Jump to content

Talk:Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Kurds as the majority population issue

There appears to be no source confirming the claim that the Kurds are the majority ethnic group in Rojava.

"Kurds form the majority or plurality in much of Rojava. During the Syrian civil war, many Kurds who had lived elsewhere in Syria fled back to their traditional lands in Rojava."

I have found no reference for this claim, and previously when the demographic breakdown of Rojava, it was removed from the article and replaced with a "generalized" version. Could someone please correct this? Vivaporius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is a source, one which is definitely not "pro-Kurdish" or "pro-Rojava" in any sense. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll add this information to the page as soon as possible. Vivaporius (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The main problem with those "sources" is that they are never true. Syria do not include ethnic background in its statistics. No one knows the real percentages and no one conducted any field work. If you will use sources then at least use data from agencies like the CIA, instead of the kinds of Mehrdad Izady or other wild estimates.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree that the article should not contain attempts of quantification of erhnicities, beyond the most general statements which are given there. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
If that is the case, then the Kurds should not be stated as being the majority in the region when most accounts agree that Arabs, Assyrians, and Turkmen are the majority. We have one source that agrees with the one that originally provided a list of the ethnic groups in the region. The first was written off as "propaganda", and the second is being written off as a "general statement". If what Attar-Aram says is true, then we don't have any proof that the Kurds are the majority in the region aside from what can only be chalked up as hearsay. Vivaporius (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Any claims by any ethnicity about a majority in the Jazira are total propaganda. No one have any data and the CIA maps show the Kurdish inhabited areas but doesnt mean they are a majority. The same can be said about other ethnicities. It is known that ethnicity is not part of any population statistics conducted by Syria and the government do not allow any none official party to collect such data. There should not be any indication to a majority in this article, not even general statements cause they are utterly wild guessings and a POV tool--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Fully agree with you that such speculation in the article would not make any sense. There are no reliable data even for the time before the civil war, and if there were, they would be obsolete now. And still more important in my opinion, the definition of "Arab" (panethnicity, defined by mother tongue) on the one hand and "Kurd" or "Turkmen" on the other hand are nor even exclusive, a person can fulfill both definitions (and a huge number of people in Rojava do, e.g. my educated guess is that in Shahba region with its extreme Arabization efforts over the last three generations, the majority of population is "multi-ethnic" in this sense, "Arab" plus "Kurd" or "Turkmen" at the same time). And that is one of the many problems of those ethnic-map-makers as well. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Vivaporius, the article as it currently is does not make a claim that Kurds were an overall majority in Rojava, and neither does it claim that they were not (contrary to what you say, all sources I know suggest that they most probably are such majority, and clearly so if current lines of control are used to define what is Rojava, thus much of Shahba region excluded). The only quantitative speculation that the article necessarily does is implicit in ranking the list, and the fact that Kurds are more numerous than any other single ethnic group, i.e. a plurality, appears beyond doubt in my view. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a hot topic that readers will be interested in, and one that shouldn't be avoided. Might I suggest a middle-of-the-road approach, as per WP:IMPARTIAL - do not dodge the question of Kurdish majority, but summarise both perspectives with their criticisms, noting also the contentiousness of the subject, and that good figures are not available. Batternut (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It's better than nothing. Given the recent developments in the region, having this information out there helps to provide a much clear picture of Rojava's state of being, rather than painting what appears to be a clearly biased/rosy picture of the reality on the ground. I'm not one for hyperbolicism, but the information as it stands does not present a realistic or honest image of the region. That's my only concern. Vivaporius (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I fully agree with Attar-Aram syria here that the article should NOT make any speculation on overall majority of ethnicities in Rojava. And dear Vivaporius, the article currently does not do that, neither explicit nor implicit. The sentence "Kurds form the majority or plurality in much of Rojava" (which factually is most obviously true, and I added a reference to the article after you voiced doubt here) does not do that, nor do the other sentences on other ethnicities that they form a majority/plurality in conrete regions. With me, we could replace the words "majority" and "plurality" in the entire section (concerning ALL ethnicities equally!) with "strong presence". I disagree with Batternut on the matter, I see zero value in starting a fight of competing narratives on the matter, which were all pure and naked speculation without any use. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
First off, it doesn't say the Kurds are the majority, because according to the history of the article, you removed that statement. Second, the source itself does not providing any data regarding the demographics of the region, only saying off-hand that the Kurds no longer the majority as in the past; a statement that was not mention in the article here. The issue I have is that sources that were listed were written off as propaganda, not because it listed information that gave numbers for the demographics of Rojava, but because it stated that the YPG was a terrorist organization. Mind you, that alone is not a reason to discount data. It was discounted for what I can only assume were political reasons by some working on this article. If there was clear proof that the data was deliberately altered, then I would understand the claim that it was propaganda. However, no such evidence was presented, and it was only because the YPG was stated to be a terrorist organization that the source itself was written off. The Syrian government may not look at religious or ethnic demographics, but there are plenty of NGOs that do frequently do. We don't need the government's information on the Kurdish or Arab population to know who makes up what percentage of the population. Vivaporius (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, which NGO claims to have reliable data to make serious claims about the (pre-civil-war? current?) overall ethnic composition of Rojava (and how do they define Rojava for that purpose)? Have a link? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I made no such claim regarding Syria. I simply used NGOs as an example of non-governmental organizations providing census data the government itself will not. You have yet to explain how the source giving some percentage as to the ethnic makeup of Rojava was propaganda. It all comes back down to the same issue I have raised over and over again; what proof do you have that the source giving the demographics for Rojava was indeed propaganda? Therefore I ask you, do you have a link>? Vivaporius (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I do not make any claim concerning the overall ethnic composition of Rojava (how ever defined for the purpose), and I do not think such a claim can seriously be made, for the reasons given in this discussion here (I linked this one paper above just to support the most general statement that "Kurds form the majority or plurality in much of Rojava", which currently is in the article). What is that "source giving the demographics for Rojava" you are talking about? I understand you say that I would have deleted it from the article, but if I did such it must have been long ago, I do not recall that. Can you link it here? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The issue with the paper you cited is that it makes a general statement, but provides no numbers of data to back it up, which was my main issue with it. As to the link for the source I was talking about, this is it. It was published by the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat based out of London. It was said by one user that it was "propaganda", but no evidence for this claim was ever produced. The source gives a detailed breakdown of the ethnic demographics of each canton in Rojava. It should be noted that the source itself was used to prove that the Kurds, not the Arabs, were a majority in Rojava initially. When I actually did the math using the source cited for the Kurds population, it showed plainly that the Arabs were the majority and the Kurds a minority.
The source stated that of the 4.6 million inhabitants in Rojava, 30% (about 1.4 million) were Kurdish. This would realistically match up with the known population of Kurds in Syria, which is about two million, citing sources such as the CIA (as requested by Attar-Aram) and Minority Rights Group International. The majority of the Kurds are known to live in Rojava, but there is a large portion located throughout Syria, mainly around Aleppo and Damascus; of which a population 600,000 Kurds spread throughout the rest of the nation would be more than reasonable. So unless another million or so Kurds materialized out of thin air, the Kurds realistically cannot be the majority in Rojava based on what we know of the current demographics in Syria. The source cited provides a completely reasonable assessment of the demographic state of Rojava. Vivaporius (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hard for me to read through that article you linked, using Google translate, and the political pathos and absence of transparent methodology I find is not convincing to me. In comparison, the Fabrice Balanche papers with "The Washington Institute" think tank, this (which I linked above, at the beginning of this section) as well as this (with some in depth demographics) appear much more scientifically sound to me, but even they do not reach the point where I think they should be included into the article. While Balanche at least is very transparent about how he defines "Rojava" for every different consideration, just like with any source the issue is how to define "Kurd" (there are perfectly sound claims that "Kurds" would make up anything from 5 percent to 25 percent of Syria's population, just depending on how you define the term). In the first paper, the one I linked initially, he at one point explicitly says that the answer to the "majority question" for a larger Rojava very much depends on to what degree Arabized people with Kurdish heritage choose and will choose to self-identify as "Kurd". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

One remark: The canton articles on Afrin Canton, Jazira Canton and Kobanî Canton do have somewhat more information on quantification of ethnicities. It makes some sense there in my opinion, because due to the smaller, clearer areas one can somewhat more make substantive statements. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Balance discussion in "Human rights in Rojava"

Dear editors interested in the topic, there is a ongoing discussion on balance and deletion of content in the Human rights in Rojava article. It would be appreciated if some of you would be willing to contribute to solving issues, concerning deletions of material in the article as well as not least in the talk page discussion. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Issues with the last paragraph of the article

Dear 213.74.186.109, there are template-flagged issues persisting with the last paragrph of the article (elaboration of Turkish views) which you inserted. I point to the three gravest:

  • "The PYD was designated as a terrorist organisation at the Meeting of Council of Foreign Ministers of the 13th Islamic Summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on 12 April 2016 at Istanbul, Turkey."
This sentence does not have a reference/source which backs up the claim. There only is a speech of a Turkish official at the conference, where he calls the PYD "terrorist". I do not know if the OIC has a procedure to "designate as a terrorist organisation" at all, and if so, if such procedure was applied with respect to the PYD, but I know that if no proper reference/source can be provided for it, the sentence must be deleted.
The sentence stands since the event ocurred. We are discussing POV here. We are discussing whether such a claim was made and it was made.
  • "PYD and YPG groups have often called on Westerners to join them in attacks against Turkey"
The only source reference/source is an article in the Erdogan government mouthpiece Daily Sabah, and even this article only says: "A YouTube video has appeared of an English-speaking man, believed to be a fighter from the Democratic Union Party's (PYD) armed wing, the People's Protection Units (YPG) (...) making a call for Westerners to join the ranks of the armed group and conduct terrorist attacks against the Turkish state." If no proper reference/source can be provided for the sentence in the article, the sentence must be deleted.
The source clearly supports the sentence as the PYD and its armed militia YPG have been known to recruit fighters from Europe and elsewhere. There is more evidence on the internet which I just might search for and add for your convenience. The sentence is alright as it stands.
  • After correctly mentioning the Rojava federation project: "This is seen as changing the current borders"
This sentence fails in every respect. It does not make explicit who allegedly has that view, and it does nor provide a reference/source. Unless such clarification and reference/source is provided, the sentence must be deleted.
This sentence is valid in every respect. It reflects the issue believed by all the surrounding nations and countries in the area. Please be my guest and look for sources on the internet for yourself instead of only portraying a Pro-PYD/YPG stance.

Please address these issues in good faith. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear 2A1ZA (talk), the template-flagged sentences are not a persistent issue since they were added by yourself and they do not represent a problem to the rest of the community of users. However, your persistence on denying that ARA News and ANHA are biased is a problem. This issue was discussed earlier. Yet you unfortunately insist on changing the subject and attacking the Daily Sabah as unreliable when it is much more reliable and professional in its journalism than any of the supposed professional media outlets you hold so dearly. Your smearing campaign is obvious and ill intentioned. Please do not pretend to be debating to correct an issue and just be honest as many other users have called on for you before. You may find my answers to your negative criticism below. Thank you.

*Duplicate text deleted*

Note: stop edit warring please. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Re Duplicate text deleted - @213.74.186.109 you just copied and pasted 2A1ZA's comments. What is your actual criticism?
FYI the place to discuss whether ARA News, ANHA or any other source is reliable is WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Batternut (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Of course these sentences were NOT inserted into the article by me. However, as a result of our discussion here, I now took the liberty to make the corrections which get the sentences in tune with their references/sources, so that everybody can be fine. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Everything will be fine when everyone gets to add to Wikipedia without having to deal with a user who removes other's contributions. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
2A1ZA was right to remove these parts, because:
1. The claim, that the PYD was designated as terrorist by the OIC is NOT backed by the source.
2. Daily Sabah is pro-Erdogan and because of that unreliable. (Most Turkish media isn't reliable anymore at this point!)
3. No Source provided for that statement.
Of course everyone should be able to contribute to Wikipedia, but adding unsourced content or twisting the content of the source into something else and then complaining it gets removed isn't the best attitude to show here. Editors might suspect you for acting in bad faith.79.246.29.7 (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
If Turkish media isnt reliable, then no Kurdish media can be used as well. You think being pro-Erdogan is worse than being pro-PYD !! At least he is elected, not a rebel who took up arms and started to illegally force its rule over an internationally recognized region of Syria.
The most outrageous twisting is being done by the enthusiastic activists who are pro the terrorist PKK group (and its arms, the YPD, YPG...etc). And no, its not propaganda that they are a PKK. When they occupy Menagh Military Airbase and start calling it Ocelan airport, they leave you no chance to doubt their affiliation.
As for the OIC, a source can be provided.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I suspect 79.246.29.7 (talk) is affiliated with 2A1ZA (talk) since the language and good faith/bad faith rhetoric is identical. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Whenever he is not winning an argument or not getting his edits approved, new accounts and IPs who know exactly how to edit and what page they need to come to will show up. You will get used to it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The IP address is located in Hamburg, where 2A1ZA is in, so yes he is. Editor abcdef (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Ehm, I live not in Hamburg but in Berlin, and none of these IP-edits were made or in any shape or form solicited by me. I wish that these silly games would just stop. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Trust me, we wish the same thing. But you appear to be highly motivated by your POV and keep disrupting other users' contributions. Although, I have to give it to you, you have been more moderate in your actions lately. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I will from now on try to stay away from any disputes involving 2A1ZA, because it's completely pointless to get to a conclusion. Every single time, both sides are heavily biased and unwilling to back down. i'm also not affiliated with 2A1ZA, just because we're both from Germany. I take his side for once, just because he's right this time and i already get accused of being affiliated with him.
At least 2A1ZA is trying to be civil at all times, unlike his "opponents" who get emotional way to much and are sometimes not even trying to hide their bias. Yes i'm talking about this "PKK = YPG = Terrorist" meme... 79.246.3.127 (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
You said it, PKK=DAESH=YPG=Terror. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Adding pathetically childish comments does not contribute to improving Wikipedia. Stop it! Skinsmoke (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan–Rojava relations

I've created a draft article about relations between Iraqi Kurdistan and Rojava using a paragraph from Foreign relations of Rojava. It needs a lot of work and I'd truly appreciate some help in developing it. Charles Essie (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Unbalanced article

This article is becoming more and more unbalanced with clearly PYD supporting users, against all other Kurdish factions in the region:

"Like the KCK umbrella in general, and even more so, the PYD is critical of any form of nationalism,[168] including Kurdish nationalism. They stand in stark contrast to Kurdish nationalist visions of the Iraqi Kurdish KDP sponsored Kurdish National Council in Syria."

I will not even get into the biased ARA News and what not. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

ARA News isn't pro-PYD at all. It is biased but it's biased towards Kurdish groups in general, not the PYD specifically. ARA News regularly post articles about KNC members been arrested and some criticism of the PYD as well. Editor abcdef (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I changed the pronunciation from "IPA: [roʒɑːˈvɑ]" to "IPA: [roʒɑvɑ] or IPA: [roʒɑːvɑ]". Stressing the last syllable seems wrong. I kept a variant with long "a": IPA: [roʒɑːvɑ]. However, people who should know how to pronounce it (like Janet Biehl) pronounce it more like IPA: [roʒɑvɑ]. I think we should only keep "IPA: [roʒɑvɑ]". What's your opinion? 2003:77:4F55:4B12:6D9F:A7E2:762C:565F (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Some English speaking journalists have got used to pronouncing "IPA: [ro.ˈʒɑ.vɑ]", so you are free to consider that this is the correct English pronunciation. In Kurdish however, unmodified adjectives, nouns and names are stressed on the last syllable. Though it is not striking in a recording of the isolated word, this is the case for Rojava. You may hear this on recording of rojava and başûrê rojava. CathFR (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. So it should be like IPA: [roʒɑˈvɑ] with a stress on the last syllable and a short syllable in the middle? I think we should have the original Kurdish version in the article (in any case it will be modified in this or that direction by people speaking other languages). 2003:77:4F30:3565:7C71:7D74:3E15:E175 (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

ANF director detained in Belgium

The director of PYD terror propaganda, Firat News Agency (ANF), has finally been detained in Belgium. Is there any doubt about the partiality of ANF now? I suggest removing these references from all articles. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Journalists get arrested all the time, how does that determine the authenticity of sources? While ANF is very partial, instead of being deleted, the text in the article could be edited to make them neutral. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
This incident has nothing do with reliability of ANF. It is more about how the Turkish regime misuses Interpol in order to extend the crackdown on Kurdish media to Europe, see e.g. [1]. Thus it fits better in an article about censorship in Turkey. 2003:77:4F2D:E963:75E6:ACC9:9F65:60FA (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
2003:77:4F2D:E963:75E6:ACC9:9F65:60FA, Wonderful, if Turkey's power reaches the halls of corrupt EU. Perhaps they will learn not to support terror in other countries one day. In any event, I disagree with you on almost all things. Let us focus on content... -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
P.S. For those who might ask me for references/sources, here is just one. A report reveals the Danish government pays Daesh terrorists welfare assistance. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
You're seriously not contributing at all anymore. All you're trying to do now is spread Turkish Propaganda. You're obviously unwilling to engage in any kind of constructive discussion, unless the other side shares your POV.
I seriously don't care about Turkey, if Erdogan wants to ruin his own country in every possible way, then so be it. But Propaganda should not be present on Wikipedia. 79.246.30.193 (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
You don't have to agree with me or care about anything. You're free. But please stop slandering me. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
While this obviously is just another abuse of this talk page for general political POV pushing unrelated to the article, I would still like to correct that ANF is the news agency close to the Turkish-Kurdish PKK, while ANHA is the news agency close to the Syrian-Kurdish PYD. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

[Recent edits]

Note: personal attack removed from section heading. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, has anyone noticed 2A1ZA just vandalised a huge chunk of the article?? Does anybody care? -213.74.186.109 (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he took advantage of the page protection to do what he wants. The worst kind of internet warriors. I will revert him but I hate dealing with him, discussing with him, or worst of all, edit war him and boy he loves to fight (I think he lives for it). So please IP, create an account so you will be able to put him at his place.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

As far a I can see the user 2A1ZA has just moved material from one article to another. While I dont't know whether this has been sufficiently discussed before, user should 213.74.186.109 have a closer look before calling other users actions vandalism. Such behaviour of user 213.74.186.109 is clearly uncivil. 2003:77:4F26:A460:607B:3CAC:2B16:5D1C (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and as said in the edit summary, I had moved the additional Turkish perspectives detail paragraph ro Rojava conflict article because WP:UNDUE here, while it suits fine into the existing "Rojava relations with Turkey" there. As someone has undone the removal from here without discernable reason or explanation, the removal here should be done again unless there is an actual argument as to why this paragraph should not be removed here (a) despite quite obvious violation of WP:DUE here and (b) although it is only a literal copy from the Rojava conflict article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
You have no right to arbitrary remove anything. This paragraph has been discussed before and it is not undue, actually it is a good balance to the over representation of positive western views. What you see as Undue, is balance to others. Stop declaring what should and should not be done. This is similar to when you proclaimed your own consensus on Turkey page and got blocked for it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The paragraph concerned (last para of the article) is an additional second detail paragraph on specific Turkish perspectives, in addition to an already existing general paragraph on Turkish perspectives. The specific perspective of no country has so much elaboration here as Turkey, even without that last paragraoh. The weight given to specific Turkish perspectives that way is a quite obvious violation of WP:UNDUE. Not removing it from here, but rather restoring it, appears to be the "arbitrary" course of action. I still do not see any serious argument in your comment against completing the move of the paragraph to the Rojava conflict article by deleting it here. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
You will NOT waste our time again. I know you have plenty of time but not everyone does. I know you are not the brightest, but to call the restoration of a long standing paragraph that was deleted without a discussion an arbitrary act is really special, even from you. No one is waiting, or care, for your view and what you see as an argument and what you dont. You see it undue, but your judgment matter to no one. This paragraph was discussed before, twice, here and here and it was kept. Do not vandalize the article again and this is my last response to you unless other users participate, you have no consensus.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
1) User:Attar-Aram syria should stop making personal attacks and other uncivil behaviour (I left a warning at his talk page).
2) There have been discussions about this part of the article, but it seems that moving the material from Rojava to Rojava conflict has not been discussed before.
3) Repeatedly calling moving this material to another article "vandalising the article" indicates that some users don't understand what is discussed here.
4) It seems that User:Attar-Aram syria opposes the proposal more because of negative feelings against User:2A1ZA than because of arguments.
5) The only user who has presented valid arguments in this discussion so far is User:2A1ZA.
6) The section in question is about international relations. Even after the material is moved there is a long paragraph about the relations to Turkey which is a summary of the moved material. Therefore I think the argument of User:2A1ZA that WP:UNDUE applies here is valid and, as said before, I support moving the material. In addition, in this section material about relations to other countries is underrepresented and should be added if possible.
7) If there are no arguments against I suggest to implement this move of material. 2003:77:4F2A:9B56:2142:A814:B77C:E840 (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The ridiculousness you left on my page was removed immediately, please dont leave anything on my talk page again. The article is full of praise and over-representation of positive western perspective regarding the YPG (and whatever names you like to call its arms). The opponents of YPG need a similar space and since Turkey is the biggest one, then its normal for its paragraph to be long. Here you got your argument. Everything else you said is not worthy of a reply. Oh, and you have no consensus to remove or transfer the paragraph, even if you agree with the reddit guy, so dont do such a thing in this highly problematic protected article. Since you are not a neutral third party and on the side of the reddit guy, then you are not a suitable party to decide who gave an argument and who did not--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
User User:Attar-Aram syria should read WP:UNDUE again. It does not mean giving all views the same space but due space: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." In the case of Rojava a neutral or positive view prevails (USA, Russia, Western Europe, ...) and Turkey represents a minority viewpoint. Therefore the argument of User:Attar-Aram syria is not valid. So I suggest to implement this move of material. 2003:77:4F2A:9B56:2142:A814:B77C:E840 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
No need to ping me, I have the article on my talk page. Your suggestion is not enough, too bad for you. I know what Undue is, and I know that picking the praise and hiding the negativity is Undue. Overhauling the article with full long quotes praising this creation called rojava is undue. Again, and again, the paragraph was discussed twice and kept, removing it to another article is practically deleting it, which you will not do. You dont like it ? start an RFC.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, you do not give the impression to understand what WP:UNDUE means. When all but one of the 200 countries of the world do nothing to say they would consider Rojava as "a terrorist thing" or call for its elimination, and only one country (Turkey) does, giving due weight means that the quantity of the text must do justice to this relation, it does not mean that both viewpoints should get equal space. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I was just re-reading the discussion here, and think that for users not familiar with the topic one point should be made explicit here: This article is about Rojava, not about the PYD party or the YPG militia. If you think that extremely extensive elaboration on Turkish perspectives on either of the latter were warranted (which is anyway done in the Rojava conflict article now), you should suggest so in their respective articles, not here. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me add that for me moving this material from Rojava to Rojava conflict completely makes sense and should be done. 2003:77:4F26:A460:607B:3CAC:2B16:5D1C (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Attar-Aram syria, please do not succumb to 2A1ZA's pressure. They are only good at complaining when they are at fault. There is much to say about the likes of this user, yet we should not waste time with them but continue to reflect the facts in these articles. If anybody's quitting here it will be them. I'm thinking of registering an account. On a side note, gotta love how these supporters of anarchy and terror blame others of uncivility. :) -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems that user Attar-Aram syria is engaged in wp:Canvassing#Votestacking: [2], [3]. 2003:77:4F2A:9B56:2142:A814:B77C:E840 (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you even read what canvassing is ! First, do not stalk me, okay? Second: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus". We have no consensus here, so how am I trying to sway it ? Do you think that a generic IP like you have a strong voice to create a consensus? Third, both users I contacted have edited the page and participated in the discussions before, so, and according to the canvassing article, I am not picking them based on criteria "such as a userbox, or from user categorization".--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, yes, you were canvassing. Your posts were not neutral and was giving away your position on the issue at hand. That is canvassing. It doesn't matter if they participated on discussions, it has to be neutral. Lastly, please stop personally attacking people. "Get a life" is uncivil, a personal attack and unnecessary. Stop it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Stalking my contributions is uncivil and should stop. A guy who use different IPs and know his way in Wikipedia is obviously a blocked old user and if he is stalking other editors, [personal attack redacted]. Lastly, read more in this talk page, see the block logs, and see the miserable situation created here by some users political activist-ness before taking sides. So, regarding you quick judgment based on my sharp attitude without digging deep into the problems, stop it. And I dont appreciate getting commands, so stop it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I have responded to you at ANI. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

There was some intensification of the discussion yesterday. To come back to the main issue whether or not to move the material from Rojava to Rojava conflict:

1) The main argument of user 2A1ZA is that WP:UNDUE applies here.

2) User Attar-Aram syria countered "The opponents of YPG need a similar space and since Turkey is the biggest one, then its normal for its paragraph to be long."

3) I later elaborated that the argument in 2) is based on a misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE citing "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." from WP:UNDUE, because Turkey represents a minority viewpoint.

4) Further argument of user 2A1ZA: "The paragraph concerned (last para of the article) is an additional second detail paragraph on specific Turkish perspectives, in addition to an already existing general paragraph on Turkish perspectives."

5) The section in question is about international relations. Even after the material is moved Turkey is well represented whereas other countries are still underrepresented.

6) Since someone reverted the deletion of the material in this article but did not revert the addition to the other article now exactly the same material appears twice. However in Rojava conflict the material should not be deleted because it fits there.

If there are no arguments against I suggest to implement this move of material. 2003:77:4F15:B950:30E9:1757:3DAD:1446 (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your suggestion is refused and I suggest that you dont suggest. You have no consensus to remove the paragraph from this article. Every party gave his argument. You are one of the parties not a judge. Just because you wrote the last sentence doesnt mean that you concluded the discussion. The arguments against you were already listed and summarizing them like you did doesnt mean that new arguments need to be presented. So sit back.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
There were no valid arguments against. 2003:77:4F15:B950:30E9:1757:3DAD:1446 (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, thats not up to you to decide.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems that the only argument of user Attar-Aram syria has been refuted and now user Attar-Aram syria is unwilling to engage in a sincere discussion. 2003:77:4F15:B950:30E9:1757:3DAD:1446 (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it seems that user attar is unwilling to go into an endless circle of the same arguments and waste his time on stalkers who follow other users edits. We get it, you are on the side of 2A1ZA and support his edit. You are adding no new content and repeating your words over and over, hence, you deserve no new input.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The fact that user Attar-Aram syria was caught wp:Canvassing shouldn't be confused with stalking. Anyway, it is not relevant at the moment. At the moment it is relevant that it seems that the only argument against moving the material has been refuted and user Attar-Aram syria is unwilling to address this issue. 2003:77:4F15:B950:30E9:1757:3DAD:1446 (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Nothing was caught since the contribution log is public. You stalked me and thats wikihounding. Again, you seem to like repeating yourself. For me, I refuted your arguments, and normally, for you, you refuted mine. You can not judge what was refuted. Thats why I have no interest in a conversation with you, cause you offer nothing new.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, user Attar-Aram syria was caught wp:Canvassing. And it seems that user Attar-Aram syria misrepresents both wp:Harassment#Wikihounding and WP:DUE. The misunderstanding of the latter gives rise to the disagreements and problems in this discussion. 2003:77:4F15:B950:30E9:1757:3DAD:1446 (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, all you offer is repeating, which is unworthy of the effort to do a discussion. (you stalked, thats how you found your way to the ANI wikihound)--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
First user Attar-Aram syria should not confuse correct use of an editor's history with stalking. Second, to write "all you offer is repeating" is just a cheap way to avoid serious discussion. 2003:77:4F15:B950:30E9:1757:3DAD:1446 (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
You offer nothing to discuss.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
That's not true, I did. 2003:77:4F15:B950:30E9:1757:3DAD:1446 (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I still do not see any substantial argument against completing the move of the paragraph concerned to the Rojava conflict article by deleting it here, in accordance with WP:UNDUE. The only thing that resembles an argument against appears to be one user's claim "I think there should be more stuff which sounds somehow negative in this article here," and that obviously is not a valid argument. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:2A1ZA. As explained above I think the only argument against was based on a misunderstanding of WP:DUE. If there are no valid arguments against I suggest to implement this move of material. 2003:77:4F70:5658:85CB:1C9D:EF21:5C92 (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming conclusion of moving the second additional Turkish perspectives detail paragraph to the Rojava conflict article because WP:UNDUE here

Taking up the above discussion on the topic to further a conclusion of the issue. To sum up, this is about the process of moving the last paragraph of this article in its final "International relations" sub-section, the lengthy second additional paragraph on specific Turkish perspectives with much details, to the Rojava conflict article. The reasoning behind this move is that this paragraph in here violates WP:UNDUE, as it gives absurd weight to perspectives of one single country, the only one that has a general paragraph on its specific perspectives on Rojava in the "International relations" sub-section anyway. The Rojava conflict article however has a dedicated section on "Rojava-Turkey conflict", where it fits fine. The moving of the paragraph concerned was initially done on 18 December (see [4] and [5]), however later some edit warring about the removal from this article ensued. In the above discussion, the only argument brought against the move was two editors' stated perception that this article here should have more negativity, and the paragraph concerned would provide such negativity. However, I do not really consider that an argument based on Wikipedia rules and policies, and certainly not an argument that can counter the apparent violation of WP:UNDUE which keeping the paragraph in this article here means. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As there appears to be no objection at this point against concluding the move, I am now updating the respective paragraph in the Rojava conflict article with the minor improvements made here since, and then deleting it here. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

So called rojava

Adding the so-called rojava template and categories in towns and villages under military occupation by YPG militias militia does not change that official status. This is an on-going military conflict and any interim control (YPG, ISIS, FSA) does not mean a change in the political status of the village/town. I am moving to remove these categories (rojava, cantons, IS, etc). Accordingly, I also move to remove all these names from the rojava topics template. Comments are welcome. Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Tell Rifaat and Tell Abyad are controlled by the SDF ("YPG militias") and administered under the Rojava government so obviously they should be included. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
What are the criteria to include a town, besides military control? Those towns have an overwhelming majority of Arabs. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The criteria is that if a town is controlled by the SDF and governed by their council, they're considered as de facto parts of Rojava. The whole part of Rojava is a de facto region, so wherever their forces conquer settlements, they incorporate them into their system. For example, Tell Abyad was incorporated into the Kobanî Canton in October 2015[1]. The towns' ethnicity has nothing to do with it, Rojava is clearly proclaimed to be a multiethnic and pluralistic system. Ethnically, Tell Abyad is an extremely diverse town:
"Tal Abyad is a city rich in ethnic and racial diversity where Kurds and Arabs live together, in addition to the Armenians and Turkmen. The Kurds consist 55% of the city population, 30% of Tal Abyad's population, and about 15% of the total population of Al Raqqa Governorate, according to the General Coordinator of the Local Council in Al Raqqa."[2]
Editor abcdef (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Can the General Coordinator of the Local Council in Al Raqqa be taken seriously? -Human like you (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The local council of Raqqa and the Center for Documentation of Violations in Syria are considered reliable sources. Both are pro-opposition and not even pro-PYD. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Reliable according to whom? There report of full of all types of mistakes. What is "Eye of Jesus"? They mean Ein Eisa. Such BS cannot be taken seriously. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
What's the alternative then? BasNews? What do change do you want to make? Go against reliable sources and remove Tell Abyad from the list settlements occupied by Rojava? Editor abcdef (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
You have to be kidding about your coordinator statistics!!! It's would be OK with me to say "Areas under military occupation by PYD", but assigning a new invented name to those place is not OK and you will have to come up with credible references to support your claims. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Please explain how citing CDVS which consists of first-hand accounts is "kidding". No new names were invented and Tell Abyad is not under "military occupation" under the PYD which is a non-military political group. Militarily it's under joint control of the YPG and the FSA. If you have better sources please present them. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
If what you are saying is true regarding joint control of YPG and FSA, then it's not part of rojava in any manner. Obviously too you and 2A1 (oops, and a couple of IP's too), the maps YOU create are the ones to refer to.. Wikipedia is no place for your trash. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Rojava denotes a de facto existing distinct framework of civil governance in distinct parts of Northern Syria, there are 5 Million Google hits for it including all major English language media, and this is what the entire Rojava article on the Wikipedia is about. You may personally dislike anything about this sentence, or the well-sourced elaboration of facts in the Rojava article and in other articles, but your dislike is no valid reason to delete related material from the Wikipedia. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم is engaged in illegal WP:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification here (and possibly also here). 2003:77:4F17:A084:F045:F118:604F:208F (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

and also here. 2003:77:4F1B:D231:1410:59A2:EBAC:E881 (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

He obviously doesn't like the existence of Rojava, along with its CIVIL administration, even though it's referenced with reliable sources...79.246.28.34 (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

... and his dislike seems to be so strong that he even resorts to illegal activities like WP:Canvassing ... 217.83.241.197 (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, Rojava is for now just a DE FACTO entity within Syria. It's not even clear if Rojava will survive the war. However, it's a proven fact that as of now, Rojava does exist, along with all of its governmental institutions. The existence of Rojava won't change the legal status of ANY town within Rojava, but as a matter of fact, there exists a civil administration for most of the areas under SDF control. And contrary to popular belief among certain people, the PYD is NOT trying to divide Syria by declaring Rojava independent. They want Rojava to be part of Syria and only time can tell how Syria will look like in the future. But the DE FACTO Situation is, that currently there is an autonomous region within Syria.79.246.28.34 (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there are autonomous towns and villages, just like most areas under FSA or other military factions. This does not consititute any political status and does not require categories and new names. Again, I am OK with categorirs describing military control. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The lemma and topic of this article is the alternative civil administration which the Rojava framework provides. This article is not about military control, and there is no such thing as administration of civil affairs by military bodies in areas where the military control is with Syrian Democratic Forces militias. Concerning your interest in this article, I am surprised by the impression that it appears you never actually read it, in particular the sections on politics, society and economy. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there a Kurdish (what you call rojava if you wish) civil admibistration in Mare', al-Bab, Azaz, Tel Rifaat, Jarablus, Qabasin, etc? The answer is a BIG NO. Therefore, you just rebutted your own argument. These areas are under control of FSA, not Kurdish forces and have no other civil admionstration except FSA or whatever is arranged by local residents. In Tel Rifaat for example, it is under military occupation of YPG. Does that m,ae t part of rojava despite the will of its residents? Your persistent edit-warring here and in other similararticles using very biased (pro-kurdish sites or "news agencies" or blogs) does not change facts. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Rojava is a polyethnic polity, it is not ethnically "Kurdish". And yes, in the towns mentioned in that population center table there is a civil administration within the Rojava framework in place (including e.g. Tel Rifaat, the town is not at all run by a YPG militia body, as you appear to claim into the blue), while for the towns with dark grey background (you mention Mare', al-Bab, Azaz, Jarablus, Qabasin) as per legend such civil administration has been set up but is not in place because those towns are still occupied by ISIL or other Islamist groups. I see a valid argument to remove the towns with dark grey background from the list, as not to confuse readers. I do not see valid arguments to vandalize the table as such, or to try deny the existence of such Rojava framework civil administration where it is in place, both things you do with your recent edits. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, if you see the valid argument, then go ahead and delete those towns in dark grey from the table. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I also see a valid argument too keep those dark grey background towns in the table, because there are Rojavan civil administrations set up for them, if not in place. I am somewhat indifferent if to keep them in the table or remove them. If this were the only issue, I probably would not participate in the discussion. The reason why I participate are the other aspects of your edits concerned, in particular the attempt to deny the existence of Rojavan civil administration as such and invent an non-existing, pure fantasy SDF military administration instead. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Why are you so eager on insisting that Rojava is all about the Kurds? It's multiethnic, as described in the article and even backed by several sources! And an ongoing war is no reason to deny the existence of a civil administration. It's not unusual to create civil administrations for captured areas during a war. Most military forces then get replaced by police forces. And Rojava DOES have a police force, the Asayish. You also keep insisting that everything of Rojava is occupied by the YPG. It's not. It's occupied by the SDF, of which the YPG is a part of. And the SDF receive their orders from the Syrian Democratic Council, which is their political wing. (Just like the PYD is the political wing of the YPG) And this SDC is what basically governs "Rojava"! And these towns not occupied by the SDF are only listed in the table, because they're claimed by the civil administration of Rojava. So your argument that these towns are "not even held by the YPG" is invalid from the beginning. No facts were invented here, everything is properly explained, but apparently you didn't properly read the text. The SDF and especially the YPG are also eager to counterbalance the kurdish dominance within the SDF, by recruiting Arabs for their offensives in Arab-majority areas. After all the YPG initially refused to go for Raqqa, because they feared that the local population will be hostile towards them.79.246.21.154 (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I am amazed here, are you saying you will delete those "claimed rojava towns" or not? Based on the earlier discussion and agreement, these towns are in no way (civil or military or ethnic, or whatsoever) parts of PYD-run areas. I will accordingly delete them from the table since you are indifferent and you see the argument. I am against the name rojava because this is OR and almost no serious international party uses this name. I am also against faking facts and inventing names here. I am not against another name like "Kurdish-run areas" or "PYD run areas in northern Syria". I hope this is clear now. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the concept of the talk page. You can't just revert the article and refer to the talk page without a clear agreement. This discussion isn't even over yet, and clearly you're the only opposing voice in this section. You have therefore violated the general sanctions which permits only one revert in articles related to the Syrian Civil War within 24 hours. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Now, let's get some facts straight here. You're probably going to ignore me anyway, because i'm an IP, but whatever.
1. Rojava isn't Original Research. That would imply that the name only exists within Wikipedia. But it's in fact the common name for the area in Northern Syria controlled by the SDF.
2. Northern Syria isn't occupied or run by the PYD. It's governed by the SDC. (With the PYD alone being a clear minority in that council)
3. The YPG are part of the SDF, which also include Arab, Turkmen and Assyrian militias. (Several areas controlled by the SDF have little to no YPG-presence, like the Manbij-area.)
4. International Recognition doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Transnistria is called Transnistria, because it's been called that name by its local authorities. Or should we rename it to something like "Russian-occupied Moldova"? What about Nagorno-Karabakh Republic? Rename it to "Armenian-occupied Azerbaijan"? Both are basically "illegal" entities, but we still use their "official" names.
Now please stop your disruptive behaviour, you have no right to delete well-sourced information from Wikipedia, just because you don't like it.79.246.4.137 (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Chart of how cantons/government work?

I was wondering if someone can make a chart of how the confederal system and cantons actually delegates authority amongst each other. Something like this chart of the CNT's syndicalist structure would be a good starting. --Cartoondiablo (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The German wikipedia article uses the above diagram. 84.187.148.104 (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's use it, who knows german? --Il giovane bello 73 (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic group

To editor 2A1ZA: don't need to have academic consensus to call Arabs an ethnic group. An ethnic group is unrelated to physical appearance or even genes, is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities, such as common ancestral, language, social, cultural or national experiences or a community or population made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent. due to the diversiry in all characteristics other than language, you seem to be wrong: the ties that bind Arabs are ethnic, linguistic, cultural, historical, identical, nationalist, geographical and political. The Arabs have their own customs, language, architecture, art, literature, music, dance, media, cuisine, dress, society, sports and mythology. Canbel (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Mate, i don't think that this is the right page to discuss this. There was a discussion in the talk page of Syrians previously and there is still a discussion in the talk page of Arabs about the same issue. The things should be solved on those main articles first, then the content may be re-written based on the consensus from those pages. 185.24.234.117 (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Arabs as defined as Arab peninsula bedouins certainly are an ethnic group. However, Arabs as defined as all people who speak Arabic as a first language actually have few in common other than this linguistic feature. That is why a huge part of the academic community would not call Arabs as defined in the latter sense an "ethnicity". I recommend to keep both opinions in the article (and watch the discussion on the Arabs article discussion page, as the commenter above suggested). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Last chapter: No need to repeat the already clearly formulated international stance on federalism, and certainly not in an inappropriate paragraph

The last section of this article has three paragraphs: The first concerns military cooperations, the second issues of political recognition, and the third is all about Turkey's view on it. The second paragraph early on states:

In the diplomatic field, Rojava lacks any formal recognition. ... only Russia has on occasion openly and boldly supported Rojava's political ambition of Federalization of Syria in the international arena.

It is inappropriate POV concerning the relative importance of issues to add elaborations on this in the first paragraph. Please stop it, user:Attar-Aram syria. If you absolutely think that this clear formulation needs further elaboration, then use the second paragraph where it belongs. Or discuss on the talk page here. In any case, do not do edit warring. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

you are the last person to talk about pov. It doesnt suit you. you claimed the sentence to be outdated and deleted it without a discussion while leaving outdated ones full of praize to your ypg. I will not waste my time with you, the sentence is relevant to explain the USA stance specially after you added many sentences showing how the US support those militias. Anyway, i moved the sentence in its full form as it used to be before you came to the second paragraph. Do not make yourself a guard and stop editing other editors edits and do not edit my edits again. Now, please stop causing disturbance and do something better with your life.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I have reported your conduct on the edit warring noticeboard. And I kindly ask you to adhere to Wikipedia rules and policies, including a civil attitude and language in discussion. This is supposed to be a place for good faith discussion on article content, not ad hominem attacks. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The rules include you not deleting before reaching a consensus (instead of manipulating the one revert rule by making outrageous edits then frame others as violaters for restoring what you deleted). They include you not turning this place into a political activism forum. They include you not damn deleting or editing any edit made by someone other than you. Dont preach. I am very civil with real editors who care about widening the knowledge of readers not pushing their opinions. Notice that while you were away, I didnt edit this article once, neither to delete or to add. Its always you lurking to see how can your POV be better represented and its sickning and time consuming.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure editing other editors' edits is what Wikipedia is all about. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Try editing one of 2A1ZA edits and see what happens :). Yes editing them is one thing and editing them immediately after they are written to make them suit your taste and without any discussion that produce a consensus is another thing.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
This hostility is not gonna fly. Why not see if 2A1ZA would be willing to having most of that passage in the 2nd paragraph as a compromise. El_C 01:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I am willing. I just cant see why isnt 2A1ZA being advised to go to the talk page first before making problematic edits?. The sentence was there 12 hours ago for the last 4 months then 2A1ZA came and deleted it without discussion and I need to see if he is willing to keep it? this doesnt sound right.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous map

Due to the YPG campaign in Raqqa, it's pretty ridiculous to see this map portraying only FSA/Yihadist (Euphrates shield) & SAA (Qamishli & Hasakah) territories in Aleppo governorate in orange as "claimed territory", when ISIS-held territory nearby green territory (YPG-held) aint painted in orange. This map doesnt portrait reality, so it should be ammended (I would suggest remove the orange colour) or removed as innexact.--HCPUNXKID 19:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I fully agree. Well, actually the entire map is scandalous, fictitious, OR, and blackwashing. This whole article is propaganda for YPG, and represents territories occupied by military forces (just like any other territory in Syria) as a separate entity. I had removed this map from this article before, but due to the presence of two edit-warriors here, I just gave up. Still, please feel free to remove it. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the map... Green marks territory controlled by the SDF and its allies... Orange marks territory officially claimed by the regional government of Rojava... and since they don't officially claim any ISIL territory as of now, coloring it orange would be Original Research... also, most of Rojava isn't "occupied by military forces", but governed by a civil administration... Rojava is a de facto entity, just like Transnistria, Somaliland and Nagorno-Karabakh...79.246.11.115 (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Unless and until Rojava/SDF actually say "we claim that land", it isn't claimed. So the map is correct as it stands. Batternut (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Butternut and the anon. Nothing wrong with the map, it simply portrays the situation as it is. Applodion (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this map is quite close to the best one can do for now. I do have some minor issues with it. The first one is the extent of the "claimed territory", which in my humble opinion should follow the claims map of the Rojava administration as put up in its diplomatic missions, and in this respect fails to depict the claim for the westernmost part, namely northern Idlib province. The second is that "control" on this map apparently is defined as military control by the SDF, while this article should in my view ideally have a map depicting the area with proper civil administration according to the constitution of the Federation; however, I am aware that the latter is for a lack of sources (let alone English ones) on details almost impossible to properly do and source. And I have not seen any map better suited for this article than the one used now, no other one comes even close. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC) (cc User:Editor abcdef)

Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria

Please can we change the name of this article from Rojava to the Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria. I realise Rojava is a commonly used name when referring to the Federation because of its Kurdish roots, but its an incorrect term. The social contract refers only to Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria, and to call it Rojava risks alienating non-Kurdish elements within the system.

The social contract emphasised the heterogeneous identity of the Northern Syrian region and I feel it is biased to call it Rojava - as this neglects the region's other ethnicities.

82.35.169.227 (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If you take a look at the lead, the lemma Rojava of this article has three different aspects, the term Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria at least immediately just covering one of them. I fully appreciate the political considerations in your comment (and personally share them), however I do not think a change in the name of the article is warranted, with "Rojava" being the wider, much more used and notable term. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

What is a "de facto autonomous region"?

Isn't "autonomous region" a de jure status bestowed by a national government? "de facto autonomous region" seems almost a contradiction in terms. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This article does not follow any logic or internationally recognized practices about political units. It mainly follow the wishes and dreams a one political activist trying to create a state on Wikipedia. So dont bother a lot cause you will have a headache.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe this article has neutrality issues Shadychiri (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a contradiction, because they want to remain part of the Syrian nation, just operating autonomously. Which obviously won't happen. Wh1ter0se (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The majority of the population of Rojava are Arabs

According to this map (https://www.ethnologue.com/sites/default/files/styles/original/public/maps/20/JOSY_rgb.png) the majority of the area in the territory of Rojava is populated by Arabs. Kurds are only the majority in two very small areas. The map is from 2016 and Ethnologue is internationally accepted by linguists. Does someone have a better map? I think, that Arabs are the majority in Rojava should be mentioned in the article. --77.179.173.176 (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. Obviously, the majority of the population is Arabs, which is also wintnessed by CIA's ethnic map of Syria. Kurds constitute less than 2 million people throughout Syria, so there is no way they can be majority here. I urge you to create an account and start editing. There is one or 2 users here that constantly and persistently editwar and prevent any factual/neutral opinion to be represented in these articles related to Kurdish issues in Syria. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC).
On ethnic composition, far better sources are used in the article than the map you link here. For example try this: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/rojavas-sustainability-and-the-pkks-regional-strategy -- 2A1ZA (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
You might also be interested in this previous talk page discussion on the topic where there a clear majority of editors supported the idea that the article should not speculate on overall ethnic majority issues, as we lack adequate quantitative information, as the concept of ethicties is not clearly defined here, and as the question is not much relevant either. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

New Raqqa region - Changes to be made in map and text

Apparently, the areas oonquered by SDF from ISIL during the ongoing Raqqa campaign (2016–present) are getting a civil administration within the framework of the Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria, which refers to Raqqa region as an element separate from the existing three cantons (Afrin, Jazira and Kobani) and one region (Shahba). See Raqqa campaign (2016–present)#Civil administration of captured territory

In my opinion, this article here should reflect the development, both in its map (cc mapmaker User:Editor abcdef) and in its text. And I would be interested in everybody's opinion on whether a new Raqqa region article along the lines of the existing Shahba region article is warranted. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rojava. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Economy

Assyrian Terminology

Despite the variety of names used to describe this people, the sources used in the article (Minahan, Nisan, Skutsch, Danver, UNPO: Assyria, Schaefer) do not use the term "Syriac-Assyrian". As far as I'm aware the term "Syriac-Assyrian" is not employed in scholarly works. The sources used also do not attest that a majority identifies as Syriac/Aramean in Syria and Turkey. I do not disagree that the majority of the people described as Assyrian in Syria and Turkey do in fact identify as Syriac/Aramean (Minahan), but this is explained on the Assyrian people article and it is acknowledged there that Assyrian is used to refer to several groups of people. Therefore, I'd suggest simply using the term Assyrian on this article and perhaps linking to the Terms for Syriac Christians article. Mugsalot (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I can point to multiple sources in the article, its subarticles and other relevant DFNS sources where "Syriac" and "Syriac-Assyrian" is used as a term for the ethnic group: (DIHA, Syrian Observer, Official DFNS Statement, Rudaw/MFS, Syriac News/ESU, ANHA, Warscapes). Assyrian-Syriac is the official politically correct phrasing in Sweden that has a large Syriac population and in the US the correct phrasing is Assyrian-Chaldean-Syriac. As I stated before I think a compromise is sensible with the more inclusive term that represents the reality on the ground in the introduction and in the demographics section while most references in the text may use the term "Assyrian" or for that matter "Syriac", for ease of reading. Unilaterally narrowing the term by removing any reference to "Syriac" is problematic and inadvisable since this is a sensitive subject. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't disagree the term "Syriac" is used to refer to this ethnic group, most if not all of the sources I've mentioned acknowledge this. "Syriac-Assyrian", however, is not used in the sources I mentioned nor DIHA, Syrian Observer, ANHA, or Warscapes. It's my impression "Syriac-Assyrian" is not a commonly used term, albeit used by a few sources as you've proven. As you're aware Wikipedia uses the most commonly used terms or names in its articles, not what is considered politically correct or what individual countries use, and I think I've demonstrated that "Assyrian" is the mostly commonly used term when referring to this ethnic group. However, I agree that compromise is sensible, and I think it might be a reasonable compromise to refer to this ethnic group as "Assyrian" throughout the article for consistency, yet note that the majority identifies as Syriac/Aramean as per Minahan. Mugsalot (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia does acknowledge that "Assyrian" has been the most common term in encyclopedic sources during the 20th century, however its guidelines concerning the issue also state that when the proper/official term for the ethnic group in a country is an inclusive one, for example "Assyrian/Syriac" or "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac", that phrase is to be used in relevant articles (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac)). Official DFNS and MFS documents consistently use the term "Syriac-Assyrian" so its usage here would be correct. AntonSamuel (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I was not aware of that naming convention, in that case would it not be more appropriate to use the official term employed by the Syrian government? Mugsalot (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Emblem/Coat of Arms

Is there a reason why the Emblem/Coat of Arms hasn't been updated to the corrected version? (See link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Rojava_-_13-12-17.svg) Albert.trosk (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/pyd-names-tal-abyad-part-of-its-canton.aspx?pageID=238&nID=90184&NewsCatID=352
  2. ^ http://www.vdc-sy.info/pdf/reports/talabyad-English.pdf
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autonomous_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria/Archive_4&oldid=1136539964"