Talk:Syrian Kurdistan

Best sources for this article

I looked for book-length scholarship by academic publishers from the last five years or so, and this is what I came up with:

About Syrian Kurdistan in particular

1. Matthieu Cimino (2020), Syria: Borders, Boundaries, and the State, Springer. [1]
2. Harriet Allsopp & Wladimir van Wilgenburg (2019), The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts, Bloomsbury. [2]
3. Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen, Nir T. Boms & Sareta Ashraph, eds. (2019), The Syrian War: Between Justice and Political Reality, Cambridge. [3]
4. Brendan O'Leary (2018), The Kurds, the Four Wolves, and the Great Powers, The Journal of Politics. [4] PDF — not a book, but a book review of:
   1. Harriet Allsopp (2016), The Kurds of Syria: Political Parties and Identity in the Middle East, Bloomsbury. [5]
   2. Michael Gunter (2014), Out of Nowhere: The Kurds of Syria in Peace and War, Hurst. [6]
   3. Michael Gunter (2017), The Kurds: A Modern History, Markus Wiener Publishers. [7] (O'Leary reviewed the 2016 ed.)

   (And four other books about Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran.)

5. Samer N. Abboud (2015), Syria, Wiley. [8]

   About Kurdistan in general (including Syrian Kurdistan)

6. Güneş Murat Tezcür, ed. (2020), A Century of Kurdish Politics: Citizenship, Statehood and Diplomacy, T&F. [9]
7. Zeynep N. Kaya (2020), Mapping Kurdistan: Territory, Self-Determination and Nationalism, Cambridge. [10]
8. David Romano, Mehmet Gurses, and Michael Gunter (2020), The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics, Lexington Books. [11]
9. Sebastian Maisel (2018), The Kurds: An Encyclopedia of Life, Culture, and Society, ABC-Clio. [12]
10. Michael Gunter (2018), Routledge Handbook on the Kurds, T&F. [13]
11. Gareth Stansfield, Mohammed Shareef (eds.) (2017), The Kurdish Question Revisited, Oxford. [14]
12. David L. Phillips (2015), The Kurdish Spring: A New Map of the Middle East, Transaction Publishers. [15]
13. Mehrdad Izady (2015, orig. 1992), Kurds: A Concise Handbook, T&F. [16]
14. David McDowall (April 2021, 2004, orig 1996), A Modern History of the Kurds, Bloomsbury. [17]

Anything missing from this list? Anything that should be removed from the list? Some but not all of these are already in the article (or in related articles). Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this sources. Merdad Izady has strong opponents, and even the climate info from him is seen as unreliable and is blamed to come from a nationalist. I don't share this view, but it will be difficult to source anything with him.

Others I would also recommend are:

1. Jordi Tejell: Syria's Kurds: History, Politics and Society

1. Jordi Tejel: Le mouvement kurde de Turquie en exil: continuités et discontinuités du nationalisme kurde sous le mandat français en Syrie et au Liban (1925-1946)

1. Roger Lescot is also good. His books you can read online hereParadise Chronicle (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Also add Robert Lowe "The Emergence of Western Kurdistan and the Future of Syria" in D. Romano et al. (eds.), Conflict, Democratization, and the Kurds in the Middle East (2014). As for Izady (aside from the academic criticism), it is not as simple as climate. --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

extended discussion

[Izady] is treating the climate of Afrin as related to the climate of Zagros and not Aleppo. So, that deleted section is clearly used to push one POV and not the other: a greater Kurdistan taken by other countries. So nothing innocent in Izady's work. Now, can we agree on one thing: if these Kurdish inhabited regions are part of historical Kurdistan, then a historical source predating the establishment of Syria should be presented? If the criteria is: wherever Kurds live is a Kurdistan, then we will have Kurdistan in Damascus and Berlin. If Syria took parts of Kurdistan when it was established, then it is necessary to prove that these parts, all of them, were part of the historical region of Kurdistan before Syria took it (or France, whatever)- (even if they became parts of historical Kurdistan in 1900 is fine! just a historical source please, any!- ofcourse we are not talking if Kurds considered these regions parts of Kurdistan, because then we can also consider Cyprus part of Syria because Syrian nationalists claims it to be such).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC) The former edit could be removed for WP:NOTFORUM. If you can source a Kurdistan in Damascus and Berlin, ask at the talk pages there and present your ideas there. We are here at the Syrian Kurdistan article and have numerous sources for a Syrian Kurdistan. This doesn't mean it is a recognized country. But Kurds in Syria did not just come out of nowhere and the Kurds in Syria are also not due to mere coincidence living adjacent to Turkish and Iraqi Kurdistan. The historical Kurdistan argument has been discussed for weeks and the Kurd Dagh and Bohtan arguments against this were long ago presented. Fact is, there exists a Kurdish population in Syria adjacent to other parts of Kurdistan and in numerous sources it is known as Syrian Kurdistan.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC) So you have no source. What you wrote is your own logical conclusion not supported by sources. It is my right to ask you to present your sources when you claim this is part of historical Kurdistan, so this isnt a forum indeed and my arguments are legetimate. If Kurdistan exist in Syria today, for which you are bringing sources, then this doesnt mean it existed before Syria was established. Some Kurdish nomads expanding from their homeland doesnt make the new regions a Kurdistan. Please present historic evidence and spare us the conclusions. If this is part of historical Kurdistan, then how hard it is to find a traveler or historian from the 19th century writing that he visited Afrin in Kurdistan? Cant this be found? then dont argue that this is part of the historical homeland of the Kurds.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC) If you are not satisfied with the sources provided for a "historic" Syrian Kurdistan, what can we do? A Syrian KurdistaN is shown in numerous sources, and we ought to go by them. Wikipedia is not Aramattarpedia, it is an encyclopedia in which the info provided has to be sourced if contested. And there exist numerous sources for a Syrian Kurdistan. If you claim that if a source focuses on or about a Syrian Kurdistan, it means there exists no Syrian Kurdistan it is rather an WP:OR.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Are you heading in the direction of GP where you attack other editors? Its simple: historic means historical sources to support historicality. You have failed to provide this. All your sources do not confirm that before the establishment of Syria these regions were part of the historical cultural region of Kurdistan. Your inability to find historic sources is not on me to blame. So speak about Kurdistan as much as you want, but dont entertain ideas of historical native homelands without historical sources. NONE of the sources you provided contain a single cited historic document mentioning those regions as part of Kurdistan. Zero. Again, nomads migrate (in the case of Jazira), but it doesnt make the new regions part of a historic homeland. If you write that in 1918 Kurdistan was split by Syria and others, then provide a contemporary source to prove that in 1918 these regions were part of Kurdistan. Again, I know it is frustrating to you, but you cant defend your claims without adequate secondary sources based on actual primary sources (thats the first thing you learn when you start a research in academia).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC) I am tired of recurring discussions whether a Syrian Kurdistan exists or not, while actually having a Wikipedia article Syrian Kurdistan with numerous academic sources actually showing and mentioning a Syrian Kurdistan. That there is an opposition to the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan belongs into a specific section but not into the lead as all what can be put there for a denial is OR. I call for an admin to craft an NPOV lead according to WP:Lead.Paradise Chronicle (talk) It exist today: I was not arguing about this, but about the notion that it is the historic land of Kurds annexed by Syria, for which you were not able to provide a single historic source. As for the opposition, this will be decided by consensus, but thanks for expressing your opinion.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Somehow I forgot to put Cimino 2020 on my list, so I added it. Also, I added O'Leary even though it isn't a book, because it's a book review by a reputable scholar in a reputable journal. (Are there any other recent book reviews like it?) Re: the above, Tejel, Lescot, and Lowe I think are all reputable scholars as well and their works are usable. However, given the changes "on the ground", I think we should really lean on very recent scholarship: 2019-2020 preferably, post-2016 second choice, post-2011 third choice, and only use pre-war as necessary to fill in gaps. So I think, for example, for Tejel's views about Syrian Kurdistan, it's better to rely more on Tejel 2020 (in Cimino 2020) than Tejel 2009, although Tejel 2009 could be used to fill in gaps of material not covered by more recent sources. For this reason, even O'Leary's book review I think should be considered "second choice", because it was written in 2018 and reviews books written in 2016 or earlier. We want to tell our readers what Syrian Kurdistan is today, according to scholars. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to vote here, but if the sources here presented are included in the article I agree.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

"Syrian Kurdistan"

"Syrian Kurdistan" table

Use of "Syrian Kurdistan"

Author	Date	Title	Publisher	Quotes
Jordi Tejel	2020	"The Complex and Dynamic Relationship of Syria's Kurds with Syrian Borders: Continuities and Changes" in Matthieu Cimino, ed. Syria: Borders, Boundaries, and the State	Springer	while some visual representations remain relatively constant (Greater Kurdistan), others such as "Syrian Kurdistan," "Rojava" have varied over the time due to new developments and shifting power dynamics on the ground (p. 250) From Cimino's introduction (p. 19): By relying on unpublished maps and school books, dating from the sixteenth century to the present day, Tejel demonstrates that the Kurdish territorial imagination, comprising myths, mobilizing stories and political ambitions, is relatively plastic and fluctuating. Recently established, "Rojava" (Syrian Kurdistan) is part of a mythology of pan-Kurdish unity which does not constitute a political objective for the Syrian Kurds in itself, but is rather a "cultural abstract". For the author, "like Arab nationalists in Syria, the Kurdish movement has produced a political discourse that combines pan-Kurdist references intertwined with local patriotism and limited territorial claims". Yet the author shows that this imagined community is nevertheless very well documented...
Güneş Murat Tezcür, ed.	2020	A Century of Kurdish Politics: Citizenship, Statehood and Diplomacy	T&F	...in 2012, a fracturing of the central state in Syria gave rise to a system of local self-government in this Kurdistan region. Thus, in both southern (Iraqi) Kurdistan (Basur) and western (Syrian) Kurdistan (Rojava) the weakness of the central power enabled new entities to emerge. The aims of the Kurdish actors and the nature of the entities that emerged, however, differed greatly. The Kurdistan region in Iraq today can be considered a proto-state or statelet, while the Kurdistan region in Syria is quite different, with a self-identity, political system and further aspirations toward a non-statist, confederated form of locally based self-administration. (Introduction)
Massoud Sharifi Dryaz [18]	2020	"Non-State Actors and Governance: Kurdish Autonomy in Syria" in David Romano, Mehmet Gurses, and Michael Gunter, eds., The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics	Lexington Books	... [after 1921] Syrian Kurds remained in contact with their relatives on the other side of the border [with Turkey], and they used their trans-border networks for commercial trade and smuggling, an important source of income in underdeveloped regions like Syrian Kurdistan. (p. 100) Syrian Kurds were often involved in supplying their compatriots in Iraq and Turkey, though in practice the various and often fragmented Kurdish political parties in Syria have never managed to establish and build a generalized movement capable of expressing political demands by the people of Syrian Kurdistan. (p. 103) The PYD was founded on September 20, 2003 ... Shortly after its founding, the PYD opened its first head office in Qamishli ... In Syrian Kurdistan, where more than fourteen Kurdish organizations were active, the PYD progressively increased its activites. Its propaganda activities appeared to upset Syrian authorities, who started to arrest, detain, torture, kidnap, and kill pro-PYD activists beginning in 2004. (pp. 106-107) Also in the same book, Ozum Yeslitas, "Continuity and Change in Syrian Kurdistan: The Rojava Revolution and Beyond", p. 130: Thepurpose of this chapter is to shed light on the dynamics of continuity and change in Syrian Kurdistan in the context of the still-unfolding Syrian crisis. The chapter first provides a brief historical overview of the trajectory of Kurdish nationalism in Syria, then focuses on a number of themes to address continuity and change in Syrian Kurdistan...
Sirwan Kajjo [19] [20]	2019	"Syrian Kurds: Rising from the Ashes of Persecution" in Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen, Nir T. Boms & Sareta Ashraph, eds., The Syrian War: Between Justice and Political Reality	Cambridge	By the 1990s, former PKK members and other activists who had broken away from KDP-S started to form their own parties, believing there was a need for independent voices in Syrian Kurdish politics ... They promoted the concept of Syrian Kurdistan but with key constraints. (p. 275) Though vigorously supportive of the Syrian government, Iran hedges its bets on Syrian Kurdistan. (p. 284)
Various authors	2018	Sebastian Maisel, ed., The Kurds: An Encyclopedia of Life, Culture, and Society	ABC-Clio	(authorship of chapters is not always available via free preview but the list of contributors to this book is available on Amazon's free preview, p. 365 [link is on the table of contents]; pages not linked to Google previews are viewable on Amazon's free preview, search for "Syrian Kurdistan" and use the results list) Selcuk Aydin, "Geography" The coldest area of Kurdistan is the northern part ... Central and southern Kurdistan are warmer ... And for the other parts of Kurdistan in southern Turkey, all parts of Syrian Kurdistan, and half of central Kurdistan in Iraq, they are the warmest part... (p. 23) Therefore, it is crucial to discuss the differentiation of political dimensions across Turkish, Iranian, Iraqi, and Syrian Kurdistan as the result of different experiences of Kurds across these countries. (p. 28) In "Life and Work", p. 125 Despite such environmental concerns, cotton remains an important crop for Kurdish communities even today in Rojava, Syrian Kurdistan and p. 126 Hostilities against Kurds also deepened as a consequence of the civil war in Syria, which had provided Syrian Kurdistan (Rojava) with an opportunity to declare its regional autonomy. Ozlem Belcium Galip, "Literature" p. 163 Kurdish literature developed late compared to that of other nations, has suffered from bans and obstacles, and is divided between several regions and alphabets (the Latin alphabet in Turkish Kurdistan and Syrian Kurdistan, an adapted version of the Persian-Arabic alphabet in Iraqi and Iranian Kurdistan, and the Cyrillic alphabet is also used in the former Soviet Union [FSU]). p. 176-177, section heading "Syrian Kurdistan" There was short-term cultural and linguistic freedom in Syrian Kurdistan during the period between the two World Wars ... With the de facto rule of PYD ... [p. 177] over three Kurdish areas, Afrin (Efrin in Kurdish), Kobani, and Jazira (Cezire)... p. 177 Then, after the 1980 military coup in Turkey, Sweden and Germany witnessed a striking increase in the publication of Kurmanji literature, especially among political refugees from Syrian Kurdistan (in particular after 2000). p. 178 The group of writers, particularly from Syrian Kurdistan, who migrated to Europe after 2000 includes... pp. 178-179 Along with those in Iraqi Kurdistan, a number of Kurdish poets emerged in other Kurdish regions as well [p. 179] such as Jila Huseni (1964-1996) from Iranian Kurdistan, Fatma Savci (b. 1974) from Turkish Kurdistan, and Diya Ciwan (b. 1953) from Syrian Kurdistan. In "France" p. 221 Furthermore, in recent years, there has also been an increase of Kurdish refugees from Rojava (Western/Syrian Kurdistan) and Bashur (Southern/Iraqi Kurdistan). Katharina Lange, "Syria" p. 285, In July 2012, the Syrian regime ceded control over most parts of Syrian Kurdistan (Efrin, Kobani, and the Kurdish quarters Sheikh Meqsud and Ashrafiyya in Aleppo, as well as the Kurdish areas in the Jazira with the exception of some strategic points in Qamishli) to the PYD... p. 286, In January 2014, the previously mentioned three regions were declared to be three separate "cantons" making up Syrian Kurdistan, which has been popularly referred to by the PYD and its sympathizers in Syria as well as outside of it as "Rojava"—Western (Kurdistan). This name was hardly used as a self-reference by Syrian Kurds before 2011 and was dropped again as official self-designation in favor of "Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria" in December 2016. The successive name changes did not indicate significant changes at the administrative level, however. Gulistan Gurbey and Vedat Dayan (a PhD candidate at Gurbey's university per contributor list at p. 366), "Turkey", p. 289 Kurmanji is the most widespread dialect that is spoken by Kurds in Bakur (Turkish Kurdistan or Northern Kurdistan). Kurmanji is furthermore spoken in Rojhilat (Iranian Kurdistan or Eastern Kurdistan), in the northern part of Bashur (Iraqi Kurdistan or Southern Kurdistan), and in Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan). Vera Eccarius-Kelly, "United States" p. 309, Most recently, a solidarity group for Syrian-Kurdistan was formed in New York... p. 310 The dramatic siege of Shingal (Sinjar), a mountain top to which thousands of Yezidi Kurds fled after ISIS attacked them, and the ferocious battles for the town of Kobani in Syrian-Kurdistan created opportunities for Kurdish activists in the United States. p. 311 In Syrian-Kurdistan, Kurds are sometimes identified as trustworthy regional allies, but only as long as they pursue an agenda that is approved by the Pentagon.
Various authors	2018	Michael Gunter, ed., Routledge Handbook on the Kurds	T&F	(The free preview has no page numbers, this is from multiple chapters by multiple contributors) Modern Kurdish poetry in Syrian Kurdistan in the first place represents itself in Cigerxwin's (1903-1984) poetry. His revolutionary poems have inspired the masses, especially in western and northern Kurdistan. Some other Kurdish poets from Syrian Kurdistan, such as Jan Dost, Ahmad Hosseini and Axin Welat, have published their poems in exile ... Likewise the novels published by Kurdish novelists from Syrian Kurdistan, such as Halim Yusifand Jan Dost... By the same token, Syria relinquished part of its sovereignty, particularly in its relations with the PKK. Physically, PKK's militants took de facto control over a few small portions of Syrian territory, notably in Kurd Dagh...portraits of Ocalan and Barzani replaced those of Hafiz al-Assad...The most obvious political consequence of these dynamics was the adoption by some Kurdish parties of the expression "Syrian Kurdistan" or "Rojava", referring to Northern Syria, as opposed to the moderate, "Kurdish regions of Syria".
Brendan O'Leary	2018	The Kurds, the Four Wolves, and the Great Powers (PDF)	The Journal of Politics	The PYD, with the YPG as its armed fist, has sought to establish a political monopoly in Syrian Kurdistan ... The PYD has reversed Öcalan’s previous stance—whatever the daily changes in verbiage—and now stands for territorial autonomy for Syrian Kurdistan and equal citizenship rights for Kurds.
Harriet Allsopp	2016	The Kurds of Syria: Political Parties and Identity in the Middle East	Bloomsbury	The idea that the KDP was seeking influence amongst the Syrian Kurds and in a post-Assad 'Kurdistan Region of Syria' was raised in several reports. Analysists explained the part played by Barzani in terms of an attempt to make a bid for leadership of the pan-Kurdish nation. This prompted some to suggest that Syrian Kurdistan had become an arena for PKK-KDP cooperation. Any power struggle between the two parties could result in the split of the region between the two spheres of influence, increasing inter-Kurdish conflict and limiting the influence of the KDP to Syria's eastern Kurdish regions.
David L. Phillips	2015	The Kurdish Spring: A New Map of the Middle East	Transaction Publishers	France divided its mandate into six entities ... Syria's population was about three-quarters Arab. The balance included minorities such as Kurds ... Kurds were the largest ethnic minority in Syria. Kurds reside on a patchwork of territories, which they call Rojava. Syrian Kurdistan encompasses regions in northern Syria such as Kobani, near Jarablus, and Afrin, whose plains extend to the Turkish border. Kurds predominate in Jazira province, Hasakah Governorate, and the cities of Qamishli and Hasakah. There are also Kurds in Syria's northeast. (p. 38)
Michael Gunter	2014	Out of Nowhere: The Kurds of Syria in Peace and War	Hurst	Among pan-Kurdish nationalists, Syrian Kurdistan is often referred to as Western Kurdistan or Rojava (the direction of the setting sun). (p. 7) Qamishli—with a population of 184,231 according to the 2004 census, but now much larger—is the largest Kurdish city in Syria and, as noted in the Introduction, is often considered the de facto capital of Western (Syrian) Kurdistan. (p. 8) Thus, it was not until 14 June 1957 that the first modern Kurdish political party was formed, the Kurdish Democracy Party in Syria (KDPS). Even so, the KDPS maintained a Syrian national agenda that did not call for the liberation of a Syrian Kurdistan. Rather, it was concerned with the improvement of Kurdish socio-economic conditions. Indeed, it is revealing that none of the numerous Kurdish parties currently use the sensitive term Kurdistan in their names, for fear that it might incite government fears of secession. (p. 25)
Robert Lowe	2014	"The Emergence of Western Kurdistan and the Future of Syria" in David Romano, Mehmet Gurses (eds.), Conflict, Democratization, and the Kurds in the Middle East	Palgrave Macmillan	(see also Amazon preview) page 225, The instability of the Syrian Civil War has enabled Kurdish political and military actors to take control of parts of northern Syria, marking the emergence of the nascent political entity of Kurdistana Rojava (West Kurdistan). This de facto autonomous Kurdish zone has developed politically, administratively, and militarily to the point that in November 2013 the largest Kurdish party there felt able to declare a transitional administration. Western Kurdistan was previously a vague concept rarely used by most Kurds, and this new political structure is fragile and underdeveloped. Nevertheless, it has become an important feature of the Syrian and Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape, and its future, and that of the wider Kurdish population in Syria, is a key factor in the future of the war-torn country. page 228, In theory, the SKC is a de facto interim administrative body for Syrian Kurdistan that represents all the Kurdish parties and communities, holds authority for political and civic organization, and has control of the Kurdish militias. page 236, Until 2012, the Kurdish national movement in Syria had barely flirted with the idea of devolved or autonomous government for Kurdish areas. The prospect was wholly unrealistic and any expression of interest in the idea attracted the harsh attention of the authorities. Despite the shining success of the Kurdistan Region in Iraq and proposals explored for the government of Kurdish areas in Turkey, the concept of Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan received very little attention. Even the term was rarely used and then mostly only by the PYD and some more radical nationalist groups operating from abroad. The war has changed everything. The vacuum of authority in the north of the country, the vulnerability felt by the Kurdish territorial pockets, and the sharp opportunism of the PYD have created both a physical entity (or entities) controlled by Kurds and the more nebulous but increasingly tangible idea of Western Kurdistan... page 237, The course of the war may shift and if the Islamists or the regime gain power in the north, Western Kurdistan could be snuffed out. But while the YPG is successfully defending the "liberated" areas, something called "Rojava" exists and hence Kurdish ideas for its development need to be considered. A return to the pre-war status quo is now utterly unacceptable to Kurds, and while some may be content to gain improved rights in Syria, others, notably including those with guns, are now wedded to the idea of autonomy in Rojava ... Two other ideas may be ruled out. An independent Western Kurdistan is neither desired nor remotely viable. Rojava lacks sufficient population numbers, contiguity, and internal unity, and also has significant non-Kurdish populations and an economy that is completely dependent on the rest of Syria. A pan-Kurdish independent state is also not possible (and very probably not desired), given severe differences between the political elites of the different parts of Kurdistan as well as linguistic and cultural differences. The only option remaining the would satisfy the wishes of many of the Kurdish population is for some form of self-determination settlement within a new Syrian state structure ... ... For example, the Kurdish Democratic Party of Syria favors a full federal state and in the summer of 2012 began using the term "Syrian Kurdistan" for the first time.. This model would establish a federal Syria with other communities...Qamishli would be the capital of a noncontiguous Kurdish region that [p. 238] would include the three northern pockets. Following a census, minorities within the region would receive a share of seats in the regional government... pp. 239-240, A settlement of the question of self-determination and decentralized government, the issue of what has become called "Rojava", will be far more copmlicated. Politicians involved in negotiations between the Kurds and [p. 240] the Arab opposition acknowledge that this is the key sticking opint. In general, Syrian Sunni Arabs are deeply opposed to Western Kurdistan and any form of devolution or federation in Syria. The Kurds are unclear and disunited on the issue. Western Kurdistan is riddled with internal weaknesses and sits in a deeply hostile environment. In the same book, Eva Savelsberg, "The Syrian-Kurdish Movements: Obstacles Rather Than Driving Forces for Democratization", p. 92 In several ways, the al-Qamishli revolt (serhildan) is different from earlier protests in the Kurdish areas of Syria ... For the first time in the history of contemporary Syria, the protest movement touched all Kurdish territories, thus reinforcing the symbolic unity of the Syrian-Kurdish arena—"Syrian Kurdistan."

Discussion of "Syrian Kurdistan"

• I bolded "Syrian Kurdistan" in the quotes. The above is not an exhaustive list, please feel free to add to it. I only included post-2011 sources from academic publishers (modern scholarship). I didn't list Izady, although he uses the term. Granted, not every source from an academic publisher in this time period uses the term, but I think enough do to support calling "Syrian Kurdistan" the Kurdish-inhabited areas of northern Syria. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Are you proposing that be the entire scope of the article, "Kurdish-inhabited areas of northern Syria"? No doubt that is how the term is sometimes used and understood in context. Let me ask this way, are you choosing a title and thereby defining the topic and scope, or choosing the scope and topic (Kurdish-inhabited areas of northern Syria) and then placing at the most appropriate title? fiveby(zero) 17:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

    I don't really understand what you're asking. I'm not proposing anything, and I'm neither choosing nor defining the title or the scope. The title is "Syrian Kurdistan" and I assume the scope is "Syrian Kurdistan" and I don't believe this is in dispute? The point of this table is to collect quotes from modern scholarship using the term "Syrian Kurdistan" (mostly to rebut arguments that either this term is not in widespread use, or it's only used by nationalists, or it's only used to refer to an idea and not a place). Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Levivich for the huge effort of putting these together. Now, reading you last sentence, do you feel the quotes achieve the objectives you listed? To me, they clearly portray "Syrian Kurdistan" from the Kurdish nationalist perspective, hence support what we are talking/concerned about. As for the widespread use, I have listed below other names for the areas with their google hits:

• "Kurdish region" and "Syria": About 245,000 results
• "Kurdish area" and "Syria": About 44,400 results
• "Kurdish inhabited" and "Syria": About 10,700 results
• "Syrian Kurdistan": About 78,400 results

Also, below are some major news outlets and the term they use for the area with examples:

• CNN: Kurdish region. Syria grants citizenship to thousands in the Kurdish region
• BBC: Kurdish region. On our way to Qamishli, the largest Kurdish city in northern Syria, we see a US military convoy escorted by fighter jets heading east towards the Iraqi border. They are leaving the Kurdish region.
• Reuters: Border between Iraqi Kurdistan and Syrian Kurdish region closed...
• NYT: A recent trip by a reporter through the Kurdish area of Syria revealed ...
• WP: The Kurdish area of Syria is relatively secure ...
• WSJ: The Kurdish region of Syria ...
• Al-Jazeera: Kurdish areas of Syria ...

I realize there could be other names (e.g., "east of Euphrates" getting >115,000 hits). Given these results, I think we should have a discussion about the common name for the area per WP:COMMONNAME. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The Google results or "hits" are unreliable for the reasons explained in WP:HITS (those numbers of results at the top of the search results page are not accurate). Popular press is OK to cite for breaking news, but it's not as reliable as scholarship (and really not very reliable at all); because scholarship is available for this topic, we should use scholarship and not news outlets. Specifically, modern scholarship, i.e. post-2011, the newer, the better. Ultimately, this article should be summarizing what scholars say about the topic in 2020. So I have no problem with a discussion about common name, this article title, or even a broader discussion about how all of these related articles are titled and arranged, but I think all content discussions around this topic should be based on modern scholarship first and older scholarship second. Top-level news (like you've listed: BBC, NYT, etc.) should only be used for any recent events not yet covered by scholarship. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Would you please focus on topic. The constant change of direction and inability to come to an end of at least one the discussions begun since the lock of the page is confusing for us and probably also for the not so much involved admins who are the only ones who can edit the page now and of which we probably have lost Girth Summit. We (at least I) would all like to get to an end of the dispute and the page was created only a few months ago by an other Admin.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, are you replying to Levivich? —valereee (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The Edit summary says answer to Amr Ibn.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, yes, but the indent says answer to Levivich. :) —valereee (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Levivich: In the Savelsberg quote you added above, I read: "For example, the Kurdish Democratic Party of Syria favors a full federal state and in the summer of 2012 began using the term Syrian Kurdistan for the first time". This is what this discussion is all about. The PYD/Kurdish narrative is/has been the driving force of this "Syrian Kurdistan" term. As long as we include this fact in the article I am happy with anything you suggest. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich Eva Savelsberg is not a good source, but others are. Amr Ibn and I were involved in long discussions about KurdWatch, which Amr Ibn defended (an article Amr Ibn created) and for which she was the "content manager", at the Tell Abyad page. She attends Forums organized by the SETA and listen how she talks about freedom of press in the AANES. Press outlets can report from within the AANES and many reliable press outlets also have. Once again, the article is not about a recognized political entity Syrian Kurdistan, but a cultural region called Syrian Kurdistan in which of course are also active Kurdish political parties and movements.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Eva Svalsberg's role has been to talk about human right violations by all parties, including Kurdish militias. I wonder whether that's enough reason for you to say "she is not a good source". Most (maybe all?) of the other sources mentioned in the list are pro-Kurdish anyway, so it's nice to have some diversity. The same issues Eva talks about were also raised by HRW, Amnesty, Roy Gutman, Fabrice Balanche, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and many others including countless respected media reports, so she is not an outlier. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

I saw Svalsberg is Chair of the European Center for Kurdish Studies at Free University of Berlin (FUB). Otherwise, I am not at all familiar with her so I have no opinion on her reliability as a source.

The quote "the Kurdish Democratic Party of Syria favors a full federal state and in the summer of 2012 began using the term Syrian Kurdistan for the first time" is from Robert Lowe's chapter in that 2014 book, not Svalsberg's chapter.

For what it's worth, Balanche 2018 (published by WINEP) uses "Syrian Kurdistan" multiple times (mostly talking about possible scenarios for political states or statelets in the region), including in a section called "Syrian Kurdistan under the PYD".

In my view, scholarship published by universities is more reliable than papers by think tanks/advocacy organizations (with a few exceptions, like Pew Research Center), but I'm not sure if that's just my view or if that view has consensus. Also, I think academics are more reliable than journalists (with some exceptions as well, of course). Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, pretty sure in general even the most reliable advocacy groups should be both directly quoted and attributed and only for supporting their own opinions. One high-profile example: Southern Poverty Law Center. RSNP says The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. —valereee (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Dec 12 lead paragraph draft follow up discussion

Levivich and Attar-Aram syria have made a large effort for finding a lead and their co-production here seems to have found the best reasonable feedback so far. It's the version of Attar Aram syria with the "as" deleted before one of the four "Lesser Kurdistans".

Syrian Kurdistan is a Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria surrounding three noncontiguous enclaves along the Turkish and Iraqi borders: Afrin in the northwest, Kobani in the north, and Jazira in the northeast. Syrian Kurdistan is sometimes called Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojava Kurdistanê, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'), one of the four "Lesser Kurdistans" that comprise "Greater Kurdistan", alongside Iranian Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojhilatê Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun rises'), Turkish Kurdistan (Kurdish: Bakurê Kurdistanê, lit. 'Northern Kurdistan'), and Iraqi Kurdistan (Kurdish: Başûrê Kurdistanê, lit. 'Southern Kurdistan').

Does anyone have some improvements to add to this lead?The following discussion was mixed with confusing edits for a solution finding process, so I begin a new discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

This suggested text is one sided and not neutral and does not take into consideration the sources that disputes the claim that a Kurdistan exists in Syria.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, can you suggest an addition, sourced to current scholarly work, that will improve it in your eyes? —valereee (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, as I have said before, the current lead is the most neutral version as it doesn't take a side to only one (disputed) perspective but presents both sides. The text Paradise Chronicle suggested takes only one side and presents it as an undisputed truth. And the other side is no where to be found. I can show sources but it will be a wall of text. The sources I can bring forward have also already been shown at this talkpage above and in the archives by me, Amr ibn Kulthoum and Levivich. Do you want me to do a compilation of them? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, the current lead is being objected to by editors here on talk as containing non-neutral statements. Per policy, the onus is on the editors who want to include the disputed information, so if there's information not included that you want included, can you suggest at least wording. I don't think anyone wants a compilation, no wall of text needed, just for a starter the name of the source where it's coming from probably, and then if other editors think that source needs discussion, that can happen. But first maybe suggest what wording you want added to the above? —valereee (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, the first line of the article should read: ""Syrian Kurdistan" is a modern and disputed name used by some Kurds and journalists for Kurdish-inhabited areas in northern Syria." Sources: "Conflict, Democratization, and the Kurds in the Middle East" p 236, 225. "Syrian Kurds: Rising from the Ashes of Persecution" p 275, "Syria: Borders, Boundaries, and the State p 19.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

None of those three books (all quoted in the source table) say that Syrian Kurdistan is "used by some Kurds and journalists".

The first book (Conflict, Democratization, and the Kurds in the Middle East) is Lowe 2014. That's the one where Lowe says "The war has changed everything". Lowe explains in very explicit language ("...something called 'Rojava' exists...") that before the war, few people used the term (because of fear of the Syrian government), and after the war, basically everyone uses the term, even the KDP-S (who had not used the term since its founding in the 1950s). Lowe is not saying "some Kurds and journalists", he is saying almost the opposite: everybody uses this term since the war. "The war has changed everything".

The second book (Syrian Kurds: Rising from the Ashes of Persecution) is Kajjo 2019, who mentions the use of the term Syrian Kurdistan by some Kurdish parties in the 1990s. Kajjo also uses the term, in his own voice, to refer to the area (p. 284) "...Iran hedges its bets on Syrian Kurdistan". That Kajjo is a journalist born in northern Jazira doesn't mean we can point to his book and say "used by some Kurds and journalists". That's WP:SYNTH. Kajjo needs to say "some Kurds and journalists" in order for us to cite him for the proposition. We can't use him as an example of a Kurdish journalist, and extrapolate from that example into "some Kurds and journalists".

The third book (Syria: Borders, Boundaries, and the State) is Tejel 2020 edited by Cimino. Tejel 2020 is quoted extensively above. He also explicitly says that he is concerned with "Greater Kurdistan", not the Syria-Turkish border, and that terms like "Syrian Kurdistan" and "Rojava" have changed over time. He doesn't say it's used by "some Kurds and journalists". Also, Tejel (in Gunter 2018) is the same person who says some Kurdish parties started using the term after the 1999 cease fire. Tejel supports the proposition that some Kurds used the term before the 2011 war, but he says nothing about its use after the war. And FWIW, Tejel is neither Kurdish nor a journalist. What he says is a "myth" is the notion of Syrian Kurdistan as part of a pan-Kurdish nation state (e.g., he's saying Syrian Kurdistan is not and was never Western Kurdistan), but even in this, he is the outlier, and he admits it. "I shall argue..." means he knows he is making a novel argument, not representing the scholarly consensus. And aside from all of that, Tejel isn't at all saying "Western Kurdistan"/"Rojava"'s use is limited to "some Kurds and journalists". He implicitly acknowledges that its use is widespread; he is arguing that the use is inaccurate; he is not arguing that it doesn't exist or isn't used. (FWIW Cimino equates "Rojava" and "Syrian Kurdistan" in his introduction summarizing Tejel, but Tejel actually never equates those two terms.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Conflict, Democratization, and the Kurds in the Middle East p 236, 225: "Until 2012, the Kurdish national movement in Syria had barely flirted with the idea of devolved or autonomous government for Kurdish areas. The prospect was wholly unrealistic and any expression of interest in the idea attracted the harsh attention of the authorities. Despite the shining success of the Kurdistan Region in Iraq and proposals explored for the government of Kurdish areas in Turkey, the concept of Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan received very little attention. Even the term was rarely used and then mostly only by the PYD and some more radical nationalist groups operating from abroad." "in November 2013 the largest Kurdish party there felt able to declare a transitional administration. Western Kurdistan was previously a vague concept rarely used by most Kurds"

Syrian Kurds: Rising from the Ashes of Persecution p 275 "They promoted the concept of Syrian Kurdistan but with key constraints."

Syria: Borders, Boundaries, and the State p 19 "By relying on unpublished maps and school books, dating from the sixteenth century to the present day, Tejel demonstrates that the Kurdish territorial imagination, comprising myths, mobilizing stories and political ambitions, is relatively plastic and fluctuating. Recently established, "Rojava" (Syrian Kurdistan) is part of a mythology of pan-Kurdish unity which does not constitute a political objective for the Syrian Kurds in itself, but is rather a "cultural abstract". For the author, "like Arab nationalists in Syria, the Kurdish movement has produced a political discourse that combines pan-Kurdist references intertwined with local patriotism and limited territorial claims". Yet the author shows that this imagined community is nevertheless very well documented..."

So we have reliable sources describing "Syrian Kurdistan" as a "concept", "Kurdish territorial imagination", "imagined community" and "comprising myths". Where are these facts in Paradise Chronicles suggested lead? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You misrepresent sources. The first source you quote, Lowe, the very next line after your quote ("Even the term was rarely used...") is "The war has changed everything.". This is what I pointed out in my last response and again you quote the passage before, and after, that part, while skipping the part where he says "war has changed everything" and "something called 'Rojava' exists". I've already quoted this section in full, twice (in this thread, and in the table), and you're totally ignoring it.

Lowe uses the terms Syrian Kurdistan, Rojava, and Western Kurdistan to refer to the place like a zillion times in that book (more Rojava and WK than SK). First of all, Lowe's Chapter 11 in the book is titled "The Emergence of Western Kurdistan and the Future of Syria." He write: "In theory, the SKC is a de facto interim administrative body for Syrian Kurdistan that represents all the Kurdish parties..." The section "The Establishment of Self-Rule in Rojava" is where he talks about the PYD's takeover of the three enclaves. Here are some examples where Lowe refers to the place, which he explicitly says exists, as Rojava or Western Kurdistan: "Rojava faces massive threats to its stability and existence...A fundamental weakness is geography as unlike Kurdistan-Iraq, Western Kurdistan lacks both the contiguity, which provides political coherence, and the mountains, which provide defense...following the 2012 takeover the regime continued to pay the salaries of civil servants in Rojava...The surrounding neighborhood does not give much encouragement for Western Kurdistan's future...A greater obstacle to the establishment of self-government in Western Kurdistan is what may be called 'non-Kurdish Syria', that is, the 85-90 percent of Syrians who are not Kurds...the KRG is unlikely to prove sufficiently strong or committed to Western Kurdistan should the Syrian civil war truly engulf Kurdish areas...[Then comes the section you've been incompletely quoting, entitled "Devolved Government for Kurdish Areas"]...The PYD took control of Kurdish towns in 2012; it is the leading party in designing and administrating Rojava, and is the only part to run a militia of any strength...The part is not interested in Western Kurdistan emulating models set by Kurdistan-Iraq or Scotland....Western Kurdistan also provides strategic depth to the wider PYD/PKK struggle...A settlement of the question of self-determination and decentralized government, the issue of what has become called "Rojava," will be far more complicated...In general, Syrian Sunni Arabs are deeply opposed to Western Kurdistan and any form of devolution or federation in Syria...Western Kurdistan is riddled with internal weaknesses and sits in a deeply hostile environment...the consolidation of some form of a representative-devolved administration in Western Kurdistan would help Syria to become more democratic...The inclusion of non-Kurdish minorities in Western Kurdistan is important...This commitment remains to be fully test in Rojava..."

It's just dishonest to claim that Lowe is saying Syrian Kurdistan is a concept and not a place when he says the very opposite, and it's dishonest to pick out one quote that supports that while omitting the quotes before and after that contradict it. It's dishonest to quote a part where Lowe is discussing pre-2011 and suggest it applies post-2011, even when Lowe specifically makes this point about the war changing everything. And I use the word "dishonest" because while someone could certainly make this mistake innocently, after it's been pointed out to you at least twice by me (and before me, others pointed this out, too), I don't see how you can continue to make this mistake innocently after all these quotes are on the page. You know Lowe is saying that SK is a place and not a concept, at least not since the war. I'm not going to spend time responding to #2 and #3, given your misrepresentation of #1, and because they've been addressed before (including in my previous post). You are massively wasting my time by making me have to "correct the record" like this.

BTW this is a little off topic for this post, but Lowe thinks Savelsberg, Tejel, and Allsopp are legit. While I'm typing all this other stuff from Lowe, let me type this part: "Eva Savelsberg and Jordi Tejel argue that there is no prospect of the Kurdish transition leading to democracy in the short term...Harriet Allsopp acknowledges the deep problems posed by the PYD but offers a more optimistic assessment..." If we're going to accept Lowe as an RS (which of course we must), then we should also accept Savelsberg, Tejel, and Allsopp as RSes. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, the quote I added said "Until 2012" so its self-explanatory that according to the author the situation changed after that point of time. But even if we look at the rest of the quote: "The war has changed everything. The vacuum of authority in the north of the country, the vulnerability felt by the Kurdish territorial pockets, and the sharp opportunism of the PYD have created both a physical entity (or entities) controlled by Kurds and the more nebulous but increasingly tangible idea of Western Kurdistan..."... have I said that kurds aren't controlling areas in Syria? Have I said that Western kurdistan isn't an idea? I only looked at the text in the template above as I don't have access to all the sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

So true or false: today, the areas around Afrin, Kobani, and Jazira are called "Syrian Kurdistan", "Western Kurdistan", or "Rojava", by Lowe, Kajjo, Tejel, and all other scholars? Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

"all other scholars" ? No. "some authors" would be correct. And some authors do not. Some publications say "Kurdish region", "Kurdish area", "kurdish inhabited" see: [21] Some say "Syria" BBC:[22] I support showing several views and different sides and opinions in the article, not only one. Does the United Nations and the international community recognize a "Syrian Kurdistan" in Syria? I don't think so. So why should Wikipedia present "Syrian Kurdistan" as an undisputed and official name for an area in Syria? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not the question. It's not about "authors", "publications", the BBC, the UN, or the Syrian government; it's about scholars and scholarship. (We just went over this with fiveby yesterday.)

So let's get one thing clear first. True or false: the areas around Afrin, Kobani, and Jazira are called "Syrian Kurdistan", "Western Kurdistan", or "Rojava", by Lowe, Kajjo, and Tejel (the three examples you cited in this thread)?

Second, if you disagree with me saying all scholars, then which scholars in the last 5-10 years do not call the areas around Afrin, Kobani, and Jazira "Syrian Kurdistan", "Western Kurdistan", or "Rojava"? Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is a scholarly book that uses: "Qamishli in Syria" The Religion of the Peacock Angel: The Yezidis and Their Spirit World by Garnik S. Asatrian and Victoria Arakelova published by Routledge. "Surviving the War in Syria" by Justin Schon, Cambridge University Press says: "Kurds never expressed any interest in controlling Syria. Instead, they stayed within Kurdish-inhabited areas in the north and northeast" p 53 [23]."Out of Nowhere: The Kurds of Syria in Peace and War" by Michael Gunter says "remains one of the three distinct and separate Kurdish areas in Syria, while Kobani (Ain alArab) in the north central area of Syria and Hasaka (Hesice) or Jazira.." I don't have access to the page so there is more info I cant see.[24] Gunter also uses "Syrian Kurdistan" in the book. If you look at the lead Pardise Chronicle suggested above, a more accurate and neutral lead would say something like "Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria.....sometimes called Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan" presenting it as an alternative name used by some people and not an official name for an area in Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

OK yes those are examples of scholarship. But... The Religion of the Peacock Angel: The Yezidis and Their Spirit World is a book about Yezidis, not Kurds, and though there is some dispute on the issue, this book is one that treats Yezidis as a separate ethnoreligious group from Kurds. It's scholarship about Yezidis; not a good source for an article about Kurds.

Surviving the War in Syria — OK, that's scholarship about Syria that doesn't refer to the Kurdish-inhabited areas in northern Syria as "Syrian Kurdistan". It also doesn't mention "Kurdistan" at all, except in reference to the names of parties. (The book has the word "Kurdistan" in it only twice, on p. 48 and p. 54, apparently.) I admit that really surprises me: someone is writing a book in 2020 about the civil war in Syria and doesn't even mention the idea of "Kurdistan". Why? Well, it's a book about civil war refugees, more than about the war itself. It's written by a post-doc research associate (not a professor), which is splitting hairs a bit. The most telling thing for me was that the author of the book never went to Syria. He only interviewed Syrian refugees in Turkey, Jordan, Kenya, and the US. So a book about the Syrian civil war where the author never went to Syria... hmm. It was good enough for Taylor & Francis to publish. OK, that's one recent scholarly work that doesn't use the term Syrian Kurdistan. (BTW, despite that this book uses as a source Gunter 2014 and other works on the source table.)

Gunter 2014, yeah, in that quote he talks about Kurdish areas in Syria, but Gunter uses "Syrian Kurdistan" regularly. In fact, Gunter 2014 is the book that says "Among pan-Kurdish nationalists, Syrian Kurdistan is often referred to as Western Kurdistan or Rojava (the direction of the setting sun)", which is explicitly saying "Western Kurdistan" and "Rojava" are the pan-Kurdish nationalist terms for Syrian Kurdistan; i.e., he's distinguishing between nationalist names (Western Kurdistan and Rojava), and a non-nationalist (i.e. neutral) name (Syrian Kurdistan). Gunter supports "Syrian Kurdistan is a Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria...".

I really don't see how "Syrian Kurdistan is a Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria ..." in any way is saying or implying it's an official name.

We aren't going to call this article "Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria". That

The only names for the Kurdish-inhabited areas in northern Syria are:

1. Syrian Kurdistan
2. Western or West Kurdistan
3. Rojava Kurdistane ("Kurdistan where the sun sets" = Western Kurdistan)
4. AANES (which used to be the Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria, but has since expanded to include other areas)

There are no other names that anybody uses to describe this area, are there? "Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria" is not a realistic option for the title of this article, because it fails WP:AT on multiple levels (concision, preciseness). An WP:RM to move to "Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria" has no chance IMO.

Of the list above, AANES is a poor choice because it includes areas beyond Afrin/Kobani/northern Jazira. It includes areas that are not Kurdish-inhabited areas in northern Syria. Western Kurdistan and Rojava are, per sources, the pan-Kurdish nationalist terms for the Kurdish-inhabited areas in northern Syria. That leaves "Syrian Kurdistan" as the most neutral, concise, precise, and common name for the Kurdish-inhabited areas in northern Syria, among the names we have to choose from.

Thus, if the article is entitled "Syrian Kurdistan", which I don't think is in dispute (haven't seen an RM yet?), then the lead sentence must (per WP:LEAD) begin with "Syrian Kurdistan is..." and be followed by a definition for the term.

Writing "Syrian Kurdistan is a name for a Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria" is the same exact thing as "Syrian Kurdistan is a Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria...". "The name for" is totally unnecessary. Omitting it doesn't imply "Syrian Kurdistan" is an official name.

We can't write "Syrian Kurdistan is an unofficial name for..." because it implies that there is an official name for this place (which there isn't).

The two words "Syrian Kurdistan" refer to the Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria. Nobody in the entire world has ever (AFAIK) used those words to refer to anything else other than the Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria. In my mind, the alternative to "Syrian Kurdistan is a Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria" is "Syrian Kurdistan is a Syrian-inhabited area in west Kurdistan". Obviously the latter is not supported by the scholarly sources; but the former is.

I think the weight of the scholarship rather clearly supports the "Levivich/Attar proposal". In addition to Schon, I'm aware of three books about Syrian Kurds that don't call it "Syrian Kurdistan": Kaya 2020, Allsop & van Wilgenberg 2019, and Abboud 2015; all three refer to the area as Rojava or Western Kurdistan. Schon is the first I've seen that uses none of those three terms.

So TLDR, "Syrian Kurdistan" is, of the available names, the most neutral, and the most widely-used by scholars (even if it's not 100%, it's the most common term). "Syrian Kurdistan is a Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria..." is well supported by all the sources that use "Syrian Kurdistan", and I don't think it implies that it's the "official" name. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The Religion of the Peacock Angel: The Yezidis and Their Spirit World is written by Garnik S. Asatrian who studies and teaches Kurdish culture at Yerevan State University. If you look at his Wikipedia article its clear he is an expert on Kurds. What is clear from the sources I brought is that several names are used for the area and that "Syrian Kurdistan" is a name used by some kurds and some authors. But other reliable sources do not use this name. "Syrian Kurdistan" is not an official or historical name for the area. The lead of the article should therefore reflect this reality and not present "Syrian Kurdistan" as an undisputed official name for an area in Syria. The current lead: "Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎), often shortened to Rojava, is regarded by some Kurds[1][2][3] and some regional experts as the part of Kurdistan in Syria." is reflecting the situation in an accurate and neutral way without taking sides. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, I'd like to have editors productively arguing from a variety of points of view at this talk page, as I think it's healthy. But honestly the arguments I'm seeing are all just POV-pushing. If you want to stay here and continue to argue, you are going to need to take a big step into listening to reliable scholarly sources and representing them not as you wish they were but as they are. We need diverse points of view, but not POV-pushers. Do you think you can make that step? —valereee (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee See my comment above: [25] that small text I didn't ad didn't dispute anything I have said, it actually even supported what I said, I want this article to show all views and all sides.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, you have plenty of experience here in Wikipedia. I'm sure you understand the concept of due weight? The editors here will need to balance showing all views and all sides with that concept. Speaking generally, not trying to address this article, the simple fact there is a dispute does not mean anything about how or even whether that dispute needs to be presented. That means that depending on consensus, the first sentence or first paragraph or lead or even article may not include a particular dispute; I'm not saying it won't in this case, just that the simple fact there is a dispute about a subject has to be balanced with the amount of weight that dispute should receive in an article. —valereee (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Neither enclave nor ethnic enclave would be correct. What would Afrin, Kobani, and Jazira link to? fiveby(zero) 16:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean it would not be correct? What sources say it's not correct to call those enclaves? Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

What sources say it's not correct to call those enclaves? is not really the way to decide on wording. An enclave, as you can see by the article mostly implies some formal territory. This leads to confusion with Rojava and when areas were more enclaves in this sense. Ethnically or culturally part of Kurdistan would not be an enclave, it's contiguous with the rest. fiveby(zero) 17:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the sources is exactly how we decide on the wording. I'm pretty sure that each and every single source I've posted uses the word "enclave" to describe "Syrian Kurdistan", specifically the three enclaves in/around Afrin, Kobani and Jazira. Do you have any sources that use some other word, or that say the word "enclave" is not correct? It doesn't matter what the word implies; if the sources use it, we use it, implications and all. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS. WP:LEDE. The current summary in the article is the part of Kurdistan in Syria and i feel that is a better summary than emphasizing enclaves. For the first time in the history of contemporary Syria, the protest movement had touched all of the Kurdish territories, thus reinforcing the symbolic unity of the Syrian Kurdish arena - “Syrian Kurdistan.” (Tejel 2009, p. 108) Above you emphasized reading sources in context and not cherry-picking. fiveby(zero) 18:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Let me ask you this: Does Tejel use the word "enclaves" or not? Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

He does on that very same page of course. "northern Syrian Kurdish enclaves". How in the hell is it disruptive to try and avoid confusion with this, or this for example? fiveby(zero) 19:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Slate?? It's disruptive to bring Slate into this conversation. WTF? Academic sources. Get "on the level" here. What we're doing here is summarizing academic sources.

Also WTF, the book you're quoting from uses "enclaves" so it is disruptive to claim that this book supports not using enclaves, when that word is all over that book (and all over the other books too).

For everyone else, just one example, here is the same book fiveby was quoting from, page 8: The Kurdish populations placed under French Mandate occupy three narrow zones, isolated from one another, all along the Turkish fronteir: Jazira, Jarablus, and Kurd Dagh. These three Kurdish enclaves constitute the natural extension of Kurdish territory into Turkey and Iraq. (bold added). So to hell with the Tejel argument! :-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Slate, as an example of recent usage of enclave in an sense meaning Kurdish controlled territory is not disruptive. fiveby(zero) 19:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby, I'm afraid it really is, in an article that has plenty of scholarly sources to use. We don't use the media in such a case, a policy that has been explained. —valereee (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby, Levivich is correct. If reliable sources, in this case modern scholars, use a term, that's the term Wikipedia uses. I've explained this policy multiple times here. Refusing to understand this policy or accept it is disruptive. If you are not familiar with our policies, you should not be editing at this talk or the talk of any other contentious article. —valereee (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS. WP:LEDE. I understand WP policy very well, and that using administrative tools and threats to shut down discussion or exclude editors you don't like is also against policy. fiveby(zero) 18:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby, I am not trying to shut down discussion, I am trying to moderate it by preventing disruptive behavior at an article talk that has a history of being extremely contentious and plagued by disruptive behavior to the point other editors don't want to come in and help. I'm going to ignore the personal attack. —valereee (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

To PC's OP: I agree with this lead as an improvement over the current lead. Yes, I think it could be improved further, but really the best improvement would be expanding it from one paragraph to a full four-paragraph lead. So as far as the first paragraph goes, this is good with me for now, and maybe it's better to talk about the other lead paragraphs and then later re-visit the first paragraph? Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I see and understand your reasoning, to achieve a four paragraphs would be a huge accomplishment. But viewing the amount of edits and time we spend on finding a consensus, I would support the inclusion of the first paragraph to begin with, and add the other paragraphs after the following discussion on them.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

So there have been a lot of words expended on this version of the lead, but as I see it, no substantive suggestions for improvement. Might I suggest that the involved parties either proclaim their support, or provide their own version of a first lead paragraph (keep your comments short and snappy please)? Some consensus must be found here. I think this version could be workshopped a bit more, but a formal RfC on whether to keep the current version or replace it with this workshopped one seems the next step that should happen soon. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Support the proposed version — Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Support current version as being the most neutral and accurate. And that's all I have to say. I'm not going to engage in any edit war over the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Support the proposed version which is a co-production by Levivich and Attar Aram syria.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Related RMs

FYI: Talk:Rojava conflict#Requested move 10 December 2020, Talk:Kobanî#Requested move 16 December 2020, and Talk:Kurdish separatism in Iran#Requested move 10 December 2020 Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, ugh. We really are going to need an arb case. Ivanvector, Guerillero. What should we do? I have no experience with this, but I'm willing to offer time. —valereee (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee No, there is no need for an arb case. The article and talkpage are calm and everyone is discussing in a normal manner at the talkpage. I will not participate in any edit war. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not for this case, SD. It's for the entire topic. Correcting ping to El C, as the forwarding fooled me when I previewed lol... —valereee (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, avalanche! Absolutely, topic area is long overdue for a mechanism that provides enhanced scrutiny and censure, be it in the form of a GS or DS (with the latter preferred). BTW, Val, my understanding is that you need a new sig+timestamp to re-ping (i.e. I did not receive a ping here and only noticed the attempt in passing). El_C 18:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

El C, dammit, you didn't even receive the second ping that I did to correct the screwed-up first one? I thought I opened a new edit, pinged, signed... Hm. I have zero excuses. —valereee (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It is accepted that WP:GS/SCW exist. I suppose the next question is whether anyone needs to be placed under restrictions. The partial blocks only apply to specific talk pages. A WP:TBAN would be wider. At present we do appear to have 'teams', where there are sets of people who show up to discussions with closely aligned views. If people have shown they can participate in RfCs in good faith that might weaken the case for restrictions. Though it does require some patience to set up RfCs. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No excuses, Val — competence is required. I hope you're open to recall! Anyway, Ed, even though the first two articles (RMs) fall under the SCW GS, while the third one falls under the post-1978 IRANPOL one, there are nonetheless many pages which would fall through the cracks, even though they suffer from the same ethno-national tension. I'm sure Semsûrî could cite many of these instances (especially in the realm of linguistics). In any case, a more Kurdish-focused sanctions regime would probably amount to a path of least resistance, as far as both reporting and enforcement are concerned. El_C 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I also support an Arb Com case, I have opened a [discussion] on it at the Levivich talk page. I'm fine with discussing there, but maybe there is a better place for a preparatory discussion for the case where the discussion finds more attention by other editors? I agree on, that a Kurdish-related Arb Com case could solve several issues, but I guess a preparatory discussion on what issues the ArbCom case should/could address, would be helpful.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

GS action on tag bombing

I have edited the protected page (though now I see the protection expires in a few hours anyway) to remove all of the tags save the {{npov}} one. It's not just that the links to sections in this talk page provided within these tags no longer work, but even if they did, it would probably fragment the discussion unnecessarily. Also, it isn't really appropriate to tag bomb as a means to emphasize that the page is super-disputed or whatever. The sensory overload is too much, in any case. Please note that this is an administrative action which invokes the mandate provided by the SCW GS. El_C 18:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of CIA quote

User Applodian removed a CIA quote here: [26] claiming "95% of it was already mentioned in one way or another in the article anyway"

But that's not true at all. Kurds had equal rights, received fair treatment, kurds not wanting to integrate, Beirut and Damascus becoming centers of "Kurdish nationalist propaganda", "immigrant" kurds provided most leaders for the kurds, "non-native immigrant Kurds" "retained their traditional hatred of alien domination", kurds wanting the "creation" of a "kurdistan" including parts of Syria. All of this is nowhere to be found in the article and by removing this documented CIA quote this valuable historical information is completely absent from the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

All what was not mentioned by the quote can be added to the text without the quote. In addition, some of the information is not very important here, as the "equal rights" you mentioned are about the situation under the French Mandate. The CIA document is from 1946. A lot has changed in the last 70+(!) years. Also, the importance of immigrants for the development of Syrian Kurdistan is already mentioned several times, such as here: "and refugees arriving from Turkish and Iraqi Kurdistan helped foster Kurdish political consciousness, engendering a "pan-Kurdism" that complemented pre-existing Kurdish identities". Applodion (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I also thought the quote was misplaced and gave it an elevated prominence in the article. Per MOS:QOUTE, we are encouraged to write in our own words.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the above, the CIA is not a reliable source. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Historical impossibility

These sentences that are currently in the article say:

• "During the 1920s, use of the Latin alphabet to write the Kurdish languages was introduced by Celadet Bedir Khan and his brother Kamuran Alî Bedirxan and became widespread in Syrian Kurdistan, as it did in Turkish Kurdistan."

• "By the 1960s, after the eventual settlement of the borders of the successor states after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Kurdistan was frequently divided into four regions corresponding to the Kurdish-majority areas of four adjacent modern states: Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria."

So these two sentences are implying that during the Ottoman empire there was a "Kurdistan" inside Syria. But if we take a look at this[27] CIA source from 1946 at page 12 it says: "these Kurds have tended to regard the creation of an independent "Kurdistan" as their only salvation. The area to be included in such a state is variously defined. In all cases, however it included portions of Turkey, Iraq and Iran, as well as Syria, and the supposition is made that a unified Kurdish movement for independence must exist in all four countries."

So if kurds in 1946 wanted the "creation" of a "Kurdistan" in Syria, then a "Syrian Kurdistan" couldn't have possibly existed prior to that date, during the 1920s or Ottoman Empire. These claims are therefor a historical impossibility. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, there has never existed an independent country (politically recognized) called Kurdistan, a cultural, historical Kurdistan (academically recognized), a country where Kurds live, has existed also during the Ottoman Empire, and this span also over parts of present-day Syria.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The source I linked to above confirms that as of 1946 no "Kurdistan" existed in Syria. Do you have a RS that confirms the opposite? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

How is this 1946 CIA report an WP:RS? Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It was a secret report written and distributed by the CIA concerning a situation in Syria. The report was for the US president and other high ranking US officials. Its information is reliable.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You think it's an WP:RS because it's a secret internal US government report? What is this, Alice in Wonderland? Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I've reluctantly p-blocked SD for disruptive editing. —valereee (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Disputed content requires recent scholarship for source

I've added a restriction to the GS banner; any disputed content must be sourced to recent scholarship. —valereee (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

valereee hate to be that guy, but you technically also need to add it into Template:Editnotices/Page/Syrian Kurdistan as well (done in the same way as the talk notice using |restriction1=) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader never with me worry about being that guy. Let me see if I can figure that out lol... —valereee (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, check my work. Also tell me what I should have been aware of to know I needed to do that? —valereee (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Er...that wasn't a demand, I meant it as a request for help, and please add "please and thank you" to the rendering. :) —valereee (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that works. GN mentioned it at WT:GS. It's not properly documented on the WP:GS/SCW page, though it is on other sanction pages (eg WP:GS/COVID19), likely because the GS subpages are an inconsistent mess, but I think it stems from Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions: "Enforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pages and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages." imo when in doubt with GS, ignore every GS page and follow WP:AC/DS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, so that's "the page's edit notice" that GN mentioned? God I hate how stupid I'm clearly admitting to being, but how do I even know whether a page has an edit notice, and absent someone helpfully being that guy <g> where do I find it? —valereee (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. If the page doesn't have one, you can create one. If you go to Syrian Kurdistan, click "Edit source" in the top right you'll see a small blue link called "Page notice". Clicking it takes you to the editnotice page. If you click "Edit source" on a page that doesn't have one, for example Syrian Army, you'll still see "Page notice" but it'll be a redlink. Clicking it will take you to the page to create it using the editnotice template ({{Gs/editnotice}}). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader always something new to discover here lol... —valereee (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you unblock Supreme Deliciousness now? Shadow4dark (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd quite like to do that; let's give it a bit to see what the reaction to this is. —valereee (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer an explanation for the move attempt to Kurdish occupied regions of Syria from Syrian Kurdistan during the Siege of Kobane by ISIL (and Turkey). Then SD would have to accept that Turkish and Assad POV are not academic scholarship (not worth to discuss) and also commit not to remove academic scholarship (without foregoing discussion) like they did before the GOLDLOCK was instated.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

—valereee, I guess you haven't seen my reply. So there is now an ANI thread on if you are even allowed to impose such a restriction. Could you also unblock GPinkerton who actually brought in most sources of academic scholarship into the article and is the leading editor of the article? Or could you give at least an explanation for to only allow the ones who have opposed academic scholarship as Kurdish POV, but exclude the one who brought them in?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle, GPinkerton isn't blocked, they have a topic ban. That topic ban wasn't placed by me, and I couldn't remove it without at minimum discussing first with the admin who placed it, and even then there might have to be a discussion, as the topic ban was placed via a discussion among multiple admins. A removal of the topic ban probably requires an appeal at AN, and frankly I'd recommend a good few months of trouble-free editing in other places. FTR, always feel free to ping me when you are looking for me to comment! I never mind being pinged. —valereee (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

History

Currently, the "History" section spends six paragraphs on pre-modern-Syria, and one paragraph on post-modern-Syria. This is disproportionate. In the "Background" section of Michael Gunter's 2014 book Out of Nowhere, page 7, this is how he introduces the topic of Syrian Kurdistan (I added wikilinks for anyone who is not familiar with the terms):

Although Syria is an ancient land, the modern state only dates from the French mandate established in 1920. The earlier concept of Greater Syria (Bilad al-Sham) had been a much larger one that also included today's Lebanon, Jordan and what was then known as Palestine, which is today's Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Indeed some Arab nationalists would even include modern Iraq so that Greater Syria would denote the united Fertile Crescent. Thus, this study of the Kurds in Syria largely begins with the French mandate as any earlier mention of Syria could easily be misleading. In addition, since there were no separate states of Turkey, Iraq and Syria until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War, the Kurds of those future states simply lived in the Ottoman Empire. The concept of the Kurds in Syria could not be meaningful until the French mandate was created and even later, after failed Kurdish uprisings during the 1920s in Turkey forced many Kurds to leave that country for Syria.

Among pan-Kurdish nationalists, Syrian Kurdistan is often referred to as Western Kurdistan or Rojava (the direction of the setting sun). Since this region contains the country's most fertile areas and is also home to most of its oil reserves, the Kurdish-populated areas of Syria are a prize well worth struggling over.

During the past century it might be said that the Kurds in Syria have suffered a form of sequential triple colonialism: first, the Ottoman Empire until 1918; then the French until 1946; and subsequently the Arabs once Syria gained its independence. Furthermore, after it came to power in 1963, the now moribund Baathist party proved even more hostile toward the Kurds...

Gunter then discusses the Kurdish roots in Syria starting with Krak des Chevaliers (Castle of the Kurds) in the Alawite mountains, and the separate and distinct Kurdish areas in Syria: Afrin, Kobani and Jazira (p. 8), before continuing with the history starting with WWI and forward (p. 9 and on).

The current History section has too much pre-20th-century, and too little 20th-century history, for a topic (Syrian Kurdistan) that is a 20th century concept (because modern Syria is a 20th-century concept, not because Kurdistan is a 20th-century concept, as Gunter explains). I plan to revise the history section to re-balance it, by cutting down on the pre-1918 stuff and expanding the post-1918 stuff. I wanted to share this to explain the reasoning for forthcoming edits. Reverts welcome as always. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Levivich: Your removal of French population numbers, immigration from Turkey and Algun information is unjustified and not accepted. It actually contradicts what you say above about importance of focusing on historical background from the 20th century. Why are ethnographic maps and population censuses unneeded in an area to which Kurds lay national claims while numbers (from the 20th century) show otherwise? If you are not using French mandate numbers, then which numbers should we use and believe? French scholarship from the 1950's is very relevant and necessary to this article as this is when Kurdish nationalistic claims started to appear in Syria. Your approach of 2020 snapshot is missing the context and evolution of things, which is misleading (with all due respect), to say the least. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Because they were not sourced to modern scholarship. It's not a 2020 snapshot, it's using modern scholarship. To the extent we include historical figures, they need to be sourced to modern scholarship not historical scholarship. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, according to the newly implanted rule, modern scholarship are only required "For any disputed content", is there a dispute about the french population numbers? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that an editor disputes something makes it disputed content. —valereee (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You will not find copies of original research and census data published earlier in modern scholarship because that's called PLAGIARISM. You might find very brief mentions with no details, such as this Most Syrian Kurds are originally Turkish Kurds who have crossed the border during different events in the 20th century. The details provided in earlier scholarship (such as the quotes from French authors) about mandate-era ethno-social changes happening in Jazira are all important for a claimed cultural/national territory by a specific group of people. Also, you removed the French mandate numbers from Algun's work (2011) under a different pretext. The census numbers you removed show ethnic composition of different parts of Jazira and population evolution with time. There is no justification to removing these numbers, unless one wants to hide the history of the area. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The 2008 edition (p. 475) says The majority of the Kurds in Syria are originally Turkish Kurds, who left Turkey in the 1920s in order to escape the harsh repression of the Kurds in that country. These Kurds were later joined in Syria by a new large group that drifted out of Turkey throughout the interwar period during which the Turkish campaign to assimilate its Kurdish population was at its highest. This demonstrates the importance of citing recent scholarship, as historiography changes; even this source changed slightly over a three-year period, no doubt in response to feedback from the 2005 edition.

The population table I removed here covers 1929-1954, placing WP:UNDUE focus on the post-war period while excluding the 1920s, and it's sourced to the 1956 survey. Similarly, this content I removed cited to a 1953 survey highlights certain post-war years, which is UNDUE. None of it provides the context that modern scholarship provides. (Note that both the source I quoted above, and the 2008 version of the source you quoted, focus on Turkish Kurd migration specifically in the 1920s.)

The whole History section, and really the whole article, is the sum of years of POV battles. It's really noticeable in the way that it talks about certain minor things in great detail, while barely mentioning other major events. Another tell-tale sign is that the article is based almost entirely on dozens of sources, each of which is only cited once. This is a give-away that editors are including sources to make certain points. What everyone should be doing instead is summarizing the best sources available; that means the article will cite multiple sources multiple times, as those are the sources that are summarized.

Anyway, the reason for the removal of those population figures was because they were sourced to 75-year-old surveys. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you feel that a certain area/event is not covered enough, all you have to do is expand it, not remove other info to make everything look balanced. The French articles do talk about multiple aspects, not just immigration, and were providing great context. The evolution of the population is also important to show how this area developed, and how it was affected by events in neighboring Turkey, and how it started to thrive under French mandate. At the end of the day, it's the history section and relevant info might only come from older sources. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Why recent academic sources

This is the opening to Katharina Lange (2018), "Syria", p. 275, in Sebastian Maisel (ed.), The Kurds: An Encyclopedia of Life, Culture, and Society, ABC-Clio (links added):

Over the last five years, with the political shifts in the region, the escalation of war in Syria, and the significant role assumed by Kurdish political actors in these processes, the country's Kurdish population has become the object of considerable interest to researchers, policy makers, and political activists alike. This largely politically motivated interest has already been foreshadowed since the mid-2000s, in particular following the Kurdish uprising in spring 2004. This recent increase in interest contrasts with previous decades of scholarly negligence regarding Syria's Kurdish communities and their areas of residence, especially with regard to more distant historical periods. Even with the incipient development of Kurdish Studies in the 1980s and 1990s, hardly any research has been conducted on this part of Kurdistan, and despite the recently growing scholarly attention to this part of Syrian society and territory, many aspects of the history, sociology, and anthropology of Syria's Kurdish population remain under (or un-)researched until today. Throughout the 20th century many scholars of post-independence Syria assumed that Kurdish speakers residing within the national borders would, over time, assimilate into the Arab majority. For some, this assumption was reinforced with the rise of Arab nationalism as the dominant ideology in Syrian politics since the 1950s and the introduction of political measures aimed at the accelerated Arabization of the Kurdish populated regions. When Syria's Kurds recently became of political interest to observers in the West, it may this have appeared as if they came "out of nowhere" (Gunter, 2014), even though Kurdish communities look back on centuries of historical presence in today's Syria.

On the same page, Lange writes:

Claims about the numbers and the territories historically inhabited by Syria's Kurds are highly politicized, and any figure can only be based on estimates. In the pre-2011 era, no reliable numbers on politically highly sensitive issues such as the demography and geography were published by the Syrian government (no census since the mandate period has provided any data on ethnic identity). After 2012, the dynamics of Syria's unfolding (civil) war have—despite the emergence of Kurdish-dominated administrative structures—not exactly been conducive to any systematic and critical research into the issue. Moreover, during the fighting, population shifts have affected all parts of Syria, including the Kurdish areas, and (forced) migration movements into and out of these areas continue until today.

Lange discusses population estimates by other recent scholars (McDowall, Allsopp). We can cite Lange and the others for population estimates, and everything else. This is a topic where basically all the scholarship is very recent. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this a good academic source? Syria's Kurds History, Politics and Society - Jordi Tejel, Published by Routledge: "The KDPS continued to promote the teaching of the Kurdish language in Latin characters and to cultivate the nationalist doctrine of the Syrian Kurds, using Kurdish myths (Kawa and "Greater Kurdistan")" [28]. Where in the article do you think we should ad this scholar information that the Kurdish Democratic Progressive Party promoted the "Myth" of "Greater Kurdistan" to Syrian Kurds? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

As to me, it could be added that it was the KDP-S (or an at the times influential Kurdish Party) promoted the teaching of the Kurdish language and mythology. Just add it in NPOV way and mention it with context. The Greater Kurdistan Myth is not an invention but together with Kawa a cultural heritage. The teaching of Myths was used often by the Greek philosophers.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

First we should add some content about KDPS, what it was, etc. And as part of that we should include discussion of what KDPS promoted and didn't promote. And when. And why. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about "Syrian Kurdistan" not "KDPS", that's a different Wikipedia article. So the focus here, in this "Kurdistan" article should be on the "Kurdistan" part, and what the academic professor scholar Jordi Tejel said about "Greater Kurdistan" and him identifying it as something. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you seriously just argue that in the article Syrian Kurdistan, we should focus on Kurdistan, and not on the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Syria? It seems to me the only thing you care about is saying Kurdistan "doesn't exist". Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Levivich: This quote from Lange no reliable numbers on politically highly sensitive issues such as the demography and geography were published by the Syrian government (no census since the mandate period has provided any data on ethnic identity) that you added above shows exactly why the info. you removed from French scholarship is CRUCIAL here. Remember that was repeated in the Algun (2011) work you also removed. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

What is your obsession with these numbers? Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought that was obvious, but explicitly; in an article called " ... Kurdistan" it would be very helpful to know how many Kurds (and non-Kurds) are there and how their numbers/proportion evolved over time. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

But we don't need to cite the 75-year-old French source to say how many Kurds and non-Kurds there are. That's what Lange is saying explicitly. We can cite Lange. It's more reliable!

Also, Algun 2011 is a PhD thesis.

I'm sorry but I feel like I'm talking to someone who has never edited Wikipedia before. I'm really losing patience with having to spend my time explaining the very basics of WP:RS. PhD theses, primary sources, and CIA reports, are not RS. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)