Jump to content

Talk:Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Master of Oof (talk | contribs) at 01:44, 8 October 2019 (→Mis-cited Information in Intro Section: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

New Administration, "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria"

Apparently the DFNS is being replaced (?) with the Autonomous Admin of N&E Syria(AANES/NES)? It appears that DFNS may have only referred to the areas currently designated a region (as well as Manbij), whereas the regions in the southeast are part of a different structure, and these 2 structures are being unified into AANES. Something like that? I'm not sure what the administration change is officially, but essentially what was previously referred to as the DFNS is now the AANES/NES.
Sources: [1] [2] [3] [4]
So I believe the article should be renamed to either 'Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria' or 'Northern and Eastern Syria' to reflect this administration change. Thespündragon 19:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thespoondragon: Yes, it seems that the new entity has replaced the DFNS. However this is still a relatively new change so at least a week should pass after debate on this page before changes are made. Some questions remain such as the status of the three DFNS regions (Jazira, Euphrates, Afrin) in relation to the affiliated regions/civil councils (Raqqa, Tabqa, Manbij, Deir ez-Zor) - if they're all equal subordinate regions of the new entity or not, as well as regarding the precise English name and abbreviation of the entity. The name in Arabic (الإدارة الذاتية لشمال وشرق سوريا), Kurmanji (Rêveberiya Xweser a Bakur û Rojhilatê Sûriyeyê), Turkish (Kuzey ve Doğu Suriye Özerk Yönetimi) and Syriac (ܡܕܰܒܪܳܢܘܬ݂ܳܐ ܝܳܬ݂ܰܝܬܳܐ ܠܓܰܪܒܝܳܐ ܘܡܰܕܢܚܳܐ ܕܣܘܪܝܰܐ - Mdabronuṯo Yoṯayto l-Garbyo w-Madnḥyo d-Suriya) can be seen on the emblem featured on this page (https://anfdeutsch.com/rojava-syrien/beratungen-der-autonomieverwaltung-zur-aktuellen-situation-8527), however the English name is translated as "Self-Administration in North and East Syria" (http://repsanes.net/) and "Self-Administration of North and East Syria" (http://rojavabenelux.nl) on two official pages with the abbreviation being "SANES", while "Autonomous Administration" might be a more correct translation and is also used on the official ANHA news page and in English-speaking media when referring to the entity. AntonSamuel (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should wait for more information before renaming the article and such, though maybe we should mention the Admin. change in 'Polity names and translations' or a different section? Thespündragon 13:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for which name to use, I think the translation Self-Administration of North and East Syria/SANES is the one we should use, as it is used on official sites, and both translations are used on pro-sdf news sites such as ANF. (plus SANES is a nicer acronym than AANES in my opinion) We could also put in polity names that it is translated as both, like we have on the YPJ and YPG pages. Thespündragon 17:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe it is best to wait, also because the Syrian government and the SDF have increased cooperation greatly since YPG invited the SAA into Manbij. Who knows, perhaps in short time the region or parts of it will return to the government. LyriaSiders 19:18, 4 January 2019 (CET)

Tagging previous editors of this page: @Applodion: @Jim7049: @Khoshhat: @Purijj: @Editor abcdef: @Cirflow: @2A1ZA: @Nøkkenbuer: @Bobfrombrockley: @Takinginterest01: What do you guys think regarding a potential name change? Which English translation would you be in favor of? AntonSamuel (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe wait a while before changing the article name. SAMES seems to be more officially used so far, but Self is a clunkier translation than Autonomous, so i wouldn't be surprised if latter starts being used more. But maybe edit the lead sooner? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, let's wait a while before changing the name (until more information comes out in terms of the stature of this new administration). Purijj (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info: Kongreya Star's twitter says that there are 7 regions in the SANES, Afrin, Manbij, Kobani(Euphrates), Jazira, Tabqa, Raqqa, and Deir Ezzor [5], i'm trying to obtain a better source Thespündragon 22:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use the official name and go with it from there Takinginterest01 (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede: The Self-Administration of North and East Syria (SANES) (languages bit), commonly referred to as Rojava or Northern and Eastern Syria, is a de facto autonomous region in northeastern Syria. It consists of three self-governing regions, Afrin Region, Jazira Region, and Euphrates Region, and local councils in the Manbij, Tabqa, Raqqa, and Deir Ez-Zor regions. (then the rest of it)
I used SANES as it is the most used on official sites. Thespündragon 00:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AntonSamuel I believe at this point enough time has passed that we can start converting the articles to the new name. I believe we should use the official translation SANES or "the Self-Administration" when referring to the Administration itself (ie: the SANES has 3 self-governing regions ... ), and using "Northern and Eastern Syria", "Northern Syria", etc when referring to the region (Policing in Northern and Eastern Syria is performed by the Asayish ... ) Thespündragon 20:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And in the "Politiy names and translations section" we should say something like "there are multiple translations of this into english, including the Self-Administration of North and East Syria, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, among others." Thespündragon 20:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thespoondragon: While I appreciate that you want to keep the article(s) updated and factually correct which I do too, I'm still not so sure if it's prudent to change them yet, I've been trying to keep track of more publications regarding the issue, but there is still a lack of clear information about the nature of the administration and its sub-regions, such as was provided by the ANHA News agency about the different regions during the elections in Northern Syria. There also seems to be a consensus by the other editors here to hold until more information becomes available. In the mean time, updating some parts of the article describing the name change without moving it could be a good idea. I also think a fitting solution regarding the name would be to rename the article to "Northeast Syria" and specify the exact name "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" or "Self-Administration of North and East Syria" using the "NES" abbreviation, while specifying that "SANES" have also been used by the EU representation offices. I would argue that this is the most prudent solution since "NES", "Northeast Syria" or "North East Syria" are shorter names and abbreviations and they are also the terms employed by organizations connected to the United Nations such as these: https://uncareer.net/search?q=nes+syria https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/operations/whole-of-syria and the "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" and "NES" abbreviation seems to be confirmed by Kongra Star here: https://twitter.com/starcongress/status/1080768956112228352 AntonSamuel (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AntonSamuel: (on mobile, fhis may be formatted or typed badly) I agree that moving the article to Northeast Syria/North and East Syria/etc would make the most sense, especially per WP:COMMONNAME, and the rest of your suggestions also make sense. In my prev. post, I was only arguing for editing the name components of the article right now, which you appear to agree with. On an unrelated note, the Raqqa, Deir Ezzor, etc Administrations do not seem to have a corresponding NES Region yet, as the SA-NES Benelux office website only lists the Cizire, Afrin, and Euphrates regions. [6] Thespündragon 22:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why has it been renamed to Rojava? Rojava hasn't been the name for ages and it doesn't make sense to use a colloquial Kurdish terminology for an area that is majority Arab (4 million people, only like 1.6/7 of whom are Kurdish). The formal name should be used, aka the DFNS, NES, SANES, or whatever. 2A00:23C4:B12E:D400:83B:113:1AEA:64A0 (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved: with no prejudice with regards to a future nomination as consensus can change. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Democratic Federation of Northern Syria → Northern and Eastern Syria – In Late 2018-early 2019 the regional administration changed it's name from the DFNS to Self-Adminstration / Autonomous Administration of Northern and Eastern Syria (see above discussion). The common name for the region itself is Northern and Eastern Syria(with variations in exact grammar)
SA-NES Representation in Benelux ANF News article on the recent Manbij bombing, uses Northern and Eastern Syria search results on ANF for Northern and Eastern Syria Jerusalem Post uses both Northeast Syria and North and East Syria Reuters, both northern and eastern Syria and Northeast Syria (I used both instances mentioning the SA/AA-NES, and referring to it as a geographical area in relation to SDF controlled areas)
This would also include changing mentions of the region in the article to Northern and Eastern Syria/NES or the Autonomous/Self Administration depending on context (see above discussion) Thespündragon 16:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Northeast Syria describes the region where this administration is found, no sources suggest that it is the name of the group and it's WP:SYNTH to assume that newspapers are referring to the group. "Autonomous Administration of North and East of Syria" might be an acceptable new name, but it's likely too soon for that move as well, the sources above say "tentatively known". power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Northern and Eastern Syria", support Rojava or current title, conditional support for "Autonomous Administration of Northern and Eastern Syria" pending more sources - my apologies for how long that !vote is, but to this day the common name is actually still simply "Rojava", and just saying "Northern and Eastern Syria" implies we're talking more about the region than the entity. If more sources suggest that their official name actually is the AANES now and not the DFNS anymore, I'd be willing to support, but as far as I know that's not confirmed to be the case. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Update): I am not at all against "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria", but - as I said in my first comment - "Rojava" never stopped being the WP:COMMONNAME. Seeing that a number of other editors actually agree with my comment that it is the WP:COMMONNAME and therefore would support changing the name back, although I wasn't advocating for changing the name to Rojava at that time, I'll certainly be willing to support a proposal for such a change. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "rojava" "name" is an invention of one militia group and has no significant use/acceptance by any international, reputable media outlet or organization/country. I think the best name for the area should be "Kurdish occupied/administered areas in northeastern Syria". We did not create an article for ISIL caliphate land and its administrative divisions/hierarchy. The exact same applies here as this is an interim consequence of the ongoing civil war, and is likely to change pretty soon. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess "Kurdish occupied"... has also no significant use/acceptance by any international, reputable media outlet or organization/country, I have never seen "Kurdish occupied" anywhere, but you are free to show us media outlets we can consider.
Referring to a de facto autonomous region as an occupation by the Kurds unquestionably violates WP:NPOV, so that's off the table. We actually do have articles about ISIL and its territorial claims, so the content of Amr ibn Kulthoum's argument is simply incorrect. Though I'm not advocating for changing the name of the article back to "Rojava", it is true that it remains the WP:COMMONNAME among media outlets. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we wait a little longer to see the result of the negotiations between Damascus and the SDF/TEV-DEM? If they come to an agreement we maybe would have to make a move as well.Lean Anael (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definately not "Kurdish occupied..." because this government is multi-ethnic. Rojava is a perfectly fine name until and unless something more solid energes as a common or proper name in English. Legacypac (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be best if we can determine a name that can remain regardless of future official name changes. I think a short-form name would be best, rather than a long construction. (ie: SDC administered areas in Northeast Syria) An idea I have is doing something similar to the official 2016 name (DF Rojava-North Syria), with something like a title "Rojava-Northeast Syria". This would be both unambiguous(not being purely geographic), and not give undue weight to the name Rojava, which is officially only used to refer to Kurdish-majority areas. Simply "Rojava" may also work, as it is the most common in western English sources. Thespündragon 00:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to hold off on a name change for now, until more detail about the nature of the new structure of the region emerges regarding the proper English translation, the nature of the sub-regions and the role of the new "General Assembly of the NES" vs the Syrian Democratic Council. Considering the volatility of the region more changes might also be made relatively soon. Updating the article further to avoid confusion and clarifying that a name change has occurred is entirely ok by me though. I would also oppose renaming the article to Rojava, since this is both not the official name of the region and not the dominant name in the international media when referring to the region any longer, it's often just referred to as the "Kurdish-led" administration in Northeastern Syria. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 28 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Rojova. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Federation of Northern Syria → Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria – If were going to use the official name of Rojava than we should use the current official name. Charles Essie (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support We should use the official names of places like this one. Macedonia recently changed its name to North Macedonia and that's why we changed the article title to that. I believe this is similar to the Macedonia case. Mstrojny (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Rojava instead, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" is uncommon, unwieldy and hardly recognisable to non-experts. --RJFF (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Move to Rojava instead, per WP:COMMONNAME. Unlike North Macedonia this is not a UN country and the name was not decided by an international agreement. Use the common name and cite the new name as the official name in the lede. Legacypac (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, oppose move to Rojava. Rojava is no longer the predominantly common name used for the region in the media. Lack of international recognition is not sufficient as an argument in my view, Nagorno-Karabakh has been renamed to Artsakh here on Wikipedia despite lack of international recognition. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Rojava. Same rationale as a few weeks ago: It's how our reliable sources primarily refer to the region,[10][11][12] and thus its common name. Readers coming to this article are not using either of the titles mentioned in the nom. czar 04:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Rojava, unlikely any of these names are going to catch on until there's some kind of internationally recognised agreement. And in that case the article should be split into two, with one covering the administration and another covering the cultural region of "Rojava", i.e. Western Kurdistan. Rob984 (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support split. Syrian Kurdistan should not redirect here because it is not synonymous with the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria since the latter does not control all Kurdish lands in Syria and does control lots of non-Kurdish territories. Charles Essie (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposed move (not to Rojava). I got here because I read an Australian news story[13] and sought to read more background on what that report calls "The Autonomous Administration of North East Syria" (only missing "and" from the proposed name). This article says that the proposed name has been the right one since last September. --Scott Davis Talk 03:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into Syrian Kurdistan(or Rojava) and Autonomous Administration of Northern and Eastern Syria(or another translation, or a shorter name) this article is specifically about the de-facto autonomous region named AANES/SANES, previously named the DFNS, therefore it should be named the current name of said administration.
Rojava (short for Western Kurdistan in Kurdish) or Syrian Kurdistan, is an area considered by Kurdish Nationalists to be one of the four constituent parts of Greater Kurdistan, and we should have an article on this, like we have articles on Iraqi, Iranian, and Turkish Kurdistan.
Naming this article Rojava would be confusing/ambiguous, as Rojava is both used to refer to the SANES, and to the Syrian part of Kurdistan (these two are not the same thing, unlike Iraqi Kurdistan). Possibly have Rojava be a disambiguation page to both of these articles?
-Thespündragon 05:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split Syrian Kurdistan into new article?

Are there any objections to splitting Syrian Kurdistan into a new article, as this article only covers the Northeast Syrian administration rather than the Syrian part of the region Kurdistan. We have articles for Turkish and Iranian Kurdistan as geographic regions, and Iraqi Kurdistan as a geographic region is synonymous with the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, while Syrian Kurdistan does not correctly refer to the Northeast Syrian Autonomous Administration.Thespündragon 13:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I will edit it a bit then implement it to Syrian Kurdistan sometime today hopefully. -Thespündragon 14:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name is OR at best or Biased at worst

Can someone give me one respected media outlet or international body (state, organization) that is using the word rojava for this area? After 2011, Kurdish nationalists invented that word for parts of al-Hasaka Governorate and two other pockets in Aleppo Governorate. However, the use of the name HERE has been rolling to cover 30% of Syria's territory, which is a SCAM and scandal. This page is full of pro-Kurdish propaganda and almost all the claims here are entirely based on that. This page poses a huge credibility test for Wikipedia. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the discussion above, there were neutral news agencies provided that used "Rojava" as a term for the de facto autonomous region. I voted against changing back the name, but I understand why "Rojava" would be easier to use since the entity has already changed its name several times so far. Regarding the neutrality of the article, I've been trying to replace blatently non-neutral material and sources, but many remaining sources and some segments are not ideal in terms of neutrality, and the article could use improvement, while still reflecting the facts on the ground of course. So your help with constructive edits that improves the factuality and the neutrality of the article would be welcome. However, adding highly opinionated pro-regime and pro-Turkey sources and viewpoints instead would not be examples of this. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If accusations of demographic changes and ethnic cleansing do not belong under "Demographics section" then where? You insisting on deleting this sourced, important piece of information from the head f the Russian diplomacy shows the biased nature of your edits and the biased nature of this article altogether. It's funny how you talk about pro-regime and pro-opposition as being biased, but the pro-Kurdish militia bullshit that is flooding this article being "not biased" according to you. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The main claims in this article (names, human rights) are almost entirely based on PKK/YPG propaganda sources (ARA News, Kurdistan 24, Hawar News, Rudaw, Kurdishquestion, Diclenews.com, etc.). Again, there is a huge credibility issue here, I have tried to makke it a little more neutral in the past but users like you AntonSamuel are edit-warring to keep it this way. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the adoption of the word Rojava is exclusive to pro-YPG/PKK sources. Most international media do not refer to this area as Rojava. This is no different from any other area in Syria, which is called by the name of the war belligerent occupying it. A handful of users here insist on inventing names for this area and/or adopting made-up propaganda names such as rojava. How can the name apply to three enclaves not exceeding 5% of Syria's territory back in 2015 and apply the same name to an area covering 30% of Syria, with a majority of non-Kurdish residents, not now and never in the past? Here is a few examples:

None of these media outlets mentions the word "rojava" in these stories. They simply refer to the area by the facts, that is Kurdish-controlled areas, SDF-controlled areas, Kurdish forces, etc. Any serious attempt at fixing the credibility of this article? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly come in with some Ideas and articles of some of the same news agencies you named where they wrote about Rojava. I understand there can be better names, because the region written about here is larger than just Rojava, but the name of the region really changed several times and I also understand that some chose the name Rojava because this is the name most people can associate to something actually written here in the article. People will not google Northeastern Syria but rather Rojava if they search for the region controlled by the SDF.

Following some articles naming Rojava, which in some articles is also referred as an area in Northeastern Syria.

And here some other rather respected media who write about Rojava as well.

I agree that an area including not only Rojava but also the Arab, and Christian areas can be named differently. They have their own name which is "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" and I guess this would be fair. It seems Anton Samuel could live with it too. But this would be the third name this article has this year...If we change the name of the article away from Rojava, a Name which for many people interested in the region Northern Syria is best known, we should agree on something a clear majority supports so we can keep a name for this article (for more time than just some months). I would not open a new discussion about the name for now and wait some more time (because we had the same discussion already twice this year), but if someone else opens one, I would try to help to come to a good end of this discussion. Best, Lean Anael (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights violation claims

@عمرو بن كلثوم: Hi again, if there are going to be sections on this page that feature opinionated statments about this political entity, then neither pro-PYD, pro-regime or pro-opposition claims should be solely present without presenting other viewpoints, and if conflicting reports exist among largely neutral international agencies regarding a matter, that should also be clarified in line with WP:NPOV. For example, a while back I added a summary of common criticisms against the entity in the introduction to balance out the arguments that defenders of the region present. Adding a statement about alleged ethnic cleansing without credible differing statements, which do exist, such as those from U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that you removed without an explanation from the Human rights in North and East Syria is quite problematic. So I think some clarification regarding the subject is due if it should be featured on the page and not just on the related Human rights article. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AntonSamuel: Please refrain from your disruptive and BIASED behavior. When satellite images and international organizations show and present evidence that villages were razed down to earth, it does not really matter what YPG or Rami Abdulrahman say. Please be objective for once. And this section is about forced demographic changes, so this piece is ought to stay here in the Demographics section where you talk about majority and minorities, because its bigger than just human rights "issues". I hope you get this and do not indulge in edit-warring again. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@عمرو بن كلثوم: Again, if there are international organizations on both sides of the argument such as Amnesty International, the UN or SOHR, then both arguments should be presented. What would be biased is to only present one side of the argument. If you want to propose such a section that uses a language that you would agree with, then you're welcome to present a suggestion here on the talk page, however, if you keep on reverting any efforts I make in order to keep the article in line with WP:NPOV, then it is that behavior that would be characterized as disruptive and as edit warring. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to look at the edits, but I did protect the article for a few days so that you two (and, hopefully, others) could figure this out here. A broader point: the article should represents the scholarly and mainstream consensus. If that consensus is split, then that should also be mentioned. The question as to whether applying due weight in this instance should be done in a homogeneous way or whether it ought to be split depends on the strength of reliable sources. El_C 19:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Thank you for your clarification of what would be appropriate for the article according to Wikipedias guidelines. If you have the time, I would appriciate it if you could take a look at the edits and present your viewpoint regarding the matter as well. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see. For now, my suggestion to you two would be to launch a Request for comment about this question of what should be up there right now and with what sources. You can each submit your own version and phrase the RfC to choose a preference between passage A, passage B, or Other. This will then help bring outside input. Does that makes sense? El_C 20:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SOHR is not an international organizations on both sides. Its not an organization actually. What is important for Wikipedia as an encycolpedia is what academics and reliable figures say. Sadly, this article was written in the past using partisan sources by very opinionated journalists, and was maintained by editors who showed clear skills when it came to pick the sources that would support only their point of view. Hence, I agree with El_C: it is important to re-write this article by using academic sources, or articles by respected renowned journalists (SOHR isnt one). The words of PYD leaders, or Turkish leaders, or opposition and Syrian government leaders, should be presented properly, as representing not facts, but the opinions of those who said them. Rojava is effectively an abbreviation of Western Kurdistan. Therefore, it is unacceptable that its used for an entity controlling Raqqa and Manbij...etc. I believe it is time for a neutral editor to re-construct this article, and eliminate the propagandist language in it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the UN has said that there was no ethnic cleansing by the YPG/SDF.. I think this should be included as well if a Lawrow citation of Demographic change by the Kurds is included. And if we are at demographic change the Arabic Belt policy should have a prominent place, too. The Kurds have been displaced with state policies and easily to source laws, while what Lawrow says contradicts the scholarly and mainstream consensus (at least of European universities) that the new administration of Rojava makes a strong effort to give all ethnias same political and juridical rights. I will make an effort to include some academic sources next time the article is liberated to edit in it again. Lean Anael (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lean Anael: @Attar-Aram syria: @El C: @عمرو بن كلثوم: I would appriciate it if other editors would contribute to resolving this issue! Below I've posted my attempt to create a balanced and short section that dealt with the various claims of displacments, feel free to use it as a template and add or remove stuff from it. I think it would be far more appropriate to place in the human rights section rather than the demographics section when dealing with these kinds of claims from different organizations, rather than figures or facts that has to do with the region's ethnolingustic makeup. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

During the ongoing Syrian civil war, organizations such as Amnesty International[1] and the Middle East Observer as well as Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov[2][3] have accused SDF forces of committing ethnic cleansing in captured areas with predominantely Arab population such as Tel Abyad.[4][5] Contrasting with these claims, the head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has stated that there was "no 'ethnic cleansing' in Tel Abyad against the Turkmen and Arabic population"[6] and the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry also released a report that stated that the commission "found no evidence to substantiate claims that YPG or SDF forces ever targeted Arab communities on the basis of ethnicity, nor that YPG cantonal authorities systematically sought to change the demographic composition of territories under their control through the commission of violations directed against any particular ethnic group".[7]

References

  1. ^ "Syria: US ally's razing of villages amounts to war crimes". Amnesty International. 13 October 2015.
  2. ^ "Syria: Kurdish militias plan a demographic change in Manbij". Middle East Observer. 14 August 2016.
  3. ^ "Tal Abyad: Achilles Heel of the Syrian Kurdish Belt". Middle East Observer. 21 December 2018.
  4. ^ "Syrian Kurds accused of ethnic cleansing and killing opponents". The Telegraph. 18 May 2016.
  5. ^ "Lavrov: US attempts to resettle Kurds in Arab areas might trigger Syria's breakup". Tass Agency. 8 May 2019.
  6. ^ ""There's no 'ethnic cleansing' in Til Abyad against the Turkmen and Arabic population.", Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker, 26. Juni 2015". GFBV.de. Retrieved 27 May 2019.
  7. ^ "Syria, Report by UN Commission of Inquiry (March 2017)". International Committee of the Red Cross. 10 March 2017. Retrieved 27 May 2019.

Request for comment - Human rights violation claims

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There seems to be consensus among participants to retain AntonSamuel's 30 June proposal. El_C 18:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting comment on the matter discussed in the section above, about which one of the two alternatives featured below regarding human rights violations claims is the most appropriate (or if a third option is preferable) after suggestion to do so from @El C. Presently the first of the two segments that are posted below is featured on the Rojava page. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The segment added by @عمرو بن كلثوم:

During the ongoing Syrian civil war, many human rights groups, including Amnesty International[1] and international organizations[2] [3] have accused SDF forces of committing ethnic cleansing in Arab areas they were capturing from other war factions. [4] The most recent accusation was made on 8 May 2019 by Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov who said[5]:

The US attempts to resettle Kurds in the areas where Arab tribes have always lived historically is a very bad process and a direct way to separatism and the breakup of Syria

My (@AntonSamuel) attempt to create a more neutral segment (I also suggested that this information is more suited to the "Human rights" section than in the "Demographics" section):

During the ongoing Syrian civil war, organizations such as Amnesty International[6] and the Middle East Observer as well as Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov[7][8] have accused SDF forces of committing ethnic cleansing in captured areas with predominantely Arab population such as Tel Abyad.[9][10] Contrasting with these claims, the head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has stated that there was "no 'ethnic cleansing' in Tel Abyad against the Turkmen and Arabic population"[11] and the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry also released a report that stated that the commission "found no evidence to substantiate claims that YPG or SDF forces ever targeted Arab communities on the basis of ethnicity, nor that YPG cantonal authorities systematically sought to change the demographic composition of territories under their control through the commission of violations directed against any particular ethnic group".[12]

References

  1. ^ "Syria: US ally's razing of villages amounts to war crimes". Amnesty International. 13 October 2015.
  2. ^ "Syria: Kurdish militias plan a demographic change in Manbij". Middle East Observer. 14 August 2016.
  3. ^ "Tal Abyad: Achilles Heel of the Syrian Kurdish Belt". Middle East Observer. 21 December 2018.
  4. ^ "Syrian Kurds accused of ethnic cleansing and killing opponents". The Telegraph. 18 May 2016.
  5. ^ "Lavrov: US attempts to resettle Kurds in Arab areas might trigger Syria's breakup". Tass Agency. 8 May 2019.
  6. ^ "Syria: US ally's razing of villages amounts to war crimes". Amnesty International. 13 October 2015.
  7. ^ "Syria: Kurdish militias plan a demographic change in Manbij". Middle East Observer. 14 August 2016.
  8. ^ "Tal Abyad: Achilles Heel of the Syrian Kurdish Belt". Middle East Observer. 21 December 2018.
  9. ^ "Syrian Kurds accused of ethnic cleansing and killing opponents". The Telegraph. 18 May 2016.
  10. ^ "Lavrov: US attempts to resettle Kurds in Arab areas might trigger Syria's breakup". Tass Agency. 8 May 2019.
  11. ^ ""There's no 'ethnic cleansing' in Til Abyad against the Turkmen and Arabic population.", Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker, 26. Juni 2015". GFBV.de. Retrieved 27 May 2019.
  12. ^ "Syria, Report by UN Commission of Inquiry (March 2017)". International Committee of the Red Cross. 10 March 2017. Retrieved 27 May 2019.

AntonSamuel (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall pretty good, but you shouldn't say 'ethnic cleansing'. Note that Amnesty doesn't use the term, instead describing it as punishment for supporting the Islamic State. I'd describe it that way. Lavrov is obviously an interested party, and the fact that he does use the term is not sufficient. Not sure whether or not it even makes sense to use him at all, in light of Russia's participation in the war.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AntonSamuel I applaud your attempt to fix this. In general, it looks like a good start to me, except that you are giving a lot more weight to the debunking of the accusations (three and a half lines, versus one and a half lines for the accusations the accusations). Also, you are using direct quotes from the deniers of the claims but did not directly quote the accusations, which are the subject of this discussion and paragraph. For this, I still feel this is not neutral. The comment from Lavrov is important here because Russia has been mediating between the government and SDF, so they are more balanced than other parties like the US, which are directly supporting SDF and have attacked government forces in the area before. Also, this is the highest international figure to release such statement, hence the weight it should take here. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill @Thespoondragon @Adoring nanny @عمرو بن كلثوم Some time has passed now and no new comments on the matter has been added, so I've reworked my earlier proposal by rewording it, shortening the second part without direct quotes and removed the mentioning of Lavrov that was argued to be undue. If consensus can be reached and there are no additional viewpoints from other editors I suggest the discussion be closed and the current segment on the page be replaced. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

During the ongoing Syrian civil war, organizations such as Amnesty International[1] and the Middle East Observer[2][3] have accused SDF forces of forcibly displacing inhabitants of captured areas with predominantely Arab population such as Tel Abyad.[4] Contrasting with these claims, the head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has refuted claims of ethnic cleansing in Tel Abyad against the Turkmen and Arabic population[5] and the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry also released a report that stated that the commission did not find evidence of the YPG or SDF forces committing ethnic cleansing in order to change the demographic composition of territories under their control.[6]

References

  1. ^ "Syria: US ally's razing of villages amounts to war crimes". Amnesty International. 13 October 2015.
  2. ^ "Syria: Kurdish militias plan a demographic change in Manbij". Middle East Observer. 14 August 2016.
  3. ^ "Tal Abyad: Achilles Heel of the Syrian Kurdish Belt". Middle East Observer. 21 December 2018.
  4. ^ "Syrian Kurds accused of ethnic cleansing and killing opponents". The Telegraph. 18 May 2016.
  5. ^ ""There's no 'ethnic cleansing' in Til Abyad against the Turkmen and Arabic population.", Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker, 26. Juni 2015". GFBV.de. Retrieved 27 May 2019.
  6. ^ "Syria, Report by UN Commission of Inquiry (March 2017)". International Committee of the Red Cross. 10 March 2017. Retrieved 27 May 2019.
  • I think this is a decent paragraph. I would like to clarify that my earlier comment was just opposed to Lavrov getting a pull quote; I'm indifferent, not opposed, to whether his opinion should be presented within the paragraph. signed, Rosguill talk 22:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, one additional proposed edit: replace "refute" with "rebut", as the former could be interpreted as meaning that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights's account is the correct one. signed, Rosguill talk 07:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have two comments/reservations. First, You present the accusations in barely one line, and the denials in three lines, which is unbalanced. Second, the opinion by Lavrov is VERY important because in the past Russia has been a mediator between the Syrian Government and SDF and this shows a new position by Russia, and because being a top official of a very important country involved in Syria warrants a different weight compared to human rights groups/organization/press. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk)
  • I appreciate the feedback. Of course, "refuted" may be replaced with "rebutted". Regarding Lavrov, regardless of the importance of Russia's international policy shifts, the claims of a politican, no matter how senior, does not represent a claim that neccesarily is rooted in facts regarding the issue, as can be said for the statments of any politician. The same could example, be said for Trump and his statements about Turkey and the SDF/"the Kurds" that have shifted back and forth quite a bit as well. Those statements may be important and relevant when assessing international politics and the foreign relations of the region and of factions in Syria in general, but not when discussing whether forced displacement/ethnic cleansing has indeed taken place or not, and if so to what extent. It would seem that a majority of the editors participating in this discussion have agreed on this point. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Summoned by bot) The AntonSamuel version is neurtal and WP:DUE we don't have create a WP:FALSEBALANCE --Shrike (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MfD nomination of Portal:Syrian Civil War

Portal:Syrian Civil War has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Syrian Civil War and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Syrian Civil War during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 07:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-cited Information in Intro Section

"Some of the criticism against the region has included opposition to conscription, and claims of authoritarianism, Kurdification, the imprisonment and harassment of dissidents and journalists, the promotion of a radical anti-capitalist ideology, and influence from the Kurdistan Workers' Party."

This final line in the intro section has 2 sources, yet nothing in these sources indicate anything about "the imprisonment and harassment of dissidents and journalists"; in fact, one of the 2 sources cited is an article from Rudaw (a highly partisan media company from Iraq), complaining about being banned from Rojava in response to several alleged smear campaigns and allegations of 'fake news' from the company. The other source doesn't discuss journalists at all, making this inclusion even more bizarre.

Overall, the portion of this line should be removed, unless I'm missing something.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autonomous_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria&oldid=920167219"