Talk:Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria

What is a "de facto autonomous region"?

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

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

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

They don't want to call themselves a "nation-state" - hence the "Federal System" title. I assume the 'autonomous region' more specifically could be relabelled to proto-state, as they're similar to ISIS in terms of how they operate. -- Wh1ter0se (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

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

Some English speaking journalists have got used to pronouncing "IPA: [ro.ˈʒɑ.vɑ]", so you are free to consider that this is the correct English pronunciation. In Kurdish however, unmodified adjectives, nouns and names are stressed on the last syllable. Though it is not striking in a recording of the isolated word, this is the case for Rojava. You may hear this on recording of rojava and başûrê rojava. CathFR (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So it should be like IPA: [roʒɑˈvɑ] with a stress on the last syllable and a short syllable in the middle? I think we should have the original Kurdish version in the article (in any case it will be modified in this or that direction by people speaking other languages). 2003:77:4F30:3565:7C71:7D74:3E15:E175 (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

[Recent edits]

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

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

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

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

Indeed, and as said in the edit summary, I had moved the additional Turkish perspectives detail paragraph ro Rojava conflict article because WP:UNDUE here, while it suits fine into the existing "Rojava relations with Turkey" there. As someone has undone the removal from here without discernable reason or explanation, the removal here should be done again unless there is an actual argument as to why this paragraph should not be removed here (a) despite quite obvious violation of WP:DUE here and (b) although it is only a literal copy from the Rojava conflict article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You have no right to arbitrary remove anything. This paragraph has been discussed before and it is not undue, actually it is a good balance to the over representation of positive western views. What you see as Undue, is balance to others. Stop declaring what should and should not be done. This is similar to when you proclaimed your own consensus on Turkey page and got blocked for it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph concerned (last para of the article) is an additional second detail paragraph on specific Turkish perspectives, in addition to an already existing general paragraph on Turkish perspectives. The specific perspective of no country has so much elaboration here as Turkey, even without that last paragraoh. The weight given to specific Turkish perspectives that way is a quite obvious violation of WP:UNDUE. Not removing it from here, but rather restoring it, appears to be the "arbitrary" course of action. I still do not see any serious argument in your comment against completing the move of the paragraph to the Rojava conflict article by deleting it here. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You will NOT waste our time again. I know you have plenty of time but not everyone does. I know you are not the brightest, but to call the restoration of a long standing paragraph that was deleted without a discussion an arbitrary act is really special, even from you. No one is waiting, or care, for your view and what you see as an argument and what you dont. You see it undue, but your judgment matter to no one. This paragraph was discussed before, twice, here and here and it was kept. Do not vandalize the article again and this is my last response to you unless other users participate, you have no consensus.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

1) User:Attar-Aram syria should stop making personal attacks and other uncivil behaviour (I left a warning at his talk page).

2) There have been discussions about this part of the article, but it seems that moving the material from Rojava to Rojava conflict has not been discussed before.

3) Repeatedly calling moving this material to another article "vandalising the article" indicates that some users don't understand what is discussed here.

4) It seems that User:Attar-Aram syria opposes the proposal more because of negative feelings against User:2A1ZA than because of arguments.

5) The only user who has presented valid arguments in this discussion so far is User:2A1ZA.

6) The section in question is about international relations. Even after the material is moved there is a long paragraph about the relations to Turkey which is a summary of the moved material. Therefore I think the argument of User:2A1ZA that WP:UNDUE applies here is valid and, as said before, I support moving the material. In addition, in this section material about relations to other countries is underrepresented and should be added if possible.

7) If there are no arguments against I suggest to implement this move of material. 2003:77:4F2A:9B56:2142:A814:B77C:E840 (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The ridiculousness you left on my page was removed immediately, please dont leave anything on my talk page again. The article is full of praise and over-representation of positive western perspective regarding the YPG (and whatever names you like to call its arms). The opponents of YPG need a similar space and since Turkey is the biggest one, then its normal for its paragraph to be long. Here you got your argument. Everything else you said is not worthy of a reply. Oh, and you have no consensus to remove or transfer the paragraph, even if you agree with the reddit guy, so dont do such a thing in this highly problematic protected article. Since you are not a neutral third party and on the side of the reddit guy, then you are not a suitable party to decide who gave an argument and who did not--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

User User:Attar-Aram syria should read WP:UNDUE again. It does not mean giving all views the same space but due space: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." In the case of Rojava a neutral or positive view prevails (USA, Russia, Western Europe, ...) and Turkey represents a minority viewpoint. Therefore the argument of User:Attar-Aram syria is not valid. So I suggest to implement this move of material. 2003:77:4F2A:9B56:2142:A814:B77C:E840 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No need to ping me, I have the article on my talk page. Your suggestion is not enough, too bad for you. I know what Undue is, and I know that picking the praise and hiding the negativity is Undue. Overhauling the article with full long quotes praising this creation called rojava is undue. Again, and again, the paragraph was discussed twice and kept, removing it to another article is practically deleting it, which you will not do. You dont like it ? start an RFC.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, you do not give the impression to understand what WP:UNDUE means. When all but one of the 200 countries of the world do nothing to say they would consider Rojava as "a terrorist thing" or call for its elimination, and only one country (Turkey) does, giving due weight means that the quantity of the text must do justice to this relation, it does not mean that both viewpoints should get equal space. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I was just re-reading the discussion here, and think that for users not familiar with the topic one point should be made explicit here: This article is about Rojava, not about the PYD party or the YPG militia. If you think that extremely extensive elaboration on Turkish perspectives on either of the latter were warranted (which is anyway done in the Rojava conflict article now), you should suggest so in their respective articles, not here. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

It seems that user Attar-Aram syria is engaged in wp:Canvassing#Votestacking: [1], [2]. 2003:77:4F2A:9B56:2142:A814:B77C:E840 (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you even read what canvassing is ! First, do not stalk me, okay? Second: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus". We have no consensus here, so how am I trying to sway it ? Do you think that a generic IP like you have a strong voice to create a consensus? Third, both users I contacted have edited the page and participated in the discussions before, so, and according to the canvassing article, I am not picking them based on criteria "such as a userbox, or from user categorization".--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, yes, you were canvassing. Your posts were not neutral and was giving away your position on the issue at hand. That is canvassing. It doesn't matter if they participated on discussions, it has to be neutral. Lastly, please stop personally attacking people. "Get a life" is uncivil, a personal attack and unnecessary. Stop it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Stalking my contributions is uncivil and should stop. A guy who use different IPs and know his way in Wikipedia is obviously a blocked old user and if he is stalking other editors, [personal attack redacted]. Lastly, read more in this talk page, see the block logs, and see the miserable situation created here by some users political activist-ness before taking sides. So, regarding you quick judgment based on my sharp attitude without digging deep into the problems, stop it. And I dont appreciate getting commands, so stop it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have responded to you at ANI. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your suggestion is refused and I suggest that you dont suggest. You have no consensus to remove the paragraph from this article. Every party gave his argument. You are one of the parties not a judge. Just because you wrote the last sentence doesnt mean that you concluded the discussion. The arguments against you were already listed and summarizing them like you did doesnt mean that new arguments need to be presented. So sit back.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There were no valid arguments against. 2003:77:4F15:B950:30E9:1757:3DAD:1446 (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, thats not up to you to decide.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the only argument of user Attar-Aram syria has been refuted and now user Attar-Aram syria is unwilling to engage in a sincere discussion. 2003:77:4F15:B950:30E9:1757:3DAD:1446 (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it seems that user attar is unwilling to go into an endless circle of the same arguments and waste his time on stalkers who follow other users edits. We get it, you are on the side of 2A1ZA and support his edit. You are adding no new content and repeating your words over and over, hence, you deserve no new input.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The fact that user Attar-Aram syria was caught wp:Canvassing shouldn't be confused with stalking. Anyway, it is not relevant at the moment. At the moment it is relevant that it seems that the only argument against moving the material has been refuted and user Attar-Aram syria is unwilling to address this issue. 2003:77:4F15:B950:30E9:1757:3DAD:1446 (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing was caught since the contribution log is public. You stalked me and thats wikihounding. Again, you seem to like repeating yourself. For me, I refuted your arguments, and normally, for you, you refuted mine. You can not judge what was refuted. Thats why I have no interest in a conversation with you, cause you offer nothing new.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, user Attar-Aram syria was caught wp:Canvassing. And it seems that user Attar-Aram syria misrepresents both wp:Harassment#Wikihounding and WP:DUE. The misunderstanding of the latter gives rise to the disagreements and problems in this discussion. 2003:77:4F15:B950:30E9:1757:3DAD:1446 (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, all you offer is repeating, which is unworthy of the effort to do a discussion. (you stalked, thats how you found your way to the ANI wikihound)--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

First user Attar-Aram syria should not confuse correct use of an editor's history with stalking. Second, to write "all you offer is repeating" is just a cheap way to avoid serious discussion. 2003:77:4F15:B950:30E9:1757:3DAD:1446 (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You offer nothing to discuss.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not true, I did. 2003:77:4F15:B950:30E9:1757:3DAD:1446 (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I still do not see any substantial argument against completing the move of the paragraph concerned to the Rojava conflict article by deleting it here, in accordance with WP:UNDUE. The only thing that resembles an argument against appears to be one user's claim "I think there should be more stuff which sounds somehow negative in this article here," and that obviously is not a valid argument. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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

ANF director detained in Belgium

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

Journalists get arrested all the time, how does that determine the authenticity of sources? While ANF is very partial, instead of being deleted, the text in the article could be edited to make them neutral. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This incident has nothing do with reliability of ANF. It is more about how the Turkish regime misuses Interpol in order to extend the crackdown on Kurdish media to Europe, see e.g. [3]. Thus it fits better in an article about censorship in Turkey. 2003:77:4F2D:E963:75E6:ACC9:9F65:60FA (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

2003:77:4F2D:E963:75E6:ACC9:9F65:60FA, Wonderful, if Turkey's power reaches the halls of corrupt EU. Perhaps they will learn not to support terror in other countries one day. In any event, I disagree with you on almost all things. Let us focus on content... -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. For those who might ask me for references/sources, here is just one. A report reveals the Danish government pays Daesh terrorists welfare assistance. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You're seriously not contributing at all anymore. All you're trying to do now is spread Turkish Propaganda. You're obviously unwilling to engage in any kind of constructive discussion, unless the other side shares your POV.

I seriously don't care about Turkey, if Erdogan wants to ruin his own country in every possible way, then so be it. But Propaganda should not be present on Wikipedia. 79.246.30.193 (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to agree with me or care about anything. You're free. But please stop slandering me. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

While this obviously is just another abuse of this talk page for general political POV pushing unrelated to the article, I would still like to correct that ANF is the news agency close to the Turkish-Kurdish PKK, while ANHA is the news agency close to the Syrian-Kurdish PYD. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Chart of how cantons/government work?

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

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

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

So called rojava

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

Tell Rifaat and Tell Abyad are controlled by the SDF ("YPG militias") and administered under the Rojava government so obviously they should be included. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What are the criteria to include a town, besides military control? Those towns have an overwhelming majority of Arabs. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The criteria is that if a town is controlled by the SDF and governed by their council, they're considered as de facto parts of Rojava. The whole part of Rojava is a de facto region, so wherever their forces conquer settlements, they incorporate them into their system. For example, Tell Abyad was incorporated into the Kobanî Canton in October 2015. The towns' ethnicity has nothing to do with it, Rojava is clearly proclaimed to be a multiethnic and pluralistic system. Ethnically, Tell Abyad is an extremely diverse town:

"Tal Abyad is a city rich in ethnic and racial diversity where Kurds and Arabs live together, in addition to the Armenians and Turkmen. The Kurds consist 55% of the city population, 30% of Tal Abyad's population, and about 15% of the total population of Al Raqqa Governorate, according to the General Coordinator of the Local Council in Al Raqqa."

Editor abcdef (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Can the General Coordinator of the Local Council in Al Raqqa be taken seriously? -Human like you (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The local council of Raqqa and the Center for Documentation of Violations in Syria are considered reliable sources. Both are pro-opposition and not even pro-PYD. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Reliable according to whom? There report of full of all types of mistakes. What is "Eye of Jesus"? They mean Ein Eisa. Such BS cannot be taken seriously. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

What's the alternative then? BasNews? What do change do you want to make? Go against reliable sources and remove Tell Abyad from the list settlements occupied by Rojava? Editor abcdef (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You have to be kidding about your coordinator statistics!!! It's would be OK with me to say "Areas under military occupation by PYD", but assigning a new invented name to those place is not OK and you will have to come up with credible references to support your claims. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how citing CDVS which consists of first-hand accounts is "kidding". No new names were invented and Tell Abyad is not under "military occupation" under the PYD which is a non-military political group. Militarily it's under joint control of the YPG and the FSA. If you have better sources please present them. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If what you are saying is true regarding joint control of YPG and FSA, then it's not part of rojava in any manner. Obviously too you and 2A1 (oops, and a couple of IP's too), the maps YOU create are the ones to refer to.. Wikipedia is no place for your trash. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that there are autonomous towns and villages, just like most areas under FSA or other military factions. This does not consititute any political status and does not require categories and new names. Again, I am OK with categorirs describing military control. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The lemma and topic of this article is the alternative civil administration which the Rojava framework provides. This article is not about military control, and there is no such thing as administration of civil affairs by military bodies in areas where the military control is with Syrian Democratic Forces militias. Concerning your interest in this article, I am surprised by the impression that it appears you never actually read it, in particular the sections on politics, society and economy. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a Kurdish (what you call rojava if you wish) civil admibistration in Mare', al-Bab, Azaz, Tel Rifaat, Jarablus, Qabasin, etc? The answer is a BIG NO. Therefore, you just rebutted your own argument. These areas are under control of FSA, not Kurdish forces and have no other civil admionstration except FSA or whatever is arranged by local residents. In Tel Rifaat for example, it is under military occupation of YPG. Does that m,ae t part of rojava despite the will of its residents? Your persistent edit-warring here and in other similararticles using very biased (pro-kurdish sites or "news agencies" or blogs) does not change facts. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Rojava is a polyethnic polity, it is not ethnically "Kurdish". And yes, in the towns mentioned in that population center table there is a civil administration within the Rojava framework in place (including e.g. Tel Rifaat, the town is not at all run by a YPG militia body, as you appear to claim into the blue), while for the towns with dark grey background (you mention Mare', al-Bab, Azaz, Jarablus, Qabasin) as per legend such civil administration has been set up but is not in place because those towns are still occupied by ISIL or other Islamist groups. I see a valid argument to remove the towns with dark grey background from the list, as not to confuse readers. I do not see valid arguments to vandalize the table as such, or to try deny the existence of such Rojava framework civil administration where it is in place, both things you do with your recent edits. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, if you see the valid argument, then go ahead and delete those towns in dark grey from the table. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I also see a valid argument too keep those dark grey background towns in the table, because there are Rojavan civil administrations set up for them, if not in place. I am somewhat indifferent if to keep them in the table or remove them. If this were the only issue, I probably would not participate in the discussion. The reason why I participate are the other aspects of your edits concerned, in particular the attempt to deny the existence of Rojavan civil administration as such and invent an non-existing, pure fantasy SDF military administration instead. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are you so eager on insisting that Rojava is all about the Kurds? It's multiethnic, as described in the article and even backed by several sources! And an ongoing war is no reason to deny the existence of a civil administration. It's not unusual to create civil administrations for captured areas during a war. Most military forces then get replaced by police forces. And Rojava DOES have a police force, the Asayish. You also keep insisting that everything of Rojava is occupied by the YPG. It's not. It's occupied by the SDF, of which the YPG is a part of. And the SDF receive their orders from the Syrian Democratic Council, which is their political wing. (Just like the PYD is the political wing of the YPG) And this SDC is what basically governs "Rojava"! And these towns not occupied by the SDF are only listed in the table, because they're claimed by the civil administration of Rojava. So your argument that these towns are "not even held by the YPG" is invalid from the beginning. No facts were invented here, everything is properly explained, but apparently you didn't properly read the text. The SDF and especially the YPG are also eager to counterbalance the kurdish dominance within the SDF, by recruiting Arabs for their offensives in Arab-majority areas. After all the YPG initially refused to go for Raqqa, because they feared that the local population will be hostile towards them.79.246.21.154 (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I am amazed here, are you saying you will delete those "claimed rojava towns" or not? Based on the earlier discussion and agreement, these towns are in no way (civil or military or ethnic, or whatsoever) parts of PYD-run areas. I will accordingly delete them from the table since you are indifferent and you see the argument. I am against the name rojava because this is OR and almost no serious international party uses this name. I am also against faking facts and inventing names here. I am not against another name like "Kurdish-run areas" or "PYD run areas in northern Syria". I hope this is clear now. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the concept of the talk page. You can't just revert the article and refer to the talk page without a clear agreement. This discussion isn't even over yet, and clearly you're the only opposing voice in this section. You have therefore violated the general sanctions which permits only one revert in articles related to the Syrian Civil War within 24 hours. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Now, let's get some facts straight here. You're probably going to ignore me anyway, because i'm an IP, but whatever.

1. Rojava isn't Original Research. That would imply that the name only exists within Wikipedia. But it's in fact the common name for the area in Northern Syria controlled by the SDF.

2. Northern Syria isn't occupied or run by the PYD. It's governed by the SDC. (With the PYD alone being a clear minority in that council)

3. The YPG are part of the SDF, which also include Arab, Turkmen and Assyrian militias. (Several areas controlled by the SDF have little to no YPG-presence, like the Manbij-area.)

4. International Recognition doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Transnistria is called Transnistria, because it's been called that name by its local authorities. Or should we rename it to something like "Russian-occupied Moldova"? What about Nagorno-Karabakh Republic? Rename it to "Armenian-occupied Azerbaijan"? Both are basically "illegal" entities, but we still use their "official" names.

Now please stop your disruptive behaviour, you have no right to delete well-sourced information from Wikipedia, just because you don't like it.79.246.4.137 (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ridiculous map

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

Thanks for your comment. I fully agree. Well, actually the entire map is scandalous, fictitious, OR, and blackwashing. This whole article is propaganda for YPG, and represents territories occupied by military forces (just like any other territory in Syria) as a separate entity. I had removed this map from this article before, but due to the presence of two edit-warriors here, I just gave up. Still, please feel free to remove it. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the map... Green marks territory controlled by the SDF and its allies... Orange marks territory officially claimed by the regional government of Rojava... and since they don't officially claim any ISIL territory as of now, coloring it orange would be Original Research... also, most of Rojava isn't "occupied by military forces", but governed by a civil administration... Rojava is a de facto entity, just like Transnistria, Somaliland and Nagorno-Karabakh...79.246.11.115 (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Unless and until Rojava/SDF actually say "we claim that land", it isn't claimed. So the map is correct as it stands. Batternut (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Butternut and the anon. Nothing wrong with the map, it simply portrays the situation as it is. Applodion (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)