultural meaning, but a political one as well. Therefore, calling for a Kurdistan will indicate aspirations of independence, a Kurdish nation...etc The term itself, the land of the Kurds, indicates that other ethnicities are guests there, or migrants. Hence, the wording: Syrian framework. Ofcourse, everything can be agreed on, as long as both point of views are represented. You agreed to the first part, which satesfy one party, so what about the other?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What Applodion[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Kurdistan&type=revision&diff=988424466&oldid=988173771&diffmode=source wrote] about the Syrian Framework was not in the lead and also mentioned that the idea of independence stemmed from before the Syrian Civil War if you refer to this version. I don't know which notable Kurdish party during the Syrian Civil War advocated for the creation of such a political entity. Of course, Kurdish was allowed to be taught in schools and used as an official regional language but this is about Governance (in Syria) and not about a creation of an independent Syrian Kurdistan. How about: Syrian Kurdistan, also known as Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojava Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'), is an area of (three) Kurdish-inhabited regions in Northern Syria. The Syrian government, and most Sunni Arabs of Syria, are opposed to the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan.

The authoritative dictionary definition I have quoted above mentions no such definition and we should be using reliable sources, so there's no need to worry about that idea, especially as "Kurdistan" has been used in English for 500 years. GPinkerton (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Not about an area in Syria.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I have already demonstrated to contrary. GPinkerton (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen it. Can you show me it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

In the Oxford English Dictionary's 3rd edition, from 2018, Kurdistan is defined as the following:

Kurdistan, n. (Kurdish Kurdistan, lit. 'land of the Kurds'), the name of any of various (current or historical) regions inhabited by Kurdish people, now chiefly located in parts of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. The place name is attested in English contexts from at least the 16th cent. (initially as Curdistan).

GPinkerton (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice the following: "the name of any of various (current or historical) regions" "now chiefly located in" this doesnt proof that areas in Syria has been part of Kurdistan for 500 years.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Who cares? We know already the Kurds have lived there for centuries. What does it matter? The name Syrian Kurdistan is only relevant after the area became part of modern Syria 100 years ago. It's been part of Kurdistan far longer. GPinkerton (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I care. The Oxford source did not confirm what you claimed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes it does, and it has refuted your claims. GPinkerton (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"It's been part of Kurdistan far longer". Here where sourcing fails. No contemporary account, from before the establishment of Syria, of a traveller, a historian..etc mentions this. No account says: I travelled to Ras al-ayn, in Kurdistan. No account says: the Shammar graze their herds in Kurdistan near Jaghjagh, or that Jarablus is in Kurdistan. If that will be available, where those Syrian regions are specifically mentioned, then things will change here, at least for me.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

See: argumentum ex silentio. What is the relevance of this? What sources say this is part of Syria in those days? It's usually described as just "Kurdistan" and "Upper Mesopotamia", north Jazira, etc. GPinkerton (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I asked for a source for your assertion that "It's been part of Kurdistan far longer". You used this as an argument, so you need to prove it. Where were these regions described as Kurdistan before the establishment of Syria, as you claimed?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I gave you a source and I have proven it. We know the Kurds have lived in the now-Syrian Jazira for centuries, we know they were elsewhere in the Khabour and Jagh Jagh and Euphrates valleys in the 17th century in what is now Syria, and we know that since the 16th century the name of any of various (current or historical) regions inhabited by Kurdish people is Kurdistan. GPinkerton (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually you didnt give me. What you are doing is original research, a synth. You are making your own conclusions here. If no source mentions these regions as part of Kurdistan, which is a historic region many ancient travelers and historians described, then you cant say these regions are Kurdistan. Kurds live in many places, and not all of them are Kurdistan.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It is an acknowledged fact that reliable sources treat the area as Syrian Kurdistan. You say: Kurdistan, which is a historic region many ancient travelers and historians described and the Oxford English Dictionary agrees, saying this region is: now chiefly located in parts of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. So there is no need to continue disputing this fact. GPinkerton (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"It's been part of Kurdistan far longer". This is a claim unsourced, which you made based on original research. If you wish not to continue, Im happy to do so, but when making any historic claims, then please make sure to source them properly.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I can only repeat that what you are saying is incorrect and I have provided ample sources for this. GPinkerton (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"It's been part of Kurdistan far longer". The only sources that can support this are those that mentions it directly.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Leaving aside that incorrect claim, you have not explained what relevance you imagine that is. In order of Kurdistan to be divided between the four modern states, it is necessarily the case that the part of Kurdistan now called Syrian Kurdistan must have existed beforehand. It did not simply spring up out of the ground the day the French arrived, so unless you're arguing that's what happened there's really no reason to continue discussion on this point. We know there were plenty of Kurdish majority regions in Syria long before WWI, and we know Kurds have referred to Kurdistan since the 17th century as extending from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf, so there is really no point in continuing to quibble on this issue. GPinkerton (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Imagine? Restrain yourself and dont go into that road again. I am not imagining anything. When you claim something, provide evidence for it that is not your own logical conlusions that may not be logical for someone else. Not every place Kurds migrate to or inhabit becomes a Kurdistan. Just stick to source and do not use any original research.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The source says historical Kurdistan is part in Syria. Nothing further needs discussion. There is no OR besides arguing with the dictionary. GPinkerton (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This discussion was about a claim you made (the regions are part of Kurdistan long before Syria) based on your own conclusions. Its over now. As for "historical Kurdistan" being part in Syria, Im sure any reliable source claiming this will have a historical document cited to prove the claim, otherwise, that source will be unreliable.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

If you think the OED is unreliable I am afraid you will not find support for that view and it will be fruitless to pursue it further. It is a reliable source and it says Kurdistan is part in Syria. QED. GPinkerton (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I dont think. I know how academic works are done, so even the OED, if not basing their claims on evidence, can be discredited. Even great scholars lose their reputation when they make claims that cant be proven. I just need the evidence for claims: if it does not exist, then the claim is false.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, Kurdistan today exists, but "historical" needs historic evidence, and this is what we were discussing. I believe we are done if evidence cannot be provided.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

As I say, the evidence has been provided. We are done. GPinkerton (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

And as I say, no evidence have been provided, only conclusions based on original research.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• As the first sentence to this article, I like Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê, lit 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'‎), often shortened to Rojava, are the Kurdish-inhabited regions of Northern Syria. I don't think "three" is important enough of a detail to include in the first sentence but "...are three Kurdish-inhabited regions..." also works for me. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: "Syrian Kurdistan ... are ..."? The grammar is wrong. Also why capitalize "northern"? GPinkerton (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem for me Levivich. But what about the rest. This article will not know peace if every editor insist on having it his way. As I expected, pro-Kurdistan editors (I dont mean you) are happy with the first sentence and dont want the rest, and I believe the anti-Kurdistan will do the opposite. So how will this article ever develop?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I have opinions about the rest, too, but I wonder if we can first come to consensus on the first sentence and proceed from there. Personally, I like this latest version (below) better than either what's in the article currently, or any of the choices in the open RFC above. What about: Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'‎), often shortened to Rojava, is the Kurdish-inhabited region of northern Syria.? Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion is factually incorrect, the name of the Kurdish-inhabited region of northern Syria is not "Syrian Kurdistan", no part of Syria has this name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yup, fine with me, as long as the contested nature of this region will be illuminated in the first paragraph as well.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be fine Alright except possibly change "region" to "area" or "territory", otherwise OK; though I think the second sentence should begin as I proposed in the section above. I think that does a good job of explaining the basics of the geography and after saying its the Kurdish bit of Syria we should say its the Syrian bit of Kurdistan, and explain what that means. The articles United States Virgin Islands and British Virgin Islands deal with it a similar way; both say they are part of the Virgin Islands and both mentions the other in the lead. GPinkerton (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no "Kurdish bit of Syria" that would imply that it belongs to kurds. There are only kurdish-inhabited areas of Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I've demonstrated before that it implies no such thing and the reliable sources do not support this claim. GPinkerton (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Atta, GP and SD for weighing in on my suggestions. @عمرو بن كلثوم, HistoryofIran, Thepharoah17, and Paradise Chronicle: as editors who have !voted in the RFC about the lead sentence, would you mind giving me your opinion about whether this first sentence is better or worse than the options in the RFC: Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'‎), often shortened to Rojava, is the Kurdish-inhabited area of northern Syria. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The current first line is the the most neutral and accurate and better represents the factual situation. "Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎), often shortened to Rojava, is regarded by some Kurds and some regional experts as the part of Kurdistan in Syria." It doesn't need to be changed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

As SD says, it took us weeks to reach the first line in the current version (developed mostly by Applodion following intesive discussions on the Talk page) to reflect the current status of the term, used by some although most sources/media outlets use "Kurdish-inhabited region(s) in Syria". The difference between here and Iraqi/Iranian or Turkish Kurdistan is that the overwhelming majority there is Kurdish. While here it is not and has never been (See statistics from French mandate authorities) despite having some very small pockets (i.e. cluster of villages) such as Ain al-Arab or Kurd Dagh having an overwhelming Kurdish majority. How big is the area or the population? Does that justify saying this is a Syrian Kurdistan? To be concise, I am fine with the wording that Applodion had introduced, that you can see in this version. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Speaking only from the perspective of compliance with the MOS, it does need to be changed. The current sentence fails to define the subject - '...is regarded by some...' is descriptive, not definitive. We need to define what the subject is in the first sentence - we can mention in later sentences that the land, or indeed the existence of the place as an entity, is contested - but the first sentence needs to set out in simple English what/where we're talking about. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Reading the sentence: "regarded by some Kurds and some regional experts as the part of Kurdistan in Syria." - the subject is clear: This is an area that some people believe is "Syrian Kurdistan".--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Grammatically-speaking, the problem with any lead sentence like X is regarded by some as Y... is that it implies X is regarded by others as Z. In the current lead sentence, "X" is "Syrian Kurdistan", and "Y" is "the part of Kurdistan in Syria", but there is no Z. There is no one who thinks "Syrian Kurdistan" is, say, the part of Kurdistan in Turkey, or that "Syrian Kurdistan" refers to the southwestern part of Syria, or that it's a type of sandwich or something. Some people might say "Syrian Kurdistan" doesn't exist at all, or should be called by a different name, but no one thinks the two words "Syrian Kurdistan" might refer to anything other than the parts of northern Syria where Kurds live. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Correct. GPinkerton (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich I agree to your version. And there was no consensus as Amr Ibn claimes, but the RfC was opened on the 12 November 2020 [1] after GPinkerton brought in the many sources for an existence of a Syrian Kurdistan at the NPOV noticeboard on the 10 November 2020.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Levivich: first for taking the initiative to help with this article. I am fine with the sentence if we precede it by "According to Kurdish nationalists" (or something along these lines) and be more specific about the extent (per I.C. Vanly here or David McDowall here, page 466). According to Kurdish nationalists, Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'‎), often shortened to Rojava, refers to three non-contiguous Kurdish-inhabited areas of northern Syria. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It is clearly untrue that Syrian Kurdistan is used "According to Kurdish nationalists". They don't call any part of Kurdistan "Syrian"; why would they? Reliable sources however, all treat Syrian Kurdistan as the normal English name for the place, as they have done for many decades. GPinkerton (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم, respectfully, I don't think that this is a reasonable suggestion. It has already been shown that the term is used in mainstream academic sources, its use is clearly not entirely restricted to Kurdish Nationalists. That is not to say that we cannot/should not discuss the dispute over the region in the article, but to say in the definitive first sentence of the lead that its use is restricted in this way seems unsupportable. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Correct. GPinkerton (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Then the current wording works, "is regarded by some Kurds and some regional experts as the part of Kurdistan in Syria" (or something like that). The problem with the suggested wording is that it presents this name as a fact, when it is very clearly contested. Again, according to google search, "Kurdish region in Syria" is WAY more commonly used than "Syrian Kurdistan", especially when it comes to international credible sources (organizations, media outlets, etc.), rather than opinion monographs and nationalist websites. As other users have pointed out, there is hardly any credible map (outside the Kurdish claims) that says Syrian Kurdistan on it. When you have Abdullah Ocalan, the Kurdish historical leader, Jalal Talabani and Masud Barazani denying the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan, I think that has a considerable weight that cannot be ignored in the lead. Jordi Tejel says: Therefore, as David McDowall asserts, the Kurdish leaders Jalal Talabani (PUK), Abdullah Ocalan (PKK), and probably Masud Barzani (KDP) either denied the legitimacy of a Syrian Kurdish movement or dismissed it as a small-scale movement that distracted from the "real struggle" for Kurdistan (McDowall 1998: 69-70

I hate to repeat myself, but you have prominent authors such as the Kurdish activist Vanly (mentioned above by Fiveby) and David McDowall who have talked about Kurdish areas (or communities) in Syria, but not Syrian Kurdistan. As Fiveby mentioned above, the wording here has to be careful as not to present that this ethnically and culturally mixed area is not presented here from a Kurdish nationalist standpoint. If you still want to do so, then make it clear that this is the angle we are writing from. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No it does not work because it does not met the criteria of WP:FIRST and is deeply WP:UNDUE as has already been explained. The point about David McDowall is a regrettable logical fallacy, once again, of argumentum ex silentio, and failing the test of logic, ought never to be considered in deliberation. Jordi Tejel repeatedly uses the term "Syrian Kurdistan" and the idea that anything quoted above is of any relevance or of WP:DUE importance or even interpreted correctly is wholly wrong. Ocalan, a person from Turkish Kurdistan, has repeatedly referred to the existence of a "Western Kurdistan", and the quotation of what he once told a Syrian journalist while a refugee in Syria more than four decades ago cannot be interpreted as a statement about reality. Given that Mehrdad Izady has been rejected as an authority for the climate of northern eastern Syria, because editors decided he was too Kurdish nationalist, that Abdullah Öcalan should now be cited as an authoritative source about far more controversial matters is really quite a surprise and to my mind quite unjeustifiable! GPinkerton (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Elapsed time does not change historical facts, whether they are 5 years old or a century old. I never said that Ocalan is a neutral person, he certainly is not. But when you have three prominent Kurdish nationalists (THREE, not only Ocalan) denying the idea of a Syrian Kurdistan, then saying there is a Syrian Kurdistan would sound like "More royal than the king". Trying to interpret "why X said this" and "why Y thinks that" is WP:OR. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: I'd like to draw your attention to two comments made above by Fiveby who was not part of the dispute. The comments here and here summarize the situation we are dealing with. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

We know why Ocalan said that, and to whom, and why. It is all explained in the article you keep quoting from and is utterly inconsequential to the purposes of an encyclopaedia. GPinkerton (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

What else should be in the lead?

Thanks again to everyone for chiming in about the proposed first sentences in the section above. I also wanted to gather opinions about what else should be in the lead beyond the first sentence. Below is a list of topics I think should be covered in the lead, in roughly the order I think they should be addressed. I think all of these items could be summarized in the first paragraph, or they could take up multiple paragraphs, but at this point I'm thinking more about what should be included, without worrying about exactly how to phrase it or how much space to spend on each item. I'm sure I've missed some important items, but here is my list:

1. Geographic description in relation to Syria (e.g., consists of three discontinuous areas on the northern border of Syria, and maybe the names/locations/descriptions of each of those three areas)
2. Geographic description in relation to Kurdistan (e.g. it's a "Lesser Kurdistan", brief description of the other Kurdistans)
3. That its boundaries are disputed and not clearly defined
4. Geographic size estimate (sq km)
5. Population size estimate and demographics (e.g. ethnicies, religions)
6. Government
7. Economy
8. History of the place
9. History of the name or concept "Syrian Kurdistan"
10. A summary of the controversy surrounding the name/concept of "Syrian Kurdisan"

I would be interested to hear what everyone else would put on their list and in what order. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• I believe you did a great job. For me, I think it is important for the first paragraph to have these elements, in order: 1-3-2-9-10- and then it does not matter which paragraph: 4-5-6-7-8. The important thing is not being biased to one pov. So sentences to avoid are, for example, "Syrian Kurdistan was split from Turkish Kurdistan", as if the regions in Syria were acknowledged as regions of Kurdistan prior to WWI and that this was a given fact. Ofcourse, such sentence will be no problem, but only if a contemporary source can be provided, dating to that period, mentioning the partition of Kurdistan between Turkey and France, when that partition happened. Anything else will be original research or modern scholarship that may be affected by current politics instead of historic realities.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The fact Kurdistan was divided between four states is undeniable and already well-established. Any suggestion that all academia may be affected by current politics instead of historic realities is a suggestion that would be WP:PROFRINGE the idea that we need to resort to WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY is incorrect. It is a given fact that regions in Syria and Turkey were considered Kurdistan prior to WWI, and this has already been proven numerous times, and not one iota of evidence has ben advanced in favour of the postulated contrary view. GPinkerton (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Can you just leave my opinion alone? You dont have to reply to everything. There are no given facts without sources. Anything else would be simply OR. If its a given fact, then it can be proven by contemporary evidence.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• 2,1,3, to begin with, including a rough description of its relation to real-world concepts like rivers and mountains. (As I have suggested in the section above.) Very soon is required a mention of the Partition of the Ottoman Empire, the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon, and the Treaty of Ankara (1921) which separated Syrian Kurdistan from Turkish Kurdistan; probably less significant is the border with Iraqi Kurdistan. Facts and figures of size and (pre-war) population can come second-last; 21st-century politics and post-2011 developments last. GPinkerton (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Gpinkerton, your comment about "which separated Syrian Kurdistan from Turkish Kurdistan" in regards to history, Ottoman Empire, French Mandate is not following real historical events. We already discussed this before. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It is certainly true that you has said so before, though it is also true that nothing has been advanced in evidence of this claim. Other, more reliable sources take the opposite view, and none differ in this respect of reporting these basic historical facts.

Hassanpour, Amir (2005), Shelton, Dinah L. (ed.), "Kurds", Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, Macmillan Reference USA, pp. 632–637, retrieved 2020-11-30, The majority live in Kurdistan, a borderless homeland whose territory is divided among the neighboring countries of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. … The dismantling of the Ottoman empire in World War I led to the division of its Kurdish region and the incorporation of that territory into the newly created states of Iraq (under British occupation and mandate, 1918–1932), Syria (under French occupation and mandate, 1918–1946), and Turkey (Republic of Turkey since 1923). The formation of these modern nation-states entailed the forced assimilation of the Kurds into the official or dominant national languages and cultures: Turkish (Turkey), Persian (Iran), and Arabic (Syria, and, in a more limited scope, Iraq).

GPinkerton (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"division of its Kurdish region" not "Syrian Kurdistan". Also, Amir Hassanpour is a kurdish writer. So its a kurdish pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Kurdistan, a borderless homeland whose territory is divided among the neighboring countries of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Are you going to claim the Oxford English Dictionary which says exactly the same thing, is also a kurdish writer. So its a kurdish pov? GPinkerton (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

In history no one has ever talked about a "Syrian Kurdistan". In modern times, some kurds, but also a few others that follow the kurdish pov have started to use the phrase, but as other sources show, its not an official name and it is very disputed, and therfor must be presented as disputed terminology throughout this article and wikipedia in general.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe such proposals contravene both WP:GEVAL and WP:COMMONNAME. The lead sentence already states that it is not always called Syrian Kurdistan and gives two alternatives, less used: "Western Kurdistan" and "Rojava". No more coverage of this so-called "dispute" is either necessary or important. GPinkerton (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's more than "a few others that follow the kurdish pov" who use the phrase "Syrian Kurdistan" to refer to those areas of northern Syria. Usage of the term increased significantly since the civil war but even before that, Google NGrams shows the phrase used in English since mid-20th century (although of course I agree that mid-20th century is "modern"). Google Scholar has 978 hits for "Syrian Kurdistan", but only 47 before 2010. There's no disputing that the phrase was in use before the war, but there's also no disputing that the phrase has become much more prevalent since the war. IMO that's not surprising and is basically explained by the rise of AANES. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

And besides that, Google Ngrams also shows "Kurdistan syrien" dates from the time of the French Mandate, at the latest. GPinkerton (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, as a policy point, the simple fact an academic is Kurdish does not make their pov a Kurdish pov. Macmillan Reference is a reputable publisher. It's fine to say an assertion should be attributed, but not to say it shouldn't be included simply because the author was Kurdish. —valereee (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed illustration

I propose the following be added to the article. (The free use means it's needs to be added or will be deleted and is not even be allowed on the talk page.) This image: File:Kurdistan_on_the_1945_San_Francisco_Conference_map,_the_1946_Rizgari_United_Nations_memorandum_map,_and_the_1947_Cairo_map.png with the following caption: Maps of Kurdistan drawn in the 1940s, showing various definitions of Syrian Kurdistan. Top: map presented at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in 1945; Centre: map from the Rizgari Party's memorandum to the United Nations in 1946; Bottom: map drawn in Cairo in 1947. All are reproduced from O'Shea, Maria T. (2004). Trapped Between the Map and Reality: Geography and Perceptions of Kurdistan. New York and London: Routledge. pp. 151, 154. ISBN 978-0-415-94766-4.

These maps have very vague "sources". 1. Who at the San Francisco Conference conference made it? 2. "drawn in Cairo in 1947" By whom? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

See the book. GPinkerton (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I cant access the book.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

According to O'Shea, they are from: 1.) Nikitine, Basile, Les Kurdes. Étude Sociologique et Historique (Impremerie Nationale, Libraire Klincksieck, Paris 1956), p. 205. "No further details available"; 2.) Rizgari Party map presented to the American Legation in Baghdad to be forwarded to the United Nations Organization in 1946; and 3.) "Notes Concerning the Map of Kurdistan (Elias Modern Press, Cairo 1947) "Unknown authors" . GPinkerton (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem with it, as long as every map is ascribed to who made it, so that we dont have to open the book, but in the caption itself it should be clear who made it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Attar-Aram syria, so long as the map source is properly cited and is verifiable, I don't see an issue with it being included in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Jurisdicta, that ping broke. You have to get the username exactly correct, then also sign, all in the same post. You can't go back and fix it but instead if you break it, must start fresh with a new ping and signature. There's a script you can install at User:Enterprisey/reply-link that will help with this. —valereee (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, thank you for bringing this to my attention, I appreciate it. Jurisdicta (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure this would count as fair use unless there was sourced commentary in the body about the maps themselves. I don't think we can "fair use" a map just for the purpose of showing where a place is/was; we'd have to be talking about the map itself in the article. But that issue aside, because the image is tagged as fair use and is too big, a bot will come along and reduce the file size, and I think at that point the image will be too small to be readable and thus won't be useful at all. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Just popping in with my NFCC hat on to say that you can justify a non-free image if "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Whether this particular map can meet this criteria, I am unsure. Black Kite (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Black Kite:, Levivich perhaps you can advise on whether the file needs to be fair use at all? The maps themselves are from the 1940s, but are reproduced from a book from this century. There is information about the maps in the book, so that can be used, and as for "omission would be detrimental to that understanding", I think it is essential that contemporary images showing Kurdistan extending into French Syria are included, since it has previously been denied that such a concept existed prior to the late 20th century, or even prior to the civil war, so obviously some doubts exist which could easily be settled by a look at these three images. GPinkerton (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

  @GPinkerton: I'm not sure if these maps are public domain or otherwise covered by copyright (that is, if they need to be fair use at all); it would depend in the first place on exactly where, when, and how they were published. If they were first published in the 1940s in the US with a valid copyright statement, I believe they would still be in copyright and thus they'd have to be fair use. However, at least one of them is a UN map, and I have no idea about the copyright status of UN works. As yet another layer of complication, I'm unclear about whether the maps were entirely created in the 1940s, or did the authors of the map take a pre-existing map and shade in the areas of Kurdistan on it? Because if they took a public domain map and shaded in parts of it, that's probably not copyrightable. Sorry, I have more questions than answers when it comes to the copyright status of these maps!

  Maps are certainly key to this article, though Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• What about a newly drawn map, faithfully representing the outlines on one of the older maps, uploaded to Commons as "attributed as 'after unknown authors'" cited to the Elias Modern Press source or whoever? —valereee (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Certainly that would be ideal; there are quite a few such maps in that book and all would be useful in Wikipedia, particularly these three historical ones. I'm not the one to deal with .svg editing or anything though! GPinkerton (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, yes, unfortunately neither am I. Perhaps someone here has the skills/tools? Or I think sometime in the past I've seen some sort of "ask for maps here" noticeboard. —valereee (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

17th floor, third door on the left passed the vending machines: Wikipedia:Requested pictures Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich I added a request at the top but I'm not sure it's done right. GPinkerton (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks right to me but then I don't think I've ever used that template. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, (Mae West voice): you really know your way around this place. —valereee (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)